Application Details

Reference 17/05939/F
Address Former First Bus Depot Muller Road Bristol BS7 9ND  
Street View
Proposal Erection of a new neighbourhood Lidl store and associated works (Major Application).
Validated 14-11-17
Type Full Planning
Status Decided
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 09-05-18
Standard Consultation Expiry 20-12-17
Determination Deadline 13-02-18
Decision GRANTED subject to condition(s)
Decision Issued 21-06-18
BCC Planning Portal Application
Public Comments Supporters: 100 Objectors: 91  Unstated: 25  Total: 216
No. of Page Views 360

TBS response: NEUTRAL

Recommendation submitted 02-02-18

 

 

 

 

 

Public Comments

The Bishopston Society 

We understand that Lidl were granted permission in 2016 for a store of 1465m2 on theBrunel site directly alongside and that they would prefer a larger store. This site became availablesubsequently and they have submitted this further application for a store of 2206m2. We notefurther that there is considerable support for this application, particularly from the Lockleaze areawhich is currently poorly served. However, we are concerned that the new store will aggravate theexisting traffic congestion and air pollution along Muller Road, particularly at the junction withRalph Road, which will inevitably be worsened by the anticipated enlargement of the BristolRovers ground.

We suggest the following measures which should help to offsets the possible disbenefits of thenew supermarket;- Discourage the future redevelopment of the adjacent Brunel site for any commercial use whichwould create significant additional traffic volumes. This may require the 2016 permission to benullified before the new permission is granted. We would suggest that the Brunel site might bestbe redeveloped for residential use, with flats at the front with parking behind and terraced housesto the rear of the site. This would create a suitable buffer between the supermarket and theexisting 1930s houses to the north, would improve the appearance and character of Muller Roadfacing onto the green and would generate only a minor volume of additional traffic.- Restrict deliveries to the supermarket to out of hours i.e. before 07.30 and after 19.00/storeclosing time.- Improve cycle facilities at the store to encourage local people to come by bike to shop.- Consider traffic lights at the bottom of Ralph Road and Springfield Road where it is so difficult topull out onto Muller Road.

One practical point is that the swept path analysis for the articulated delivery lorries is currentlyshown circulating through the car park. This would be an obvious safety hazard if the deliverieswere to occur when the car park was in use.

Mr Rob Flower 5 SOUTHAMPTON MEWS BRISTOL   SUPPORT

The area needs this development rather than wasteland and fences covered in graffiti.

For people who have transport / mobility issues, a Lidl on this road is another option that is notTesco or overpriced Co-Op to obtain groceries.

Unknown   OBJECT

Clearly then, the Transport Assessment fails to adequately consider and address the likely road safety impacts of the access proposals. Furthermore, the report considers and discusses the proposals set out in One Design Architectural Service 17117 AD 110. However, the site plan, apparently submitted in support of the planning application and available for download from the Council’s planning portal, is the One Design Architectural Service 17117 AD 110 Rev E. There are some fundamental differences between the two drawings, including:

 The number of car parking spaces proposed; and  The internal site layout.

Consequently, this being the case, it must be considered that the accompanying Transport Assessment is not fit for purpose; it is flawed and, as such, does not provide the Council with sufficient information, as to the likely transport impacts of the development, for the authority to come to a sound planning decision. The planning application should, therefore, be withdrawn or refused. Notwithstanding the above, and for completeness, our further concerns regarding the Transport Assessment are discussed below. Road Safety The Transport Assessment provides an accident analysis for the most recent five-year period. It notes there have been two serious accidents at the Muller Road / Ralph Road junction, which is on the opposite side of the carriage to the site frontage and just some 37m to the north of the proposed Lidl site access. Both serious accidents occurred when the drivers lost control of their vehicles, but the Transport Assessment considers that ‘there was no apparent reason for the loss of control’. The intensification of trips at this location associated with the development proposal will increase the volume of traffic, increasing the potential for further serious accidents. We would also note, the accident analysis highlights a total of four accidents where vehicles collided with cyclists within a 660m stretch along Muller Road (two accidents at the Muller Road / Downend Junction 300m to the north of the site, one at the Petherbridge Way / Muller Road junction 82m to the south of the site and one at the Shaldon Road / Muller Road junction 360m to the south of the site). Again, given the intensification of trips at this location associated with the development proposal will increase the volume of traffic and therefore greater consideration should be given to the likely increase in the potential for conflicts between vehicles and cyclists. Servicing The Transport Assessment considers the servicing of the proposed retail store and notes that this will be undertaken by a 16.5m articulated HGV with ‘vehicle manoeuvring within the car park and reversing into the loading bay. There are no restriction suggested on delivery / servicing timings and, as such, there will be times at which staff and / or customers and servicing vehicles are potentially accessing / egressing or moving around within the development, creating vehicle-vehicle and vehicle-pedestrian conflict.

In addition, without restrictions placed on deliveries, and given the residential nature of the surrounding area, there is significant potential for noise nuisance. Swept path analysis has been provided for all anticipated servicing manoeuvres; we would raise the following, specific concerns in relation to these:

 Servicing of the Lidl store will require the full width of the internal road network as the HGV manoeuvres into the loading bay and, as such, there is potential for HGV conflicts with customer vehicles in the car park;

 Service vehicles accessing from the south are shown to cut across the site access overrunning where a customer vehicle may be waiting to egress the site, again generating potential conflicts; and

 There has been no consideration of service vehicles accessing from the north and egressing to the south, which are potential movements that could be made.

Parking The Transport Assessment notes that the parking standards, as set out in Bristol City Council’s ‘Site Allocations and Development Management Policies’ (July 2014) permit 1 space per 14m2 of food retail development. Based on a development proposal of 2,206m2, this would equate to a provision of 158 spaces. The Transport Assessment notes “The scheme provides 158 spaces therefore meeting the maximum parking standard”. We would note, firstly, that this differs from the 150 spaces shown in the One Design Architectural Service 17117 AD 110 Rev E layout provided separately. Secondly, there has been not data or justification for providing this maximum level of parking, in the form of a car park accumulation exercise. Clarification should be provided as to the level of parking provided and then justufucaiotn for this should be demonstrated, so as to not create a car led development which would be at odds with both the local and national policy agenda. Trip Generation It is noted that the Transport Assessment has applied the trip rates utilised in the previously approved application (14/05539/F), however, it is considered that the suggested trip rates will significantly underestimate the traffic generation of the site. It is typically the case that small format retail stores have high trip generation rates when compared to larger, more traditional retail stores and the TRICS database has few particularly recent examples of small format stores – hence there is a reliance in the TA on outdated surveys of incomparable stores. Table 1 summarises the proposed trip rates set out in the Transport Assessment. Table 1: Vehicle Trip Rates for Food Retail

Weekday PM Peak Hour Arrival Departures Total

Weekday PM 3.194 3.585 6.779 Saturday 6.248 6.122 12.370

(Source: WYG Transport Assessment)

We would respectfully draw your attention, therefore, to a planning application for a Lidl Food Store in Todmorden, West Yorkshire; the application to Calderdale Council has the following reference - 15/01029/FUL. As can be seen from the Transport Assessment that accompanies the Lidl store planning application, peak hour traffic movements were collected for a number of Lidl stores across the country. For the purposes of that assessment, three Lidl stores of a similar size to that proposed – and of a similar size to the application site - were presented in Table 6.1 (Page 28); this table is replicated here, Table 2, for ease of reference. Table 2: Average Trip Rates for Larger Format Lidl Stores

Stores Weekday PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour

Arrival Departures Total Arrivals Departures Total Transport Assessment 3.194 3.585 6.779 6.248 6.122 12.37 Wrexham 7.47 7.68 15.15 10.81 10.73 21.54 Holywell 10.03 10.50 20.53 9.25 10.11 19.36 Wallasey 9.33 9.64 18.97 12.29 11.66 23.95 Average 8.94 9.27 18.21 10.80 10.80 21.6

(Source: Transport Assessment July 2015 -SCP)

As can be seen from Table 2, the Holywell trip rates for a weekday peak period are significantly greater than those trips rates derived from TRICS and employed in the Transport Assessment for the Bristol development; the variation in potential trips is marked with 20.53 two-way trips observed, as opposed to the TRICS derived and proposed 6.779 two-way. Equally, the Saturday peak period trip rates for the Lidl store at Wallasey are in the order of 23.95 two-way trips as opposed to the TRICS derived and proposed 12.370. The application of the these potentially more representative trip rates to the proposed food retail development would result in a significant increase in forecast traffic generation as summarised in Table 3. As such, TPS considers that the Transport Assessment is potentially and significantly underestimating the traffic impact of the development proposals. Table 3: Average Trip Rates for Large Format Lidl Stores

Stores Weekday PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour

Arrival Departures Total Arrivals Departures Total Transport Assessment 68 76 144 133 130 263

Holywell 213 223 436 Wallasey 261 248 509 Variance +145 +147 +292 +128 +118 +246

(Source: Consultant Calculation) N.B. Trip Generation based on a GFA of 2141m2

Table 3 demonstrates that the traffic impact of the development proposals during a weekday PM and Saturday peak periods may have been significantly underestimated. It is considered therefore that the traffic generation forecasting should be revisited so as to comprehensively assess the potential highway impact of the development proposals.

The Transport Assessment sets out that the principles set out in TRICS Research Report 95/2 ‘Pass-by and Diverted’ have been applied to the trip generation. The TRICS Research Report 95/2 provided a generic factor to determine the percentage of new trips and transferred, pass-by, linked or diverted trips. It should be noted that, not only is this data over 20 years old and therefore not representative of current day shopping habits and preferences, but it has also been superseded by TRICS Report 14/1 ‘Pass-by Report’ which questions whether a standard reduction in trips can account for pass-by and diverted trips is still accurate in ‘a rapidly changing retail environment’.

The TRICS Report 14/1 finds “many of the key conclusions made within the 95/2 report to be no longer valid as shopping trends and travel behaviours have changed, with many of the key arguments and conclusions not made within the 95/2 report.”

Therefore, an assumption that only 10% of all trips would be new to the network could be underestimating the highway impact of the development, and it is our opinion that in this case it is an underestimation. Baseline Data The Transport Assessment sets out that the assessment is informed by traffic counts undertaken in July 2014. We would note however that Department for Transport’s TAG UNIT M.12 ‘Data Sources and Surveys’ identifies neutral months as March, April (excluding Easter), May (excluding bank holiday weeks), June, September (excluding return to school weeks), October and November, with a neutral month being one which “avoids main and local holiday periods, local school holidays and half terms, and other abnormal traffic periods.” July is not a neutral month, and as such, observations of highway network operation and traffic data gathered at this time cannot be considered representative and should not be used to assess the impact of the development proposals, the assessments should be revisited using base data gathered in a neutral month. The Transport Assessment sets out traffic growth factors that have been applied to the base flows in order to generate 2017 and 2022 network flows. These flows have then been used in the operational assessments to demonstrate the impact of the development proposals. Table 4 summarises the growth rates presented in the Transport Assessment. The parameters for deriving the growth factors have not been provided. For comparison, NTM adjusted Tempro Growth rates for Bristol MSOA 010 and Bristol MSOA 014 across which the site is located, obtained by TPS, are also provided.

Table 4: Growth Rate Comparison PM Saturday

2014 – 2017 Transport Assessment 1.0348 1.1087

TPS MSOA 010 MSOA 014 MSOA 010 MSOA 014

1.0298 1.0449 1.0341 1.0483 1.03735* 1.0412*

2014 - 2022 Transport Assessment 1.0370 1.1113

TPS MSOA 010 MSOA 014 MSOA 010 MSOA 014

1.1093 1.1343 1.1105 1.1404 1.1218* 1.12545*

(Source: Transport Assessment and Tempro) *Average of Bristol MSOA 010 and Bristol MSOA 014

As can be seen in Table 4, the growth rates presented in the Transport Assessment are lower than the NTM adjust Tempro growth rates, derived by TPS in the 2022 future flows. Given the relatively tight distribution of retail trips, typically within a 10-15 minute isochrone, justification for the lower growth factors should be provided, as a capacity assessment incorporating the lower growth rates set out in the Transport Assessment will overestimate the available junction capacity and, thus, the ‘with development’ assessments will not be an accurate reflection of likely development impact.

Capacity Assessment Notwithstanding the concerns regarding the trip rates, application of outdated methodology from TRICS Research Report 95/2, non-neutral base data and growth factors an operational assessment of the site access junction has been undertaken. The operation of the junctions should, therefore, be revisited to more accurately understand the impact of the development proposals on this key junction once the fundamental concerns raised previously have been be addressed. Without this, the Council has insufficient information, as to the likely transport impacts of the development, to come to a sound planning decision.

Summary

In summary, we would draw your attention to the following key concerns:

 There is no detailed drawing of the proposed junction layout with measurements and visibility splays shown and areas of widening identifies, available for review;

 A road safety audit should be undertaken for the proposed site access to ensure road safety concerns are properly identified and addressed;

 Clarity of the internal layout of the site and details of parking, and the justification for this, should be provided;

 A robust road safety analysis should be provided, considering the serious accidents along the site frontage and potential for increased conflicts with cyclists;

 Servicing arrangements would result in potential conflicts between customers, staff and delivery vehicles in the car park;

 Recognise that the trip generation potentially underestimates, significantly, the likely traffic using the development and, thus, highway impact of the development proposals; a

 The data used for the operational assessments was gathered in a non-neutral month and is therefore not appropriate for use;

 The growth rates used in the assessment are considered to under-estimate the likely growth of background traffic and, therefore, the impact of the development proposals; and as such

 The operational assessments should be revisited.

Given the above, it is considered that the Transport Assessment does not adequately consider the full impacts of the development on the local road network

Yours sincerely,

Charlotte Ovenden

Principal Consultant

Mrs Heather Carrigan 44 RALPH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to the erection of a Lidl store on the old bus depot site. The area is well-servedby supermarkets already with the Co-op store on the Gloucester Road and the large Tesco store1.6 miles away at Eastgate. There is a local corner shop opposite the proposed development.There is a small Co-op store on Ashley Down Road less than half a mile away.

The installation of traffic lights at the bottom of Ralph Road for access to the store will encouragemore traffic through and Ralph Road is already a 'rat run' with the 20 mile an hour speed limitedlargely ignored. Access to Ralph Road from Ashley Down Road (already an area prone to trafficcongestion) is poor with a substantial narrowing of the road there.

The early and late opening hours of the proposed store will have a detrimental effect on thenearby residential properties.

Mr Stephen Barrett 40 FILTON GROVE HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

On the 18th December I raised a 'neutral' comment for this planning application thoughproviding a number of positive suggestions towards improving access to the store car park, aresidents parking scheme, a bus service into the center of Lockleaze, and suggestions to improveair quality along Muller Road.

After reading all the recent documents from the developer I have concluded no real efforts havebeen made to ensure an improvement to the local environment and near neighbours' amenity afterthe completion of the store.

Indeed I do not believe the 'local environment' ( and I include air quality, traffic flow, noise control,pedestrian movement, local neighbours amenity and parking as part of 'local environment' here)cannot even be maintained at the current level.

The revised air quality report in particular is very worrying as it does suggest yet another reductionin air quality along Muller Road and adjacent areas, and given the numbers of residents in Bristolwho suffer ill health due to poor air quality I cannot accept a development which has the potentialto increase poor air quality and health problems in the local area.

Stephen Barrett

Unknown   OBJECT

Mrs Susan Allen 9 SUE JOHN'S LANE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am objecting to the building of a new Lidl store on Muller Road due to concerns aboutthe increase in traffic. Muller Road is very busy and Is sometimes gridlocked. I am also concernedabout the air quality as the M32 and Eastgate create a lot of pollution

Unknown   OBJECT

Page | 2

As you know, The Co-operative Group recognises that commercial competition is not a material planning consideration and only objects to planning applications that are clearly contrary to planning policy because they will have significant adverse impacts on the vitality and viability of a town centre as a whole. The Group has consistently raised concerns about the cumulative impacts of out-of-centre convenience retailing along Muller Road, including the evident weakening in Bristol City Council’s adherence to planning policies that are intended to ensure the vitality of town centres, in accordance with paragraphs 23 to 27 of the National Planning Policy Framework. These concerns have been disregarded by Bristol City Council in previous decisions on planning applications on the neighbouring former Brunel Ford site (Reference: 14/05539/F) and on the former B&Q site nearby at Petherbridge Way (Reference: 17/01466/F). Evidence that Bristol City Council is no longer prioritising the vitality of established centres like Gloucester road will make investment in these centres less attractive to retailers and developers, resulting in serious adverse impacts in addition to the actual loss of trade to out-of-centre locations. In DPP’s retail impact assessment and the advice to the Council from JLL there is no consideration of the secondary impacts on local traders of the diversion of trade to out-of-centre stores from anchor retailers in the town centre like the Co-operative store at 331-345 Gloucester Road resulting from the loss of shoppers and reductions in footfall in the centre. The trading prospects of local independent traders are simply not considered. DPP and JLL have based their conclusions on unreliable estimates of trade diversion that give undue weight to store size and insufficient weight to proximity from the proposed store. They also rely on inaccurate estimates of the turnover of stores in Gloucester Road that are based on the NEMS/First Plan household survey in 2016, in support of the Aldi application. That survey covered a very wide catchment area with a population of 140,000 in 2014, based on the much larger proposal by Sainsbury at the Memorial Stadium. We raised concerns about the reliability of the First Plan household survey in our representations on the Aldi application and in subsequent comments responding to further information from First Plan. We commented on the arbitrary weighting of expenditure on different kinds of shopping trip and the fact that turnover estimates for Co-operative stores, based on that survey data, had proved to be highly inaccurate. The attribution of ‘over-trading’ to certain stores in Gloucester Road is based simply on the difference between two misleading or unreliable figures: ‘benchmark’ sales densities (turnover per square metre of retail floorspace) that are of limited value and turnover estimates (based on the First Plan survey and other assumptions described above) that are inaccurate. Sales densities very widely within companies according to the location, size, age and other characteristics of the store. Some stores trade well below the company average or ‘benchmark’ and others trade at much higher levels, which do not mean that customers experience problems such as congestion or queueing. Figures published by market research companies like Mintel are therefore of limited value when assessing the trading performance of a store or the ‘vitality and viability’ of a shopping centre. In this case, DPP acknowledge (in paragraph 8.42ff of their retail impact

Page | 3

assessment) that their retail impact assessment of the previous application by Lidl was based on a turnover estimate that was much too low because of their use of an inaccurate sales density figure from Mintel. We have made similar comments before on similar planning applications in this area and can provide the relevant documents if you are unable to locate them. We hope that the City Council will support the important roles of its established centres like Gloucester Road, with its distinctive mix of national and local traders within walking distance of many local residents, and take a much more critical approach to incremental additions of out-of-centre retailing, by considering the cumulative impacts, in consultation with local retailers. If the Council is minded to approve this application it should revoke the existing permission for a food store on the former Brunel Ford site (Reference: 14/05539/F). As Lidl is said by DPP to be committed to extinguish the permission on the Brunel ford site, we assume that Lidl will indemnify the Council against any claims for financial compensation arising from the revocation, which should take place before a new permission is granted. Yours sincerely

Jonathan Rainey Regional Director e-mail: jonathan.rainey@pegasusgroup.co.uk cc: Chris Edge – Co-op (Planning Manager)

Mr Nicholas Bryant 14 RALPH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

addendum to previous comment:

I would welcome a commitment from BCC that CIL funds will be spent locally through a schemelike Easton's Safer Streets that they can have an opportunity to shape.

Unknown   OBJECT

2

associated with the current application. I remain unclear how this suggested agreement would be structured and I note that no reference is made to such an agreement within Lidl’s own ‘Heads of Terms’ submitted with the application.

If the existing Brunel Ford permission is to be revoked, then it is necessary for the appropriate procedure to be set out in detail and the Council should also request details of what alternative use might come forward on that site. Both the Brunel Ford and Bus Depot sites might, for example, be suitable for alternative industrial or warehouse development or development for much-needed housing accommodation – a specific priority for the city.

It is also evident that Lidl themselves have not yet clarified that the Brunel Ford permission is incapable of implementation. Despite the references to ‘site constraints’ that are stated to exist, I am aware that the Council is currently considering applications to discharge and vary the terms of planning conditions associated with that permission (ref. 18/01865/COND, 18/01866/COND and 18/01508/X).

Far from indicating a willingness to revoke the existing permission, this represents compelling evidence that Lidl remain interested in the site’s development as approved under permission ref. 14/05539/F. In these circumstances, for a robust decision to be made it is necessary for the Council to have considered the policy implications of the current proposals on the basis that there would be two Lidl stores trading alongside each other.

Overall Conclusions

On the basis of the submitted planning application documents, the Council has not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate that the Bus Depot site should be redeveloped for retail uses. Compliance with relevant loss of employment policies has not, therefore, been demonstrated, and there is no basis for the Council to set aside this significant conflict with an up to date Development Plan.

There is a clear lack of certainty with regard to the implementation of a relevant permission, and the submission of applications to discharge and vary conditions associated with the former Brunel Ford site are at odds with the suggested willingness of the applicant to ‘revoke’ that permission.

ALDI therefore maintains its objection to the current application (17/05939/F). I will continue to monitor the Council’s consideration and determination of the application and trust that Officer’s will ensure that policy requirements are applied consistently. A failure to do so would not result in robust decision making.

I trust you will reflect on these matters carefully and ensure that they are brought to relevant officers’ and members’ attention.

Yours sincerely,

Dan Templeton

Director

Planning Potential

Bristol

Enc.

Marketing guidelines – change of use Page 1 of 3

Guidelines for assessing the adequacy of marketing undertaken by applicants for a Change of Use

In order to show that there is no demand for existing commercial premises and sites, applicants should be asked to show that they have actively marketed the premises or site in question with no success. In assessing whether the marketing undertaken is adequate, the following factors will be taken into account: 1. How has the property or site been marketed? What actions have been taken

to disseminate the information on it?

Minimal action required: • Contact information should be posted on the property/site in the form of an

advertising board, in a prominent place where it is clearly visible from the street

• The property/site should be registered with at least one property agent who normally deals in commercial property (a Commercial Property Agent rather than Residential Estate Agent).

• Property details (particulars) should be produced outlining type of property/site, address, size, location, description, services, planning/current use, terms, leasehold rent or freehold sale price, viewing arrangements. These details should be available to enquirers on request and be submitted as supporting information with planning applications.

• In the case of office and industrial premises/sites, the property should have been listed in the Bristol & South Gloucestershire register of available premises/land and the details should have been sent to the Bristol City Council Business Support Team. From the 29 November 2006 all available office and industrial premises/sites should appear on the West of England On-line Property Database, see www.investwest.org.

• Planning applications should be submitted with a summary of marketing responses to include:

Number/type of enquiries received Number of viewings Number, type/proposed uses and value of offers Reasons for refusal of an offer

Marketing guidelines – change of use Page 2 of 3

• Has the property/site been marketed for alternative employment use/redevelopment, in terms of use and size of units? eg B2 and B8 use properties should be marketed as also being available for B1 use taking into account permitted changes. Permitted changes are B2 to B1 or B8 (B8 limited to 235sq m), B8 to B1 (where no more than 235sq m). A feasibility study and financial appraisal is needed to demonstrate that redevelopment of the premises/site for employment use is not viable.

2. What price has it been offered at?

These should be commensurate with the current market price for similar commercial premises/sites, bearing in mind the following: • The type of premises in question (B1, B2, B8, etc) • The standard of accommodation (age, state of repair, facilities on offer, etc) • The location

3. How long has it been marketed for?

• This should reflect the type of premises, their state and location. Normally, a six to twelve month marketing period would be expected, depending on perceived demand and market conditions.

Please note that in the amended Local Plan, employment premises no longer suited for their existing use should be considered first and foremost for redevelopment for other employment uses. Policy 30 of the Joint Replacement Structure Plan, 2002 is also considered. Inspector’s comments in Bristol area related planning appeals have been clear about the usefulness of marketing exercises to identify a sites/property’s commercial viability:

Planning Appeals – Inspector’s comments on marketing

‘Unfortunately, a clear picture of the demand for employment floorspace on this site has not been demonstrated by the marketing undertaken after the chocolate factory closed as the exercise was limited in duration (about 4 months) and the information arising from it lacks depth and detail. In particular, there is little about the market value of the property, the expectations of the site owners or the pro-active measures undertaken to interest potential purchasers. Consequently, it is not possible to establish if the apparent lack of interest for employment re-use or re-development was simply a reflection of an unrealistic asking price and/or a lack of flexibility in considering offers. There is no obligation to include an available site on the Council’s Property Register and the Council’s recent document, “Marketing Guidelines for Applicants” seeking a change of use can only be advisory in nature. Nonetheless, the omission and the fact that this guidance has not been followed, to any significant extent, in this case reinforces the conclusion that it has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that there is no reasonable or realistic current demand for employment floorspace on this site. (see Appeal Decision: Elizabeth Shaw

Marketing guidelines – change of use Page 3 of 3

Chocolate Factory, Greenbank Road, Easton, Bristol, Ref: APP/Z0116/A/06/2031992/NWF).

‘The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is a realistic prospect

that the site could accommodate units for which there appears to be a demand, and the proposal would therefore conflict with paragraph 42 (a) of PPG3…………..The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the marketing of the appeal site was limited and did not have sufficient breath to take account of the location and profile of the site, contrary to the requirements of Local Plan Policy EC4. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the site is not valuable in relation to, or capable of accommodating employment uses.’ (see Secretary of State’s letter of 13 December and Appeal Decision: Former Parnalls Works, Filwood Road, Fishponds, Bristol, Ref: APP/Z0116/A/06/2017304).

‘Although such an exercise is not specifically required by development plan policies

when seeking to justify proposals involving loss of employment floorspace, I consider that detailed marketing data would have been helpful in this case and I conclude that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the site is no longer viable for employment use.’ (see Appeal Decision: Western Side, St Francis Road, Bedminster, Bristol, Ref: APP/Z0116/A/06/2 008802/NWF).

‘It is usual, in my experience, to see evidence of an active marketing campaign from estate agents detailing exactly how, where and when the property was advertised, the number of sales particulars sent out, details of any inquiries made, and so on. I would also expect to see professional assessments of the market value of the property, for there is nothing to enable me to judge whether the asking price of £250,000 is realistic – indeed, I have no way of knowing whether the lack of interest is simply because the asking price is significantly above the market value. Finally, to ensure that current market conditions are tested, it is normal for marketing to be conducted over the period immediately prior to the submission of a planning application’ (see Appeal Decision: Lynwood House, Lynwood Road, Ashton, Bristol, Ref: APP/Z0116/A05/1193307). ‘I note that no marketing exercise has been carried out to support the appellant’s assertion that the premises would be unlikely to appeal to a very wide market’ (see Appeal Decision: 245-247 Charlton Road, Kingswood, Bristol, Ref: APP/Z0116/A/03/1127324).

Revised July 2007

Mr Nicholas Bryant 14 RALPH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object on the basis of the following:

Proposed Supermarket Hours- 08:00 - 18:00 Sundays: Under the Sunday Trading Act 1994 this is limited to only 6 continuoustrading hours for shops over 280Sqm - Planning should not grant something that is illegal.- 08:00 - 22:00 Monday to Saturday: An hour longer than Lidl's previous approval and notconducive for a residential area.

Effect on Ralph Road: Proposed installation of Traffic lights to its Muller Road Junction will make itthe primary western route to Lidl - There is no acknowledgement of this or compensatingmeasures. Section 106 funds should be spent here on tree plantation and traffic calming.- Increased traffic noise.- Increased pollution.- Increased safety issues.- Increased traffic congestion - No mention of effect Ashley Down Junction.- This is changing the residential nature of Ralph Road to a Lidl rat run express

Air Quality- Lidl's air quality model is under predicting the pollution it will cause and that in the future pollutionwill exceed recommended levels.- Lidl need to provide some form of strategy / mitigation to maintain good air quality - Discouragecar use, promote more electric car parking spaces, install a new pollution monitoring station tomonitor.

Change of designated land use and unplanned retail destination - This is a Local Plan Issue.

- It is almost certain the Muller Road Convenience Store will close.- Out of town developments like this marginalise shopping destinations like Gloucester Road- Traffic access proposals are typical of Lidl / Aldi up and down the country and minimum.- Theinfrastructure and proposed changes are not suitable for the proposed use.

Transport- 13/04/18: TDM assessed Lidl's highway improvements and deemed them inadequate, weredamning of their omissions given previous meetings and direction they have given. Sections 4 and5 clearly state their requirements.- 20/04/18: Lidl offer £500k to BCC to carryout whatever transport development works it wishesand offer a landscaped piece of land the full length of the site along Muller Road so a bus lane canbe built (presume narrowing road lanes and forcing residents to park on side streets and causemore issues). The committee report shows where £414k is proposed to be spent, any remaindershould be spent local area Lidl is damaging.- No clarification on what will happen to the Muller Road frontage to Lidl if the bus lane is beenbuilt - It is not acceptable that the soft landscaping with trees etc. will be removed and a hardretaining wall left, causing Lidl to dominate the street scene and light pollution issues. Lidl shouldbe reducing the size of their oversized car park to accommodate and move the landscaping intotheir site.

Car Park- Excessive parking provision for a 'local' supermarket and lack of promotion environmentaltransport - e.g. only statutory bicycle raking provision.- Proposed site Articulated Access - Lidl show a HGV turning right from its entrance - TDM havespecified this is not acceptable and access off the site should only be left toward the M32.- HGV servicing arrangement showed the HGV going through the parking area - Gaps betweenthe parking spaces are very tight and should be increased with the number of parking spacesreduced to accommodate safe access for the HGV.- No right hand turning from the car park onto Muller Road needs to actioned.

Community Involvement:- A leaflet drop to nearly 18k people mostly not in the local area and according to Lidl not theirtarget customer is an irrelevance. Their website is as you would expect very pro the developmentand it is a shame that Lidl did not engage with the local community to ensure their proposals metits needs, e.g. not one public meeting.- Highly biased document and it is shame that an independent survey was not carried out or at thevery least the planning notifications sent out to neighbours further than 75m, and this informationanalysed rationally as part of the planning process. It is also worth noting that many commenterswere not aware of the new Aldi store and withdrew their support to Lidl, I am not convinced thishas been adjusted.- Given the nature of the development proposal, the consultation methods utilised wereinappropriate, and not inclusive, and did not engage with a significant amount of the local

community. Of the 17,761 leaflet Lidl issued only 9% support their proposed development on theirGo Petition Webpage.

Fall back position:I have real concerns over the threatening language of a Lidl 'fall-back position of developing theformer Brunel Garage site if they do not get to develop the former Bus Depot (now demolished byBCC) as they wish. It is an amazing stance given they have not developed it for the last two yearsciting that in hindsight the site was not viable for a Lidl supermarket.

Ms Faith Brown 9 BICKNOR DRIVE CHELTENHAM   OBJECT

I have some concerns about Lidl's planning application. I live in Cheltenham, but workfor the NHS in Bristol.

There is already an approved planning application for Aldi in the area; it does not seem a secondvery similar low-price grocery store would be the best option for the community.

Lidl would bring 158 car parking spaces, creating an even bigger carbon footprint than the formerbus depot.

Bristol's population is anticipated to grow by 22% between 2012 and 2037 (according to Office ofNational Statistics 2012-based Sub-national Population Projections). Bristol would be betterserved by using the area for housing or some other service for the local community that isn't aduplication of present amenities.

On a personal note, I am already struggling to afford housing in the Bristol area and feel offeringthe site to one of the community-led housing groups would be a better use of precious space inthe city.

Full disclaimer: I volunteer for Tiny House Community Bristol because I feel innovative housingsolutions that integrate green spaces, offer support to citizens of all ages and are truly affordableare so important. Whether this group or another eventually use the space, I feel residential ormixed residential/business use would be a better use of the site.

Mr Tim Prior 30 THORNLEIGH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Having read some of the comments of neighbours it appears that planning permissionhas already been granted to Aldi for the old B&Q site. It is also apparent that this information is notknown to many. A second large supermarket so close to the one already approved will create atraffic nightmare along Muller Rd (already a big bottleneck in and out of Bristol). One supermarketwith a large car park is bad enough- we cannot keep encouraging more and more cars into thelocation. This is a residential area, not a commercial park, and as such I cannot support thisfurther application, and urge the planning council to reject this supermarket proposal on thegrounds of public health and public safety.

Mr Jon Eadie 60 BROMLEY ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

We do not need another super market in such close proximity to so many others. TescoEastgate is within walking distance of Muller Road depot. With traffic on Muller Road already atstand still every day of the week plus football fans this intersection can not cope with more trafficand more cars. This amenity is not needed in an oversaturated supermarket area.Faced with Muller Road traffic 'customers' will park in adjacent side streets as the football fans do,causing double parking, congestion is residential streets and problems for residents.In such a dense residential area the noise from demolition was awful, noise from deliveries out ofhours of 7pm -7am will disturb the sleep of a high density of school age children. This is ashameful application and waste of an opportunity for either green space or badly needed housing

Mrs Laura Izzard 50 QUEENS ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The demolition of the site has already been so disruptive to me as a close neighbour ofthe site - the house shaking on a daily basis for 6 days a week whilst they work there.I object to the removal of trees and to the nature of the construction of which the majority is aconcrete car park which, bearing in mind other Lidl sites in Bristol, I can't imagine there ever beingthe need for 158 spaces. I have no desire to look at a concrete wasteland every time I leave myhouse and to be reminded of what could have been there. Not to mention the light pollution fromsite.I stand by my comments on the original application which stated that rather than an unnecessarysupermarket and carpark what the area needs is affordable housing. Imagine a small housingestate with a green area that maintains some sort of harmony with nature and creates a reallydesirable place to live in this already popular area. I absolutely object to the building of anunneeded supermarket when there is a huge Tesco minutes down the road, an Aldi alreadyplanned within walking distance and countless local shops. This supermarket is not needed at thislocation.Muller Road is already completely clogged with cars at peak times and I can only imagine howmuch worse it will be if people were waiting to turn into the Lidl carpark. More static traffic bringsmore pollution to our doorsteps.

Mr Marcus Roberts 32 STOTTBURY ROAD BRISTOL  

I support this. This will bring jobs into the neighbourhood and offer better value formoney to local shoppers.

Ms Sue Flint 47 HEYFORD AVE BRISTOL  

Ref 17/05939/FI trust that the planners have consulted the Ambulance authority and that the Committee memberswill be aware that Muller Road is a major access route between Southmead Hospital and easternparts of the City and access to other parts and places via the M32.Ambulances frequently wail their urgent way up and down that road. Traffic to and from a Lidlstore will further crowd the carriageway which often becomes very congested, especially at rushhours. It is likely to become worse with increased private car use and delivery vehicles evenwithout the attraction of a supermarket.Lidl should be asked to sacrifice a small slice of land to enable the road to be widened sufficientlyto allow of another lane of traffic in that vicinity.

Mr Kieran Wales 35 DONGOLA ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I support this application as it will hopefully bring jobs and wealth to the local area. Iappreciate this may impact traffic volume on Muller Road however the bottleneck is largely self-inflicted as there is no access from Muller Road to Abbey Wood and its retail parks. This would beeasy to remedy with a sensible conversation with South Gloucestershire Council. Lidl is a value-retailer, and this should help pedestrian shopping access such as older neighbours and those on abudget.

Mr Stephen Lewtas 4 RALPH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The proposed changes appear to do nothing to address the traffic chaos that willinevitably follow the construction of the store on the newly cleared site.

Mr Luke Burton 61 KEYS AVENUE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

In favour of application, area needs affordable food store and will create jobs.

Mr Clifford Evans 21 DARNLEY AVENUE HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This will be a Godsend to the community, especially the disabled that find it difficult toget to other major stores in the area. Lidl are also far more competetive price wise and the goodsare of high quality. Cannot wait for this store to be built and opened. it may be worthwhile askingthem to include toilet facilities as all public toilets are now closed, also a cash point!

Mrs mary evans 21 DARNLEY AVENUE HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

i am delighted Lidl is coming to Muller Road. For those that have objected, I should liketo hear their reasons for being happy to have a derelict bus depot as an eyesore for years. Pricewise, facility wise, geographically, I look forward to shopping here the day it opens. Hopefully, itwill have some toilet facilities due to the closures in Bristol. I am certain that this value for moneystore will be successful.

Mr Yousof Khan 47A CHARFIELD ROAD SOUTHMEAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Hello,

There is an Aldi, which already has planning permission next door. Muller Road does not require aLidl as well.

Lets have the land work much more efficiently and harder for Bristol and the communitysurrounding it.

There are quite a few vantage points surrounding the site. Give Community Led Housing Schemesa chance on this site.

Tiny House Community Bristol are looking to set up somewhere.

This group will bring with them more employment opportunities than a Lidl, increase Biodiversity inthe area, have high levels of community engagement through workshops and events/activitiesaimed at all generations.

THCB ideals are based on One Planet Living and as such will tick off a big criteria for Bristol CityCouncil. These would include Flood Risk Management (collecting all water runoff), Zero Wastegrocery and further amenities store (e.g. Toothpaste, cleaning products etc...) working with localproducers, residential Food production which will overflow to the community.

Aesthetically the community will generate more interest, taking precedence from BedZED etc... Itwill tick off min housing requirements (min50-75dwellings per hectare).

It will help a new generation of housing to flourish as they will share their experience. Thiscommunity will be more resilient to economic downturns and dramatically effect Health andWellbeing for residents and surrounding residents.

Work with THCB. They are ready to go and have all the relevant contacts.

Yousof KhanAWW Architects

Dr Emma Norris 36 QUEENS ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this proposal on the grounds of pollution, traffic chaos, and the redundancy ofplacing two supermarkets side by side. How can this be justified?I would like a councillor to come and see the smears of black on the windows and walls inside myhouse on the Muller Road side. As I look out at the houses outside my window, all are smudgedwith pollution. Granted it's a build up, but this is invisible poison.

Please. Please do not allow another corporate business into this residential area. The one on theB & Q site is enough additional traffic and congestion.Please come and look out of my window. I'll make you a cup of tea or coffee and make youwelcome.

Have you read the statistics on the increase in children with asthsma? Two of my children's friendshave asthma, in Ashley Down School, just half a mile, if that, from this proposed site.

yours sincerelyDr. Emma Norris

Mrs Itta Howie 1 LONGFIELD ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I still strongly oppose this application. I have been looking at the revised traffic plans butcan't see any improvement or solution to the traffic congestion at the junction of Muller Rd andRalph Rd. This junction is congested already and the proposed store will make it far worse forcommuters and residents. The large car park planned shows clearly that traveling to the store bycar is expected. The planned improvement of the bus stop and a planned pedestrian crossingcan't hide that fact and seem cosmetic rather than practical. The pedestrian crossing will make thetraffic flow and pollution even worse as cars will have to stop more often. Please, don't chokeBristol, our air quality is already bad enough!

Mr Ben Spiller 115A ASHLEY DOWN RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I can't see any traffic measures in the updated proposals that make me want to support this .The junctions of Ralph road / Muller Rd and Muller road/old b&q sure need to be radically changedby use of two roundabouts and maybe even subways . Extra traffic lights is not the answer .I'm afraid the Arcitects rehash of a few pen lines and a bus stop is not going to allievate trafficconcerns in the slightest .Getting rid of car spaces 106-125 , widening the road and installing a roundabout would be theonly way forward .Why not face the supermarket the other direction if there's room to drive in from lockleaze or fromthe same old b&q road .If both supermarkets want to be there , then they should work together to sort the road outbetween them .

Mrs Karolina Puchacz 229 DOVERCOURT RD BRISTOL  

Good afternoon,I've been observing the progress of this application with some concern, mainly around the impactof the increased traffic to two additional food stores on the air quality. The link between the dieselcar pollution and human health is now well documented. I had an opportunity to discuss myconcerns with a group of neighbours and we managed to come up with some creative ideas thatcould counteract the predicted negative impact of this investment on the air quality.1. The current design of the carpark with multiple places supports the shoppers with cars. Thesuggestion is to install a significant number of electric car charging stations to encourage/supportthe use of electric cars which is predicted to significantly increase in the next few years.2. To support low-income, carless shoppers from the Lockleaze area (some of them could bestudents living in the Filton area, often without a car) a shuttle bus, ideally a small/medium sizeelectric, could be introduced to circulate between Lockleaze/Filton and the store, potentially in co-operation with Aldi.3. I've read the most recent air pollution prediction report and I must say I find it very difficult tounderstand, despite my university degree. I would like to propose for Lidl's consideration theinstallation of the air quality monitors. I've seen such monitors in Stockholm, Sweden, by majortraffic junctions giving live readings at any point of the day. They could give the local communityan opportunity to rely on an actual/live reading rather than a report they didn't fully understand. Ithink this should increase confidence in the investors' commitment to making minimal negativeimpact on the air quality.4. We discussed the possibility of installing solar panels on the roof of the store to make theinvestment greener, further offset its negative impact on the local environment.5. Last but not least, the concern, I also share, regarding the use of this prime location not forhousing. Has Lidl ever considered the construction of affordable flats above the store. I believethat could to some extent balance the concerns as well as being a potential source of revenue for

Lidl.

Thank you,

Mr Clive Rutter 69 ROMNEY AVE LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL   OBJECT

Muller rd is massively congested 7 days a week. We do not need another store on thisroad with 2 Tesco's nearby. Plus a sainsbury's and Asda not far away. This will also kill off localshops

Mr David Vousden BROMLEY RD ASHLEY DOWN BRISTOL   OBJECT

Looking at PROPOSED SITE PLAN - REV E, it is clear that the site is still far too big interms of the traffic chaos it will attract. Just look at how many car parking spaces there are! I donot want a store creating a load of traffic congestion at the bottom of my road. The store wouldmake it difficult for residents and Muller Rd users alike using Muller Road. Any sort of crossing,whether zebra or traffic lighted, will add significantly to the problem. What's the answer? Don'thave that Lidl there!

Ms Anna Groh 78 SEVIER STREET BRISTOL   OBJECT

Liddle is unessesary. No second big supermarket needed. A community project wouldbe preferred

Mr Nicholas Bryant 14 RALPH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am far from convinced that there is a business case for having two low-costsupermarkets on neighbouring sites. Lidl's main thrust is that they will compete against Aldi and sodrive prices down - Highly unlikely that two national supermarkets would price locally and that thepence difference would really affect peoples shopping patterns. More likely the quality of theproduct and shopping experience will Prevail. I note that Aldi and the Co-op Group have bothfirmly objected to a new Lidl on this site, highlighting worrying effects on other shopping areas andthat the pressing requirement for new low-cost store provision in this part of Bristol is now fulfilledby the new Aldi store. They actually go further and flag up how Lidl are renegading on theirexisting planning permission on making a business case mistake. Curiously it seems that Lidl arenow applying for planning permission to extend opening hours on the neighbouring site theyalready having planning permission but say its not a viable site!

The Old Bus Depot site (and former Ford site) could be used in a much more useful way thatwould not have such detrimental affects on the area. I find it incredible that despite 800 housesand a secondary school being given planning permission recently in Lockleaze, apparently there isno suitable site in this area for a low cost supermarket - This is the area where the prime need fora low-cost supermarket has been identified and it seems incredible (and unsustainable) that a freeminibus service has been suggested to the proposed Lidl from Lockleaze. If this is a key way tomake it a viable site for Lockleaze it surely confirms its in the wrong place and questions why afree minibus service isn't provided to another local low-cost supermarket. e.g. You can drive to theSouthmead Lidl from Gainborough Square in less than 10 mins and board the regular number 24bus and be there with a short walk in 16mins. This would be a very affordable way of deliveringlow-cost supermarket shopping to older shoppers many of who will have free bus passes.

I am terribly worried that if the Lidl goes ahead, along with the already approved Aldi the area willbecome an unintended shopping destination without any of the planning or infrastructure tosupport. This will exacerbate already poor traffic and pollution issues, Lidl's consultants use ofoutdated data as part of their submission and dismissal of any polluting consequences is mostworrying (see: http://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/files/B978A17368EF1D576BA5920C3490FC70/pdf/17_05939_F-33_FILTON_AVENUE_HORFIELD_BRISTOL-OBJECTS_FULL_-1795749.pdf). Fumes and noisealong Muller Road are already almost unbearable, how can we allow this next to a school,recreational and residential areas when pollution levels in the city are already a concern with aclean air zone currently being considered by the Council / Mayor.

It seems to me that these are the very issues that should be raised and given direction in the newBristol Local Plan, so that there is a co-ordinated planning strategy providing facilities,infrastructure and homes where they are needed. This site is best placed to serve residents inAshley Down, who are already have good shopping provision and not residents of Lockleazesimply due to logistics and topography.

Action on environmental issues needs more than a token gesture by the developer. As does streetsafety - Street closures and traffic lights etc. will tend to concentrate traffic onto one or two streetsthat are already struggling due to capacity and junction issues. General traffic calming seems amuch more pragmatic approach that will dissipate increased traffic and not cause new congestionissues. This infrastructure needs to be right for the site to be given the go ahead regardless of use.It might be that a mini-roundabout is installed at the bottom of Petherbridge Way that the Lidl sitecan also use? There also may be potential to open up a Dovercourt Road side of the site as thisbetter serves Lockleaze with a large underused capacity. and so not worsen traffic issues that arealready on Muller Road.

Mr John Patrick Jones 11 UPPER BELMONT ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I believe that two supermarkets Aldi & Lidl will offer a great alternative to what we havein this area of Bristol. As to pollution it is a former Bus depot surely this created horrendouspollution when it was active. Plus the M32 is only approximately a mile from the site creatingpollution. I cannot see people going out of there way to use Muller Road to go to these shops. Ican see people that currently use Muller Road to use the shops and I also believe that a lot oflocal people from the surrounding area will either walk or cycle to these much needed budgetsupermarkets.

Miss debra newrick 2 LAWRENCE AVENUE BRISTOL  

there will be a new aldi built very close to this site, i object to 2 supermarkets so close toeach other. this will make congestion and not nessesary. i would like the land to got to low costalternative housing project. bristol needs housinf not more shops

Miss debra newrick 2 LAWRENCE A VENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

there will be an aldi nearby we need more alternative housing solutions not shops

Mrs Hannah Morris 98 PARK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am not in favour of this.I am in support of an alternative - creating a community that will really benefit the local people.There will already be a lidl so why build another shop so similar.

Mr Richard Hodge GROUND FLOOR FLAT LEFT 95 SOMERVILLE ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I prefer Lidl to Aldi, ad Lidl is cheaper

Miss Victoria Davies 11 ANSTEYS ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object as there are already lots of supermarkets already on muller road

Mrs Pamela Day 156 LONGMEAD AVENUE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

The fact that another budget supermarket is scheduled to be install close to the Lidl siteshould not restrict the Lidl supermarket from being built. On the Fishponds Rd these twocompanies and Morisons are within a very short walking distance.

Dr Peter Box 11 LANCASHIRE ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to the application on the grounds of the increased car parking space attractingmore traffic onto an already heavily congested road thereby significantly raising levels of harmfulair pollution when the City Council is committed to a policy of reducing such pollution.

Mr stu beckett 41 METFORD ROAD REDLAND BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I think a LIDL store on the 2 unused and basically derelict sites will be a bonus for theresidents locally.The larger site and car park will improve access and minmise traffic waiting to enter and leave.This application gets my support

Mr Lewis Barnes 52 QUARRINGTON ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Another local supermarket would be beneficial to provide variety and competition in thearea, especially given the lack of similar brands close by and the Tesco stores both being a morewalk away.

Councillor Gill Kirk CITY HALL BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I would like to add to my previous comments on this application following feedbackreceived from Lockleaze residetns at a public meeting on March 7th 2018. Whilst I support areputable discount food store coming to Muller Rd, improving accessibility to affordable fresh foodand bringing job opportunities to the area, I appreciate that residents are concerned about thecumulative impact of increased development in the area having a negative impact on trafficcongestion in the Muller Road. Residents wish to see a concerted effort by council and developersin the area to reduce congestion and improve air quality on Muller Rd. this larger site wouldprovide a greater number of car parking spaces and therefore is likely to increase travel to thestore by car.

To mitigate this risk I would like to see the following conditions applied;1) maximise walking and cycling routes. It would make a huge difference if not all customersaccess the store via Muller Rd. Lidl should ensure there are walking and cycling routes to the rearof the store in the direction of Lockleaze to enable more local residents to come to the store onfoot or by cycle, reducing car traffic on Muller Rd. Cycle parking with a shelter is also needed.2) A free shoppers minibus between Lockleaze (Gainsborough Square area) and Lidl would makethe store accessible to more residents in the area of Lockleaze that lacks supermarkets and freshfood. it would encourage more people to use the store and would provide an alternative to peopletravelling by car.3)Vehicle charging points would incentivise travel by non polluting vehicles4) An enhanced traffic management plan. I support comments made by Cllr Brooke, that care isneeded to avoid adding to congestion and slowing traffic on Muller Rd. Traffic lights in the car parkco-ordinated with those on Ralph Road would help to manage a free flow of traffic and avoid carsbacking up with the risk of drivers leaving engines idling. traffic calming measures on nearby roads

would also help.

Unknown   OBJECT

Mrs Jessica Bett 14 BRYNLAND AVENUE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

On balance i support the use on this site however i have serious concerns about trafficand access which the current application does not address. Ralph Road is a critical route out ofthe residential areas to the north to the Motorway network and is the identified route to the cricketground from the M32. Muller Road is one of only two key routes which cross the railway enablingpeople to cross the city from east to west and to the motorway. Traffic on Muller road is thereforeat a standstill from the site all the way to the motorway for at least couple of hours a day at bothrush hours. It is dangerous turning right from Ralph road. The access proposed will exacerbate allthese problems. I object to this application unless a a better traffic management and accesssolution if found which addresses the issues on Muller Road and Ralph Road,

Mr Tom Kennedy 33 FILTON AVENUE HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I wish to register my objection to this development until the following issues with the airquality assessment are resolved.1. The air quality assessment contains crucial factual errors displaying an absence ofreview/checking rendering it completely unreliable.Three of the five non-continuous monitoring sites in table 4.2 are over the legal limit and the othertwo sites only a few percent under the limit. However the assessment text states 'in Table 4.2, allnon-continuous monitoring sites were well below the relevant AQO in 2016.'For a document that has been checked by a 'Senior Environment Consultant' and the Director ofWYG himself Nigel Mann I am left very concerned about their aptitude for robust science. CouldWYG explain this assertion?2. Exclusion of traffic on minor roads from the pollution model.The assessor states that 'minor roads' have been excluded from the assessment without definingwhat is minor.Could the assessor list the roads whose traffic is included in the assessment and list the roadswhose traffic is not included in the assessment?Could the assessor show how an increase in traffic along these 'minor' roads as a result ofcongestion on the major roads due to the development would be reflected in the air qualityassessment as the use of 'background' addition is obviously inadequate in the case of a changingtraffic flow?3. The air quality assessment models the pollution 4 years after the store is operational incontradiction to Defra advice.The assessment states in table 6.4 that 'emission rates depend on the year of emission.' Despiteonly contrary evidence, it is assumed in pollution modelling software that cars will become lesspolluting as each year passes. To counter this Defra state that air quality assessments should be

modelled in the first year of a development's operation which in this case is stated to be 2018.Keeping background pollution at 2016 level is insufficient as the EFT software still allows afavourable 4% annual reduction to be assumed.Why have WYG modelled the pollution 4 years after the first year of operation?4. Incorrect vehicle speeds underestimate exhaust output by ~20%.The assessment states in table 6.4 vehicle speeds use the 20mph and 30mph limits. Anyonefamiliar with the area knows that only for brief periods of the day does the area of the developmentpermit speeds such as these. For the morning and afternoon-evening the speeds are far lowerthan this or there is congestion. Slower speeds and congestion create far more pollution. Theassessment should be remodelled using measured speeds that are probably available in the trafficassessment if the developer wishes to refer to it.5. No mention of change of road layout which will cause flow interruption at development entrance.The road layout will clearly change with the development yet there is no suggestion of this in theair quality assessment. At the congested development entrance pollution will be far higher than ifthe traffic were just passing by. The traffic that pulls in or out of the development will be affectingthe flow of traffic, there will be lots of stops and starts and the cold start effect from vehicles thathave been in the supermarket car park. This must all be included in the model and its inclusionshould be stated.

6. The NO2 concentrations stated in concluding results table 6.5 are incomprehensible.Site 494 (Muller Road - Darnley Avenue) is stated in Table 4.2 to be a measured 43.3ug/m3 in2016 and therefore exceeding the legal safe limit.Modelled receptor R6 and R7 are either side of Site 494 are stated to be below 20ug/m3 in 2022whether the development takes place or not. This is an enormous reduction!The sentence preceding table 6.5 is very confused; table 6.5 clearly states itself to be the'Predicted Annual Average Concentrations of NO2' including a restatement that 40ug/m3 is thelimit. Table 6.5 would be wonderful if it could be made to happen. Perhaps WYG are about topurchase TESLA cars for everyone in Bishopston, Horfield and Lockleaze. Even so Defra requirethat the air quality assessor produce results showing what the air pollution levels will be in thecase the development proceeds - not some delta variable that will be added to an unknown baselevel some time in the future.The question is 'Are WYG seriously stating that NO2 pollution is to fall 50% in 4 years even with anew supermarket development adding hundreds of trips/hour to the location?

I did not object to the smaller previous application on the same site. I read the assessment for thenew enlarged development with an open mind but find that I am deeply upset by its quality. The airquality assessment shows absolute disregard for the health of people in this area and the veryserious harm that might be caused to the young, old and everyone else in between if theenvironmental impact is underestimated and years of even worse air quality ensue.Perhaps the staff at WYG should read some papers on the impacts of pollution such as'Longitudinal association between air pollution exposure at school and cognitive development inschool children over a period of 3.5 years - November 2017'.

Miss Karolina Puchacz 229 DOVERCOURT RD. BRISTOL   OBJECT

Since my last note I've learnt the Aldi contraction in the former B&Q site is in progress. Idon't believe there's room for 2 large supermarkets in close proximity. I'm concerned about theincreased traffic, air pollution and noise, as well as the impact on small businesses along theupper half of the Gloucester rd. I think this site should be considered for housing/flats with possiblesmall business units on the ground floor; hairdresser's, cafe, repair, dentist, etc. It would benefitthe community much more than another large supermarket.Thank you and regards, KP

Mr John Weeks 83 SHALDON ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

A local supermarket would be very beneficial to the area and provide residents with theopportunity to walk to the shop rather than drive as is the only current option.

Councillor Eleanor Combley 97 DOWNEND ROAD BRISTOL  

I am concerned about this application as it stands on two grounds: firstly the impact onexisting local shops, in particular the convenience store at 154 Muller Road, which is a valued partof the local community, and secondly the traffic and air quality impact on Muller Road, which isheavily congested and according to recent measurements, already has illegally poor air quality.The junction with Ralph Road, opposite the site, is already a source of real concern to localresidents, particularly parents of children walking to Fairfield High School.

I do accept the point in favour of the application that Lockleaze is currently relatively poorly servedfor supermarkets. However if that is the aim it seems surprising to me that there is not a suitablesite much closer to the centre of Lockleaze. This site seems better able to serve those in AshleyDown, who are already quite well served by easy access to Gloucester Road.

I also recognise that the site has been empty for a while and should be brought into use, butalready the traffic situation on Muller Road is that many evenings see traffic queuing fromDownend Road to Shaldon Road, so more thought needs to go into reducing the traffic impact ofwhatever development goes onto the site.

If approval is to be given, I suggest mitigation to minimise the increase in traffic e.g. cycle parking,cycle route improvements on Muller Road, a customer bus up the hill to Gainsborough Square, afree delivery service for customers walking to the store.

I also think improvements to pedestrian safety at the Ralph Road junction and store entrance needto go beyond what is suggested, and that the left turn only into Springfield Avenue should includecalming to make sure cars do slow down and respect the 20mph, especially since the removal of

the pedestrian refuge to the South and the new puffin crossing to the North seems likely to lead tomore pedestrians crossing at the bottom of Springfield Avenue.

Miss Sarah Robins 11 RACKHAM CLOSE LOCKLEAZE   SUPPORT

A supermarket in this location would be very helpful.

Ms Alex Ivory 32 ROSLING RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to the proposed development on the grounds of traffic and hence noiseand impact on health (primarily from poor air quality). The increased vehicle movementsassociated with this development - which proposes 158 parking spaces, a vast amount - will causegreatly increased noise and air pollution. The air quality in the city is already poor and the cityshould not facilitate the building of more supermarkets to which people are encouraged to drive.The Lidl is likely to reduce the viability of independent shops that people don't have to drive toreach. Such local shops within walking distance of homes and without massive car parks are amore sustainable alternative which the council should consider instead of more 'drive to'supermarkets. I'm sure a more sustainable use of this heritage site could be found.

Mr Ben Spiller 115A ASHLEY DOWN ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I was initially in support of this thInking it was just one supermarket going into this space. I know Aldi and Lidl tend to follow each other around , but having 2 this close together seems alittle much for the area.

This whole site ( former bus depot / old b&q ) and Ralph road is very difficult to get in and out of bycar and Ralp road junction and plus it's bottle neck at the top can cause traffic backup alongAshley down road .Whatever goes into space , there ( in my opinion) is a requirement for a roundabout at the bottomof Ralph road and also another at the b&q entrance to keep traffic moving . Currently there is littleturning area for the whole of muller road . Once you are on it , you are in it to ikea .

It's a shame that with the introduction of bendy buses , the Mayors plans with traffic and rail , theregeneration of lockleaze, the desire to keep traffic out of the centre , the talk of re opening ofAshley down and Horfield rail stations , that this site located with a large car park and right on therail line wasn't considered to become a satellite rail station/park and ride for the area . That wouldgive the community access to the city and have potential to ease traffic issues rather than createthem .

Thank you

Mrs Sharon Harris 122 KENNINGTON AVENUE BRISTOL  

I support the building of the new Lidl store (as well as the new Aldi store), however morethought needs to be given to the traffic issues. The Ralph Road junction is already very congestedin the mornings and evenings with slow moving traffic on Muller Road. Improvements need to bemade to this and the other junctions with Muller Road. Maybe mini-roundabouts?Could the main access to the store be via Petheridge Way with additional access via DovercourtRoad and cycle/pedestrian access via Concorde Way to improve access from Lockleaze? Thiscould be in addition to or instead of Muller Road access.

Mr Peter Ihegie 31 HOGARTH WALK LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I support the demolition of the old bus station and the building of a new LIDL store

Ms Deb Southerland 12 SOUTH HAYES BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Definitely support!!

Miss Abigail Lee 199 WORDSWORTH ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

There are not enough supermarkets in the area and this would be a great addition

Mrs Izabela Gaszek  20 ROMNEY AVENUE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Miss Emily Shimell 28 ELMCROFT CRESCENT BRISTOL  

I support the development of this site, which is currently an eyesore and could be muchimproved with a low cost store, especially for those within the Lockleaze Ward. Many residentshave suggested they like the idea of a Lidl in walking & cycling distance, and I believe the storewould be welcomed, if one major concern was addressed.

I believe that traffic management is the major concern, with the situation on Muller Road duringpeak hours a serious area of conjestion. This was raised at a widely attended public meeting withthe Bristol City Council planning officers in mid-2017, and BCC had promised a traffic survey to becarried out,, that would take into consideration the impact of Lidl, plus two additional suggesteddevelopments of Aldi & Home Bargains (on the B&Q site) plus the additional 800 houses hoped tobe built within the Lockleaze ward in the coming years (in addition to the 50 new homes on theShaldon Road/Muller Road site). The council promised to carry out this and publish findings to thelocal community, which has not yet been addressed or done.

With access only from the Muller Road side of the site, near the already challenging Ralph Roadjunction, I would like to see much more thought go into the access of this site - namely includingrear site access for those from Lockleaze, so that all traffic does not have to join Muller Road fromthe right turn at the Shaldon Road junction, which is already a problematic junction due to thewidth and bus routes. If the traffic lights were to change here, to accommodate more traffic fromLockleaze, Muller Road would become even more conjested, which regularly backs up to FiltonAvenue to the West and the chaotic Eastgate roundabout to the East.

Lockleaze residents would benefit from rear site access, making the site much more accessible,plus this would greatly reduce the impact this development would have on Muller Road.

I would fully support this application for a Lidl on this site, as I believe local residents do want tosee this site developed and have a new local grocery store choice, but my full support would onlybe in place if additional rear access to the site was addressed.

Mr Richard Edkins 92 MORRIS RD LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

We need an affordable supermarket close by. Currently we have to drive to Southmeador Fisnponds. This would bring shops closer. Benefit community with jobs and reduce reliance oncars. Support this

Mrs Vicki Starkie 2 EASTLAKE CLOSE LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Miss janie adams 30 ALCOVE ROAD FISHPONDS BRISTOL   SUPPORT

There are not enough supermarkets in the area and this would be a great addition. Iwork with older people in the area and this would be such a good thing for them, especially thosethat can't get on public transport or to other supermarkets nearby. It will also be a provision ofcheap, quality food that is not available locally. An entrance from the rear of the site would makethis an even more ideal shop for the local elderly Lockleaze community.

Ms C King COULSON HOUSE, RALPH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

There are plenty of supermarkets and shops within easy reach of this area, andplanning permission has already been given for Aldi on the site of the former B&Q, so anothersupermarket is totally unnecessary. Traffic is already heavy, especially on match days and duringevents at the cricket ground; another large supermarket would only exacerbate this and causefurther issues for local residents. Increased noise pollution from deliveries to and from the site (24hour delivery operation is proposed) is also an unacceptable impact on local residents.

Miss Clsire Mitchell 27 ROWLANDSON GARDENS LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL   OBJECT

Sorry please can you amend my original neutral comment to object, as I hadn't realisedthe Aldi / B&M development at the old B&Q site had been given planning permission as it wouldappear neighbours did not have a chance to comment on this application!Two major food stores is not required in this area due to major impact on the struggling roadnetwork.In my opinion I feel the old bus depot site would be best used for low cost housing or a hospitaldischarge unit, to relieve the local hospital from bed blocking.Thanks

Mrs Jayde Britton 7 LUDLOW ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Miss Caroline Dillon 9 FAIRACRE CLOSE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Ms Alexandra Wood 173 LANDSEER ACE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mr David Jepson  23 ST. JOHN'S RD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I am very familiar with the area and well aware of the lack of accessible shopping andalso the need for employment opportunities locally so support the proposal for this store. I do thinkthat mitigating actions will be needed in relation to the traffic which will be generated on an alreadyoverloaded transport network. There is also a need to have an overall framework for thedevelopment of the several sites on Muller road which are likely to be the subject of developmentin the years ahead

Miss Karolina Puchacz 229 DOVERCOURT RD. BRISTOL   OBJECT

I would like to object this planning proposal, while supporting the already grantedpermission ref. 14/05539/F.

I believe there's no need for a large store in that location. Considering there's already a largeTesco in Eastville gate and another one further up the road (Southmead hospital direction). I'mconcerned another large store will significantly increase the traffic on the already heavilycongested Muller Rd. I'm also worried about the possible negative impact on the small shops inthe vicinity of the Gloucester Rd.

A smaller shop (14/05539/F) however could benefit the immediate neighbourhood.

Kind regards, Karolina Puchacz

Mrs Nada Leighton 30 SELBORNE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I would like to object this planning proposal, though would like to continue supportingthe already granted permission ref. 14/05539/F for a store with smaller footprint that would benefitthe immediate neighbourhood.

I would amend this objection to support should the new store build equally support the area withtraffic controlling/diversion efforts. Otherwise, a store this size with anticipated footfall willsignificantly increase the traffic on the already heavily congested Muller Rd - resulting insomething not dissimilar to the horrendous choke of the large Tesco/IKEA roundabout.

Mrs Tracey Gingell  126 ROMNEY AVENUE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

We need Lidis in our community not everyone wants to shop in tesco

Mr David Shipman 36 RALPH RD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Dear Mr Watson

I am totally opposed to this development as it is completely incompatible with the currentconditions of the local area and the community.

Firstly, I think that the additional vehicle movements will turn an already bad situation into apotential deserter at times. Even whilst not talking into account traffic and parking issues causedby the football and cricket matches, there is already major problems with traffic congestion alongthe Muller road and surrounding streets along with parking issues. My partner and I live in thestreet opposite the bus depot. If we ever have to go out in the car when a football match is on, wecan never find a car park near our home or the surrounding streets when we return. I fear thissituation will be even more extreme with the addition of this development.

Although the disused bus station is unsightly, I can think of much more worthy projects whichcould be carried out using the land available. For example, affordable housing to help with Bristol'shousing problems or the land could be developed as green space parkland. However, this idea ofputting yet another supermarket into the area comes at no surprise during at time when thereseems to be a corporate takeover which is demolishing Bristol's heritage and culture ie - loss ofmusic venues and meeting spaces.

Since there is already a Tesco in Eastville and an Aldi plus a B and M planned for the B and Qsite, what need is there for another new supermarket?

Official data indicates that urban areas in Bristol are already twice over the legal air pollution limit.

Of course the Muller Road area is already not a good example of clear air as it is at the moment.

There is a thriving local economy of independent shops and family businesses nearby. Thisproposed retail enterprise will surely threaten the existence of some of these businesses which willtake money out of the local economy, putting it into the pockets of private companies.

If this goes ahead, I am certain that Bristol City council will be dealing with many complaints in thefuture, if not already. I do hope that Bristol City council surprises us all and stops thisdevelopment.

Kind regardsDavid Shipman

Mrs Laura Izzard 50 QUEENS ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The area doesn't need another concrete monstrosity when the old B&Q site is perfect toservice the area with another supermarket. There is no need for a Lidl so close to this site. Theland could be so well used for a residential development which is what is so sorely needed. Notrees or greenery on the plan to support local wildlife - I thoroughly object to the land being usedfor a huge car park which will sit half empty for the majority of the time.

Miss Sylwia Haczkiewicz 162 MULLER ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Hello,

My house is based in the corner of Springfield avenue and Muller road; our windows are facingbusy Muller Road and the old bus Depot (planned Lidl store).

We have received the previous leaflet showing a very miniature plan of the development and wewould like to clarify where will the Store Light Banner (Lidl Banner) be based. Also, I would like toknow if there is any additional store lighting planned or any extra street lighting on the side of theroad.

We do not want to have the light disturbance in front of our windows as the street is already busyand we have a small baby sleeping in the room opposite the road. With additional store and streetlighting we will be forced to install the shutters or blinds which we can;t afford.

Awaiting your comments.

RegardsSylwia

Mrs Zeena Hernandez 75 SPRINGFIELD AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

1. Muller Road is already at the borderline of exceeding air pollution limits. The extratraffic generated by this proposal will likely push air pollution into illegal levels. Bristol City Councilis aware of this as they are monitoring Muller Road with a view to adding it to the Air QualityManagement Area. It is also worth remembering that this road is the main walking route toFairfield High School and that children will have to walk through unacceptably high pollution everyday.2. There is already a supermarket being built at the former B&Q site. Lockleaze was floatedinitially as a possible site and would benefit far more from a supermarket being an area wherethere is less access to fresh food.3. Traffic is already at a standstill twice a day on Muller Road. This proposal will undoubtedlyexacerbate this problem.4. Springfield Avenue is often used as a 'cut through' and as a result vehicles often exceed the 20mph limit. The junctions with Queens Road and Bromley Road see collisions on a very regularbasis. BCC is aware of this and yet the plans to combat this are still unclear. These collisions arelikely to increase with increased traffic flow.

Mr Joe Sheppard 30 SPRINGFIELD AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I would fully object the the proposed new superstore for a number of reasons. Firstlytraffic and therefore pollution on the Muller Road is already terrible especially during peak times.Most morning and evenings it takes considerable time to travel even a couple of hundred meterswhich means there will likely be a huge increase in through traffic using springfield av, QueensRoad, Downend Road( could be dangerous around the primary school), Bromley road and Ralphroad among others. This is likely to mean more cars travelling at high speed through narrowResidential neighburhods increasing the likely hood of accidents and parking in streets nearby toavoid tackling muller road. Bristol council has a responsibility to its residents to reduce pollutionand make roads as safe as possible; this development would be contrary to this responsibility.

Secondly there is a huge wealth of independent retailers in the local area who employ a largenumber of people. The proposed development would be directly competing with these traders andalmost certainly mean a net loss of jobs in the area whilst profits are also removed from thecommunity.

There are already a number of different options for those who wish to use supermarkets be ittesco at the top and bottom of muller road the huge number of supermarket express stores, asdaand sainsbury only 5min drive away.

Miss Paula Cardwell 27 SPRINGFIELD AVE HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

My main objections are due to traffic. This section of Muller Road at peak traffic hours isalready at a stand still and road users wanting to get to Gloucester Road use Springfield Av as arat run, often at great speeds. By putting in a pedestrian crossing just after the exit into SpringfieldAv as you go up Muller Road, this will increase this traffic run. There are already numerousaccidents on Springfield Avenue and I believe it will not be long before someone is killed. Pleasecan I urge that if this does go through, that traffic calming efforts are sensibly employed in thesurrounding roads. Also, what is to be done on Bristol Rovers match days where Muller Road isalready virtually a car park? It will be very dangerous.Plus I would like to see the green piece of land currently a lawned area opposite the planneddevelopment receive some more tree and shrub planting to offset the increased pollution.My other main objection is the other supermarkets at the old B&Q site, why the need for more andto compete with the unique road that is our independent traders on Gloucester Road. The councilshould be urging the population to support them and not a German supermarket.

Mrs Sarah Banbury 30 TRUBSHAW CLOSE HORFIELD   OBJECT

I object to this application. I feel this would worsen the already awful traffic on Mullerroad. It doesn't add anything to the residential area. We have plenty of local shops and are able toget to more than one branch of Lidl without any problems should we wish to shop there.

Mr Alex Giles 4B DRAYCOTT ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Four reasons:

-Massively increased noise/light/air pollution.

-Huge increase in traffic to an already heavily congested area.

-Better use of land like affordable housing- there is a housing and homelessness crisis in Bristol-you do the math. Also there are already affordable supermarkets in the area (aldi- old B&Q site).We are spoilt for choice.

-Local businesses (in and around Gloucester road) will lose out and potentially close- causingmany job losses- these local independent businesses add to the charm of the area but alsosupport many other local farmers and producers in the Bristol area. All in all this will negativelyimpact the local economy and sterilize the charm and character of the area.

Do the right thing!!!! Approving the build of this Lidl is ethically and economically the wrongdecision.

Kind regards

Alex Giles

Mrs Renee Davis 3 DERBY ROAD ST ANDREWS BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This is not an economic not business matter, this is a social issue of the utmostimportance. Access to affordable food is a basic human right. Many in the area surrounding thisdevelopment do not enjoy that right. Elderly, disabled, families, the poor. Little money & no accessto public transport. Lidl will provide good quality food at affordable prices, more so than any othersupermarket. Please allow this development to go ahead. It is of vital importance to those I havementioned. Do not allow the more fortunate, who are more comfortably placed financilly & withtheir own cars to selfishly conderm the poor & disadvantaged to long & difficult journeys to storeswhose food they can barely or cannot afford. This is a matter of the most dire importance. Pleasedo the right & in fact the only decent & humane thing.

Ms Laura Densem 3 BRENT ROAD BS7 9QZ   OBJECT

I am concerned that a supermarket off Muller Road will increase the already terribletraffic on this road. Especially if there is to be an Aldi on the old B&Q site. 2 supermarketscompletely unnecessary. Especially with the hundreds of independent stores minutes away inGloucester Road. Small business owners should not be threatened by this.

The space could be much better used as a community space to enrich the community e.g. atheatre, a gymnasium, sports grounds, tennis court, BMX or skate park.

Ms Laura Barrow 45 RALPH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The proposed development of a Lidl store on Muller Road is inappropriate and ill-considered.

1. Traffic on Muller Road is already consistently heavy, but is especially bad at peak times and onmatch days. An additional low-cost supermarket will be used by people outside the local area, andwill add to congestion. Adding a major junction on to the busy Muller Road will only add to thatcongestion - and the associated pollution with that traffic. Pulling out from Ralph Road on to MullerRoad can already be challenging, and having another junction on to Muller Road at that point willonly add to the traffic backing up on Ralph Road.

2.The added traffic from the store will also increase noise pollution - in particular from deliveryvehicles - the northern part of Muller Road currently has few goods vehicles using it. The noise oftrolleys and site users will also detract from the local environment.

3. The proposed development will remove valuable on street parking spaces from Muller Roadaround the old bus station. These spaces are particularly essential on match days when the areais flooded with spectators trying to park. Parking in the area is already difficult.

4. Deliveries to the store will add noise and traffic at unsociable hours. A review of planningapplications shows that Lidl has a strong track record of successfully applying to increase thehours in which their Bristol stores can accept deliveries, as well as extending their opening hours.They cannot be trusted to rely on their initial promises when trying to get new stores open.

5. There are already sufficient supermarkets in the area, with a large Tesco at the bottom of Muller

Road, Aldi being built on the old B&Q site, and a multitude of smaller stores in the local area -some of which, particularly the smaller independent shops, are likely to be harmed by the openingof yet another supermarket.

6. A far more appropriate use of the land would be for housing to alleviate the housing shortage inthe area, or for civic amenities. As a council-owned site, the land should be used for socialhousing or for the public benefit.

7. There is a lack of provision for trees, green space, or vegetation in the bulk of the development -if approved the car park should have better landscaping with more consideration should be givento enhancing the local environment.

8. The plans are for a brightly lit car park, which will add visual pollution and increase light at nightinto adjacent properties.

Kind regards,

Laura Barrow

Mr Trevor Pearson 36 QUEENS ROAD ASHLEY DOWN BRISTOL   OBJECT

Muller Road is busy enough without two supermarkets in the area. Schoolchildren haveto cross this road and us residents don't want any more pollution. We have plenty of storesnearby.

Miss Lucy Felton 6 COULSON HOUSE RALPH ROAD BRISTOL  

I'm VERY concerned that the traffic issues haven't been properly address by Lidl'splanning. Even outside of peak hours 1) it's hard to turn right out of Ralph Road; 2) vehicles canbe queuing from the M32 end of Muller Road, beyond Ralph Road and up to where it meets theGloucester Road. It's not just the inconvenience, this waiting/stop-start traffic will increase airpollution, which will directly affect me as an asthmatic.

If this store does go ahead, perhaps they can offer parking on busy football/cricket days?

Mr Stephen Lewtas 4 RALPH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I feel that there is no need for a Lidl store in this location given the proximity of the newstores being developed on the old B&Q site. The ensuing traffic problems and inevitable rise inpollution will not be sufficiently addressed by planting trees, especially with delivery lorries comingand going. Parking in the surrounding area is already problematic with residents facing problemson match days, and buses often experiencing problems traversing Ralph Road: this situation isonly likely to get worse with a supermarket at the bottom of the road. I have also beendisappointed at the lack of time to respond to this application which discriminates against peoplewho don't have internet access.

Ms Sara Price 48 RALPH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The proposed development of a Lidl store on Muller Road is inappropriate and ill-considered.

1. Traffic on Muller Road is already consistently heavy, but is especially bad at peak times and onmatch days. An additional low-cost supermarket will be used by people outside the local area, andwill add to congestion. Adding a major junction on to the busy Muller Road will only add to thatcongestion - and the associated pollution with that traffic. Pulling out from Ralph Road on to MullerRoad can already be challenging, and having another junction on to Muller Road at that point willonly add to the traffic backing up on Ralph Road.

2. The added traffic from the store will also increase noise pollution - in particular from deliveryvehicles - the northern part of Muller Road currently has few goods vehicles using it. The noise oftrolleys and site users will also detract from the local environment.

3. The proposed development will remove valuable on street parking spaces from Muller Roadaround the old bus station. These spaces are particularly essential on match days when the areais flooded with spectators trying to park. Parking in the area is already difficult.

4. Deliveries to the store will add noise and traffic at unsociable hours. A review of planningapplications shows that Lidl has a strong track record of successfully applying to increase thehours in which their Bristol stores can accept deliveries, as well as extending their opening hours.They cannot be trusted to rely on their initial promises when trying to get new stores open.

5. There are already sufficient supermarkets in the area, with a large Tesco at the bottom of MullerRoad, Aldi being built on the old B&Q site, and a multitude of smaller stores in the local area -some of which, particularly the smaller independent shops, are likely to be harmed by the openingof yet another supermarket.

6. A far more appropriate use of the land would be for housing to alleviate the housing shortage inthe area, or for civic amenities. As a council-owned site, the land should be used for socialhousing or for the public benefit.

7. There is a lack of provision for trees, green space, or vegetation in the bulk of the development -if approved the car park should have better landscaping with more consideration should be givento enhancing the local environment.

8. The plans are for a brightly lit car park, which will add visual pollution and increase light at nightinto adjacent properties.

I am particularly concerned at the lack of care for the environment and the impact this will have onthe wellbeing of people living locally.

Mrs Lynn Long 1CAMERON WALK BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Better than a waste of land left doing nothing

Mrs Fiona Tonagh 40 BLAKENEY RD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mr Steve Cooper 154 WORDSWORTH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mrs Madeleine Ashton  6 DOWNEND ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

This doesn't seem like a great idea given the proposal for an Aldi so close by and thealready absolutely horrendous traffic on Muller Road, which is particularly bad at that point, goingdown hill.

Miss Julie Tucker 102 BONNINGTON WALK LICKLEAZE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This is something people in lockleazs have been waiting for as there are nosupermarkets in our area.

Miss Claire Mitchell 27 ROWLANDSON GARDENS LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL  

Whilst I personally do not shop in large multinational retailers on a regular basis I thinkthis is much needed in the Lockleaze area to provide jobs and access to low cost / quality foods topriority families & the elderly.However a full traffic management plan would need to be incorporated to prevent adding toalready congested roads- discounts to walkers, cyclists & public transport users perhaps!Improvements to public transport, cycle & walking routes must be considered as part of theSection 106 agreements should this application go ahead.

Mr Tom Middleton 40 BLAKENEY ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I was originally in support as something needs to be done to use that site. However nowthat there is an aldi just down the road that already has planning facilities there is no longer a bedat this site. It would bring additional traffic to an already extremely busy road and the Eastvilleroundabout cannot cope with the current volume of traffic at certain times of the day, let alone withtwo additional supermarkets and all the additional traffic.There is vacant land near lockleaze square that would be a better site and would support thecommunity better

Miss Sylwia Piekarczyk 313 ROMNEY AVENUE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Miss Maria Norman 4B DRAYCOTT ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

To Whom it may concern,

As a resident in the Muller Road area I have several reasons for objecting to the planningapplication of the new Lidl in the Old Muller Road Depot.

However I will outline three main reasons;

1. There are many small businesses in this area, which not only add to the charm of the area, butalso rely on local users to sustain themselves and their families. The local businesses mainly useethically and locally sourced produce, which not only is better for the environment, but also makespeople more aware of the environmental state of our planet and encourages people to buildrelationships with neighbours, involve themselves in the community and feel a part of somethingbigger.

If Lidl is built then although there will be jobs created for '35-50 people' their could be hundreds ofjobs and local businesses which have to shut down, forcing more and more people into a situationwhere they cannot afford to live.

2. Congestion; Muller Road is heavily congested, impacting negativley on all areas of pollution,light, noise and air. The introduction of yet another (not needed) supermarket, in an area wheretraffic builds up will cause more and more accidents and health and safety issues. Muller Roadalso has regular traffic accidents, again the introduction of a new Lidl with space for hundreds ofcars to park, will just increase the Risk of accidents, and deteriorate the health and wellbeing of allof Muller Roads residents.

3. We are in no need of supermarkets and considering that Lidl is 'targeting' locals as their mainusers, well we have two large tescos, an M&S, 2 local Coops, an Aldi which is currently beingbuilt, a local sainsburys, a lidl a 7-10 minute drive away, a B&M which is also being built, an Ikeaetc. There is no need for another supermarket, when that land would better be used to address theincreasing housing crisis we have in the country. Let alone the homeless situation in Bristol whichhas increased tenfold over the past couple of years. Would this land not be better used to developaffordable housing (which I am sure has been promised several times by local authority).

This is a residential area, not a buisness/shopping district, please consider keeping it as this.There is more than enough emnities for locals, which are within very close walking distance. Thereis no need for more. Local buisnesses currently thrive, yet this is slowly becoming less and lessthe case and people are suffering as a result. There is a huge housing crisis, as well as the issuewith our homeless population. There are so many better uses for this land, and I would encourageyou to consider this.

Many Thanks

A Resident who cares

Miss Sarah Mcgregor  75 DELABERE AVENUE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I work for a disabled living Home based in Lockleaze a lot of our service users strugglewith shopping due to the lack of local supermarkets around within a reasonable distance. Thisresults them having to pay for taxis which are not only expensive but also hard to come by(wheelchair friendly). I also support the store due to the cost of weekly shopping from Lidlcompared to Tesco or Asda. This would benefit everyone with the option to shop cheaper for dayto day essentials.

The fact the horrid disused bus depot could be transferred into a shop that would benefit allresident some way or any other to me is a no brainer!

Unknown   OBJECT

2

ALDI has serious reservations with the robustness of this approach, and considers that when determining this application the City Council must exercise very careful planning judgement in the context of the relevant prevailing policies. Any other matters should be set aside for the purposes of robust planning decision-making.

Principal Objections

Site Allocation

The Planning Statement submitted in support of the current application acknowledges (paragraph 5.35) that the application site is located within a ‘Principal Industrial and Warehousing Area’ as identified through the Adopted Core Strategy (Policy BCS4) and Site Allocations and Development Management (Policy DM13). The Statement also acknowledges (paragraph 5.52) that the Council generally seeks to resist the loss of industrial or warehousing floorspace in such areas.

The Council will be very familiar with its own policy on this matter, so I do not seek to repeat it. I do, however, consider that it is necessary for the Council to pay very close regard to its own requirements for the marketing of such sites before they are considered for alternative uses. In particular, I consider that it is fundamental that the requirements of paragraph 2.13.3 of the Bristol Local Plan - Site Allocations and Development Management Policies are met. For ease of reference, I enclose a copy of the marketing advice note that the Council provides to assist applicants proposing the loss of commercial sites, and I note the emphasis the Council places on adhering to this advice by reference to relevant appeal cases.

Lidl’s own planning application documents confirm that there has been no marketing of the site for industrial and warehousing uses (Planning Statement, paragraph 6.8). It is therefore clear that the requirements of the Local Plan have not been met.

At paragraphs 5.67 to 5.70 of the Planning Statement, the applicant seeks to address this issue by reference to the Council’s Employment Land Study and on the basis that the PIWA designation dates from 1997. This completely ignores the fact that the designation has been taken forward in more recent policy documents, including the Core Strategy (June 2011) and the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (July 2014). It is therefore an up to date policy allocation that follows examination and is in accordance with the Council’s own evidence base.

The issue of the loss of the allocated PIWA site is also considered within paragraphs 6.4 to 6.19 of the Planning Statement. Reference is also made to an ‘Employment Land Statement’ and “independent advice from Russell Property Consultants on the suitability of the application site for employment uses” (paragraph 6.11). Neither of these documents appears to be available on the application webpage and their conclusions cannot, therefore, be considered or verified.

The application seeks to derive support for a departure from adopted policy by reference to considerations undertaken with regard to the adjacent former Brunel Ford site. This is not an appropriate approach and it is noted that there are clear differences between the two sites, which means that a thorough investigation of the application site itself must be undertaken.

It is clear that the policy requirements associated with the application site’s allocation have not been met and on this basis alone, planning permission for the development should be refused.

Retail Policy Compliance

I have noted the contents of the submitted Retail Assessment (DPP, September 2017). For a scheme of this nature I would expect the Council to instruct advisers to provide comment on the nature of the assessment submitted (and the assumptions that are adopted), and therefore reserve ALDI’s position to comment further once that advice has been received.

At this stage, however, I note that Lidl’s own assessment indicates that a cumulative impact of -13.4% is forecast to arise on the existing ALDI store in Fishponds. I consider that this is a significant adverse impact and note that the ALDI Fishponds store lies both within the designated Fishponds town centre and is within the identified secondary frontage. A retail policy objection must, therefore, exist and the retail impact test is failed.

3

Brunel Ford Planning Permission

As set out above, it is noted that Lidl previously secured planning permission for the development of the adjacent Brunel Ford site and that permission remains capable of implementation. What is not clarified within the current planning application submission is what will happen to that existing permission. I have assumed that the Brunel Ford permission will not be taken forward, but the procedure for revoking that permission is not explained.

This is an important consideration for the City Council. Without clarification, the application should be determined on the basis that there would be two planning permissions for Lidl stores on adjacent sites, and retail policy (specifically compliance with the retail impact test) matters should be considered accordingly. In particular, the cumulative effect of two Lidl permissions should be considered on the basis that both permissions would be capable of implementation. The impact on the local highway network should also be considered on a cumulative basis.

If the existing Brunel Ford permission is to be revoked, then it is necessary for the appropriate procedure to be set out in detail and the Council should also request details of what alternative use might come forward on the site. Both the Brunel Ford and Bus Depot sites might, for example, be suitable for development for much-needed housing accommodation – a specific priority for the city.

Overall Conclusions

On the basis of the submitted planning application documents, the Council has not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate that the Bus Depot site should be redeveloped for retail uses. Compliance with relevant loss of employment policies has not, therefore, been demonstrated, and there is no basis for the Council to set aside this significant policy objection.

The applicant’s own information demonstrates a significant adverse impact on town centre facilities, and the retail impact test is therefore failed. The applicant has failed to explain how it intends to deal with the existing permission on the adjacent Brunel Ford site, and on this basis the submission is wholly deficient.

At the very least, the Council must address these points and invite the applicant to provide further information before it can approve this application. Failure to do so would render the decision unsound and liable to further challenge.

Yours sincerely,

Dan Templeton

Director

Planning Potential

Bristol

Enc.

Marketing guidelines – change of use Page 1 of 3

Guidelines for assessing the adequacy of marketing undertaken by applicants for a Change of Use

In order to show that there is no demand for existing commercial premises and sites, applicants should be asked to show that they have actively marketed the premises or site in question with no success. In assessing whether the marketing undertaken is adequate, the following factors will be taken into account: 1. How has the property or site been marketed? What actions have been taken

to disseminate the information on it?

Minimal action required: • Contact information should be posted on the property/site in the form of an

advertising board, in a prominent place where it is clearly visible from the street

• The property/site should be registered with at least one property agent who normally deals in commercial property (a Commercial Property Agent rather than Residential Estate Agent).

• Property details (particulars) should be produced outlining type of property/site, address, size, location, description, services, planning/current use, terms, leasehold rent or freehold sale price, viewing arrangements. These details should be available to enquirers on request and be submitted as supporting information with planning applications.

• In the case of office and industrial premises/sites, the property should have been listed in the Bristol & South Gloucestershire register of available premises/land and the details should have been sent to the Bristol City Council Business Support Team. From the 29 November 2006 all available office and industrial premises/sites should appear on the West of England On-line Property Database, see www.investwest.org.

• Planning applications should be submitted with a summary of marketing responses to include:

Number/type of enquiries received Number of viewings Number, type/proposed uses and value of offers Reasons for refusal of an offer

Marketing guidelines – change of use Page 2 of 3

• Has the property/site been marketed for alternative employment use/redevelopment, in terms of use and size of units? eg B2 and B8 use properties should be marketed as also being available for B1 use taking into account permitted changes. Permitted changes are B2 to B1 or B8 (B8 limited to 235sq m), B8 to B1 (where no more than 235sq m). A feasibility study and financial appraisal is needed to demonstrate that redevelopment of the premises/site for employment use is not viable.

2. What price has it been offered at?

These should be commensurate with the current market price for similar commercial premises/sites, bearing in mind the following: • The type of premises in question (B1, B2, B8, etc) • The standard of accommodation (age, state of repair, facilities on offer, etc) • The location

3. How long has it been marketed for?

• This should reflect the type of premises, their state and location. Normally, a six to twelve month marketing period would be expected, depending on perceived demand and market conditions.

Please note that in the amended Local Plan, employment premises no longer suited for their existing use should be considered first and foremost for redevelopment for other employment uses. Policy 30 of the Joint Replacement Structure Plan, 2002 is also considered. Inspector’s comments in Bristol area related planning appeals have been clear about the usefulness of marketing exercises to identify a sites/property’s commercial viability:

Planning Appeals – Inspector’s comments on marketing

‘Unfortunately, a clear picture of the demand for employment floorspace on this site has not been demonstrated by the marketing undertaken after the chocolate factory closed as the exercise was limited in duration (about 4 months) and the information arising from it lacks depth and detail. In particular, there is little about the market value of the property, the expectations of the site owners or the pro-active measures undertaken to interest potential purchasers. Consequently, it is not possible to establish if the apparent lack of interest for employment re-use or re-development was simply a reflection of an unrealistic asking price and/or a lack of flexibility in considering offers. There is no obligation to include an available site on the Council’s Property Register and the Council’s recent document, “Marketing Guidelines for Applicants” seeking a change of use can only be advisory in nature. Nonetheless, the omission and the fact that this guidance has not been followed, to any significant extent, in this case reinforces the conclusion that it has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that there is no reasonable or realistic current demand for employment floorspace on this site. (see Appeal Decision: Elizabeth Shaw

Marketing guidelines – change of use Page 3 of 3

Chocolate Factory, Greenbank Road, Easton, Bristol, Ref: APP/Z0116/A/06/2031992/NWF).

‘The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is a realistic prospect

that the site could accommodate units for which there appears to be a demand, and the proposal would therefore conflict with paragraph 42 (a) of PPG3…………..The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the marketing of the appeal site was limited and did not have sufficient breath to take account of the location and profile of the site, contrary to the requirements of Local Plan Policy EC4. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the site is not valuable in relation to, or capable of accommodating employment uses.’ (see Secretary of State’s letter of 13 December and Appeal Decision: Former Parnalls Works, Filwood Road, Fishponds, Bristol, Ref: APP/Z0116/A/06/2017304).

‘Although such an exercise is not specifically required by development plan policies

when seeking to justify proposals involving loss of employment floorspace, I consider that detailed marketing data would have been helpful in this case and I conclude that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the site is no longer viable for employment use.’ (see Appeal Decision: Western Side, St Francis Road, Bedminster, Bristol, Ref: APP/Z0116/A/06/2 008802/NWF).

‘It is usual, in my experience, to see evidence of an active marketing campaign from estate agents detailing exactly how, where and when the property was advertised, the number of sales particulars sent out, details of any inquiries made, and so on. I would also expect to see professional assessments of the market value of the property, for there is nothing to enable me to judge whether the asking price of £250,000 is realistic – indeed, I have no way of knowing whether the lack of interest is simply because the asking price is significantly above the market value. Finally, to ensure that current market conditions are tested, it is normal for marketing to be conducted over the period immediately prior to the submission of a planning application’ (see Appeal Decision: Lynwood House, Lynwood Road, Ashton, Bristol, Ref: APP/Z0116/A05/1193307). ‘I note that no marketing exercise has been carried out to support the appellant’s assertion that the premises would be unlikely to appeal to a very wide market’ (see Appeal Decision: 245-247 Charlton Road, Kingswood, Bristol, Ref: APP/Z0116/A/03/1127324).

Revised July 2007

Unknown   OBJECT

Worsening pollution Massively increased traffic, especially when shopping coincides with local football and cricket fixtures. Threats to valued local business, small business that are huge in their value to me and my family A perception of Ashley Down as ugly and commercial The knowledge that councils will cut park services, while giving big companies space to invade our personal, residential spaces I want to know why I have received a warning letter through my door telling me I have oNE DAY to respond to this? ARe you trying to sneak this through? The bottom of my street is already dangerous. I have seen three crashes in six years of living here and hear of many more. This area I see filled with school children walking back and forth to at least three schools. Send these businesses to an industrial estate away from schools and residences. Please. I am also very worried about the levels of noise that we will suffer on Queens Road. Will lorries arrive at all hours to deliver goods? WIll these businesses have insufficient parking, meaning that my street will be flooded with people trying to park nearby? Will you keep all the schoolchdem in this area safe from pollution and huge vehicles? I strenuously object. Is this the best you can do for a wonderful, kind-hearted, respectable community of people and children who want quality of life for the next generation? Yours sincerely Dr. EMma Norris

Mr Nicholas Bryant 14 RALPH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

- No need for a Lidl store: Aldi and B&M Bargains are due to open a new store onSeptember 2018 at the old B&Q site (next to the proposed Lidl store) and building works havealready started. There are other supermarkets locally, Gloucester Rd, as well as untold internetdelivery services.- Detrimental effect on local stores: Combined with the new Aldi store, a new Lidl store will reducelocal store vitality / viability and cause closures.- Not in Lockleaze where the store is needed and has road capacity to cope with wider area ofcustomers that Lidl are targeting primarily through car usage. In it's proposed location it is toolarge and in the wrong place, situated at the bottom of a hill it will actually inhibit Lockleazeresidents use.- Car dominated design with 158 car parking spaces and few cycle storage facilities. This is notappropriate given thrust of Local Planning policy is to encourage sustainable travel and Lidl'spromotion that most its customers will be within 0.5 miles.- Not best use of land. Bristol has a housing crisis and the current infrastructure needs a low-trafficdevelopment option.- No grand plan for the area - Uncertainty with Lidl plans with their existing neighbouring site withapproved permission. Any permission should be subject to redesignation of its use as a conditionof planning.- Multiple Traffic Concerns:> Unsafe new relocated bus stop: For road safety the relocated southbound bus stop should beinset into the development so that buses do not stop on Muller Road and inhibit traffic flow. It isheavily congested in front of the proposed development and there is a history of accidents detailedin Lidl's application.> Local roads can't cope: Car journeys are forecast to rise to serve this new shopping destination

on all surrounding streets and junctions - Saturday Peak Hour will see 133 leaving and 130arriving at Lidl not including the new Aldi or other uses e.g. football traffic and IKEA which havebrought traffic to a standstill. Lidl are using 2014 traffic data which does not reflect recentworsening traffic congestion on Muller Road that is slow-moving or stationary 08:00-10:00 and16:00-18:30.> No traffic calming measures to surrounding residential streets which will have higher trafficvolumes have been allowed for - Practical measures to prevent deteriorating street safety andmaintain quality of life for residents should be undertaken like planting new street trees to slow thestreet scene/ soak up some traffic noise / pollution and installation of speed tables at junctions toslow traffic/ enable safer crossings.> Measures need to be taken to preserve our streets so they don't become unhospitable placesand remain community spaces.> Loss of Muller Road on street parking causing new parking pressures> Residential Parking Schemes have been muted - The need is limited, but if instigated it would bebest to have a 'Controlled Hours Zone' instead e.g. 12:00-14:00 which would address issues withCricket and Football parking.> Under DM23 Bristol Local Plan requires Lidl to carry out appropriate transport improvements toovercome unsatisfactory transport conditions created or exacerbated by their development -Current plans do not address.- Multiple Pollution Concerns:> Air pollution will deteriorate on Muller Road and adjoining roads e.g. Lidl air quality assessmentdata shows increased N02 levels at top and bottom of Ralph Road - New street trees should beplanted to help mitigate affects.> Light pollution and domination of street scene from the store building and large car park area -New street and boundary trees should be planted to help mitigate affects.> Sound - Noise through general public egress, deliveries, plant and a 24 hour delivery operationis detailed by Lidl.> Under DM33 (Pollution Control, Air Quality and Water Quality) requires that Lidl carry outappropriate scheme of mitigate the developments effects and to ideally avoid - Current plans donot address.- There are missed opportunities in the development design.> Domination of the street scene - The area primarily has a residential character that will bechanged under current proposals.> No consultation with the community - There is an opportunity to work with locals and communityorganisations like Sustrans to enhance lives. A leaflet two weeks before their planning applicationis determined is a poor effort.> No tree planting within the parking area which would have environmental benefits and wouldsoften the development.> No enhancement of Horfield Brook / wildlife area / green which could be a real feature andenhance the area.- The proposed extended store opening hours are not appropriate for a predominately residentialarea and should be reduced.

- Loss of meaningful employment and business property: This a designated Principal andWarehousing Area - The proposed Lidl store is a branch of an international company runessentially by 35 part-time staff.- The basis of this application is a privately negotiated deal between Lidl and Bristol City Councilsubject to planning. Is this best value - What is the procurement procedure and opportunity forother businesses under Local Planning Policy DM13.

Ms Hazel Sutton DORMER RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this store being built because of the traffic and road structure that is in placeat the moment. The volume of traffic and the effect that this will have on Muller road which is at thepresent VERY congested will be horrendous. The council and the companies need to agree tosolve this before any store is built on the site. The residents who live here suffer every day with thehuge volume of traffic on Muller road, the air pollution is VERY bad as well as the noise andcongestion. I'm all for progress but not at the hands of developments that cause more congestionand pollution in our environment.

Mr Steve Evans 21 DIRAC ROAD ASHLEY DOWN BRISTOL  

I would welcome the overdue utilisation of this site, along with the site of the formerFord dealership next door and the old B&Q site. A larger retail outlet on at least one of them isneeded in the area. However, I think it must be conditional upon realistic assessment andsolutions for the traffic implications on Muller Road and adjoining roads. A number of commentershave stated that the application has made no reference to traffic problems, which already exist onthese roads, and how this would add to it. I think better account needs to be taken of cyclists andpedestrians also. Almost the whole length of the Muller Road (apart from in front of the old B&Qsite) is a poor and potentially hazardous experience for cyclists.

Dr Hayley Penhale  127 KENNINGTON AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I would like to object to the proposal to build a new Lidl Store at the bus depot site forthe following reasons:1. There is no need for an additional supermarket with Aldi being built at the B&Q site. This will killoff local shops.2. The traffic on Muller Road is already awful, this will further exacerbate the problem.3. The increased volumes of traffic will further increase the already high levels of pollution in thelocal area.4. The location of the entrance of the site near a busy junction will make crossing the road evenmore dangerous for families and children in the locality5. This site was never put on the market to the general public. Lidl appear to be getting specialtreatment from the Council.6. Although the site is definitely in need of redevelopment, affordable housing should beconsidered instead. This would fuel the local economy instead of taking trade away fromGloucester Road.7. When the football/cricket is on, the impact of this store on the local roads will make it extremelychallenging for local residents to park.

I hope all of the above comments are taken seriously and the council do the right thing by the localresidents. More affordable housing would be a much better option for this site.

Ms Amy Harrowell 159 WORDSWORTH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this application, purely on the grounds of the extra traffic and air pollution thatthis would cause to the area.

Muller Road has poor traffic flow in weekday rush hour morning and evening; on weekends allday, you can expect to queue whether going towards/away from the M32 direction during 10am-6pm.

A store of this size is going to further cripple the road infrastructure, which cannot cope as it is,causing more congestion, which impacts the top of Gloucester Road and the already, heavilyclogged Eastville shopping outlet area. (It remains to be seen, but this could also have a knock-oneffect to the M32 Junction roundabout, going across into Eastville too).

This may also negatively impact people attempting to get to Southmead Hospital - the risk forAmbulances having to drive fast on emergencies, in the centre of the road will increase, wherethere is constant rush hour-esque traffic on both sides of Muller road.

Another traffic point to consider is when there are football matches at the Bristol Rovers Ground.If you are unlucky enough to get caught in football fan traffic, it's bad enough sitting in traffic,engines running, further dirtying Bristol air. If there are suddenly hundreds of cars trying to get tothis store, the traffic and air quality worsens with engines ticking over, also running the risk ofblocking the 158 space Lidl car park if the flow of traffic is heavy.

More cars on the road idling in traffic = higher emissions and poorer air quality for us all.

I would also like to point out that on the approach to the proposed car park, Muller road is part of amain and heavily used cycle path. More cars on this route is going to result in a higher risk of carto cycle conflicts and more risks to cyclists (& motorcycles), trying to work their way through thetraffic as well as any overtaking attempts made by motor vehicles.

I would very lastly like to add that I have nothing against Lidl in any way and would feel the sameabout any proposed retail development on this site, for the same reasons.

Mr James Legg 62 SPRINGFIELD AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

My main concern is the fact we also have a similar supermarket opening yards away.Housing could be useful? It will no doubt put pressure on local businesses such as the newsagentopposite. I am also concerned about the traffic management to Springfield Avenue. There areoften accidents from people driving up Springfield Avenue too fast. I'm don't think this proposedscheme will do anything to help!!

Mr John Fotheringham 174 MULLER ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

There doesn't appear to have been much consideration given to the impact of theadditional traffic created by the proposed build. Muller Rd is already at a standstill during peakhours so adding 2 new supermarkets will only serve to exacerbate this problem. It's unlikely thatany traffic planning measures will improve the situation so, as a resident within immediateproximity to the proposed developement, I object to the plans. I feel that having an Aldi on MullerRd serves the community well in having a convenient low cost store, adding Lidl to the area isn'tnecessary and adds no additional benefit to the community.

Mr Nicholas Davies 21 SPRINGFIELD AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I don't see that there is any need for this development. It is walking distance from 2 verygood Co-Op stores, a very short drive from an enormous Tesco and there is soon to be an almostidentical store in the form of Aldi on a neighbouring site.

Lidl operate on the bare minimum number of staff so I think this development will overall have anegative impact on local jobs. It will make independent stores less viable and jobs will likely belost. The local shops on the Gloucester Road are essential to the look and feel of the localcommunity. Having lived in another town where excessive supermarket development waspermitted I am familiar with the devastating effect it can have on independent businesses.

I think the leaflet Lidl posted through the doors of local residents was misleading as it asked forfeedback in such a way that will have caused some local residents to have mistakenly believedthat was their opportunity to reply and so some negative feedback may have been lost. I believethis was by design and shows contempt for the local community.

No thought has been given to how this development will impact neighbouring streets with regard totraffic. The plans will further encourage motorists to use residential streets as rat runs. Alreadymotor vehicles are driven far too fast along these residential roads and there have been numerousaccidents as a result. The traffic on the Muller Road is already awful at peak hours and thisdevelopment will only exacerbate the problem.

Appendix A Highway Improvements has an inaccurate diagram which places the new store in thewrong location. This shows how little thought has been put in to considering how this will impactthe local community and how the road layout may be improved.

There appear to be no plans to mitigate the impact this development will have on Air Pollution inthe local area. There is a school nearby and it is not acceptable to have a motor vehicle centricdevelopment that will worsen the air that the children attending the school will be forced to breath.

As a local resident parking is often an issue. This development will remove parking availabilityalong the Muller Road and this will worsen the parking situation on neighbouring streets.

There are plenty of potentially good uses for this site but the local area does not need anothersupermarket.

I object to this development and if it does go ahead I won't be shopping there.

Dr Mark Phillips 12 KATHDENE GARDENS BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I consider that the development of a supermarket on the site of the old bus depot wouldbe of benefit to the area and allow a reduction in overall traffic to supermarkets that are furtheraway from the area.

Mrs Eleanor Davies 21 SPRINGFIELD AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am a local resident and wish to express my serious concerns regarding the proposeddevelopment of a new Lidl on the Old Bus Depot, Muller Road.

My main concerns fall under the following points:

1. I feel hugely concerned regarding the increased pollution which the proposed developments arelikely to bring to the local area. I understand that Lidl air quality assessment data shows anincreased levels of nitrogen dioxide at the top and bottom of Ralph Road with no plans to mitigatethese effects. As a parent of a toddler myself and considering that this proposed development issited amidst a residential area with a high density of young children, I consider this to be anextremely serious issue which demands further consideration.2. The increased traffic which the proposed development would bring to the area is one of mymain concerns. As a resident on a local street, I find that traffic is already a huge issue. I have touse the Muller Road regularly in order to travel to work (I work in community healthcare and haveno option but to use this route) and I can confirm that ALREADY, the traffic is already nearlystationary at peak times. I am also very concerned that the increased traffic will inevitably result inan increase in accidents. As far as I am aware, no traffic calming measures to surroundingresidential streets have been allowed for (e.g. planting of new trees) which is, in my opinion,unacceptable.3. The proposed building of a Lidl is not only unnecessary but also likely to be extremely damagingto local businesses. Aldi and B&M are already due to open new stores at the old B&Q site inSeptember 2018 and there also 2 large exisiting TEscos in the local area. There are also anumber of local Co-op supermarkets as well as numerous local greengrocers, butchers and smallshops on the Gloucester Road. This will surely result in closures of these businesses as they

struggle to compete with bigger competitors which will in turn result in job losses and a huge lossto the local community.4. I am extremely unhappy with the extent to which Lidl have attempted to consult the localcommunity with regards to their plans. A leaflet through our doors 2 weeks before their planningapplication is an extremely poor effort. They 'invited' feedback in a misleading way which likelycaused some local residents to think that this was their one opportunity to give feedback on theproposal. As a result, I suspect that a significant amount of negative feedback may have lost whichI do not believe was unintentional.5. I noted that Appendix A Highway Improvements showed an inaccurate diagram which placedthe new store in the wrong location. This reflects the disregard for the impact of this developmenton the local community and how the road layout may be improved.

In summary, I feel extremely concerned regarding this new development and wish to express mystrong opposition.

Mr David Vousden BROMLEY RD ASHLEY DOWN BRISTOL   OBJECT

Whilst a nearby LIDL would apparently give some benefit to me, the proposeddevelopment is too big. It is already troublesome getting onto Muller Rd from Springfield Ave andRalph Rd. The increased traffic congestion caused by a store site entrance opposite would makelife difficult for residents. I can't see traffic lights helping matters.

In your list of documents on line for 17/05939/F, the item below appears to relate to the previousLIDL application, in which case it is not relevant, and is misleading to list it.Title: APPENDIX A HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTShttp://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/files/F6BDF0B9EE2F7347ECA3750AE48DBD9E/pdf/17_05939_F-APPENDIX_A_HIGHWAY_IMPROVEMENTS-1733299.pdf

Ms Stephanie Dodd 51 QUEENS ROAD ASHLEY DOWN BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am concerned with several issues to do with this proposed development. There is tobe an Aldi store just further up Muller Road, as well as Tesco at Eastgate and the Co-op. Therewill be more cars on Muller Road, impacting the surrounding roads including mine both in soundpollution and particulates pollution. Has Lidl carried out appropriate surveys on the effects of thedevelopment?

I am concerned with the proposed entrance as it is a heavily congested area and will be evenmore unsafe for pedestrians. What is to happen to the original site, the old Ford garage? Parkingis already a problem, losing space on Muller Road will have an impact on my road. Until I receivedthe Lidl leaflet 2 weeks ago I was unaware of this plan. What is the plan for the wildlife of Horfieldbrook?

Miss Ana Jimenez 137 DOVERCOURT RD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Good afternoon,I would like to take this opportunity for saying that the prospect of having a Lidl store in theneighbourhood really excites me. It's been a long wait for us to have a local shop we can walk to.However, as you may already know, a new Aldi store is being built nearby and there hasn't beenany comments on how they plan to improve the local area. For this reason, I'd like to take thisopportunity for asking you, how does Lidl plan to improve our local area if successful in theiraplication?Despite having a lovely green space at the end of Dovercourt Rd, the area has always been full oflitter and we've even seen travellers living in the premises.The need of an area for children to play and suitable for families to have some outdoors time hasbeen highlighted in the past by our local councillors. There are currently works being done at theHorfield common green space and we haven't seen any money spent for this purpose. I honestlythink that this is our last chance for this to happen in our local area.Edible gardens have been a success in places like Blaise castle and I'd like to see something likethis in our area.Also, a crossing in Muller road is very much needed, so families and their children can make theirway to the shops safely.

Access to the site through the path should be improved by putting some suitable lighting and evenpavement.

Thank you for taking the time to read my comments.

Yours sincerely

A. Jimenez

Miss Susan Howe 41 HIGHBURY ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I wish to object most strongly to the proposal of a new Lidl store in Horfield>

> My main reason is the fact that Muller Road is already over used and very often jammed withtraffic, especially when The Memorial Ground has an event>

> The flow of traffic is often impeded in that area with vehicles from the side roads like Ralph Roadtrying to join. That area is dangerous enough already without adding more traffic in a 30mph limit.>

> It will kill the small, local shops in that area, thereby ruining businesses who have taken years toestablish>

> Added to all of this there would be months of disruption in that area during construction. This is amain arterial road south to the M32 and north to the A38>

> Should this proposal unfortunately go ahead, a valid and appropriate traffic managementscheme is vital>

> Thank you> Susan Howe (Miss)

Dr Max Howes 52 SPRINGFIELD AVENUE HORFIELD BRISTOL  

I support the proposal for a Lidl on the bus depot site, provided the road layout is suchthat Springfield avenue traffic and parking are not negatively impacted.

There are ongoing problems with dangerous driving/speeding along Springfield avenue, with atleast three road traffic collisions and one police incident related to road rage in the last 12 months.I was personally threatened with a knife by a man who I challenged for speeding on our road atschool pickup time (Police incident number 5218007068).

Springfield Avenue, and Downend Road (on which there is a primary school) are presently usedas a cut through between Kellaway Avenue, Gloucester Road and Muller Road. The currentproposals do nothing to mitigate the effects of increased traffic generated by the proposeddevelopment on this already dangerous situation, and may in fact worsen the situation.

I would suggest blocking the Muller Road end of Springfield Avenue altogether. I would alsosuggest introducing residents' parking to this an surrounding streets, and traffic calming measureson Springfield Avenue and Ralph Road.

Mrs Tamara Heywood 49 RALPH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The proposed site is too large and 158 parking spaces are far too many. We really don'tneed two discount supermarkets next to each other, the area would be better used for housing.The traffic on Muller Road in rush hour is some of the worst traffic queues in Bristol. Having asupermarket directly opposite Ralph Road would further add to the congestion on the road at peaktimes and a proposed pelican crossing will not help congestion.Therefore I feel the site is notsuitable for a supermarket of this size.

Mr Sean Cusack 24 MORLEY SQUARE BISHOPSTON   OBJECT

I cannot claim to be an immediate neighbour however I believe we have more thanenough large scale supermarkets in the general area. Each new supermarket is a potential blow tosmall traders, particularly food shops on the Gloucester Rd. However I can appreciate that forsome there would be a convenience factor in shops at this place.I am concerned about additional pollution and congestion from yet another set of delivery lorries.I am also concerned that the footprint of the proposed development reduces the potential forbuilding houses not just on the site but on the land behind it. I am in favour of sensibledevelopment of brownfield sites and am agnostic as to which brands or chains are involved butthis land could be better used for housing with small local shops which will genuinely serve thelocal community.

Mrs Itta Howie 1 LONGFIELD ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I believe that the development of a superstore is unsuitable for this site as it will lead toeven more traffic congestion on Muller Road. Traffic on Muller Road often comes to a standstill,making it impossible to turn off from Ralph Road and congesting the area all the way up to AshleyDown Road. It's bad enough as it currently is.

Councillor Tom Brook CITY HALL, COLLEGE GREEN, BRISTOL BS1 5TR   SUPPORT

I appreciate that there are a number of arguments for and against this application, and Ihave taken into account the many public comments that have been made on the application so far,both by my constituents and those from neighbouring wards.

-----------------------------------

Arguments in favour

There is a dire need in this area for reasonably priced, easily accessible food stores. For manyresidents the Gloucester Road town centre and Tesco supermarkets at Eastgate and Golden Hillare simply too far away. The improved accessibility of this store would be of great benefit toresidents, for example the elderly, disabled people, or those with young families, who find it simplytoo far to travel to the aforementioned existing shopping locations.

Furthermore, having a store at this location will help to drive the growth and regeneration of thewider area. It will provide high quality jobs from a reputable employer, and will bring the site, whichis currently an eyesore, back into good use. Finally, the site is on a bus route and very close to theConcore Way cycle route, meaning it has the rudiments of sustainable transport connectionsalready.

-----------------------------------

Arguments against

I acknowledge that building a supermarket at this location is out of centre, and is thereforeinadvisable under the planning guidance. However, as I have already noted, the nearest towncentre (Gloucester Road) is too far away for many, and the other nearby town centre(Gainsborough Square) is even further away. As such I feel that the undesirability of the out ofcentre location is outweighed by the need for the store. It is worth noting that the site is still notnear enough for some Lockleaze residents to be of use. However, I am not aware of similarlysuitable sites further north that could be developed instead.

Some public comments have noted that the land at this site is highly suitable for alternative uses,namely housing. I agree, but I also think that this is a prime location to build a supermarket. Giventhe need for one in the area I am, on balance, content that this site is developed for a supermarketrather than housing as it will, as I've already noted, help to drive growth and regeneration in thearea. I agree with the Bishopston Society's suggestion that future development of theneighbouring Brunel Ford site should ideally be housing (should the Lidl at this site go ahead).Housing at this location would be made all the more attractive given the new Lidl next door!

Finally, and arguably the key point against this application, is the impact on traffic. As manyresidents have noted in their comments, Muller Road is already congested and polluted, andnearby streets are already used as rat-runs. Having this development can only increase theseissues. That said, the fact that the site is on a main road is a key reason why it is suitable for asupermarket. I think that a number of the possible adverse traffic impacts of this site can bemitigated or eliminated through careful planning and through conditions imposed by the council onthe site permission, should it be granted (see below).

-----------------------------------

Taking these issues into account I am, on balance, in support of the application. I think that thedisbenefits of the out of centre location, loss of possible housing land, and increased traffic areoutweighed by job creation, driving of growth, suitability of the location, and the need in the areafor accessible, reasonably priced food stores. However, I feel that the application should only beconsented subject to a number of conditions, which I detail below.

-----------------------------------

Suggested conditions

In order to minimise the traffic impact and to keep traffic flowing on Muller Road, I think that the carpark must be controlled by traffic lights. This is likely to need to be in conjunction withcomplementary traffic lights at the end of Ralph Road. It is possible that traffic lights are notsuitable for whatever reason, in which case I strongly suggest that some form of trafficmanagement is needed to prevent the car park causing tailbacks on Muller Road and to keep thetraffic flowing (noting that at rush hour Muller Road traffic doesn't exactly flow at present anyway).

In order to reduce the likelihood of rat-running by visitors to the store and/or drivers seeking toavoid traffic in the proximity thereof, traffic calming measures should be installed on local roads(such as Ralph Road, Springfield Avenue, etc.). Where feasible this should be in the form offiltered permeability (i.e. closing the road at an end or partway along). Some residents havesuggested a residents' parking scheme would be desirable. Subject to sufficient money beingavailable from the development I think this should be explored.

All of these mitigation measures should be in place before the store is allowed to open.

In order to encourage more sustainable forms of transport to and from the site, I would suggestthat more cycle parking should be provided (ideally sheltered). A traffic-lighted crossing shouldalso be installed on Muller Road to allow safe and convenient access on foot to the site from theAshley Down side of Muller Road. In addition, there should be improvement to, and expansion of,cycling and walking routes to and from the site. If feasible, it would be desirable for a shopper busto be offered to increase the customer catchment of the store and to improve sustainable access.Finally, ample electric vehicle charging points should be provided in the car park.

In order to reduce the impact of the development on local residents, any outdoor lighting usedshould be highly directional such that it does not cause glare in nearby properties. In addition,deliveries out of hours should not be permitted.

In order to mitigate the environmental impact of the site, solar panels and other energyefficiency/generation installations should be made to reduce the carbon footprint of the store.Furthermore, ample planting should be provided in and around the site to encourage wildlife andpollinators.

-----------------------------------

Should such conditions, or similar, be met I would be happy to see consent granted for thisapplication.

Ms Christine Hall 41 RALPH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I strongly support the proposal. The nearest supermarkets are a long walk (carryingshopping) for those who do not drive, especially the elderly. This would be of great benefit to thecommunity and is an excellent use of a site which is a dreadful eyesore.

Mrs Sue Powell 33 NEVIL ROAD, BRISTOL BS7 9EG   SUPPORT

A supermarket in this location would be of huge benefit to people without cars who havedifficulty accessing other larger supermarkets and/ or independent traders on Gloucester Road. Itis likely to be of particular benefit to young families and older people whose mobility may berestricted. This change of site means it is a far more viable option.

Mrs Mm Tippetts 34 THORNLEIGH ROAD BRISTOL  

It Is important to include affordable homes above the shop on this site. We are short ofhomes in our area. It also would be a very nice place to live above the store, with views of thesurrounding area.

Access by bike and by foot to the store. Please make bike and foot access safe. Let cyclists andpedestrians come in a separate way from cars. As a pedestrian or cyclist you are very vulnerableto car drivers, either driving out fast or entering the site, only looking for somewhere to park, notlooking at walkers or cyclists.

Mr Kieran Denman 1 MERRETT COURT GAINSBOROUGH SQUARE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Support this proposal strongly. For those of us in Lockleaze without cars there aren'tmany options for grocery shopping - the smaller shops tend to be comparatively expensive.

Whilst traffic is a concern with any development Muller road previously had a large B&Q store notfar from here which wasn't blocked on those grounds. Additionally I would imagine the most likelypeople to shop here at peak times would be those whose commute already takes them past theshop. It's also very close to the 'concord way' cycle route, which would hopefully encourage travelby bike.

Mrs Valerie Hambleton 59 ASHGROVE ROAD ASHLEY DOWN BRISTOL   OBJECT

If it is true that planning has been granted for the old B and Q site on Muller Rd to beconverted into an Aldi and B and M bargains store amongst others the proposed Lidl is overkill. Adiscounter to compete with Tesco in the area is excellent but 3 seems excessive. Amalgamatingthe original Bryan Bros site and the old bus garage and using them both for affordable housingwould be a much better use of both sites. Affordable housing is needed far more than a superfluityof retail space.

Mr Keith Blanning 49 BLAKENEY ROAD HORFIELD   OBJECT

A new store in the Lockleaze area would be useful but access to the proposed site isproblematic from any direction. Local residents will tell you that traffic is often stationary waiting inthe area of this site. The authorities should consider, the site has only proposed a singleentrance/exit for all vehicles, with the main road full of stopped traffic a queue will form inside thecar park causing frustration and making access for emergency services impossible.

Ms Louise Clift 105 GRAVENEY APARTMENTS COLLEGE ROAD, BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I support the proposed development in principle but do have concerns about traffic inthe area as a result. The junction from Ralph Road onto Muller road is already problematic at busyperiods with long queues on Ralph road. An increase in traffic visiting retail units will exacerbatethis. If traffic lights are installed at this junction and that from the new retail outlet onto muller road Ithink this would improve the situation considerably.

Miss Samantha Haddock 8 BRENT ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I like a Lidl supermarket but have some concerns about it being on this site.

I thin the council should be using the derelict site for something which will actively benefit thecommunity. We do not need another large supermarket.

I would rather see some community space like a park or another community space.

The traffic concerns are something which need to be sorted already for muller road which isterrible. Putting a large supermarket here is going to make this much worse. It will have a largeimpact on our local shop over the road as well.

Mr Ian Simpson 52 SELBORNE RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this development on several grounds - firstly the traffic problems that willensue on the already very busy Muller Rd will render it unusable at peak times, and make it all butimpossible to turn out onto Muller Rd from Springfield Ave for local residents.Secondly, the 'Best One' family-run shop opposite will be driven out of business.Thirdly, the area is well supplied with supermarkets in the form of Eastgate Tesco Extra, TescoGolden Hill, as well as various smaller versions on Gloucester Rd.Fourthly, independent shops on Glos Rd will inevitably suffer in trade.Fifthly, Bristol needs affordable housing, not more supermarkets - build houses with associatedparking, and mitigate traffic flows along the Muller Rd route.Finally, there will shortly be bus-route measures put into place along Muller Rd (ask TrafficManagement about them!), which will be disrupted by any new supermarket scheme, with moretraffic chaos ensuing.

Mr Nick Williams  17 OLVESTON ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Muller Road is already one of the most congested roads in Bristol as it is direct accessto the M32 and Eastville stores. I fail to see how any traffic management plan can overcome thisand providing pelican crossings for walking shoppers will only slow traffic down . Add to thatpotential redevelopment of the Memorial Stadim and international cricket at Nevi Road - how muchmore can this area take?

Mr Luke Burton 61 KEYS AVENUE HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

In favour of application, area needs affordable food store and will create jobs.

Councillor Estella Tincknell CITY HALL COLLEGE GREEN BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I am broadly in support of this application as it will provide a much needed budgetsupermarket within the ward of Lockleaze where there is a lack of access to a wide range ofaffordable retail food outlets and a significant demand for them. However, any development mustinclude a clear plan for mitigation of the likely impact on traffic congestion and air quality along theMuller Road corridor, which already suffers from poor traffic flow, very high levels of congestion atpeak times, and consequent pollution and poor air quality. Traffic management which addressesthese issues is essential if the proposed supermarket is not to impact further on an already heavilycongested area. The development should also include a commitment to sustainability, including atthe level of the building and surrounding environment ( e.g. Use of environmentally sensitivebuilding materials, appropriate planting and borders), and In terms of of the use of reduced andrecyclable packaging in product delivery and sale.

Miss R Brockman 3 YORK AVENUE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Fully support this application for a much needed low-cost supermarket in the localneighbourhood.

Miss Roxanne Brooks 140 WORDSWORTH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Support

Dr Peter Gould 1 MERVYN ROAD BRISTOL  

This development will increase traffic on an already busy road and at peak times flowalong the road is too congested as it is. Exiting from Ralph Road and Springfield Avenue, turningright onto Muller Road, is difficult and improper siting of the entrance to the proposed car park maysignificantly increase this difficulty. A solution would be to make these roads and the car parkentrance part of a roundabout. The proposal should also ensure that the access route through toDovercourt Road is maintained.

Mr Ben Blake 57 ROMNEY AVENUE LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL  

Lidl take great pride in their efforts at sustainability and they appear to be taking theirresponsibilities seriously in the plan. I would like to know whether we are turning the screw andpushing them, as a condition of granting the application, to go even further and make thisdevelopment a new standard in sustainability.

Some inexpert thoughts are that they could perhaps:

Commit to sourcing all electricity from a renewables supplier.Include plastic-free aisles and investigate packaging-free aisles (i.e. loose products and refillablecontainers).Make the border planting even more extensive and mixed, with a variety of hedgerows to serve ashabitats and encourage pollinators.Generate even more energy on-site from renewable sources.

Ms Nina Franklin 56 ROUSHAM ROAD EASTVILLE BRISTOL   OBJECT

Tbe traffic on Muller Road is already really congested and if can take 39 mins to getfrom one end to the other. The traffic is often at a standstill and luving off of Muller road it cab bevery difficult getting home. I believe that this development will add to the volumne of traffic which isis already not sustainable in its current form.

Miss Lorna jayne Medler 15 GILRAY CLOSE LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Lockleaze and horfield should have a decent local supermarket, like southmead.

Mr Kieran Wales 35 DONGOLA ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This is really needed infrastructure and will benefit everyone with a popular store in anarea lacking in real local facility. Fully supported

Mrs Valerie Revell 9, WESTON CRESCENT HORFIELD COMMON BRISTOL   OBJECT

This store will be built on a very busy main road - Muller Rd which is close to gridlock atmany times of the day. Large lorries delivering will increase traffic and also hugely increase analready highly polluted area of the city. Bristol Rovers hope to increase their stadium size andMuller Road is used by many of the fans arriving at matches and causing traffic chaos as theyleave. A supermarket in Muller road isn't needed. Gloucester Road has many supermarketsrepresented and Tesco has two stores within a short distance, Golden Hill and also Eastville. I donot agree that yet another supermarket is needed especially as people are gradually buying moreonline food. I disagree with the application.

Miss Rachel Varley 26 KENDAL ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

A supermarket has been desired by the local community for a number of years and willmean fresh, affordable produce is available to a number of local residents, many of whom areelderly and relatively isolated, unable to access Gloucester Road shops or amenities at Eastville.With the main access being on Muller Road, there are obvious concerns about the impact onalready conjested traffic.I would like to see access provided at the rear for customers on foot and by bicycle, joining thefootpath already connected to Dovercourt Road, which will encourage many to avoid use of theircars.

Mrs Jennie Anderson  14 LINDSAY ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I think the addition of a low price supermarket would greatly enhance the area. There isa huge range of family circumstances in this area nd I believe that this addition would be a greathelp to anyone trying to budget and as a whole community a shop in easy walking distance; thusremoving the need for a car. it might also free up the already too busy lidl on southmead Road andease the traffic in that area. I am sure that many people from this area use that store (me beingone)

Mr Pete Tiley 2 BOILING WELLS LANE, BRISTOL BS2 9XY  

Provision for cycling is inadequate. The development should provide more securebicycle parking nearer the store doors and fully sheltered.A new store on a busy arterial route like Muller Road should be doing everything it can toencourage cyclists and users of public transport. I would like to see more dedicated cycling lanesfor cyclists along Muller Road and improved pedestrian access and crossing immediately adjacentto the new store.

Mrs Kay Thomson  10 ROZEL ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Area has been a mess for a few years now. A new supermarket will enhance the areaand provide necessary facilities

Mrs Jessica Ingerslev 31 DOWNMAN ROAD LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

There are a lot of people who will benefit from having Lidl on this site. It will be walkablefor a lot of people which will save them having to drive to get shopping and would perhaps easethe traffic on Muller road.

Mr Richard Lander 292 ASHLEY DOWN RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I don't object to the idea of a supermarket being built here if changes are made to theplans. I believe modifications to the road layout are needed and this is an opportunity to improvetraffic flow. Currently there is a daily late afternoon traffic jam that extends from the the M32 pastthe proposed site and up towards Filton Avenue. Traffic heading south and wishing to turn intoRalph Road is caught in that traffic. Widening Muller Road for the length of the proposed sitewould allow for a feeder lane for south bound traffic turning right into Ralph Road. This wouldreduce delays for this traffic. My 70 bus is often held for 20 mins here. This is a once in ageneration opportunity to make a small improvement to this local problem.

Miss Lorna Moir 22 LINDSAY ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Strong supporter. A local supermarket will be good for the community and lockleazearea. Our local shop is very expensive and limited, this will be a positive thing for the area

Mr MHG Beard 146 BRYNLAND AVENUE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This supermarket would be a useful addition to the area and would help to renovate asite that is in need of investment.

Miss Jemma Mills 8 HAYDON GARDENS BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Fully support this development opportunity

Miss Charlene Irvine 181 DOVERCOURT ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I think this is great for the local community.

Mr Chris Abbott-Hauxwell 63 SHALDON ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Removing the eye sore of the derelict bus station and replacing it with a supermarketwith ample parking and an in-store bakery is very welcome.

This may also relive southbound traffic pressure on Muller Road by diverting some drivers fromtravelling to Tesco Eastgate to this new store.

Ms Fiona Beard 131 MINA ROAD ST WERBURGHS BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I'd welcome this development - it adds amenities to the local area when there are fewbudge food stores nearby and particularly in the Lockleaze area. The development is easilyaccessible by foot and from the cycle track.

Mr Rich Tonkin 36 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

The traffic on Muller Road has already reached a critical level, with journeys at peaktimes taking up to 45 minutes from top to bottom. The addition of joining traffic from the proposedstore in to Muller Road will have a significant negative impact on the traffic flow. Joining MullerRoad from either Ralph Road or Springfield Avenue will be inhibited even further.

Mr Frederick Langdon-Daly 39 SHALDON ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mr Cliffird Evans 21 DARNLEY AVENUE HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This area could benefit greatly from having this store here. Lidl offer excellent productsand fresh produce at very competetive prices. Looking at the plans, they will be offering a realltgoid local facility that I am sure will be well used. Personally,I cannot wait for this project to becompleted. It will also be good to see the old bus station gone. It has been an eyesore for quitesome time now. Also Lidl will be creating approximately 40 jobs and having researched thecompany they should be praised for offering over the average wage.

Mrs Mary Evans 21 DARNLEY AVENUE HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Please do this soon. So looking forward to buying freshly baked bread at very goodvalue for money. High quality goods at very reasonable prices. Please consider including a smallcafe/coffee shop where you could sell your own fresh baked goods, and encourage customers tostay longer. Full support from me, being disabled will be able to reach you on my mobility scooterindependently. Thank you.

Ms Zora Burnett 28 ROMNEY AVENUE LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

It will offer more choice to low income families.Walking distance for many.

Mrs Catherine Ironside 29 ORPEN GARDENS BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I think this would be useful

Mrs Janie Ankers 51 CHURCH RD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Would love a Lidl closer by for affordable family shopping!

Miss Julie Jackson 75 ASHLEY ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This is a up and coming area that needs more shopping outlets..lidl is a great exampleof what is needed in this area

Dr Carol Robinson  2 MULLER ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I would prefer the council to allocate this space for affordable housing. Having anothersupermarket is not essential as the area is well served already. However, the Lidl developmentwould be better than leaving the site unused.

Mrs Louisa McCormick 41 BLAKE ROAD LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

The new lidl would be so helpful to me. Its within walking distance of my house the nextclosest is in Southmead which is too far. My elderly parents live near muller rd so would be perfectfor them to walk to.

Miss Elizabeth Johnson 5 BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Very much in favour of this shop being built as it will mean I no longer need to Drive toshop thus reducing pollution and congestion.

Mrs Lynne Smith 25 HOGARTH WALK LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

We really need this shop, they are building even more houses in and around lockleaze,but no shops, this would be so helpful for young family's, oaps and disabled ppl like me,pleasepass this

Mr Allan Cartlidge 169 MULLER ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

There are a lot of older families living in this area and walking to Gloucester Road toshop is too far to go to carry shopping home. A store within easy walking distance would be aboon to many of us. At present bulk shopping needs transport by bus or car.We Support Lidl.

Dr Jasmin Langdon-Daly 39 SHELDON ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This is fantastic.

Mrs Samantha Burrett 55 ROMNEY AVE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

As someone that lives just around the corner from the site I think it is a great idea andwill help a lot of people on the local area to have a supermarket close by. To get to the closestsupermarket currently should take 10 mins drive from my house, however it usually takes between20-45 minutes! Having Lidl at this site would be within walking distance.

Mr Gary Scott-Mullen 7 KENT ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

No current value supermarket in the area and therefore feels needed. Will reduce thedistance of car journeys across the city to neighbouring LIDL stores. Additionally it's a mid sizeoutlet so less impact on environment. Important that there is adequate cycle parking and that thisisn't tokenistic

Ms Hannah Scott-Mullen 7 KENT RD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I wholeheartedly support this application for a good value supermarket which will createjobs and revive the site.

Mr Simon Hildebrand 1 FALMOUTH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

We do not need another major supermarket in this area. Tesco and other supermarketsalready exist less than a mile away.

The proposed development will increase traffic problems especially at the Muller Road/RalphRoad junction area.The proposed development will also make trading conditions harder for independent shops onGloucester Road.

Land is at a premium in this area and little social good will come from another supermarket.

Mrs Susan Harris-Ford 218 DOVERCOURT ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Why should we not have a lidl in the area. People are fed up with small expensiveshops . We deserve a store like this, we have many families and elderly in the area. It should notaffect many households regarding traffic etc. It would give people the chance to buy their shoppingwithout having to travel. For some elderly and people without transport this is of great importance.For those opposing this , I bet they all have cars !!! Give a thought to others.

Mr Clive Rutter  69 ROMNEY AVE LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL   OBJECT

Traffic is horrendous on Muller rd. 18 hours a day. We do not need any more. Plenty ofshops already nearby

Mrs Laura Burton  30 RALPH ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I'd be very happy for this to go ahead. It's such a waste of land at the moment andwould be good to be used. I'd find it so useful to have a Lidl so nearby too.The only concern is the increase in traffic as that stretch of road is often standstill with traffic manytimes a day and getting out of Ralph Road can be problematic.

Ms Beth Isaac 40 ELTON ROAD BISHOPSTON   OBJECT

I oppose the extension of the lidl Horfield as I think the council should use our resources to giveBristol more housing, not more supermarkets. Housing needs land and I don't think the councilcan or will buy land in such a good residential location as the proposed site very easily.

Mrs Fran Turner 37 YORK AVENUE ASHLEY DOWN BRISTOL   SUPPORT

a budget store like this is long overdue in this area. I will be walking there to do my shopperfect.

Mrs Chloe Bodard-Williams 3 ELMCROFT CRESCENT HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I think it is good that the space will be used again. I think a lidl will benefit the area. Ioften travel to shop at lidl so this will limit my car use as I can walk to that site in 5 mins from myhome

Mr Fernando Hidalgo 22 BLAKE ROAD BRISTOL  

I support the development of this derelict building and area. Indeed the old Brunel FordDealership and the ex B&Q building should be redeveloped and put them to good use.

The problem that I see is the stress that it is going to cause over the already overloaded MullerRoad and the M32 roundabout to access it.

Both currently see high amounts of traffic at peak hours but especially on Saturdays when itseems that everyone decides to go to IKEA or there is a match in the stadium.

I would like the Council to publish a plan together with these applications on how are they going totackle this issue before more developments in the area are approved.

Ms Sian Jenkins 24 ELMCROFT CRESCENT BRISTOL  

I support the proposed Lidl development as a convenient addition to the local area. Itwill be great to have a supermarket within walking distance so we can avoid (as we already do!)the Eastgate area at the weekend or adding to road congestion in the Muller Road/GloucesterRoad area. It would also be great for Lidl to work with the local community to offer jobopportunities to those in the immediate area.

I do think that there needs to be a collaborative traffic plan or report though taking into account allthe proposed developments between Ralph Road and Shaldon Road (former B&Q site and MorrisRoad housing) to ensure Muller Road is not overloaded and air quality is improved.

Mrs Amanda Williams 63 COTMAN WALK LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

There are no decent grocery shops in Lockleaze and it would be good to have onenear.Also good for people who don't have their own transport

Mrs Gabriela Nagyova 17 BRANGWYN GROVE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I would be happy to have lidl closer to us than it is currently.

Mr Mylea Stevens 82 SEFTON PARK ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This would be a worthwhile development of a site which has visibly fallen in to disrepairover the years. The addition of a Lidl supermarket would provide a welcomed alternative to thelocal Tesco & Sainsbury's stores. The proposed store design is also of a pleasing modern design.

Miss Sophie Williams  63 COTMAN WALK BRISTOL   SUPPORT

There are no decent shops in and around Lockleaze. This is greatly needed!!

Mr Robert Jackson 11 ASHGROVE AVENUE ASHLEY DOWN BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Need to make sure cyclists can still access Dovercourt road over the site, so an exit atthe back

Mrs Carolyn Knight 69 SHALDON ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This area is in great need of an affordable food store, at the moment we have to travelto Lidl in Fishponds, it will be good to have a local branch within walking distance. I supported thefirst proposed plan but this plan and location is even better.

Mrs Carolyn Knight 69 SHALDON ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This area is in great need of an affordable food store, at the moment we have to travelto Lidl in Fishponds, it will be good to have a local branch within walking distance. I supported thefirst proposed plan but this new plan and location is even better.

Miss Briony Anstis 62A ROMNEY AVENUE LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Ms Sue Flint 47 HEYFORD AVENUE BRISTOL  

Comment re LIDL proposalMuller Road is already overloaded by traffic.It is a major access route for Southmead Hospital, so used by emergency vehicles attempting tohasten along the road.It is traffic choked frequently in rush hours. Recently I spent about 1 hour on a bus travelling SEfrom Horfield Common to Glenfrome Rd. I know not the cause of the holdup.So it would be preferable to use the site for a low traffic application.There should be an access point at NE corner for use by pedestrians approaching from Lockleazeestate.LIDL would be welcomed by residents of Lockleaze estate and other local people.What chance of a vehicular route from the foot of Dovercourt Road?Why are many important documents not available?

Miss Nicola Lawrence  288 WORDSWORTH ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mrs Katie Lewis 60 ROMNEY AVENUE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Miss Emma Woodwars 35 MASKELYNE AVE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I think it's a great idea better then having a site that is left standing with nothing it likemost places down on muller road

Ms Nicole Whippey 30 LINDSAY ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

We've been waiting for this to happen for years. I can't wait to have a local Lidl. Thesooner the better.

Miss Kyra Davies  28 COTMAN LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

We need this so much in this and the surrounding areas

Ms Mo Clifford 147 DOVERCOURT ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I think housing or school would be a better use for the land

Miss Catherine Stockham 281 ASHLEY DOWN ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Lockleaze which neighbours the site is a deprived area with no large supermarketwhere you can purchase value for money healthy food. I believe the high rates of obesity and illhealth can be dramatically reduced by having a store in walking distance to individuals andfamilies that cannot afford a car or travel to a low budget store and end up paying over the odds incorner shops or purchasing unhealthy cheap frozen food. It will create jobs for locals by a highlyrated employer who pays living wage with opportunities to progress, there is no other employer ofthis nature in the immediate locality.

Ms Liz Tucker 3 KEATS COURT BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Hurry up and build it! Good for local employment.

Mrs Hannah Hughes 6 MASEFIELD WAY BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mr Stephen Gallagher  8 HAYDON GARDENS BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Badly needed facility, there are many elderly people and the bus services are poor so alocal supermarket will be very welcome. Will stop people having to drive down to the Tesco at themotorway junction which is the pinch point and the cause of all of the traffic problems in the area.In this way it will improve traffic flow and reduce journey times by offering a local supermarket.

Miss Stacey Hale 13 STANFIELD CLOSE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

The residents that cannot drive need somewhere local to shop that isn't over priced asthe co-op or McCall's is.

Miss Cheryl Dorgan  56 LOCKLEAZE RD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Miss Natalie Mitchell 286 ROMNEY AVENUE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I think it would be great for the community to have a good shop where we can do ourshopping instead of paying rip off prices for half decent stock!

Miss Helen O'Connor 5 BRONTE WALK HORFIELD BRISTOL, UNITED KINGDOM   SUPPORT

Good to have another choice when grocery shopping, even better when it's on the busroute not all of us drive!

Mrs Francesca Golton 8 FLAXMAN CLOSE LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I can't wait for a Lidl to be opened in this area

We have local shops which are expensive in comparison due to paying for convenience andhaving a shopping store which is known to be an inexpensive alternative would be brilliant to helpthose families living in lockleaze below the breadline as reported by the Bristol Post - Lockleazebeing ranked 3rd.

Also having the shop being built on this site would promote more people walking to do theirshopping as they would not need to drive to southmead, Abbey wood or Westgate

I fully support this proposal

Mrs Bev Morrish-Bull 40 BLAKE ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I feel this sort of establishment will benefit low income families in the area as well ascreate more local jobs so happy for the proposal

Mr Alex Jarman 176 MULLER ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Like other residents of 170 - 176 Muller Road we are not, in principle, opposed to thebuilding of Lidl on the site of the bus depot. However, we would very much oppose plans to putdouble yellow lines outside these residences. We feel this would impact negatively as currentlythis is the safest place to park on Muller road as the road is at its widest.We would also be very concerned about light issues after store closing hours as this would shinedirectly into our children's bedrooms.Our local MP has specifically stated that air pollution levels in this part of the city are unacceptablyhigh. We believe that the building of a lidl and aldi in such close proximity could only worsenmatters in this regard, and in relation to parking/traffic issues.

Mr Alberto Lietor 51 CHEDWORTH ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I am going to say the same as I said on the Aldi one.On the border between Horfield and Lockleaze, we NEED a supermarket.We don't have anything near, a couple of convenience stores where we can buy milk and drinksquickly but Tesco on top of Filton Av is too small (and far) and ASDA is too far away.

We really need this, the area needs a supermarket to growth.

Mr Alan Ashton 20 HIGHBURY ROAD, HORFIELD BRISTOL  

While broadly supportive of this application I am concerned that no recognition of thefrequent occasions that Muller Road is congested with traffic all the way from Gloucester RoadJunction to the M32 junction.

The additional traffic created by this application and any development of the former B & Q storecan only worsen this traffic.

I am surprised that the traffic survey does not take into account this common occurrence.

Mr John Callaghan 164 MULLER ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object as this will be right outside my house. It is one of the narrowest stretch ofpavement, there will be the noise from the lights and individuals waiting there to cross.

LidlProposed Lidl Store, Former Bus DepotSite, Muller Road, BristolTransport Assessment

A new puffin crossing will be introduced across Muller Road located midway between the MullerRoad/ Ralph Road junction and the Muller Road / Springfield Avenue junction. This will provide acontrolledcrossing for pedestrians accessing the store from the west of Muller Road as well as improving thepedestrian infrastructure existing pedestrians along Muller Road.

Ms F. O'Reilly 164 MULLER ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I initially objected to LIDLs proposal back in 2014 and even though their proposal wasapproved they now wish to build an even bigger store with increased packing, 3 times moreparking spaces. Why did they not go ahead with the smaller store? The traffic on Muller Road hasincreased in the past 3 years and it may be worthwhile doing another Traffic Assessment for thepeople in the area. I live directly opposite the bus depot but park on Springfield Avenue. Thediagram labelled Proposed Site Access Arrangement details a 'NO RIGHT TURN' sign. Thereforeif I drive down Springfield Avenue on my way home from work as I do every day to avoid MullerRoad traffic, I then cannot turn right onto Muller Road when I leave for work in the morning? Thesechanges to road layouts will also increase the traffic congestion on the side roads. I do hope LIDLtake into account our objections.

Unknown   OBJECT

Unknown  

Mrs B Harrison 94 BROMLEY ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I would firstly like to feed back my disappointment that I did not receive a letter aboutthis application. Given the proximity of the site to my home address and the direct impact on ourarea, this would not seem unreasonable.

I am not against the application for a Lidl supermarket on Muller Road, but I am concerned aboutthe traffic implications. Given the proposal to change the traffic flow at the Muller Road/ SpringfieldAvenue junction, I am very concerned that traffic from Ashley Down Road will use Bromley Roadas a traffic-light free cut-through/ rat run (joining Muller Road from Brent Road). The cross roadsbetween Bromley Rd and Springfield Avenue is already dangerous with very poor visibility, and Irecently witnessed one nasty accident as a car driving at speed up Springfield collided with avehicle coming out of Bromley Road. To reduce traffic using this route, one solution would be tomake the short section of Bromley Road (where I live) no entry from Springfield Avenue. This isnot ideal as will mean inconvenience for us and other residents on this section of the road.However, I feel on balance that reducing the risk of increased traffic is the priority, especially giventhe implications for road safety in an area heavily populated by young families.

Mr Daniel Evans 38 RALPH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

My wife Emily and I have live on Ralph Road since 2011. The junction of Ralph Roadand Muller Road is already busy at all hours of the day and night, but especially in the morningand evenings. It is even busier still when Bristol Rovers are playing at the Memorial Stadium inHorfield, with cars regularly parked on pavements, along Muller Road and adjoining roads.The proposed Lidl store would be on this junction, which is also on a bus route for double-deckerbuses 24 hours a day.We fear the arrival of a supermarket will increase traffic volume further, making the junction busier,more dangerous, increasing air pollution and noise.We would also be interested to see where the entrance and exit to the proposed store would be,as this development could potentially cause even more traffic queues in this area.

Mrs Elaine Hopper 40 RALPH ROAD ASHLEY DOWN BRISTOL   OBJECT

The proposed new Lidl store is a welcome development of a derelict site BUT I havemany reservations about the impact of increased traffic, and consequent noise and air pollution, inthe area.The Traffic evaluation attached to the application makes no mention of any increased trafficresulting from the adjacent planned new Aldi store. Neither does it mention that existing traffic isstationary or very slow-moving on Muller Road every weekday from 8am -10am and from 4pm -6.30pm, resulting in long queues of traffic on Ralph Road, delays to the local bus services, noiseand air pollution.

Mr John Fotheringham 174 MULLER RD BRISTOL  

Whilst I support the building of the store in principal, I object to the suggestion of doubleyellow lines being placed outside residential properties 170-176 Muller Rd. Adding the proposeddouble yellow lines will only serve to increase the difficulties the residents of these properties havewith parking in close proximity to their homes. This is a particular issue on days when football andcricket are played at the home grounds.

Mrs Jane Ghosh 33 FILTON GROVE BRISTOL  

I am neutral towards this application though inclining to support. It will be a welcomeregeneration of an unused and ugly site often prone to squatters and antisocial elements. It willprovide employment. Unfortunately it is too far from Lockleaze to benefit that area directly andthey are badly served by retail stores. My main worry is traffic backing up Muller Road fromcustomers and deliveries . Also customer parking on nearby roads. The recent decision of BristolRovers to remain in Filton A enue along with the expansion of South mead hospital has put a greatdeal of strain on residential parking. I would suggest therefore that the area around the new storeand the area around the Memorial ground on both sides of Muller Road be designated a residentsparking zone. The costs should be borne by Lidl and Rovers. Moreover a bus service fromGainsborough Square should be inaugurated to enable Lockleaze residents to access Lidl withoutusing cars. This and the RPZ should form part of the contribution from the applicant.

Mr Stephen Barrett 40 FILTON GROVE HORFIELD BRISTOL  

1) To ensure no traffic queuing on Muller Road the entrance to the supermarket shouldbe kept clear as much as possible. Any vehicles manoeuvring (reversing into or out of parkingspaces, etc.) close to the entrance could cause a delay in vehicles turning into the supermarketcar park, and for following vehicles on Muller Road trying to enter, or just intending to carry ondown Muller Road. Even a short delay of a few seconds could cause queuing on Muller Road. Toreduce this possibility parking bays 91, 107, 128, 129 and 130 could be removed to allowimproved access with the additional advantage of more manoeuvring space for cars and HGVsinside the entrance.

2) To improve traffic flow on Muller Road the development associated traffic management schemeis welcome. However, the scheme does require some sacrifice by near neighbours which shouldbe mitigated as much as possible., for example;

a) The local 'rat runs' should be examined for additional measures to reduce traffic speed. Variousmeasures such as road humps, chicanes, and additional speed restriction signs could be used inthe area, especially as the requirement for adequate street lighting where road humps could beinstalled is met in this residential area.

b) The extent of on-road parking is reduced by the traffic management scheme. Residents onlyparking could be introduced in residential areas close to the supermarket to reduce the possibilityof shoppers parking outside of the supermarket car park. This should be done with minimum costto the residents, through a scheme agreed with the residents and sponsored by the supermarket.

c) The city is struggling with air quality issues and a small part of the solution has been the

introduction of residents parking schemes across the city. However, another issue yet to beaddressed is the length of time drivers take to find a [legal] parking place because parking in thecity is so limited. Driving around produces pollution. Whilst I totally support all efforts to reduce airpollution there is still a need to recognise car usage cannot be reduced over-night. Again to beagreed with local residents, some roads such as Draycott Road and part of Springfield Avenuecould be made one way with one side of each road being converted into on-street parking bays forresidents.

3) With regard to air quality;

a) A Councillor has referred to the proposed supermarket development as an enhancement to theretail on offer for residents in Lockleaze. Whilst I would accept it is an additional retail opportunityfor Lockleaze residents it is not located in the shopping centre of Lockleaze. Given the topology inthe area it is not an easy walk or bike ride back into Lockleaze when carrying shopping so cars arelikely to be used. I would suggest a community bus supported by the supermarket, hopefully usingclean fuel, would help to stem any increase in air pollution as it could be used to link the centre ofLockleaze, and the care and residential homes in the area, to the supermarket.

b) Charging points for electric vehicles could be installed adjacent to some parking bays in thesupermarket car park.

c) Traffic queuing on Muller Road starting at the junction with the M32 extending past the site ofthe new Supermarket is now a regularly occurring, and on a few occasions has happened outsideof the 'normal' rush hour periods. The TRICs diagrams show many of the junctions on Muller Roadto be at or near capacity demonstrating how difficult it is to get reasonable traffic flow throughoutthe length of the road. Increasing road capacity is not possible and would probably be self-defeating over time. However, carrying out a review of traffic control, traffic signals timings and thejunction design at the Muller Road M32 roundabout may provide some small gains in trafficmovement. Perhaps the supermarket can support the review in some way.

d) The nearby main rail link from Bristol Parkway to Temple Meads has scant attention in the WYGreport, the report simply stating that the pollution produced by Diesel trains is included in thebackground levels used in the report calculations. However, recent investigations suggest thepollution from this source can enhance other pollution sources such as road traffic and should beregarded as significant. Bearing in mind the electrification of this rail mainline has now beendelayed for some years some form of mitigation is necessary for the local residents who use thesupermarket. The only option available is to enhance the landscape around the store over andabove the planting proposed, to include more trees and bushes on the road side and rail (East)side of the perimeter.

To summarise, I am inclined to support the supermarket development but would wish the abovesuggestions to be accommodated in the plans.

Thank you,Stephen Barrett

Mr Stephen Hale 170 MULLER ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am against the proposed build on the bus depot site due to the proposed lighting andparking restrictions.The proposed lighting will light up the houses opposite, meaning we will constantly be flooded withlight into our front rooms.Also the parking in our area is already very bad, especially on an evening and if the football orcricket is on. Putting double line outside 170-176 will cause a very large inconvenience for thepeople living in these houses as several of them have young children, also causing inconvenienceto other people if they have to park outside another persons house, especially if that other personis elderly, has walking difficulty or very young children. I am not totally against the idea of the Lidl iam against the proposed lighting and parking restrictions.Mr S Hale

Mrs Laura Rusbridge  83 SPRINGFIELD AVE BRISTOL  

I support the proposal for a Lidl on the bus depot site, provided the road layout is done in a way sothe increased traffic and parking does not negatively impact local residents.

The wording on the highway alterations proposal suggests that a puffin crossing is placed onMuller rd, between Ralph rd and Springfield ave. However the road layout diagram in the appendixshows the crossing after Springfield ave. If the crossing is there, we will have people usingSpringfield ave as a rat run to avoid the lights. Please put the crossing where you describe, not asshown.

We already have issues with traffic turning off up Springfield Ave from Muller road at speed, andhave had a number of accidents recently with people speeding around the junction with Queensroad. At the moment one of the natural barriers to this is the queuing traffic waiting to turn right onto Muller rd, which forces incoming traffic to stop. If these junctions are made left only, it will makeit even easier to speed off Muller Rd down our residential street.

As part of these proposals, and to discourage people from using the road to park for shopping,please could you block the bottom end of Springfield ave, turning it in to a cul de sac. Somethingsimilar was done for Ingmire Rd near Eastville Tesco. Traffic will then have to use Draycott Rd orBrent Rd, both of which present sharp turns which will significantly slow the traffic.

Finally, there is mention in the highway alterations plan of Aldi funding a residents parkingscheme, but details of this are not provided. Please could you direct me to the specific document

these are explained in, and let me know whether residents will be consulted in the design of this?

Unknown   SUPPORT

Mrs Chris Gaymer 68 QUARRINGTON ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I am strongly in favour of this application. This area has a choice of two majorsupermarkets - both Tesco, namely Eastville and Golden Hill, neither of which could be said to beeasy walking distance. This area could well do with a major budget supermarket. Currently the oldBrunel Ford, B&Q and Bus Depot sites are empty and derelict, and an attraction for vandalism.

Councillor Gill Kirk CITY HALL BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I support this application, as I believe it will enhance the retail offer for residents inLockleaze by providing an affordable food store. I supported the previous application in 2016 whenwide public consultation took place and local residents were supportive of having a Lidl on MullerRd. I understand the need for a larger site and am reassured that the applicants intend to leafletlocal residents to update on the change to proposals. The applicant states a store on this sitewould contribute positively to the surrounding facilities, services and employment opportunities inthe area as well as enhancing the local retail offer, and will create 40 new jobs. I would like torequest that local people are given access to employment opportunities and that the applicantworks with our local employment support organisation to ensure jobs are advertised in the area.As well as providing car parking spaces I would like this store to encourage walking and cycling tominimise extra traffic on Muller Rd, by providing a good amount of cycle storage and enhancingwalking/cycling routes in its travel plan. The traffic management will need to be consideredcarefully to avoid a detrimental impact on congestion on Muller Rd.