The majority of people who took part in consultation on the proposed sale of part of the Bristol-to-Bath cycle path want the land protected from development.

Developer Squarepeg sparked controversy last year when it approached Bristol City Council to buy two small strips of land along the cycle path.

The company wanted to include them as part of a £40-million plan to redevelop the former Elizabeth Shaw chocolate factory at Greenbank into housing.

The council agreed to the sale, subject to planning permission, but residents objected strongly, arguing it would harm the local environment.

The council carried out a consultation exercise, at a cost of £12,000, to gauge local opinion.

The results show 84 per cent of respondents either agreed or totally agreed that the protection of this part of the railway was more important than redevelopment proposals.

The feedback came from 162 questionnaires, but the council also received 140 postcard responses and 58 people attended a drop-in day.

More than half felt the chocolate factory development would be good for the regeneration of the area, but only four per cent felt the creation of new jobs outweighed the need to protect open space.

Around 99 per cent said they used the cycle path, and more than half nearly every day.

The report stated: "Although there is general support for the regeneration of the former Elizabeth Shaw factory site, the majority of those participating in the consultation felt the development should be contained within the original footprint of the factory site and the Bristol to Bath railway path should stay in the public domain."

Campaigners said the consultation results confirmed their objections.

Bristol Cycling Campaign member Chris Hutt, 58 of Clifton, said: "People want to see the chocolate factory developed but it shouldn't involve taking land from the railway path.

"We could have told them that in the first place, which of course we did, and saved £12,000 of our taxes being wasted on consultants.

"Now we must make sure that this consultation is taken into account before the planning application is determined.

"It would be outrageous if they now ignore the results of this expensive public consultation exercise.

"There's no point in giving planning permission if the land on which it's based is not for sale, and the council can hardly decide to sell the land to the developer after the people of Bristol, whose land it is, have made it clear that they don't want that to happen."

Environmental lecturer Glen Vowles, 46, of Knowle, said: "New cabinet members who have responsibility for green spaces and for transport and sustainability, now have a responsibility to see to it that Squarepeg's plans are modified to match what local people want."

The planning application, for 252 flats and houses, with offices, a youth hostel and a cafe, was originally heard by councillors last month, but before the results were released, which drew criticism from campaigners.

Councillors largely ignored the issue during debate, but still refused the proposals on the grounds there was not enough affordable housing.

Planning officials had recommended the scheme for approval, despite objections from local residents and a 781 signature petition.

Squarepeg warned the decision put the whole scheme and up to 600 new jobs at risk because in the current economic climate they could not guarantee continued support from their financial backers.

Liberal Democrat Cllr Jon Rogers, cabinet member for transport and sustainable development, and Cllr Gary Hopkins, executive member for environment and Community Safety, welcomed the consultation report.

In a joint statement they said: "The new administration is committed to openness and transparency, and we are happy to publish the findings of the consultation. "However, we have serious concerns about the way the council has reached this position and we await full answers to questions we have raised on behalf of all parties with an interest in the issue.

"Meanwhile the planning committee have yet to make a final decision on the development, and neither of us wish to make any comment that is seen to influence the all-party decision."

The committee next sits on April 1.