Application Details

Reference 19/06107/F
Address Paynes Shipyard And Vauxhall House Coronation Road Bristol BS3 1RP  
Street View
Proposal Demolition and redevelopment for residential together with associated car parking, landscaping, access, infrastructure and riverside pedestrian walkway, with up to 154 residential units.
Validated 17-12-19
Type Full Planning
Status Pending decision
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 05-07-21
Standard Consultation Expiry 09-07-21
Determination Deadline 17-03-20
BCC Planning Portal BCC Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 3 Objectors: 36  Unstated: 7  Total: 46
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis Map   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

BTF response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 08-11-20

We have now submitted our Objections to this application which may be read here - Bristol Tree Forum Objections

Here is the summary of our objections:

1. Bristol City Council has:

• Declared climate and environmental emergencies.

• Committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2030.

• Committed to doubling tree canopy cover by 2046.

As currently formulated, these plans to build new houses can only set back the work needed to resolve these emergencies and achieve these commitments.

2. The need to build housing to meet sustainable economic or social development objectives should not be allowed to take precedence over ensuring that the development is also both environmentally sustainable and meets Net Gain objectives.

3. Under the Mitigation Hierarchy, trees should not be removed unless there is no realistic alternative. One alternative would be to build around the trees rather than remove them.

4. The existing trees have a significant asset value which should not lightly be ignored. Using CAVAT, we have valued them at £ 1,039,771.

5. BCS9 of the Core Strategy also states that "Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new development". Felling many of the trees on the site should not, as it so often is, be the default option.

6. The removal of existing trees inevitably means that the eco-services they provided will not be replaced for decades, if at all.

7. There is no evidence that these proposals will achieve biodiversity Net Gain. The adverse knock-on environmental impact on biodiversity of removing existing trees far outweighs any short-term benefits achieved by replacing them.

8. Whatever the merits of this application achieving its primary goal to provide much needed housing may be, it should not be permitted to proceed unless and until it has properly addressed how it will replace and build upon the Green Infrastructure (including trees) that will inevitably be lost if this application proceeds as presently formulated.

Public Comments

  OBJECT

2

The planning statement addendum – 23 October 2020

The Arboricultural Impact Assessment1 [AIS] dated December 2019 has been published. It is

based on surveys undertaken on 17 July 2017 and 23 January 2019. We are told it has been

updated to reflect our earlier comments made on 15 January 2020 annexed below. However,

despite our request, we are still unable to verify tree numbers or stem diameters for any of the

trees group report.

Our submission

1. The planning background

The National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seeks to ensure that new development is

sustainable. It stresses the importance of Green Infrastructure as one of three overarching,

interdependent objectives – economic, social, and environmental. This means that the

presumption in favour of sustainable environmental development is just as important as any in

respect of economic or social development objectives.

Trees are an integral part of this because of the importance of trees in relation to the

management of air, soil and water quality along with other associated ecosystem services,

climate change adaptions and beneficial health effects. The NPPF also seeks to achieve the

protection and enhancement of landscapes and achieve Net Gain in biodiversity.

The Natural England Joint Publication JP029 - Biodiversity Metric 2.0 (BDM2) provides a way of

measuring and accounting for biodiversity losses and gains resulting from development or land

management change. It defines Net Gain as an:

“approach to development that aims to leave the natural environment in a measurably

better state than beforehand. This means protecting existing habitats and ensuring that

lost or degraded environmental features are compensated for by restoring or creating

environmental features that are of greater value to wildlife and people. It does not

1 19_06107_F-ARBORICULTURE_ASSESSMENT-2324456.pdf

3

change the fact that losses should be avoided where possible, a key part of adhering to

a core environmental planning principle called the mitigation hierarchy.”

The Mitigation Hierarchy

Avoid - Where possible habitat damage should be avoided.

Minimise - Where possible habitat damage and loss should be minimised.

Remediate - Where possible any damage or lost habitat should be restored.

Compensate - As a last resort, damaged or lost habitat should be compensated for.

This is a cascading decision process - only if the preceding choice is unavailable is the next

choice considered.

Local Planning Authorities (LPA) in the UK have a statutory duty to consider both the protection

and planting of trees when considering planning applications. The potential impact of

development on all trees is therefore a material consideration. In particular, BCS9 of the Core

Strategy states that "Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and

integrated into new development".

We have summarised Bristol’s planning policies as they relate to trees here - Planning

obligations in relation to trees in Bristol.

All our calculations, summarised below, can be examined in this linked spreadsheet.

2. The CAVAT calculation

Using CAVAT we have calculated that those identified trees which have a measured stem

Diameter (DBH) are worth £ 1,039,771. We have assumed that all the trees on the site will

survive between 40 and 80 years. This attracts a 5% discount on the base valuation. We have

applied a CTI factor for Bristol of 1502. All the other factors are set to their default values save

for the Accessibility Factor which we have set at 75% of the baseline because, though wholly

2 Bristol has a population of 459,300 and a land area (as opposed to the Administrative area which covers large parts of the River Avon and coastal margins) of 10,970 hectares. Using this gives a population per hectare of 41.9 (459,300/10,970) and so a CTI Index value of 150.

4

visible from public areas, especially across the New Cut, they are not widely accessible. For

these locations, the CTI value is reduced by 25%.

3. The Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS) calculation

Seven individual trees are identified for removal in the in the AIS. Some of the trees in Group

One will also be felled. Group One is a substantial stand of trees which grow along the bank of

the New Cut at the eastern end of the site. Given its position, visible from many public spaces,

it has a very high amenity and environmental value, as have the other tree groups identified.

As no tree count for the Group One trees has been provided, we have estimated (using Google

Earth) that there are some 30 trees in this group from which, say, half will be lost. We have

assumed that the DBH values given in the AIS for this group trees are based on the diameter

range provided in the report. We have used the median value of 25 cm for each tree in the

group.

If the actual tree counts and their stem diameters (DBH) values provided, we will adjust these

values accordingly.

We advocate that all trees identified for removal should be replaced no matter what their size

or BS5837 categorisation. Nonetheless, applying these values and using the current BTRS

5

guidance, we calculate that 43 trees which will need to be planted to replace what will be lost

if this application is granted, whether or not they are replaced on site.

4. Net Gain calculation

No Net Gain calculation has been undertaken using BDM2 in support of this application.

In the absence of a published AIS, which will show individual tree measurements, we have

instead measured the woodland tree canopy in the north eastern corner of the site at 1,131

square metres (0.1131 hectares). In our view this area fairly represents the extend of tree

cover on the site as this is where most of the trees proposed for removal are growing. This is

the only basis upon which we are able evaluate these proposals.

Our BDM2 calculation3 is just this measured woodland area, but a full calculation needs to be

undertaken in respect of the whole of the site. This will inform any future decision about

achieving Net Gain if this development is to be allowed to proceed.

On the basis that the combined tree canopy cover is 0.1131 hectares, we have set the A-1 Site

Habitat Baseline Habitat Type to Urban – Urban Woodland in the calculation. This assumes,

amongst other things, that any replacement trees will reach maturity in 27 years.

This gives Base Habitat Units of 0.547 and a Base Replacement value of 0.26 hectares. If we

add a Net Gain value of 15%4, then the Base Habitat Units increase to 0.629 and the Base

Replacement value to 0.29 hectares. Assuming that a 27-year-old tree has a canopy of .00403

hectares, then 75 replacement trees will be needed to replace what has been lost in order to

achieve a Net Gain of base plus 15%.

5. Loss of the ecosystem services of trees

We invite you to consider the decades-long damage that felling just one tree will cause by

inputting the DBH of any tree identified for removal into our Tree CO2 Calculator.

As you will see, when an equivalent tree is replaced on a one-for-one basis, the lost CO2e is

never recovered. Even when the largest tree (one with a DBH of 80 cm or greater) is replaced

3 These calculations are available can be examined in the linked spreadsheet. 4 The choice is arbitrary chosen only for the sake of illustration. We are not advocating a Net Gain of 15%, though the concept of Net Gain implies an improvement on the base values.

6

with eight trees in accordance with BTRS, it will still take some 40 years to recover the lost

CO2e. Whilst this is just one of the eco-services that trees provide us, it is, we say, a good proxy

for these other, lost services.

Bristol Tree Forum (08 November 2020)

Annexure

Ms Helen Davies  245A CORONATION ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-10-03   OBJECT

As a resident that lives opposite the proposed site, I object to the proposal based on thefollowing;

*The proposed buildings are much larger than the current ones occupying the site. The will resultin a loss of natural light, views and de-valuation of my property.* Increase in traffic and therefore pollution for the local area.* Over development of site* Concerns regarding parking and site entrance on an already narrow road.

Your sincerelyHelen Davies

Dr Sherry Masoud  244 CORONATION ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-10-01  

The tallest buildings are near the edge of road blocking other residents light and view .Why can't the taller buildings be further from the current residents towards the river or theapartments be spread more across the site to avoid the need for a four storey building

Miss Sherry Masoud  244 CORONATION ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-09-28  

Would appreciate if the space could be well used and the height of the buildings limitedas much as possible, so as to avoid blocking the light/ view for the residents on the opposite sideof the road !

Councillor Christine Townsend  GREEN ROOM CITY HALL BRISTOL  on 2021-09-21   SUPPORT

1) I welcome the ongoing dialogue with the applicants and their advisers. Despite beinga newly elected Councillor I am aware this development has been revised following concernsraised by officers and local residents, for example a reduction in height from 9 stories to 5.2) Unlike many other development proposals, this site is already well served by transportinfrastructure, it is close to amenities and to a well-established walking route and a cycling routefurther along Coronation Road, whilst the proposal proposes upgrades to paths, for example toVauxhall Bridge.3) This is the development of a brown-field industrial site and as such fits with the need to protectexisting green spaces.4) Whilst I would have liked to have seen a percentage of affordable housing, I acknowledge thatthis proposal is current Bcc policy compliant, that the applicant is also the developer so thereforemy confidence that this percentage will be delivered is reassured.5) Concerns related to large vehicle access to the site (waste collection and emergency vehicles)have been resolved.6) The developer will also install an additional pelican crossing at the main entrance to the site,further prioritising sustainable transport.7) Nearby residents have raised issues of parking and access to the existing Southville RPZ. It'smy view that this scheme needs to be explicitly excluded from the PRZ. It needs to be clear tothose who may wish to live here that this development promotes non-private car ownership. Thisis further enforced by the car-club scheme that will be managed in-house by the resident'smanagement company with the space for such vehicles being within the development.8) The developers say that the energy efficiency measures will deliver a 20% carbon reductionwhich is policy compliant, and will use solar panels and air source heat pumps, and will connect to

a future district heating system when it comes online.9) I welcome the opening up of this section of the New Cut to the public which has not beenaccessible to the public for decades. As mentioned previously, the development will also includethe installation of a river-side path to aid leisure and recreational enjoyment of this part of Bristol'slandscape and supports a walking path along the entire length of the New Cut at some point in thefuture.10) Internal green areas for residents have been incorporated to provide for semi-private spacesthat also appeal to children, and overall, the landscaping will include up to 90 new trees and nestboxes to encourage wildlife helping the enhance the natural environment between the New Cutand Avon Gorge habitats.

Mr Martin McCrink  17 FRAYNE ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-09-18  

I'd like the applicant to keep the hight of the building as low as possible.

Mr Chris McEvoy  238 CORONATION ROAD SOUTHVILLE BRISTOL  on 2021-09-11   OBJECT

I have provided detailed comments over the years that this application has beenprogressing and none of the issues relating to the traffic impacts and major loss of light forneighbours have been addressed in the updated application.

The applicant has made no effort to talk to impacted neighbours since their initial application andhave not responded to any requests for information.

This application should be rejected on the grounds that the issues related to this development canonly be resolved as part of the wider "Western Harbour" consultation.

Mr Ed Pitt  63 ASHTON ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-04-16   OBJECT

Under-provision of parking does not discourage car ownership.

This development is suspiciously absent from your 'Low Car Development' map athttps://bcc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5d2d0afafb214c1c97362469ddf58840

which to me implies that residents of the 88 units with no parking will be entitled to permits for theSouthville RPS.

Failure to declare it a 'Low Car Development', and entitling residents to parking permits in theSouthville RPS, is reason alone to object to this.

The Chris McEvoy  238 CORONATION ROAD SOUTHVILLE BRISTOL  on 2021-01-31   OBJECT

Having read through all of the updated material for this application it is clear that thefundamental issues with flood risk, emergency access etc. etc. make this application unviable forthe developer from a commercial perspective.

The minor changes do not deal with neighbours objections and the developer has made no effortto engage with the local community when it revised its application.

It would be much more sensible to develop with site as part of the Western Harbour initiative,which would probably result in lower returns for the land owner, but a much better development forBristol.https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/32955/Western+Harbour.jpg/3e0a9798-7610-0da5-d9db-3fae52e1dcda?t=1579715848516

I note that the decision date for this application was extended to 20 Jan 2021, so I would haveexpected the decision for this application to have been made and published by now.

Mr ROBERT GRIFFIN  11 MERRYWOOD ROAD, BRISTOL BS3 1DY  on 2021-01-14   OBJECT

First impressions of this scheme are that it treats its location and historic status withcontempt, proposing the most compactly planned utilitarian housing on a site with such inherentqualities.It pays no respect to the geometries of the site or the rational for those geometries.The Coronation Road wall which appears on the OS 1st edition map 1844/88 is only retained inextremely diminished form would be a major loss to the character of this area and the existingremains of the octagon building which was still in use into the 1960/70s, are not acknowledged atall, this appears on the 1840s tithe map.The roll of the Cut as a major wildlife corridor through the city dose not seem to have beenconsidered to be of any importance.Its a formulaic response by developer and designer with no local connection or interest.I would reiterate and support the Bristol Tree Forums response. In particular the loss of maturetrees between TW Plant Hire and SMI Auto repair centre and the density of trees lost down by theriver would have a profound effect on wildlife and views from Cumberland Rd and Avon Crescent.

Miss Emma Valentine  234 CORONATION ROAD, SOUTHVILLE SOUTHVILLE AVON  on 2020-12-10   OBJECT

I object to the whole redevelopment. I am concerned on the surrounding area with theimpact on the river wall after the opposite side of the road already has had a collapse. Access andhaving a lay by opposite my property is a disturbing nuisance.

Miss Natasha Obank  246, CORONATION ROAD, SOUTHVILLE SOUTHVILLE BRISTOL  on 2020-11-30   OBJECT

1) Height of the blocks. When we spoke to the construction team at the planningmeeting they explained that the pitched roof was for aesthetics. Why do we need to go 5/6metreshigher than what is already there, blocking the light for the existing properties on Coronation Road.It means we will be staring at a red brick wall instead of getting the sky. This is for no valid reason,no extra accommodation and not in keeping with the flat roofed red buildings in the vacinity. Surelythis is a basic planning rule for successful town planning, to keep within the boundaries of what isin existence?

2) Currently very large and long trailor vehicles turn into the metal works with ease. Why does thisdevelopement require parking spaces to be removed from Coronation road when there is no issuewith turning in at the moment? You are adding a 158 apartments with significantly less than that innumber of car parking spaces. They will already be at a premium for the new development andnow the existing residents on Coronation road are being penalised with less spaces and greatercompetition for them. This is unacceptable in an area that is already under strain for all resources-schools, nurseries, Dr's and parking. You are adding volume with no extra facilities. A recipe forsocial degeneration.

Miss Natasha Obank  246, CORONATION ROAD, SOUTHVILLE SOUTHVILLE BRISTOL  on 2020-11-30   OBJECT

1) Height of the blocks. When we spoke to the construction team at the planningmeeting they explained that the pitched roof was for aesthetics. Why do we need to go 5/6metreshigher than what is already there, blocking the light for the existing properties on Coronation Road.It means we will be staring at a red brick wall instead of getting the sky. This is for no valid reason,no extra accommodation and not in keeping with the flat roofed red buildings in the vacinity. Surelythis is a basic planning rule for successful town planning, to keep within the boundaries of what isin existence?

2) Currently very large and long trailor vehicles turn into the metal works with ease. Why does thisdevelopement require parking spaces to be removed from Coronation road when there is no issuewith turning in at the moment? You are adding a 158 apartments with significantly less than that innumber of car parking spaces. They will already be at a premium for the new development andnow the existing residents on Coronation road are being penalised with less spaces and greatercompetition for them. This is unacceptable in an area that is already under strain for all resources-schools, nurseries, Dr's and parking. You are adding volume with no extra facilities. A recipe forsocial degeneration.

The BS3Planning Group  BS3 BRISTOL  on 2020-11-27   OBJECT

The BS3 planning Group looked at this proposal during its meeting of 18 November2020.

We disliked the new photomontage viewed from the North pavement of coronation road oppositeGreenbank Road looking West.

We Suspect the "real-view" is even worse given a little shift to the left , i.e. from the Coronation Rdcarriageway a couple of metres further South as less disguising foreground tree cover would exist.

In reality is just a boxy 4-storey block looking directly East into the petrol station and CoronationRoad which will be seen by approaching drivers walkers cyclists etc. It will 'rob' evening sun-scapefrom the pavement it would appear currently.

B. There was some cautious discussion of the Pelican crossing and its impact on Resident parkingin stretch between Walter street and Greenbank road. Possibly ten "SE-RPZ" spaces will be lostregardless of on-site parking arrangements, and the build out is not sustained to either junction soit all reverts to a 4-ft wide south pavement , or 2ft on refuse collection day .

It was also queried whether the Crossing could be phased/coordinated with other crossingsnearby, as a standalone crossing 'doing its own thing' it is likely to generate extended congestionbetween the other crossings at Greenway Bush Lane (Vauxhall Bridge) AND Frayne RoadCrossing of Clift House Rd to C- Bond, to the disadvantage of street front residents in general(circa 50-100 BS3 addresses) .

C. Tree Forum was objection noted/supported. In particular the mature trees lost between TWPlant Hire and SMI Auto repair centre will represent a profound change of ambiance onCoronation Rd BS3 . In quantity however the mass of trees lost down by the river will have aprofound effect from Cumberland Rd/Avon Crescent.

D. Street Wall - Really looses its historic impact if all height is lost.

It appears the the lack of consultation extendes to the Civic Society and Historic England.

Ms Jill Jarrold  55 LIME ROAD SOUTHVILLE BRISTOL  on 2020-11-26   OBJECT

I object to this proposal due to the adverse effects it will produce on current residents.Bristol City Council's own policy BCS21 states that "development in Bristol will be expected to:safeguard the amenity of existing development and create a high quality environment for futureoccupiers". The adverse effects on existing residents as currently proposed are unacceptable.

Loss of amenity for current residents

The faceless, monolithic 4-storey Block D proposed alongside Coronation Road would make foran intimidating bulk of unacceptable 'height, scale and massing' that would result in loss of light tocurrent homes on Coronation Road. A 4-storey Block D, as currently proposed, would thereforeresult in the loss of amenity for nearby current residents of 2-storey homes on Coronation Road.

Increased air pollution from congested traffic

Proposed vehicle access for construction traffic, removals, deliveries, drop-offs and residentialparking is poor, leading out onto an already busy section of Coronation Road.

The temporary closure of the Cumberland Road on the opposite riverbank in early 2020 led to amassive increase in traffic on Coronation Road, and standstill traffic in peak hours on weekdays inMarch. (This can be evidenced by the very poor timekeeping of the M2 bus route at the time, andthe fact that the A1 bus route was re-routed away from Coronation Road completely whileCumberland Road was closed.)

Standing traffic on Coronation Road - the only access road to the proposed development - leads tovastly increased levels of air pollution for current residents of Coronation Road and surroundingstreets. This would become permanent if development on the scale proposed (158 units) isagreed.

The current proposal would therefore lead to a permanent increase of health harming air pollutionto both current and future residents, which would be completely unacceptable.

Conclusion - overdevelopment of site

The above clearly shows the overdevelopment of the site currently proposed by the developers.

A much more modest proposal, with fewer housing units to prevent traffic build-up and air pollutionon Coronation Road and a lower-height building facing Coronation Road to prevent loss ofamenity to existing Coronation Road residents might be more acceptable.

  229 CORONATION ROAD   on 2020-11-26   OBJECT

Ms Valerie Steel  16 AVON CRESCENT BRISTOL  on 2020-11-24   OBJECT

The planning statement addendum claims that 'The revised proposals will ensure thatthe overall composition reads as discrete blocks, through the detailed design of the elevations' - isthis really achieved by adding a few bits of green cladding? One of the objections was that notenough had been done to 'avoid their coalescence in medium to long distance views' but nothinghas changed in the massing and height so they still don't read as separate. Similarly nothing hasbeen done to 'add variety to the roofline'.Again from the addendum - ' Though taller than existing surrounding development to the south,they provide an appropriate transition to existing commercial development to the north' - where isthis exactly? Everything to the north is low rise which is why these blocks would be so prominentas shown in the panoramas from across the floating harbour. Also, that this development will 'signpost the first phase of the future development of the Western Harbour' - if that is so, pleasereject this proposal before it becomes the precedent for similarly monolithic blocks all overCumberland Basin.

Mr Dylan Squires  236 CORONATION ROAD BRISTOL  on 2020-11-23   OBJECT

I object to this application due to the height and density of the development and theextra traffic and noise that will cause people living opposite. I also object to the loss of views andlight.

The loss of such a large number of parking spaces on Coronation Road, which is a residentialstreet, is unacceptable and the extra noise caused by vehicles, including a large number of heavygoods vehicles, breaking and accelerating at the crossing at all times of day and night will be verydisruptive on what is already a very noisy road where our houses already shake constantly.

The area where parking will be taken out next to the new traffic island will force heavy vehiclesclose to the narrow pavement and closer to peoples homes, this is already a problem further downthe road opposite the tannery where lorries come within inches of pedestrians. The traffic islandaround the corner on Clift Road is already a regular accident spot, I expect this one would becomeone as well.

I also have concerns about the stability of the whole area during and after any works assubsidence is a problem along the whole of Coronation Road already both along the riverbank andunder peoples homes already.

Mr Otto Karhunen  14 GREAT WESTERN HOUSE GAS FERRY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2020-04-29   OBJECT

The design of the building is architecturally bland, unimaginative and not in keeping withthe prominent historical landmarks of the bonded warehouses.

Following on from many other comments, parking provision is wholly inadequate. Regardless ofthe relative proximity to local shops, the reality is most households will have a car for longerjourneys even if they do not use it for day to day commuting due to good cycling or public transportlinks. In the case of this site, there are no bus links on Coronation Road and walking times to trainstations are massively understated; a quick Google search will show Temple Meads is 30+ minsaway versus the stated 20 minutes, and parson Street is 20+ mins away versus the stated 15 mins(Planning Statement, Section 2.17 & 2.18).

Considering the minimal communal outdoor space for a development of this size, each upper floordwelling should be afforded some private outdoor space in the form of a proper balcony. I can seeno reason not to incorprorate this minor feature other than cost-saving by the developer, to thedetrimental impact of quality of life for the residents over the next 50+ years. The recentcoronavirus pandemic should highlight how important accessible outdoor space is for physical andmental wellbeing. Other developments e.g. Great Western Dockyard have incorporated balconiesfor almost all dwellings despite being within the harbour conservation area.

The development should allow for pedestrian/cycle access along the entire embankment whichcould be connected to provide a new waterfront pedestrian/cycle route when the adjacentindustrial plots are inevitably developed as part of the Western Harbour masterplan. Bristol CityCouncil should be considering now how to incorporate this development into the wider

development of the area.

Finally, the applicant should find little sympathy with a developer claiming they cannot provide30% social housing in this development or a district heating system as this would lower their profitmargin to a mere 15%. The residents of Bristol have repeatedly voted in a Labour council to leadthe way on socially responsible and green development, not merely to adhere to minimumguideline responsibilities set out nationally.

Mrs Maria Dragojevic  241 CORONATION ROAD BRISTOL  on 2020-03-17   OBJECT

I object to the development on the following grounds:- the amount of traffic is likely to increase significantly, which will affect the air quality and health ofresidents.- parking will be affected, with more residents competing for the already limited number of spaces- view from the house will be blocked by the building- high rise building directly opposite may affect natural daylight to my property- house price likely to decrease due to the above, currently have a view of the suspension bridgewhich would be blocked by any tall buildings

    on 2020-03-16   OBJECT

    on 2020-03-16   OBJECT

Our property will be overlooked by all of the flats in Block D which will result in an unacceptable loss of privacy in the properties opposite Block D.

The loss of light and privacy will mean that our living room and main bedroom become practically unusable.

The planning application does not mention the negative impact on businesses on the existing site and the potential loss of jobs due to the need to relocate. Two businesses on the Vauxhall site (Jon Pritchard and T & W Tool Hire will either have to relocate or close down.)

Bristol Metal Spraying have stated that they wish to cease trading, but they have not given any timescales for their closure, or given any information to the employees about when they will lose their jobs. It is likely that BMS will not close down in the near future and will continue to operate their current business if they do not gain planning permission.

The proposed lay-by opposite our house is intended to only be used once a week for waste collection, but it will actually be used as an unofficial taxi-rank at night, with delivery drop-offs taking place all day and night. It is also likely that vehicles will attempt dangerous u-turns onto Coronation Road to avoid having to drive into Cumberland Basin to turn around.

The loss of parking spaces for existing residents is not acceptable, especially as the new development would drive up demand for the existing spaces outside of the Southville RPZ and in the nearby roads that are outside of any RPZ.

The road layout changes intended to prevent a left turn into Paynes Yard and a right turn onto Coronation Road will be ineffective and will result in vehicles making dangerous u-turns on both sides of the entrance on order to avoid having to drive along Coronation Road and having to turn around safely and legally.

The road layout changes would also lead to much more static traffic congestion on this part of Coronation Road which would result in more pollution for existing residents. The traffic surveys included in the application show that there is practically no speeding along Coronation Road, which is laughable for anyone who lives here. Outside of the rush hour grid-lock there are vehicles that travel between 30 and 40 mph constantly, which can be evidenced by the fact the 30MPH warning sign next to the garage is continually lit up. This speeding traffic would make it dangerous for vehicles entering and exiting the site during these quieter periods.

The proposed crossing would only benefit the residents of the new development as there are already two very good crossings to either side of the development at Riverside Garden Centre and Vauxhall Bridge that are used by current residents.

The proposed crossing would be 3 metres away from the house opposite and would result in a loss of privacy for the existing neighbours.

The crossing would also encourage cyclists to use the pavements on our side of Coronation Road and would be more dangerous for pedestrians.

There is no cycle lane on the Paynes Yard side of Coronation Road but it is currently used as an "unofficial" cycle lane, which would be dangerous for new pedestrian traffic to and from the new development.

The proposed entrance and associated road layout changes are poorly designed and show how inadequate and unsuitable the location is for residential use with an entrance at this point. It would be much more realistic to wait until the Tannery site becomes available for development and plan a new entrance to the bigger site around the corner where a new road layout junction has been proposed as part of the Western Harbour plan.

The road into the site is not suitable for any vehicles larger than a small van, which means that a fire engine with ladders could not get onto the site in the result of a fire, heavy vehicles would not be able to access the site to carry out any subsequent construction work (for example if the wall of the New Cut needed any remedial work to stop it collapsing).

The risk of flooding does not appear to have been properly considered and there is no guarantee that the wall of the New Cut will not collapse during or after the development work.This area is in desperate need of family accommodation, but these properties are clearly aimed at students, young professionals, people without children and Buy to Let landlords.

The amount of affordable properties is much too low which means that locals from South Bristol are unlikely to be able to afford to live here and will continue to be forced to move out of the area.

The developers have made little or no attempt to engage with the local residents. They arranged one event in Underfall Yard which was held in the middle of the week at short notice where the people present could not answer any questions raised and just directed people to the material in the planning application. They did not hold any events "south of the river" (for example in the Tobacco Factory) which just shows their contempt and lack of interest in engaging with their actual "neighbours".

The developers have not responded to repeated e-mails requests for more information about their traffic survey (using the contact details provide in the planning application), which just adds to the evidence of their complete dis-interest in working with local residents on this application.

There is already a lot of development being built/planned in this area (Brewery Yard, Sports Quarter, Western Harbour etc.) and this proposed development should be properly planned alongside these other proposals rather than having a patchwork quilt of unsuitable developments like this. This might allow a proposed development to build high quality modern terraced housing on this side of Coronation Road which would be

much more useful to the local community.

We appreciate your help in this matter moving forward,

Kind regards,

Mike & Tracy Gallop (240 Coronation Road, BS3 1RL)

Ms Jill Jarrold  55 LIME ROAD SOUTHVILLE BRISTOL  on 2020-03-15   OBJECT

Adverse effects on current and future residents

I object to this proposal due to the adverse effects it will produce on current and future residents.Bristol City Council's own policy BCS21 states that "development in Bristol will be expected to:safeguard the amenity of existing development and create a high quality environment for futureoccupiers". The adverse affects on existing and future residents currently proposed is completelyunacceptable.

Loss of amenity for current residents

The faceless, monolithic 4-stroey Block D proposed for the Coronation Road would make for anintimidating bulk of unacceptable 'height, scale and massing' that would result in loss of light tocurrent homes on Coronation Road. A 4-storey Block D, as currently proposed, would thereforeresult in the loss of amenity for very many nearby current residents of 2-storey homes.

Increased air pollution from congested traffic

Proposed vehicle access for construction traffic, removals, deliveries, drop-offs and residentialparking is poor, leading out onto an already busy section of Coronation Road.

The current temporary closure of the Cumberland Road on the opposite riverbank has already led

to a massive increase in traffic on Coronation Road, and traffic is now currently at a standstill inpeak hours on weekdays. (This can be evidenced by the current v poor timekeeping of the M2 busroute, and the fact that the A1 bus route has now been re-routed away from Coronation Roadcompletely.)

Standing traffic on Coronation Road - the only access road to the proposed development - leads tovastly increased levels of air pollution for current residents of Coronation Road and surroundingstreets. This would become permanent if development on the scale proposed is agreed.

The current proposal would therefore lead to a permanent increase of health harming air pollutionto both current and future residents, which would be completely unacceptable.

Safety for proposed residents

Blocks A, B and C are proposed to be very close to the riverbank, with lower ground floors. Giventhe recent collapse of the riverbank on the Cumberland Road immediately opposite, is thisproposal even safe from future subsidence?

The Environment Agency response indicates that the current proposal is not safe in respect toflooding and requires that any development has a setback distance of 8m from the brink of thebank of the River Avon. The very high spring tides that flooded Cumberland Basin this week(Weds 11th March and Thurs 12th March) shows how necessary this requirement is.

Conclusion - overdevelopment of site

All of the above clearly shows the overdevelopment of the site currently proposed by thedevelopers.

A much more modest proposal, with far-fewer housing units to prevent traffic build-up and airpollution on Coronation Road, a lower-height building facing Coronation Road to prevent loss ofamenity, and achieving the required setback distance from the river Avon might be moreacceptable.

Mr John Palmer  63 HAMILTON ROAD, SOUTHVILLE, BRISTOL, BRISTOL BS3 1NZ  on 2020-03-14  

This proposal is a significant improvement on the initial Crest Nicholson scheme but Ihave several concerns which I feel need to be addressed before approval is granted:- There are too many single- or near single-aspect apartments. In the DAS a lot of emphasis is puton the benefits of cross ventilation which results from windows on opposite sides of an apartment.However, many of the so-called dual aspect apartment only have windows at 90 degrees to eachother which is far less effective. The number which are true single aspect is too high - perhaps thisindicates that the density is too high for the site.- Too much of the stone boundary wall is being removed. (This is mostly referred to, in error, asbrick.)- The gables facing Coronation Road are excessively high above the top floor windows suggestingthat there might be an intention to slip in another floor of accommodation in the roofspace onceapproval has been given. Some of the blocks are rather monolithic- There is no indication that the extensive flat roofs are being used for anything beyond pvs. Evenif not accessible by residents (could they be?) they could be green roofs for bio-diversity andrainwater control- 20% "affordable" provision is better than in many recent developments but falls a long way shortof the 30% that it should be- The 'no right turn' out of the site will result either in very long journeys or detours south ofCoronation Road into residential streets to get out onto Coronation Road againPerhaps the most significant thing is that there seems to be little real effort to take the climateemergency into account. It's a long way from nearly zero. The indicative fabric specification Uvalues are not particularly aspirational and the air leakage rate proposed is woefully poor. The aimshould be for Passivhaus standard or similar which is perfectly achievable. This would then reduce

the electric heating load considerably.

Mr Chris McEvoy  238 CORONATION ROAD BRISTOL  on 2020-03-13   OBJECT

I strongly object to the planning application for Paynes Yard.

A previous planning application to convert Vauxhall House into residential accommodation wasrefused in 2011 (ref: 10/05540/F) on the grounds of the inadequate accommodation and danger ofthe entrance onto Coronation Road.

The developers have not considered their neighbours opposite at all and have developed aproposal that appears to have been designed to have maximum negative impact on theirneighbours in the pursuit of profit.

The elevation of the block on Coronation Road is much higher than the existing building elevationsand results in an unacceptable loss of light to the properties opposite. The reduction in sunlight willlead to the front of the terraced properties on the opposite side of Coronation Road having moreissues with damp. None of the many documents in the planning application show the differencebetween the existing elevations and the proposed elevations from the perspective of neighbourson the other side of Coronation Road, and it is clear that the developers want to draw attentionaway from this aspect of their application.

Our property will be overlooked by all of the flats in Block D which will result in an unacceptableloss of privacy in the properties opposite Block D.

The loss of light and privacy will mean that our living room and main bedroom become practicallyunusable.

The planning application does not mention the negative impact on businesses on the existing siteand the potential loss of jobs due to the need to relocate. Two businesses on the Vauxhall site(Jon Pritchard and T & W Tool Hire will either have to relocate or close down.)

Bristol Metal Spraying have stated that they wish to cease trading, but they have not given anytimescales for their closure, or given any information to the employees about when they will losetheir jobs. It is likely that BMS will not close down in the near future and will continue to operatetheir current business if they do not gain planning permission.

The proposed lay-by opposite our house is intended to only be used once a week for wastecollection, but it will actually be used as an unofficial taxi-rank at night, with delivery drop-offstaking place all day and night. It is also likely that vehicles will attempt dangerous u-turns ontoCoronation Road to avoid having to drive into Cumberland Basin to turn around.

The loss of parking spaces for existing residents is not acceptable, especially as the newdevelopment would drive up demand for the existing spaces outside of the Southville RPZ and inthe nearby roads that are outside of any RPZ.

The road layout changes intended to prevent a left turn into Paynes Yard and a right turn ontoCoronation Road will be ineffective and will result in vehicles making dangerous u-turns on bothsides of the entrance on order to avoid having to drive along Coronation Road and having to turnaround safely and legally.

The road layout changes would also lead to much more static traffic congestion on this part ofCoronation Road which would result in more pollution for existing residents. The traffic surveysincluded in the application show that there is practically no speeding along Coronation Road,which is laughable for anyone who lives here. Outside of the rush hour grid-lock there are vehiclesthat travel between 30 and 40 mph constantly, which can be evidenced by the fact the 30MPHwarning sign next to the garage is continually lit up. This speeding traffic would make it dangerousfor vehicles entering and exiting the site during these quieter periods.

The proposed crossing would only benefit the residents of the new development as there arealready two very good crossings to either side of the development at Riverside Garden Centre andVauxhall Bridge that are used by current residents.

The proposed crossing would be 3 metres away from the house opposite and would result in aloss of privacy for the existing neighbours.

The crossing would also encourage cyclists to use the pavements on our side of Coronation Roadand would be more dangerous for pedestrians.

There is no cycle lane on the Paynes Yard side of Coronation Road but it is currently used as an"unofficial" cycle lane, which would be dangerous for new pedestrian traffic to and from the newdevelopment.

The proposed entrance and associated road layout changes are poorly designed and show howinadequate and unsuitable the location is for residential use with an entrance at this point. It wouldbe much more realistic to wait until the Tannery site becomes available for development and plana new entrance to the bigger site around the corner where a new road layout junction has beenproposed as part of the Western Harbour plan.

The road into the site is not suitable for any vehicles larger than a small van, which means that afire engine with ladders could not get onto the site in the result of a fire, heavy vehicles would notbe able to access the site to carry out any subsequent construction work (for example if the wall ofthe New Cut needed any remedial work to stop it collapsing).

The risk of flooding does not appear to have been properly considered and there is no guaranteethat the wall of the New Cut will not collapse during or after the development work.This area is in desperate need of family accommodation, but these properties are clearly aimed atstudents, young professionals, people without children and Buy to Let landlords.

The amount of affordable properties is much too low which means that locals from South Bristolare unlikely to be able to afford to live here and will continue to be forced to move out of the area.

The developers have made little or no attempt to engage with the local residents. They arrangedone event in Underfall Yard which was held in the middle of the week at short notice where thepeople present could not answer any questions raised and just directed people to the material inthe planning application. They did not hold any events "south of the river" (for example in theTobacco Factory) which just shows their contempt and lack of interest in engaging with their actual"neighbours".

The developers have not responded to repeated e-mails requests for more information about theirtraffic survey (using the contact details provide in the planning application), which just adds to theevidence of their complete dis-interest in working with local residents on this application.

There is already a lot of development being built/planned in this area (Brewery Yard, SportsQuarter, Western Harbour etc.) and this proposed development should be properly plannedalongside these other proposals rather than having a patchwork quilt of unsuitable developmentslike this. This might allow a proposed development to build high quality modern terraced housingon this side of Coronation Road which would be much more useful to the local community.

  229 CORONATION ROAD   on 2020-03-06   OBJECT

Mr roger mortimer  30 ELMGROVE RD COTHAM BRISTOL  on 2020-02-21   OBJECT

This is an over-development of the site, resulting in mostly single aspect flats. Somemay suffer from overheating , others from lack of any sunshine.

The blocks, particularly C and D come so close to each other that privacy would be impaired.

There is insufficient mix of flat size. The lack of anything larger than 2 bedroom virtually rules outoccupation by families. The two bedroom flats, described as 4 person, are very unlikely to beoccupied by more than 3 people, as both bedrooms are sized for a double bed.

This lack of flexibility, in the form of larger flats, would result in considerable turnover of occupantsand little development of community.

Although the issue of possible unpleasant odours from the adjacent tannery is dismissed, it ispointed out that this is not in the context of people ' living on next door to a tannery '. Residentscould well complain about odours, putting pressure on this important employer.

Mr Richard Bobruk  AVON FIRE & RESCUE, FIRE SAFETY TEMPLE BACK BRISTOL  on 2020-02-03   OBJECT

It appears that the layout of the blocks has limited access for the Fire & Rescue Serviceaccording to the Layout Plan: TP-A-50001.There should be access to each block in compliance with Approved Document B, Vol 1, Dwellings,B5: Access and Facilities for the Fire Service.

The Bristol Civic Society  23 SOMERSET STREET, KINGSDOWN, BRISTOL BS2 8LZ  on 2020-02-03   SUPPORT

3rd February 2020

The Society's response to planning application - Vauxhall House Coronation Road 19/06107/F

The proposalDemolition of all standing buildings and redevelopment for up to 158 flats together with associatedcar parking, landscaping, access, infrastructure and riverside pedestrian walkway.

Public engagementAlthough the Society responded to the 2017 and the 2019 preapplication proposals, we regret thatthe Developer did not notify us of its final preapp, public consultation event. This response isbased to the planning application documents.

SummaryIf Crest Nicholson (the Developer) can provide evidence to satisfy the procedure to justify the lossof protected employment land, the Society supports residential development of this brown fieldsite. The scale and massing of the proposed buildings is an improvement on the two earlier,preapplication proposals.

Demolition

There are no buildings or structures of architectural merit on the site.

Change of usePolicy BCS8 provides that principal Industrial and Warehousing Areas will be identified andretained. The site appears to be generally functioning well as evidenced by its continuousoccupancy. If the Developer can produce evidence to satisfy the Policy DM13 procedure anddemonstrate that there is no demand for industry or warehousing, the Society supports theprinciple of a residential led redevelopment. However, we would prefer to see a greater proportionof employment uses such as B1, retail or leisure unless the Developer can satisfy the Council thatthese uses are not viable. The decision to abandon employment use is binary. The provision oflive/work units is a token given that the whole site is employment land.

To respond to the planning application, the Society adopts the development template set out in theUrban Living Special Planning Document - Making successful places at higher densities.

Q1.1 Has the scheme adopted an approach to urban intensification which is broadly consistentwith its setting?The proposed buildings of 3 floors plus ground make a better transition to the domestic townscapeof the Coronation Road and the low-industrial buildings to the west than the earlier schemes.Similarly, the development is more sympathetic to its riverbank setting when viewed fromCumberland Road. This site will be a trip generator. Although the North Street local retail centre iswithin walking distance, the bus service us infrequent. The heavy traffic in the Coronation Road isunpleasant for cyclists.

The scheme's roofs mix pitched and flat roofs to respond to other Harbourside developments. TheSociety suggests that all five blocks have pitched roofs. The angles and pitches would create aninteresting skyline whether seen from Coronation Road or from the north of the New Cut.

Q1.2 Does the scheme contribute towards creating a vibrant and equitable neighbourhood?The busy Coronation Road will cut off this development from its immediate neighbours to thesouth. The additional residential population will contribute to the local economy.

Q1.3 Does the scheme respond positively to either the existing context, or in areas undergoingsignificant change, an emerging context?The development does not prejudice the possible redevelopment potential of the land to the west.There is no real development opportunity to the east of the site. A riverside walk that extendsbeyond the site appears to be distantly aspirational.

Q1.4 Does the scheme provide people-friendly streets and spaces? And -Q1.5 Does the scheme deliver a comfortable microclimate for its occupants, neighbours andpassers-by? AndThe scheme creates a series of pocket parks and a linear green bank above the New Cut. This

dense development offers little opportunity to do no more than is proposed. The introduction ofoutdoor furniture and fitness equipment is welcome.

Q1.6 Has access, car parking and servicing been efficiently and creatively integrated into thescheme?The scheme provides the maximum car parking ratio that policy permits which is realistic given thepoor public transport connections. This high-density development has relatively little open spaceper resident and surface car parking should be avoided, if possible. We suggest that the developerconsiders measure to inhibit parking other than in the designated parking areas.The Society would prefer to see as much of the Coronation Road boundary wall retained as ispossible. Apart from the contribution that the wall makes to the character of this part of theconservation area the wall provides a barrier against the noise and pollution from CoronationRoad. We acknowledge that wall will be lost to create a principal entrance with safe sightlines. Weask whether the proposed lay-by on the north side of Coronation Road outweighs the benefit ofthe retained wall?We are pleased that the Developer will install a Puffin Crossing in the Coronation Road and thatthere will be no right turn from the development into Coronation Road.

Q2.1 Does the scheme make building entrances and shared internal spaces welcoming, attractiveand easy to use?The scheme includes large entrances to the residential blocks.

Q2.2 Does the scheme provide practical, attractive and easily accessible communal amenityspace that meets the needs of its target resident profile? AndQ2.3 Does the scheme provide enough private outdoor space? AndQ2.4 Does the scheme create attractive, well designed and well maintained private outdoorspaces?

Q2.4 Does the scheme create attractive, well designed and well maintained private outdoorspaces? AndQ2.5 Does the scheme creatively integrate children's play?See the answer to question 1.5

Q2.6 Are internal layouts ergonomic and adaptable? AndQ2.7 Does the scheme safeguard privacy and minimise noise transfer between homes? AndQ2.8 Does the scheme maximise opportunities for daylight and sunlight of internal spaces;avoiding single aspect homes?The scheme produces attractive, naturally lit, entrances and access cores. However, there iscontinuous discussion in the Design and Access Statement about overlooking between the blocksand the quantity of single aspect flats. Both these problems arise from the ambition to build asmany as 158 units although this total is reduced from the 179 flats of the earlier scheme. We arenot convinced that the asymmetry between the north and the south facing single aspect units in

Block D nor the offset balconies will protect the single aspect flats from being uncomfortably hot instrong sunlight. The units would have no relieving cross-draughts. The Society believes that thiswould be a more successful development if it reduced the overall number of units to decrease thenumber of single aspect flats. The rearrangement of the units might, at the same time, produce asolution to any overlong, artificially lit, access corridors. In a setting of free-standing residentialblocks as many flats as possible should have habitable balconies. Juliet balconies do not providedesirable external amenity space.

Energy efficiency - there is no indication that this development will be zero carbon. New build zerocarbon development is achieved by other local planning authorities. Bristol has pledged to becomezero carbon by 2030 which should be a requirement of all new build development.

Ms Valerie Steel  16 AVON CRESCENT BRISTOL  on 2020-02-01   OBJECT

Is this the most we can expect architecturally for a prime riverside site? Monolithic,charmless blocks with some of the now seemingly obligatory fake 'wharf style' pitched roofsthrown in. If they are supposed to reference the bonded warehouses there are importantdifferences - the warehouses are not all crammed next to each other, each stands in its ownspace, and they have detailing which breaks up the mass.The photomontage illustrations of the view from across the harbour show how overbearing thesebuildings would be, even from a distance. They would form a virtually continuous block, with onlyone gap, from the Cottage to beyond the Harbour Masters. When the caravan site is developed aswell, the low-rise openness of that view will be completely gone and the character of that end ofthe harbour damaged.

Mr Ed Pitt  63 ASHTON ROAD BRISTOL  on 2020-02-01   OBJECT

Planning Statement (19_06107_F-PLANNING_STATEMENT-2324388.pdf), page 33,para 8.60 states: "The proposed car parking provisionis less than the maximum that could be provided and is, therefore inaccordance with policy. The level proposed 70 spaces or 44% isappropriate, given the accessibility of the site to a range of shops,services and employment opportunities by non-car modes of travel.As the site lies within a Residents Parking Zone, there would be noon-street parking impact. "

Utter tosh. Developments like this may reduce daily car use but have little impact on carownership. Cars belonging to residents here will be parked in public streets only a couple ofhundred metres away where there is still no RPZ - the streets of Ashton Gate, a strange parkingfree-for-all relic sandwiched between the edge-of-town Bower Ashton RPZ and the more centralSouthville RPZ. They will be competing for spaces with the residents of the new BreweryDevelopment, and the daily stream of dozens of staff and visitors to the South West's largestevents and conference centre - Ashton Gate Stadium, where street parking outside is still free andunregulated. And no doubt when the stadium builds its new flats they too will have a policy-tickboxing low parking provision and they too will require resident car owners to use the localstreets.

Discouraging car use is admirable, but this is not the way to do it.

Mrs Lois Greer  210 BEDMINSTER ROAD BRISTOL  on 2020-01-26   OBJECT

I'm not in favour of this development altogether. I feel there is a danger of losing all thatis admirable about the riverside and the amenities it provides. I'm worried about the lack ofparking. It is not reasonable just to assume people wont have a car. Especially as most units arenot affordable housing so will be bought by higher income purchasers. Surely all units should beaffordable? My daughter is a teacher, and cannot afford a home in Bedminster where she haslived for 15 years.

Miss N Lowe  POOLES WHARF COURT HOTWELLS BRISTOL  on 2020-01-25   OBJECT

More cars! More congestion! More pollution! Object to the height of these blocks of flats,spoiling the Bristol skyline!

Ms Tessa Garner  227 CORONATION ROAD BRISTOL  on 2020-01-24   OBJECT

I have serious reservations about the insufficient provision of parking within thedevelopment. The southville RPZ is already oversubscribed which causes daily frustration andinconvenience, and that is before the knock-on effects of completion of the Old Brewerydevelopment - only a stone's throw from the proposed development - are fully known.

Ms T Savill  10 GREENBANK ROAD BRISTOL  on 2020-01-22  

1) Energy efficiency - whilst there is a report supplied, there do not seem to be any clearindications of making the development zero carbon. Other councils have achieved new build zerocarbon developments. Bristol has pledged to become zero carbon by 2030. This pledge should bereflected in all and any new build developments, and be a requirement of planning permission.

2) Traffic - at the recent public consultation, the developer's representative stated that there will bea pedestrian crossing across Coronation Road installed near the entrance to this development.This is essential! He also said that the traffic management body had raised no objection to a rightturn leaving the development - ie across eastbound traffic on Coronation Road into the westboundlane. If a light controlled pedestrian crossing is installed, this would make a right turn leaving thedevelopment less slow, but still potentially hazardous, as Coronation Road is very often busy inboth directions.

3) Parking - although Bristol City Council attempts to restrict parking spaces in new developmentsas a green effort, the reality is that most households still have one or more cars. There are 158units with potentially 350 + residents, but only 70 parking spaces. Parking in surrounding streets isvery limited, even though controlled by the RPZ. Is it really the intention to exclude thisdevelopment from the Southville RPZ? This would probably lead to strong objections from the newresidents. There are simply not enough car parking spaces in the vicinity to cope with the influx ofresidents' vehicles, whether or not they are granted RPZ permits (there are many vehicles whichpark without permits).

4) Public transport in the area is not very good. There is the Metrobus across the bridge, some 10

minutes' walk, or the services on North Street. Both are limited as to choice of destination orusefulness. This will increase the tendency for the new residents to use their cars.

Mr Dan Thompson  30 GREENBANK ROAD BRISTOL  on 2020-01-21   OBJECT

Whilst I am broadly supportive of the application I cannot support it unless additionalparking spaces are proposed.As I currently understand it the parking space to household ratio will be approximately 0.5 spacesper household. The average vehicle ownership for the area is 1.02 vehicles per household. Thisindicates the development will put massive strain on parking in the surrounding streets which arealready full and have got significantly more crowded in the last couple of years. In the area only28% of households do not own a vehicle and therefore the parking space provision should as aminimum be 0.72 spaces per household and ideally 1.02 to ensure suitable parking is provided.

Dr Alison Todman  3 ROWNHAM MEAD BRISTOL  on 2020-01-20   OBJECT

I live nearby and support the concept of building houses in this location but haveconcerns about the nature of the proposed development. Suggestions below.

The existing bond stores are historic and iconic, but they are ugly and we do not need morebuildings that look like them on the horizon - particularly fakes. I would suggest that the architectlooks at other industrial developments along the harbour where you can see multiple levels ofroofs and a variety of shapes of windows. Bristol is a colourful city and many buildings, old andnew, use a variety of materials or paint (not just red brick) to give it our unique feel. The currentdevelopment is bland and looks like something you could find in any city in the UK. I liked the ideaof picking up the green of Underfall Yard in painted balcony railings and would suggest introducingmore colour, perhaps though the used of different coloured bricks or wood to make thedevelopment more attractive and in-keeping with our industrial heritage.

I wonder how the composition of units fits with Bristol's need? Only 20% affordable housing isplanned and none of this seems to be suitable for families.

Could you please respond to me on this as I know other developments are planned in the areaand would like to understand the strategy.

1 and 2 bed prestige flats are likely to be bought by well-paid executives that work in Bristol duringthe week and go elsewhere for the weekend. This will not help build a community. Is it what weneed? Can you possibly incorporate some townhouses with small gardens into the planneddevelopment? There is a real shortage of this type of property along the harbour, which is a great

place for families to live.

  11 FRAYNE ROAD   on 2020-01-16   SUPPORT

  NO ADDRESS   on 2020-01-15  

Mr Mike Niblett  22 ROWNHAM MEAD BRISTOL  on 2020-01-15   OBJECT

Whilst I am broadly supportive of the application there is an issue with car parking. As Iunderstand it only two bedroom flats will have a parking space leaving approximately half thedevelopment with no parking. The development is in a Residents Parking Zone with spacesalready in short supply. This proposal will only make parking more difficult.This is going to be a particular problem for occupants who work unsocial hours and often not inBristol itself e.g. Avonmouth. Mostly there is no public transport available for these workers andtheir only option is to drive to work.A good example is my son who is an HGV driver living in Hotwells and working in Avonmouth. Hisofficial hours are 8.00am - 6.00pm but he rarely works these. He frequently starts work at 4 5 or 6in the morning and not returning until late in the evening or very early the following morning. PublicTransport is not an option.There are many others who work such hours. The proposal in its current format does not cater fortheir needs and puts further pressure on parking in a area where parking is already under severepressure. Further provision for additional parking within the development is needed.

Ms K Larwood  11 ROWNHAM MEAD BRISTOL  on 2020-01-15   OBJECT

While I am supportive of the new residential development, the provision for car parkingis totally inadequate.This means that the excess cars will spill into the already strained street parking making residentparking all the more difficult not only for the residents of this new build but the existing residents onsurrounding roads.Limited parking does not change behaviour (and therefore encourage people to not have a car)unless there is 24/7 public transport serving an area to enable residents to get to their places ofwork without a car.The Transport Report fails to mention that the bus services do not run 24/7 - nor do they run to allplaces of work that would attract residents.Residents use cars because they can't get to where they need to go at convenient times that suittheir lifestyles. Therefore enhanced Public transport is required or developers need to provideenough parking for the all properties as a bare minimum so that there is no/limited overflow toneighbouring roads.

Dr Sarah-Jane Walsh  17 GERALD ROAD BRISTOL  on 2020-01-13   OBJECT

I do not object to the redevelopment of the buildings per say as i would rather derelictbuilding are redeveloped than lose new land to development however i have a few concerns whichi feel need further addressing;

7 trees to be removed including a good quality mature Sycamore. i suggest an independent groupsuch as the bristol tree forum come and survey the site to give a true representation of what treesare at stake.

the area allocated to ecological restoration in the west portion of the development fallsdangerously close to the land earmarked for western harbour development, is there some promisethis important area will be retained in the future.

traffic and pollution on coronation road is heavy at present and further development will addpressure to this

spill over parking in residential areas

if western harbour development does go ahead this area will become even more heavilydeveloped. one development has less impact but if it becomes part of a long string it will beexacerbating the impact of this major scheme.

Mr Michael Hodgson   50 DUCKMOOR ROAD ASHTON BRISTOL  on 2020-01-12  

Another scheme with inadequate car parking, this will result in cars spilling over toadjacent streets where there is already insufficient parking. RPS is not enforced so is provingpointless, nearby streets in Ashton do not have RPS and hence will be used for parking of secondcars, works vehicles. This situation is made worse during football, rugby and concerts at AshtonGate. Where will visitors park? If approved, where will construction workers, vehicles park?Quoting the bus timetables is a red herring as first bus operate one of the worst services in thecountry, the timetable is not adhered to.

Mr Keith Carr  264 CORONATION RD. BRISTOL  on 2020-01-12   OBJECT

There is no guarantee that the proposed parking facilities will be sufficient for the newproperties and will spill over into surrounding residential streets, where on-street parking is alreadysaturated. Many dwellings will two-car occupants and the proposal also abolishes present parkingopposite the proposed dwellings, thereby exacerbating the problem.

Mr Keith Carr  264 CORONATION RD BRISTOL  on 2020-01-12   OBJECT

There is no guarantee that the proposed parking facilities will be sufficient for the newproperties and will spill over into surrounding residential streets, where on-street parking is alreadysaturated. Many dwellings will two-car occupants and the proposal also abolishes present parkingopposite the proposed dwellings, thereby exacerbating the problem.

Dr Pam Morgan   27 ASHTON ROAD BRISTOL  on 2020-01-12   OBJECT

1. Preventing right turns will force traffic to do considerable detours to gain accessadding to pollution of the local area. Eat into the site and put a mini roundabout in at the sitevehicle access point so it can be accessed from both directions.

2. There is insufficient parking and so residents will park their cars on local streets without RPZ inplace. ON THE STREETS OF ASHTON GATE WHERE MORE THAN HALF OF SOUTHVILLEAND ALL FOOTBALL AND RUGBY FANS ALREADY PARK! SORT THAT PLEASE!!!!

3. If you put an RPZ In the surrounding streets for half a mile it needs to cover ALL MATCH,concert and balloon fiesta times AND NEEDS STRICT POLICING!

4. You are taking on street parking from existing residents. EAT INTO THE SITE AND LEAVEEXISTING PARKING ALONE.

5. It's a flood zone!

6. Not nearly enough affordable housing!

7. Will increase local traffic and pollution