Controversial plans to build almost 200 homes on the site of Bristol’s beloved zoo gardens have been approved by councillors, who concluded that the development would help ease the city’s housing crisis. Protesters argued that this was Bristol’s “Joni Mitchell moment” and that the politicians who had backed the “monstrosity” would be remembered as having “paved paradise” and be a laughing stock. Council officers accepted that trees and habitat would be lost and the scheme was contrary to the authority’s development plan, but said the benefits included the provision of new homes in a city struggling to find enough land for housing. After operating for 186 years in leafy Clifton, the walled gardens shut to visitors in September last year and the zoo is moving to an out-of-town site in south Gloucestershire, the Bristol Zoo Project. Bristol Zoological Society, the charity that runs the zoo, has argued that the move makes sense from a financial, conservation and animal welfare point of view. A development of 196 homes, 20% of which are proposed to be affordable, is planned for the site. All listed and historically sensitive buildings are to be retained and repurposed and a “significant amount” of space will be open to the public. But the proposal will result in the removal of a significant number of trees and will affect habitats, species and features that contribute to conservation at the site, including bat roosts.
Last month hundreds of people, including children dressed as animals, marched on the site in protest, claiming that the plan was all about making a profit by building luxury flats and houses in one of the most desirable neighbourhoods of the south-west of England. Ahead of the meeting of a council committee on Wednesday, protesters gathered outside City Hall holding up artists’ impressions of the site daubed with slogans such as: “Bristol deserves better after 186 years” and “Is this what Bristol wants?” There was also anger that the city’s directly elected mayor, Marvin Rees, backed the plan in a tweet just hours before the meeting, saying the move from Bristol would help the zoo protect rare species. Justin Morris, the zoo’s chief executive, told the meeting he understood the strong feelings aroused. “People love the zoo,” he said. Morris said the zoo was not walking away from the Clifton site, but would help manage it, adding that if people cared about conservation, they should visit the new zoo. Chris Booy, vice-chair of the zoological society’s trustees, said the new site was 11 times bigger than the Clifton one and would provide the space the animals needed. But many members of the public argued against. Chris Jefferies, speaking on behalf of the Clifton and Hotwells Improvement Society, said the development would include “half a mile of modern blocks of flats [of] several storeys that will dominate and overpower the neighbouring streets”. George Ferguson, a former Bristol mayor, said the site was a “jewel”, adding: “We will be laughed at if we approve this dire application. I ask you for the sake of our children and grandchildren to put the welfare and reputation of our city first by rejecting, or at the very least delaying, a decision.” The travel writer Alastair Sawday, a Bristol resident, described the development as “a monstrosity” and doubted that free public access would be maintained. He said this was the council’s Joni Mitchell moment, a reference to a line from her song Big Yellow Taxi: “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.” There was anger in the public gallery and cries of “Shame!” when the committee chairman, Richard Eddy, said time had run out for members of the public to contribute just before two of the leading objectors were about to speak. Several councillors expressed concern that the zoo had not tried harder to come up with a carbon-neutral scheme, but supporters said the need for housing was so great that it should be approved. Six members backed the motion, and three objected. After the meeting, members of the Save Bristol Zoo Gardens group said they would keep fighting and would consider legal action. Planning officers had said the development was considered to be acceptable as it would finance the long-term management of the site, while ensuring free access to the public. They added that the development would attract “substantial positive weight given the council currently cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites”.