Supplementary objection:

There has been a significant number of objections to this proposed redevelopment from bothprofessional and neighbour stakeholders.

If the application is rejected, the owner of the site is likely to try to find another way of realising theinvestment made in the site and might submit further applications.

If, as I hope, officers are minded to reject this application, I would ask that a clear statement ismade about the unsuitability of this site for redevelopment given the certain damage such workwould cause to three mature and irreplaceable trees.

I am a chartered surveyor and qualified tree surveyor and take time to consider specificrisks to trees in the local area, particularly regarding future developments and unnecessary treeworks, on behalf of the Clifton and Hotwells Improvement Society.

I object to this planning application proposal due to the significant risk to the local trees.

There are two mature London plane trees both within 1m of the proposed foundations.There is significant risk (almost certain) that the roots, and therefore integrity of the trees health,may be affected by this proposed work.The existing line of trees all along Pembroke Vale is a core part of the streets character, andsense of place, and these trees are decades old. To lose these wonderful trees would be tragicand to replace them, within most residents life times, simply impossible.The local residents have demonstrated their commitment to the trees within the neighbourhood byfunding the planting of two new trees in the place of two which were sadly lost.The Holm oak, over the road at 81 Pembroke Road, is also at risk with the proposed requiredconnections to the sewerage system. Therefore there are three significant trees all within closeproximity to this proposal and all will undoubtedly suffer.

The applicants All Trees Arb Impact assessment is a thorough report, which I would expect to see,however the Tree protection plan in Appendix B Drawing no. 190906-79PR-RevB-TPP-AM clearlyshows how close the proposed development is (right against the trees and right under the canopy,therefore right within the root systems) and how the trenching severs the top 1m of tree roots of allthree trees (despite the holm oak's root protection area not being highlighted). One could argue,looking at this plan, that there is also a fourth tree which could be impacted by this proposal (just

10m to the west).

To conclude, I strongly object to this application for the protection of the environment. To approvetthis development, would admit to the loss of these 3, or perhaps 4 trees, in this location; rightwhen the world is talking about climate change and how we need to plant more trees to protect ourenvironment for future generations.

Tom Hedges MRICS, BSc (Hons), PGDip Surv,Qualified tree surveyorClifton and Hotwells Improvement Society, Tree officer

Please protect the beautiful plane trees on this corner - the roots need a protectionorder - we need many more trees in our cities and this build needs to not harm these trees in anyway - they are too beautiful. Man and nature can live together. No concrete or drilling must takeplace at the root site . Happy for build if a tree specialist advises and work is supervised.

With reference to the planning application 19/04707/F I have the following concernsabout the possible damage to two plane trees on the site, both of which have tree protectionorders. I am also disturbed about the compromised privacy of the houses opposite the proposednew house. My concerns are listed below:

Trees Protection & Health

- Facility trenches. From the application I understand that Wessex water would need todigtrenches approx 3.5 metres in depth to reach the main sewer to provide that facilities for theproposed house. On the application graphics the trenches would be dug across the root balls ofthe corner plane tree of the garage site and the root ball of the ilex/holm oak that grows oppositeof the current garage doors. In undertaking this digging, both trees would have to have their rootssevered to complete the trenches. Too as the trenches would be approx 12 feet deep, shoring upwould be necessary thus possibly incurring more damage to the root ball of each tree. Cutting andbruising of mature tree roots compromises the health of trees considerably and should be avoided.- Management of digging the trenches also causes concerns. On the proposed house applicationthis states the digging would hand-dug and be supervised at all stages. Digging trenches by handto that depth could take up to one month or more,could the presence of an arboriculturalist beguaranteed throughout this process to minimise tree root damage?- Pile Driving for the foundation of the proposed house would also incur tree root bruising to bothplane trees as both trees are only I metre (3 ft)from the proposed outside wall of the house on theEast elevation. Could it be guaranteed that a firm which has the skills, machinery and specialisesin such a delicate building method would be engaged to take on the project?- Site contamination from use of cement, heavy machinery and soil movement can result in

compaction of the soil on the site. This in turn creates a barrier to air and water percolation thatthen hinders root repair and growth. These factors can be seen in the tree as poor growth andchange in appearance and the possible subsequence dying of the tree.- Environmental Health. Mature trees are recognised to be the major healthy lung of cities. Theyabsorb harmful carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, they provide a cooling effect in extremetemperatures, they provide a protection canopy, they provide habitat for insect and birds. Shouldeither of the plane trees die in the redevelopment of this site, just replanting a new tree does notgive the same environmental benefits. Young trees will only provide the above benefits aftermaturing for 25 to 30 years. The national current feeling about mature trees is that they shouldvalued, preserved and protected.Placement of House on Site and Privacy Issues

- Building Line. The curtilage of the proposed house is on the exact site of the two existinggarages thus breaking the building line of all the other houses in Pembroke Vale where the housesare set back from the roadway. This current proposal threatens the privacy of the 3 housesopposite through proximity, but would also create a precedent in Pembroke Vale of a differentbuild line. This couldallow other applications from owners of Pembroke Road houses to sell off theends of their gardens as building plots with possible further breaks in the current building line.- Privacy. The proposed plan has the bedrooms on the ground floor and the living areas on thefirst floor. The plans show that a terrace/balcony with double doors is situated between the kitchenand living room providing an outdoor open space in the centre of the first floor. The open spaceand double doors open directly in line to the bedrooms of the two houses opposite the proposedsite. As the building line has been broken, it makes the open terrace /balcony area closer to thetwo opposite houses and issues of invasion of privacy arise. The same issue arose on the plans ofthe houses number 16 and 15 on the east side of Pembroke Vale and planning was refused.Therefore precedence has been set, implying that upstairs/bedroom privacy should be respectedfrom opposite houses.- Noise. Because of the outdoor terrace/balcony design, houses 1, 2 and 3 opposite could bebothered by noise when the doors were open. This could be especially at night as the noise wouldbe at the first floor level directly opposite various bedrooms.- Garage conversion. The proposed plans show a garage on the ground floor alongside 2bedrooms. I have concerns that at some future date the garage would be converted to a thirdbedroom. Increasing the possibility is the fact that there is little outside space bar theterrace/balcony really suitable for family living. These two factors make the house moresusceptible to becoming a HMO (House of Multiple Occupancy) in the future with the current trendto provide student accommodation and its resultant financial returns. If this should happen, thisgoes against the Bristol council wish to provide family homes.Conclusion: I would urge the planning department consider the above points and suggest realisticamendments to the plans and to consider placing the two beautiful plane trees at the heart of anyfuture proposals. Really, it comes down to recognising that not all garages have to be converted tohouses or flats at the expense of trees that have been with us for 60 to 70 years.

Dear David Macfadyen

This is a supplementary objection to my objection submitted on 30th October 2019.

1) There is a significant risk that the proposed roof terrace will give rise to severe loss of amenity,anti social behaviour, excessive noise and loss of privacy for neighbouring residents. There is ahistory of such proposals locally against which Bristol City Council has taken a firm line and hasnot allowed. This element of the scheme is unacceptable and needs to be removed.

2) The original intent of the application at pre-app stage (17/04245/PREAPP) was to achieveplanning permission for six studio flats. We welcome the Council's firm position that there is noidentified need for flats in this location. The scheme has now been designed in such a way thatwould be capable of conversion to flats at a later date, which if carried out would undermine theCouncil's position.

3) If the City Council was minded to approve (which we hope it is not - the impact on tree health issubstantive enough to refuse permission) then please could you add a planning condition toremove PD rights and add a planing condition to state that

"the property shall be used only as a single private dwelling for the occupation of one household".

4) I repeat again that the design and redevelopment is unacceptable in this part of CliftonConservation Area. The severe risk to three veteran trees from connection to services including(and not limited to) sewerage (as detailed in the objection from the owner of the Holm Oak at 81

Pembroke Road) render redevelopment of this site impossible. The three veteran trees make asignificant contribution to the Conservation Area.

4) The site is hugely compromised by virtue of its restricted size in a highly constrained locationthat simply means it is not appropriate to redevelop. The feasibility should have been assessedmore fully prior to purchase.

5) I would urge caution and ask that planning permission be refused. Refusal should make clearthe RPA of the Holm Oak and two London Plane trees make redevelopment of the land notpossible owing to the severe risk of tree loss.

I have lived in Clifton for over 40 years and am aware of the problems that narrowroads, narrow streets and inappropriate infill can cause. This very small piece of land is totallyunsuitable for development for the following reasons:

a. Pembroke Vale is in the Clifton conservation area.The western side of Pembroke Vale comprises a series of two storey semi-detached, late Victoriangood quality houses (classified as character buildings in the Clifton and Hotwells CharacterAppraisal) with ornate stonework and bay windows. The roofs have tiles or slates on. They havefront gardens, virtually all with mature trees, some have drives. The eastern side of PembrokeVale comprises rear gardens of properties fronting Pembroke Road, and single storey garages.The pavements are narrow and there are six mature London Plane street trees close together allthe way down on this side. Adjacent to the site is Pembroke Vale House: an ugly 1960s, threestorey residential infill building, built on the land to the rear of 77 Pembroke Road. The onlypositive feature is that it is well set back from the road.

b. The south side of Pembroke Vale has long red rubble walls. The proposed house on the northside would extend right up to the edge of the pavement on two sides, thus failing to conform withthe building line. It would stick out like a sore thumb and create a feeling of enclosure on thisnarrow bend. This tiny modern house, of incongruous size and materials, would damage the streetview and the setting of the Victorian houses.

c. There are two mature London plane trees growing just one metre from the façades of theproposed house, which would unlikely to survive the onslaught of a new building. The applicant'sown arboricultural report emphasises the care which would need to be taken to preserve these

trees. All too often little care is, in fact, taken by builders, and those who employ them often find itpreferable to be rid of trees whose canopies would overshadow the new-build and whose rootundermine its foundations. The entire development including the drilling of multiple piles to supporta new concrete floor would lie well within the nominal root protection areas of both plane trees.The All Trees Arboricultural Impact Assessment says "the potential for root severance is high" that"all service installation/excavation must be hand dug under the supervision of an arboriculturist"and that piles should be limited in size "to minimise the risk of striking major roots." The proposalis for a trench housing sewerage and drainage water to be dug diagonally across the street tomeet the mains sewer. According to Wessex Water this lies at a depth of 3.75 m. This very deep(and therefore wide) trench would sever the roots of one of the plane trees and those of the HolmOak across at least a ¼ of their root protection areas. All three trees are an important visualamenity in the conservation area and deserve to be protected.Cement based products are toxic to tree roots; therefore piles/pads should be sleeved and theconcrete slab shuttered and lined with an impermeable membrane to prevent leaching of wetcement into underlying soil. The exact foundation method will be dependent on further siteinvestigation (refer to structural engineer's report). Open trench excavation for connection of thenew services to existing routes within the road to the north of the building will be necessary. Whileroot activity beneath the road surface is likely to be restricted there is clear evidence of root growthbeneath the footpath and therefore the potential for root severance is high.

d. The house would have no real outdoor amenity space. The roof terrace proposed is completelyunacceptable in this location because of potential noise and overlooking issues.

e. Looking at the location of the windows, the southern side has three windows looking out ontothe garden of 79 Pembroke Road. There are also three windows facing on the side of PembrokeVale House

f. I support the pre- application advice from Bristol City Council about not converting garages into a3 storey building containing 6no. studio flats. (ref: 17/04245/PREAPP) in Sep '17). BCC stated thatthe application would not be supported due to: no identified need for studio flats within the area, asthis type of accommodation would fail to offer future occupiers sufficient flexibility and adaptability;failure to meet relevant national space standards; out of proportion so would impact the characterof the surrounding conservation area.

The stark, featureless window design and uncomfortable roof angles would be out of context withthe symmetry of the bath stone fronted Victorian semi-detached and terraced houses opposite andalso with the recent sympathetic stone built housing elsewhere on the east side of Pembroke Vale.It contravenes Local Policies. No more appalling infill must be added to this street composed ofcharacter buildings. This application must be refused

I object to this proposal on three grounds:

1. It will unnecessarily endanger the two established plane trees and holm oak, with consequentloss of amenity.

2. It would breach the existing building line for no good reason.

3. The design is not in keeping with the existing buildings in Pembroke Vale.

I have two objections to this application. The building will come nearly to the road and inso doing would

1) cause severe damage the roots of two beautiful London plane trees which are likely to die,

2) would be well beyond the current building line in the street and would set a precedent for furthersuch development which would threaten a whole row of beautiful trees, and also change thecharacter of the street.

1. There is an old and valued tree on the pavement near the proposed development. It'sroots are at risk of damage during the construction work, leading to the (possibly delayed) death ofthe tree. This will have significant impact on the visual appearance of the street, will cause a risk toproperty if the tree falls, because of the size of the tree, and will negatively impact Bristol'scommitment to clean air and climate change mitigation (should the tree die).

In fact, there is also the possibility that whoever does the construction will ignore whateverconstraints are present (if any) and remove branches that are 'inconvenient' (likely, consideringwhatever fines the council could impose to be insignificant when compared to the profit to bemade from the work). Removing branches can destabilise a tree and expose it to disease risk.

If the proposed new building was constrained to be, say, 3 metres further from the pavement thanthe existing garage is (the pavement that runs parallel to Pembroke Road, which is the section onwhich the tree stands) this would move it away from the tree to sufficiently reduce the risk of rootdamage to the tree (even should the exposed area be paved - which requires less depth in itsfoundation than a house does.

2. Although the street is in a resident's parking zone it nevertheless often suffers from insufficientparking. Even if the proposed development will have its own off-street parking (and the informationavailable does not suggest this to be the case) an additional property is likely to increase thedemand for parking, which will have an adverse effect on the existing residents of the street.

3. The street is also very narrow in places; adding additional (albeit slight) traffic using the streetadds risk and inconvenience to the existing residents.

The trees are threatened as house foundations and utility trenches are scheduled to beworked across the root ball of these two trees. The roots will be bruise and in some instances becut across. These beautiful trees may be irreparably damaged and die. These trees have treepreservation orders on them, given by Bristol City Council, so should be protected from invasivebuilding work, cement contamination and disturbance.

I am writing to strongly object to this application.

There are four principle reasons for my objection.

1. THE VERY LIKELY LOSS OF THREE SUBSTANTIAL TREES

There are two London Plane trees in close proximity to the western boundary of the site.

The garden of my house runs the length of Pembroke Vale to the north of the site. Towards therear of the garden we have a very substantial Holm Oak tree which abuts the boundary walldirectly opposite the northern boundary of the application site.

The London Plane trees are 845mm & 925mm in diameter. The Holm Oak is more substantial,being 1100mm in diameter. It is known that the root spread of these trees below ground broadlyreflects, but may extend beyond, the crown spread above ground. The crown spread of the HolmOak is substantially larger than that of the London Plane trees lying within a couple of metres ofthe northern boundary of the application site.

I am particularly troubled that the Arboricultural Impact Assessment dated 19 September 2019makes no reference to the Holm Oak which is in fact larger than the London Plane trees, perhapsbecause the applicant sees this as either irrelevant or likely to cause difficulties with theirapplication. The extent of the crown of the Holm Oak can clearly be see in the photograph (Fig.1Site Plan) on page 7 of the arboricultural report.

The report references the two London Plane trees being within 1.5 metres of the building, howeverAppendix A of the same report details that these are in fact 1.1 metres from the garage wall. Theearlier figure is therefore misleading. It also goes on to acknowledge that the "potential for adverseimpact to the health and viability of the trees is very high".

Tree roots spread radially from the base of the tree and the implication drawn from the report isthat by careful hand digging excavation for the installation and connection of underground servicesand the proposed piling will ensure that roots over 25mm are retained and protected. This mightappear achievable in theory but is improbable in reality for the following reasons :

The roots from the Holm Oak and the root system from the London Planes, within the zone of theroadway, will form a lattice of roots at depth below the road. This has been convenientlyoverlooked in the arboricultural report.

The application details together the Wessex Water sewer map indicates that the foul sewer thatthe applicant intends to connect into is a 300mm diameter pipe running approximately 1 metrefrom the boundary wall of 81 Pembroke Road. What it conveniently avoids addressing is that thissewer has an invert of 3.75 metres, in other words it is 12 feet below road level.

I have spoken with Wessex Water and have been told that the applicant's building contractor willbe responsible for the main excavation work but that Wessex Water will have to make the finalconnection into their sewer. In order to do that there will be a requirement for a safe working spaceat that depth.

Having spoken to some groundwork contractors I believe that the excavation would require theuse of a metal drag box (double trench box) to protect the sides of the excavation as well as theworkmen, from collapse. This would be a minimum of 2 metres wide and virtually the full length ofthe excavation.

There is no doubt that this would cut a swathe trough the lattice of tree roots and undoubtedlydamage and most likely kill these trees. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment notes that "there isclear evidence of root growth beneath the footpath and therefore the potential for root severance ishigh".

The proposed supervision and monitoring by the Arboriculturalist of the works on site may appearsatisfactory on paper but is unlikely to be adequate in reality.

The contractor may choose to try directional drilling to achieve their sewer connection but this willstill require a very deep excavation to achieve the final Wessex Water connection works.

The connection of other services (electricity, gas, water and telecoms) would be at a shallowerdepth but likely to affect tree roots found within the top 1 metre of ground level.

In reality the developer may consider that the potential fines (where and if they are levied) forkilling or seriously damaging the trees is a worthwhile risk given the profit to be made from sellingon a completed house. From the perspective of the local residents however, once these maturetrees have gone, they are gone for good.

2. BUILDING LINE

The proposal involves 100% coverage of the site with no external amenity space other than thefirst floor balcony.

I consider that building from the back edge of the pavement would create an unacceptablemassing on the corner of this vary traditional Victorian street.

This also completely ignores the building line within the street and would establish a dangerousprecedent.

In my view this is clear over-intensive development of the site.

3. PRIVACY & OVERLOOKING

I believe that the side terrace would cause issues of privacy and overlooking to at least the threehouses (Nos.1, 2 &3) at the bottom of Pembroke Vale.

4. PARKING

The application drawings include a garage for off street parking. Once the development iscomplete the use of this as a garage is obviously not guaranteed.

Indeed, one of the Design Precedents quoted within the application, as shown on Frederick Place,has already had their garage doors blocked up and timbered suggesting that the space internallymay be being used as habitable accommodation and probably non-compliant with the spirit of theoriginal planning approval.

The Design and Access Statement suggests that pre-application consultation indicates that newdwellings were unlikely to receive parking permits.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS

I note that the application is referred to as a "self build" and might suggest that this isdisingenuous.

The Design and Access Statement supporting the application states that the garages have beenvacant for some time. This is untrue. They may have been unused for car parking but I havepersonally seen them being used for storage until very recently.

I note that the applicant intends to install PV panels on the roof although none of these appear onthe application drawings. The arboricultural report infers that the shading from these trees mightrender these less than effective. The likelihood is that there would be future pressure to trim,pollard or remove these trees.

I am a nearby resident who knows Pembroke Vale well and write to object to thisapplication.

The design is totally inappropriate for the road, It rises straight from the pavement whereas thehouses opposite all have front gardens so it would stand out in stark contrast and add nothing tothis attractive small road.

I think that it would be impossible not to damage the roots of the two London Plane trees and theHolm Oak during construction, especially when putting in the drainage and sewerage systems.These are three fine trees that were planted years ago to enhance the area. They should not bedamaged.

I ask that this application be refused.

I strongly object to the proposed development on grounds of poor design. I would urgeBristol City Council to take a stand and refuse planning permission.

NPPF National Design Guide October 2019 makes clear the requirement for well designed places.Design must:- Relate well to the site, its local and wider context- Value heritage, local history and culture- Respond to existing local character and identity- Be well designed, of high quality and attractive- It must create character and identity.

Furthermore, the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission puts design and community frontand centre in the design of places. Last week, The Secretary of State for Housing, LocalGovernment and Communities, Robert Jenrick MP advised of government commitment toensuring building better and building beautifully, respecting the conservation of places, throughdesign codes in each local authority area.

This proposal is affront on local design and community. It pays no regard or respect to local designor vernacular in this part of Clifton Conservation Area. In Pembroke Vale, you have a beautiful treelined lane in the heart of Clifton Conservation Area where new development over the last decadehas pretty faithfully adhered to the local distinctiveness in terms of materials, form, design andbuilding line.

This scheme pays no regard to any of these principles. It flies in the face of the overriding principle

laid down in statute that areas are designated as conservation areas because of the desire topreserve or enhance the area. This is not nimbyism, it is commitment to upholding good andstrong design inherent in this part of Clifton Conservation Area.

Looking through the detail set out in the Design and Access Statement reference is made to:- aluminium windows. Response: Windows in Pembroke Vale are painted timber- close boarded timber front door. Response: Front doors in Pembroke Vale in the public realm areof single piece solid timber.- Roof line. Response: The roof design is a function of the constraint of the London Plane treesand pays no regard to the traditional pitch roofs of all houses in Pembroke Vale and indeed thepitched roofs of the precedent photographs of modern designed buildings in Clifton. The roofscapeis obtrusive, wholly unsatisfactory and unsympathetic.

In addition to the above, clearly the proposals pose a significant risk to the long term health ofthree important trees - two London Plane trees in the street and one mature tree in the gardenopposite. On this ground alone, given their significant contribution to the character of the area plusthe significant contribution to clean air, no planning decision should be made to allow newdevelopment on this site.

For background information, the new house on back land to the rear of 60 Pembroke Road has itsfootprint significantly constrained such that no development whatsoever was allowed within theRPA of the mature London plane that anchors the corner of Pembroke Vale and Worcester Road.Such is the recognition and requirement to ensure no build within the RPA of mature trees.

It would be unprecedented to allow tree branches to oversail the property and so if permission wasgranted there is a strong possibility that the City Council could be asked to fell the trees. Obviouslythe most secure way to avoid that risk is to avoid redevelopement.

For all the above reasons, there are strong grounds to refuse which I would urge the City Councilto do.

Dear Sir Madam, Members of the Planning Committee,

I am writing to object on three main grounds.

1/ Protection of the three mature trees has not been fully explored and appears to be based onmisguided assumptions.

The roots of the two mature London Plane trees extend all the way under the garage and the ideathat it will be possible to go in-between them seems improbable.

I note that it was advised that the digging would be by hand and overseen by a qualifiedarboricultural expert. However, on researching this with companies, they are never asked to sitthere and observe in real time but instead are requested to 'sign off' work that has already beencompleted. This is simply insufficient in this particular situation as the roots are literally latticedbeneath the whole proposed build area. These two trees are mature, beautiful and worth to theenvironment so much more than the £20,000 maximum fine (and in reality I wonder how oftenthese fines are levied) if you consider all aspects, this amount could induce a more relaxedapproach.

With regards the Holm Oak - as is blatantly clear - this is a very mature and beautiful andenvironmentally important tree. The roots extend right across Pembroke vale - where I understandthe trench for foul and surface water drainage services would be dug. I note that the digging is

required to be over 3.5 metres down. In order not to destroy the roots and thus the tree - youwould need to tunnel from a spot up Pembroke vale and approach the work from below - I feel thatthis is seriously unlikely to happen. I am unsure as to whether this tree has a financial valueattached to it, whilst I do know it is legally regarded as a protected tree that requires planningpermission for any cutting back - so I assume it is on your radar even though it appears to bemissing from the proposal? Is that an oversight by the developers?

Therefore this building proposal, with the best will in the world cannot ensure the safety of thesethree important trees and as such must be dismissed. They are all under legal protection.

2/ The building goes right up to the pavementThis is not in keeping with the character of the street or area and would set a terrible precedent.

3/ The building would back onto the edge of my land I have no legal obligation to providepermission for any scaffolding or access and I would like to state clearly that permission would notbe given- Reference to "Access to Neighboring Land Act 1992"

I object to this planning application on the following grounds:1. The site is unsuitable for development, the plot directly abuts the pavement of Pembroke Vale.This plan breaches the build line for the street and is out of character with other dwellings which allhave a set back from the pavement.2. As there is no outside space in the development, there is no provision for Recycling andGeneral Waste bins.3. It is inconceivable that the build could be completed without delivering fatal damage to the twoLondon Plane trees which stand within 1 meter of the West wall of the proposed building. Althoughthere may be a theoretical possibility of hand digging between the roots, as the ArboriculturalImpact Assessment and Method Statement recommends, the reality is that minute by minutesupervision of a build team during the piling and trench digging is not feasible and the builders willnot adequately respect the roots of these trees. I believe that reading between the lines in thisreport that this is alluded to. Why risk these beautiful mature trees?

I wish to record an objection to this planning application. I have no in principle objection to housingdevelopment in this general location But I consider the specific location and scale of thedevelopment is wholly inappropriate for several reasons.

1. There are two mature and valued London Plane trees within a metre of the line of the proposedfoundations. There is a significant risk that the roots and viability of the trees may be severelyaffected.2. Even the expert Report that is intended to support the application is heavily caveated.3. Development of this scale is inappropriate along the back of pavement line. It should be setback to a line consistent with the built development along the east side of Pembroke Vale.4. Pembroke vale is a handsome street in the Conservation Area and is characterised by the lineof trees, and the relationship of buildings. this would be severely compromised by the proposal5. Any development of the massing that is proposed should not be on back of pavement; it shouldbe set back6. A two storey structure would compromise the privacy of houses opposite.

The main objection to this application is one concerning the trees close to the site.

The drainage system to the proposed property will undoubtedly affect the roots of the plane treeoutside the garages and the Holm oak situated in our garden. This will cause untold damagewhich may ultimately kill both trees.

I sincerely hope this application is refused.

Clifton is recognised as one of the most beautiful suburbs in the country and is quitecorrectly a Conservation area.The character of the area is achieved by a mixture of beautiful mature trees and attractiveproperties that are not overcrowded.

This proposal significantly threatens the mature trees of Pembroke Vale. It is difficult to conceivethat they could possibly survive the building process and even if they did it is very likely thatbuilding in such proximity to such large and established trees will lead to foundation problems inthe new build.

The design is unattractive and completely out of keeping with the local area and is much largerthan the current garage buildings. The proposed development will lead to a sense of overcrowdingin the street and will detract from the attractive street scene that exists at present.

The inclusion of a terrace on the street side of the building at first floor level is completelyunnecessary and will lead to a loss of privacy for the residents living opposite.

This proposal risks setting a precedent for unattractive and overcrowding development up to thepavement level all along the street and should be rejected completely.

Having over the years lost all the healthy trees in our own street for a variety of reasons,I wish to object to this proposal as the development application recognises the threat it poses tothe two magnificent trees in the direct vicinity of the proposed development site, and which shouldbe protected from unnecessary destruction at all costs.

OAKFIELD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

OBJECTION TO APPLICATION19/04707/F | Proposal to replace the garages to the rear of 79 Pembroke Road with a 2-beddetached dwelling (Self Build). | Garage To Rear Of 79 Pembroke Road Clifton Bristol BS8 3DN

WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PROPOSAL

THIS PROPOSAL IS IN A CONSERVATION AREA AND THE BUILD IS COMPLETELY OUT OFCHARCHTER WITH THE STREET

THE TREES ADJACENT WOULD BE AT RISK

THE CLOSENESS TO THE TREES IS MENTIONED IN THE DESIGN OF THE SLOPING ROOFTO PREVENT BRANCH DAMAGE FROM THE AJOINING TREES A PAVEMENT WIDTH AWAY

THE PROOSAL DOESN'T FOLLOW THE BUILDING LINE OF THE STREET AND WOULDOVERPOWER THE PROMINENT CORNER LOCATION

THIS TYPE OF INAPPROPRIATE INFILL HAS ALWAYS BEEN RESISTED BY THE PLANNINGDEPARMENT IN THIS CONSERVATION AREA

THE SITE IS FAR TO SMALL TO BUILD ANY FORM OF ADEQUATE HABITATION, FOR 4PERSONS

WE ASK THE OFFICERS AND COUNCILLORS TO REJECT THIS APPLICATION

RICHARD BARNES

OAKFIELD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

5 OAKFIELD PLACE CLIFTON BRISTOL BS8 2BJ

Threatened tree health.

Two plane trees and one holm oak (in the garden of 81 Pembroke Road) are threatened throughnew foundations and utilities trenches. The tree report submitted with the application states thefollowing:" The potential for adverse impact to the health and viability of these trees is very high", and"Excavation for installation and connection of underground services is to be undertaken by handunder close arboricultural supervision, ensuring that roots over 25mm and any areas of significantrooting mass are retained and protected.", and" The principal causes of damage to trees during development works are from root severanceduring excavation work, soil compaction from site vehicles and ground level changes. It istherefore essential that disturbance to the underlying soil both beneath the floor slab andsurrounding footpath is kept to an absolute minimum."

Planning conditions: Our experience of building work is that planning conditions are often ignored,and the building work is done as conveniently as possible. I doubt a condition (requiring handdigging, no root severance and arboricultural supervision) seeking to protect the trees, attached toany planning approval would, a) be enforceable and, b) would prevent damage to the trees. Thesetrees are mature and irreplaceable in under 100 years! This proposed development threatens theirexistence.

Utilities: Reference in the tree report is made to " section 4.1 of NJUG Vol 4 2007 (Guidelines forthe Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility Apparatus in Proximity to Trees)". Thisdocument states that in the " PRECAUTIONARY ZONE - 4 x tree circumference ... the use of

mechanical excavation plant should be prohibited". The circumference of the London Plane treeon the corner is 2.95 metres according to the Trees of Bristol website, i.e. no mechanicalexcavation within 11.8 metres of the trunk. The WHOLE of the north side of the site is within 7.6metres of the trunk. I understand that the sewer to which the house would be connected is 3.75metres deep. The conclusion is then that a trench would need to be dug 3.75 metres deep BYHAND without severing any roots over 25mm or any areas of significant rooting mass. Given thatany trench this deep would need to be shored up for worker protection (thereby severing ALL rootscoming into the trench), this is clearly not possible. If it is not possible to connect the house to thesewer I would think permission to develop should necessarily be refused.

Foundations: The structural report submitted with the application states that two of the threefoundation options involve between 8 and 18 bored or driven piles. Clearly one cannot drive orbore holes into the ground without risking severing unseen tree roots.

Break with the building line.All the development on the East side of Pembroke Vale has been set back from the pavement.Breaking with the building line not only threatens privacy of houses opposite (through proximity),but would create a precedent in Pembroke Vale allowing applications from owners of PembrokeRoad houses to sell off the ends of their gardens as building plots, thereby threatening thecharacter of the road.

Design.The proposed design is out of keeping with, and would detract from, the existing character ofPembroke Vale.The design is in effect little different from a two bedroomed flat. If the privacy issues around thebalcony are addressed and permission for a balcony is denied, the development will have nooutside space and therefore is unlikely to appeal to families. Furthermore, the garage could easilybe converted to a bedroom together with the living room and the most likely result would be a fourbedroom HMO, which would be wholly unsuitable for Pembroke Vale.

Privacy.Windows and a balcony at first floor level would look directly into our bedroom and living room andthreaten our privacy. I believe that the recently built houses at the top of Pembroke Vale hadpermission for balconies turned down for similar reasons (and they are set back from the road).

Sustainability requirements.The solar PV projections in the application appear to take no account of shading by trees and thefour storey house on Pembroke Road. The development would therefore seem not to meet

sustainability requirements.

Garage space.There is high demand for garage space, especially for somewhere to charge electric vehicles.Indeed neighbours tried to buy the garages at the last sale to use them as garages. There is noneed to develop these garages into an inappropriate small house.

I object to this application on the following 3 grounds:1. Risk to trees;2. Inappropriate site for dwelling3. Loss of Parking

Risk to TreesThe 2 magnificent mature London Plane trees are at major risk from the proposed buildingprogram .Indeed the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement submitted insupport of the application concludes that 'the potential for adverse impact to the health andviability of these trees is very high'. It seems inconceivable that the expert's opinion won't be borneout no matter whatever amount of precautions are taken.

Inappropriate site for dwellingThe proposed building line is abutting the pavement which is not appropriate for this road where allother buildings (including those houses built in the past 10 years) are set back from the road. Itwould change the entire character of the road and set a precedent for future developments.

Loss of ParkingThe design has an integral garage. It would appear that access to this garage could only bepossible if the parking opposite was restricted ( i.e. the loss of at least one parking zone spot)Given that there is limited parking in the road as it is this would have a detrimental effect. There isthe added possibility of reduced parking if the garage is converted to a bedroom and the propertygains HMO status with multiple car owners.

I would like to register my objections to the proposed building on the site of the garagesto the rear of 79 Pembroke road.

I would like to register my objections to the proposed building on the site of the garagesto the rear of 79 Pembroke road.The main issue with this proposed build is the damage to the lovely trees that are directly in frontof the proposed site.

All the houses in Pembroke Vale are set back away from the road and this new build will opendirectly onto the pavement which will be very unsafe.

The proposed build will also detract from the privacy of the houses opposite which will be intrusive.

I am dismayed to hear about a local planning application on a small urban plot whichthreatens mature trees (in this case plane trees). The expert report from the arboriculturalistclearly states the risk that this new-build will pose to these trees. In addition, the building line isclose to the pavement line and will change the character of this leafy Victorian residential road,setting a precedent for further inappropriate building.

As a resident of one of the very few tree lined streets in the area, it is disappointing tosee that 2 mature London plane trees are at threat from this planning proposal.

Although I am not a resident of Pembroke Vale, I frequently run or cycle along the roadon my way to Clifton Suspension Bridge or The Downs. I have always appreciated the quiet, tree-lined nature of this road. In general, it typifies Clifton, with its stone-built Victorian residences setback from the road.I was shocked recently to see that planning permission has been sought for a 2-bedroom house tobe crammed into the small area on the corner of the road currently occupied by two garages. Myobjection to this proposed development is twofold:- All houses in this Clifton area are set back from the road. A change to this would be at odds withthe architectural style of the area.- All established trees in the area should be protected by restricting any construction within severalmetres of the trunk. Most residential homes would be uninsurable if there were a large tree within5 metres.I hope this Planning Application will be considered in the light of its incongruity in the area and thepotential damage that may be caused to established trees.

I live close to the proposed development and regularly walk or cycle the route on myway to the Clifton Suspension Bridge. My concerns over the proposed development relate to therisk of damage to the beautiful plane trees that are very close to the property and that the propertyis out of keeping with the area. The fact that the proposed development will be built at thepavement edge rather than being set back is out of keeping with the road and the area.

Regarding the planning application for a dwelling on the corner of Pembroke Vale

Ref 19/04707/F

I would like to register my objection to this application.

There are three trees, all of which will certainly suffer with building work, no matter how carefulcontractors are to avoid damage to their root systems.

They all have preservation orders on the. When two trees in the road had to be felled becausethey were diseased, they were replaced. It will take many years for them to reach the stature ofthe older trees in the road.

The existing garage has two levels. It is in effect two garages, one with access from PembrokeVale, the other access from driveway of the Pembroke Road house. The floor level of the secondgarage is a step higher than that of the garage entered from Pembroke Vale. I understand that thehigher level was to protect the tree roots under the floor.

Two of the three trees are very close to the site line as proposed, and their roots can be seen tohave raised the pavement over them, and to be continuing under the wall.

If this development is allowed, it will set a precedent for further development in Clifton, andanywhere in the city where there are street trees near a site that could potentially be built on, forany kind of building.

I am concerned about the levels of pollution we already suffer in Bristol, and cities in general.Trees are an important part of mitigating this.

Clifton is a conservation area. The trees in Clifton are important to maintaining the quality of thisurban environment.

People from other parts of the city, and visitors from further afield walk around Clifton to enjoy thearchitecture, the trees and the gardens, as well as the other amenities which are part of thisneighbourhood.

Regarding the site line of buildings in Pembroke Vale, the existing buildings are all set back fromthe road. It is only property boundaries or garages, which abut the pavement.

There have been five new buildings, houses and or flats, in the road since 1968. They are all builtback from the road, and well away from any tree roots.

The height of the proposed dwelling will alter the character of the road, where no properties openonto the pavement.

Finally, I note that there has been a claim that the garages have not been in use for some time.They have been in constant use as storage facilities, from Christmas trees to builders material.They may not have been in regular use as garaging for cars, but there have been some cars andmotorbikes using them using them from time to time.

The Society is strongly of the opinion that this very small piece of land is totallyunsuitable for development for the following reasons:

a. The proposed house would extend right up to the edge of the pavement on two sides, thusfailing to conform with the building line. It would stick out like a sore thumb and create a feeling ofenclosure on this narrow bend.

b. The house would have no outdoor amenity space. The roof terrace proposed is completelyunacceptable in this location because of potential noise and overlooking issues.

c. There are two mature London plane trees in very close proximity to the façades of this house,which would unlikely to survive the onslaught of a new building less than 1m. away. Theapplicant's own arboricultural report emphasises the care which would need to be taken topreserve these trees. All too often little care is, in fact, taken by builders, and those who employthem often find it preferable to be rid of trees whose canopies would overshadow the new-buildand whose root undermine its foundations.

d. The Society does not welcome incongruous backfill in the Conservation Area. This side ofPembroke Vale has already been marred by ugly 1960s development but this is well set back fromthe road. The distinguished rank of Victorian houses on the opposite side is arguably one of thebest examples of such a rank in Clifton. Although unlisted, these houses are of considerablearchitectural merit. This tiny modern house, of incongruous size and materials, would damage thestreet view and the setting of these houses.

e. CHIS is concerned lest the ultimate intention be to rent this house to students. The applicant'soriginal intention was apparently to build a block of flats here. There is an integral garage andcycle storage and it would be all too easy to convert the garage into a bedroom. Yet another HMOin the Clifton area would be quite unacceptable.

f. It seems that local residents, who lack private parking facilities, had hoped to purchase thesegarages with a view to providing them with facilities for recharging e-cars. This would be a farbetter use for this site in an area where parking is difficult and e-car facilities urgently needed.

I object to this application:

Established TreesThis development would put at significant risk 2 magnificent 17 m high London plane street treesand a beautiful established holm oak in Pembroke Vale. The London planes grow just a metrefrom the walls of the 2 garages under consideration and the entire development including thedrilling of multiple piles to support a new concrete floor would lie well within the nominal rootprotection areas of both plane trees. The All Trees Arboricultural Impact Assessment says "thepotential for root severance is high" that "all service installation/excavation must be hand dugunder the supervision of an arboriculturist" and that piles should be limited in size "to minimise therisk of striking major roots." The proposal is for a trench housing sewerage and drainage water tobe dug diagonally across the street to meet the mains sewer. However according to WessexWater this lies at a depth of 3.75 m. This very deep (and therefore wide) trench would sever theroots of one of the plane trees and those of the holm oak across at least a ¼ of their rootprotection areas. All three trees are an important visual amenity in our conservation area anddeserve to be protected. (Clifton & Hotwells Character Appraisal and NPPF para 130).

Building LineThe proposed build along the pavement's edge would break the existing building line of the street(BCS22 and 6.1.1. Clifton and Hotwells Character Appraisal). The front elevations of alldevelopment above one storey on the east side of Pembroke Vale including that undertaken in thepast 15 years is set-back a minimum of 5.5 metres from the public pavement. This has allowed ourmagnificent established street trees, all planted in the pavement on the east side, to continue tothrive. It also gives an open feel to the whole street, enjoyed by many who walk through, and a

degree of privacy for its residents.

Request for policy to avoid new build on root protection areasThe National Design Guide released October 2019 (NDG) supplementary to the National PlanningPolicy Framework (NPPF) refers to The National Model Design Code for new development"including the importance of streets being tree-lined wherever possible." If we are to preserve ourestablished city trees, my request is that all new build should avoid any risk of damage in rootprotection areas and that existing lines of build set well back from trees should be respected.

Effective Use of landThe proposal is for an unnecessary development (NPPF 122): a 2 bedroomed house with nooutside amenity which is comparable in use to a 2 bedroomed flat of which there are severalnearby including in Pembroke Vale. The 2 garages are currently being well used by a local builderfor storage and before the recent auction they were used as garages by rent-paying localresidents until the roof needed repair. Currently there is demand among e-car owners for secureparking and overnight charging access.

Design out of contextThe design of the proposed house would be out of context with other build in the street and jarwith its identity (NDG 42, 52 NPPF 127). The height of the proposed roof at 6.68 m at the streetedge would be oppressive and top heavy with dark grey slate covering the upper 2/3rds of thebuild (the existing stone wall to the garages as it abuts the pavement is 2.35 m high). The starkfeatureless window design and uncomfortable roof angles would be out of context with thesymmetry of the bath stone fronted Victorian semi-detached and terraced houses opposite andalso with the recent sympathetic stone built housing elsewhere on the east side of Pembroke Vale.

OverlookingThe proposal includes a west-facing first floor terrace accessed by "large glazed sliding doors"from the first floor living area giving intrusive line of sight into the ground and first floor rooms ofboth numbers 1 and 2 Pembroke Vale opposite.

I am objecting to this application for the following reasons:

Damage/Loss of 2 Mature Trees

There are 2 mature plane trees, with preservation orders, healthy and within the conservationdistrict of Clifton, right on the edge of the planned build, just a metre from the proposed housewall.The plans detail that piles will have to be driven between the roots to support the building ratherthan normal foundations and the process monitored by an arboriculturist. The applicant submittedAn Arboriculturist Method Impact Assessmet to support the planning application which highlightedthat "the potential for adverse impact on the health and viability of these trees is very high". Therisk of this build killing these trees is high due to the high likelihood of root severance and soilcompaction.

In the year when our Environment Secretary announced a new £10 million plan to see more than130,000 trees planted across Englands towns and cities it seems counterintuitive to risk loosingthese 2 mature trees. Trees are critical in the fight against climate change, they absorb carbondioxide and noise and help improve health and well-being.

Unsuitable Site for Dwelling

The site runs right alongside the pavement on 2 sides. All development on this side of the roadhas been set back from the road by around 5 metres. This building line should continue to beenforced to protect the character of the road.

The increased height of over 4 metres from its' present 2.35 metres would have an overshadowingeffect especially being built right up to the pavement line.

I object to this application on three grounds:

1. Risk of damage to one or both of the two mature London Plane trees at the north eastern end ofPembroke Vale during construction works, potentially leading to the loss of one or both of them.That would be severely detrimental to the character of Pembroke Vale (as recognised inparagraph 7.1.1g of the Clifton & Hotwells Character Appraisal for Conservation Area 5).

2. Building line: the development of a dwelling which abuts the pavement of Pembroke Vale isunprecedented and would severely detract from the character of the road (as recognised in the"Predominant Characteristics" paragraph of Clifton & Hotwells Character Appraisal for CharacterArea 1 of Conservation Area 5).

3. Inappropriate site for development of a dwelling. This is apparent from the unconventionalproposals for foundations, utility connections, flood water management and roof line, necessitatedby the character and restrictions of the site.

Risk to trees

There is a significant risk to damage of the two mature plane trees which are approximately onemetre from the boundary of the site. The Executive Summary of the Arboricultural ImpactAssessment and Method Statement submitted in support of the application concludes that 'thepotential for adverse impact to the health and viability of these trees is very high', and recognisesthat the risk to the plane trees, primarily from root severance and soil compaction, can only be

reduced to an acceptable level if a number of steps during the building process are very closelymonitored by an arboriculturist. In practice, I question whether such close monitoring would befeasible and carried out in practise.

The loss of one or both of the plane trees would have a severe detrimental effect of the characterof Pembroke Vale. Pembroke Vale is one of only 18 streets with such street trees (see 7.6.2Clifton & Hotwells Character Appraisal for Character Area 1). These trees form part of theessential character of the road, being the beginning of a row of 6 plane trees that stretch along theentire length of Pembroke Vale. They also provide a very valuable habitat for urban wildlife andare extremely beneficial for countering atmospheric pollution from emissions and particulates.

Building line

The site abuts the pavement of Pembroke Vale on its North and West elevations. All the otherbuildings on Pembroke Vale, including the more recently built dwellings are set back severalmetres from the pavement. This building line is recognised in the "Predominant Characteristics"paragraph of Clifton & Hotwells Character Appraisal for Character Area 1 of Conservation Area 5and must be respected.

Inappropriate site for dwelling

The site is wholly inappropriate for a dwelling. The development proposals make this clear throughtheir extensive use of unconventional design and construction techniques. These include pile-mounted slab foundations, above-ground on-site service connections, storm water attenuationwithin the foundation slab and an asymmetric roof line. In addition to the potential for damage bothto the trees and the proposed dwelling at and below ground level, there will be a perpetualrequirement to manage the interaction of the building and the trees above ground level. This willinclude regular pruning of branches and continuous management of leaf fall and seed shedding bythe occupants of the building to avoid increased risk of flooding. Pembroke Vale slopes down fromthe Worcester Road end to the area of the proposed development, increasing the risk of flooding.

I object to this application on three grounds:

1. There is a high risk of damage to one or both of the two magnificent London Plane trees at thenorth eastern end of Pembroke Vale during construction works, potentially leading to the loss ofone or both of them. That would be severely detrimental to the character of Pembroke Vale (asrecognised in paragraph 7.1.1g of the Clifton & Hotwells Character Appraisal for ConservationArea 5).

2. It is an unsuitable site for development of a dwelling. This is apparent from the unconventionalproposals for foundations, utility connections, flood water management and roof line, necessitatedby the character and restrictions of the site.

3. The development of a dwelling which abuts the pavement of Pembroke Vale is unprecedentedand would severely detract from the character of the road (as recognised in the "PredominantCharacteristics" paragraph of Clifton & Hotwells Character Appraisal for Character Area 1 ofConservation Area 5).

Risk to trees

The Executive Summary of the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statementsubmitted in support of the application concludes that 'the potential for adverse impact to thehealth and viability of these trees is very high', and recognises that the risk to the London Planetrees, primarily from root severance and soil compaction, can only be reduced to an acceptablelevel if a number of steps during the building process are very closely monitored by an

arboriculturist.

The loss of one or both of the London Plane trees would have a severe detrimental effect of thecharacter of Pembroke Vale. There are relatively few street trees in Clifton and Pembroke Vale isone of only 18 streets with them (see 7.6.2 Clifton & Hotwells Character Appraisal for CharacterArea 1). Not only does their visual amenity form part of the essential character of the road (andwider area), they provide a very valuable habitat for urban wildlife and are extremely beneficial forcountering atmospheric pollution.

Inappropriate site for dwelling

The site is fundamentally inappropriate for a dwelling. The development proposals make this clearthrough their extensive use of unconventional design and construction techniques. These includepile-mounted slab foundations, above-ground on-site service connections, storm water attenuationwithin the foundation slab and asymmetric roof line. The existing garages at the site haveinteracted with the London Plane trees over the years and, given the proximity of the proposeddwelling to the trees it is inevitable that interaction will continue. In addition to the potential fordamage both to the trees and the proposed dwelling at and below ground level, there will be aperpetual requirement to manage the interaction of the building and the trees above ground level.This will include regular pruning of branches, not all of which will be the responsibility of BristolCity Council (BCC state in their tree management policy that they do not prune trees to preventnuisance of overhanging branches - see paragraph 3.5.1 of the Arboricultural Impact Assessmentand Method Statement). It will also require continuous management of leaf fall and seed sheddingby the occupants of the building to avoid increased risk of flooding.

Building line

The site abuts the pavement of Pembroke Vale on its North and West elevations. No otherdwelling in Pembroke Vale abuts the pavement. All the others, including the more recent buildingson the eastern side of the road are set back several metres from the pavement. This building lineis recognised in the "Predominant Characteristics" paragraph of Clifton & Hotwells CharacterAppraisal for Character Area 1 of Conservation Area 5 and must be respected.

With reference to the planning application 19/04707/F I have the following concernsabout the possible damage to two plane trees on the site, both of which have tree protectionorders. I am also disturbed about the compromised privacy of the houses opposite the proposednew house. My concerns are listed below:Tree Protection & Health

- Facility trenches. From the application I understand that Wessex water would need to digtrenches approx 3.5 metres in depth to reach the main sewer to provide that facilities for theproposed house. On the application graphics the trenches would be dug across the root balls ofthe corner plane tree of the garage site and the root ball of the ilex/holm oak that grows oppositeof the current garage doors. In undertaking this digging, both trees would have to have their rootssevered to complete the trenches. Too as the trenches would be approx 12 feet deep, shoring upwould be necessary thus possibly incurring more damage to the root ball of each tree. Cutting andbruising of mature tree roots compromises the health of trees considerably and should be avoided.

- Management of digging the trenches also causes concerns. On the proposed house applicationthis states the digging would hand-dug and be supervised at all stages. Digging trenches by handto that depth could take up to one month or more, could the presence of an arboriculturalist beguaranteed throughout this process to minimise tree root damage?

- Pile Driving for the foundation of the proposed house would also incur tree root bruising to bothplane trees as both trees are only I metre (3 ft) from the proposed outside wall of the house on theEast elevation. Could it be guaranteed that a firm which has the skills, machinery and specialises

in such a delicate building method would be engaged to take on the project?

- Site contamination from use of cement, heavy machinery and soil movement can result incompaction of the soil on the site. This in turn creates a barrier to air and water percolation thatthen hinders root repair and growth. These factors can be seen in the tree as poor growth andchange in appearance and the possible subsequence dying of the tree.

- Environmental Health. Mature trees are recognised to be the major healthy lung of cities. Theyabsorb harmful carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, they provide a cooling effect in extremetemperatures, they provide a protection canopy, they provide habitat for insect and birds. Shouldeither of the plane trees die in the redevelopment of this site, just replanting a new tree does notgive the same environmental benefits. Young trees will only provide the above benefits aftermaturing for 25 to 30 years. The national current feeling about mature trees is that they shouldvalued, preserved and protected.

Placement of House on Site and Privacy Issues- Building Line. The curtilage of the proposed house is on the exact site of the two existinggarages thus breaking the building line of all the other houses in Pembroke Vale where the housesare set back from the roadway. This current proposal threatens the privacy of the 3 housesopposite through proximity, but would also create a precedent in Pembroke Vale of a differentbuild line. This could allow other applications from owners of Pembroke Road houses to sell off theends of their gardens as building plots with possible further breaks in the current building line.

- Privacy. The proposed plan has the bedrooms on the ground floor and the living areas on thefirst floor. The plans show that a terrace/balcony with double doors is situated between the kitchenand living room providing an outdoor open space in the centre of the first floor. The open spaceand double doors open directly in line to the bedrooms of the two houses opposite the proposedsite. As the building line has been broken, it makes the open terrace /balcony area closer to thetwo opposite houses and issues of invasion of privacy arise. The same issue arose on the plans ofthe houses number 16 and 15 on the east side of Pembroke Vale and planning was refused.Therefore precedence has been set, implying that upstairs/bedroom privacy should be respectedfrom opposite houses.

- Noise. Because of the outdoor terrace/balcony design, houses 1, 2 and 3 opposite could bebothered by noise when the doors were open. This could happen especially at night as the noisewould be at the first floor level directly opposite various bedrooms.

- Garage conversion. The proposed plans show a garage on the ground floor alongside 2bedrooms. I have concerns that at some future date the garage would be converted to a thirdbedroom. Increasing the possibility is the fact that there is little outside space bar theterrace/balcony really suitable for family living. These two factors make the house moresusceptible to becoming a HMO (House of Multiple Occupancy) in the future with the current trend

to provide student accommodation and its resultant financial returns. If this should happen, thisgoes against the Bristol council wish to provide family homes.

Conclusion: I would urge the planning department consider the above points and suggest realisticamendments to the plans and to consider placing the two beautiful plane trees at the heart of anyfuture proposals. Really, it comes down to recognising that not all garages have to be converted tohouses or flats at the expense of trees that have been with us for 60 to 70 years.

19/04707/F: Proposal to replace the garages to the rear of 79 Pembroke Road with a 2bed detached dwelling (Self Build):

[I wonder if this really is a 'self-build' development: pre- application advice was sought forconversion into a 3 storey building containing 6 studio flats. (ref: 17/04245/ PREAPP)]

I object to this application on 3 grounds:1. Risk to trees;2. Inappropriate site for dwelling; and3. Inappropriate design and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.

1. Risk to trees:This development puts at risk 2 plane trees which are just 1 metre from the boundary, and a holmoak in a nearby garden. (The Arboricultural Method Impact Assessment submitted in support ofthe application makes no mention of the holm oak, although the services, including foul waterdrainage, would have to be laid across its root protection area.) This Assessment concludes that'the potential for adverse impact to the health and viability of these trees is very high', andrecognises that the risk to the plane trees, primarily from root severance and soil compaction, canonly be reduced to an acceptable level if a number of steps during the building process aremonitored by an arboriculturist. (10 items of works require the supervision and/or monitoring of anarboriculturist - para. 6.4.)The trees in Pembroke Vale (which lies in a conservation area) are referred to in the Clifton andHotwells character appraisal (7.1.1g), and it is one of only 18 streets in Clifton with street trees(7.6.2). Not only does their visual amenity form part of its essential character, but their beneficial

effect on emissions and particulates should not be ignored. This should not be put at risk.

2. Inappropriate site for dwelling:The site abuts the pavement on 2 sides. No other dwelling in Pembroke Vale is adjacent to thepavement, all the others, including recent builds, being some metres back from the road. Thebuilding line should be respected, and a dwelling on this site is not only inappropriate in itself(quite apart from its proximity to the trees) but it sets an undesirable precedent which would harmthe character of the road.

3. Inappropriate design and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties:It is intended to use existing materials and slate, but although roofs in Pembroke Vale arepredominantly slate, there is a big difference between that and a slate facing. The unusual linesand angles owe everything to the proximity of the trees and nothing to local styles, and although itis described in the Design Statement as being a 1 ½ storey design (para.7), it has the height of 2storeys. Any similarity to a mews building would be inappropriate in Pembroke Vale, which hasnone of the character of a mews.The increased height (6.68 as against 2.35 metres) would have an overbearing effect on that endof the road, especially as it is not set back as other houses are.The terrace on the upper floor would result in a loss of privacy to properties opposite, the more soas it would not be set back from the road, and although the angled window and the tree are bothreferred to as features reducing loss of privacy, in combination they result in a view across theroad best illustrated in 'Proposed Perspectives - NW Perspective".

Conclusion:In its present state, the building is in need of repair, but it is not that long since it was used asgarages, and it is still used for storage. It need not be developed as a dwelling: there is no localneed for 2 bed properties - this design is not so different from a 2 bed flat which exist locally inabundance - and the existing building could serve as a garage and storage, especially if electricityis connected for e-car charging.