I support the development if it retains a decent proportion of "affordable housing".I think that it is of considerable importance and the developer's responsibility to find a way ofpreserving the remaining trees on Lower Ashley Road whilst proceeding with the development.

I OBJECT to this application for the following reasons...

1. It appears that the proposed development plan intends to turn my neighbours garden into a carpark. My neighbour has owned and utilised this garden for decades - and now (due to the fact thatthere appears to have been some sort of mistake during the conveyancing process) it appears theland is mistakenly registered as owned by Highways England. I am not quite sure how thedeveloper plans to obtain this land but it is my belief that doing so would be highly unethical andunfair to my neighbour. Additionally - we have a legal right of way from our back garden to Gordonroad via our neighbours garden - and I have received no assurance from the developer that theyconsidered this or factored it into their planned development.

2. The removal of the existing and well-established Maple trees will worsen air-quality in the areathat already suffers from illegal levels of air pollution. I see no reason why the developer could notcreate a proposed development that would incorporate the existing trees into the plan thereforealleviating these concerns. I would expect Bristol City Council (BCC) to encourage the developerto consider this as to do otherwise would be antithetical to BCC's goal to improve Bristol's airquality and bring it within legal limits.

3. I am also not convinced the lighting survey has been done accurately or by an impartial party.As far as I'm aware no one has attended our property in order to properly conduct a light survey -in order to ensure that the proposed development won't block out considerable levels of light fromthe rear-facing windows of our house (our kitchen window, living-room window, and one bedroomwindow included). Our property has enjoyed this level of light for decades and feel this violates our

right to light. Note this doesn't even consider the light that will be blocked from two of our upstairsneighbour's windows - which has also enjoyed the existing level of light they receive for manyyears.

Overall, it seems that the interests and health of the existing local inhabitants are beingdisregarded in favour of the developer.

The Council has a legal duty to establish if future dwellings will be safe for residents andnot worsen air quality for others. It should be stated for the record that this did not happen for theextant planning permission for the student flats. Air Quality Assessments are a statutoryrequirement for major development of >10 dwellings in an Air Quality Management Area.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe

this development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

The area is being developed and looked after which is lovely.Now I think we need to make sure we keep some trees, greenery and a feeling of space ascrowded areas are not nice to live in.

Please opt for an alternative development plan whereby the maple trees are retainedand the development is stepped back from the road. The already mature maple trees are of greatvalue to the surrounding area as they improve the air quality, are an important habitat for wildlife,help to mitigate the risk of flooding and are a source of greenery which is desperately neededunder the current circumstances where a lot of us are enjoying the soothing benefits of nature.Decisions like these may seem small but the benefits of keeping the trees will be significant andfelt by people in the surrounding area including those who will come to live on the site beingdeveloped. Thank you.

Hi there,

I am really concerned that we are due to lose these valuable trees. We have a 18 month year olddaughter and are obviously concerned about the air quality in the area.

We simply cannot afford to lose these tees just for financial gain for the developers.

Please please for our children's future keys re think the plan and include these valuable trees.

Thanks

Tom.

Please do not allow this development to remove or reduce the trees on Lower AshleyRoad. These maple trees have great amenity and environmental value as they help reduce air andnoise pollution, provide shade, provide cooling and reduction of heat island effect throughtranspiration, reduce flooding, provide wildlife habitat, add visual interest and scale to the streetand are mature enough to not require extra care.I have no objection to the site being developed for housing, but anyone living in the new homeswill feel the benefit of these trees remaining.Requiring the developers to replace the trees will mean immature trees are planted, which willneed extra water and care, and will not be able to provide the benefits listed above for manyyears. This is a waste of resources. Many such young trees do not survive.One of the maples has already been illegally removed. Please do not allow the others to be taken.Thank you.

The proposed building will involve the felling of three mature trees. Please do not allowthis to happen. The area around the site needs more trees to improve air quality, and the loss ofthese would be significant.

As a wildlife enthusiast I object to the cutting down of trees particularly when the benefitto this development to my local community is doubtful. Of course we need housing but how manyof these dwellings will be truly affordable to local people? My husband has asthma, I work in alocal secondary school where many of our students are asthmatic, and I'm fed up with the tragicloss of our trees and natural environment in the city. In a time of climate change with our healthworkers and citizens under so much stress we need the nature around us. Please keep thesetrees we need them...

My only objection is to the nonsense idea the trees need to be removed, they absolutleydo not. Their removal will be detrimental to the street. I know the developer will claim it neccasarybut it never is, its just what they want to do.

Mature trees are important to any city as they help improve air quality. I amdisappointed to hear of this proposal to fell these trees after Bristol City Council have declared aClimate Emergency.

We need to save our trees. Bristol has a terrible record for air pollution. Our chdten aresuffering with asthma and respiratory conditions.O grew up near to those maple trees and believe they should be saved.We do not need another multi storey there.

Please do not destroy these trees it is heartbreaking and disrespectful to those of uswho live here

I object to this planning.

Build homes, not units.Enhance our community !

I support the development of new affordable housing, but there is no point building themif they are going to have a detrimental effect on people's health by worsening our already terribleair quality (essentially killing local resident). Aside from air quality, I believe people in the inner cityhave just as much right to enjoy the benefits of trees than anywhere else in the city!! Is it really toomuch to ask to have 4 trees between your house and a motorway? Below I paste a supporting astatement written by Katrina Rosa.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding mature trees. Whilstthe removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overall air quality inour city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of the same age.My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard for the localenvironment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see points below) in this part of the city, aprecedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees in the city. Thiswill ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our mature city trees.Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that their valuable role inmitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution as well the loss oftheir role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency) from the air istoo high a price to pay. for the following reasons:

1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.

2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.

3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, . . . Residents in Lower Ashley Roadexperience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe this development has the potential toworsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequate mitigation has been proposed to dealwith this significant issue. I therefore object to this development as it runs counter to BCS23."

4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, Residents in Lower Ashley Roadexperience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe this development has the potential to

worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequate mitigation has been proposed to dealwith this significant issue. I therefore object to this development as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I object to the felling of trees as part of this proposal. There are so few trees in the areaand they help mitigate the awful pollution caused by the M32 and general traffic which is often atstandstill. The existing trees offer a sanctuary to wildlife, especially nesting birds. Please amendthe proposals to avoid the felling of trees.

These trees are important for air pollution levels and wildlife conservation in the area.They must not be felled.

Really disappointed that this planning proposal plans to pull down the lovely maple treeson this street. An amendment to this planning application that actually supports Bristols widerenvironmental ambitions should really he considered.

I think this development should not be allowed to go ahead. We are in desperate needof trees in Bristol especially since the council does not replace any trees which are cut down dueto illness etc. These trees provide essential oxygen in a city with a huge traffic problem.

This shouldn't go ahead if it will involve felling trees and adversely affecting air quality.

Please do not remove the Maple trees. I like many others suffer with Asthma. Our airquality is appalling and trees are about our only measure against.

These trees are a sliver of green in a tarmac wilderness. I cannot believe that, as theplanet warms and we finally wake up to role that we have to play in climate preservation (andbreakdown), developers continue to ignore the calls of scientists and ecologists. These trees notonly capture and store carbon (on the edge of an extremely busy junction), they provide homes formultiple other species. It would be another triumph of the morons if they were to go.

I object to the development - specifically the removal of the mature maple trees (at leasttwo of which have unlawfully already been removed).Poor air quality area - we need all the MATURE trees we can.Please please do not support this development as it currently stands - listen to local people.Also design not in keeping with character of the street.

This is an overload of development in the area.There is already an enormous amount oftraffic on that feeder road from the M32.Aesthetically the development looks out of place and it encroaches onto public space.

The loss of the trees along Lower Ashley Road would be a terrible loss to thecommunity, just so the developer can squeeze in a few extra untra-low-quality units - the last thingthis area needs. The proposals will create another dead street with a boring bland street scene.This area desparatley needs quality design, and the Council should insist upon it.

The maple trees are important part of our heritage. Trees in urban areas are known toprovide a wide range of environmental, social and economic benefits. The tree canopy can:

1. Reduce the urban heat island effect by shading and evapotranspiration2. Reduce pollution by intercepting particulates and absorbing greenhouse gases3. Reduce flooding by intercepting rainfall.

Please only allow a development that keeps the maple trees. There is already a real lack of treesin this area. We need more not less.

we need trees, please, do not cut more trees especially in such areas as st. Paul'swhere there are only few planted. Having more of affordable housing is great, but we do needtrees to have cleaner air and lower temperatures in the city.

We need more trees and family houses, not fewer trees and student accommodation.

Please don't remove these beautiful trees to construct such an eyesore of a housingproject. Surely there are many other options to consider with the trees in place? It is especiallyimportant to keep them given the proximity to the motorway, the road itself, pollution and air qualityissues.

I strongly object to this application which has no place in our neighbourhood, beinginconsistent with Green policy, aspirations and needs as well as being completely out of scale withthe local built environment.

There is simply nothing to recommend this application and everything to oppose, including thedestruction of the aged and attractive maple trees that contribute to alleviating the excess pollutiondirectly from the adjacent M32.

Please reject out of hand.

As a former Bristol resident I am concerned the this development desecrates the maturetrees on Ashley Road. This will have a negative impact on the quality of the social environment forthe wider residential community, and reduce the available flora to help counteract the emissions ofsignificant traffic on the route. These are the contrary to Bristol's aspirations to pioneer aninclusive and green city

Once again I object to this planning application.

1) the removal of the remaining trees (other mature trees have already been destroyed) isunnecessary, sympathetic design options are available. This is also contrary to BristolDevelopment Framework Core Strategy BCS9, BCS13 and BCS23. Italso disregards the Council "One City Plan" which aims to double the tree canopy by 2046.

2) This development will surely worsen air quality on Lower Ashley Road and contravenes DM33of theCouncils Development Management Policy, contrary to the One City Plan, and the Government'sClean Air Strategy.

3) I also suggest that the development will worsen noise pollution contravening DM33 and BCS23.

4) I am convinced that the development will impact flooding,which is already a commonoccurrence, and hencecontravening Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy BC16. Impacted further by newhousing opposite which has remove a large grass area that can soak up the rian.

5) Parking at any time and access to the area at peaks times is a real problem. Where will theextra cars and those ofvisitors park? Public transport is pretty much non existent here.

6) The development, at four stories, will over shadow adjacent properties and does not fit with the

character/heritage of the street. Again the trees are so important to how the road looks and feels,in full bloom they are magnificent!

7) there has been unprecedented development around this area and this has not be viewed in thewhole. What is the impact from the Brook Dye Works development or the refurbishment of theTeohs building opposite, the new houses opposite and the old garage sit beside which is also tobe developed? No consideration has been made and the residents have not been consulted. Idon't think the residents are being considered at all. It feels like profit at all costs.

I can't see this application being approved it was in a more affluent area of Bristol.

Part of this development including the trees are sited on land which appears to beowned by the council rather than the developer. Allowing this development to go forward with thedestruction of the trees is tantamount to environmental vandalism particularly in light of the illegallevels of pollution in St Pauls

I drive past here every day to work in Southmead. It would be a massive shame to cutdown those trees and replace them with a large block of flats. There are much better ideas anddesigns you could have gone for, which preserve the trees and provide housing that's better forthe area.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding mature trees. Whilstthe removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overall air quality inour city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of the same age.My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard for the localenvironment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this part of thecity, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees in the city.This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our mature city trees.Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that their valuable role inmitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution as well the loss oftheir role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency) from the air istoo high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...

". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believethis development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

It is criminal to allow the destruction of trees for building development in this area. Theybenefit the local people hugely, mentally and physically. I used to live on Ashley Road and I speakfrom experience. St. Paul's needs more trees, not less.

This is not a well thought our proposal. The trees need to stay for all the reasons -pollution, aesthetics,enjoyment of the public. House can be built while keeping them - we do notneed more characterless blocks in this city - we need homes and trees.

My best friend lives in badminton road which I visit frequently as I work at Matthew Clarkin Bristol. The trees line a street which leads you into Montpelier and not only beautiful they alsoprovide much needed air purification for the local houses. I don't object to the building of thehouses but the trees must be kept as we are in danger of loosing the nature in our cities. Thebuilders should want to retain and incorporate into their development otherwise they are just in itfor the money as they don't seem to care about any local residents / visitors feelings.

Trees are essential to maintaining community well-being. Whilst the need foraccommodation is also a major issue, we can be smarter about our urban planning. Developersexist to make money - with no other criteria. Our climate chaos and social unrest cannot beaddressed by this continual suicidal emphasis on paradigms that have proven to be for the benefitof the few. Please re-think this development and help Bristol become a leader in creative,compassionate urban design that addresses the needs of the whole community.

More new flats in the city is not what we need, taking more of the limited wildlife down(Trees)and making new eye sores! Why not spend money on preexisting property refurb if morehomes are needed.

The Maple Trees provide a visual aesthetic and define the distinction between the road andpathways. They help with drainage and cleaner air. Although there are only a small number oftrees here, don't get rid of them,they are still significant to the natural ecosystem.

I strongly oppose cutting down beautiful trees for developments

I do not feel this application is in keeping with the climate (and ecological) emergencythat have been declared by Bristol Council. Specifically, I object to the loss of the remaining MapleTrees and the loss of biodiveristy that goes with that. The street the trees are located on has fewother mature trees on it, so there loss is difficult to replace. I also feel it is of note the demographicof the area is less well off and more diverse than some parts of Bristol, and typically thesecommunities already suffer from lower quality urban environments and health. I do not thinkremoving mature trees is going to help.

I feel this has been a rather regretful issue for Bristol Council, the only bright side being how it hasgalvanised local residents. I hope you take proper account of the strong feelings.

.

I strongly oppose the felling of any more trees on Lower Ashley Road. Give us a breakplease! I bet the people who stand to make money out of this development live in areas wherethere are plenty of trees. But we in inner city Bristol don't. What we have is traffic fumes, peoplewho live elsewhere taking rat-runs through our neighbourhood. We need the few trees we have tocounter the lung-diseasing effect of all that.I'm not a nimby. I don't mind more housing being built in St Werburghs. But please! Surely you cando it without taking down more trees. I object strongly to this development so long as it involvesther felling of any more trees.

I object to the cutting down of trees in an already polluted area. We need affordablehousing yes, but we also need green spaces and nature to combat the air pollution and tosafeguard people's mental health. Nature has been shown to be massively important in mentalwellbeing, let's not cut down the last scraps of what we have. Think how we can build backgreener not build back grey-er. Thank you!

Save the Maple trees! These are a much needed local resource and help clean the airin a highly polluted and densely populated area.

Build something beautiful! The proposed structure is ugly and not in keeping with the localarchitecture. The opportunity should be taken to build beautiful family homes which are sodesperately needed in the city.

In Bristol is has illegal levels of traffic pollution cutting down mature treesdoesnt make sence. The flats that are getting built will need the trees to lessenThe road noise and provide fresher air.

Don't cut the trees down.

I grew up on City Road in the 1950s and have lived in St Pauls most of my life. I objectto this planning application for the following reasons:-1) As can be seen on the old maps the original houses on this site were set back from the mainroad by front gardens, roughly where the Probation office was built in the 1970s. The proposeddevelopment is much closer to the main road and hence the developer wants to remove the trees.This is contrary to Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy BCS9, BCS13 and BCS23. Italso disregards the Council "One City Plan" which aims to double the tree canopy by 2046.Replacement saplings will take decades to break even on carbon sequestration and will doubtlessbe remote from St Pauls.2) This development will worsen air quality on Lower Ashley Road and contravenes DM33 of theCouncils Development Management Policy, contrary to the One City Plan, and the Government'sClean Air Strategy.3) This development will worsen noise pollution contravening DM33 and BCS23.4) This development will worsen flooding,which is already a common occurrence, and hencecontravening Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy BC16.5) Parking is already a desperate problem in the area, where will the extra cars and those ofvisitors park?6) The development, at four stories, will over shadow adjacent propertiesAlternative designs are available and should be considered in place of this proposal. St Pauls is adeprived polluted and badly treated area, and the local people will not thank you for worsening thearea with this development.Yours................Dr Rowland Dye, 62 City Road BS2 8TX

Stop this illegal removal of the remaining mature maple trees.This criminal developer had already broken the law by removing four mature trees and continuesto flout the council's regulations, seemingly with impunity.Planning regulations seem to be applied inconsistently - large developers who are making vastprofits and able to splash the cash have their plans rubber stamped without delay, often overconsiderable opposition from local residents.Sound ecological developments with low carbon footprint are subjected to the most rigorous andexacting examination and delays. And yet Bristol prides itself on being a Green City!These trees provide important filtering of the disgustingly polluted air along that road, which is wellabove acceptable levels and is actually damaging the lungs of Bristol people living nearby.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding mature trees

I can not understand why anyone wouldd want to chop down these trees. They arefirstly a public asset. They protect the area from polution from the M32. Which is very important forhealth for all residents of all ages living in the area. At a time when Nationally we are planting treesto try to stop global warming it seems irrisponsible to be cutting trees down in order to build morebuildings especially in such a ubrban part of the city.

It will lower the quality of life in this area. the trees increse wellbeing as they grace the area withtheir beauty.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of outstanding mature,healthy trees, after the unlawful felling of two of these trees by the developer applying for thispermission. Alternative plans to provide needed social housing which save the trees are availableand viable. The planning department have had sight of these.

Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overall airquality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (Steve

Crawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believethis development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I object to the maple trees being cut down to accommodate this development.

There is dangerous levels of pollution around the bottom of the M33 and these maple trees aredoing their bit to absorb some of this.

It is also better for residents wellbeing, to have greenery and these well established trees breathlife into the otherwise man made environment.

Bristol has illegally high pollution levels and this spot is an especially polluted one. Weneed to keep the existing trees and prioritise planting more trees and greenery it to curb thepollution but also to make the city more hospitable to nature. The Lorax comes to mind! We needto set clear limits around 'biggering and biggering and biggering'! Each development should becarefully balanced out with greenery and places for nature to thrive and clean the air. It's a mentalhealth issue to have environments which don't eliminate nature completely. Less cars, more trees!That's the Bristol we all need.

I object to the destruction of the trees on the basis that mature trees in urban settingsare essential for the wellbeing of the ecology and air quality issues.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, and wildlife living in these trees (I often see bats here, these are protected!You shouldn't be felling trees that have wildlife and nests/homes in them. plus the extremely highlevels of air pollution in this part of the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling ofmore valuable mature trees in the city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable andprecious resource - our mature city trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to growand we believe that their valuable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegallevels of air pollution as well the loss of their role in removing CO2, critical in a city that hasdeclared a climate emergency

These beautiful old trees enrich the environment immensely. These are valuable homesfor birds and other wildlife. Maples this big and developed are a rarity, the developer can certainlybuild around them. This is just laziness on their part.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe

this development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

We need Trees for Human and environmental health. I understand the need for moreaffordable houses but I am of the opinion that there are many buildings, including office space thathas been made available by allowing people to work from home which could be converted, ratherthan felling trees or destroying land that holds immense value for nature and communities.

As an ex Chairman of Planning committee, I am outraged at the saga of the M32 trees.Do the right thing and examine your concience. If these trees are not protected for futuregenerations, you will feel a heavy weight at death of these magnificent specimens

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that their valuablerole in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution as well the lossof their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency) from the airis too high a price to pay. It is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees ofthe same age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regardfor the local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in thispart of the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature treesin the city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees.1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3. How can you considerallowing the air quality on the road to get even a small amount worse when it is already above thelegal limit?3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...

". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believethis development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

Removing more vital and established trees from the area will only serve to exasperatethe terrible air quality. Furthermore, the aesthetic of the area will be negatively impacted shouldthese trees be removed. The design of the development can be altered to accommodate, thewildlife and nature can not be altered without its destruction.

Please do not allow these beautiful trees to be destroyed... this planet needs trees,humans need beauty. We must stop destroying nature for profit. Bristol needs nature. Humansneed oxygen. PLEASE STOP CUTTING TREES DOWN IN FAVOUR OF CONCRETE ANDSTEEL.

I object to this planning application due to the damage it has done/will do to thesurrounding greenery. The mature maple trees are an Important asset to our city in an area whichis already blighted by the noise and air pollution from the m32. In a climate crisis we should not becontinuing to put construction ahead of our green commitments which not only make thecommunity pleasant to live in but provide a vital service to mitigate the impacts of climate change.Please consider blocking this application in favour of the community that already exists.

The position has been proven to be high in this area. And is evident wherever you go oncars and houses are covered in dirt due to high pollution levels. We need these beautiful old trees.It also doesn't make sense to cut healthy trees down that do so much for the environment. Moreflats will also decrease the value of houses in the area.

I object to the development because it will involve the felling of 4 mature maple trees.The trees play an important role in improving air quality in what is a polluted area of the city.

Mature trees are also important for biodiversity. The Council has declared an ecologicalemergency and should follow this through with action to protect habitat not allow its destruction.Planting new trees does not make up for the loss of mature ones in terms of the organisms theycan support.

I am also concerned that this will set a precedent for further destruction of mature trees across thecity. I have already seen this in a development near to where I live in Redfield where mature planetrees were felled without warning for a housing development. It may be the odd few trees here orthere, but this could add up across the city to significant loss of habitat.

Please do not allow this development to go ahead - please protect the trees.

I object due to the removal of 4 mature trees.

A redesign around those trees must be possible, this will ensure existing and new residents havemuch needed mitigation to the air pollution, traffic noise and also privacy.

I object to the eradication of our city's mature trees, as well as the threat of even worstair quality in this area as a potential outcome that would effect not just current residents of thearea but future residents of this proposed 'affordable' housing

Really?? In an area where we need as many trees as possible due to pollution andneeds of the people. This is about health, world preservation and fight against pollution. Save thetrees

I object to this application on the basis that the development will require the felling ofvarious trees. These trees are necessary to help clean our air and bring nature to the city. For ourlungs, our eyes and our minds.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe

this development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I object to this application as the development would mean the removal of 4 maturetrees.

Really naughty behavior. For a "green" city you sure do like the destruction of trees.Should demand alternative planning to keep the nature and not cut down multiple trees. Bristolsrecord on this is abysmal.

I'm amazed we live in a day and age where grown adults need to be told that cuttingdown mature trees in favour of construction is 'a bad thing'. But here we find ourselves. How has iteven got to this stage?! The developer's attitude toward the local environment is despicable, theyshould hang their heads in shame. Bristol already has unacceptable levels of air pollution. Guesswhat? Destroying trees will make that worse! Surely these precious student flats can be builtwithout bulldozing the adjacent flora and fauna into oblivion? A truly embarrassing, farcicalsituation; I trust our council and planning officers will do what they know is right. Do not destroy themaple trees.

For once can we please just work with the natural features on the site as opposed tojust bulldozing such beautiful trees which are also providing such a major valuable function - de-carbonising the air on such a polluted road. It must be possible to design and build around them.Please don't chop them down.

Not one would cutting these trees down make the this road ugly these trees are helpingcut down the pollution from the ver nearby motorway to this predominantly residential area. Pleasedon't allow more pollution that there already is.

Please do not remove these trees! The local area is suffering from a lack of greeneryand high pollution. With more development in the area, we need to set a benchmark for the levelof preservation that we want in the area going forwards over the next few years. Removal of thesetrees would be tragic and would devalue the area in terms of its green credentials.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe

this development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe

this development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

Dear Mx. Sangway,

I am writing to you to express my dismay at your plans to remove 4 mature trees from LowerAshley Road. Please do not remove the 4 mature trees. Find another way around it or findelsewhere to develop. They are vital to our health and the greenness our city is known for. I usedto work on this road to I know the levels of pollution are extremely high as I am a cyclist. Trees thissize take 50+ years to mature, I suggest you find yourself an effective ecological consultant whowon't prioritise profits over preserving genuine natural features of our beloved city. We need treesfar more than we need more overpriced inner city housing, if we are to uphold our reputation asgreen capital we must ensure all projects are as green as they can be before we start capitalisingon profits. Not doing so would be to go against the grain of who we are as a community, andwould be wholly unsupported by the conscious-minded people of our city.

Regards, I. Chakrabarti.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding mature trees. Whilstthe removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overall air quality inour city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of the same age.My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard for the localenvironment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this part of thecity, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees in the city.This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our mature city trees.Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that their valuable role inmitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution as well the loss oftheir role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency) from the air istoo high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...

". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believethis development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I object to this proposal due to its need to remove the mature maple trees alongside theroad. These trees provide assistance in cleaning the air in an area with illegal air pollution levels.Removing them will worsen the problem for current residents and pedestrians.

The presence of the trees also provides mental health benefits for the people of Bristol that are farmore important than the construction of some flats.

Leave the trees there is SO much pollution and bad air quality in Bristol and esp thatroad. So many children and people Whose health is affected as hey can't afford to live somewhereelse, and trees suck up and neutralise pollution so Leave the trees, please!

I will only support the plans if the trees adjacent to the road are kept, and other plantedtoo. This is essential.

I cannot understand how you are even considering this application given the way thedangerous and cavalier way the developer has acted thus far in the vandalisation of the trees theymanaged to mutilate with their cowboys previously. That aside, saying they can replant trees amile away given the high pollution levels on lower Ashley road is a joke. For once make the rightdecision planing. We are in a climate emergency, we need trees not shoddily built flats. Supportthe health of the st. Agnes and st.pauls communities. People, planet and not profit.

I do not want the trees to be cut down. They will take 50 years to replace and adverselyaffect the local air quality.

I object to the removal of these mature trees. How can this be part of our Green Futureplan?

I object on the grounds that this area needs to retain all the greenery it can, especiallyas the air quality of this area is poor. These beautiful, mature trees should stay and be protected.

These trees are beautiful please don't destroy

Trees along streets reduce and result in more appropriate urban traffic speeds. Urbanstreet trees create vertical visual walls that frame streets, provide a defined edge and helpmotorists guide their movement and assess their speed.

Street trees provide safer walking environments, by forming visual walls and providing distinctedges to sidewalks so motorists can better distinguish between the driving surface and pedestriansurface.

Trees result in less drainage infrastructure. Trees absorb the first 30% of most precipitationthrough their leaf system. This moisture never hits the ground, requiring less drainageinfrastructure and less maintenance of drainage systems.

Trees help clean the air, especially on roadways, where they filter automobile exhaust andemissions.

Trees lower the urban air temperatures. Asphalt and concrete streets and parking lots are knownto increase urban temperatures 3-7 degrees. Trees help mitigate this temperature rise.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 mature trees. Whilst theremoval of them could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overall air quality in wider Bristol,it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of the same age. Myconcern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard for the localenvironment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution in this part of the city, a precedent will beset which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees in the city. This will ultimately leadto a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our mature city trees. Trees such as this willtake another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that their valuable role in mitigating some of theharmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution as well the loss of their role in removing CO2(critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency) from the air is too high a price to pay. forthe following reasons:

1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.

2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.

3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against the

deterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believethis development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."

4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

Furthermore, it has been found that access and to and visibility of green spaces and naturalenvironment is greatly beneficial for people's mental wellbeing. In an area of the city that lacksother city trees or greenery outside of the small parks, these trees are an important feature,bringing beauty and calm where it is much needed.

I strongly object to any plans that require the removal of any of the trees on Lower Ashley Road.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe

this development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I moved to Bristol for many reasons, but one of them being the real desire this place hasto be a green city. Bristol have only this week signed up to the West of England Strategic GreenInfrastructure Framework.Saving these trees would be a step towards so many of the initiatives laid out in the GI framework.

Trees along streets reduce and result in more appropriate urban traffic speeds. Urban street treescreate vertical visual walls that frame streets, provide a defined edge and help motorists guidetheir movement and assess their speed.

Street trees provide safer walking environments, by forming visual walls and providing distinctedges to sidewalks so motorists can better distinguish between the driving surface and pedestriansurface.

Street trees result in increased security. Trees create more pleasant walking environments, which,in turn help build pride and care of place for environments. Pride, sense of place and ownership ofpublic areas result in lower crime rates.

Trees result in less drainage infrastructure. Trees absorb the first 30% of most precipitationthrough their leaf system. This moisture never hits the ground, requiring less drainageinfrastructure and less maintenance of drainage systems.

Trees provide an often needed direct connection to nature. They also provide canopy, rootstructure and habitat for important insects, birds.

The list really is endless. Why would you want to allow further mature trees to be removed from St.Paul's? There is no way to replace them, planting new trees would take decades to take trueeffect, and how will those in turn be protected?

DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS 23 JUNEhttps://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=PR538IDNMYJ00tiveTab=summaryMy comments:I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding mature trees. Whilstthe removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overall air quality inour city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of the same age.My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard for the localenvironment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this part of thecity, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees in the city.This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our mature city trees.Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that their valuable role inmitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution as well the loss oftheir role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency) from the air istoo high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that because

there are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believethis development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I object to this application on environmental grounds. The area is densely populated,with a lot of pollution from Ashley Road and the M32.

It is not right to destroy mature trees which provide much needed 'green' space, help withpollution, provide a habit for wildlife and buffer sound to make way for more high density housing.

I do not support this application as it involves the felling of mature trees. This continuesa dangerous precedent for prioritisation of further development over maintenance of breathableair.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding mature trees. Whilstthe removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overall air quality inour city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of the same age.My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard for the localenvironment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this part of thecity, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees in the city.This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our mature city trees.Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that their valuable role inmitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution as well the loss oftheir role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency) from the air istoo high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...

". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believethis development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe

this development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

The Bristol Tree Forum (BTF) strongly opposes this planning application as it will resultin the unnecessary removal of three important trees. The application fails to mention the five TPONorway maple trees of which two were felled some months ago. Indeed, of the seven importanttrees , only three now remain.This is an area which already exceeds air pollution limits and has low tree canopy cover. Bristolmust retain the trees and implement its own policies: Bristol Planning Policy DM15 states, "Many tree species absorb gaseous pollutants and alsocapture particulate matter." The One City Plan is for a 25% increase in canopy cover by 2035; 100% by 2046. Cutting downimportant trees is not the way to achieve this. Few of the replacement trees will be planted closeby in the resident area. Any loss of carbon, canopy and ecosystems will not be recovered fordecades. This is a crucial staging post in the wildlife corridor, providing ecological services in linewith Ecological Emergency and One City Plan (double wildlife abundance by 2045) Bristol's Planning Policy BCS9 states "Individual green assets should be retained whereverpossible and integrated into new development". These trees are on the edge of the developmentsite and therefore can be retained. Alternative designs have been provided to the developer whichkeep the trees, and the BTF is very disappointed that these have been ignored.

So in short I oppose of the felling of these trees.

I object as it requires cutting down mature trees that are an asset to the area.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding mature trees. Whilstthe removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overall air quality inour city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of the same age.My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard for the localenvironment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this part of thecity, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees in the city.This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our mature city trees.Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that their valuable role inmitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution as well the loss oftheir role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency) from the air istoo high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...

". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believethis development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe

this development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

The maple trees are so important in issues such as air quality, noise pollution, greenery,CO2 absorbsion, biodoversity. We should be protecting them not cutting them down.

I object to the removal of the remaining mature trees. They are of of huge benefit to thearea and add some greenery in a much needed location, helping to transition from the harshmotorway environment into the residential area.

Such trees take many decades to be established, and while individually they may not have a hugeimpact on the illegally high air quality in the area, removing them would set a highly visibleprecedent that it's ok to remove trees from our streets. And that would have a significant impact onair quality, as well as local amenity across the city.

I object to this. The developer could find a way to develop land while accommodatingexisting nature rather than bulldozing through it.

I'm concerned about the removal of four trees in the area, considering the high level ofpollution already experienced in Bristol.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe

this development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

Removal of mature trees should be enough to turn this application down while airpollution remains such an issue.

And unless the entire building is to be truly affordable housing or council accommodation, it'sreally not ethical especially in the area proposed.

Save the trees

I object to this development because it would mean cutting down trees unnecessarily,and therefore add to the plot ion and noise problems when St Paul's is already lacking in greenand doesn't need more developments especially in this spot so close to the m32 which is so loudand polluted. These trees are doing an important job and as someone who grew up in theneighbourhood I know the community will be very sad to see these go. It does not fall in line withbristol's green ethos.

These trees are vital to aid the far too high pollution levels in the area. Profit over beautytackling our already polluted central spaces is a no no. Please please do not allow these lifelinesto be removed. We need far more trees not less. Thank you

I object on the basis the proposed plan involves the removal of four mature trees f4om apart of the city that experiences extremely high and dangerous levels of air pollution.

Bristol prides itself on being a green and environmentally conscious city, and the proposed planscontradict this.

Please reconsider the proposed plans to incorporate the mature trees.

Mature trees should not be cut down near the M32 where they provide both soundproofing and the shielding/absorbing of harmful gases like CO2.

I am concerned about the removal of mature trees from this site. It is an area of high airpollution.

It is just ridiculous in this nature aware heightened time due to the virus, that maturetrees in urban areas of potentially high pollution are subject to be felled. Apart from the legalquestions of whose property it is these trees will enhance any building development and make fora breathing lung in this area. Please do not allow them to be felled.

I object to this planning application for the following reasons:-1) The proposed development is too close to the main road and hence the developer wants toremove the trees. This is contrary to Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy BCS9, BCS13and BCS23. It also disregards the Council "One City Plan" which aims to double the tree canopyby 2046. Replacement saplings will take decades to break even on carbon sequestration and willdoubtless be remote from St Pauls. It is needless vandalism and removal of a valuable resourcefor local people and the flat dwellers2) This development will worsen air quality on Lower Ashley Road and contravenes DM33 of theCouncils Development Management Policy, contrary to the One City Plan, and the Government'sClean Air Strategy.3) This development will worsen noise pollution contravening DM33 and BCS23.4) This development will worsen flooding,which is already a common occurrence, and hencecontravening Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy BC16.5) Parking is already a desperate problem in the area, where will the extra cars and those ofvisitors park?6) The development, at four stories, will over shadow adjacent properties.Alternative designs are available and should be considered in place of this proposal. St Pauls is adeprived polluted and badly treated area, and the local people will not thank you for worsening thearea with this development

I object to the removal of the maple trees for this development. These are mature treesthat must be improving the air quality (even though air quality is still so poor) and removing themwould be detrimental to the environment. I notice also on the planning that there is a considerationre flooding and ground water. Removing these trees and their root systems will only worsen this.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 mature and beautifultrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without proper dueregard and respect for the local environment in this part of the city will set a precedent which willresult in the felling of more valuable mature trees in the city. This will ultimately lead to a huge lossof a valuable and precious resource, and something that sets us apart from other major cities - ourmature city trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe thattheir valuable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollutionas well the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climateemergency) from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers appears to have"massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categorical data,thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modeled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality." He went on to say, "residents inLower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe this development

has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequate mitigation has beenproposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to this development as it runscounter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, I am concerned it could set a pattern of further trees being removed. Themany trees and green spaces are part of what makes Bristol such a wonderful city. Thedestruction of these would be a massive shame disappointment

I don't believe in the removal of the mature trees. I think they should be kept.I also think a 4 storey building is going to be a huge eye sore.Development companies have a huge amount of money, they can afford to work around sometrees

Object to the destruction of mature trees in an area already vastly affected by pollution.

We need the trees for air quality/pollution reduction and for people's mental health

It's not about the building but we need to keep more trees around the city. They helpwith pollution and noise it would be devastating to remove them. It should be mirroed across theroad. More trees need planting not chopping down. Let's make Bristol green!!

Trees offer so many benefits to both people and wildlife so the loss of any tree will havenegative impacts, even if they're not immediately obvious to us day to day.

Trees provide homes for wildlife. In fact, many species depend almost entirely on trees for shelter,safety, food and for reproduction. Our gardens have become a refuge for much of our wildlife asfarmland no longer offers the resources they need. Many people seem to believe that when youtake away a species' home they will simply find somewhere new to live. But most wildlife requirecorridors, such as hedgerows or green space, to reach and find new areas where they cansurvive.

Increasingly, as we cut down more trees, woodland and other habitats, wildlife simply hasnowhere else to go. This causes mass declines in their numbers.

The trees near our homes also provide oxygen, reduce air pollution, and provide shade from thesun and shelter from harsh weather. They absorb carbon emissions, stabilise soils and reduceflooding by storing water.

When we see or spend time around trees, often without us realising, they help us feel happier,less aggressive, less stressed and make us more productive. Perhaps the serenity you get fromyour garden won't be quite the same without its trees.

Generally, people love trees and enjoy being surrounded by them, so good-sized trees in yourgarden will likely boost the financial value of your property too. When trees are felled withoutstrong reason we all lose out on these many benefits.

There are alternatives to felling trees - these need to be looked into.

This is one the most busy areas with a lot of traffic and air pollution.Don't let these trees be felled!! It's time to act like we are in a climate emergency !!

Change the plans.

I object to the removal of the trees. As a green city we should be protecting them andthe environment and in an area with high pollution, they are vital for air health. Theaccommodation is not needed as there are numerous empty properties in Bristol that can be usedinstead.

As a resident of inner city Bristol I object to having my quality of air (already so poor)worsened by illegally removing mature maple trees. The effects on children with asthma and otherpeople with respiratory conditions will be substantial. Bristol is supposed to be a green city- but itseems that only applies to rich parts like Clifton and redland.

Hi,I love walking / driving past these trees, they're beautiful and add life to the area. Please don'tallow them to be cut down!There must be another way?Thanks,Jonathan

i dont object to the flats being built but do object to the trees being removed.Sympathrtic planning around pre existing trees should be paramount. Air quality and the amount oftime theses trees have been alive. We need to preserve nature

Air quality is too poor in this area to be cutting down trees

Those trees are a living part of Bristol and should not be cut down. This city is meant tobe a GREEN city and I want it to strive to be just that. These trees are decades old. They helplower the already illegal levels of pollution in this city in a very congested area. I don't think theyshould be cut down for MORE flats to profit some developer. Do not cut down these trees. Thankyou.

This construction would involve felling more of the Norway maples along the M32

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding, andincredibly important mature trees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have aminimal effect on the overall air quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location onceboasted 7 mature trees of the same age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to befelled without due regard for the local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (seemy points below) in this part of the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling ofmore valuable mature trees in the city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable andprecious resource - our mature city trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to growand we believe that their valuable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegallevels of air pollution as well the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that hasdeclared a climate emergency) from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe

this development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I came to Bristol three years ago from Spain and since them one of the things that keptme hooked to this place it's the amazing balance of city and nature there here.

I would like the council to consider how important are these trees for the area where they stand.Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe thisdevelopment has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors.

Specially during these challenging times we are living of climate change and Bristol having beingconsidered as the European Green capital in 2015, each one of these trees counts more thanever. Every time more and more developers seems the only ones benefiting in their decisions, thehouses they build are unaffordable for the local area residents and they don't seem to care in howtheir actions affects to the people that was there before them.Even if these trees are not many, in the long run they are powerfulland they are helping a lot of population, by cutting them instead of trying to find a solution thatincludes them to stay where they are and not to help just the same greedy developers the councilwould be doing a big disfavour to a big community in Bristol .

This development will necessary the removal of a number of maple trees, the loss ofwhich will hugely damage the amenity of this area. Trees have been proven to improve the mentalhealth of those living in the area, as well as the physical health by improving air quality. Such treeswould take decades to grow replacements which is unacceptable. Cutting down trees is theopposite of what BCC should be allowing right now given the climate emergency declaration.

I copied someone elses argument but it holds true for me too.My comments:I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding mature trees. Whilstthe removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overall air quality inour city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of the same age.My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard for the localenvironment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this part of thecity, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees in the city.This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our mature city trees.Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that their valuable role inmitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution as well the loss oftheir role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency) from the air istoo high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think that

some residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believethis development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

It would be an absolute disgrace to cut mature trees here, where we so desperatelyneed green relief. The air quality is already poor, why would removing trees even be aconsideration. The people who live in this area will benefit nothing from this. Please do not allowthis to go ahead.

These trees are vital to the surroundings, to provide relief and protection from thealready grossly busy roads. It is appalling to take down trees that have been there for so long.Surely this measure does not have to be taken in order to develop the land near by. It should bethe obligatory to include these trees in any planning for new buildings. They have been there for alot longer and are very important not only to the environment but the people of the communitiesnear by. This has been made extremely evident by the support and lengths that people have goneto to protect these trees, ie protests, Chaining themselves to the trunks and living in the trees. Doyou not have any empathy? Why can you not listen and change your plans? do you really thinkmoney is the most important thing in the this? Can you not find solutions?

Please listen and actually think about those opposing your plans.

This proposed move would appear to fly in the face of a city that recently and proudlyboasted the title of European green capital. Like so many other areas of the city, the area in andaround Lower Ashley Road is subject to dangerously high levels of air pollution and the felling ofmature trees by developers would be to deny residents what little natural protection is afforded tothem by means of reducing Co2. It would furthermore destroy the natural habitat of nesting birdsand contribute to the degradation of urban green spaces that greatly enhance the experience ofcity living.

Lower Ashley Road is a very busy route for traffic travelling between the north and westof the city and the M32 and Easton Way. There are high levels of traffic pollution and noise. Anydevelopment of this site must take this into account. At present the street trees in front of the sitemitigate these problems and their loss would be damaging to the health and amenity of existingresidents. We do not agree that these trees are inappropriate, rather they contribute positively tothe present character of this part of Lower Ashley Road.

Planting replacement trees elsewhere, even nearby, would not restore the beneficial effects thetrees provide in their current position and we object to their proposed removal.

The public benefit of the trees indicates that a development in the form of the currently consentedscheme but set a little further back in the site would not create significant additional harm andwould allow the trees to be retained.I object to this application and ask for it to be refused.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe

this development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 mature trees. Trees such as thiswill take another 40-50 years to grow and I believe that their valuable role in mitigating some of theharmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution as well as the loss of their role in removingCO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency) from the air is too high a price topay. In addition, green space within urban areas has been scientifically proven to improve mentalheath and decrease stress, anxiety and depression.

I object to the felling of 5 mature maple trees in St. Paul's. With the shockingly poor airquality in the area we need all ther trees we have to help cleanse the air.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of four outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of these mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on theoverall air quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted seven trees ofthe same age.

By allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard for the local environment, plusextremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this part of the city, a precedent willbe set which will result in the felling of further mature trees in the city. This will ultimately lead to ahuge loss of a valuable and precious resource. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years togrow and we believe that their valuable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of alreadyillegal levels of air pollution as well the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that hasdeclared a climate emergency) from the air is too high a price to pay, for the following reasons:

1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.

2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.

3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that because

there are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believethis development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."

4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

These are serious concerns for our city and its residents, and I trust they will be taken into accountwith regards to this case.

DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS 23 JUNEhttps://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=PR538IDNMYJ00tiveTab=summaryMy comments:I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding mature trees. Whilstthe removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overall air quality inour city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of the same age.My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard for the localenvironment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this part of thecity, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees in the city.This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our mature city trees.Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that their valuable role inmitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution as well the loss oftheir role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency) from the air istoo high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that because

there are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believethis development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

The trees on site should be protected and it is unnecessary to cut these down. Theyadd to the area not only for there aesthetic qualities but also to help the air quality in this area,which is already too poor for the people that live in this community. Also, allowing these trees to beremoved would also undermine the ethos and pledges surrounding the bristol city council strategyon environment sustainability and climate change.

Please don't remove trees as it's imperative that they are not destroyed at this timewhen we need more trees, and the inner city pollution is out of control.

My comment is around the chopping of the trees. I live in the area and often walk pastthese trees with my 5 year old son - who has difficulty breathing. He calls Ashley Hill, Ashley Roadand that crossroads coming from the M32 the "smelly roads" - because they really are - you cansmell the pollution. I have worked in and studided Environmental issues for over 25 years, fromthe hard science to the welbeing aspects and it is a fundamental that must be kept to that treesmatter. It takes generations for them to grow and be the best they can be, to be a large emitter ofoxygen, help with biodiversity and, importantly, with our mental health. (many studies trace howmuch more quickly patients recover when they have a sight of trees and nature from their rooms).We refer to "leafy suburbs" - our very beings know trees are good for us. Whatever needs to bedone, I can't imagine that it is beyond the wit of man to change a law - or give an exemption tothese trees. Planting small trees in another place just isn't acceptable. Also, the protest about thisis heartfelt and strong. Please be seen to listen to the public, adhere to your own very strongpolicies around the environment (I am very impressed by the work done with the Green CapitalPartnership and Environment Board) and do something magnificent that both allows decenthousing to be built and the trees to survive. I work in environmental conflict resolution - I know youcan do it.

These mature trees are essential not only to the wellbeing of the environment, but of thecommunity too. The surrounding area has illegal levels of air quality. Illegal. How can you possiblyjustify depriving the community of its last remaining trees?These trees are what little remains to improve air quality and remove particulates and NO2 fromthe air. I'm sure you are aware of the vital role of trees and greenery along incredibly busy andcongested roads such as the one the maples stand beside. These trees have served thecommunity for many many years, providing much more than just aesthetic relief. The lengthspeople have gone to to protect these trees for their fellow (and future) residents is a cleardemonstration of how important these last trees are to the community.Residents would already be dealing with an increase in the awful traffic congestion, increasedpressure on already desperate parking shortages, increased flood risk, reduced light levels inovershadowed properties, and noise pollution if this build is to go ahead. The least you could do isallow us our trees.Please reflect on the lives you are diminishing as a result of allowing the felling of these incrediblemaples. Those in deprived neighbourhoods are already disadvantaged and you will be personallycomplicit in inflicting further respiratory disorders upon the vulnerable. Show a shred of empathyand compassion for those who have fought to protect these trees day in day out, for the health ofthe environment and the community it serves, and for the families you will be affecting. Redrawyour plans.

In addition to the developer's intention to destroy the irreplaceable mature maple treesadjacent to the former Probation Office, the current plans are deeply flawed on a number of levels.

In its current format the development will necessarily result in a reduction of the already sub-standard air quality in and around Lower Ashely Road, as well as having detrimental effects on thenoise levels in the area (which already contravene DM33 and BCS23), availability of parking, andwill result in significantly reduced light levels for surrounding households.

This is one of the most polluted areas of Bristol, to think that we can continue buildinghouses in this area, whilst also reducing the air quality further, is insulting to those who live hereand those who will be living in the new houses. This land is public land, it is not Mr Garlicks tobuild upon, and as a 'Green' city, we should be doing everything we can to protect the trees andland that belong to the people of Bristol. It is not legal and it is wrong.

The destruction of beautiful trees should be enough in itself to focus the mind..but addinto the mix the already unsafe air quality in the area, the proposed inadequate parking facilities,the already almost unbearable traffic noise etc etc. How can this possibly be a proposal you can inall conscience green-light?!? Inconceivable, surely?

please do not remove these maple trees, they should be left and protected anddevelopment should be worked around them. there are so few trees in central city areas, do nottake the ones that are still left!

I appreciate the need for more affordable housing and think it is a good thing,however Iobject to the 4 trees being cut down. This area of St Paul's has an illegal level of air pollution dueto all the cars sitting at the traffic lights that come off the M32, those trees are able to help providesome element of nature and cleaner air to people having to live next to a load of traffic fumes.Surely a priority should be to plant trees and plants along this road if we are going to ask people tolive next to it? It's damaging for people's health and needs to be considered when building newproperties.

As a local resident of Ashley ward I strongly object to this planning application becauseit involves the removal of mature trees which are essential to the environment and the health andwell being of the local residents.The pollution levels on Lower Ashley Road are dangerously high due to the traffic flow and theM32 roundabout nearby so these 4 mature trees are very important to absorb pollutants from theair, provide a green canopy in the local area which improves mental health, reduces noisepollution and crates a refuge for wildlife.The proposed development contravenes the BCC Development and One City Plans.

I object to this proposal due to the removal of four more mature trees from this area.

I object the unnecessary removal of all the trees. Ashley Road is ver polluted and needsthe trees.

My objection is to the removal of the maple trees on Lower Ashley Road. These treesprovide air quality, wildlife and aesthetic benefits to this area of the city which will be sorelymissed. Is this really the time to be removing mature trees?Alex

The proposal to remove the valuable maples as part of this scheme is short-sighted andunfair on the residents of the immediate area, as well as those who travel through the area.Pollution on Lower Ashley Road is well above acceptable levels to which BCC is committed. Themitigation proposals seem to suggest that it is acceptable that some residents will have to put upwith even worse air quality than at present; in actual fact, this is totally unacceptable.The figures and statistics quoted in the reports are disingenuous at best; quoting a city-wide airpollution average as a benchmark when the local average is 1.5 times higher is misleading.

The Maples on the road leading up to the M32 roundabout need to remain.They are enjoyed by all who live and work in the area and are vital to improving St Paul's verypoor air quality.Any planning that was accepted would need to include a plan of how they would work aroundthese trees.They improve not only the physical but mental health of people who live in the area and who workthere, as I do.Please consider rejecting these plans and respecting the little nature there is in St Paul's.

I agree with the other objectors assertions regarding the obvious benefit of street treesin our city. Providing housing is also important but not to the detriment of the environment in whichpeople will ultimately live. Bristol City Council has an already poor record with regard to streettrees, this will 'green light' further excesses in this regard.

I do not object to the building of affordable homes. My objection is to the density of thedevelopment and the destruction of the existing mature trees. The existing trees go some way tomitigating the appalling and illegal levels of pollution in that area. I live nearby and regularly walkand cycle past the site in question. BCC needs to uphold its commitment to reduction of CO2emissions and mature trees play a part in this. BCC should specify that the development beadapted to preserve the trees. Failing that, BCC should require the development to includeMEANINGFUL environmental mitigation e.g the planting AND maintenance of replacement trees.Thank you.

These trees have been a valuable CLEAN AIR FILTER on Lower Ashley Road for manyyears. They were given TPO's even. Plans have been drawn up for affordable housing with thetrees staying where they are and remaining intact. Therefore a cleaner environment for all in theimmediate vicinity. Should the developer choose planting newer trees (which will not reach thematurity or have the beneficial quality of cleaning our air for many years to come) , then wherewould they be planted and how will they benefit Lower Ashley Road vicinity and residents? Pleaselet these trees stay and continue doing the amazing job they do 24/7 365 days per year!

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe

this development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I object to the 4 nature maple tress being cut down. Air quality in that area isdangerously high. Trees in a city are essential to well being.

Save the Maples, this should not be happening

Comments for Planning Application 19/02157/FApplication SummaryApplication Number: 19/02157/FAddress: 31 - 45 Lower Ashley Road St Pauls Bristol BS2 9PZProposal: Construction of a 4-storey block of flats to provide 28 units of residential accommodationincluding affordable housing, cycle parking, refuse storage and amenity space.Case Officer: Charlotte SangwayCustomer DetailsName: Mx L AllenAddress: 29 Picton Street Montpelier BristolComment DetailsCommenter Type: NeighbourStance: Customer objects to the Planning ApplicationComment Reasons:Comment:I object to the destruction of the trees on the basis that mature trees in urban settingsare essential for the wellbeing of the ecology and air quality issues.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. As a resident, I genuinely love Bristol because of the trees and the mental health benefitsthey bring to the lives of myself and hundreds of thousands of other residents. The trees you findlining Ashely Road make it feel homely and beautiful, a place that is cared for rather than just a'place' with too many people crammed together. People will literally look up at trees and engagewith their environment, rather than just staring at the floor. It is hard to encompass their mentalhealth benefits without linking to poetry! I object to this application because it requires removingpart of our natural landscape which is so important to our health as residents, and our appreciationof Bristol as a city.

Furthermore, whilst the removal of 4 mature trees seem to have been dismissed by thosesubmitting this application, myself and thousands of other residents rely on these trees for their air.My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled from this part of the city, whichalready has extremely high levels of air pollution, we will be condemning ourselves and residentsto even higher levels of dangerous pollution. Bristol has already declared a climate emergency -so why get rid of the trees which actively remove CO2 from the air? It doesn't make sense. Thereare other factors with this specific application too, as follows:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.

3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believethis development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

We used to have 7 mature trees in this area, if we allow developers to cut down these magical -and life-saving - trees, we will be all the poorer for it. I also believe that allowing developers to fellthese trees we will set a precedent, where we declare climate emergencies but ignore vital AirQuality Reports, where we pride ourselves for being friendlier than London but fell the trees thatgive our streets colour, where we IGNORE mental & physical health needs of residents andprioritise wealth instead. These mature trees take another 40-50 years to grow but our mentalhealth and environment can't wait for that. Please reject this application.

Thank you.

I object to these trees being cut down in a area with more traffic than most. the polutionis visable on the surrounding buildings and to remove old trees from the area would make it lookgarish and unpleasant.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe

this development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

As a resident of St Pauls for most of my life I have been able to see the dramaticincrease of traffic from the M32 down Ashley road and City road which are used as thoroughfareto and from the centre. These trees are vital to this community in helping to reduce the hugeamounts of traffic pollution especially during the rush hour traffic jams in this area. Not only to theyhelp clean the air but they add value to the surrounding property and increase its desirability,provide cooler air and shade on hot days and refuge for birds and other wildlife. These treesshould be protected and not sold off to the highest bidder. Any property built in this area willbenefit from these trees by adding value and making the area more desirable to reside in.

I don't see why these trees must be cut down. Urban trees help reduce pollution,essential to areas near main roads and motorways such as this one. Why can't they build on thearea without chopping down trees?

A 4 story block of flats is far too big for the area. It will dominate and overshadow all theneighboring residents and streets, including mine. It will be taller than the existing buildings, it willbe unsightly and unsuited to the area and it will cause increased traffic and parking issues in analready congested area. The traffic, safety, parking, noise and congestion issues that are alreadya problem in the area, all require attention, and proper investment and suitable solutions/resolution - long before any large development like this should be considered which willexacerbate existing issues and amplify them further. The development only has cycle parking - arethe developers going to refuse to sell to people who own cars? Clearly not - so where will theypark? On the street? There is already a significant issue with this, it is very clearly dangerous,people cannot park anywhere and are forced to park on the pavement and then and people cannotpass safely on the pavement so are in danger, pushing prams and wheelchairs out into the busyroad, to go around the cars that have nowhere to park. This is the current situation - thisdevelopment will clearly severely exacerbate that issue and I'd like to know what the intention isfor dealing with this, in the planning, before it is approved. Please. As well as destroying the mapletrees and thus wildlife - please explain how this has been justified? As Bristol commits to be beinggreener, this kind of development is off setting any gains made by pedestrianising the centre. It iscompletely unreasonable to put such a development on that site on Ashley rd. It will block light andcause privacy and space issues. Cramming too many people into a small area, there are notenough green spaces for people in the St Pauls, St Agnus, St Judes, Montepllier area as it is. Thiswill reduce those further by squeezing more people in. There will be difficulties, the infrastructureis suitable, there are not enough retail spaces to ensure that the increased numbers of residentsare catered for. I would also like to know the specific details of what constitutes 'affordablehousing'? What affordable housing will be in this development exactly? I live in the area - I am aprivate tenant, in my 30's, living alone and although I earn a decent wage, I cannot afford to buy.

The cost of living is too high for me to save enough money for a deposit, the costs go up fasterthan wages. I don't have parents who can help. Like a lot of people. Is this going to be affordablefor a person like me, in my situation? Or is it going to be studio flats for students with parentswealthy enough to afford to buy their kids a flat for university? Good luck selling those in the futurewith the Higher Education sector looking the way it is, universities will not be taking students inphysically, that exponential growth in student numbers in the city, will not be continuing now, dueto covid, as Universities continue to go online, students will not be moving to congested areas likeSt Pauls anymore. Especially not wealthy ones, they will seek to reduce their risk, not increase it ina newly built tower block. Take care of the area and the residents, first, not the developers bankaccounts, please.

Please do not cut down the mature trees. They are a beauty to behold. And help blockthe noise and pollution to the surrounding gardens and houses.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay.1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe

this development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

These plans are -once again - so disappointing; there should be no removal of treesanymore, it simply shouldn't even be entertained as an idea. Comments that "this would neverhappen in Redland or Clifton" are absolutely correct - it wouldn't happen.

It is in Bristol's more deprived, less beautiful areas where trees are even more essential, thereforethe planned removal of trees is even more perverse and frankly obtuse. If anything more treesshould be planted - this should be the priority.

I write this with a sense of deep disappointment - more than ever we need trees to counteract airpollution (which I imagine is particularly bad in the area where you plan to remove these trees) andbecause they are beautiful and homes to bird life and all kinds of wildlife.

I'm shocked, to be honest and hope this ridiculous idea will be reconsidered promptly.

I object to this development because it involves the removal of a number of maturetrees. This will have negative consequences for air quality, biodiversity, and the general feel of thearea. This is an inner city area and every tree is precious. We cannot afford to lose any moremature trees as newly planted ones take years to develop the same amount of habitat for birdsand insects, etc. and carbon capturing capability.

I'm in support of affordable housing developments but these must be done thoughtfully with properregard to what little natural environment still exists surrounding them. A concrete jungle is not anice or healthy place to live.

Bristol has declared climate and ecological emergencies, so this proposal surely can't beapproved as the destruction of these trees directly goes against tackling this.

I use this road often to cycle to and from work, and am disappointed to hear the planincludes cutting down matureaple trees.Please replan so the trees can remain

I actually can't believe we're having to fight to save these trees. We need to protectevery existing tree that we have. New trees are planted but not looked after so we can't rely onnew planting. Those maples are an oasis of green life in an area that is full of toxic fumes andconcrete. They help improve the quality of Bristol's air. They look beautiful. How how how can yoube considering cutting them down at the current stage of this climate crisis? Once they are gone,that is about 20 years to catch up. We don't have that time! Please be in the right side of history.

DO NOT CUT THE TREES DOWN otherwise you will be adding to Bristol's famouspollution problem.Give everywhere the respect that Clifton gets!

St Paul's has gradually been denuded of trees. It is an area with high pollution levelsalready, due to the proximity to the M32. Further felling of these beautiful Maples will not bebeneficial, either to the prospective householders of the property, nor the community as a whole.

I object to this development as it does not clearly state how the development willreplace the mature trees that are to be cut down. It is important to note the severe air pollutionlevels in the area which will be worsened by another development and removal of trees. The areais already very developed with little greenery and habitat for animals. The development will morelikely gain support if it was to help the ecosystem rather than further damage it. The council hasdeclared an ecological emergency which this application contradicts

I object to this development as it does not clearly state how the development willreplace the mature trees that are to be cut down. It is important to note the severe air pollutionlevels in the area which will be worsened by another development and removal of trees. The areais already very developed with little greenery and habitat for animals. The development will morelikely gain support if it was to help the ecosystem rather than further damage it. The council hasdeclared an ecological emergency which this application contradicts

Cities REALLY need to think seriously about what environmental stance they are takingand commit to it. Those that care about the environment will know how bad Bristols air pollution isand how badbthe asthma is. I have worked with children for over 25 years and have NEVERSEEN so many children with asthma, excema and allergies. Cities need trees. We need them tohelp with the air,. We need to respect them, not treat them as something disposable. I am runninga project in Writing for Wellbeing, I address the need for good mental health. An ESSENTIAL partof good mental health as our city spaces become more crowded, is access to nature, alongsidethat is the need to live in harmony with nature. I believe strongly that our Not doing so iscontributes to ongoing mental health problems. From what I have seen frombthe outside lookingin, the company planning this build expected to get what they wanted through bullying,I havenever heard a compromise offered. I see us at a CRUCIAL stage with nature and our need forcommitment to its care should be intrinsic to any planning applications and decisions madeThankyou

Cities REALLY need to think seriously about what environmental stance they are takingand commit to it. Those that care about the environment will know how bad Bristols air pollution isand how badbthe asthma is. I have worked with children for over 25 years and have NEVERSEEN so many children with asthma, excema and allergies. Cities need trees. We need them tohelp with the air,. We need to respect them, not treat them as something disposable. I am runninga project in Writing for Wellbeing, I address the need for good mental health. An ESSENTIAL partof good mental health as our city spaces become more crowded, is access to nature, alongsidethat is the need to live in harmony with nature. I believe strongly that our Not doing so iscontributes to ongoing mental health problems. From what I have seen frombthe outside lookingin, the company planning this build expected to get what they wanted through bullying,I havenever heard a compromise offered. I see us at a CRUCIAL stage with nature and our need forcommitment to its care should be intrinsic to any planning applications and decisions madeThankyou

I work in this area and live in this city. I may not live close to the site but I travel for workthroughout the city. I object to the felling of the mature trees on this site. We regularly have reportsof poor air quality and decline in wildlife throughout the city. Parts of the city remain 'Leafy' such asClifton and other affluent areas. Inner city areas should not be deprived of green areas and trees,which not only provide cleaner air but can help improve mental health, especially during lockdownsituations where people in flats have no access to gardens. If these trees are to be felled acompromise could be to re-plant tree's elsewhere. We should not be looking for any excuse to cutdown our trees.

I object to the removal of the 4 remaining (there were 7) maple trees as part of thisapplication. I would like the application to be amended to ensure preservation of these wonderfultrees, instead to celebrate and build sympathetically with them, and not to destroy them. Our citiesare already concrete jungles, and we desperately need to preserve the remaining (alreadydepleted) trees left on our streets, in our gardens, in the parks.

This side of Bristol is deperately short of street trees. This is especially true next to themotorway. Any planned development should incorporate this greenery into it, not remove it. I neednot re-iterate the physical and mental benefits of trees of this maturity to a polluted neighbourhood.

This development has the potential to worsen air quality in the area, particularly if thefour maple trees are felled. Inadequate mitigation has been proposed to deal with this application.

I am also concerned at the loss of wildlife in the area due to the loss of these important trees.

I therefore object to the development as it contradicts BCC planning policies.

My main objection is that it is quite clear that the maple trees could be saved AND moretrees could be planted by a simple set back. This is an area of significant disadvantage. Peoplerespond to their surroundings and mature trees do a great deal to add to ambiance in an otherwisedenuded area.I urge you to put people before profit and insist that the development modify the proposal toprotect the maples.

I object to this development as proposed on the grounds of:

-felling of 4 mature maple trees-inadequate amenity-overdevelopment by footprint

The trees help improve air quality in this deprived and polluted part of town - they are also crucialfor biodiversity. Destroying mature trees goes directly against BCC's declared ecologicalemergency - and new baby trees are no substitute, especially as they are commonly unmanagedand unprotected once the builder has finished.

The flats are reasonably well planned in themselves but to achieve the numbers the overallfootprint leaves no space for meaningful amenity. With barely a metre along half the frontage, anda back garden" which will never see sunlight, the small amount of planting shown will struggle tosurvive except on Conduit Street.

The destruction of the trees is plain wrong and sets a bad precedent as we emerge from Covid.

The development would benefit from a footprint about 30-40% the current size set back behind thetrees in the form of a slim enough terrace to allow sunlight to come into the rear from the west.

There is also as suspicion that this kind of cramming might be allowed in this part of St Paul'sbecause people won't object - hopefully officers will prove that this is not the case.

I am objecting to the felling of the maple trees which are associated with this planningapplication on the grounds of pollution during a Climate Emergency.Lower Ashley Road is the third most polluted road in Bristol and the suggested replacementsaplings won't mitigate the carbon deficit for decades. Please reconsider; public health for theresidents of Lower Ashley Road is endangered by mature tree removal.

These trees help mitigate poor air quality in an area of the city where the air quality isvery poor.they provide habitat for birds, and help cool the area on hot days.They are magnificent trees in a very built up, urban area. The loss of such large trees will surelyhave a significant and detrimental visual impact on the area?

These trees are vital in helping the city meet its carbon neutral target. Destroying anytrees and replacing them with saplings that cannot absorb carbon for decades is short sighted.

It doesn't make sense to fell the maple trees to make room for the development. Bristolshould protect and safeguard these trees.

i am objecting to the developers plan to fell the M32 Maples on Lower Ashley Road andbuild housing right out to the pavement. Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of theworst air quality in the city. I believe this development has the potential to worsen air quality.These trees provide important filtering of the polluted air along the road, which is well aboveacceptable levels. It will lower the quality of life in this area.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe

this development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

These trees are vital to the improvement of air quality which is so needed in Bristol in anarea already with illegal levels of pollution threatening the health of residents.

The trees further help to reduce the traffic noise in one of Bristol busiest street.

The trees play a part in the residents mental health in one of Bristol's most deprived areas.

The trees are an important habitat for wildlife.

Cutting the trees would conravene the Government Clean Air Strategy 2019 and disregard theCouncil's One City Plan.

It would further contravene:DM33, BCS23, Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy BCS 13, 16 and 23.

I strongly object to the planning to cut down mature maple trees. The plan should beredesigned so the front of the building is well set back from the road, leaving the maple treesplenty of room.Planting new saplings is NO WAY going to mitigate murdering these beautiful trees.Come on Bristol... trees nature and clean airfor everyone before polluting murdering profit for greedy individuals

Whilst I don't live in the immediate locality (I'm in Westbury Park) as a Bristol resident,any development which is going to worsen air quality, increase noise pollution and reduce thenumber of mature trees in our city needs to be thought about very carefully. Replacement saplingsare not the same as mature trees in terms of carbon capture - they need proper care andmaintenance in order to even make it into maturity. This development doesn't need to be so closeto the road - the trees could be spared and the new residents given more of a gap between theroad and their homes.

We really need to be thinking in a smarter way about new developments - for local residents onthe road, this kind of loss of trees can be extremely distressing as well as counter to Bristol CityCouncil's declared climate emergency.

I really hope the Council takes this into consideration before granting consent.

Yours sincerely, Clare Benians

This is already a very crowded area with frequent traffic jams and very high levels ofpollution. As I understand it, the new building will extend out to the existing pavement and willnecessitate the removal of the trees which are currently there. The removal of these trees, as wellas the introduction of more vehicles when residents move in, will significantly worsen pollutionlevels on the road. It will also add to parking problems and traffic congestion in the area, and makelife difficult for pedestrians at a time when Bristol City Council has declared its intention to makethe city more accessible for walkers and cyclists.

This is a ludicrous proposal to cut down beautiful mature trees to cram in even denserhousing. We need all the trees we have in this city and particularly in the very centre where theyare scarce already. This proposal would be damaging to the local area and indirectly affect airquality and health for ALL of us.It is too easy for folk to glibly use the catch all of planting more trees . They take decades to growto maturity and often fail. We firstly must protect what we have!!It is shameful that this is evenbeing considered. I object fundamentally to this proposal.

I object to this application because it includes cutting down four perfect maple trees (AKA the M32 maples). Not only is that area really polluted and these trees help to dilute thepollution, they used to be a part of a group with seven trees.

I am 9 years old so I don't want my generation to have to inherit a city with no trees because if youcut down these trees it will be like a domino stack one after another people will want to cut downtrees and I don't want to live in a world like that.

If you cut down these trees they would take a further 40-50 years to re-grow and they are avaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful of already illegal levels f air pollution as well as notremoving C02. from the air is too high a price to pay.

I object to this planning application for the following reasons:-1) As can be seen on the old maps the original houses on this site were set back from the mainroad by front gardens, roughly where the Probation office was built in the 1970s. The proposeddevelopment is much closer to the main road and hence the developer wants to remove the trees.This is contrary to Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy BCS9, BCS13 and BCS23. Italso disregards the Council "One City Plan" which aims to double the tree canopy by 2046.Replacement saplings will take decades to break even on carbon sequestration and will doubtlessbe remote from St Pauls.2) This development will worsen air quality on Lower Ashley Road and contravenes DM33 of theCouncils Development Management Policy, contrary to the One City Plan, and the Government'sClean Air Strategy.3) This development will worsen noise pollution contravening DM33 and BCS23.4) This development will worsen flooding,which is already a common occurrence, and hencecontravening Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy BC16.5) Parking is already a desperate problem in the area, where will the extra cars and those ofvisitors park?6) The development, at four stories, will over shadow adjacent propertiesAlternative designs are available and should be considered. At a time in our lives when we shouldbe striving to preserve every element of nature for our continued existence, this symbolises yetanother act of thoughtless, self-serving, eco destruction.

Trees should be saved if healthy and sound, will take years for any replacements togrow to this size. To much traffic fumes already, need all the help we can get.

These trends have been growing for years and will cause more disruption from removalthan just working around it. We don't need more high end flats

Prior to submitting my comment, I came across the 'Statistical Ward Profile May 2020 -Ashley' (I believe the proposed application is encompassed by this).

Some things that I've found from this report:

- 98% of Ashley residents "think air quality and traffic is a problem locally" - this % is rated as'significantly worse' compared to the rest of Bristol

- 40.7% of Ashely residents have "no cars or vans in their household" - again this % is rated as'significantly high' compared to the rest of Bristol

- And finally, Ashley has a "significantly high" population of Mixed (6.1%), Black African (8.4%),Black Caribbean (5.3%), Other Black (6.1%) and Other Ethnic Groups (1.2%). All of this totals an(again) "significantly high" percentage of "Black and Minority Ethnic Group Totals" at 33.5% - theoverall for Bristol is 16%.

So we really know who the removal of the trees will impact the most: Black, and other 'minorities',who are more likely to not have access to ANY vehicles and who already think, prior to theremoval of any more trees, that air pollution is a big issue.

https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/436737/Ashley.pdf/dbc906ce-98b7-4480-884d-42ef6d55d4a2

If you continue with this application, you are supporting the gentrification (and by default, white

supremacy) of a primarily non-white area. This proposal will worsen pollution, noise and parkingon the ALREADY third most polluted road in Bristol. The proposition of replacement saplings islittle more than an afterthought - the replacement saplings will take decades to break even oncarbon sequestration. It also disregards the Council "One City Plan", which supposedly aims todouble Bristol's tree canopy by 2046. In addition to all of the above, the proposed applicationcontravenes;

- DM33 of the Councils Development Management Policy, contrary to the One City Plan, and theGovernment's Clean Air Strategy

- DM33 and BCS23, will worsen noise pollution

- Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy BC16, will worsen flooding, which is already acommon occurrence

Finally, the Air Quality report, carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers, appear tohave manipulated the data by turning continuous quantitative data into categorical data - losing themagnitude of deteriorating air quality. They have made their % increases related to 40ug/m3rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, some properties are way over 10%increase:

- The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3

- The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality...Residents in Lower Ashley Roadexperience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe this development has the potential toworsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequate mitigation has been proposed to dealwith this significant issue. I therefore object to this development as it runs counter to BCS23."

The Air Quality Assessment (table 5) also notes that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

We are in the middle of a climate emergency. You get to decide which side of history you're on.Choose wisely...the world is watching.

Both ugly and not thinking broadly in terms of what housing should be directed towardsthinking 20-30 years ahead

Also the loss of the trees to the area is significant

As a city that needs to address its carbon footprint to consider reducing inner city tree coveragemakes little sense.

Please dont destroy any more trees, they are essential to healthy city living.

The proposed development is not in keeping with the local area. The area containingthe trees at the front is public and had not gone through due process. The mature trees areimportant for air quality in the area, newly planted younger trees do not have the same ability toimprove air quality. I object to this proposal.

The proposed plan is ugly beyond belief and the maples are crucial at this time of poorair quality and climate crises. Bristol was once the green capital, surely green isn't just for the sakeof trophy's.

The decision to remove 9 mature trees, described as a 'green line' in the application,when the site is in close proximity to a main road and Motorway seems short sighted and poorenvironmental planning on behalf of the developer. The remaining Maple tree should be left asthey are with the ones removed replaced with saplings which will grow back to a similar size to thetrees removed rather than just 'two strong street trees' and 'green columns of columnar trees,vertical planting or sculptural elements' described in the application which is not like for likeplanting and is vague at best. These trees provide sound proofing, homes for wild life and play animportant part in reducing pollution from the traffic and therefore should remain / be replaced.

I strongly object to the felling of mature trees and building so close to the road. Pollutionlevels are particularly bad on this road and the loss of mature trees cannot be mitigated bysaplings. The plans would lead to a Huge loss of amenity and a worsening of air quality, just forthe sake of a bit more profit. BCC has declared a climate and ecological emergency and the fellingof these trees would make a mockery of this declaration. We have so little time left to reversecatastrophic change. Please don't make matters worse.

This development destroys much needed trees in our area and is totally unsympatheticto the original Victorian character of the area. Ugly and depressing...

I think the destruction of these mature trees in the context of citizens' ongoing concernsfor local air quality and the global climate emergency, would fly in the face of common sense.Local planning decisions need to account for both our local and global responsibilities to ensurethat our children have a future rather than continue to put short term development goals thedetermining factor. We are starting to see true leadership at a local level on environmental issuesthat will help to put pressure on central government to change direction before it's too late. This isa small but hugely symbolic decision. Please use your power wisely and for collective good.

Objection to planning application 19/02157/F (31 - 45 Lower Ashley Road St Pauls BS29PZ)

Summary

We object on the basis that the proposed plan does not take account of the social, health,environmental and ecological needs of the area or its residents. The application should be refusedon the basis that it does not comply with planning policies aimed at protecting the environment,visual amenity and the health and wellbeing of the citizens of Bristol.

We think the people of Ashley and St Paul's deserve better than to be squeezed into high denselyaccommodation surrounded by an ever-deteriorating natural environment.

The current application is entirely contrary to the vision presented in the Bristol One City Plan, andtakes no account of the Climate and Ecological Emergencies. Specifically, this developmentcontravenes Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy BCS9 (Green Infrastructure), BCS13(Climate Change), BCS16 (Flood Risk), BCS21 (Quality Urban Design) and BCS23 (Pollution),and Bristol Local Plan Development Management Policies DM14 (Health Policies), DM15 (GreenInfrastructure Policies), DM33 (Pollution Policies), DM34 (Contaminated Land) and DM35 (NoiseMitigation).

It is entirely possible to design a more sensitive development to the benefit of all. Indeed, analternative development plan has been produced by White Design Associates which retains thetrees and has the development stepped back from the road. This would mitigate many of the

important issues with the currently proposed design whilst retaining the same number of affordablehome units.

All citizens of Bristol have the right to a decent neighbourhood in which to live and work, and thisdevelopment is not compatible with this goal.

The Extant Outline Planning Application 15/05530/P

The threat of the office and student development outline has been used as a bogeyman to coercethe Planning Committee to accept the current flawed plan. In fact, outline application 15/05530/Pcannot be progressed as the application was incomplete and would require further approval.

A Flawed Application

This planning application has been characterised by multiple inaccuracies, omissions, proceduraldiscrepancies, and even deceptions. On the basis of these alone, the application should berefused on technical grounds.- No proper public consultation has been undertaken or public notices posted.- The planning portal has been unavailable for much of the time since the officer's report wentonline a mere four working days before the planning meeting.- We have not been provided with all relevant reports within in appropriate time in contravention ofthe Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, 100B subsection 3.- Despite a specific demand from the Councils Public Protection Team, no site contaminationreport has been provided.- Constraint 'TPO 941' is missing.- Constraint 'Lower Ashley Rd Class B Highway' is missing.- The Coal Zone risk has been erroneously downgraded to low, when it is medium- The Surface Water Flood Zone risk has been erroneously downgraded to low, when in fact it islevel 3, the highest possible.- The site is located in an Air Quality Management Area due to pollution levels being 30-60%above legal limits - not declared as a constraint.- The site is located in a Noise Action Plan area due to exceeding recommended noise levels, bothdaily average and maximum - not declared as a constraint.

Loss of Important iconic mature maple trees

There is already a chronically low tree density in the area, and to reduce this still further threatensthe wellbeing of residents and the environment, will severely degrade visual amenity andfundamentally alter the character of the area. Studies show loss of trees will:- Reduce air quality, increasing both particulates and NO2, in an area already with illegal levels ofpollution which threaten the health of residents.- Increase traffic noise in one of Bristol's noisiest streets already with levels significantly above

recommended by Bristol City Council Development Management document.- Increase overheating in Summer and heating bills in Winter.- Reduce mental health.- Reduce wildlife, being an important habitat and a crucial staging point in the wildlife corridor fromFrome valley into the inner city, at a time when the Council has just declared an ecologicalemergency (One City Plan 2020).

Although trees lost will be replaced by saplings, most will not to be planted in the residential areabut instead distant from the streets and houses where they are needed. Furthermore, anyreplacement trees will not be of a size to mitigate any of the above for decades, nor recover thecarbon, canopy, or eco-services lost by removal of the mature maples.

Hence, this development contravenes Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy BCS9"Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into newdevelopment", BCS13 "Development should contribute to both mitigating and adapting to climatechange, and to meeting targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions", and BCS23 "Developmentshould avoid adversely impacting upon environmental amenity or biodiversity and account for theimpact of the new development on the viability of existing uses by reason of its sensitivity to noiseor other pollution".It also disregards the Councils One City Plan to double the tree canopy by 2046, double wildlife by2050, and to have all developments making a positive contribution to the environment.

Increased air pollution

Poor air quality is the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK (Public Health England),increasing levels of asthma, bronchitis and lung infections, and lowering life expectancy.Maintenance of air quality within legal limits is not just an aspiration of Bristol City Council, but alegal obligation. Lower Ashley Road already exceeds legal limits for NO2 (annual mean 40ug/m3)by 34%, and as such is a designated Air Quality Management Area. A report commissioned by thedevelopers themselves show that air quality will deteriorate as a result of this development (someproperties by over 14%) with inevitable deterioration in the health of a community which alreadysuffers high levels of respiratory disorders.

Therefore, this development contravenes DM33 of the Councils Development management Policy,which states a "new development should be designed to avoid adversely impacting uponenvironmental air pollution", and a "development which has the potential for an unacceptableimpact on environmental amenity expected to provide an appropriate scheme of mitigation.Development will not be permitted if mitigation cannot be provided". It is also contrary to the OneCity Plan, which sets a target of less than 10ug/m3 NO2 throughout Bristol, and the GovernmentsClean Air Strategy 2019.

If the Council allows a development knowing that air quality will deteriorate well beyond legal

limits, it is not clear whether they are then liable to compensate for any consequential respiratorypathologies.

Increased noise pollution

The WHO recognises noise as one of the top environmental hazards to health and well-being.Lower Ashley Road is in one of Bristol's noisiest areas, is one of the UKs 65 Noise Action Planareas, and already significantly exceeds recommended noise levels, both daily average andmaximum levels, contravening DM33 and BCS23. This development will increase noise throughacoustic reflection and by removing trees which absorb sound. The developers will mitigate thiswithin the new property but have no plans to do so for other residents.

Increased flood risk.

The developers claim that surface water risk is low. In fact, Ashley road is in a recognised floodrisk area and in one of very few surface water high risk areas. Council policy BCS16 recognisesthat flooding will increase with climate change and states that low flood risk areas will be preferredfor development. With reduced open ground permeation and removal of the only mitigatingelement (5 mature maple trees) risk of flooding will increase, contravening Bristol DevelopmentFramework Core Strategy BCS16.

The Environment Agency (EA) recommend that this application be refused on the basis that thedevelopment is in flood zone 2 (climate change flood zone 3a). The EA did not know that the siteis also in a high surface water risk area, as the applicant falsely claimed that the surface waterflood risk was low.

Increased parking problems

The area is already desperately low in parking spaces. This development will house 79 people andprovides a grand total of 2 parking spaces. With up to an additional 79 cars seeking parkingspaces that do not exist, traffic noise and pollution will also increase.

It seems to me, now more than ever that we need to protect people's rights to clean,fresh and non polluted air. The lockdown demonstrated that here, in the city. Asthma cases fell totheir lowest ever. We could see a sky without contrails and smell tree blossom and plants. Weneed our trees. The lungs of the earth. It is so short sighted to chop them down.Ashley wardneeds to have better air quality. Please save the trees. Ironically if you do take them down they'llhave to plant new trees very soon!

The proposed building is out of character with the existing buildings, it's the wrongcolour too. This will not be an assett to the neighbourhood, maximising profits should not be at theexpense of sympathetic archetactural design. The Street needs coherence not random out ofcharacter blocks. I object to the build on these grounds.

Bristol needs good quality affordable homes. Not more extortionate mouse houses.Preserve our precious trees

The land these trees are on is owned by Bristol city council. Therefore us. They shouldnot be able to rip these up to put up there buildings. It's clear as day according to planning maps

Will the money you get from building on this site , help you or your children to breathwhen all the trees have gone ?

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe

this development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I object to the Maples being taken down. They are mature trees that take in C02,produce O2, filter pollutant from the air,and provide a visual/noise screen. We should not beremoving mature trees. Replacement saplings will take up to 20 years to produce the samebenefits. A mature tree can produce enough O2 for 18 humans per year! Surely the developerscan work around the trees to protect them.

This application makes no mention of PARKING or AIR QUALITY.Both of these will be badly impacted by this 4 storey building.Applying a 'no parking condition' to any lease / purchase agreements is not a solution.This area reports nearly 1 in 2 children suffer asthma.

I object to this planning application as it allows mature trees to be cut down, and in anarea full of pollution from Lower Ashley Road itself, and the M32 motorway junction 100 yardsaway.Bristol should be protecting it's trees and planting more, not cutting them down!

I am against for the following reasons

cutting of the maple trees goes against Bristol City Council'spolicy of doubling tree canopy cover. we need more trees, not less. These trees are a huge assetand a tie to Bristol's past. Too many buildings and other natural assets have been lost tounsympathetic development.

Felling goes against council policies to tackle air pollution and the loss of these mature trees wouldreduce the possibly of tackling air pollution in the immediate area- particularly since it is right nextto the M32.

Felling goes against local and national policies of benefitting wellbeing through proximity to natureand more natural streetscapes.

It goes against Bristol's reputation as a green city and I would make the serious point that thiswould not be considered or tolerated if it was planned in Clifton, Redland, Stoke bishop, WOT,Southville.So why is it even considered here where people need trees even moreso?I find it particularly shameful undermining the efforts of so many people's work to advance our cityin sustainable and environmental ways, by the felling being considered as possible.

The building designs are not in keeping with the historical victorian heritage adjacent to the plot, asite here needs to blend in with everything surrounding it, especially as an entrance point from the

m32. the same proportions of floor height and articulations need to be mirrored in this building.

I am writing to object to the proposition of chopping down the maple trees along LowerAshley road. Bristol is suffering from deathly air pollution and we should not be removing treeswhich we desperately need helping us. The area surrounding Lower Ashley Road suffersparticularly bad from air pollution, due to its proximity to the M32. It is absurd to be needlesslychopping down trees when they are desperately needed. Bristol's air quality is so bad, that fivemembers of the community are dying every week

Object

This road is the third most polluted in Bristol, despite nearly half of its population'shouseholds not owning a motor vehicle. The application as it stands requires further removal ofmature trees, putting the profit of developers above the Physical health and Mental welfare of localresidents. Bristol City Council recognises that the climate emergency is real and has proposed todouble Bristol's tree cover in its One City plan. This particular development and all newdevelopments in the city need to take into account our illegal air pollution levels and the climateand ecological emergency, and factor In sustainability right at the top of their agenda. Bristol CityCouncil must hold developers to account for the long term health and well-being of its residentsand the planet.

The trees are extremely important and should not be removed. They are mature andbeautiful. They are in an extremely high pollution area and are even more valuable to thecommunity because of this. Many other options have been created that would ensure the treescan stay in place. Let's put nature, clean air and the community before profit and save the trees.

Meets none of the criteria of Bristols green policies

Does not respect the existing streetscape and is completely out of step with the unique characterand identity of the area.

negative effect on local air quality on a street that is already suffering from illegal levels of NO2and particulates."

This is an area which already exceeds air pollution limits and has low tree canopy cover."

Bristol must retain the trees

Surely we have now learnt that we must value nature / our environment / our home / ourplanet. These few trees took so long to grow and offer a rare piece of nature on this dirty noisybusy road. After Covid we should be showing more responsibility than to tear them down. Do wedeserve to be the guardians of our planet? If we do we'd better start proving it. Please save thetrees.

I cannot understand how a council that claims to be committed to improving air qualityand doing everything it can to mitigate climate change (supposedly a commitment driven by moraland political belief not just because we have illegal levels of air pollution, but actually surely thatalone is a pretty compelling factor) would allow the felling of old trees in a street with appalling airquality in a more deprived area of town, where residents are already impacted by healthinequalities and there are disproportionate numbers of residents from minority ethnic groups,whose disadvantage we know is compounded by the impact of poverty and racism.I do understand that there is probably a developer imperative but maybe we (the citizens of Bristolas represented by our elected representatives) should say an immutable criterion in bidding todevelop this land is finding a creative way to work around these trees.

Is this not the third worst road for air quality in Bristol? Why on earth are there proposalsto add more people into a toxic area? How is the air quality for the potential residents going to beguaranteed? By allowing this to go ahead you would be knowingly increasing the population of ahighly polluted area and therefore showing total disregard and contempt for the health of thepotential residents. Is it even legal to build new housing in such a polluted area knowing the levelsof pollution would impact the expected lifespan of potential residents? This is greed at its worst.Bristol may need more housing but those that need housing have a right for that housing to besurrounded by air that is not life limiting. And this will also require the destruction of mature trees.All in all, a poor show of greed and disregard for both people and the environment. It makes meashamed to live in Bristol.

Please do not overlook the value of street trees.

Here is some information about the value of street trees which I have lifted from the internet(https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/15/treeconomics-street-trees-cities-sheffield-itree)

In Toronto, researchers recently found that people living on tree-lined streets reported healthbenefits equivalent to being seven years younger or receiving a $10,000 salary rise. As well asstudies revealing benefits from everything from improved mental health to reduced asthma, USscientists have even identified a correlation between an increase in tree-canopy cover and fewerlow-weight births. And economic studies show what any estate agent swears by: leafy streets sellhouses. Street trees in Portland, Oregon, yielded an increase in house prices of $1.35bn,potentially increasing annual property tax revenues by $15.3m.

There is a growing body of scientific evidence demonstrating the health, and wealth benefits oftrees.

I would also like to draw your attention to the West of EnglandJoint Green Infrastructure Strategy (JGIS) which was adopted last Friday (19 June) by the West ofEngland Joint Committee (of which Bristol City Council is a constituent member). The JGIS statesthat:

The rich and diverse natural environment of the West of England is integral to our region's healthand economic prosperity. Well planned and managed, functioning Green Infrastructure (GI) iscrucial for people, places and nature and is a key component in addressing environmental impacts

including climate change and biodiversity loss.

The document continues:

Green Infrastructure provides a wide range of evidenced economic, social and environmentalbenefits including:l Supporting resilient ecosystems and biodiversity.l Mitigating and adapting thenatural and built environment to climate change.l Conserving and enhancing a legible network ofphysical green spaces.l Reducing and managing flood risks and drought.2 All references to 'greenspace' in this strategy includes rivers, standing waters, coast waters and estuaries. Imagecourtesy of Natural England.l Improving mental and physical health, and the cohesion of localcommunities.l Increasing the sustainability of food production.l Maintaining and enhancing culturalheritage, landscapes and natural resources.l Promoting economic growth, employment and skillsimprovement.

Bristol City Council also declared an ecological emergency on 4 February 2020. Surely thesepolitical declarations, and adopted strategies, as well as a raft of scientific evidence supportingstreet trees should mean that cutting down these trees should be challenged, particularly as it onlyappears to benefit the developer. Please be a bold local authority and do no succumb to thepressures of the developer. If we lose all of our trees, then eventually no one will want to live hereanyway. If you stand up to developers, and only allow them to develop in line with climate change,planning, and air quality considerations, as well as consideration to amenity then developers willsoon up their game, or better, more ethical developers will come in their place.

Thank you for considering my response.

Bristol City Council has declared a climate emergency. Many nice speeches anddocuments have been produced professing the Council's determination to fight pollution, creategreener environments, listen and put communities first. I regularly walk through this area and amamazed that here in one of the city's poorest areas some mature maple trees in an otherwisebarren, run down landscape may be cut down despite the prolonged opposition of local people.The developers say they will replace the trees but everyone knows that saplings do not reducecarbon dioxide to any where near the same level as a mature tree, they do not create the samevisual impact and also are easily vandalised. The devoper need not build right up to the roadside. Iask the council to put the community and the natural environment before profit. The decision willdemonstrate how serious the council takes the community and green issues. Will they refuse theapplication or will there be more hollow words and empty promises?

Once again I object to this planning application.

1) the removal of the remaining trees (other mature trees have already been destroyed) isunnecessary, sympathetic design options are available. This is also contrary to BristolDevelopment Framework Core Strategy BCS9, BCS13 and BCS23. Italso disregards the Council "One City Plan" which aims to double the tree canopy by 2046.

2) This development will surely worsen air quality on Lower Ashley Road and contravenes DM33of theCouncils Development Management Policy, contrary to the One City Plan, and the Government'sClean Air Strategy.

3) I also suggest that the development will worsen noise pollution contravening DM33 and BCS23.

4) I am convinced that the development will worsen flooding,which is already a commonoccurrence, and hencecontravening Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy BC16. Impacted further by newhousing opposite which has remove a large grass area that can soak up the rian.

5) Parking at any time and access to the area at peaks times is a real problem. Where will theextra cars and those ofvisitors park? Public transport is pretty much non existent here.

6) The development, at four stories, will over shadow adjacent properties and does not fit with the

character/heritage of the street. Again the trees are so important to how the road looks and feels,in full bloom they are magnificent!

7) there has been unprecedented development around this area and this has not be viewed in thewhole. What is the impact from the Brook Dye Works development or the refurbishment of theTeohs building opposite, the new houses opposite and the old garage sit beside which is also tobe developed? No consideration has been made and the residents have not been consulted. Idon't think the residents are being considered at all. It feels like profit at all costs. I Can't see thisbeing approved it was in a more affluent area of Bristol.

Please please please do not fell the M32 maple trees on lower ashley road. We alreadyhave illegal levels of air pollution and in this area and they are the only bit of nature I see roundthere. It's against BCC policy and they're are other ways to continue with the project without fellingthem. We should be protecting trees and planting more. One of the best things about Bristol is it'sdesire to be a green city. Well this is an opportunity to prove that. Having trees also statisticallyincrease property values, lower stress and reduce pollution. What more do you need as reasons tokeep them.

I object to the removal of the trees that would be necessary for this development to goahead.

This area of the city already suffers from high levels of air pollution. Bristol's One City plancommits the city to increasing tree cover in the city to reduce pollution and to mitigate the effectsof climate change. This increase in tree cover will never happen if trees always lose out against"development".

I reiterate what has been mentioned in other comments:I object to this application because it requires the removal of outstanding mature trees. Whilst theremoval of mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overall air quality in ourcity, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of the same age. Myconcern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard for the localenvironment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this part of thecity, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees in the city.This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our mature city trees.Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that their valuable role inmitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution as well the loss oftheir role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency) from the air istoo high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...

". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believethis development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. This location once had 7 mature trees of the same age. I am concerned that if the remainingtrees are felled without due regard for the local environment, plus extremely high levels of airpollution (see my points below) in this part of the city, a precedent will be set, which would enablefelling of more valuable mature trees in the city. This would be a huge loss of a valuable andprecious resource - our mature city trees. Trees like these will take another 40-50 years to growand we believe that their valuable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegallevels of air pollution, and removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air must be maintained and protected. Detailed points:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers appears to have"massaged" the figures in the developers' favour, by turning continuous quantitative data intocategorical data, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made theirpercentage increases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data,some properties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believethis development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to this

development as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I am objecting to the proposed felling of Maple trees that form a part of this planningapplication. These mature trees do much to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. It would be manyyears before any newly planted tree could be as effective. The felling Is completely at odds withthe stated desire of the city to be a leader in climate change action. Like wise the loss of thesetrees would have very negative effects on health and well being as this location is already heavilytraffic polluted.

It is evident that this plan goes against the content of a number of Bristol core policies,for the resons stated below, among others.

It is apparent that trees work to help with the effects of noise pollution, via the mechanism ofsound attenuation (the breakup and blocking of sound waves - in this case due to a naturallyshaped, physical barrier), and their removal will be likely to greatly exacerbate the level of noisedue to reverberation (sound reflection - more likely to occur when sound has only flat walls toreflect off). Given that the area already exceeds the maximum and daily average noise levels, Iwould object to the removal on the basis that it breaches the DM35 guidance on 'Noise Mitigation'.

The removal of trees will be also likely to increase air pollution in the area which, according toDM33 2.33.8 is best mitigated on-site. The benefit of even a small number of trees in a local areais clear, and especially as these are Maples, which are some of the best types of trees in thisregard.

This also clearly contravenes the guidance in the first bulletpoint of BCS23, which states thatdevelopment must avoid adverse impacts on all types of pollution. This is clear as the removal ofmature trees constitutes an adverse effect.

Furthermore the first bulletpoint of BSC9 suggests, in part, that open space can be impacted whenno longer serving 'landscape quality and visual amenity'. Given the clear evidence that treesimprove resident's wellbeing in cities, I do not believe that these trees should be considered ashaving served their purpose and now redundant.

Lastly BSC13 shows a clear commitment on the part of Bristol City Council to assist wherepossible in the mitigation of climate change. Whilst this should not fall entirely on BCC to solve, Icannot see how removing mature trees fits with this goal in any way. As records show, these treeshave bene standing some 40 years, and the damage to the environment of removing three furthertrees (on top of the two which have already been felled) would be an irresponisble move on BCC'spart.

It is also concerning that reseach carried out by residents appears to show that there are legalissues over the onwership of this land, which could be indicative of this process being followedpoorly, or not at all. This, combined with my points around the council's own guidance constitues,in my opinion, a strong enough case to call for the rejection of this development as it currentlystands.

I object to this proposal on the basis that I have evidence to prove that the community ofSt. Paul's has been lied to and misinformed.

All files are available at: https://tinyurl.com/BCCevidence

In the ~two week period following the New Year's Eve attack on the maples the dynamic of ourcampaign changed from simply defending the trees because mature trees should be protected, todefending the trees because we discovered they are public assets; whilst the Council's positionchanged from transferring the land and trees to the developer, to denying that they even own it.

9th June 20191st attempt by landowner John Garlick to fell the trees. 2 trees severely damaged and left unsafe(BCC carried out remedial work to the trees about a week later at taxpayer expense).

31st December 20192nd attempt by John Garlick. 2 maples felled, 3 saved

8th January 2020Meeting at City Hall attended by Fiona Gilmore (Policy advisor to the mayor), Gary Collins (Headof Planning, BCC), Brian Webber (MD of Clayewater Homes Ltd - the developer), representativesfrom Live West - the housing association and land purchaser, Vassili Papastavrou from the Bristoltree Forum and Anita from our campaign. It was hosted and chaired by Marvin Rees. There wasno mention of the crucial land ownership issue surrounding the trees during the 90-minute meetingsetup specifically to discuss the possibility of retaining the maples.

9 January 2020 at 11:42:16 GMT, - see attachment 'Evidence 9th January at 1142 GMT LowerAshley Road.pdf'

In this email Brian references and includes an email from Gary Collins, we do not know the date ofthis communication. In his message, Gary gives contact details for Chris Woods in order todiscuss the transfer of "land owned by BCC" using the surplus land procedure. We know thisdiscussion is regarding Council Asset id: 384 - Land Fronting Lower Ashley Road due to themention of "Highways Asset Management" who have authority over that strip of land.

January 11th 2020The day i discovered the Council map showing the strip of land with the maples - Council Asset id:384. Upon my discovery I alerted the Council by expressing a community interest in the purchaseof the land specifically with the trees.January 14th 2020Council respond to my expression of interest in the Tree Land, saying it cannot be sold for multiplereasons (See 'Evidence Gmail - David Crowley Fwd_ Land Fronting former St Pauls ProbationOffice, Lower Ashley Road, St Pauls, Bristol (1).pdf' and 'Evidence - 14012020 BCC CorporateProperty Doc,pdf')

January 15th 20202nd meeting at City Hall. At this point we thought the trees would be saved, the Council wouldrecognise the mistake and the correct procedures would be applied in terms of the protections ofpublic assets (the trees) - this was not the case. The Council rebutted our discovery, claiming theirown maps were wrong. Gary stated "the ownership question came in over the weekend and wespent the last couple of days looking into this" and "There's been no clues about that [the landownership question] throughout the whole chronology" and was "a bit of a surprise". He thenproduced a document as evidence that Mr Garlick owns the land the trees are situated on. Thedocument provided was an outdated Land Registry title plan (from 1986) as the base layer, with 3additional layers superimposed on it. We maintain this document was adulterated in order tomislead us. We were not permitted to photograph or take a copy of that document from themeeting.

January 16th 2020see 'Evidence 16 Jan 2020 1857 GMT Lower Ashley Road land ownership query.pdf'Brian emails Anita. He quotes Mark Windale of Live West: "As far as we are aware the freeholdtitle to the tree land is unregistered and the identity of the freeholder is unknown".- We have the Freehold and Root Title (title absolute) Land Registry document dated 21.04.2006in Bristol City Councils name - see attached 'Evidence - Freehold and Title AbsoluteRegisterPlanAV46466.pdf''

Summary

The evidence shows that a plan to transfer the tree land was in place prior to our discovery. Byomitting to mention the Land Ownership question on 8th January 2020 and, then by misleading uswith adulterated documentation on the 15th January, it is clear that we were knowingly anddeliberately misled about the true status of the land and development at 31-45 Lower AshleyRoad. This misinformation has persisted until today.

The Council maintains the land is owned by John Garlick and he can do what he wants with thetrees. This position is unusual in light of our evidence. We have tried using all correct and properchannels, including costly legal communications between our solicitors and theirs, to alert theCouncil to the situation. In effect, BCC have ignored the land registry proof we have presented andgifted John Garlick a strip of public land. The trees themselves have a quantifiable value of240'000 pounds using an industry standard calculation methodology (CAVAT) and remain at risktoday, and we are in a position where members of the public have had to hold a daily (and nightly!)vigil to protect the trees for the last 6 months+.

Based on the timings of the meetings and emails, it seems the roundtable meeting of the 8th wasorganised with the sole intent for BCC and the developer to establish if our group knew about theland ownership issue, when they realised we didn't, they were attempting to proceed with anaccelerated (3-weeks) surplus land transfer, as per the email of January 9th. The expression ofinterest in purchasing the land that I sent on January 11th scuppered plans for a surplus landtransfer.

Although small, the value of this strip of land to the developer is not to be underestimated. Weestablished in the 2nd roundtable meeting that if the trees remain in-situ the developer would beable to only build 16 units, rather than 28. With an average profit of 60'000 pounds per unit*, theland giveaway facilitates an additional potential profit for the scheme of 720'000 pounds as well asthe ongoing rent rewards.

Further Evidence with regards to BCC having prior knowledge of the Land Ownership question:

1. The Officers Report for the 2015 Outline Permission for Student Flats states "There is ananomaly in the application which does not take into account the existing highwayboundary, which includes the area the trees are currently within. The planting on the edge of thebuilding will encroach onto the existing highway, which is not legal." (see 'Evidence -OFFICERS_REPORT-1390380.pdf') - This anomaly needed to be addressed by the follow-up2018 Reserved Matters application, but it wasn't.

2. On February 10th, in response to an email requesting an update on the enforcement case19/02157/TPO (complaints about the 1st attack on the trees) , Nigel Butler, Planning EnforcementOfficer, told us that due to the land ownership question he had been unable to carry out hisinvestigation into a breach of TPO rules in June and again in December (2019):."The issue of landownership and whether or not the permission was being implemented were

determined to be the key factors at the time in June and again at the end of December last year.These matters are still under consideration as indicated.RegardsNigel Butler"

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

We hope that you can establish via your investigation that a plan to sell the land including thetrees to Live West was in motion prior to our discovery. This would constitute anacknowledgement by BCC that the land and trees do indeed belong to them. Once the truthcomes out, we can then provide a wealth of documentation containing the Council's contradictoryassertions that the land belongs to John Garlick and our detailed evidence of both a cover-up andmore misinformation from Planning Enforcement Officer and more on the Land Ownership.

Thank you very much for your time and your diligence.

*Average profit per unit from 3rd party data

98% of Ashley residents think air quality and traffic is a problem locally.40.7% of Ashley residents don't own a vehicle.Air pollution is already illegally high. Asthma levels high.

I object to this proposal on the basis that I have evidence to prove that the community ofSt. Paul's has been lied to and misinformed by Bristol City Council.

All files are available at: https://tinyurl.com/BCCevidence

In the ~two week period following the New Year's Eve attack on the maples the dynamic of thecampaign to save the M32 maples changed from simply defending the trees because mature treesshould be protected, to defending the trees because we discovered they are public assets; whilstthe Council's position changed from transferring the land and trees to the developer, to denyingthat they even own it.

9th June 20191st attempt by landowner John Garlick to fell the trees. 2 trees severely damaged and left unsafe(BCC carried out remedial work to the trees about a week later at taxpayer expense).

31st December 20192nd attempt by John Garlick. 2 maples felled, 3 saved

8th January 2020Meeting at City Hall attended by Fiona Gilmore (Policy advisor to the mayor), Gary Collins (Headof Planning, BCC), Brian Webber (MD of Clayewater Homes Ltd - the developer), representativesfrom Live West - the housing association and land purchaser, Vassili Papastavrou from the Bristoltree Forum and Anita from our campaign. It was hosted and chaired by Marvin Rees. There wasno mention of the crucial land ownership issue surrounding the trees during the 90-minute meeting

setup specifically to discuss the possibility of retaining the maples.

9 January 2020 at 11:42:16 GMT, - see attachment 'Evidence 9th January at 1142 GMT LowerAshley Road.pdf'

In this email Brian references and includes an email from Gary Collins, we do not know the date ofthis communication. In his message, Gary gives contact details for Chris Woods in order todiscuss the transfer of "land owned by BCC" using the surplus land procedure. We know thisdiscussion is regarding Council Asset id: 384 - Land Fronting Lower Ashley Road due to themention of "Highways Asset Management" who have authority over that strip of land.

January 11th 2020The day i discovered the Council map showing the strip of land with the maples - Council Asset id:384. Upon my discovery I alerted the Council by expressing a community interest in the purchaseof the land specifically with the trees.January 14th 2020Council respond to my expression of interest in the Tree Land, saying it cannot be sold for multiplereasons (See 'Evidence Gmail - David Crowley Fwd_ Land Fronting former St Pauls ProbationOffice, Lower Ashley Road, St Pauls, Bristol (1).pdf' and 'Evidence - 14012020 BCC CorporateProperty Doc,pdf')

January 15th 20202nd meeting at City Hall. At this point we thought the trees would be saved, the Council wouldrecognise the mistake and the correct procedures would be applied in terms of the protections ofpublic assets (the trees) - this was not the case. The Council rebutted our discovery, claiming theirown maps were wrong. Gary stated "the ownership question came in over the weekend and wespent the last couple of days looking into this" and "There's been no clues about that [the landownership question] throughout the whole chronology" and was "a bit of a surprise". He thenproduced a document as evidence that Mr Garlick owns the land the trees are situated on. Thedocument provided was an outdated Land Registry title plan (from 1986) as the base layer, with 3additional layers superimposed on it. We maintain this document was adulterated in order tomislead us. We were not permitted to photograph or take a copy of that document from themeeting.

January 16th 2020see 'Evidence 16 Jan 2020 1857 GMT Lower Ashley Road land ownership query.pdf'Brian emails Anita. He quotes Mark Windale of Live West: "As far as we are aware the freeholdtitle to the tree land is unregistered and the identity of the freeholder is unknown".- We have the Freehold and Root Title (title absolute) Land Registry document dated 21.04.2006in Bristol City Councils name - see attached 'Evidence - Freehold and Title AbsoluteRegisterPlanAV46466.pdf''

SummaryThe evidence shows that a plan to transfer the tree land was in place prior to our discovery. Byomitting to mention the Land Ownership question on 8th January 2020 and, then by misleading uswith adulterated documentation on the 15th January, it is clear that we were knowingly anddeliberately misled about the true status of the land and development at 31-45 Lower AshleyRoad. This misinformation has persisted until today.

The Council maintains the land is owned by John Garlick and he can do what he wants with thetrees. This position is unusual in light of our evidence. We have tried using all correct and properchannels, including costly legal communications between our solicitors and theirs, to alert theCouncil to the situation. In effect, BCC have ignored the land registry proof we have presented andgifted John Garlick a strip of public land. The trees themselves have a quantifiable value of240'000 pounds using an industry standard calculation methodology (CAVAT) and remain at risktoday, and we are in a position where members of the public have had to hold a daily (and nightly!)vigil to protect the trees for the last 6 months+.

Based on the timings of the meetings and emails, it seems the roundtable meeting of the 8th wasorganised with the sole intent for BCC and the developer to establish if our group knew about theland ownership issue, when they realised we didn't, they were attempting to proceed with anaccelerated (3-weeks) surplus land transfer, as per the email of January 9th. The expression ofinterest in purchasing the land that I sent on January 11th scuppered plans for a surplus landtransfer.

Although small, the value of this strip of land to the developer is not to be underestimated. Weestablished in the 2nd roundtable meeting that if the trees remain in-situ the developer would beable to only build 16 units, rather than 28. With an average profit of 60'000 pounds per unit*, theland giveaway facilitates an additional potential profit for the scheme of 720'000 pounds as well asthe ongoing rent rewards.

Further Evidence with regards to BCC having prior knowledge of the Land Ownership question:

1. The Officers Report for the 2015 Outline Permission for Student Flats states "There is ananomaly in the application which does not take into account the existing highwayboundary, which includes the area the trees are currently within. The planting on the edge of thebuilding will encroach onto the existing highway, which is not legal." (see 'Evidence -OFFICERS_REPORT-1390380.pdf') - This anomaly needed to be addressed by the follow-up2018 Reserved Matters application, but it wasn't.

2. On February 10th, in response to an email requesting an update on the enforcement case19/02157/TPO (complaints about the 1st attack on the trees) , Nigel Butler, Planning EnforcementOfficer, told us that due to the land ownership question he had been unable to carry out hisinvestigation into a breach of TPO rules in June and again in December (2019):.

"The issue of landownership and whether or not the permission was being implemented weredetermined to be the key factors at the time in June and again at the end of December last year.These matters are still under consideration as indicated.RegardsNigel Butler"

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

We hope that you can establish via your investigation that a plan to sell the land including thetrees to Live West was in motion prior to our discovery. This would constitute anacknowledgement by BCC that the land and trees do indeed belong to them. Once the truthcomes out, we can then provide a wealth of documentation containing the Council's contradictoryassertions that the land belongs to John Garlick and our detailed evidence of both a cover-up andmore misinformation from Planning Enforcement Officer and more on the Land Ownership.

Thank you very much for your time and your diligence.

*Average profit per unit from 3rd party data

This city needs more trees not the removal of them. They should be accommodated.

I object to the the felling of the maple trees on lower Ashley road. These trees are vitalto the local residents because they clean the air from automotive exhausts and emissions. This isessential in an urban area that suffers from air quality that is consistently polluted.These trees are of great value to people living, working, shopping, walking and driving in andthrough St Pauls.

This building is too close to the road. I also object to the proposed felling of the Mapletrees.

I object due to the proposed removal of several mature trees without adequatemitigation for the negative impact that this will have.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. This location once had 7 mature trees of the same age. I am concerned that if the remainingtrees are felled without due regard for the local environment, plus extremely high levels of airpollution (see my points below) in this part of the city, a precedent will be set, which would enablefelling of more valuable mature trees in the city. This would be a huge loss of a valuable andprecious resource - our mature city trees. Trees like these will take another 40-50 years to growand we believe that their valuable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegallevels of air pollution, and removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air must be maintained and protected. Detailed points:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers appears to have"massaged" the figures in the developers' favour, by turning continuous quantitative data intocategorical data, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made theirpercentage increases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data,some properties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are focused on 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believethis development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to this

development as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.I am objecting on behalf of my young grandchildren who live within 500 metres of this proposedtree demolition in an area that is already highly poluted.

As this is already a very busy road, with some of the highest levels of pollution in Bristol,it is unacceptable to consider removing four mature trees. Building 28 new dwellings in this area isonly going to add to the pollution and overcrowding in the area. I'm not sure how Bristol could everbecome the carbon neutral, green city is aspires to be if developments like this are given planningpermission

I'm writing to urge you to not cut down trees as part of this development. Pollution levelsare dangerous and especially in this area of town. Think of the next generation. We need to keepour trees and green spaces.

I object to the removal of the mature trees.I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding mature trees. Whilstthe removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overall air quality inour city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of the same age.My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard for the localenvironment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this part of thecity, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees in the city.This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our mature city trees.Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that their valuable role inmitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution as well the loss oftheir role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency) from the air istoo high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...

". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believethis development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe

this development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

Once again I object to this planning application.

1) the removal of the remaining trees (other mature trees have already been destroyed) isunnecessary, sympathetic design options are available. This is also contrary to BristolDevelopment Framework Core Strategy BCS9, BCS13 and BCS23. Italso disregards the Council "One City Plan" which aims to double the tree canopy by 2046.

2) This development will surely worsen air quality on Lower Ashley Road and contravenes DM33of theCouncils Development Management Policy, contrary to the One City Plan, and the Government'sClean Air Strategy.

3) I also suggest that the development will worsen noise pollution contravening DM33 and BCS23.

4) I am convinced that the development will impact flooding,which is already a commonoccurrence, and hencecontravening Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy BC16. Impacted further by newhousing opposite which has remove a large grass area that can soak up the rian.

5) Parking at any time and access to the area at peaks times is a real problem. Where will theextra cars and those ofvisitors park? Public transport is pretty much non existent here.

6) The development, at four stories, will over shadow adjacent properties and does not fit with the

character/heritage of the street. Again the trees are so important to how the road looks and feels,in full bloom they are magnificent!

7) there has been unprecedented development around this area and this has not be viewed in thewhole. What is the impact from the Brook Dye Works development or the refurbishment of theTeohs building opposite, the new houses opposite and the old garage sit beside which is also tobe developed? No consideration has been made and the residents have not been consulted. Idon't think the residents are being considered at all. It feels like profit at all costs.

I can't see this application being approved it was in a more affluent area of Bristol.

I object because of the removal of the 4 trees. I've been following this for a while and itappears to me that the boundaries are being breached.The air quality is bad enough. It's not the greenest of neighbourhood s and they are a treasure tothis community.The trees must remain

From what I've read there is significant doubt as to the legality of the removal of thetrees that have already been removed. The new design does not fit with the character of the areaand there is significant local opposition. The council should be listening to what the people of thearea think, which coupled with the unscrupulous behaviour of the applicant in trying to remove thetrees surreptitiously should be enough to stop this application from proceeding

Hello,

I hope this finds you well in these strange times.

I imagine you may not have the time or desire to read through another objection letter with regardsto the plans for the 'residential units' on Lower Ashley.

So here's the short version: Make history as a progressive council by preserving the trees. Thereare other designs. Challenge the developer. WE (inhabitants of Bristol, including YOU, councilmembers) are the clients of these developers and designers. Give them the right brief: the treesstay.

The longer version:I imagine these letters have trickled in, but may not be enough to sway any decisions. As thereader, you may also not even be in the meeting where the decisions are made. Regardless of allof the above, I add my voice to those who are calling for the designs to be rethought in order topreserve the mature trees that line Lower Ashley road.

You are surely already very aware of the crucial function that a mature tree provides for ourrespiratory health, not to mention mental well-being. Yes, even a few trees make a subconsciousdifference to the public space and our head space!

I'm sure you'd agree it's in everyone's interest to make this project a financial success. So I inviteyou to consider the urban streets and areas that people are drawn to and notice how the very

wealthy areas have luscious trees lining streets and people take pride in their gardens... Trees area sign of luxury (which is incredibly sad, but is a reality). And you are surely interested in makingLower Ashley an area with cachet that will attract hip business and make Bristol look good.

Cutting down mature trees to build a grey cube of cheap housing will do the opposite.

Challenge your developer to meet the high standard of what Bristol is capable of: beautiful excitingmelting pots of communities and cultures, with unique food and shopping experiences; a foward-thinking city that gives people a voice, challenges the status quo, and understands the value ofinvesting in people's well-being without compromise.

Do not compromise on these trees. You could get national coverage as ground-breaking greenand community-lead council. Or get no coverage at all and just be another room of people in suitsmotivated by money and administrative power, or perhaps just really detached from the wholeprocess and just doing a job for the sake of it. In which case you should definitely step down.

Thank you for you time and consideration. I sincerely hope you find the fire in you to make a boldmove on behalf of the city you represent.

Kindest regards.

Sincerely,Sophia Knox-Miller

I am generally in favour of this scheme, as it will provide much needed housing andsolve the issues around a long term semi-derelict site. However, I would like to voice my strongobjection to any plan to remove existing trees from the site. These trees provide shade and are ofenvironmental benefit in an area already subjected to high levels of vehicle pollution. There are farless trees in the St.Pauls area than can be found in other residential areas similarly distanced fromthe city centre. Please respect the fact that these trees go some way to improving the quality of lifeof local residents.

There is no need for this project to go ahead with the telling of the Maples incorporatedinto said project. Numerous other designs and options have been presented, am not entirely surewhy the Council and Planning Dept are not on board with the preservation of the trees, whileallowing the developer to construct a project also. Of you can have the best of both worlds, whywould you not? Mr Guilfoyle (I believe this is his name?), can surely be granted permission oncean amendment has been made through appeal of the Planning Dept to pick a design/have his ownarchitect design a project which incorporates the Maples as a showpiece, rather than a castoff? Ithink we all no the answer.

I understand the developer plans to chop down mature trees as part of thisdevelopment.

I regularly walk past this spot on way into town. It is an area with lots of cars passing through thatneeds these mature trees as some barrier to the fumes.

The council would not allow a developer to chop down this number of mature trees if thedevelopment was in Clifton, for example.

It's double standards to allow it to happen here where they are needed more. Unless some livesmatter more to Bristol City Council.

Please don't cut down the trees! I live locally and the levels of air pollution in St Paul'sare already very high. Several hundred people die a year from air pollution related illnessess, weneed less pollution and more trees! Planting new saplings will take years and years to get back towhat you are already lucky enough to have on the site.Thank you for listening to concerns from nearby residents.

This will drastically affect air quality, contravening DM33 of theCouncils Development Management Policy, contrary to the One City Plan, and the Government'sClean Air Strategy.

Do not cut down the trees. Consider a different plan.

Hi there,

I am worried about the proposal because it would mean removing mature trees from an area thatalready has a problem with the air quality and a lack of green spaces. Removing the trees wouldmake the area less attractive for future generations and should be avoided at all costs.

This is NOT what the local community want! Please listen.

The plan looks horrendous! Not only it doesn't comply with the character of LowerAshley Road, not only it will create so many flats without available parking spaces, it will alsomean the death of these 3 magnificent maple trees that make our street a bit more beautiful!I thought Bristol wanted to be called a green city...

We need to look after our trees not chop them down ....

I pass these trees every day on my way to work. These mature trees can't be replaced.I do not object to renovation/new housing being built on the derelict site but I do not understandwhy the trees have to be removed. It takes many years for trees to reach maturity and there arenot enough trees in central Bristol.

Please, consider how you can build housing that doesn't include chopping down themature trees nearby. The amount of carbon dioxide that a mature tree takes out of the air and theamount of water it retains is significantly higher than that of a young tree (not that this is beingconsidered as an alternative in this planning application). Mature greenery has also been provento be hugely beneficial to well being and bolstering mental health. Whilst this application relates toa few trees in the locality, they are important to the community and shouldn't be chopped down tomake it easier or make more money for a developer. Too often planning applications are grantedwithout a thought to retaining the wildlife and plant life around it. Bristol has a council that is tryingto tackle problems with air pollution, yet acts against this very objective by passing throughplanning which devastates mature trees which directly contribute to reducing flooding and betterair quality. Please, please rethink this and your general approach to ensuring that we remain agreen city. The council need to be planning with future generations in mind.

Build homes, not units

Please keep the maple trees. The road is very busy, lots of noice and pollution. Theinhabitants of the new housing and those already in the area need a buffer and some greeneryfrom the acrid fumes

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees. Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overallair quality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately lead to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our maturecity trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that theirvaluable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution aswell the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climate emergency)from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe

this development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

I would be so disappointed that these trees will be felled for said 'development'. I walkpast regular and it creates much-needed shade for the street. Mature trees cannot be replaced ina city, they are as valuable for humans, birds, and insects - science this increases biodiversity fornature, decreases temperature streets, and increases mental wellbeing.

These trees are important to the community and residents' surroundings. Please listen, please finda way to incorporate these trees into your designs. It may increase the expenditure on propertydevelopment but it will make it a lovely place to be and to live.

Please consider the needs of the wider community here. I do not think that we needmore flats in the city- right next to the ring road, not such an attractive place to live. What we doneed is green spaces and large trees which mitigate the carbon dioxide from all the cars. Please,save the maple trees and let's consider a different way of living together.

This development shows a real disregard for the needs of local people, and a lack ofrespect for them.It is both ugly and totally out of keeping with the architecture of Lower Ashley Road. I don't see thejustification for inflicting this on the area when the development could be so much moresympathetic.It is also disgraceful that the development involves felling mature trees in an area that really needsthem. Bristol Council has declared 'emergencies' in respect of climate change, the environmentand biodiversity. It would be shocking for the council to permit a development like this which doesnot take account of these mature trees and their importance for residents- eg in terms of improvingair quality, dampening traffic noise, benefitting mental health, benefitting biodiversity. The illegallevels of air (and noise?) pollution in this area are well documented. Here is a perfect opportunityfor the council to act responsibly. If that just means not acting to make the situation worse, that willsound to any impartial observer like an easy win and the only proper way for the council toconduct itself.Saplings planted as replacements in a different location do not outweigh these considerations. Ithas already been embarrassing to watch the council maneuvering to try to wash its hands of thesetrees in order to financially benefit the developer. (Why?) The people of Bristol deserve asympathetic development that respects their needs.

Object to the removal of trees in a polluted part of the city. There are children andfamilies living in this area that deserve clean air.

I object to this development because the current plans involve cutting down matureMaple trees at the site, which are the subject of a protest and debate. Some trees at the site havealready been destroyed illegally. Bristol has a huge pollution problem, despite it's 'Green City'status, and we simply cannot afford to lose mature trees, which offset carbon dioxide and improvebe air quality. These trees are by the M32 motorway, so they are extremely important in thisregard. Furthermore, they provide wildlife habitat which needs to be preserved as a matter ofurgency given the global climate crisis. I understand that people need places to live, but alternativeplans which preserve the trees have been put forward. I hope the right decision is made. Regards,Cath Archer

I very much object to this 4 story building going up hereits already very difficult to park locally and with the possibility of 28 new households along with thenew houses at the Brookes site going up and the houses on the corner of Sussex Place andMagdelene Place which have just been builtthe extra noise and air pollution lack of parking will be very detrimental in an already polluted areaIm concerned to save the Maple trees on this site as there are so few trees in the area and rightthere at the slipway to the roundabout is well known as a flash point for flooding year in year outthe trees soak up a lot of water they give shade and sustain wildlife theres so little nature there itsso important for peoples mental health and well beingwe have lost so many trees locally we dont want to lose these mature and much loved local trees

I object to this application as the removal of mature trees will have an impact on the airquality for people in the area on an already vehicle busy road. In addition it would decrease thenatural beauty and wildlife habitats in the area.

As an objector, who lived close to here for many years, and also cycle near here, I feelthese trees provide the natural balance to all the other road and building surrounding them. Thisbalance is difficult to achiev, so it would seem very detrimental to the local area. Trees are notsomething that can easily be replaced. The decision should be up to the local residents as theyalreadu live there. Imagine if someone rocked up in your neighbourhood and started bossing youaround. It's not very nice. Bullying and coersive behaviour by develpoers should always bechallenged, as the Council is essentially setting an example and would lose it's credibility in thisrespect. THINK about that !!!!

I object to these trees being cut down as this goes against protecting nature in our cityat a time when we most need to do so.

St Paul's suffers illegal levels of air pollution and I feel this is an example of environmental racismand injustice. It will be vital for future generations that we safeguard all nature now. Felling thetrees would be symbolic of profit over planet for local children and other residents.

Trees naturally provide habitats and sequester carbon. Building a tall building does not and furtherexacerbates existing housing and environmental, social and racial inequalities in our city, wherebyin St. Paul's trees can be treated as disposable and in other 'leafy' middle class areas they aremore abundant.

We need to make the right decision to be nature stewards and set a good example to our youngpeople, one which says that their mental and physical health matters.

St Paul's is a community that is being pushed out by unaffordable gentrified homes andstudent houses.We are fed up and tired with this.

I object to the removal of these trees due to Bristol having one of the highest rates ofpollution of any city in the UK. We should be protecting trees not chopping them down to makeway for flats, harbouring carbon in the process.

I STRONGLY object on the basis of:Loss of natural lightDestruction of wildlife and treesIncreased traffic and danger therefore to bipedsIncreased noise pollutionLoss of green spaces for the local community to thrive

The fact that levels of pollution are illegal already, and that this area of the city is one ofthe worst affected, but that reversing this is not the highest priority for the council displays a lack ofreal care for the lives of St. Paul's residents. With so many deaths linked.m to air quality, we haveto be bold and find new ways to develop housing that do not follow all the same negative traits ofprevious development. You can't say we have a climate And ecological emergency but then carryon as if they don't exist because it's easier. Be brave and tread a new path where people,particular socioeconomically deprived people, do not have to die in the name of "progress". Everytree ever felled in the name of development was only 1 tree. And we could really do with all ofthem right now. Not seeing the true value of the maples shows that you do not have the rightvalues to address the ecological emergency and that it is all talk.

St. Paul's does not need more blocks of flats. We have enough already and many morealready in progress/nearing completion (believe me, I live on wilder street) it's been a building sitefor 3 years.

We do not need yet more residences with no allocated parking, putting more cars onto our alreadyclogged roads and making the neighborhood more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.

What we need is our parks and wildlife to be preserved- not cut down to make way for more urbanmonstrosities. This application will cut down some of the few precious trees remaining in St.Paul's! What we need is more green and less tarmac... fewer buildings blocking the light.

What we need is more community spaces and safe places for kids to play and learn and grow.

What we need is fewer developers intent on squeezing every drop of profit possible out of acommunity they have no interest in actually improving.

What we need is city councillors with the principles to make the right decisions for the peoplethey're meant to represent.

I believe that this development should not go forth as it threatens several establishedtrees. There is little greenery in the area generally, and so existing trees should be preserved; infact, we should be planting more trees across Bristol rather than destroying them. The air quality isexceeding the legal limit in the area and the removal of the trees on this development willexacerbate it.

The maples should not be cut down to make way for property but instead incorporatedinto any building plans

Homes not units, people not profit

Road; resulting in residents not being able to park. Having residents parking on Gordon Road would help manage this issue, especially considering demand will be increased due to this development. Building style & developer I was shocked that the planned building was 4 storey, which is NOT in any way keeping with the rest of the residential area and will affect my neighbours light due to the building height. It will also be a problem with noise pollution, which retaining the maple trees could help counteract somewhat. I am worried by the working practices of the developer considering the absolute lack of H&S they demonstrated in the dangerous (and illegal) way they removed a tree in January 2020. _____________________________________________________________ I have attempted to submit my comments online, but the website says it's unavailable when you try to submit. I hope that all the information you require is contained in this email. If not, please don't hesitate to contact me should you require any further information/clarification. Best wishes, Julie Chamberlain

• The Coal Zone risk has been erroneously downgraded to low, when it is medium

• The Surface Water Flood Zone risk has been erroneously downgraded to low, when in fact it is level 3, the highest possible.

• The site is located in an Air Quality Management Area due to pollution levels being 30-60% above legal limits - not declared as a constraint.

• The site is located in a Noise Action Plan area due to exceeding recommended noise levels, both daily average and maximum - not declared as a constraint.

Loss of Important iconic mature maple trees There is already a chronically low tree density in the area, and to reduce this still further threatens the wellbeing of residents and the environment, will severely degrade visual amenity and fundamentally alter the character of the area. Studies show loss of trees will:

• Reduce air quality, increasing both particulates and NO2, in an area already with illegal levels of pollution which threaten the health of residents.

• Increase traffic noise in one of Bristol's noisiest streets already with levels significantly above recommended by Bristol City Council Development Management document.

• Increase overheating in Summer and heating bills in Winter.

• Reduce mental health.

• Reduce wildlife, being an important habitat and a crucial staging point in the wildlife corridor from Frome valley into the inner city, at a time when the Council has just declared an ecological emergency (One City Plan 2020).

Although trees lost will be replaced by saplings, most will not to be planted in the residential area but instead distant from the streets and houses where they are needed. Furthermore, any replacement trees will not be of a size to mitigate any of the above for decades, nor recover the carbon, canopy, or eco-services lost by removal of the mature maples.

Hence, this development contravenes Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy BCS9 “Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new development”, BCS13 “Development should contribute to both mitigating and adapting to climate change, and to meeting targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions”, and BCS23 “Development should avoid adversely impacting upon environmental amenity or biodiversity and account for the impact of the new development on the viability of existing uses by reason of its sensitivity to noise or other pollution”.

It also disregards the Councils One City Plan to double the tree canopy by 2046, double wildlife by 2050, and to have all developments making a positive contribution to the environment.

Increased air pollution

Poor air quality is the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK (Public Health England), increasing levels of asthma, bronchitis and lung infections, and lowering life expectancy.

Maintenance of air quality within legal limits is not just an aspiration of Bristol City Council, but a legal obligation. Lower Ashley Road already exceeds legal limits for NO2 (annual mean 40ug/m3) by 34%, and as such is a designated Air Quality Management Area. A report commissioned by the developers themselves show that air quality will deteriorate as a result of this development (some properties by over 14%) with inevitable deterioration in the health of a community which already suffers high levels of respiratory disorders.

Therefore, this development contravenes DM33 of the Councils Development management Policy, which states a “new development should be designed to avoid adversely impacting upon environmental air pollution”, and a “development which has the potential for an unacceptable impact on environmental amenity expected to provide an appropriate scheme of mitigation. Development will not be permitted if mitigation cannot be provided”. It is also contrary to the One City Plan, which sets a target of less than 10ug/m3 NO2 throughout Bristol, and the Governments Clean Air Strategy 2019.

If the Council allows a development knowing that air quality will deteriorate well beyond legal limits, it is not clear whether they are then liable to compensate for any consequential respiratory pathologies.

Increased noise pollution The WHO recognises noise as one of the top environmental hazards to health and well-being. Lower Ashley Road is in one of Bristol’s noisiest areas, is one of the UKs 65 Noise Action Plan areas, and already significantly exceeds

recommended noise levels, both daily average and maximum levels, contravening DM33 and BCS23. This

development will increase noise through acoustic reflection and by removing trees which absorb sound. The developers will mitigate this within the new property but have no plans to do so for other residents.

Increased flood risk. The developers claim that surface water risk is low. In fact, Ashley road is in a recognised flood risk area and in one of very few surface water high risk areas. Council policy BCS16 recognises that flooding will increase with climate change and states that low flood risk areas will be preferred for development. With reduced open ground permeation and removal of the only mitigating element (5 mature maple trees) risk of flooding will increase, contravening Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy BCS16.

The Environment Agency (EA) recommend that this application be refused on the basis that the development is in

flood zone 2 (climate change flood zone 3a). The EA did not know that the site is also in a high surface water risk area, as the applicant falsely claimed that the surface water flood risk was low.

Increased parking problems The area is already desperately low in parking spaces. This development will house 79 people and provides a grand total of 2 parking spaces. With up to an additional 79 cars seeking parking spaces that do not exist, traffic noise and pollution will also increase.

I object to the removal of the three remaining maple trees. Being so close to the M32,and St Paul's in general having little or no trees, to remove these is not something that Bristol,seen by so many as a green city, should be doing. Please consider the wellbeing of thecommunity. We already have dangerous air pollution in this area, we should be planting moretrees, not taking them away. With climate change finally being recognised as a huge danger thatcurrent and future generations will have to deal with, it is everyone's responsibility to act right nowto do all in their power to mitigate damage, and saving these trees is so much more important thanallowing a development company to cash in on a city centre 'space'.

This development does not take into account the social, ecological and environmentalneeds of the area. In Bristol, air pollution is related to five deaths every week(https://www.uk100.org/publications/).This data is shocking to residents of Bristol. Lower Ashley Road already exceeds legal limits forNO2 by 34% and this development will contribute to lowering the air quality in the area. With acommitment to lowering. If Bristol City Council is committed to their declaration of reducing carbonemissions to net zero by 2050, as all councils should be, then it is in their best interest to halt thisdevelopment and protect the ecosystem of Lower Ashley Road. To declare a climate emergencymeans a commitment to reducing risks to peoples health and wellbeing and actively engaging inpractices that decelerate the rate of global warming combat climate change. For these reasons Iobject to the development on Lower Ashley Road and believe the council should seriouslyreconsider its proposal to better support the ecosystem and wellbeing of the community.

I object to this application because it requires the removal of 4 outstanding maturetrees.Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overall airquality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. My concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, plus extremely high levels of air pollution (see my points below) in this partof the city, a precedent will be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees inthe city. This will ultimately leading to a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - ourmature city trees. Trees such as this will take another 40-50 years to grow and we believe thattheir valuable role in mitigating some of the harmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollutionas well the loss of their role in removing CO2 (critical in a city that has declared a climateemergency) from the air is too high a price to pay. for the following reasons:1) The Air Quality report carried out by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears tohave "massaged" the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data into categoricaldata, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their percentageincreases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. Based on the actual data, someproperties are way over 10% increase.2) The modelled air quality figures are centred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution),whereas last year's measured average in that street was 53.4ug/m3.3) The Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) in which Mr Crawshaw states: "The report argues that becausethere are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this can be weighed against thedeterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. I disagree. I do not think thatsome residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...

". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believethis development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."4) I note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

Keen to see new housing but want to see the nature trees on the street in front kept ifthis is to go ahead.

Removal of mature trees, with a significant immediate impact to the area

- With the proximity to the motorway and a lack of trees and greenery, the removal ofthe mature maple trees seems barbaric.- A development on this scale will increase the already high levels of noise and air pollution.- Lack of parking facilities it includes is concerning, particularly in an area where it's alreadyincredibly difficult for residents to find a space.

I object to this application mainly due to the loss of trees and the design building right upto the pavement and thus destroying the last vestiges of space in that area. Traffic pollution isextremely high at that location and therefore mature trees are needed to clean the air. Manychildren cross that road to go to school and the pollution is very noticable - one of the reasons wemoved out of Bristol. As a member of the Save the M32 Maples group I am quite convinced thatthe landowner of said land ownership has illegally cut down 2 trees already and the remainingtrees are on Bristol City Council land. There are some dodgy dealings going on here and it is timeBCC stood up to the developers and stopped taking 'backhanders'. What with the lovely meadowopposite having been destroyed this area needs these last 3 maples more than ever. Quite franklythe design proposed is an eyesore totally out of keeping with the area.

This panning does not protected the maple trees which are needed to build safe andlegal housing on this plot. This is bristols 3rd most polluted road making it high on the UK worstlist. It's unethical to make housing on this plot without the trees. So yes to affordable housing aslong as it's up to EU safe standards.

I strongly object to this proposal. In this area so close to the M32 the community needall the mature trees that already exist to be kept and absolutely not felled for a housingdevelopment that could easily be slightly altered to keep the trees and be much pleasanter forresidents. I am not satisfied that Bristol City Council Planning Department have considered thiscarefully enough and must not grant planning permission for the current application. We aresupposed to be greening the city and planting many more trees as well as looking after existingones. I believe an alternative design has been drawn up which keeps the three remaining treesand enhances the development too. There are so many health and well being reasons toreconsider the proposal and reject it in its current form. It was drawn up well before the currentpandemic and now needs to be changed to allow the trees to remain and the whole developmentto be better suited to the area, taking into consideration existing nearby developments also.

I strongly object to this proposal. In this area so close to the M32 the community needall the mature trees that already exist to be kept and absolutely not felled for a housingdevelopment that could easily be slightly altered to keep the trees and be much pleasanter forresidents. I am not satisfied that Bristol City Council Planning Department have considered thiscarefully enough and must not grant planning permission for the current application. We aresupposed to be greening the city and planting many more trees as well as looking after existingones. I believe an alternative design has been drawn up which keeps the three remaining treesand enhances the development too. There are so many health and well being reasons toreconsider the proposal and reject it in its current form. It was drawn up well before the currentpandemic and now needs to be changed to allow the trees to remain and the whole developmentto be better suited to the area, taking into consideration existing nearby developments also.

I object to the revised proposal to develop the site at 31-45 Ashley Road.

The size of development, despite the revised plans, will have a significant impact on neighbouringhouses in terms of access to light, noises pollution, air quality and pressures on parking.

Gordon road and Conduit road already experience extreme vehicle congestion and illegal parkingthat puts pedestrians at significant risk of harm and this will only increase with 28 units of housingand the additional traffic this will bring to the area. The density of units is disproportionate to theinfrastructure in the local area which is unable to support the parking and access needs. Theproposed increase in traffic and parked cars will put pedestrians and cyclists at risk of injury andimpact on their ability to safely navigate walkways and carriageways.

Neighbouring houses will be significantly impacted in terms of access to light. As a closeneighbour, we have had no assessment conducted at our property and other comments have alsoquestioned the reliability of remote or computer aided light assessments that rely on estimatedreadings. Our quality of life and that of our neighbours will be impacted by the construction of abuilding of this size, the overshadowing and consequent reduction in light and visible skyline

Air quality is poor in the local area, as noted in the proposal. The following statement is taken fromthe revised design and access plan;

"When considering the significance, it is important to take into account that the latest EPUK/IAQMguidance states that "a moderate or substantial impact may not have asignificant effect if it is confined to a very small area". Adverse impacts are predicted to occur at 7

- 15 properties, which must be set against the 10 properties predicted to experience beneficialimpacts"

As a ratio of impact this indicates that adverse impact is predicted to occur at up to 15 propertiesin comparison to the 10 properties predicted to experience benefits. This statement in itselfpredicts that the development will, on balance, have a significant negative impact on air quality incomparison to any benefits that it provides. This ratio and the 15 households it will affectnegatively is not 'confined to a very small area'. 15 households amounts to 15 families who shouldnot be required to suffer further degradation in air quality in an area that already suffers greatly.

The removal of mature maple trees from Lower Ashley Road exacerbates this issue and thesevital trees are irreplaceable. Trees are much needed in this congested area as a filter for air, noiseand the visual benefit they provide to all that live in and pass through the area. Any developmenton this site should not threaten the continued existence of these trees as they are of great benefitto local residents and the wider community.

Given the large scale of development in the local area, a smaller, lower, mixed use development,with the proposed level of affordable housing that includes the retention of these trees should beconsidered.

The sager of the M32 Mapels and BCC involvement has absolutely shocked andappauled me. Since I moved to St Paul's I have suffered from several chest infections, the air isthick with pollution and the statistics on Reguards to the physical impact on the children living inthis area is unquestionable. With this in mind, the idea of cutting down four 30 year old trees isconfusing at best. Mr Garlic, has shown no Reguard for the community he is damaging and hisaborant and unsafe practices have cause for serious consern.I have never lived in a community like St Paul's and the people who are living in this area deserveto be procted, they desserv to be able to afford to live in the area and the council they help to fundshould have the health and wellbeing of the residents as the top priority. Not monatary gain.Do the right thing and protect the trees on your land which where planted for the health of thepeople.

Please ask the developer to find a plan which retains these three trees which theplanning committee chose to actively protect back in 2006 when the first planning application wasrejected.

You have an opportunity here to protect three trees which have worked in harmony to clean theair, save lives, soak up water, carbon and pollutants, beautify the heavily traffic-burdenedenvironment and give habitat, shade, balance and a breathing, resting space for decades, servingthe community.

Many of the people of St Pauls and St Werburghs have objected very strongly here. They don'tmind so much a development, just aspects of it, particularly the tree loss.

They didn't have the chance to object to the initial application as it did not mention tree loss 'Arethere any trees: No' and so anyone investigating could have assumed the trees were on councilland and would remain.

Surely there is a way of addressing both the developers and the residents wishes.

We are all in the middle of a pandemic. Many are just getting by and have not got the time orinclination to complain to a planning group, they have other pressing priorities right now. They willturn around one day and realise their whole neighbourhood has been turned into concrete andtarmac and is even more overstretched in terms of parking, amenity and pollution, past the tippingpoint. This development appears to be just one too far and out of character.

I have spent the best part of 10 years walking past those trees most days. If my walk will benotably impacted by their loss then the residents loss must be much greater.

Systems are created by individual decisions. It is time now to strengthen the systems to preservea sustainable, resilient city for our futures.

Please allow further time for consideration and maybe some community/developer discussions.

I object to this proposal. Surely something can be done to make use of the existingbuilding without demolishing it and starting again. If it has to come down, then put a park there!

It's worth noting that if these Maple Trees were in Clifton or any other conservation area theywould automatically be protected. And yet residents living with illegal levels of air pollution arehaving to fight to protect what little greenery they have? Madness!

I fully object to this development due to the multitude of reasons that have been laid outfrom numerous stakeholders during this process. The overwhelming evidence is that thisdevelopment is not fit for purpose and is only being pushed ahead for monetary gain.Looking at the comments in this application there is a clear majority against it, though not forobjection's sake. Factual reasons around health and safety, questions of illegality, and alternativeshave all been made to ensure there are real reasons why this should not go ahead.

As a resident adjacent to the proposed development I am at a far greater risk of health issues dueto the pollution, both from the increased traffic and parking but also from the noise that will comewith it. I shouldn't have to risk my health when there are safer, cleaner alternatives available.Especially when as a city, Bristol has pledged to be greener and cleaner with self-imposed targets.

A crucial part that the developers are undertaking is an illegal land grab of our neighbor's gardendirectly next to the plot of the development. The developers have made visual drawings assumingthey will own it, which puts a 4 story block of flats directly adjacent to a two-story terrace. How canthat possibly be in keeping with the local area and with minimal disturbance? A statement theyclaim in the proposal. This plot does not belong to them and from the looks of it, the developersare using a loop hole in the law to claim it.

When a large development like this is made there should be public consultation from the start dueto the aggressive nature of its location and the impact it will have, so as someone who can't helpbut be affected it is disappointing no such effort has been made.

Regardless of who owns the maple trees they should 100% be kept as they provide something

that money cant buy. Again, as a green city, this should be at forefront of all work that is done.

If you have any need for a wheelchair or pram you have to walk down the Gordon road as thereare cars parked on both pavements, day and night. The parking in the area is a saturation pointalready, meaning it can't take any more at all. The area is one of only a few that does not haveresidents permits and so often becomes overflow for the adjacent areas. To then have nearly 50flats built where some with have multiple vehicles and say it won't be an issue is madness. And tothen offer 2 parking places as a compromise is a joke.

If this land was in Redland or Clifton and had the same amount of objections as this one does itwould simply not go ahead in its current form. Because the area is slightly regenerating does notmean development can happen for development's sake.

I object to this planning permission largely because of the removal of the Mature mapletrees. I don't understand why the trees cannot be kept - it really isn't a solution to plant saplings asreplacements. Bristol - and particularly this area of St Paul's - is desperately short of mature treeswhich will help to filter the air and create both cooler shade and a place for wildlife.The One City plan aims to double tree cover, so why remove these trees - it just doesn't makesense - and surely there is a way to build accommodating them - they are on the pavement so itcan only be access that we are talking about - not actual buildings.Please alter the plans so they are more sympathetic to wildlife and the visual aspect for thecommunity.Keep the trees.

This development contravenes the Bristol Development Framework Core StrategyBCS9, BCS13 and BCS23. It also takes no account of the Councils One City Plan. It alsocontravenes DM33 of the councils development management policy. It contravenes BristolDevelopment Framework Core Strategy BCS16 with regard to flooding. The trees remaining onthe land are the property of Bristol City Council. Surely to allow these trees to be felled goesagainst everything in the Climate Emergency Action Plan. Also this plan is falsified, as shown onLand Registry AB2947, so how can it even be considered?

This beggars belief that on a busy and very polluted street you are consideringchopping dien the remaining 3 maples. Which but about climate change and health issues don'tyou get?? These trees are on public ground anyway. Vandals. These developers as Nd you thecouncil are ruining our city. Get a grip.

I used to Live in St. Paul's and st werburghs and my husband suffered terribly withashma And would regularly have a attacks. We have since moved more up the hill and he had nothad one for 4 years. The pollution down in that bowl is awful and removing these beautiful treeswill affect the residents further. We are a green city please protect that especially as there areother options meaning they don't need to be felled

We need to preserve trees inline with the councils own objectives. These trees are ofpublic value and removal of them from public land is counterproductive and detrimental to thehealth and wellbeing of Bristol and its residents.

I object to this planning application due to the intensity of new buildings some havefinished and others are still in process all within five mins walk of this application . This proposalput forward without the resident trees , we all are aware of the importance of trees for healthwelfare including mental health and the rise of asthma in children especially in this area which isone of the most polluted and deprived econimically areas.The new proposal of a 4 story building will have an impact on the light and close proximity to theresidents who live there will impact on their psychological and emotional lives, this proposal is toohigh with no benefits to the locals lives, the traffic is intense with or without the new residentscomplying to a no vehicle ban.I am aware of the new saplings to replace the present mature trees but they will not be able tocreate the air quality that is needed now for at least another 15 plus years, we need social andaffordable housing but we also need good quality air to Breathe! and and good quality Lives. Theamount of traffic going and leaving the M32 and junction 3 is imense and its not a healthy place towalk by let alone live, please consider other building designs to allow these essential trees toremain for everyone's sake, there's so many reasons to kkep these very important and beautifullife supporting trees for us and the local wildlife.

I object to the trees that the developer wants to cut down on the grounds that it hasbeen proved the land the trees are on does not belong to the developer.that previous applicationshave lied about the presence of trees on the land, that 2 trees have already been cut bydevelopers illegally,without proper health and safety of workers and passers by being taken intoaccount. The trees cannot be replaced by money, mature trees take decades to grow, the trees atthe site are needed as it is a flood area, they are needed as people need oxygen to breathe. Bythe council s own admission this area is one of the most polluted in Bristol, local youth centre theDocklands reports that more than half of the users have asthma....Trees do well to filter thepollution in the area.we are surrounded by motorways...a family of 4 needs the oxygen of 2 matureadult trees a year, we already don t have enough trees..Ashley rd already exceeds local limits andthe air quality is illegal....if the air quality is illegal who is committing the crime?.Our area is denselypopulated development is overwhelmingly high, this development offers no lasting social housingprovision and like all private " affordable"(for whom?)development is pushing the social housingrents up and pushing families out of the area.Bristol city council needs to firm up their policies of agreen city into real decision making.please save these precious 3 trees that are left it is not muchto ask for we need to maintain the tree canopy that exists and add to it, for a better future, we arein the Middle of a pandemic that has particularly hit people whose lungs are weaker, please saveour trees it is not much to ask

I object to the trees that the developer wants to cut down on the grounds that it hasbeen proved the land the trees are on does not belong to the developer.that previous applicationshave lied about the presence of trees on the land, that 2 trees have already been cut bydevelopers illegally,without proper health and safety of workers and passers by being taken intoaccount. The trees cannot be replaced by money, mature trees take decades to grow, the trees atthe site are needed as it is a flood area, they are needed as people need oxygen to breathe. Bythe council s own admission this area is one of the most polluted in Bristol, local youth centre theDocklands reports that more than half of the users have asthma....Trees do well to filter thepollution in the area.we are surrounded by motorways...a family of 4 needs the oxygen of 2 matureadult trees a year, we already don t have enough trees..Ashley rd already exceeds local limits andthe air quality is illegal....if the air quality is illegal who is committing the crime?.Our area is denselypopulated development is overwhelmingly high, this development offers no lasting social housingprovision and like all private " affordable"(for whom?)development is pushing the social housingrents up and pushing families out of the area.Bristol city council needs to firm up their policies of agreen city into real decision making.please save these precious 3 trees that are left it is not muchto ask for we need to maintain the tree canopy that exists and add to it, for a better future, we arein the Middle of a pandemic that has particularly hit people whose lungs are weaker, please saveour trees it is not much to ask

Bristol is in the grip of an air pollution crisis. It desperately needs more trees, especiallymature ones. Destroying the M32 Maples would be an act of gross vandalism and an insult to localcommunities. Also, as the opposition campaign group has irrefutably proved, the planning processis illegal and does not follow protocol. For this reason alone the development must be stopped, thetrees saved, and the development plans revised.

Comments from Bristol Clean Air Alliance on planning application 19/02157/F, 31-45Lower Ashley Road

Bristol Clean Air Alliance objects to this planning application on air quality grounds.

We draw the Committee's attention to the comment from council officer Steve Crawshaw:

"The report argues that because there are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this canbe weighed against the deterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. Idisagree. I do not think that some residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ..."and"Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believe thisdevelopment has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."

We note from Table 5 in the Air Quality Assessment that 15 of the properties would be adverselyimpacted as a result of the development.

Alan Morris

Hello, if all possible please don't cut down trees where this can be avoided. They arevital for our physical and mental health.Thank you.

I urge you not to fell 4 mature maples trees in St Pauls.I object to the current Planning Application to demolish the existing building on Lower Ashley roadand build a block of flats.

There is a lot of local opposition to the project. I have concerns about the Air Quality report carriedout by consultants on behalf of the developers as it appears to have:". . . . manipulated the figures in their favour by turning continuous quantitative data intocategorical data, thereby losing the magnitude of deteriorating air quality, and have made their%age increases related to 40ug/m3 rather than the starting point. . . Based on the actual data,some properties are way over 10% increase."Prof. John Tarlton M32 Maples told us. Furthermore he states that in his opinion this is "very odd...never come across this before".

Another cause for concern is that, according to Prof Tarlton, their modelled air quality figures arecentred around 40ug/m3 (the 'legal' limit for air pollution), whereas last year's MEASUREDaverage in that street was 53.4ug/m3.

Also the Air Quality Team Response, received as a Consultee Comment on 5th June 2019 (SteveCrawshaw to Charlotte Sangway) it states:

"The report argues that because there are some improvements in air quality (albeit fewer), this canbe weighed against the deterioration and thus overall the impact is neutral and negligible. Idisagree. I do not think that some residents should experience a worsening of air quality, ...

". . . Residents in Lower Ashley Road experience some of the worst air quality in the city. I believethis development has the potential to worsen air quality further at relevant receptors. Inadequatemitigation has been proposed to deal with this significant issue. I therefore object to thisdevelopment as it runs counter to BCS23."Steve CrawshawSteve is a council employee with many years of experience in air quality and is well respected inair quality campaigning circles. 15 of the properties would be adversely impacted as a result of thedevelopment.

Whilst the removal of 4 mature trees could be argued to have a minimal effect on the overall airquality in our city, it is worth remembering that this location once boasted 7 mature trees of thesame age. Our concern is that by allowing the remaining trees to be felled without due regard forthe local environment, and extremely high levels of air pollution in this part of the city, a precedentwill be set which will result in the felling of more valuable mature trees in the city ultimately leadingto a huge loss of a valuable and precious resource - our mature city trees. Trees such as this willtake another 40-50 years to grow and we believe that their valuable role in mitigating some of theharmful effects of already illegal levels of air pollution as well as removing CO2 from the air is toohigh a price to pay.

Montpelier Conservation GroupPlease reply to: Tony Mason, 104 York Road, Montpelier, Bristol BS6 5QQ

 We note that the City Design Group has advised that “Further improvements could be made in terms of securing tree planting along the Lower Ashley Road frontage”, but no such provision is made in the application..

 Lower Ashley Road is a very busy route for traffic travelling between the north and west of the city and the M32 and Easton Way. There are high levels of traffic pollution and noise. Any development of this site must take this into account. At present the street trees in front of the site mitigate these problems and their loss would be extremely damaging to the health and amenity of existing residents.

 Planting replacement trees elsewhere, even nearby, would not restore the beneficial effects the trees provide in their current position and we strongly object to their proposed removal.

 The Applicant’s intransigence over the trees, coupled with the Local Planning Authority’s failure to maintain the position set out in their Pre-Application response has resulted in widespread opposition to what could and should have been a commendable proposal to provide much-needed affordable housing.

We continue to object to this application in its current form and ask for it to be refused.

Tony Masonfor Montpelier Conservation Group

1902157 31-45 lower ashley road revised.doc

I understand that there are some serious issues and concerns about the ownership ofsome of the land in this planning application, specifically along the frontage of the site along LowerAshley Road. And, linked to this the loss of some mature trees, some of which have already beenillegally felled.

I have seen evidence that Bristol City Council owns some of the land covered by this planningapplication, and moreover, have been informed that the Council has also refused to openlydiscuss the issue. The issue being the 'gifting' of public land to a private developer so that adevelopment can proceed. I understand that there is no evidence that the public land concernedhas been sold or transferred to the land owner/developer of this application.

There are also issues about the validity and availability of information that the Council holdspertaining to their ownership of land at this site and that it is willing to share/make available forscrutiny.

THEREFORE THIS PLANNING APPLICATION MUST BE REFUSED UNTIL SUCH TIME ASTHESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AND RESOLVED.

Note: The comments above may be used in evidence that Bristol City Council Planning Committeehave been made aware of these issues at this point in the decision making process.

I have already objected to this ridiculous plan but see from the revised planningapplication that the applicant has answered " yes " to the question of the land being known to becontaminated and that the proposed use would be vulnerable to the presence of contamination.Yet further grounds for this and similar applications to be rejected.

The mature trees are under threat. They are recognised by Bristol Council as importantto physical and mental health and our environment. The developer is making false statements toenable him to destroy them.

Whilst I feel the current derelict property is an eyesore, and I am for the development ofaffordable housing, I do not feel the current building plans have taken into account the existingproblems in the area.

In particular, Conduit Road and the surrounding residential roads are already packed full with cars.The area is not permitted and therefore multiple cars and large vans who park here are notresidents. The new proposal has allowed 2 parking spaces for a total of 31 units. There willinevitably be a large number of those residents who will own a car and desire nearby parking. Thiswill continue to add to the congestion both on the road and on the roadside.

Many vehicles also use the nearby roads as a shortcut around Lower Ashley Road. This causes alot of unnecessary noise and pollution from the excess cars, many of whom drive at excessivespeeds. With the new housing development at the dye words, I do not think the area can afford tohave an additional large unit space without further consideration and action on the issue of thetraffic.

I also agree with many other comments that there is no mention of what will happen to the existingmaple trees. Given there has been distress and upset from locals around the trees, I think thisneeds to be fully addressed.

My overall feeling having read through the plans and many of the other comments is that this is apoorly designed building with lack of consideration for the local area and existing residents.

There's no mention of the trees in this application. What will happen to them? Therehave been several attempts to remove them and I strongly object to any application that doesn'tcontain a clause that protects these important trees.

1) No mention of the trees in the planning application2) proposed building is not in keeping with local amenity3) Building would be too tall and block out light to neighbouring houses5) Removal of the trees will remove a vital wildlife corridor between the Frome River and AshleyVale area

I disagree with cutting down trees

I object for the following reasons:

1) 4 storey development will block light and, therefore, have an impact on animal life and naturalhabitat2) there are trees on the site and the air quality is already dreadful so their removal exacerbatesrather than alleviates this health issue3) there is no parking planned and the area is already hugely congested and is set to be more sowith the housing developments on tudor road/lower ashley and brooks4) the city needs affordable housing and for this to be evenly spread not overwhelming one area

I live in Rosebery Avenue and am very familiar with the location in question. My concernis that the 4 storey building planned will overshadow the housing block already next door, reducinglight to that building and too close to these neighbouring properties. The area is alreadyoverdevelopped with new housing opposite in Ashley Rd and Brooks estate of 81 units being builtonly a few hundred yards away. This means more traffic from increased residents cars and morepollution. Furthermore, in order to build this planned application, the destruction of 3 mature 60 yrold maple trees is planned. These trees help to filter the pollution in one of the worst roads inBristol in terms of air quality. A high proportion of children at the local primary school haveAsthma. This is not a suitable location for housing for families with children. Housing shouldinclude trees, people have a right to have trees included in the planning. Research has showntheir importance in terms of mental as well as physical health. For these aforestated reasons lstrongly object to this application.

My concern is with saving the remaining three mature, healthy trees still at risk and theongoing dispute of both the legality of this application and the planning process that allowed theunlawful destruction of two trees on the public highway.

A public enquiry should take place to look at the operation of planning procedures that allowprivate speculators to be given permission to pursue monetary reward over public good.

My concern is with saving the remaining three mature, healthy trees still at risk on thissite, particularly as the application denies they are there and the ongoing dispute of both thelegality of this application and the planning process that allowed the unlawful destruction of twotrees on the public highway.

A public enquiry should take place to look at the operation of planning procedures that allowprivate speculators to be given permission to pursue monetary reward over public good.

This planning application should be invalidated due to an error. Section 10: Are thereany trees on the development. Answer: NO.There are in fact three mature trees on the site, which were on Highways land until BCC gave theland away to the developers. There were more originally before they were illegally felled by theowner of the adjacent plot.Any application for development needs to include the remaining trees, which are communityassets.

In principle, I am in favour of the addition of affordable housing to the area and certainlyfeel that this ispreferable to student housing in an area so far removed from either of the universitycampuses.

However, the proposed development will likely exacerbate some of the significant problems facedby the existing residents in this area and will expose the new residents of the proposeddevelopment to these problems as well.

Following the implementation of residents parking schemes in St Agnes and Montpelier, the areajust north of Lower Ashley road remains one of the closest areas to the center of town wherecommuters can park. With it's proximity to J3 M32 many take advantage of this on a daily basis.

I do not own a car myself, but the pressure for spaces on Gordon road, Conduit road and AshleyGrove Road often leads to illegal parking that blocks the roadway to essential services like rubbishcollection and emergency vehicles. Pavements, which are already very narrow are alsoobstructed.

Unfortunately, it seems that it may a deliberate highways agency and council policy to facilitatesouthbound traffic from the B4052 through our residential area to alleviate congestion at thejunction with the B4051.

The combination has made for some very unpleasant experiences, especially when trying to keepa 3-year-old on a pavement where it is too narrow to walk side-by-side.

I appreciate that none of the above is the developer's fault, but it provides the context of why thelocal community is so hostile to a development that provides no space for its residents to park. It iseither deluded to believe that they will not own cars, or they don't care about the stress they willhave to endure when they try to park them.

I would only be able to support an application that provided at least some on-site parking with anassociated plan for residents parking. Every other housing development in the area has done thisand I cannot understand why the planners have already approved a plan for this site that does not.

No provision for existing trees.No on site parking. It's ridiculous to assume that none of the residents will have cars. You cannotplan without this being integral to your submission.

This application is based on a foundation of lies, deceit and bluster.

He has not mentioned the mature maples he wishes to extinguish from this Earth. Shame on himand you i if you allow this money making scheme to involve mature tree loss for gain. Keep thetrees and make the development a few metres back. I don't want to stop the new flats but savewhat little Caron sinks we have in Bristol, his proposal to plant 5 new saplings is laughable as anexchange.

I OBJECT in the strongest terms to this mans tactics in trying to hoodwink you and us.

In Section 10 of this document the Owners states rhere are no trees associated with thissite.There are 3 mature Maple trees on the frontage on Lower Ashley Road. There used to be 5 until 2eere illegally cut down 31-12-2019.There is a dispute regarding the exact boundary, but there are definately trees!

The amenity of the building design would not fit within the local area. Too many stories,lack of privacy and light for neighbouring houses.

The planing application again fails to mention the trees on the site. These trees have treeprotection orders and the proposed destruction of them (2 have already been felling illegally) havebeen a source of great consternation for the local population.

The remaining three trees on site provide a vital link for wildlife between the Frome River corridorand St. Werburghs. Not to mention the legally murky ownership of the land on which the treesgrow.

This is a high density design in an area which is already one of the highest traffic areas in Bristol.This will inevitably bring more traffic to an area already boasting illegal levels of pollution.

There is no mention here of the 3 (once 5) maple trees. It is very clear that thiscommunity wholly rejects any construction that means these trees will be cut down. It is a risk topublic health and the environment to do so, and I strongly object to these plans.

The proposed elevations are also ugly and cumbersome and will be an eyesore from all directions.

I'm glad that it will now provide affordable housing as opposed to the student housing originallyplanned, but I strongly object to the impact on the local environment this plan will surely have.

I object to this application fully due to enough pollution and congestion in my area.There is no parking in the area. The flats are being built with no parking. People park wherebrooks use to be.Its all overcrowded. All traffic comes down Tudor road to use M32, its becoming very busy withlong queues.we need more affordable houses

I object to this application fully due to enough pollution and congestion in my area.There is no parking in the area. The flats are being built with no parking. People park near oldbrooks site use to be. Its all overcrowded. We need more affordable houses.

There is no mention here of the 3 (once 5) maple trees that are on this land. Thelandowner has continually tried to cut all the trees down, despite wide local condemnation anddirect action to prevent this. Also, the building looks out of character for the area and is ugly.

The revised application form, added 20th May 2020, indicates there are no trees on thedevelopment site. This is incorrect.

The revised application form which was added on 20th May 2020, states there are notrees on the development site or on land adjoining the development site. This is wrong. I suspect itis not a mistake, given how the landowner has continually tried to cut down the street maple treesnext to this site.

The revised application form which was added on 20th May 2020, states there are notrees on the development site or on land adjoining the development site. This is wrong. I suspect itis not a mistake, given how the landowner has continually tried to cut down the street maple treesnext to this site.

Sir/MadaMOnce again I am objecting to this updated application to build a block of flats on Lower Ashley Rd.No mention is made anywhere of the fact that three mature maple trees are between the oldprefab building and the pavement. Why is this??? These trees serve an essential health function.Recent research into Covid 19 indicates that the disease is carried more effectively via poor airquality. As other research indicates this particular area of Bristol has dangerously poor air quality.The UK 100 study report issued at the end of 2019 said that such low air quality results in thedeaths of five people per week in Bristol. (The city itself is one of the 100 members of thisorganisation and surely ought to be listening to it's own findings?!) Whilst recently there has beena reduction in pollution due to Covid travel restrictions, this will inevitably get worse once more asthe build up of air toxicities returns when society starts travelling again - which it has alreadybegun to do. The removal of any mature tree which would take 20 to 30 years to replace, would beputting both new and old residents in the area at a further severe health risk. Already it has aworryingly large number of children suffering with asthma as the Docklands Report has shown.Everyone needs a home but it must be a home that provides safety for the body and mind. - surelythis is a human right and one which must exist as much for those with lower incomes as those withhigher ones?Again no mention is made of the Right of Way that lies clearly adjacent to the proposeddevelopment.Work started some time ago to dismantle the building and to butcher two of the once five mapletrees without permission or following any proper safety measure being put into place. This justcannot be.Bristol City Council purports to be a "green city" yet it behaves like this where it would appear thatthe trees are not even acknowledged as being in existance. We desperately need trees in our

urban environment. Without them the health and well being of urban residents is in seriousjeopardy - not to mention wildlife. Whatsmore, with simple changes in the planning design, as hasbeen shown, it is possible to have both housing and to keep what is already there, the threeremaining maple trees.I urge you to reassess this matter.SincerelyS Hackett

Hi

I am very interested to understand why the plans and drawings on the light report are so differentto the original ones submitted. If it was a case of the plans being changed why has there been noamended documents or any reference to it at all?

From the plans outlined by the light report it now appears the building wraps around the centerground and literally touches our building on the west side. Please note we have a window thereand right of way via our back garden. There is just no way you could build so close unless amistake has been made on the light report.

I would also like to question where the data from the report has come from. We have had no onecome round to inspect our windows from the garden nor seen anyone use a cherry picker tocalculate the angles. I can only assume the calculations have been made via a CAD program likeRevit with a lighting add-on. If this is the case it should be stated as that as the figures providedwill only be estimations and with so many other variables not known I do not see how this report isaccurate and therefore its reliability is in question.

Many thanks,

Other discrepancies include that covering letters cited in the application have not been made available.

It should be noted that the building is unsafe because the developers permitted ad hoc demolition work to be carried out without due permission. Further, the developers permitted the destruction of two trees at least partly on public land which were under the protection of a Tree Protection Order. This is in spite of a prior agreement to halt all works until completion of planning consideration for the application 19/02157/F due in March 2020.

The importance of the remaining Maple trees in the local environment is attested by the overwhelming support given them by the community, who believe that the residents of Ashley, and in particular, those occupying affordable homes, deserve to have trees to mitigate their poor air quality just as much as residents of other parts of Bristol.

Yours sincerely.

Joe Mason.

Whitehall Bristol.

I object to the felling of the trees for 19/02157/F planning application the applicationdidn't I believe answered no when asked if there were any trees on the site, when there was.The 3 trees that are left are important to the air quality for the local people health and welfare.I have no problem with the proposal of flats for social or any homeless, but there needs to becompromise and an underground that these trees are very important, money doesn't grow ontrees but air does with the environmental situation we need mature trees now not in 30 years time,people are suffering with asthma and other health problems.There needs to be some positive compromise to this application.We need those trees there was TPO but the people took it as their right to cut 2 out of the 5 downwithout proper dialogue with the locals.It's very important in our area for us to keep them as we are seeing a massive increase of buildingnew homes flats etc and we are already finding the air quality very poor.

This planning application should be invalidated due to an error. Section 10: Are thereany trees on the development. Answer: NO

I've looked at the public comments and thought to myself isn't that just great,homeowners reducing the amount of affordable housing forcing up the value of their own houses.Bristol City does not have enough affordable housing, the city now has a Brownfield site in the cityand we are going to see more student lets because the site already has permission to buildstudent lets - 60 of them. We need houses we need homes what the hell has got in to the peopleof the city other than to force at the value of their own homes-Just plain greed! When you look atthe height of the proposed building it's lower than the houses at the top of the street and in linewith the houses at the top of the street. The only reason why the site is not covered with the same19 century houses that are currently at the top of the street, is because the Germans bombedthem. Finally there is an opportunity to replace the original 19c houses ( which were built at thesame time as George's Bathroom Shop which offer zero greenery), with houses suitable for the21st-century at socially affordable rents, on a long term basis, that also offerslandscaping/greenery and local property owners selfishly want to increase the value of theirproperty and forcing families who need homes, out of the city to god knows where in favour of 60middle class students - WE NEED HOUSES!!!! If this doesn't get built they already havepermission to start the student build - it's a middle class attack on local working and lower classpeople . We need Jeremy Corbyn to sweep away the middle class in favour of the working class -he won't ask, he will just build!

Following review of the planning application documents, as well as relevant documentsfrom application 15/05530/P, I am writing to reject to the application for new housing at 31-45Lower Ashley Road in its current form.

The removal of the mature Norway Maples in order to deliver the new housing is both short-sighted and not appropriately mitigated for within the proposals.

These are mature category B trees which provide a number of ecosystem service benefits to thearea. While their removal was approved within the 2015 application, there is now greaterunderstanding of the benefits of urban trees and the urgent requirement for the City to take actionto mitigate against climate change. Furthermore, the air quality assessment included within thisapplication highlights the low air quality within this area. These trees will be contributing tomitigating the air quality within the area by capturing particulates - as well as reducing surfacewater flooding and reducing urban heat island effect in the area.

In addition, these trees will be providing vital wildlife habitat within a highly built up area. As well asthe wide and varied other number of benefits which urban trees provide.

As the current proposals do not allow space for sufficient mitigation planting, the applicationshould be reviewed and a landscape-led proposal, which imaginatively incorporates the trees intothe scheme should be considered. This would better serve the new and existing residents ofLower Ashley Road and avoid detrimental harm to the environment of the area.

If Bristol Council is going to demonstrate that it is taking its declaration of a climate emergency

seriously, then it should be doing all it can to preserve the resources which it already has tomitigate the effects of climate change (ie. trees). Housing development and conservation do notneed to be mutually exclusive and there are plenty of examples of imaginative solutions to ensurehousing number delivery within an environmentally sustainable framework.

My concerns are two-fold;

Firstly, it's very disappointing to hear that five maple trees will be cut down to provide natural lightfor a new built. I can see that there are plans to potentially plant new trees, but I don't feel this isan adequate replacement for the current substantial trees which provide protection from trafficpollution and noise, as well as having been part of the natural ecosystem.

Parking is already extremely challenging in the area, and this proposal does not provide additionalspace for the residents who will inevitably park on the raod I live on (conduit Road), as this is notpermitted. Finding a space to park can often be difficult, and with extra cars, this will become evenharder. Congestion is also very heavy, particularly around rush hour, and this property wouldmake this issue worse.

Therefore I oppose this planning application on the grounds above, as I do not feel these issueshave been adequately addressed.

Please don't cut the mature maple trees down. We need more trees. Thank you.

This is not acceptable in a time of climate change.

In an age where climate action is crucial, it is appalling that this project requires maturetrees to be cut down. These trees not only provide a habitat for many animals, but also sequestercarbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As European Green Capital 2015, I am shocked that Bristolcouncil is considering this application

As a resident of one of the terrace properties on Conduit Road, I have two majorconcerns about this development:

Firstly, there is already a major parking issue in the area as many properties have more than onevehicle and there is very limited space in the area for those to be parked safely. There has beentwo incidents (of which I am aware) of people being injured (including a child being hit by a car)due to pedestrians having to walk on the road as cars are regularly parked on all available curbs,and the road is often used as a shortcut from Ashley road to the M32. This also has an obviousnegative effect on elderly and disabled residents who are completely unable to fitwheelchairs/mobility equipment along curbsides, and often have difficulty leaving there homes. Ipersonally have had my vehicle vandalised as residents have become vigilant in 'protecting'spaces outside their homes which don't belong to them.

The addition of 31 flats, and likely a much larger number of vehicles, will obviously have a hugeimpact on this issue and I feel the creation of such a large residential property withoutconsideration of parking is irresponsible, unreasonable and dangerous.

There is no spill out parking area available at all, and with another large construction on the oldBrookes dye works site this is an issue which needs to be taken seriously.

Secondly, the 5 Norway Maple trees that line the front of the proposed site are some of the onlysubstantial trees in the area. There is a concerning amount of construction happening within avery small distance of the site and air quality, as well as the aesthetic impact on the communityand it's residents should be taken seriously.

Also, though this may be based on neighbourhood gossip, seemingly the attempted, unlawfulremoval of the trees was carried out by the proposing party without appropriate planning. If this isthe case it shows a selfish and irresponsible lack of respect for the community and the local area.

These trees are one of the only good things about this pollution choked inner city street.We need MORE trees planting not FEWER. Trees add character to our city and help removedeadly CO2 from the environment. Cutting these maples down (and illegally butchering them) ismadness!

Object

We need to double our tree cover in the country if we are going to have any tiny chanceof having a habitable planet for future generations.

I understand that we also need homes, but quite frankly the natural world should be a priority. Wehave taken too much for far too long, and these flats will be pointless in the years to come if wedon't start taking the climate crisis like the perilous danger that it is.

Buildings like this should replace the nature that they steal from the land, come with a communityor roof garden or use another piece of land which won't endanger future generations.

I understand that we need more houses but we cannot afford losing the mature trees.The planning should take into account existing trees and preserve them instead of cutting themdown. There is no consent for such actions in the time of climate crisis we're in.

As a resident of Bristol (though not the Ashley Down area) I object because Bristol'sdeclaration of a climate emergency has changed the parameters that applied in 2016 when as Iunderstand it an independent report favoured felling.

We now face the absolute necessity of massively increasing tree cover in the UK as part of aworldwide effort. We have fewer trees per square km here than many other European countries,so proportionately each tree in the UK is more important.

Therefore the proposed felling of even a small number of trees has become a much more highpriority issue.

We need to plant many more trees, but also to avoid removing existing trees. Mere commercialadvantage is no reason in the face of the climate emergency.

The amenity value of these trees in my view should outweigh commercial arguments for fellingthem.

Finally these are mature maple trees and are therefore likely to be absorbing more CO2 thansmaller immature trees - all the more reason to conserve them.

While I don't object to the development itself, it's is totally crazy and unnecessary to beremoving mature trees from this busy road. The traffic there is dreadful and the pollution and noiselevels will be made much worse. Even if new trees are planted it will take decades before theygrow large enough to remove as much co2/reduce as much noise as these trees do.

This neighbourhood needs all the trees it can to combat the excessive pollution causedby the amount of constant traffic from the M32. This application is inappropriate to theimprovements that this part of Bristol desperate for. We need more green spaces not more studentflats which only generate overcrowding, more litter and only benefit the developers and not theresidents of the community. I am 100% against this application.

I would like to raise awareness of the statement made by the Bristol Waste company. Iappreciate the assessment carried out but I would like to comment on one part.They have stated that the collection should be carried out from Gordon road. As parking is solimited on Gordon road people have to park on the curb on both sides which, therefore, makes thecentral reservation to drive down very narrow. On some days of collections, the rubbish collectorvehicle can not get all the way down and has to stop while the workers have to walk down tocollect it. I can only see this getting worse when there will be increased congestion and parkingfrom the additional 31 residents who have not been allocated parking. Furthermore, if the vehicledoes attempt to do make it down I worry for the safety of the vehicles parked along there.The other point to be made is that the size of the rubbish needing collecting will be quite large andno doubt will attract rats to the site. As my property is adjacent to the proposed new refuge I can'timage the smell or hygiene will be great. I think it should definitely be placed away from anyresidence, especially local ones on Gordon and Conduit road and instead, be collected fromAshley road like every other large building near the site.

31 units with an average of one car per unit, this application is providing no parking forresidents. The area is already flooded with vehicles from residents and businesses from st Paul'swho live within the parking zone but who do not wish to pay for a permit. Locals have requestedthe parking zone be extended but the council claim they have no desire to do this. Our street haslimited access for fire appliances since the parking scheme was introduced.Moreover the removal of trees on lower ashley road is unnecessary. Other than incorporatingthem and their natural beauty the removal of the trees is lazy and damages the area, it characterand it's history. These are all the things that the planning portal of the council is supposed toprotect.Locally we implore you to find alternative solutions.I encourage the development of the area but not at the expense of its character.

I still object to both the removal of these trees and the proposed building of flats with NOPARKING!!! We have very few street trees in the neighbourhood, just as we already have verylittle space to park

Firstly I object to the removal of the Maple trees in a particularly polluted area of Bristol.We need as many street trees as is possible to help clean the air. This development not onlywants to kill the trees but wants to build right up to the pavement which will really box in the roadand harbour the pollution. Coupled with the loss of the meadow opposite means this area is aboutto become a disgusting pollution zone where many families have to cross the road at the pelicancrossing. I do not care that the developer will pay for trees to be planted elsewhere we need themHERE! Stop pandering to the developers because you can make a few bucks and start showingsome responsibility to your City. Bristol claims to be green but is anything but.

As stated before, I strongly object to the proposal to remove these trees. I live over theroad and am acutely aware of the illegal levels of pollution me and my family are taking in all day,everyday. The removal of these trees would be in clear opposition to BCC's efforts to tackle thisissues. Any planning must allow for the trees to remain.

While I don't object to developing the area per se, I am saddened to learn that it wouldrequire the cutting down of the existing trees. Surely it is not beyond the expertise of our engineersand architects to work with nature rather than destroying it in the name of profit. This seems to beyet another disappointing housing unit which contributes little to the local community, and in factrequires taking trees from the locals to begin with.

The plan will create additional parking problems on our road.

Montpelier Conservation GroupPlease reply to: Tony Mason, 104 York Road, Montpelier, Bristol BS6 5QQ

 We recognise that both previous and current planning consents allow for the removal of the street trees. We have objected to this aspect of each of the past applications and maintain ourstance now. We deplore the recent attempt to remove the trees, particularly as it was carried out under an application that is clearly not going to be otherwise progressed.

 Lower Ashley Road is a very busy route for traffic travelling between the north and west of the city and the M32 and Easton Way. There are high levels of traffic pollution and noise. Any development of this site must take this into account. At present the street trees in front of the site mitigate these problems and their loss would be damaging to the health and amenity of existing residents. We do not agree that these trees are inappropriate, rather they contribute positively to the present character of this part of Lower Ashley Road.

 Planting replacement trees elsewhere, even nearby, would not restore the beneficial effects the trees provide in their current position and we object to their proposed removal.

 The public benefit of the trees indicates that a development in the form of the currently consented scheme but set a little further back in the site would not create significant additional harm and would allow the trees to be retained.

We object to this application and ask for it to be refused.

Tony Masonfor Montpelier Conservation Group

1902157 31-45 lower ashley road.doc

I object to this to planning application. Firstly I object to the felling of the trees, previousplanning applications have been made but residents were not very aware of these and so did notobject previously (I would have if I'd seen the application).

I object on parking and access. Parking is a real issue and again with the other developmentscurrently being undertaken on Ashley road (re refurbishment of the Teohs Building and the townhouses both opposite and appliction for YardArts site beside) and Brooks Mill, I dont think the areacan cope. This area is not well served by public transport.

this is a very small space for 30 units and I absolutely object to the height. That side of ashley roadis all lower height housing and with the new townhouses being built opposite its going to feel veryclosed in on a very busy polluted road . I think this development will change the whole character oflower Ashley road and impact its current residents.

Yours sincerely, Norah

I object to this to planning application. Firstly I object to the felling of the trees, previousplanning applications have been made but residents were not very aware of these and so did notobject previously (I would have if I'd seen the application).

I object on parking and access. Parking is a real issue and again with the other developmentscurrently being undertaken on Ashley road (re refurbishment of the Teohs Building and the townhouses both opposite and appliction for YardArts site beside) and Brooks Mill, I dont think the areacan cope. This area is not well served by public transport.

this is a very small space for 30 units and I absolutely object to the height. That side of ashley roadis all lower height housing and with the new townhouses being built opposite its going to feel veryclosed in on a very busy polluted road . I think this development will change the whole character oflower Ashley road and impact its current residents.

Yours sincerely, Norah

I am a local and have lived in the St Pauls area for much of my life, I am horrified by theplan to remove the row of trees on Lower Ashley Road associal ed with this development. I alsounderstand there are concerns about lack of parking space. Thank you.

Following the illegal and dangerous cutting of mature maples trees next to this site, Istrongly object to this application until protection of trees can be guaranteed. I also object on thegrounds of lack of parking facilities/space for cars, as this is a congested area already, and on thegrounds of wellbeing of the future occupants, due to the high levels of pollution.

My objection for this property is 2 fold .The idea to build right up to the pavement edge is both bad for the future resident and thenieghbourhood . there needs to be enough room for both to coexist and a sensible amount ofspace is needed to preserve the character and feel of the area and make people feel they are notliving on top pf each other.Cutting down important trees in our area is not acceptable , these Noway maples help to clean ourair and all those who live here in this most polutted area , need this , new residents and old ! thetrees. If we can not help save these trees , what chance in hell do we have of turning the Co2 tideon the planet ?Please help to preserve our nieghbourhood , for all those who live here and not let developmentand cars totally ruin our lives .

This is already an extremely busy road where traffic sits pumping out fumes. The roadwill become even more congested with cars waiting to turn in and out of the proposed property.The developer has already started cutting down the only trees on the road that are in a small waymitigating the fumes. This was done without regard for health and safety, either of the workerswho had no hard hats, or the public, as they left a large branch hanging dangerously. Not only willthe traffic cause increased pollution and further deterioration of air quality in an area alreadysuffering from low quality air, it needs many more trees planted not any to be cut down. Iunderstood Bristol City Council to have declared a Climate Emergency. Why then is even one treebeing cut down? If this building does go ahead it must be on the grounds that no trees are cutdown and many more are planted.

Firstly, I would like to say that planning has been granted for houses on the greenerynext door to the M32 and number 1 Tudor road. I as a resident was not informed of thisapplication. I think there is enough greenery and trees being taken away, for houses to be build inour area.

I object to this application fully due to enough pollution and congestion in my area. There is noparking in the area. The flats are being built with no parking. People park where brooks use to be.Its all overcrowded. All traffic comes down Tudor road to use m32, its becoming very busy withlong queues.

I see that there are plenty of objections to this application and I totally agree with them.Apart from the light and privacy problems the parking issues are many. As a resident of ConduitRoad for some years I have seen the increase in cars with the building of new houses and the oldprinters having been converted into flats . Each flat dweller has a car so there are now four carsfor one front door. Added to this the parking zones in place either side of St. Werburgh's meansthat there are often people parking here to then walk to work. As this plan is for purely residentialaccommodation with no car parking provision whatsoever it should not be allowed to proceed.

Although there is a need for more affordable housing no parking facilities have beenplanned for this development. This is an area already suffering from the overspill of parking fromthe surrounding Resident's Parking Zones and is widely used by commuters. To put moreresidential units in here without a residents parking zone for St Werburghs or underground carparking would be extremely dismissive of the needs of this area. There is simply no more room forcars!

The arboricultural assessment by a Mr Tim Pursey in application 15/05530/P dated 20th Jan 2016states on point 4.2 "I have not contacted the local planning authority to determine the legalstatus of the trees on site. If any trees are the subject of an order, orthe land forms part of a Conservation Area then it will be necessary to properly notify, or to obtainprior permission from, the local authority before carrying out any works on the trees."

He also states on point 7.5 that " It is unlikely these potential issues could be successfullymanaged by way of tree crown reduction. The extent and frequency of tree reduction necessarywould quickly destroy any amenity value the trees currently possess." Why is this? Trees arepollarded throughout the city including parts of nearby Redland and this is recognised as asustainable way of preventing spread while maintaining the aesthetic and air filtering qualities ofstreet trees.

Why should these trees be hacked in a dangerous, presumably uninsured and amateurish way ona quiet Sunday morning to avoid public gaze? The removal of 5 mature Norway Maples at a timewhen air pollution is at recognizably dangerous levels (particularly here, alongside a feeder road tothe M32) is just wrong.

I object strongly to this application unless the trees are protected and the problem of car parking isresolved.

While I welcome the proposal for more affordable housing in the area, as a very closeneighbour to the land where this application is being considered, I object to the application on thefollowing grounds:Loss of light and overshadowing to the rooms at the back of our house, especially downstairs, andloss of privacy - I have looked at the daylight and sunlight assessment. Apart from Number 3,Gordon Road properties are not mentioned but I can't see how buildings at the same end ofGordon Road as the development (as ours is) wouldn't be adversely affected. The plans showhow the proposed development will dwarf the existing properties. I believe the proposeddevelopment will lead to loss of light to our kitchen, one bedroom, and garden. The proposeddevelopment will certainly lead to loss of privacy as our second bedroom, kitchen and gardenwould be overlooked. Had the developers had applied to build a two-storey building this would bein keeping with the existing properties on Gordon Road and would be far more preferable as itwouldn't cause loss of light and loss of privacy.Adequacy of parking - since the introduction of permit only packing in the neighbouring areas of StPauls and Montpelier parking on and around the road we live on has become increasinglycramped and inadequate. Vehicles are regularly parked on pavements, blocking the way forpedestrians. I have regularly seen parents with pushchairs and very young children having to walkin the road directly into oncoming traffic because of the numerous drivers who park on thepavements. There have been frequent occasions when it has been very difficult for large vehiclessuch as vans to access our road and nearby streets. For a fire engine/ambulance responding toan emergency this could lead to fatalities. Increasing the local population by building 18 units, withno parking facilities, would exacerbate the already overstretched parking capacity in the area.Loss of trees - at the moment there are several mature trees on Lower Ashley Road. Thedeveloper plans to cut these trees down. These mature trees help to mitigate the air pollution from

the busy roads nearby. To cut them down would be a loss.Nature conservation - I have seen bats flying very close to our house and in neighbouringgardens. I don't know where the bats live but their habitat should be considered.

Underhand attacking of maple-trees makes for little tolerance and no welcome for this"Developer".

and extent of the site contamination and whether or not it originates from the site. Theinvestigation andrisk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findingsmust be produced. The results of this investigation shall be considered along with the Phase 1Geo-Environmental Assessment prepared by Earth Environmental and Geotechnical Ltd datedNovember 2016 (Reference A1641/16) The written report of the findings shall be submitted to anapproved in writing bythe Local Planning Authority prior to any works (except demolition) in connection with thedevelopment, hereby approved, commencing on site. This investigation and report must beconducted and produced inaccordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agencys Model Procedures for the Management ofLand Contamination, CLR 11.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land andneighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecologicalsystems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risksto workers, neighbours and other off site receptors.

My oppositions to this development are as follows.1. No parking has been planned. It is already very difficult to park in the area around Gordon Rd.This is due to the area being the closest to town without a parking permit scheme. This not onlyattracts workers parking and walking into town but residents to St Paul's and Montpellier who don'twish to pay for any additional vehicles their household may possess. We simply can'taccommodate another 30ish vehicles and the lack of parking will lower the value of every propertyon the street.2. The area is already a high population area with many houses providing sharing accommodationas well as the flats that are already there. The Brooks development will already increase the localnoise and pollution levels, this development risks increasing them to an untenable level.3. I am a professional arborist and an associate lecturer in Arboriculture at Bridgwater College.The work that has so for been carried out on the Norway maples earmarked for removal is asevere threat to public safety. The contractor employed is in no way working to BS6338 (TreeWork Regulations) if he even knows they exist. No PPE has been present and there has been noattempt to restrict public movement through the danger zone. The safe removal of the treesrequires rope access, physical barriers to deny public access and due to the proximity to a busyroad, traffic control. The method of removal employed by the developer's contractor not only putsthemselves at levels of high risk, but anybody within a 20m radius, with any accidents resulting inpossible fatality. I am also highly sceptical that the contractor possesses CS30/31/38/38, the bareminimum of competency qualifications for such work. If I am correct, then the contractor would notbe able to secure the legally required insurance to carry out such work. Based on the work carriedout by the tree contractor I have serious reservations to the developer's ethic towards safetyregulations.

• Developments of over 25 flats, apartments, bedsits or bedrooms can suffer adversely from anti-social behaviour due to unrestricted access to all areas and floors of the building. Therefore we would advise the use of access control to prevent unlawful free movement throughout the building (Secured by Design - Homes 2019 document). This would also demonstrate that the development meets the requirements of LPAs SPD Urban Living (adopted November 2018) which states Private communal space should be safe, accessible, inviting and well used, without the fear of crime. The ‘arrival’ at a building, the design of shared circulation and lift access, are important factors in making housing safe and secure, welcoming and accessible for all. Many of the new homes built in Bristol will be flats - the design of the shared circulation areas will be critical to their success.

• The Urban Living document adds that ‘Where access cores serve 4 or more dwellings, an access control system with entry phones linked to a main front door with electronic lock release should be provided in all dwellings’. We would add that the visitor door entry system should also allow the resident to see the caller on a colour monitor and be capable of capturing (recording) images in colour of people using the door entry panel and store for those for at least 30 days.

• The entrance lobby appears to show communal surface mounted letter boxes, we would recommend that these meet the requirements of TS 009.

I would also like to add that the affordable housing element will have to satisfy the LPA’s Affordable Housing Practice Note (April 2018) which needs to meet the Housing Corporations ‘Design and Quality Standards (published April 2007). This states ‘ensure that the scheme design reflects advice obtained from local police architectural liaison officers/crime prevention design advisors prior to detailed planning stage’ and ‘obtain Secured by Design certification wherever possible’. As such we can provide advice on Secured by Design, from the outset. If you require any further information then please do not hesitate to contact me. Peter Wozniak Crime Prevention Design Advisor.

the removal of 5 mature maples at a time when air pollution - particularly in this spotclose to the M32 - is reaching a frightening level, would be disastrous. Already well above the legallimit, every tree helps to keep it fractionally safer for those who love, work and use the area.

We need to change our thinking and make sure trees like this are protected by tighter laws.Private companies should not get away with paying for legal covenants to be vague ormiraculously disappear!

Bristol Civic Society acknowledges with appreciation the opportunity the applicants gaveit to comment on pre-application drawings. We submitted a number of concerns to the applicantsand those concerns remain. The Society does not support this proposal for the reasons statedbelow.

The Society wishes to see this site redeveloped and would support residential development. Weare also supportive of the Council's drive to increase the supply of affordable housing in Bristoland the policies it has adopted to implement this. However, we do have a number of concernsabout this initial proposal.

The site lies just outside the Montpelier Conservation Area. It forms part of an extensive, densehousing development of the second half of the 19th Century. Local buildings and materials shouldinform the design if the development is to contribute positively to the area's character and toreinforce local distinctiveness.

The Lower Ashley Road elevation is divided into two large blocks which do not accommodate thefall in the contour to the east. The Society suggests it would improve the articulation of theelevation if the vertical divisions were smaller to reflect the original plot sizes. Smaller divisionswould complement the plot composition of the nearby traditional properties to reinforce the area'sdistinctiveness. There is an awkward step-down to the house on the opposite side of ConduitStreet.

The fenestration is developed horizontally. The Lower Ashley Road elevation should be informedby the abundant local vernacular which has a vertical emphasis.

The Society suggests that it would improve the design if the ground floor flats front doors openedonto the pavement. The modification would reflect the composition of the traditional properties onthe south side of Lower Ashley Road and improve passive surveillance. This modification couldnot be wholly achieved with your present proposal because part of the Lower Ashley Roadelevation and the return Gordon Road elevation are the blank walls of a car park screen.

The Society recognises the attempt to articulate the roof line but the proposal does not respond toits architectural context. The Society would welcome an architectural feature that incorporatesphoto-voltaic panels to signal the development's energy sustainable ambition and to add interestto the roofscape.

There is only a small amount of amenity space shown for a development of 28 flats. In theabsence of this, we would like to see the provision of more balconies or, at least Juliet balconies,to provide residents with some access to the open air.

There are a number of mature trees on the site and we trust the Council will ensure theirprotection or suitable replacement.

In conclusion, the proposal would be harmful to the street scene and would produce a livingenvironment for future residents with sparse amenity space internally or externally.

I can't object to the plan for affordable housing on the site, but I do object to theunnecessary cutting and harming of roadside trees. Please do not allow the destruction of such avaluable amenity. Indeed perhaps the authority should rather encourage more planting on the site.

As a former resident living very close to these trees I am extremely disappointed to seewhat is being planned. The trees are beautiful and very important for the environment and thecurrent and future residents.Please do not destroy these amazing mature trees.Fiona Beattie.

Whilst the planning of the construction of the property isn't the main issue here, theremoval of the 4 mature maple trees in front of the site should be worked around. Trees are vital toreducing pollution and along this busy road should be a minimal requirement to help safeguard allthose who live in the neighbouring area, especially to safeguard children. Removal of trees in sucha built up, traffic heavy part of the city shouldn't be allowed when taking into account the need toprotect public health and strive for environmental balance. For a council which has recentlydeclared a climate emergency, ensuring that more trees are planted, not allowing the removal oftrees in such needed areas, really should be the stance and the priority.

Please don't allow for these maple trees to be cut down, they represent so much andcreate a small piece of nature in a polluted, congested area. It truly will be a disgrace to nature ifthey are allowed to be removed. The council will definitely demonstrate their true priorities if theyare allowed to be removed also.

I object strongly to the cutting down of the 5 mature maple trees on the pavement to thefront of this proposed development.The planning documents clearly state that the trees have a TPO 941.The arboricultural assessment by Tim Pursey dated 20/1/16 states at 4.2 and 4.3 - that he has"not contacted the local planning authority to determine the legal status of the trees on site. If anytrees are the subject of an order ... then it will be necessary to properly notify, or to obtain priorpermission from, the local authority before carrying out any works on the trees." and"4.3 Trees are living, dynamic organisms. Their health and overall condition changes as the treesgrow and can be affected by external conditions. For this reason the condition survey and anyrecommendations given are valid for a period not exceeding one calendar year from the date ofissue of this report. "

Officers of Bristol City Council planning department are responsible for this ecological vandalism.

As a frequent visitor to Bristol - with family in the area - I am horrified by the attemptmade by the owner of the land to cut down the five trees on the site. It is my understanding thatthese trees carry a tree preservation order - TPO 941. It is incumbent on Bristol City Council to doall they can to reduce pollution levels within the city - the trees line a busy road and it is essential,therefore, that they are protected and left in place and not destroyed.

That the developer has attempted to illegally cut down the maple trees on site inadvance of receiving planning permission, and without sufficient care and attention to health andsafety or the environment, strongly implies that they are not competent to develop the flats inquestion, and their application should be refused.

In any case the trees should be mantained, as it is essential to retain tree cover while increasingthe population density of the city.

Please consider building this elsewhere rather than to get rid of the maple treescurrently residing here. We need to develop brownfield sites rather than cut down trees that havebeen there for centuries.

I object to this proposal as 5 mature trees will be cut down.

The building would mean destruction of 5 mature maple trees.

I object to the 31-45 Lower Ashley Rd, St Pauls, Bristol BS2 9PZ on account of the 5Norway Maple Trees which would be chopped down. This is one of the most polluted areas ofBristol - the air quality is way below what it should legally be. This area needs every tree it has inorder to filter out some of the pollution. The trees are also habitat to birds and insects and provideshade in the increasingly hot summers. Please do not allow this application

We need to be planting trees not cutting them down. This is clearly not acceptable and Ifor one would like these trees to remain standing.

I very much object to this project as someone has been cutting down the mature mapletrees next to the property. I'm doubtful they even had the appropriate permission to do that. Treeremoval is the last thing we need. Bristol residents are already choking on the fumes of all thetraffic, especially right there next to the M32!

I understand that Landowner 'illegally' tries to cut down five large Maple trees in LowerAshley Road in advance of planning application.

This Sunday morning the land owner of a site on Lower Ashley Road turned up with somelabourers and started trying to fell a group of mature Maple trees, no doubt anticipating StWerburghs folk would be asleep or hung over after the fair. Fortunately a few locals were there toobject and the police were called.

The landowner agreed to stop but claims he will fell the trees tomorrow morning saying Highwaysplanning authority gave him permission to do so. He didn't have any paperwork; they were clearlynot any tree surgeons on site. The" reserved powers " he claims seem to be from a LAPSEDplanning application 15/05530/P. It is believed that the applicant is legally obliged to submit a newarboriculture report, which has to pay regard to the tree preservation order (TPO) on these trees.

The police attended twice, and work was halted after two trees had been butchered.

Basically these trees are the only filter there is for the high levels of air pollution along this verybusy road. They are important to the feel of the neighbourhood, the local ecology and reduce airpollution.

Thank you.

I spoke to the owner of this land as he was precariously felling a tree on the property ona Sunday morning (this was just before the police came to stop them). He said that all 5 of thebeautiful, mature trees would be felled but would be replaced by 14. I can't see any sign of thesetrees on the plan so can only conclude that he lied to me.

I would encourage the plan be altered to save these trees. In an area of such high air pollutionthey are vital.

I totally object to such building to be built as would cause more pollution and parkingissue. Which is already an issue in St. Paul's

The owner has started to fell the trees. Surely there is a TPO in place to prevent thisfrom happening? The police were called twice on 9th June to stop the owner and his contractorsfrom continuing to fell the remaining trees?!

You say that there is planning to remove the 5 trees on site and yet these trees carry atree preservation order - TPO 941: My neighbour, Hugh Holden says, "The ArboriculturalStatement regarding the 5 Norway Maples relies solely on the fact that permission to fell wasgranted for a previous application 15/05530/P. However Tim Pursey, the Arb. Consultant for thatapplication , failed to inform the then case officer that these trees were protected by Group TPO941 .Last year he told me this was because "it wasn't possible " to find out which trees in Bristolhad TPOs ; this information has been freely available on bristol.gov.uk/pinpoint for some years."Therefore the felling of the trees should be stopped immediately and a new planning applicationneeds to be submitted, taking into account the TPO

At around 8.30am this morning (Sunday 9th June) there were around 5 men hackingdown the trees outside of the property.There is a TPO in place to prevent this from happening, this is not legal. The tree preservationorder is in place and it is illegal to cut down these trees at your own will.

The police turned up and then went. The police have logged on their file that a council officerturned up this morning and said that it was okay for them to do this. Having watched this takeplace I did not see a council officer there once. I tried to call the council myself but they were infact closed. The police came back a second time an hour or so later and the cutting of the treesthen stopped but it's now sadly too late.

There was absolutely no reason for these trees to come down. They are on the pavement andoutside of the border of the property. Please can this be looked into?

Whilst more affordable housing is welcome to this area I am objecting to this planning ifit means the maple trees on Lower Ashley Road will be felled. In this age of environmentalawareness it is madness to consider felling the only trees in the area which act as a filter from thetraffic and no doubt home to much wildlife. There is a TPO on the trees which must be upheld.

The owner has already broken the law in starting to fall trees for this plan - he clearlyhas no regard for.the legal process or his community. The police have tried to stop him twice buthe continued. This application was not made in good faith and I would have concerns for someonewith such little regard for the law to be a landlord.

Registering my objection to this project as a local resident, in particular concerns overthe future of the mature maple trees along lower Ashley road, which act as a filter against thepollution of a very busy road in the area. Of particular note and concern is the illegal attempt tofell/mutalate these trees which have a TPO on them on Sunday 9th June.

Felling Mature Trees Is Not Needed.

I am objecting to the felling of the five mature trees on this site. They are an importantpart of the local street scene and contribute to air quality in this area. I believe they are covered bya Tree Protection Order.

At present, I can only object to this development as I do not feel the neighbouringbuildings have been given anywhere near enough reassurance or information to ease concernsthat the houses and flats that have been in situ for over a hundred of years are being considered. Ifeel it will have a negative effect on numerous aspects of my building which will in turn thendevalue the property.Do not get me wrong, I strongly believe regeneration in the area will be widely welcomed and I forone do want to see unused areas like the development at 31-45 and 11-17 be turned into auseable space. However, not at the expense of residents who have lived in the vicinity pre-development.There are 2 areas I believe that have not been properly reviewed as I do not necessarily agreewith the supporting comments and documents that have been submitted. These include:

- Parking and Traffic - I do not know when the parking survey was taken but I have never seen(day or night) 25 spaces available at any one time. As a resident, I regularly must park on the curband rarely have an option of spaces. As Gordon Road is directly adjacent to the development thiswill be the primary area that residents of the development will park. As it is at saturation point, Ijust can't see how parking has been so overlooked, especially when the Dye works developmenthas made an effort to address this. It is also worth noting that if the development at 11-17 happensas well, it will again double the amount of parking needed again!I also note on the survey plan where they have listed all the parking areas available, they havelisted spaces that are up to 0.8 miles away. I would not say these are viable parking space.The traffic in the area is also getting close to gridlock in the mornings and evenings. With thebuilders, increased residents (with no parking) and the fact Lower Ashley road a direct road fromthe M32 into the Ashley ward I am worried the pollution and noise in the area will increase a lot.

- Light and Privacy - On the plan 3 Gordon Road has been identified as somewhere that will beaffected by the building. From looking at the plans no consideration has been made to the fact thatnearly all light and privacy will be gone when the full structure has been raised. There is onecomment I have seen from the planning application that relates to our kitchen window and how it isunder the legal minimum angle for light to be let in.Firstly, it will not just affect one kitchen window, rather it will directly affect two bedrooms and 2living rooms on the 3 Gordon Road property (from both the ground floor and first-floor flats). Iappreciate there is no 'right to privacy' in the eyes of the law but I hope that it is consideredconsidering we, and I am sure other properties will lose this, as there will be four stories of flatslooking over our property, especially when you see how dwarfed our property is compared to thedevelopment. (South and west elevations plan). This point alone I believe should be reassessedby the developers.Secondly, I am aware of the 'right to light' and again I think the calculations the developers havemade about how much light our property will lose is notably wrong. I implore anyone from theplanning committee of the development team to stand/sit in our garden or flat and say we will notbe hugely affected by the development. Simply due to the height and the fact the development isdirectly next door to our property means it is inevitable I will have no privacy or light and willgenerally feel completely boxed in.

In summary, I do not feel the developers have engaged with the buildings that are going to be soaffected by having this block of flats directly next door. If time was taken to reassure us and makean effort, then I would be much more of an advocate of the development.

I object to this application for this application due to to felling of these trees, this area isvery polluted already and by this action it's obvious that you will make it worse, peoples lives arealready being put into dangerous situation with pollution raising on a daily basis, unless you takecare of people health welfare you are certainly not going to improve everyone's lives by the fellingof these trees, I sure one at least has been felled and I am not sure if it was protected? Thecouncil has a duty of care for the local community. We all know that trees are good for clean aircreate a place of well being.

I wish to object to the proposed plan. I live next door to the proposed plan; which willbutt up against our property boundary (our garden, along with the garden of our upstairs neighbour- which is a separate garden to our own).

I am very concerned that;

- The proposed development will permanently block a significant amount of natural light both fromour garden and also our bathroom window, living-room window, and one of our bedroom windows- from both the south and east side of our property. Note that the North face plan of the proposedbuilding seems to almost completely butt up against the block of flats that already sits at the end ofour garden (east-side). Given that these three windows have enjoyed a good amount of light forthe last 20 years it of our opinion that this conflicts with our 'Right to Light' and are also veryconcerned that this will significantly devalue our property's resale value in the future (consideringthat these three windows account for 3 of our 4 normal (unfrosted) windows in the property). Alsonote that although our kitchen window is mentioned in their Daylight Assessment PDF (marked 'B'on the top-down plan); there is no mention of our aforementioned living-room window or bedroomwindow - which also face into our garden and will also be affected by a considerable andpermanent loss of light. So far we haven't received anything from the property developer to easeour concerns in this regard.

- It also seems as though (based on the plans) that there will be lots of flat windows overlookingour garden that will also have full view into our kitchen, bedroom and living-room at all times of theday.

- The proposed development seems to only provide parking for a small percentage of the totalnumber of proposed self-contained flats. Parking on Gordon Road and in the surrounding area isalready at its absolute limit; more cars will inevitably be forced to try and park down these streetsmaking walking down the pavement as a pedestrian difficult at best and - for anyone on a mobilityscooter - they would potentially be unable to navigate the streets at all without being forced intothe road considering a reasonable expectation of increased parked cars due to the proposeddevelopment.

- It is our understanding that the tall trees at the front of the proposed property are protected - andthat the developer doesn't have appropriate permissions to cut down or otherwise manage thesetrees.

I wish to object to the proposed plan. I feel it fails to acknowledge a significant risk offlooding due to the proximity of the River Frome (250 m ) and other water courses running in StWerburghs, notably under Conduit St. As it is sections of Mina Rd Park are flooded on a regularbasis. Also, the proposed plan doesn't offer any parking space in a locality already creaking underthe pressure of commuter parking. Given the location, the construction process will impactseriously on the local traffic flow on a major axis in and out of Bristol at the expense of theresidents already experiencing high levels of noise and severe traffic pollution due to the proximityof the M32.. These comments also apply to the proposed development directly across the road. Allrisks assessments should be combined as one and not considered separately given thegeography of a very limited space.

I object to this application for the following reason.The Arboricultural Statement regarding the 5 Norway Maples relies solely on the fact thatpermission to fell was granted for a previous application 15/05530/P. However Tim Pursey, theArb. Consultant for that application , failed to inform the then case officer that these trees wereprotected by Group TPO 941 .Last year he told me this was because "it wasn't possible " to findout which trees in Bristol had TPOs ; this information has been freely available onbristol.gov.uk/pinpoint for some years.I suggest the original decision is therefore invalid ,and an application taking this TPO into accountneeds to be submitted

I am objecting, but only due to the lack of an up to date tree report. These are importanttrees in the area and may have increased their amenity (or decreased) since 2015. They alsohave a TPO on them. You should not have validated this application without a proper tree report toBS5837. My objection does not relate to the application itself but this application cannot bedetermined without a valid tree report and then properly assessed against policies BCS9 andDM17.

Whilst I am broadly in support of the need for housing, and especially 'affordable'housing which this application would provide some of, I am forced to object to the application as itstands due to the almost total lack of parking provision on-site.12 spaces is ridiculous for 31 dwellings, affordable or otherwise.The application states that an average of 25 spaces of on-street parking are available at any giventime - perhaps the person who made this figure up should try living round here!

The Brooks site, just around the corner, has gained planning permission after genuineconsultation, and the council rightly insisted on one parking space, on-site, per dwelling. Thedevelopers were not permitted to reduce this, even to provide other amenities.

I am not sure why the developers for this proposal think they can be granted a lesser obligation toprovide parking on-site. The location and issues regarding street parking and parking congestionare essentially the same.

Perhaps the council could take a serious look at parking in St Werburghs in particular, which isoutside the St Pauls residents' parking scheme and which will therefore bear the brunt of overspillfrom this development.Parking on pavements - completely blocking pedestrian access, never mind mobility scooters,pushchairs and wheelchairs - is rife. Parking on drop-pavements, corners and no-parking zonescan be seen in every street. This development, if it goes ahead as planned, will make this worse,and will place local residents at even greater traffic risk than they currently are.

I don't feel great about banging out about parking, when housing, especially affordable, is in such

need, but this is a serious quality of life issue which affects a very large number of people, and itwould be seriously negligent and disrespectful of residents if it were wilfully allowed to be madeworse.

The same standards must be applied to all developments, and the safety of local people must beobserved.The developers must be made to provide sufficient on-site parking, even at the cost of some units,in accordance to what we have previously been told is council policy.They may make an argument that people occupying these dwellings cannot afford cars - this hasbeen made before in other developments and is patently untrue.

Do this and I would welcome the provision of housing for those who need it.

Councillor referral form 30/07/18

Notes:

1. The application that you are referring, must relate to a site within your ward.

An exception to this relates to single member wards where referrals will be

accepted from members from neighbouring wards when the ward member is

not available.

2. The referral request must be received by Development Management no later

than 7 days after the end of the published consultation period. This is shown

for each application in Planning Online – see Important Dates tab. While there

may be a number of different dates listed here, the date that applies will be

the latest of the Expiry Dates for the neighbour and standard consultation,

advertisement and site notice. This applies to the first round of consultation

and does not include any re-consultation period.

3. You can only refer an application to a Development Control Committee for

planning reasons i.e. not for reasons such as loss of view, effect on property

values, private rights, boundary disputes, or construction noise. It is not

intended that a request from a constituent is simply “passed on” but that you

are supporting the views expressed in this referral, and will attend the

committee meeting.

4. The referred application will be considered by the next available committee

meeting in order to assist us in determining planning applications in

accordance with Government performance targets. Therefore, it could be

considered by either of the DC committees.

5. Early contact with the case officer is recommended in order to establish the

reasons for any potential referral and to explore potential solutions to the

situation.