"IMPROVEMENTS for the sake of it" was how one resident felt about the green space proposals for this part of the city.

The area of Bishopston, Cotham and Redland was one of four where no sites were under threat as part of Bristol City Council's green spaces plan.

But despite having nothing to lose, some residents have still objected to the principle of selling off parks and green spaces.

All of the public responses had names removed when the council published them last month.

One resident said: "I would be most unhappy to see any green spaces given up.

"Already masses of green spaces have been lost to hard standing, with appalling knock-on effects of loss of visual amenity, flash flooding, loss of songbird habitat, loss of pollution sinks and the carbon footprint."

The council has always argued that selling off green spaces is necessary to help investment in scores of other parks across Bristol, after a lack of investment for decades.

During the consultation period residents were asked to fill in questionnaires saying which of their local parks were most important to invest in and which investments in each park they wanted most.

Of the 113 people who responded St Andrew's Park was felt the most in need of improvements, closely followed by Redland Green.

Cotham Gardens was the least popular but still polled a relatively large amount of interest.

Of the proposals for St Andrew's Park, maintaining the children's plat area and paddling pool was the most popular idea.

The majority of the council's ideas for the park received a negative response, in particular anything that proposed replacing the bowling green. The council came in for criticism during the consultation process for claiming the bowling green was no longer in use, despite a bowling club with more than 30 members using it on a regular basis.

The idea of replacing it with a sensory garden was the least popular option for the whole park according to the questionnaires responses.

One resident said: "The bowling green has 15 years to run on its lease. Why are you asking for ideas on its use?

"Could it be that someone in the council wants the space back? This is very unhelpful and causing some aggravation and friction among local residents."

Another said: "I think the park requires very little extra input of money for physical changes to the environment but its high level of usage means that what is already there needs to be well managed."

Options for Redland Green produced a more positive response but again the proposals to maintain the status quo came out on top.

The most popular choice was to "keep playground in a good state of repair while enhancing and expanding the facility".

Providing a kick-about area with fixed goal posts was the least popular.

Money raised from sales will be added to funding from developers, grants and the parks department budget and then divided between areas in the city.

Residents will be able to have their say on where the money should go at neighbourhood partnerships meetings, and over the next six months a "shopping list" of improvements will be drawn up for each of the areas.

Council spokesman James Easey said: "We are now focusing on the investment into our parks and green spaces.

"We shall work with a sub-group of the neighbourhood partnership and representatives from local parks groups, and it will be for them to draw up a priority list of improvements and new facilities they would like to see for parks and green spaces in their area.

"So that when money becomes available – either through section 106, disposals or grant funding, we shall have a clear idea of which projects to take forward."