I have complained to Bristol City Council about the way this planning application hasbeen handled. There is clearly suspicious activity going on with this application.

My complaint to the council was meant to have been given a written response by Friday 6th March2020. This has not happened. Clearly the planning officer and the council are all in this together.

Even the letter from the local MP to Bristol City Council has been ignored.

Do Bristol City Council actually think they are above the law. Obviously this matter is going to haveto be escalated.

Having not been aware of the proposed plans until recently, I have now reviewed themalong with my neighbors objections, and agree with every point that has been made.

The conservation of this concentrated area is being set aside with the sole aim to over developand extract as much profit as possible from out of town developers.

The loss of view of the trees behind the development, and impact on the surrounding wildlife is ofconcern, but what seriously worries me is the narrowing of the road and proposed alterations.

As oncoming traffic corners a blind bend, it will be immediately faced with the narrowing lane,followed by a refuge island. As traffic approaches from the other direction, it will encounter a busstop immediately after the island. The new lane width proposed looks marginally wider than a bus,and with the new entrance to six dwellings opposite, i can see an increased risk of accidents aspeople try to pass buses that are stopped. This road is frequently used by trucks as well ascyclists.

In addition, i note that plans have been agreed for No.7 to add another house on their plot, withthe entrance directly facing the island.

I am unable to see how the movement of this additional traffic in such a concentrated spacecompared to what exists can be an improvement to the area.

I fully agree with all the comments of my fellow neighbours.

The widening of the pavement will not address the issues of this busy A road.

The planning rules are not being applied fairly in this case and I strongly object to the proposedplans.

The new agreed decision date for this planning application was 24th December 2019. 9weeks have now passed since this deadline.

Why has no decision been made? We deserve to know what is happening. There is some verysuspicious activity taking place. The application should have been rejected and then a newapplication and fee paid by the applicant. The planning rules are not being applied fairly in thiscase and this will be raised through the complaints system, the local councillors and the local MP.You cannot keep making amendments and adding additional documents after the deadline haspassed. The neighbours and public need to be given the opportunity to make comments againstany new plans submitted.

Everybody apart from the owners of number 6 fully object to the planning application. Thegovernment inspector objects to any reduction in visibility of the trees in The Dingle when viewedfrom the highway. This planning application including the amendments will reduce the visibility ofthe trees. I was told by the previous planning officer for this area that so long as there is more thanone objection then a planning application would not be allowed.

The widening of the pavement will not address the issues above. The proposed scheme is still outof character with the surrounding houses. There are no flats in this area of Bristol.

The proposed scheme is still over development of the land and is against the conditions of thecovenant of the original owners of the land on the west side of Dingle Road. Only 2 houses can bebuilt and there are already 5 houses in existence. If the relatives of the covenant materialise then 3houses would have to be demolished.

I knew this particular planning application process was flawed when most of the neighbours wereexcluded from the neighbour notification distribution list. When we made planning applicationsthere were over 16 neighbours notified.

There are a lot of irregularities with the way this planning application has been dealt with that needto be investigated.

Further to receiving notification of this planning application on the 23 October 2019,there have been seven neighbour objections, plus objections from the Conservation AdvisoryPanel and the CPRE.

Further architect amendments were made to the planning application on 9th December 2019 andagain at the end of January.

This is clearly unacceptable as the closing date for public comment was the 12 November 2019,pending a decision in December, so I question why have the local Planning Office allowed furtheramendments to be made after the closing date and why have they not brought this to attention ofthe local neighbours.

It appears that there has been a total disregard for the valid objections made by all the localresidents and the further proposal of 'kerb realignment' and a 'refuge Island' is total nonsense anda distraction from the main concerns which are, over development and appearance of theproposed flats, insufficient parking and adverse effect of the conservation area, to name just a few.

I believe that the investors from Bath and their architects are trying to push this unacceptableapplication through without due consideration of the planning process and total disregard for localneighbours.

I will therefore be taking this matter up with the local MP for North Bristol as soon as possible.

I write to object fully to this proposed development. It is completely out of keeping withthe area, represents an over-development of the site and will result in an already dangeroussection of road becoming even more dangerous.

Dingle Rd has already been made much more dangerous by the over-development of number 3,despite significant objections, due to increased parking in the road. This means that often we haveto back out of our drive into the middle of the road before we can see if anything is coming. Theaddition of the approved development at no. 7 will exacerbate this further, before the arrival of upto 24 additional cars at this proposed development.

The proposed development is completely out of character with the local area and is sited in theconservation area, which will damage the environment and the view of the trees from the highway,which is required by law as I understand. The addition of narrowing Dingle Rd has the potential ofmaking the road even more dangerous than it is already.

I also wish to complain that we were not notified of this proposal, despite living opposite the site.This is unacceptable.

The new agreed decision date for this planning application was 24th December 2019. 9weeks have now passed since this deadline.

Why has no decision been made? We deserve to know what is happening.

Everybody apart from the owners of number 6 fully object to the planning application. Thegovernment inspector objects to any reduction in visibility of the trees in The Dingle when viewedfrom the highway. This planning application will reduce the visibility of the trees.

The widening of the pavement will not address the issues above. The proposed scheme is still outof character with the surrounding houses.

The proposed scheme is still over development of the land and is against the conditions of thecovenant of the original owners of the land on the west side of Dingle Road. Only 2 houses can bebuilt and there are already 5 houses in existence. If the relatives of the covenant materialise then 3houses would have to be demolished.

I see there have been amendments made after the cut off date when the applicationhad been made. Why are the suggestions being made without going through the officialprocedure.The suggestion being, to narrow a portion of the road with a bollard, so as to slow the traffic down. Imagine the congestion it will cause . Dingle Road is a main road for all major traffic , heavygoods buses and private cars etc.

Seems suspicious to me that amendments to the plan are still allowed to be entered after the cutoff date

The revised road and visibility layout submitted on 9th December will adversely affectno.7 Dingle Road.It will not be possible to park outside or for deliveries to be made, due to the proposed pedestrianrefuge and associated road markings.Also planning application 19/03598/F for a new detached house, recently approved, has itsaccess/driveway very close or on the proposed pedestrian crossing point.Due to the minimal parking proposed on the application site, delivery and other vehicles are likelyto park on the extended pavement to the west of the entrance obstructing the visibility splay.As set out in my previous objection (dated 4th November) the current planning application for 6dwellings is an over intensive use of the site and highway considerations only emphasise this.

The decision deadline date has long passed on this application. The LPA should makea decision and stop allowing the application to be withdrawn.

This scheme is considered to be over development. It does not respond to theimmediate context of the site, harms the view of a significant group of trees and adversely affectsthe character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

With regards to the proposed development, myself and my husband Nicholas, fullyagree with all the objections already put forward, including that the development will:

1) Be a massive over-development of the site, resulting in much disturbance to neighbours and theneighbourhood

2) Cause a huge disruption and lasting damage to local protected wildlife and the unique eco-systems here.

3) Create logistical and environmental problems by the scale of the development such asadditional road use on an already dangerous stretch of road

4) Go against the existing Covenant on the property limiting any development to two dwellings

5) Drastically reduce the views of the trees behind, another protected Covenant

6) Result in trees being cut down, going against the climate crisis imperatives

We would like to add another point: The development's energy statement shows zero CO2savings on the building fabric. This really is not good enough in these days of focus and needregarding energy efficiency and shows a complete lack of knowledge, care and considerationregarding the quality of the build itself. This, to my mind, demonstrates a lack of integrity orawareness regarding the genuine and urgent environmental concerns regarding the reduction ofCO2 from buildings, and a disregard of the need for an overall improvement in building insulationand energy efficiency.

The building themselves are architecturally completely unrepresentative of this area, and againshow a desire to over-develop the plot with scant regard for the aesthetics of the area, or thequality of life for the local residents.

We really hope you will refuse this wholly inappropriate and opportunist application.

South Gloucestershire/North Bristol Distric of CPRE (Campaign to Protect RuralEngland) considers that the present application is something of an improvement on the previouswithdrawn application, but we have a number of concerns about it and therefore wish to object:1. The proposal continues to represent overdevelopment of the site. 2. The design still constitutesover-massing of the built form and introduction of large areas of hard standing, with a harmfulimpact on the environment of the Conservation Area. 3. Only 3 flats have gardens and there is nocommunal garden area for the remaining 3 flats. 4. There is no provision for limiting light pollutionfrom the 6 dwellings. 5. The loss of trees and insufficient on site mitigation is unacceptable. 6.There are anomalies in the documentation. We enlarge below on issues 4-6.

4. It is clear from the Ecological Impact Assessment (2.5.33) that the neighbouring woodland atthe perimeter of the site is of local level importance for bat foraging and potentially roosting, as it isused by at least nine species of bats, including rare and light averse species and that the surveyrevealed 4119 passes by bats (2.5.22). It is vital that such a level of activity is not disturbed in theinterests of wildlife protection and conformity with DM19. The Executive Summary states that asensitive lighting plan should be prepared to ensure their protection but we have not identifiedsuch a plan in the application documentation. CPRE, with its expertise in this area, wishes toemphasise the importance of ensuring that light pollution is minimised , both from the dwellingsthemselves, as well as the balconies and gardens and from any security lights within the parkingareas or which the residents later decide to install, such a measure being both for the benefit ofwildlife, including bats, and to preserve the dark environment of the neighbouring woodland in theConservation Area. The amount of light emanating from 6 flats would be much greater than from afamily home. Research from Exeter University also indicates that budburst in spring in woodlandareas is precipitated by artificial lighting, with an cascading effect on insects and the food chain.Guidance on avoiding adverse effects of damaging lighting is widely available and the application

should indicate how this would be achieved at the site, which is in a sensitive location within theConservation Area, so as to conform with DM19: Development and Nature Conservation.

5. We are concerned that the new application still does not conform to DM21 in that the characterand appearance of the area is not enhanced by the development and thus it should not bepermitted in its present form. There are fewer trees to be lost than under the application for 7dwellings, but nevertheless the mitigation for the loss of those to be removed is unsatisfactory.Two ornamental cherry trees do not compensate for the loss of 3 fruit trees, while small shrubsand hedging do not mitigate tree canopy loss. While the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard hasbeen acknowledged, there is an obvious reluctance to contribute towards a satisfactory level of offsite planting and this is not acceptable, especially in the light of current national targets for vitaladditional tree planting.We also note that the Arboricultural Survey recommends that a detailed arboricultural methodstatement and tree protection plan are provided (14.5). Overall we consider that there will belimited biodiversity net gain from the planting plan. There is some indication that there will be " theintegration of bird and bat boxes into the building units, but not their location. We note that theBiodiversity Net Gain Good Practice Principles (CIRIA 2019, Technical note T2 ) advises against"Traditional use of bird or bat boxes without adequate consideration of what type, whether close towider habitat needs such as foraging" and asks whether " the correct height and orientation beenspecified, will the operation of the site have a negative impact - eg light, noise, people, pets etc."Several other ideas for ensuring biodiversity are suggested in the technical note, including theneed for an information pack for end users of the development so that they are aware of how tomaintain biodiversity. If this application is granted it would seem extremely desirable that residentswere made aware of their obligations in this sensitive location.

6. We would point out that there are confusing anomalies in some of the application documents.There appear to be contradictory proposals for the retention or otherwise of certain trees. TheArboricultural Survey 1.3 states "In response to feedback received from the LPA, trees along thesite frontage are to be retained". At the end of that document the Tree Retention Loss andProtection plan shows T6 to be removed. The Oxford Architects Proposed Ground floor level Planshows T6 as being removed, while the text of the table in the Design and Access statement 4.1states "No trees will be removed from the streetscene". The plan drawing in the Pegasus PlanningDetailed Planting Plan does not clarify these anomalies.Various other documents including the Transport Plan and SAP input documents still containdetails which relate to the previous application for 7 dwellings and are misleading.

In conclusion we contend that the harm which will be caused to the Conservation Area and theloss of garden land contrary to DM 21 will outweigh any perceived benefit due to increasing thedensity of development at this site.

I have read the arboricultural report.I must take issue with several of the comments within it.

Firstly I would rather rely upon the expertise of the Council Officers rather than the opinion of acontractor employed on behalf of the applicant with regard to the quality of the trees on the site,the measures required for protection of retained trees and the preservation of soil levels aroundthe trees to maintain their future health.I would also have thought that visibility from the road increased the visual amenity value of a tree,not decreased it.

But my major issue is with the rather dismissive and casual comments about how to mitigate forthe loss of the trees in order to facilitate this development.

I expect that the Tree/Planning Officers will determine the number of replacement trees required.Apparently this may be 11 according to the report submitted on behalf of the applicant.

Two of these are to be planted on site, but the rest cannot because of the density of the buildingand the amount of hard-standing (surely an issue in itself?).

At £765 per tree (for the Council to plant off site) this would give rise to a charge of £6,885 to bepaid by the applicant.

The applicants, if they are successful, will have 6 dwellings to sell.

Bristol has declared a climate emergency. It is now well accepted that trees mitigate many of the

adverse effects of climate change. We should be planting millions of trees.

Yet the report pleads that the Council should take into account the hedging suggested as part ofthe landscaping plan as part mitigation, hence reducing the charge to the applicants for replacingthe chopped down trees.

Firstly I think that this is a shameful suggestion.Secondly, and perhaps of greater importance, is the fact that during this year the Bristol TreeForum has been engaged in lengthy discussion with Bristol Council Planning and Tree Officersconcerning the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard. It has been agreed that hedging is not to beconsidered as mitigation for canopy loss except in truly exceptional cases where, on largedevelopments, tall hedges can form part of the screening of the site for aesthetic purposes. This ismore for industrial sites than 6 dwellings in a former garden/on a demolition site.So I would urge Bristol Planning Officers not to permit hedges as part of the mitigation for treeloss, but to implement the achieved agreement of no hedges as mitigation. Paying for 9 trees - ifthat is what the calculation should be - is not so very much, surely?

Once again we have been missed off the neighbour notification list despite the fact thatwe can see this proposed development from our property. The number of properties on theneighbour notification list appears to be very small compared to previous lists for developments onDingle Road.

We fully object to this proposed development on the following grounds:-

1. The Government Appeals Inspector said that any new dwellings within the conservation areashould not reduce the visibility of the trees within The Dingle when viewed from Dingle Road.Clearly an increase from one dwelling to 3 dwellings containing 6 flats with reduce the visibility ofthe trees considerably.

2. The proposed number of parking spaces will not be enough for 6 flats with 2 cars per flat plusparking for visitors. Vehicles will end up parking on Dingle Road which will be very dangerous.

3. The amount of traffic entering and leaving the property will be in excess of what was previouslydeemed safe by the road traffic committee. A maximum of 4 vehicles was safe previously.

4. The two Doctors who are behind this development have not spoken to the neighbours prior tothe submission of their plans. My advice would be to do so.

Reference to the suggested plan of no 6 Dingle Road, We most strongly object. Theplan put forward is no better than the earlier proposal. The dwellings are as bad as the previoussuggestions. The design still does not blend in to the existing area. We live in an area close toNational Trust land. How can you consider the building which resembles 3 tower blocks. To besuitsble for this area. You are now suggesting 6 dwellings , one less than the original plan, alsoeach building has a balcony. How can that be any more of an improvement. Have you notconsidered the surrounding neighbours, who will have very little privacy. Imagine how many extracars there will be at the properties plus waste bins recycling etc. As I said in a previous statement.We live in a high council tax band, (Band E), which I know you are already aware, why should webe subject to a development which will actually spoil the area we live in.This plan seems to me, just to make a large profit at the expense of the people living here, as weknow this area is a very desirable place to live. It this plan is approved, the area will sadly bespoiled, and will affect us, the existing house owners and our neighbours. I think we, who livehere, should be considered.There is also the Dingle to consider which, is part of the Blaise Castle estate, these suggestedbuilds will definitely not enhance the area, which as previously stated is, in fact National Trustprotected. You have to obtain permission to remove a tree. Why would you seek to degrade thearea with such an ugly design, it is much too modern to fit in with this area.What about the extra traffic?. Dingle Road is already very busy. It is a main commute for Buses,Heavy Goods etc, as well as private cars. Have you even considered the disruption it will cause. Ifind it increasingly difficult to leave my house, because of the volume of traffic. Now you areputting a proposal for 6 extra homes to be built, imagine what impact that will have especially onwaste collection days. We know Bristol has a pollution problem, this suggestion will help to extendthat problem even wider, in some ways due to the extra volume of traffic.I accept there will be some disruption when an accepted proposal is agreed. But that will be a

small price to pay, when the new build enhances the area.When we moved here , there were no plans for any development here. We have already seenchanges which are not ideal, but are trying to blend in. I will say in some cases have enhanced thearea. But this project is one step too far.No 6 is a very attractive house which could be developed more, into a very attractive family home.To make it larger would make it more appealing to a potential future home owner. Why can theythe existing owners not give that some thought! I understand they do not even live in Bristol. Canthey not, find some place or even the city they live in, to use the design they have put forwardwhich, we personally think is definitely not for Dingle Road.

Reference to the suggested plan of no 6 Dingle Road, We most strongly object. Theplan put forward is no better than the earlier proposal. The dwellings are as bad as the previoussuggestions. The design still does not blend in to the existing area. We live in an area close toNational Trust land. How can you consider the building which resembles 3 tower blocks. To besuitsble for this area. You are now suggesting 6 dwellings , one less than the original plan, alsoeach building has a balcony. How can that be any more of an improvement. Have you notconsidered the surrounding neighbours, who will have very little privacy. Imagine how many extracars there will be at the properties plus waste bins recycling etc. As I said in a previous statement.We live in a high council tax band, (Band E), which I know you are already aware, why should webe subject to a development which will actually spoil the area we live in.This plan seems to me, just to make a large profit at the expense of the people living here, as weknow this area is a very desirable place to live. It this plan is approved, the area will sadly bespoiled, and will affect us, the existing house owners and our neighbours. I think we, who livehere, should be considered.There is also the Dingle to consider which, is part of the Blaise Castle estate, these suggestedbuilds will definitely not enhance the area, which as previously stated is, in fact National Trustprotected. You have to obtain permission to remove a tree. Why would you seek to degrade thearea with such an ugly design, it is much too modern to fit in with this area.What about the extra traffic?. Dingle Road is already very busy. It is a main commute for Buses,Heavy Goods etc, as well as private cars. Have you even considered the disruption it will cause. Ifind it increasingly difficult to leave my house, because of the volume of traffic. Now you areputting a proposal for 6 extra homes to be built, imagine what impact that will have especially onwaste collection days. We know Bristol has a pollution problem, this suggestion will help to extendthat problem even wider, in some ways due to the extra volume of traffic.I accept there will be some disruption when an accepted proposal is agreed. But that will be a

small price to pay, when the new build enhances the area.When we moved here , there were no plans for any development here. We have already seenchanges which are not ideal, but are trying to blend in. I will say in some cases have enhanced thearea. But this project is one step too far.No 6 is a very attractive house which could be developed more, into a very attractive family home.To make it larger would make it more appealing to a potential future home owner. Why can theythe existing owners not give that some thought! I understand they do not even live in Bristol. Canthey not, find some place or even the city they live in, to use the design they have put forwardwhich, we personally think is definitely not for Dingle Road.

Comment:As a resident at 9 Dingle Rd, directly opposite the proposed scheme, I object to the application forthe following reasons;

Design:The proposed scheme is an unacceptably over-development of the site. The six dwellings are overbearing and not of a design which is in keeping with the scale, character or appearance of thesurrounding homes which are predominately semi or detached properties.

The proposed block of flats are double the width of the existing detached house, and will donothing to improve the delightful character, charm and appearance of the local homes within thebackdrop of the conservation area.

It will adversely affect the views of the Conservation area, from No 7 and No 9 and also the loss ofprivacy to immediate neighbours at No10, who have enjoyed a quiet and private garden for manyyears.

Traffic and Access:Dingle Road is at times a very fast and congested stretch of road. Upon exiting No 6, visibility isrestricted due the the road bend, which is further complicated by a bus stop directly opposite and ajunction to Dinglewood Close.

With potentially 10 to 12 vehicles using this development this will be a busy entrance in ahazardous spot. With no turning area in the development, larger vehicles will put themselves indanger when trying to reverse out.

Parking:With only 7 parking spaces, visitors and residents will be forced to park on the road. An exampleof this is less than 100m away, where a new build was permitted, with just one parking space.

Parking on the pavement is not only irritating and inconvenient but dangerous for pedestrians. Thehighway code (rule 244) states that 'motorist should not park on the pavement unless signs permitit'.

Recycling and waste collection day:On collection day, six flats will potentially have 24 recycling and waste bins on the narrowpavement, which may obstruct the entrance from the road.

Conclusion:Granting such a large development within the Conservation area, will degrade the character andappearance of the location and contradicts the definition of conservation which is to preserve andenhance.

The proposed development at no.6 is inappropriate for the following reasons:-

1. Flats are out of character in Dingle Road and the surrounding area. Dwellings arepredominately detached and semi-detached.

2. The new plans show a solid block of built structure nearly 30m wide with only minimalseparation between the three 2-storey units. This arrangement blocks views of the trees behindand looks cramped.

3. Six dwellings in a plot occupied for 70 years by one house is an over intensive use of the site.

4. Permitting a large development will set a precedent for future planning applications in theConservation Area and in the BS9 area in general.

5. Six dwellings could potentially result in 12 vehicles exiting on to a dangerous part of DingleRoad, this in addition to visitor and delivery vehicle movements. The access is on a bend in theroad and opposite a road junction and bus stop. Parking on the highway will cause additionalproblems.

6. Any large vehicles will be unable to turn within the site and will be forced to reverse onto thehighway putting pedestrians and other road users in danger.

7. No.7 Dingle Road will lose its uninterrupted view towards Kingsweston Downs. Trees andgreenery will be replaced by three large new buildings.

8. The immediate neighbours at no.10 will be subject to additional noise and disturbance from sixnew households on their doorstep in what has been up until now a tranquil part of Dingle Road.No.10's garden will be overlooked by the living area of one or more flats.

9. Infilling within the Coombe Dingle Conservation Area will diminish the character of the location itwas set up to defend.

10. The plot is currently visited by much wildlife including foxes, badgers, bats, sparrow hawks andmany other birds. Some of these may be displaced by the proposed intensive use of the site andthe consequent loss of flora and fauna.