This application is frightening me. The volume and density of traffic that converges onBlackboy Hill from Upper Belgrave Road, Stoke Road, Westbury Road and Redland Hill is non-stop and very heavy. Vans, lorries, coaches, delivery vehicles, SUVs etc. never stop all day long.The traffic pulls up at the lights two or three abreast to leave in all directions and also to go aroundtowards Upper Belgrave Road and past the bus-stops directly below this proposedsite/development. 60 no. flats and offices will hugely increase the density and volume of traffic,even if the occupants choose to not own their own transport, there will constant onlinedelivery vehicles, motorcycles/scooters and visitors.

1-4 Home Farm Gardens provides an a very welcoming architectural difference to the area and itwas only about a weekago, there was headline news that demolition is not the 'way forward' - what is going to happen toall the rubble that this willproduce? I have weak lungs, and a degree of COPD and I simply dread to think how much dustthis will create and increase inexhaust emissions/PM2.5 particulates and nitrogen dioxide notonly in the massive construction but subsequent increase in volume of traffic. There are youngchildren/elderly people in the vicinity immediate vicinity. Also felling mature trees added into themix.

I completely object to this huge development, this area is already densely populated.

I understand certain changes have been made and a decision is imminent. Please notethat I agree with neighbours objecting to the height of the buildings, which in conjunction withbeing elevated on a hill, will overbear and dominate Grove Road and Vincent's hill homes, beingout of scale to the area. This appears to contravene aspirations for the WHITELADIES ROADCONSERVATION AREA.

I implore the council to protect residential areas in this city, and while welcoming city infill for morehousing, please don't allow it to be too high and dense, which undermines quality of life forexisting residents while while maximising developers' profits.I am also very concerned that the already bad traffic pollution and parking situation will beworsened by so many new flats so close to us in the immediate area.

Please note that RCAS objects to this application. The committee report includes thecomment from April 2020 but has not noted the further comment made in February 2021 whichobjects on grounds of over-development.

Thank you for the opportunity to be able to submit further comments relating to theadditional documentation provided by the applicant.

We remain disappointed that at no point since the application was submitted (indeed for sometime prior to this) has the applicant or their agents sought to engage with us, even after therequest was made at the last planning committee. Neither have we been properly served with thedocuments as suggested in the formal planning application form in February 2020, nor has anyproof been given to demonstrate it has been. This causes a great deal of concern for us as acompany and also for our homeowners, both in terms of the application itself and also about whatthis would mean in terms of operational behaviours during construction and beyond, were planningpermission to be granted.

For your records, we would ask that any correspondence from the Council relating to thisapplication is marked for the attention of: (DETAILS SHARED WITH CASE OFFICER)

As has already been highlighted by our homeowners, one particular concern relates to their abilityto enter and leave their home and ability to be able to park particularly during the constructionphase. Construction activity should not impede their ability to go about their daily activities. Norshould it hinder their medical and care needs being met, in particular if emergency services arerequired. They and we will need that comfort, were planning permission to be granted.

Turning specifically to matters that can be considered in planning terms:

AccessThe access is all situated within the redline planning boundary. To the extent that there are worksrequired over the land shown in green in Appendix A to the Supplementary Statement on AccessIssues (the Supplementary Statement), the Supplementary Statement makes it clear that theApplicant has no rights or ability to deliver such works. We understand that the Applicant does notintend to undertake any such works, but we have not reviewed all of the supporting materials. Thisis relevant in relation to upgrades that may be required to accesses.

Transport information and access onto and off of the public highwayThe Supplementary Statement ignores the submitted transport information (notably the TransportAssessment dated December 2019) and seeks to downplay (in the face of the Applicant's ownevidence) the operational impacts of the development by stating that the only change to theaccess is that there will be 34 (as opposed to the current 30) car parking spaces and thatadditional vehicle trips generated by these additional car parking spaces would not be material.

For the current use of the property, the Applicant's Transport Assessment adopts a worst caseassessment of one two-way trip per space in the AM and PM (e.g. 30 in the AM and 30 in the PM).For the proposed development, the Applicant's Transport Assessment forecasts that there wouldbe 53 two-way trips in the AM and 49 in the PM. This equates to a 76% increase in traffic in theAM and a 63% increase in the PM. This is clearly a material increase that is caused by thedevelopment. The Applicant's statement at section 3.11 of the Supplementary Statement (whichsuggests that there would be only a net change of 4 additional movements) downplays themateriality of this impact. This is a material consideration arising out of the operation of theproposed development.

For these reasons we continue to object to this application.

If permission is to be granted on this application we would ask for the following to be eitherconditioned on made part of a Section 106 agreement:

Before development is granted, or at the very least as a Grampian condition before developmentcan commence, we would recommend that there is a condition or planning obligation requiring thatthere is a condition survey of the access to ensure that the access is appropriate.

In addition, based on the close proximity of construction vehicles to the front of Queen VictoriaHouse, we would also ask that there is a condition or planning obligation requiring that there is acondition survey of the front of the building and the apartments contained within takes place.

The committee report for 1 September 2021 notes that there is a requirement for a construction

management plan. We agree with this, and would recommend that this regulates hours ofconstruction, timing of deliveries, timing of construction traffic, routing of construction traffic, howand where materials would be stored (to ensure that the access is not blocked) and a pre-development and post-development survey of the accesses and footpaths with an obligation onthe Applicant to address any adverse impacts, with a Bond provided by the Applicant to addressany adverse impacts to the accesses and footpaths and an obligation on the Applicant to pay forany repairs required. We also recommend that there is a requirement for an operational trafficmanagement plan to manage the ongoing impacts. The Applicant has acknowledged in theSupplementary Statement that the impacts are such that this is a case where it is reasonable andappropriate to secure a construction management plan to address issues such as these. Given thefinancial obligations, these would need to be included in the section 106 agreement and notsecured by a planning condition.

If the Council is minded to grant planning permission, then we would recommend that theresolution is made subject to the conclusion of a section 106 agreement including a constructiontraffic management plan and operational traffic management plan which are to be approved by theCouncil but subject to consultation with the Lifestory Group. The Lifestory Group will need to be aparty to this agreement in any event given that we own a large part of the site that is subject to theplanning application and the obligations will relate to the footpath.

We thank you for your consideration of our comments and hope they will be taken on board inyour deliberations.

All of our objections of 24 March 2020, 24 Dec 2020, 24 March 2021 and Aug 2021 stillstand; nothing has materially changed in the proposal from the application. Please read throughthese objections as well as the numerous objections from neighbours to this overbearing,overshadowing, out of character proposal.

Firstly the report published for the committee is biased as it states that the 4th round ofconsultation closed on 1 Oct 2021 which is completely incorrect! It states that only 3 objectionswere made prior to their report to the committee but the actual closing date is 8th Oct 2021! Howcan any of the report be taken seriously if the information contained in the report is factuallyincorrect.

City design group have clearly stated the property is overbearing and overlooks our grade 2 listedproperty which is closest to the development. The four storey development is still significantlyhigher than the cottages and directly overlooks our private garden, all bedrooms and private livingareas, all of which face Block B. We have very young children and we are worried about theirsafeguarding. With the only light coming into the cottage from the windows facing thedevelopment, our shutters cannot be kept shut.

Historic England has said clearly that it has issues regarding Block B which is clearly out of scalefor the area, and the proposal itself clearly admits that there are real light and proximity issues for

our cottage. The Council appear to take no notice of this despite their own policies.

The applicant says that Block B has been moved further away from the cottages on St Vincent'sHill but the plans do not show this - in fact the plans show that they want to plant trees on whatwould be are current turning circle for our cars on St Vincent's Hill and this has yet to beaddressed by either the Council or the applicant. We have asked numerous times for theCouncil/committee to visit the site outside our property, to see that this is completely impractical tohave this so close to our property, without any visit or comment from the Council case officials. Atpresent, the whole area in front of the garage doors is used to turn in and out of our driveway.Having anything blocking this area would substantially interfere with our ability to access ourdriveway with vehicles.

In terms of overlooking the report clearly states that block B is less than the separation distancerecommended but this is deemed acceptable in a conservative area and to a grade 2 listedbuilding (without taking into account the fact that occupiers would be looking directly into my youngchildren's bedrooms!) How can this be acceptable??

We have raised the 'overbearing' issue on all of our objections and almost all of the otherobjections made have said the same thing, but yet the committee report fails to take any of thisinto consideration. How can a 5 storey building be acceptable in a residential area where everyother building is 2 storeys? They say they have reduced the size to 4 storeys but if you look at theplans it is only for a small portion, then it increases back to 5 storeys and considering it's on a hillupwards it is still going to overbear on all the properties of St Vincent's Hill and Grove Road. Theexisting buildings on the plot are only one and two storeys in height, with the structures closest toour cottage being only one storey non-dwelling structures, with no windows. How can it beacceptable to replace these with four and five storey structures?

Overshadowing has been mentioned by us previously as all the reports have stated that again ourproperty will be adversely effected by this development. The daylight and sunlight assessmentclearly states that it will adversely affect us by more than any acceptable parameters. How theCouncil can let such a monstrosity of a development pass planning is unbelievable.

We have said on numerous occasions if block B was an acceptable size such as the buildingsbeing replaced by similar one and two storey buildings (and set back by an acceptable distance),then we would not have a significant issue with the development; but to plan for a five storeydevelopment and take precedence from something that is at the top end of Blackboy Hill andbarely visible from our home, is ridiculous.

Access is a huge problem - all of the objections from The Vincent's resident state the same issues.St Vincent's hill is too small to take construction vehicles and the Vincent car park is dangerous forthe elderly residents. Huge disruption will be caused to daily lives and living.

This development has to be stopped it is totally out of scale and character of the area. It isoverbearing, overshadows and overlooks our property and not enough has been done by theapplicant to resolve these issues. As a result the development should not be passed - a numberobjections have been raised by residents and CDG and Historic England and these have to betaken into serious consideration by the committee.

I am partially sighted and have hearing difficulties and my husband is disabled using awalking aid at all times. I am very concerned that our current exit will b ecome unsafe for us withthe number of heavy vehicles needed to service the proposed site. We have great access to busstops where we are. Can you guarantee our safety to reach them? This is our only way out.

Comments on 20/00542/P - ACCESS STATEMENT - 24th September 2021My previous comments made earlier on 29th August 2021 are fully applicable to this reviseddocument by AK Planning Consultants.

Namely:1) ..... Extra safety hazards for Elderly Vincent residents, if the Vincent carpark is used as anaccess roadway.Additionally, AKPC paragraph 3.9 states that "only 34 parking places" will be used to replace theexisting 30 spaces. In reality, 34 parking spaces for new permanent residents would be muchmore heavily utilised. The current 30 spaces are under-utilised during weekdays, and are almostempty at weekends. The use of wide angle pictures is also misleading in this AKPC document.

& 2) ..... Multi-axle vehicle manoeuvring in the limited carpark will be particularly hazardous duringthe Construction phase. Heavy vehicle access over the restricted Redland Hill pavement will bemore hazardous than it is even at present. Many pedestrians, joggers and school children use thisbusy pavement daily, as well as local residents walking to the many nearby bus stops.

& 3) .... Replacing 6 residential properties with an astonishing 60 new ones by cramming into thesmall building land area and with excessively high apartment profiles will NOT enhance theneighbourhood.

Most of the student accommodation at the Harper building would be deprived of sunlight too.

& 4) .... Excessive noise levels are predicted for residents in the new buildings.

Finally, 5) Additional comment on the AHMM drawing 14031 dwg no 130 rev12:-This shows "land transfer to MT" [in yellow highlight and 4.5 metres wide] clearly indicating thatvehicle access from Grove Road would be possible for substantial redevelopment andreplacement of the Carlton House and beyond.This transfer land is not included in the 20/00542/P application area, but is shown adjacent to aproposed PC boundary on the latest AWW drawing 0106 rev A dated 16th September 2021.AKPC have carefully included this in their Supplementary Statement of 24th September 2021, butwithout suggesting that this could be a possible alternative access route for Construction and otherwide vehicles to the main site, thus avoiding use of The Vincent carpark.

This development should aim to IMPROVE the existing residential area, and not aim to shoehorn60 extra apartments into a very limited space. There is also an implied possibility that a similarPhase 2 development might replace Carlton House with another huge type of apartment block.

It would be far more acceptable to provide a smaller number, say up to 25/30, of low heightproperties including, say 50% affordable homes, across the available sites, of which BCC wouldjustly be proud, and local residents would see as enhancing their neighbourhood.

None of the revised details do anything to overcome my original or subsequentobjections.The building are too bulky for the site.The resulting traffic both during the process and afterwards will be dangerous, given the largenumber of elderly / disabled residents of The Vincent.The route through our car park will be too congested.The width of the entry point is already narrow and the sight-lines through the two parking bays areDANGEROUSPLEASE REFUSE THIS APPLICATION.

As a resident of The Vincent (TV) I have the greatest concern regarding the risk/safetyof residents from construction traffic using proposed site access. This safety issue was recognisedby Planning Committee at its previous meeting when they were minded to refuse application withthe proposed site access and requested Applicant to provide alternative access options. Thisrequest has been entirely ignored and Committee is asked to give weight to this failure in theirdecision.

Residents greatest concern regarding proposed access, is that construction traffic has toenter/leave TV car park at its narrowest point (5.8 Meters - one vehicle wide) and directly in frontof the entrance to TV. Residents/visitors can only leave/enter building by directly stepping into thecar park in front of and into path of heavy construction vehicles. At this crossing point there is asmall standing area only 1.4 meters from wheels/path of heavy vehicles, including concrete lorries(up to 36 tons), heavy wagons (26 tons) and delivery lorries.

TV provides age related accommodation for its elderly population which includes the highlyvulnerable with some using walking aids (frames) and the partially sighted.

The heavy construction traffic will involve tens of thousands vehicle movements over theconstruction period. The combination of highly vulnerable residents and the number of heavyvehicle movements makes for a disaster waiting to happen.

It is no exaggeration to say that some residents will live in fear of their lives should the proposedsite access be approved.

Please refuse permission.

With regard to the latest proposals, which have not addressed any of my concerns, Iwould again object as follows:

1. The present site has a small number of low level dwellings. This proposed development is for 5storeys reduced from 7 but with the same number of dwellings (60). The buildings will be too high,too close to the boundary, right up to the gardens belonging to the Vincent and with no room forscreening.

2. The vehicle access is very narrow - the photos submitted by the developer would appear tohave been taken with a wide angle lens and do not give an accurate picture.

3. The access to the proposed site I believe is an accident waiting to happen in respect of theresidents of the Vincent particularly with the large amount of construction vehicles and siteworkers which would be involved in such a confined space. I really feel the Planning Committeeshould have a 'duty of care' to the Vincent residents.

My wife and I have moved into this apartment within the past two weeks. We have beenmade aware of the current proposal and register our objection on the grounds of totally inadequateaccess.

This relates first to the entrance into the Vincent carpark (and access to the properties at the rear)which we have already discovered can be moderately hazardous when leaving the property assight lines with parked cars on Redland Hill is limited.

The mind boggles at the prospect of large vehicles needing to use this entrance during anyproposed building operation.

Secondly there is undoubtedly a serious question of safety for residents. The roadway through theVincent car park must be used by pedestrians as well as vehicles. Construction traffic wouldinevitably raise the risk of an accident to an unacceptable level.

Surely before any permission were granted a detailed report of these considerations would needto be made.

I can hardly credit that you are considering an application which will lead to heavyconstruction vehicles crossing a car park which forms part of an over sixties development wheremany of the residents are likely to have mobility issues which put them at even greater risk ofharm. Even when the construction work is completed there will be an increase in traffic, causingdanger to the occupants of the Vincent and the residents in the new building and those drivingalong the road outside, because the exit and entry to the Vincent car park is already a potentialaccident blackspot.I would also like to point out that the proposed development is higher than the surroundingbuildings and will not look good alongside a conservation area.

I strongly object to these plans as the access is totally not viable. The entrance to thesite would be going through a single car entrance to The Vincent car park. You do need to comeand visit to see how totally unacceptable this is. The Vincent car park is only one car wide andeven now with the Vincent only half full there are issues. Most of the residents in the Vincent areolder and this would also be very dangerous.I strongly feel this scheme needs to be rejected unless an alternative access can be found.

Dorothy Bastable

I am not in favour of this development. Too many people/ too many cars that will be driving to this area making noise 24 hours a day. This has been a quiet partbut I fear with this development (offices and hotel for 60 rooms etc. and not much thought for others and based on money no doubt this area will change. Mollie Davies

Dear Development Management and Democratic Services Team,

I am writing on behalf of Lifestory Group, owners of The Vincent, neighbouring the above mentioned scheme.

I understand that this application is being considered by the Planning Committee in outline and wanted to raise our objection to the proposal. I am doing so on one main ground at this time. We own the access route from Redland Hill into this site and access would be required over our land to this development, both to facilitate demolition, construction and on an ongoing basis. We have had no contact from the applicant relating to the submission of this application (other than the early community engagement activity held in 2019) or discussion with our Regional Team, (Regional Managing Director, General Counsel, Development Director, General Manager at The Vicent) about these proposals, nor were the documents that were said to have been shared with us in February 2020 shared with us. The address contained in the applicant's application form does not have a named contact, the company name or the Unit number and there are a number of other companies in this development.

The technical highways reports make reference to the application being under construction when the application was submitted, this is not the case as the first homeowners moved into the development in January 2020.

We are very concerned about the potential impact that this application could have for our homeowners and would ask that the application should not be considered until these issues have been resolved.

Having been on hold for a significant period of time to the Bristol Council number to seek advice as to what to do, I recognise this submission has arrived after the 12pm deadline, but would hope due to the seriousness of the issue that I've raised that it is considered and is shared with the members if this application is considered by the Committee tomorrow.

With best wishes,

EmmaHead of Corporate Affairs and Political Engagement

We are writing to oppose this planning application. The developer is aiming to provide 60 residential units and office space as well. There simply is not the infrastructure available to cope with this excessive level of development, even if it were deemed allowable under the national / local plan. A far smaller development should be considered and not a high rise.The development of 'Simply Health House' cannot be deemed a precedent for such a high-rise design, which is hardly appropriate in today's atmosphere of anxiety over fire safety in taller buildings.

The children's nursery in Grove Road also frequently creates a log jam in the mornings and evenings as parents driving children block the road whilst trying to negotiate driving in and reversing out of the premises. We have often wondered how planning was granted for this facility and have assumed that council officers were persuaded that children would be brought to nursery on foot or by bike, etc. Clearly this is not the case and traffic blockages are commonplace.As is a massive and often dangerous volume of traffic, which has caused many cycling and car crashes. Grove Road should be a one way road as it is, to make it safer for all. Another large development would just be the last thing this area can withstand.

To summarise, the immediate area simply cannot withstand further development without any provision being made for traffic infrastructure, more parking for residents etc.

Comments on 20/00542/P proposal - 29th August 2021

1. The new proposed apartments will need road access via the Vincent carpark. This will actuallyturn a quiet carpark into a roadway, which will be a safety hazard for the Elderly residents at TheVincent. The WYG Transport Assessment (Feb2020) clearly indicates that these new apartmentswill require ongoing daily car/van access journeys of around 41% [Residential - Table 6.3], and54% [Office - Table 6.6].

2. During the Construction phase, access by large multi-axle vehicles, including cranes, willevidently be required. There will be limited turning and manoeuvring space in the carpark. This isclearly indicated in WYG Transport Technical Note 01 (Nov2020), showing In/Out turning neededfor typically large 11.4m and 10.2m vehicles. The potential safety hazard for Elderly residentswhen large vehicles drive in front of The Vincent to gain access via the narrow pavement entranceonto Redland Hill. is quite obvious.

3. The proposed height of a large number of additional new apartments will have significant visualimpacts. Except in high summer, the student residents of The Harper building will be cut off fromdirect sunlight because this is blocked by the height of the proposed buildings. Most of thesestudents' apartments will lose the existing sunny aspect as they will now be in the shadow of thehigh blocks.

4. The updated Noise Assessment for these new apartments typically records around 60dB ascurrently measured. WHO standards assess 35dB for acceptable noise levels. The essentialfuelling needs of many Bristol residents is met by the adjacent ASDA garage which has indicatedtheir likely need for 24 hour working. Even with sound mitigation, this will mean even higher noiselevels during quiet hours for most residents of these proposed apartments.

From my understanding and experience of planning regulations, this development doesseem to exceed the maximum density limit allowable.This is already a built-up area, with high traffic volumes and narrow roads with difficult junctions -there already exists problems caused by excessive traffic and a lack of local parking availability.The developer is aiming to provide 60 residential units and office space as well. There simply isnot the infrastructure available to cope with this excessive level of development, even if it weredeemed allowable under the national / local plan.Additionally, the development of 'Simply Health House' cannot be deemed a precedent for such ahigh-rise design, which is hardly appropriate in today's atmosphere of anxiety over fire safety intaller buildings.The development and occupation of 'The Vincent' has already increased the population density ofa small enclave of land, bringing with it extra cars without any apparent proposals from the councilas to how to address traffic and parking issues.We were also extremely disappointed about the cavalier attitude that the developer of 'TheVincent' seemed to have regarding trees, ie, those which had been extant and removed and thosewhich should have been planted. Clearly, this does little to improve the environmental appearanceor air quality in an area already experiencing increasing traffic due to over development.The children's nursery in Grove Road also frequently creates a log jam in the mornings andevenings as often lone parents frequently driving just one child in huge 4x4's block the road whilsttrying to negotiate driving in and reversing out of the premises.

We have often wondered how planning was granted for this facility and have assumed that councilofficers were persuaded that children would be brought to nursery on foot or by bike, etc. Clearlythis is not the case and traffic blockages are commonplace.To summarise, the immediate area simply cannot withstand further development without anyprovision being made for traffic infrastructure, etc.

I appreciate that Bristol needs more homes, and especially affordable ones. Myobjection is not to the principle of building more homes on this site, but solely on two grounds:1. Access - since moving here 2 months ago, I have seen first-hand how busy Redland Hill is withtraffic, and how difficult it is to turn out of the Vincent car park into the traffic, especially as cars areparked right up to the entrance blocking the sight line. (I have already asked the Council to removeparking and replace with double yellow lines by the entrance.) It would be highly dangerous to addthe significant number of vehicles which would need to use the Vincent access to get to theproposed site, during construction and afterwards. The Vincent is home to over 60s - many havemobility and eyesight problems, so this traffic would be specially dangerous for them as they crossthe car park to their homes.2. Height - I think the proposed development is too high, out of keeping with the surroundings.I urge the Council to REJECT this application as it stands.

We wish to object to this application on the following grounds:1. The taller, 7 storey building is too bulky2. The number of flats will increase vehicular and pedestrian traffic beyond the capacity of TheVincent's current car park and access route.3. The entrances are inadequate even for the current usage4. The residents of the 64 apartments on The Vincent site are all over 60, many in their eightiesand increasingly dependent on mobility assistance, care services etc5. During demolition and building the current access to the site is totally unsuitable and inadequate

This development will impact seriously on our neighbourhood.

This proposed development must not be allowed to proceed.

It will be detrimental to this area due to the resulting Increase in car traffic in particular. This area isheavily congested as it is and any increase will be hugely detrimental to everyone living in thisarea, hugely detrimental to the traffic flow which is already very congested and also and mostimportantly hugely detrimental to the environment.

The proposed development will have a detrimental impact on air pollution, traffic pollution & noisepollution.

This proposed development must not be allowed to proceed.

It will increase noise massively - which is hugely disruptive already - from people pouring off theDowns and from the ASDA petrol station and the pubs and fast food stores, and from the hugeamount of traffic in this area. We do not need this kind of increase in the resident population in thisarea.

This proposed development must not be allowed to proceed.

It will be detrimental due to the loss of privacy because of the scale of the development. The otherdwellings in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development are of a completely differentscale. This proposed development must not be allowed to proceed.

This proposed development must not be allowed to proceed.

This proposed development must not be allowed to proceed.

This proposed development must not be allowed to proceed.

This development will impact seriously on our neighbourhood.

This proposed development must not be allowed to proceed.

It will be detrimental to this area due to the resulting Increase in car traffic in particular. This area isheavily congested as it is and any increase will be hugely detrimental to everyone living in thisarea, hugely detrimental to the traffic flow which is already very congested and also and mostimportantly hugely detrimental to the environment.

The proposed development will have a detrimental impact on air pollution, traffic pollution & noisepollution.

This proposed development must not be allowed to proceed.

It will increase noise massively - which is hugely disruptive already - from people pouring off theDowns and from the ASDA petrol station and the pubs and fast food stores, and from the hugeamount of traffic in this area. We do not need this kind of increase in the resident population in thisarea.

This proposed development must not be allowed to proceed.

It will be detrimental due to the loss of privacy because of the scale of the development. The otherdwellings in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development are of a completely differentscale. This proposed development must not be allowed to proceed.

This proposed development must not be allowed to proceed.

This proposed development must not be allowed to proceed.

This proposed development must not be allowed to proceed.

This development will impact seriously on our neighbourhood.

This proposed development must not be allowed to proceed.

It will be detrimental to this area due to the resulting Increase in car traffic in particular. This area isheavily congested as it is and any increase will be hugely detrimental to everyone living in thisarea, hugely detrimental to the traffic flow which is already very congested and also and mostimportantly hugely detrimental to the environment.

The proposed development will have a detrimental impact on air pollution, traffic pollution & noisepollution.

This proposed development must not be allowed to proceed.

The Officers' Report and Recommendations fails to address fully the significantconcerns people have about access to and from Redland Hill for both pedestrian, cycle andvehicular traffic. The Traffic Survey carried out in 2019 could not have incorporated the effect ofthe now occupied Queen Victoria House/The Vincent site, and neither does the projected sitetraffic movements appear to include the already existing movements from both Queen VictoriaHouse and Harper House. The Report does not properly describe the road configuration at theentrance to the QVH site off Redland Hill. It does not mention that on-street parking spaces aremarked right up to each side of the gateway and that traffic safety concerns have already beenregistered (through the council's street improvement webpage) about the poor visibility affordeddrivers exiting the site. This safety problem will be even worse during the construction phase.I suggest that the Planning Committee officers and elected members visit the site to see exactlythe congested access points and the area through which the developers are proposing to accesstheir site before a decision is made.

Further to my earlier objections, I see nothing in the latest proposals that answer myobjections.

1. The proposed building is too high and right up to the Vincent boundary. It should be movedback from this boundary and provided with tree screening so that the owners of the garden (theVincent residents) can have the peaceful enjoyment of their garden they are entitled to.

2. The entrance through the Vincent carpark would cause considerable danger to pedestrians.There is no pavement and traffic would be greatly increased .

3. The entrance to this carpark is very narrow - there is on street parking right up to the entranceand not double yellow lines as stated in the documents you have been given.

Please can we ask that the committee visit this site before making a decision

Further to the email below we have now reviewed the committee report relating to the above application, which we objected to on behalf of Asda Stores Limited.

Whilst we welcome a condition on noise mitigation, Asda have concerns over the lack of design requirements for the ventilation scheme. For the overall sound insulation of the facade to protect residents, it is essential the ventilation scheme is sufficient to maintain comfortable internal temperatures, in warm weather, with windows closed. A comprehensive overheating assessment and ventilation design needs to submitted and approved as part of the application or conditions, demonstrating windows can remain closed.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Katherine

This development will impact seriously on our neighborhood.Increased car traffic, noise, loss of privacy due to the enormous scale of the development.This must not be allowed to proceesd.

The proposed development is ridiculous. It appears that no consideration has beenmade for the existing neighbourhood - in any respect. The increase in population- is overload, thescale of the building is unthinkably large. The proximity to the existing homes of No.s 7 & 9 StVincent's Hill is unbelievably close & these two homes will have their privacy, daylight, & outlookremoved permanently. I do not accept the reasons that their (No.s 7&9) objections have beendismissed. You cannot impose such an ill considered development on the neighbourhood of StVincent's Hill. I object on ALL levels. The population increase, the privacy intrusion, the reductionin daylight & outlook & the design of the development. It bears no relation to what is existing. Theaccess via St Vincent's Hill lane should be 100% eliminated in any planners application. It is justnot built for through traffic and neither are the homes which exist there. I implore the Council toreconsider all aspects of the Planning Application & demand that the Planning Officer 'in charge'actually meets with the residents of St Vincent's Hill & immediate neighbourhood to 'discuss' &hear us.

I object on all accounts. This proposed development should not go ahead. Theresidents of the St Vincent's Hill community have not been listened too and their concerns havebeen dismissed. This is unthinkable.

NOISE:This area is densely populated already. The noise levels throughout the day & night are very high -traffic & people noise. Noise pollution is an issue that already exists. I object to this application onall accounts and would like the proposed increase in noise to be considered. There is no wherethat I have read in this planning application that this has been discussed nor taken intoconsideration.

POLLUTION:Traffic & people pollution is a huge issue in this area. With the proposed building development willcome with it increased pollution from people & motor traffic (deliveries, personal vehicles etc) - thisis unacceptable.

I object to this Planning Application.

Design (including bulk and massing, detailing and materials, if these form part of theapplication) is nowadays recognised as an important factor in the acceptability of a developmentproposal. If you think the development looks ugly, then you should say so, especially if it is over-bearing, out-of-scale or out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existingdevelopment in the vicinity.

THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS TOTALLY VOID OF ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH THEEXISTING COMMUNITY OF BUILDINGS & HOMES. THE 'DESIGN' SHOWS NOCONSIDERATION TO THE CHARACTER OF NEIGHBOURING HOUSES - NUMBERS 7 & 9 StVINCENTS HILL IN PARTICULAR. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE OVERBEARING- UGLY & A FORMIDABLE GIANT AMONGST OUR COMMUNITY OF SMALL - TINY -COTTAGE - DWELLINGS. THERE ARE SEVERAL LISTED BUILDINGS IN THE ST VINCENTHILL TRIANGLE & THIS AREA IS A CONSERVATION AREA - SOMETHING IT APPEARS THEPLANNERS ARE IGNORING?

As mentioned above, a higher standard of design is expected in a Conservation Area, or where itaffects the setting of a Listed Building. Councils are under a legal duty to have particular regard tothe desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of a Conservation Area.Similarly, a development which would adversely affect the setting of a Listed Building is unlikely to

be acceptable. The impact of the development on the landscape will also be an important factor ina designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THEEXISTING CONSERVATION AREA & WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ONOUR COMMUNITY HERE. THE PROPOSED DESIGN IS UNATTRACTIVE, OVERBEARING,TOO CLOSE (by far!) & TO LARGE FOR SUCH A COMPACT AREA.

I DEMAND THAT THIS APPLICATION IS WITHDRAWN.

I object as follows.The proposed development is too high and large for this small area which comprises andoverlooks many small grade 2 listed residential homes.Parking, despite residents parking scheme, is already nightmare for residents retuning from work,and despite discouragement new apartment owners will clearly exacerbate the problem. Existinggarage parking on the existing site will be demolished.I agree the site needs some redevelopment but this proposal proposes an unacceptable densityinfilling a small area, which will have impact on nature, green space and urban quality of life forexisting residents.

This development will result in further unacceptable increases in housing and trafficdensity in this very busy and congested area.

I write for the third time to object to the planning application for access, scale andlayout. My first rejection was 24 March 2020 and secondly on 24 December 2020 and nothing haschanged from both of those objections. I would like all of my comments from both previousobjections to be taken into consideration as well as the below comments. I cannot see anychanges or alterations the developer has made from my previous 2 objections.

In fact, the developer has submitted a daylight sunlight assessment which actually proves that ourproperty will be significantly disadvantaged by the scale and size of this development. It states thatour property will have less light into our property as result of this new development. This is totallyunacceptable to us and effects the integrity of our grade 2 listed property. I would urge the caseofficer to read this assessment and take this seriously into consideration.

The mass and scale of the proposed development is totally out of character of the grade 2 listedproperties of Hillside Cottage 9 St Vincents Hill and Plum Cottage 7 St. Vincents Hill. Theproposed development is significantly larger and taller than the existing properties which it isreplacing and has a disproportionately negative impact on the light entering our property as thereport has already shown, as well as being overlooked into our property, garden and drivewayhence leading to a loss of privacy. Our Cottage and next door neighbour's Plum Cottage 7 StVincents Hill, were bought at a premium due to the privacy of the cottages, the historic valuehence they are both listed buildings and the quiet surroundings. This will all change with this

proposed development and this simply is not acceptable to us.

The top of St Vincent Hill is actually the size of footpath not a road as the plans make out - there isonly room for both cottages' driveways and access for their cars as the turning circle is so narrow.Having measured the exact width of the St Vincent's Hill outside our property and to where thedeveloper is planning on redeveloping, it is ~2.3m in width. Which makes it impossible to turn ourcars in and out of our driveways. I have asked previously for the case officer to visit outside bothour listed properties to have a look at the area for herself to see that the plans do not work. Theplans state that they want trees to be planted and for them to be next to the side of St Vincent Hill(which is basically a footpath at the top end outside our property). Currently we use this as aturning circle for our cars and it would be impossible for us to drive our cars up to and into ourdriveway if this was the case. It simply cannot work. Unless this is viewed in person this isimpossible to see or understand from the plans drawn up.

I cannot see anything in the plans to account for how we are supposed to access our propertiesvia car or foot, if the demolition works were to take place to the garages and outhouses on StVincent's Hill. I cannot foresee how demolition works can happen less than 2.5m from our propertywithout having a detrimental impact on us. As I have stated before we only have access to ourproperty from the top of St Vincent's Hill and we have very young children both under 5yrs old andone that is 2yrs old. So we need to use our cars often and we use prams very often to access localamenities; I would be very worried about how my young family will be able to leave and access ourproperty with the demolishment and development less than a few meters from our front door.There is no time scale to the works also. Our young child naps during the day so building works soclose our property, less than a few metres will have a massive impact on our livelihood and mentalhealth.

There is no plan in the documents provided as to where the constructions workers will park theirvehicles whilst they are carrying out this work. We have already had the misfortune of enduring thePegasus life, The Vincent property which took over 4yrs to build instead of the 2yrs quoted to usresidents. The Construction workers would park their vehicles on pavements, double yellow linesetc so all local residents suffered for a number of years from loss of privacy, lack of car parkingspaces on Grove Road and we would have to take our pram onto the road to bypass the vehicles.

The next issue is the lack of infrastructure, the plans are for 60 residential properties and a largearea for office space. Now the plans do not cater for this many car parking spots. Where are theoffice workers and residential owners going to park their cars? Grove Road, Whiteladies Road arealready congested and difficult places to park and there is no plan to address this so thisdevelopment will only make the situation worse for the local residents that already live here andpotential new residents.

I refer to my previous comments, where Hillside Cottage, 9 St Vincents Hill was denied planningpermission to increase the height of the roof by a very small amount as it was stated it was not in

the character of the area. Now this new development is significant larger and taller so I cannot seehow it is plausible that this development can even stand any chance of gaining approval fromBristol City Council.

The plan is basically an over development of an existing area. The only way I see thisdevelopment working is that current garages and outhouse on St Vincents Hill remain as they are.Any increase in the size of the garages/outhouses and having any windows/balconies, will have adetriment to our privacy, light into our property and effect the character of our listed building. Theplans need to be scaled down and pushed further back and start at where 1-4 Home Gardenscurrently are and also remain at the same height as the current buildings at 1-4 Home Gardens.Block B at the proposed size, scale and location cannot be allowed to proceed. The developerseems to be using the precedent of Simply Health (AXA Building) and The Vincent as to how highthey can develop their plans. Both these properties are on/ close to Redland Hill and are not closeto Grade 2 listed buildings or other residential properties.

The plans state access to the new development will be through St Vincents Hill, I am not sure ifthe case officer or anyone has actually visited St Vincents Hill, the road is not tarmac, it is bumpyand has numerous pots holes. I do not see how access to the new development can come throughSt Vincents Hill at all. The hill cannot sustain the plan of the extra new residents of the newdevelopment, it already is in a bad state but as only the residents of 7 and 9 St Vincent's Hill and afew pedestrians use it, we manage at this moment but there is no way it can sustain the extranumber planned.

I would like to state for the record, we have tried to call the case officer and been unable to talk toher. We left a message with her planning colleagues for her to give us a call to discuss this furtherand hopefully to arrange for her to visit St Vincent's Hill to see how the plans for new trees andhow close the actual plans are to our Cottage. To show how simply this cannot work with ourdriveway and access to our property for our vehicles. Also how access to St Vincents Hill cannotcater for the number of new residents. I have previous asked for this to happen via the planningportal but as we had no contact from the case officer in charge, we have tried to contact herinstead this time. We did not receive a call back or any communication from the case officer beforethe deadline of the 3 May (Bank holiday Monday). Although from the communications on theplanning portal the developer seems to be regular contact with the case officer and we are notprivy to their detailed conversations.

I cannot state how important or how devastating this development will be to the 2 cottages on StVincents Hill, Hillside Cottage 9 St Vincents Hill and Plum Cottage 7 St Vincents Hill. We bothhave gardens that face out towards this new development and with the works we would be unableto use them. I have stated before we have young children and they would not be able to enjoy thegarden from the dust etc from all the building works, no matter how hard the developer may saythey can mitigate this. I have seen no such plans on the planning portal or even a conversationwith us as to how this will be managed. Our cars will be covered with dust, we will be unable to

open our windows as almost all of our windows face towards the development. All of this factorsneed to be taken into consideration. Hence I reiterate that the garages and outhouse on StVincents Hill should remain untouched. The developer can alter 1-4 home gardens as long as theydon't increase the height or alter the proximity of this building to our property.

The Panel remain concerned about the impact of the access routes to this developmenton the neighbouring heritage assets, and reiterated its most recent comment:The Panel welcomes the fact that Block A now addresses Blackboy Hill and Block B has beenreduced in height and extent but further clarification is required on the impact on the trees. It isconsidered the proposal should respond better with the requirement of the Urban Living SPD asmany flats would be single aspect.

There is an opportunity to revisit the value of these smaller scale semi industrial buildings andcoach houses in the street scene. These provide breathing space within streets and their loss willhave an adverse impact on the character of the conservation area.

Blackboy Hill and this upper part of Whiteladies Road are already overflowing withtraffic, which will become much worse as Lockdown restrictions continue to ease.We desperately need mature trees to mitigate the exhaust fumes and yet mature trees will befelled. For the new residents of the proposed flats, one needs to take account of their onlinedeliveries and visitors and the unbelievable amount of daily increased traffic this will generate. It'sunbearable to think of the dust that will be generated from demolition works, contractors will becontinually 'coming and going' - generating a mix of exhaust fumes and dust.

I have BCC documents that state exactly how dangerous vehicleExhaust fumes are and so I object purely on these grounds alone (because of the increase intraffic this will generate).The entire development sounds completely overwhelming for theexquisite Grade II listed cottages and personally, I find 1 - 4 Home Gardensadd a rather delightful, quiet, architectural difference toBlackboy Hill.

Is office space needed with the increasing popularity of flexible working and working from home?

I completely object to this proposal. It doesn't bear thinking about young children having to breathein the increased fumes and dust.

As a joint owner of one of the two grade II listed properties majorly affected by theproposed development, I fully object to and I am outraged by the plans proposed by the applicant.My comments below follow on from my objection comments of 24 December 2020 and myhusband's objection comments of 24 March 2020, 24 December 2020 and 03 May 2021.

I am deeply concerned by the proximity of the proposed development to our Property. It shouldfirstly be noted that the plan drawings submitted by the applicant appear to be incorrect and do notshow or include our driveway/parking area in front of our property which falls within our (and ourneighbour's) Title; further it does not allow for the turning area of our vehicles, which at present isall land in front of the garage doors. The applicant is therefore attempting to show that there is aslightly wider area between our respective properties, which is clearly not the case. The distancebetween the adjacent land and our own is no wider than a footpath (the public highway), whichwidens slightly as you go down St Vincent's Hill to allow for vehicular access (which is particularlytight for most vehicles).

The proposed plans are as close as 2 metres from our own property border. I cannot see that anyother development nearby has been as close as this to any residential property, let alone onewhich is grade II listed. Development this close to our property is simply not possible. Appropriatesafe boundaries cannot even be placed around the garages and outbuildings in order to demolishthem without imprisoning us within our property. Our only access into and out of our property is

from our only entrance facing the applicant's garages and outbuildings. Our cars and driveway aredirectly adjacent to the garages with only a footpath (top of St Vincents Hill) between ourdriveway/property and the applicant's land which is proposed to be developed. Whilst thedevelopment of 1-4 Homes Gardens may be acceptable, if the garages and outbuilding remainundemolished, if minimal disruption can be agreed, as it is further back from our property andpartially protected by the garages and outbuildings, this would only be so if replaced with abuilding of the same height; it simply is not possible for the other plans to be implemented withoutsignificant detriment to ours and 7 St Vincent's Hill grade II listed properties.

Notwithstanding the endless unbearable issues which we will be faced with whilst the proposedworks are ongoing; even when completed, based on the plans, it appears that we will be unable toturn into and out of our drive in even normal household vehicles let alone shopping delivery vansor any essential service vehicles being able to come up to our property - and how could we walk toand from our own property, let alone it being proposed as a resident's access to the development?

It may be possible for the redevelopment of 1-4 home gardens if development is of the samelimited height as currently is and is of a design suited to the area and its surroundings. Anything inexcess of this would not be in keeping with the character and status of the area, especially giventhat it is directly impeding on a residential area. The AXA building and Harper House which Iunderstand contain office space are isolated commercial buildings at the top of the hill facing abusy main road, close to a hospital, with direct access off of the main road. The applicant shouldnot therefore be comparing the height, design and access of the building to their own proposedbuildings. As can be seen from the applicant's own survey, there are very real light issues whichwe will personally be faced with if the plans are granted at the proposed heights and scale. This isprofoundly unfair on us. We should not have to live with a loss of light into our bedrooms and livingspaces, ALL of which face the proposed building. We have only one window facing the oppositedirection, which is in the upstairs hallway. All habitable spaces will therefore be majorlydetrimentally affected as light does not come in from anywhere else. It should be noted that aproper light survey would only be possible from within our property with proper plans which havenot been carried out by the applicant. We are of the opinion that we would experience even moreadverse light conditions than already envisaged and recognised by the applicant. The applicantand Council have responsibility and a duty of care to maintain the level of light entering our listedproperty and have utmost consideration for our personal and family needs and wellbeing given theclose proximity and effect of the development.

We purchased the property approx. 3 years ago on the basis that we could build and grow ournew young family within an unusually quiet area within an urban location, hence it is a grade 2listed property. We paid a premium to be in a light and airy cottage in a surprisingly quiet and veryprivate location, with parking and a garden (which again would be directly overlooked by theadjacent development). The safety of our children was (and is) our priority. The plannedconstruction works go directly against all of this. It is unlikely that we and our young children wouldbe able to use the only outside space that we have (our small garden) through the years of

construction that will take place, and afterwards, our children's bedrooms and the garden will bemassively overlooked, with a direct clear view into the same from the proposed flats and balconies(where the existing buildings directly facing us do not even have any windows). I therefore worryeven further about the safety of my children. We walk to school and nursery with our children dailydown the hill (as the only access to and from our property is from the top of St Vincent's Hill),currently without meeting many/any other pedestrians and certainly without fear of being hurt byoncoming vehicles, or being affected by dust, building works, noise, smell etc. There is nopavement on which we could walk or area in which to stand to the side. Vehicles can barely passup one way at present, let alone having increased pedestrian footfall too, which is plainlydangerous to all. Currently the hill is mainly accessed by residents, guests and essential workersof our and our neighbour's (no.7) property. The garages are mainly used for storage at presentand though two have vehicles stored within them, these are accessed on a limited basis. In realitySt Vincent's Hill cannot sustain any further vehicular or pedestrian traffic.

We also fear that our listed property and chattels will be damaged by the building works and dust.Our vehicles, windows and garden will be covered with dust. We would be unable to open ourwindows (which is required for condensation as well as clean air). My husband and child sufferfrom asthma and therefore I fear for their health with ongoing building works proposed within suchclose proximity, especially as my child has been previously hospitalised for the condition.

The ongoing noise disruption for years will also be an unbearable issue resulting in significant lossof enjoyment of our property, including considerable problems whilst working from home (which Ihave done (comfortably) prior to covid, and will continue to do) as well as significant issues for myyoungest child whom naps and is at home during the usual working week when works will takeplace. The noise would be unbearable on an ongoing basis both inside our property andparticularly within our garden, which I suspect would be unusable. As we are a listed property, thelack of double glazing will of course exacerbate the noise issue. I am truly distressed by thethought of living with whole situation for our entire future at Hillside Cottage.

All of the above issues do of course also amount to an actionable legal nuisances for which theCouncil should be responsible, if planning is authorised.

Our property has been awarded a listed status for a reason. Utmost care should be taken byBristol City Council to protect the aesthetic, architectural and historic interest of our property. I cansee no aspect of the proposed plans that respects this in any way. On a very basic level theproposed building design is unpleasant to look at and we would have a direct view of it fromalmost every window of our property. This is not acceptable. We should not be able to see it, letalone it affecting us in all of the ways detailed. The AXA building and Harper House are of courseset much further back from our property and are well covered by large trees, almost unnoticeableand can only be viewed from one window of our property. These were in existence prior to uspurchasing our property and therefore I cannot comment on the impact of the construction of thesebuildings on our property.

Whilst we have parking spaces for our own vehicles, the development is without doubt going tocause significant parking issues for our guests and neighbours. At present Home Gardens isoccupied by students without any vehicles and only consists of four houses. The garages areoccupied by two vehicles which will need to find a new home on Grove Road (where there isalready no parking); the nursery on Grove Road currently causes significant traffic issues withparents already blocking our access up St Vincent's Hill on a regular basis. Residents of the area,delivery drivers, postal workers and visitors to the area already have a daily problem with parkingand traffic at peak times. There is not nearly enough parking available on site for the officeworkers and residents within the proposed new development. There will therefore be an inevitableoverspill on to Grove Road, which already cannot sustain existing traffic flow. Grove Road isincredibly tight for two way traffic and parking and will be further impacted by the development.

The applicant is of course trying to maximise financial gain at our expense which we take veryseriously. There will not be one benefit to us of the unwelcomed proposed development whichwithout a doubt will cause us a lifetime of distress and a material effect on the value of ourproperty. Office space is certainly not sought in the area, especially with the move to permanenthomeworking/flexibility within most organisations. There have already been a number of blocks ofmodern (out of character) flats built on Grove Road/Redland Hill in recent years (Bay Willow Drive,The Vincent and apartments opposite The Steiner School); there is therefore no need within thisimmediate area for any such similar residential housing either. The scale of the project is simplydisproportionate to the needs of the area and is unfair on all those surrounding it, particularly sofor us and our neighbour's listed properties. The current state of the applicant's buildings provethat no care will be taken in relation to the project and the surrounding area. There is already norespect taken by the applicant for the area.

It is noted that the impact on Hillside Cottage (9) and Plum Cottage (7) together is far moresignificant than the detrimental effect on other properties in the area. This does not make it moreacceptable in any way, quite to the contrary. We are both listed properties and the project simplycannot go ahead. The proposals will affect our entire livelihood - it is heart-breaking. We cannotchange anything within our own properties without real contest (and even then applications havebeen rejected), how is it therefore possible for these plans to be granted two metres away from ourproperties? As mentioned previously, the precedent has been set by the Council who took theview that having a loft conversion and increasing the height of our Cottage's main roof by afractional amount would not be in-keeping with the listed status of the property and area. How theapplicant could be allowed to tower over us with the proposed buildings therefore is beyond me.These proposals need to be rejected by the Council in its entirety.

I have invited Natalie to speak with me directly about the proposals and to actually take a site visitto understand the reality of the situation; I have also attempted contact by telephone, howeverboth have (disappointingly) been unanswered. Again we ask that we are awarded the opportunityto at least discuss our views with you before any decisions are made.

As per my previous objections, none of which have been rectified and adequatelyaddressed in the most recent update to the development, I fully object to this objection due to theconsiderable disruption it will cause to my property and neighborhood due to its out of scaleproportion.

My property sits on the corner of grove road and Saint Vincents hill. I am vehemently opposed toANY access on Saint Vincents hill - whether that be pedestrians, cyclists or construction if thedevelopment goes forward. The lane is narrow and meant for the 4 residential parking spots at thetop. It as at most used for a few passing pedestrians. The development would see a huge increasein population and access to this lane and it would be not only disruptive, it could be potentiallydangerous as their are no lights, no security, no paving and it simply isn't meant for increasedfootfall, especially at the level of the scale of this project. If the development goes through, which Isincerely hope it does not, the only access should be from Whiteladies road as this is how theaccess to the commercial buildings and properties behind Saint Vincents hill currently stands. Theprecedent is already set.

I take serious issue with the amount of car spaces to flats ratio. This development is too large.There should not be this amount of flats, not to mention the office space, which will no doubt havedriving commuters. We simply do not have the capacity in the neighborhood for the increase invehicles that will ineveitbly take place with a building of this scale. If there are 30 parking spaces,

there should be a maximum of 30 flats to accommodate for at least 1 car per unit.

It is understandable that the developer would like to upgrade the land, but it should not be to thescale that is currently being presented. The traffic and disruption to the neighborhood would be farreduced if there was compromise on reducing the building to a comparable 2 story size. Not onlywould that help with the unthinkable increase in disruption, it would better align to the appearanceof the conservation area. This building is completely out of character. Being in a conservation areais the reason we chose to live in this neighborhood, and this building is completely going againstall conservation values.

Please reject this development or dramatically decrease its scale. In its current state, and in anystate where the building is towering above the neighboring cottages and residents, I fully object.

While I applaud the fact that these eyesores are to be demolished I am extremelyanxious to know how the developer means to get access to the site. I understand that he has right-of-way across the Vincent car park? If that is the case then, for me especially, living as I do in anapartment overlooking the carpark, I will have to put up with a lot of very heavy goods vehiclesthundering past my window.It is true that I am only in my late seventies but there are quite a number of residents here who arewell into their eighties who do need on occasion to cross the carpark on foot. There are already anumber of residents' and staff cars parked here and on a weekdays there are multitudinousworkmens' and delivery vans too. It could be complete and utter mayhem.

What the replacement buildings will look like is another question all together. I just hope theplanning authorities will use their good judgment and agree only to buildings which will fitarchitecturally into this area.

As per my previous objections in March 2020 and December 2020, I will further myvehement objections and quite frankly I am bewildered as to how Julian Bolitho on behalf of thedeveloper can claim that significant revisions have been made that seek to address any of thejustifiable concerns and objections from the neighbors and residents of Saint Vincents Hillcottages, Grove Rd and of The Vincent.

I outline the following in opposition.

1. The height of the building which is still far too large in scale, in particular the height. The scaleraises issues of the following : a. The imposition on Saint Vincents Hill Cottages, of which thereare listed buildings. and b. there are far too many flats that can suit the parking needs which willamount to excess in traffic in the neighborhood. With only 30 parking spaces to cover 60 flats, theincrease in traffic along Redland Hill and Grove Rd, which is already nearing max capacity forfinding a parking space, is unreasonable and is not appropriate in an area of conservation or inany area for that matter. It simply does not accommodate. A solution would be to seriouslydecrease the number of flats, and therefore the reduce the size of the building, something thedeveloper has continually ignored. If this proposal is to be put through, I ask that seriousconsiderations be made into eliminating the section of Building B that juts out into the areatowards Saint Vincents cottages and that the building height be reduced to a maximum of 3 floors.

2. In viewing the sunlight report on page 44, I can be sure the sunlight will decrease byapproximately 20% in my ground floor kitchen, which if the building would be REDUCED INHEIGHT, would significantly adjust and nearly eliminate. I should not have to sacrifice natural lightin my home which is one of the reasons I purchased this unique property.

3. The size and scale of this building is not justifiable in a conservation area. The imposing natureof this building on 7 Saint Vincent Hill and 9 Saint Vincent Hill, which are both grade II listedhomes, significantly impacts their historical character and appeal which not only decreases theirvalue but is an insult to their historical integrity. At number 7 and at number 9, we have both facedrejected consent for extension development for our own proprieties and yet we are faced with a 4story building just meters away?

4. There should not be balconies facing the cottages or The Vincent as their imposition on privacyis incredibly uncomfortable and imposing. The fact that they are even there and not necessary isfurther evidence of the lack of respect and reasonable consideration the developer has for theneighbors.

5. Perhaps most concerning of all, ANY use of the Saint Vincents Hill lane should be eliminated ifthis project is to go through any further. I IMPLORE Natalie Queffurus or any associated council tovisit the site and see for themself how inaccessible this lane is other than for the 4 cars to use theirprivate parking space that sit on the top of the lane. We can barely turn around at the top muchless have an increase in pedestrians and cyclist of a minimum of 100 people. At the moment itstands that there is cycling storage at the entrance of building block B which means that the sitewill be encouraging it's residents to use the lane of Saint Vincent Hill, and it is simply not doableand would be a danger to the current vehicles that use that lane for the parking that is attached totheir property and for any other pedestrian that use this as a thorough to get to the bus stop. Anyentrance or access to the building from Saint Vincents Hill must be eliminated. Not to mention ifthis goes through, a strict ban on any construction vehicles or maintenance driving up the lane.The damages to the lane and to the cottages would be significant. I can barely get a delivery vanto fit up the lane without making a ding or bump to our cars, let alone a lorry or constructionvehicle fitting up there.

This Building is preposterously out of scale, out of character and it is a disrespect to theneighborhood.

I will end as I ended my last objection. This developer owns the site of Carlton House which sitsalongside the cottages, and the state of this building and the surrounding area is pathetic andabysmal. Rubble and debris has been left for an entire year on Saint Vincents Hill since thedeveloper tried to clear the area to see how much room he could make force on the lane for thedevelopment. It has NEVER been cleaned up. The claims in the revised cover letter that £6,000will go into upgrading public footpaths and steps is absolutely not going to happen and I have

ZERO faith that this building would be maintained and taken care of in a way that would beappropriate and expected in a conservation area with grade II listed homes. All you have to do islook at the sorry state of the other properties owned by the develop to prove this.

Please understand that this current proposal is incredibly concerning and unreasonable for thisbeautiful neighborhood.

I outstandingly oppose and I once again implore the councilors to visit the site and to please stopthis horrendous development from taking place.

Audrey

I have previously commented on 21 March and 24 December 2020. My commentsremain broadly on the size and impact of this huge modern development immediately adjacent tolisted cottages in the conservation area where I live. The impact on an already overstrainedinfrastructure is the vast population increase, lack of parking provision and inadequate access.Specifically:

1. Over the area covered by the development site living units rise from 6 to 60 potentially a 900%increase in density. There is a loss of garden (green area). The provision of 30 parking spaces isinadequate given the population numbers. City planners are surely aware of traffic and parkingissues in this area which the development will further aggrivate. The scale is too big in size andheight also population and traffic numbers.

2. Access. There will be pedestrian access from Whiteladies Road and other access from RedlandHill and St Vincents Hill. St Vincents Hill is a single unmettaled track and is a pedestrian right ofway. Traffic includes mothers/ children/ toddlers and prams, access for residents parking andsmall delivery vehicles only.This is not a viable access route as a site visit would clearly demonstrate.

3. This is a tall ugly overbearing development adjacent to listed buildings in a conservation areaand is out of character. A neighbour was denied permission for a third floor extension for reasons

of size and character. This proposal should be declined on the same grounds.

The revised details fail to address the broad issues of Access or Scale.

Further to my objections submitted in December 2020, the revised submission stillproposes structures that are far too high for the site. Their visual impact is misleadinglyrepresented in the visualisations as they use high-angle viewpoints rather than the true andnormal street level views. The visual impact of these proposed blocks is way out of proportion tothe other buildings facing directly on to Whiteladies Road and visible from the Whiteladies Roadand adjacent Conservation areas. Block B's height has been based on the height of the healthcarebuilding, which has not been a successful assimilation into the surrounding area and thereforeshould not be used to set a precedent for future development heights.

As you know, this proposal is located within the Whiteladies Conservation Area but would also bevisible from the neighbouring Clifton and Hotwells Conservation Area and therefore could impacton the setting of that Conservation Area. This development, if it has to go ahead, should seek topreserve and enhance the important characteristics of this conservation area. There are a numberof listed buildings in the vicinity as well as other builds of architectural merit and considerationneeds to be given to how those buildings would be impacted by the imposition of a huge seven-storey development at almost its most elevated point. It would also totally overshadow anddominate not only the neighbouring listed buildings but also the smaller scale buildings withinGrove Road and St Vincent's Hill.

I continue to question the Transport Statement which appears to suggest that construction traffic

and the traffic from the proposed development will utilise the existing access on Redland Hill whichwill take construction traffic through a third party's property in front of The Vincent, betweenresident parking bays that could result in pedestrian and vehicular conflict as well as noise anddisturbance, both during construction and subsequently.

I object to this development in its current form because of its size.If in the event that outline permission is granted, to try to make life for local residents moretolerable, I wish to see the following conditions applied:

Traffic and Noise Management Plan to include:Strict limits of times during which delivery and service vehicles may enter and leave the site.Strict limits on hours and days during which construction and other trades' workers can be on site.A fulltime banksman employed to control and direct all traffic on and off the site through TheVincent's property.Strict controls on the size and weight of vehicles allowed to access the site through the Vincent'sproperty and suitable provision within the development's site boundaries for such vehicles to turn.Regular cleaning of roadways etc to minimise dust.No construction or workers' vehicles to park on The Vincent's property.

During construction there must be:Prompt clean-up of spilled materialsNo on-site burning of materialRegular neighbour consultations to manage information sharingSurrounding residential buildings to have their windows and ledges cleaned regularly duringdemolition and construction phases.

Further, to maintain some of the privacy enjoyed by the residents of The Vincent, I would suggestthat the development does not have balconies facing eastwards to overlook the private gardens ofThe Vincent. That any windows facing on to The Vincent's gardens are fitted with opaque glass.(There are precedents in The Vincent's own development).

I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT I don't know if you have visited this site but over the past four years the old maternity hospital adjoining it ( Vincent House)now has 70 new retirement flats - very few parking spaces have been created, so they will be looking for spaces in Grove Road/Redland Road. I don't know how mobile these people are going to be but wont want to walk too far for parking. Why this development has not to take place is because too many people will be living in a small area. And it will become densely populated with the creation of a hotel and offices Has anyone asked the MP for this area to come and have a look? M Davies

Whilst I welcome a proposal to replace the existing buildings that have been allowed tofall into disrepair, I wish to object to the current proposals on the following grounds.

1. Height of proposed development of Block B. The proposed building heights of Blocks A and Bhave been based on existing heights of commercial buildings fronting Whiteladies Road (seeDesign and Access Statement Part 2) Given that Block B is a residential building and faces StVincents Hill/Grove Road and doesn't at any point front onto Whiteladies Road/Blackboy Hill, theacceptable height should be based on on the height of Harper House, Carlton House and thecottages on St Vincents Hill. As such it should be limited to 3 storeys rather than the 5 currentlyproposed.

2. The proposed development is too high density. Given that the recent development of QueenVictoria House has already increased housing density and pressure on roads and parking in thearea, the current proposal for another 60 units is too many for the site and needs to be reduced.The ratio of parking spaces to residential and commercial premises is also too low.

3. The proposed development will compromise pedestrian safety. The main pedestrian accesspoint from Whiteladies Road into the development consists of a set of narrow extremely steep andirregular public steps that come out straight into the bus stop. These are a public right of way anddo not form part of the development and if the development proceeds without significant

alterations there will be a significant increase in the risk of injury to people waiting for buses aswell as those using the steps. Grove Road is also the main route used by children and parentswalking to and from St Johns Primary School, Bristol Steiner School and Clifton Tots Nursery. Theroad and pavements are extremely narrow in parts so that pedestrians are forced into the road.Parking spaces also had to be removed by the council to reduce the number of lorries and vansthat were forced to mount the pavement in order to get down the road. Without major changes totraffic management and parking in Grove Road, the additional traffic and parking requirementscreated by the development will place increased pressure and risk on what is already an extremelycongested road adding to the risk of potentially serious injury of pedestrians and the increasingnumber of cyclists and scooter users on the road.

Insufficient road infrastructure in an area that already has bad congestion. Thisdevelopment would disrupt local business and residential traffic enormously.

Further to my previous objections dated 18th March 2020 and 15th December, I do notfeel the applicant has done anything to mitigate my concerns in this application. The building is stilltoo high, too close to the boundary fence leaving no room for them to screen the building and theproposed access is through the Vincent private car park causing a danger to elderly residents.

Planning update does not address my issues which concern height of buildings, densityof accommodation and parking. So previous concerns still stand.

Hello I would like to put in an objection to the latest revised plans for the above application. It looks as though the access road to the parking for the new development would go through The Vincent grounds which is totally unacceptable as this is a elderly residential community and will be very dangerous with the increased traffic. Also it seems ridiculous that they would be driving in front of this property. Also I would like to object to the height of the proposed development which is excessive for that area.

RegardsDorothy Bastable

1. Very limited access2. Increased noise pollution3. Increased traffic pollution4. Waste management issues5. Obstruction of view/skyline6. Risk to elderly residents7. Increased stress on local services

RCAS objects to this application on the grounds of overdevelopment. Although revisionshave improved the scheme there are still serious concerns about the impact on near neighboursparticularly in St Vincent's Hill and on distant views and views from Whiteladies Road conservationarea. The new building is not sufficiently subservient to the Vincent which is an important locallandmark.

I submitting an objection to this planning application. The development is extremelylarge, with residential density being too high for this area and not in keeping with the area.The access via through St Vincents Hill/Grove Rd is wholly inadequate and far too narrow. Therewill be an increase in traffic issues which has already increased with the major VincentDevelopment - alot of residents haven't even moved into the Vincent so this will only increase. Theparking facilities are also inadequate and will lead to further congestion and pollution in this area

We strongly object to this development even with the changes the developer hasproposed. All of our previous comments on our last objection still strongly stand. The developmentwill have significant detrimental and disproportionate impact on our property and on us and willcreate a private nuisance.

The development is too high and will impact the lighting and view from and to, our grade 2 listedcottage. The developer has not taken into consideration the access through St Vincent's Hill whichis not large enough for construction worker's vehicles nor regular traffic. I suggest the Councilcase officer comes and views St Vincent's Hill and see this for themselves. There is no wayconstruction vehicles could access St Vincent's Hill without it impacting access to our property.The road up to our property is a narrow single lane, already too narrow for delivery drivers toaccess, (with no separate footpath) and the 'road' outside of our driveway is no wider than afootpath. It is so narrow that the council refuse collection does not come to the top of St Vincent'sHill, we have to take our bins and recycling down to Grove Road.

I would be more than happy to show the Development management at Bristol City Council theconstraints this development would have on us as direct neighbours. We would be unable to get inand out of our driveway and this is the only access into our property either by foot or vehicle,unlike some of our neighbours who have front and back access. Having two young children, wewould not feel safe or happy that we would leave our property and walk straight into a construction

site less than 1m from property, or a busy road thereafter. As our only access to our property isdown St Vincent's Hill, we walk down St Vincent's Hill daily to take our Daughter to Primary Schooland our other Daughter to Nursery, this would be significantly impacted by this development.Grove Road is already narrow and was significantly impacted by the construction of the VincentDevelopment by Contractors parking on double yellow lines and blocking access. I do not see howthis development would be any different. The plans do not show where the construction workerswould access the land to demolish and build this new development. Also how would we beexpected to access our own property as the boundary that they are considering developing is soclose to our property. The turning area at the top of St Vincent's Hill is already very limited andhow they propose this not to impact us, the Neighbours has not been addressed in any of thedocuments submitted. Real focus needs to be taken regarding the impact this is to have on us innumerous ways.

The scale of the project is ridiculous considering this is a conservation area and it borders thegrade 2 listed cottages of St Vincent's Hill. It does not fit in with the character of the surroundingarea. The properties that are being removed are not of the same scale or type of this proposeddevelopment and so how any thought can be given of this proposal being passed is beyond me.The impact on the works will be unbearable for us as we are less than a couple metres from theplanned construction site. We have already gone through the Vincent Development which lasted anumber of years. With the Pandemic we are forced to work from home and to have to live with thenoise and construction would not be possible. Our work places have stated we will need to workfrom home on a permanent basis in the future. It will be impossible to do so with the scale and sizeof the proposed building works/project. The Pandemic has shown that Office space is now readilyavailable as more people work from home, so I would argue that the area does not need 265sqmof flexible office space.

The height of the development is still too great, it is taller than the existing properties (and by asignificant amount) so surely should not be allowed? We were rejected planning on our ownproperty to go into our loft space and increasing our roof height by a minimal amount as it wouldimpact our neighbours and was not in the character of the conservation area. It is thereforeimplausible that this development would be given the go ahead on the basis of the proposed plansor any increase in height at all. The precedent has already been set.

Another consideration that has not been met, is the dust, noise pollution on us as directneighbours. There is no consideration for this in any of the plans. Who is going to clean ourproperty on a daily basis from the dust that will be generated from the demolishment of theoutbuilding and garages which are less than a couple of metres from our and No. 7's property, andless than 1m from our cars; the dust and noise will effect us massively. I suffer from Asthma andthe dust pollution will have a serious impact on my health. We will not be able to open ourwindows for ventilation due to the dust that will be created, as all of our windows directly face theproposed construction site, let alone being able to use our garden. I cannot see how the Garagesoutside of our property or outbuilding outside our property can be demolished or changed without

significant nuisance and impact, as stated above, so the council should not be able to pass thisproposal on this alone. Natalie Queffurus, I would ask you to contact me directly or visit us so I canshow you the direct impact this proposal will have on my family, and our property and number 7 StVincent's Hill, as it is impossible to write all of this and articulate this via written objection. Adiscussion and walk through of the area is required to understand the major impact this will cause.

I commented on this application on 21 March 2020. My areas of concern to thissubstantial development in a concervation area were:1. The increase of living units from 6 to 602. 900% increase in population density3. Traffic volume increase by 900%4. The plans show provision for 30 parking spaces which is absurdly unrealistic5. Office parking: no provision for employees6. Unviable traffic accessvia Grove Road/ St Vincents Hill

None of the revised plans/documents address my concerns. The proposals exceed the availabletraffic/ access infrastructure which I know as a resident is inadequate to serve the currentpopulation. The owner of Elizabeth Blackwell Pooperties owns adjecent property (Carlton House)and the Studio, St Vincents Hill and the poor condition of these properties raises grave concernover the long term maintenance of this current proposal.

My wife and I moved here in august, looking forward to some peace and quiet, so wewere disappointed to learn only recently of all the disruption entailed in this very large buildingproject.We object to the proposed development on the following grounds:1. The buildings would be too bulky, too tall and and out of context2. The surface car parking relating to Queen Victoria House cannot possibly accommodate theextra vehicular traffic the development would generate - cars, delivery vehicles, essential servicesetc3. Currently, several elderly residents rely on mobility aids and this will only increase over time, soadding to the dangers intrinsic in mixed vehicular and pedestrian use4. The Vincent retirement development would lose much of the peaceful atmosphere that hasattracted current and future residents5. We hope the planning authority will take action to insist on the policy requirements pointed outby the Conservation Advisory Panel.6. We cannot see how St Vincent's Lane can be pressed into service in the way envisaged7. There would be a significant impact on the use of our beautiful garden, it's privacy and sunnyenvironment

We ask that this major city proposal be considered by the appropriate planning committee andREJECTED.

In addition to the comments left by my husband, whose views I wholly share, I wish toexpress my deep concern regarding the development as a whole having a very negative impact onthe value of our cottage. We fought hard against competition to purchase our characterful, quiet,grade II listed home within an urban location, looking out onto greenery and paid a premium as aresult. The safety of our young children and ease of parking within an urban location was a keyconsideration for us in paying a premium for the cottage. I am now very concerned regarding bothof these aspects as well as those expressed by my husband. No sooner have we invested our lifesavings in purchasing our dream home, that we are faced with the devastating news of the realpossibility of a construction site on our doorstep which will negatively affect all aspects of our lifeand of course the value of our home - which would have otherwise strongly held its value.

I am not at all happy with any development of such scale taking place.

I strongly object to the scale of this development even with the new revised plans. Theaccess use of Saint Vincent's Lane has not been properly addressed and is of particular concernto me. Considering the deteriorating state of Carlton House and surrounding land, adjacent to thisplanned development and owned by the same family, near neighbours like myself areunderstandably concerned about exactly how the new project will be developed and managed.

Dear Sirs,

Further to our previous objection dated 18th March, having seen the latest submissions regardingthis proposed development, we are objecting as follows:

1. The plans are confusing - the layout seems to imply that the open-land/garden is part of theirproposal, however it should be noted that this garden belongs to the Vincent and there seems tobe some confusion on the developers part as to where the boundary is.

2. The building proposal is still too large and obtrusive and extremely close to the Vincentboundary. If the building was lower and further away from the boundary then there could possiblybe some screening such as mature yew hedging as was done by St Monica's latest developmentin Cote House Lane. This satisfactorily shielded the local private gardens from being overlooked.Perhaps the developers could consider this.

3. The developers and Transport Assessment Document seem not to understand that the accessfrom Redland Hill is through the Vincent Car Park and is NOT an 'unadopted' road. It is used as anaccess for the existing building through the carpark belonging to the Vincent which is a retirementcomplex. There are a number of disabled parking bays and parking areas solely for the use of theVincent and allowing access through this for the proposed 60 apartments and office space would

cause great danger to elderly people who may be using wheelchairs or walking frames. As acarpark there are obviously no pavements and the entrance from the main road gives very littlespace for the additional number of cars which would be likely to use this proposed newdevelopment particularly as this would appear to be the only access to the lift and theirunderground car park.

For the above reasons we would strongly object to this proposed development

Dear Sirs,

Further to our previous objection dated 18th March, having seen the latest submissions regardingthis proposed development, we are objecting as follows:

1. The plans are confusing - the layout seems to imply that the open-land/garden is part of theirproposal, however it should be noted that this garden belongs to the Vincent and there seems tobe some confusion on the developers part as to where the boundary is.

2. The building proposal is still too large and obtrusive and extremely close to the Vincentboundary. If the building was lower and further away from the boundary then there could possiblybe some screening such as mature yew hedging as was done by St Monica's latest developmentin Cote House Lane. This satisfactorily shielded the local private gardens from being overlooked.Perhaps the developers could consider this.

3. The developers and Transport Assessment Document seem not to understand that the accessfrom Redland Hill is through the Vincent Car Park and is NOT an 'unadopted' road. It is used as anaccess for the existing building through the carpark belonging to the Vincent which is a retirementcomplex. There are a number of disabled parking bays and parking areas solely for the use of theVincent and allowing access through this for the proposed 60 apartments and office space would

cause great danger to elderly people who may be using wheelchairs or walking frames. As acarpark there are obviously no pavements and the entrance from the main road gives very littlespace for the additional number of cars which would be likely to use this proposed newdevelopment particularly as this would appear to be the only access to the lift and theirunderground car park.

For the above reasons we would strongly object to this proposed development

Further to the email below, we email to provide further comments on behalf of Asda Stores Limited. We note an updated noise report has been undertaken by WYG. The report now considers 24 hour use of the Asda petrol station and specifies increased mitigation in the form of enhanced glazing specification on the affected facades.Whilst we recognise the inclusion of the Asda petrol station in the report, we have strong concerns relating to ventilation. The WYG report indicates noise levels from night time tanker deliveries of up to 75 dB LAFmax at the facade of the proposed dwellings. This would be sufficient to be cause sleep disturbance at night, should residents need their windows open. Suitable alternative ventilation is therefore a key requirement for this noise climate, to allow residents to sleep with windows closed.The report makes a very brief comment regarding alternative ventilation and recommends acoustic trickle vents or other passive ventilation system. Approved Document F is very clear, the minimum background ventilation rates provided by trickle vents are not sufficient for cooling purposes - other ventilation, typically open windows, is required in warm weather. As the noise mitigation proposed by WYG relies on closed windows, a far more robust ventilation strategy is essential, such as a whole house attenuated mechanical ventilation scheme.Asda would not accept noise abatement action as a result of noise complaints from the new development, for activity highlighted to the Local Authority at the time of the application. We therefore believe further evaluation and conditions must be placed on acoustic and ventilation design as a whole, if the Local Authority are minded to approve

the application. We would be grateful if you could confirm receipt of this representation.

Kind Regards

Katherine

The revised plans still do not acknowledge the vehicle access off Redland Hill. Therequest by the Local Authority to provide a clear site plan to show the access still only indicatespedestrian/cycle access via a perimeter footpath through the property owned by PegasusLife. Theonly vehicle access it shows is for the refuse collection vehicle.

Neither the Transport Assessment Document nor other documents acknowledge that the accessfrom Redland Road is via an access easement through LifeStory's car park/forecourt. It iserroneous to describe the access as an un-adopted road (as described in the Local Authority'sTDM document). It is the forecourt of The Vincent accommodating a car park leased to the elderly,assisted-living residents who live there.

The Transport Assessment is based on data collected in 2019 and does not take into account theeffects of the now operational Vincent development that has 64 apartments and a public accessrestaurant. (The latter creates increased pedestrian activity through the forecourt.

Objection, therefore, is on the grounds that:

The access is unsuited to such a large additional development providing both commercial andprivate vehicle passage. Visibility of and for vehicles exiting the proposed development negotiatinga route around the side of Queen Victoria House is restricted and potentially dangerous for

pedestrians and drivers manoeuvring within the car park/ forecourt of The Vincent.

I should also like to draw attention to the drawings that include areas of The Vincent developmentas if they are within the Elizabeth Blackwell Property's ownership. They do not state that they onlyhave access across the third party's site. They also give the impression that The Vincent's privateenclosed garden is part of their amenities. This gives a totally erroneous impression of theproportion of buildings to open space within the proposed development.

I completely object to this very significant development, despite the fact that the heightof parts of it have been lowered. I'm afraid,at this juncture, just before Christmas I haven't the capacity to examine every detail. However, it'sdesperately upsetting to thinkthat 1 - 4 Home Gardens, Redland will be demolished, they sit as a very welcome different type ofbuilding here on Blackboy Hill.The loss of 5 trees doesn't even bear thinking about, in this densely traffic-orientated, fume-filledthoroughfare. (Obviously,prior to Lockdown). The dust that the undertakings of this development will generate is a greatconcern, particularly as thereis a children's nursery nearby. My understanding is that part of this development is to provideoffice space, however, therehas been signage up of upwards of a year or more, along Blackboy Hill, Whiteladies Road of officespace "To Let".

Even though, the proposed flats are to be along the lines of encouraging young professionalpeople to walk or cycle into theCity Centre, online delivery services are an ever- increasingly popular method of modern day life,the volume anddensity of traffic in this immediate vicinity, is more than enough, as it currently stands. The carbon

emissions andexhaust fumes generated, coupled with the felling of 5 trees ( bushes and biodiversity havealready beenfelled) caused by this development don't even bear thinking about. Prior to Lockdown, I wasexperiencing asthmashopping on Blackboy Hill/Whiteladies Road, notwithstanding this substantial planning application.

I object to this development.

I still completely object to the planning plans and development. Although the reducedheight is a welcome change, Part B does not address the imposing depth onto the Saint VincentsHill cottages of no 7 and 9. We are also incredibly concerned about the access coming up SaintVincent Hill Lane which seems to have not been addressed. And we are also very disappointingand object to the lack of discussion around the removal of trees in Part B of the plans.

We completely and vehemently object, and considering the developer has let his other propertyCarlton House go to shambles with have no faith or hope that care will be taken to the newproperty and in effect the surrounding area of our property.

I completely object to the development even with the new revised plans. The revisedplans do not address the impact of Part B's removal of trees and plants in an appropriate manner.I don't feel that the access use of Saint Vincents Lane has been properly addressed. The imposingbuilding plans will be disastrous for up keeping the status of the conservation area. And the noisepollution around the area, especially following the development of the just finished 'The Vincent', isvery upsetting and not welcome.

OBJECT.

I completely object to the development even with the new revised plans. The revisedplans do not address the impact of Part B's removal of trees and plants in an appropriate manner.I don't feel that the access use of Saint Vincents Lane has been properly addressed. The imposingbuilding plans will be disastrous for up keeping the status of the conservation area. And the noisepollution around the area, especially following the development of the just finished 'The Vincent', isvery upsetting and not welcome.

OBJECT.

The Panel welcomes the fact that Block A now addresses Blackboy Hill and Block B hasbeen reduced in height and extent but further clarification is required on the impact on the trees. Itis considered the proposal should respond better with the requirement of the Urban Living SPD asmany flats would be single aspect.

There is an opportunity to revisit the value of these smaller scale semi industrial buildings andcoach houses in the street scene. These provide breathing space within streets and their loss willhave an adverse impact on the character of the conservation area.

I trust that the steps at the side of the office building fronting Blackboy Hill will remain

Comments on application for planning permission - N0. 20/00542/P

This application makes us very concerned about access, parking and the increased volume oftraffic which would be using the entrance/exit and driveway to Queen Victoria House, CharlotteHouse and Jacob House. The group name for all three buildings is "The Vincent".The initial part of the driveway has parking for the cars of residents, who are 60+ years, and thereare disabled bays. This main entrance area also has space for access by visitors, deliveries to therestaurant and to some of the occupants of the three main Houses which make up The Vincent.The driveway to the proposed new development would pass through this Queen Victoria Housecar park which will also be used by some residents using buggies or walking aids. This seems tous to be a recipe for accidents. The driveway is not wide and does not have good visibility. Thereis a major pedestrian entrance/exit from Queen Victoria House onto a narrow part of the driveway.The Vincent is fully built but not yet entirely occupied. We are optimistic that when fully occupiedby residents living in Queen Victoria House, Charlotte House and Jacob House the driveway willbe quite busy. To add usage by residents of 60 more units, plus office workers and their clients isjust asking for trouble and considerable congestion on Redland Hill Road. It is turning thisdriveway into a roadway, which should not pass through a car park used by elderly people toaccess their homes and cars safely.

SIGNED: SIGNED:

07/06/2020

Comments on application for planning permission - N0. 20/00542/P

This application makes us very concerned about access, parking and the increased volume oftraffic which would be using the entrance/exit and driveway to Queen Victoria House, CharlotteHouse and Jacob House. The group name for all three buildings is "The Vincent".The initial part of the driveway has parking for the cars of residents, who are 60+ years, and thereare disabled bays. This main entrance area also has space for access by visitors, deliveries to therestaurant and to some of the occupants of the three main Houses which make up The Vincent.The driveway to the proposed new development would pass through this Queen Victoria Housecar park which will also be used by some residents using buggies or walking aids. This seems tous to be a recipe for accidents. The driveway is not wide and does not have good visibility. Thereis a major pedestrian entrance/exit from Queen Victoria House onto a narrow part of the driveway.The Vincent is fully built but not yet entirely occupied. We are optimistic that when fully occupiedby residents living in Queen Victoria House, Charlotte House and Jacob House the driveway willbe quite busy. To add usage by residents of 60 more units, plus office workers and their clients isjust asking for trouble and considerable congestion on Redland Hill Road. It is turning thisdriveway into a roadway, which should not pass through a car park used by elderly people toaccess their homes and cars safely.

SIGNED: SIGNED:

Peter Bray Patricia Bray

17/06/2020

I fully support the objections of my neighbors at number 5,7, and 9 St Vincents Hill.

I are very concerned about the accessibility and usage of the Saint Vincent's Hill lane, which atpresent, barely even fits one car and is also used by pedestrians. They enormous amount of trafficthat this development will cause is horrendous. And I, along with my neighbors on Saint VincentHill, would ask the developer to at the consider painting and updating the near derelict buildingthat he owns, Carlton House. It is an eyesore and considering he is choosing to already destroythe trees and wildlife in the area due to this development, the very least he could do is take care ofthe buildings he already owns that are in use.

I fully object to this development.

Diana

At further inspection of the development, I have discovered that the developer haschosen not to include a property he already owns within close proximity to the proposeddewopment site. This property is Carlton House. Carlton House is in a run down state and is anabsolute eye sore in the neighborhood. The maintenance of the building is in poor shape and thebins and upkeep of the grounds in continual disarray.

I request, at the VERY LEAST, the developer make efforts into the upkeep of buildings andproperty that he already owns if he is going to bombard the peace and quiet of this neighborhoodwith that monstrosity of a building. Carlton House needs painting, Katie eve and grounds upkeep.The destruction of the trees and birds nests of Saint Vincent's Lane that runs alongside CarltonHouse is further evidence for the negligence and lack of care that the developer has for thisneighborhood. I am grossly disappointed and ask the developer to at the very least tidy up CarltonHouse and take care of the property you already own!

With my continual objection to this development,Audrey

I support the intention to develop this site for residential purposes, but not to a height ofsix storeys, as it would dominate and overshadow nearby low level residences. (The existing'Simply Health' office building, which is itself too high, should not be used as justification forbuilding to six storeys).I also suggest that the existing block of flats (Carlton House?), which I understand is in the sameownership, should be significantly upgraded externally to reflect the aesthetic quality ofneighbouring buildings. It is currently an eyesore.

My objection to this planning application centres on traffic and parking issues for GroveRoad. My husband is paraplegic and therefore wheelchair dependent. Bristol City Council havekindly allowed us a disabled parking bay (situated outside 15 Grove Road). Though we cannotclaim this space for sole use, our neighbours kindly respect our needs. Most of the time the spaceis vacant for us at least at night. These plans show an increase in living units from 6 to 60 but only30 parking spaces appear to be provided. This is the usual problem with development in our areaand the main reason why parking for residents is such a nightmare. I made a similar objection withThe Vincent development and there they have removed the right to apply for street parkingpermits. Hardly a solution but it was an acknowledgement of the problem. This application in itspresent form simply reinforces the parking issues of the area.

I regularly walk along St Vincent's Hill ......a lovely wildlife haven in midst of traffic. OnWednesday May 27 at least 10 small trees shrubs including large elderflower and beautiful lilacwere all hacked down by the workers who are employed by this developer( known as Dezzy?) It is likely that nesting birds were disturbed.I find this outrageous. Does he have the right to do this?I fear for his planning proposal ....to remove 5 trees....suggest immediate TPO s

As a resident of St Vincent's Hill, I vehemently object to this proposal. This potential900% increase in population density which doesn't include the nearly completed adjacent projectat The Vincent. This will bring substantial increase in traffic volumes. My objections are first andforemost - Inadequate Parking Provision. The Transport Assessment figures give a calculation ofparking requirements for 1,2 and 3 bedroom units. Using their figures there should be 66.5spaces. The plans show provision for 30 spaces. Second - Office Parking. The 265sq m of officeaccommodation fronting onto Blackboy Hill shows visitor parking (unspecified number) accessedadjacent to the bus stop but no provision for those working there. Third - Planning & HousingStatement, 2.2.3 states vehicular access will be via Redland Hill and St Vincent's Hill. St Vincent'sHill is a single lane and is regularly congested at the Grove Road junction serving the currentresidents. Frequently this junction even blocks the access to the lane of St Vincents Hill. Vehicleaccess via St Vincent's Hill is not viable. It will be thoroughly unsafe for the residents..

Also, the final height of the proposed building is preposterous and would have considerableintrusive impact on the whole area with many listed buildings including my own home. I sincerelyask you to refer to the Historic Englands important and integral advice suggesting that thisproposal would be detrimental to this conservation area.

This development would be disastrous to the value of my home, to my livelihood, and to thecharacter of this small and peaceful residential area. Not to mention how it would add to the

already deteriorating charm and historical appeal of Whiteladies road.

Lastly and very importantly, I will fall out not grant permission to the applicant to access our sharedarea, including my private parking area, in pursuing his proposed plan. I paid a premium for myhome which included the private off street parking for 2 cars, and this will be severely impactedbecause of workers using the drive. I, along with my neighbors at number 9, have a right to thisarea.

I ask with consideration to so many residents in the area who care about preserving this land, thatthis application be rejected.

RCAS supports the statement made by the Bristol Civic Society thus:The Society supports redevelopment of this low-density site but has concerns abouttheconsequences of the density of redevelopment upon the amenities that this site would offer toitsfuture residents. The Society has noted the conversations with planning officers aboutoverlookingneighbouring properties. This response is written on the basis that this proposalovercomes the overlooking problem.DemolitionThe existing buildings have a pleasant inter-war design suitable for their context. However, theSociety accepts that the increased density of the site would outweigh the retention of the currentbuildings.Change of use The only change of use would be the introduction of a modest office development,which the Society supports.Height and massThe Society supports the Council policy to increase land use density in the centre of the city. Thesite is approximately 0.3125 ha of brownfield land. The proposed density for the scheme is192dph.The optimum density for this area of Bristol proposed by Urban Living Special Planning Document- making successful places at higher densities is 120dph. While the SPD does not set a maximumresidential density threshold this is a high density for this location and would suggest that thedensity is too high for the context of the area. A design-led approach faces serious challengesmanaging this level of density. There are always questions about the quality of the amenities

offered to the future residents. The floor plans show single aspect flats that lack cross ventilation.Design and materials The Society welcomes the design proposals. The broken outline of the roofsmakes a welcome change from the flat roofs offered in many flat developments. We also supportthe opportunity to enhance the permeability of the site with more public and private open space.Subject to sample,we support the use of the proposed construction materialRCAS also asks that the application if granted does not threaten the operation of the existingASDA garage business on Whiteladies Road because of possible noise complaints by futureresidents.RCAS supports Cllr Denyer's proposal that a section 106 contribution is sought to ensure that thefootpath which runs above the garage retaining wall and connects the site to Whiteladies Roadand St VincentsHill/Grove Road is maintained as a safe and secure access.

This massive, multi-floor development would be completely out of character with thelocal environment. There would be inadequate vehicular access and parking provided in analready overcrowded setting.Parts of the site have been neglected and allowed to deteriorate. So it could be developed withtwo-story houses, provided with lock-up garages and gardensPlease reject this Application.

The Panel agrees the principle of re-development of this site and accepts the loss of theexisting buildings after recording. However the density of 192DPH is greater that the 120DPH setout in the SPD Urban Living. It is essential that the character of St Vincent's Hill and the rubblestone walls is not harmed.

The scale and massing with pitched roofs is successful but the majority of flats are single aspect,some north facing, which is not in accordance with the SPD.

The submitted landscape proposals are very sketchy for a development of this size and sensitivelocation. There is some confusion in the arboricultural statement over the referencing of T06 andT07, and group T08 does not seem to be shown on the plan. The executive summary mentions 4trees to be removed, but the body of the text states 5 (perhaps this includes the off-site ash T07). It is not clear if the 13 replacement trees proposed could be accommodated within the scheme.

I strongly object to this development.

The volume on traffic on Whiteladies Road in normal circumstances, especially at the trafficlights/roundaboutOn Blackboy Hill/Asda petrol station, very close to this proposed development is quite frankly,currently,indescribably significant.

I note there has been an Air Quality Assessment but in reality it doesn't even bear thinking abouthow muchExtra traffic and coming and going of construction vehicles this will generate. 65 flats and offices,all theirvisitors who will pull up in cars, constant delivery vehicles from Amazon or Ocado or whereverwhen thisdevelopment is completed, it doesn't even bear thinking about.

I am a lifelong pedestrian but it stands to reasons that my health and well-being is beingcompromisedby the relentless volume of traffic. Quite frequently, nearly all of the time, I can be on Blackboy Hiiand just

see a sea of stationary traffic the entire length of Whiteladies Road, that stop, start and 'pull-away'emittingExhaust fumes relentlessly. Please note the dangerous invisiblle particles that lodge deep in thetissue andlining of the lungs and bloodstream.

It is my belief that residents around and in St Vincent.s Hill have young children.

Although it has been mentioned that the dwellers of the flats will be encouraged to walk and cycleintoThe Centre, in reality I believe this isn't necessarily what ultimately happens.

On the grounds of over-intensification ofdevelopment and the vast and overwhelming volume oftraffic already on Blackboy Hill and traffic that 'comes in' from Stoke Hill, Upper Belgrave Road andso on, I strongly object to this application in this Conservation Area.

Councillor referral form 30/07/18

3. Please ensure that vehicle access via Redland Hill is safe for elderly residents

of St Vincents.

4. There is a pedestrian footpath running along the south edge of the site (from St Vincents Hill to Whiteladies Road, round the back of the petrol station). This path and the broken lamppost on it have been an ongoing source of casework, as the ownership status of the lane is unclear so no person or organisation currently has responsibility for maintaining it, and it has become unsafe. I have been unsuccessful in persuading BCC to take it on. Some nearby residents undertake pruning of undergrowth occasionally out of goodwill, as has the owner of the application site. But with 60+ new residents the path will be used much more often, so there is a strong argument for either requiring an S106 payment to the Council to improve and maintain it, or condition that responsibility upon the landowner. Please add a condition to this effect.

5. Can the height of the development be reduced slightly? The last plans I saw

via the community involvement meetings and emails in 2018 had the tallest part of the development slightly shorter than St Vincents, but this application has it slightly taller.

If these concerns are able to be addressed to my satisfaction by negotiation between the applicant and officer then I will withdraw my referral to committee. By requesting to refer this application I understand that I am expected to submit a further statement* as part of the Public Forum section of the relevant Committee meeting and attend the Committee meeting. *Public Forum statements have to be with Democratic Services by Noon on the day before the Committee meeting.

Councillor referral form 30/07/18

Notes:

1. The application that you are referring, must relate to a site within your ward.

An exception to this relates to single member wards where referrals will be

accepted from members from neighbouring wards when the ward member is

not available.

2. The referral request must be received by Development Management no later

than 7 days after the end of the published consultation period. This is shown

for each application in Planning Online – see Important Dates tab. While there

may be a number of different dates listed here, the date that applies will be

the latest of the Expiry Dates for the neighbour and standard consultation,

advertisement and site notice. This applies to the first round of consultation

and does not include any re-consultation period.

3. You can only refer an application to a Development Control Committee for

planning reasons i.e. not for reasons such as loss of view, effect on property

values, private rights, boundary disputes, or construction noise. It is not

intended that a request from a constituent is simply “passed on” but that you

are supporting the views expressed in this referral, and will attend the

committee meeting.

4. The referred application will be considered by the next available committee

meeting in order to assist us in determining planning applications in

accordance with Government performance targets. Therefore, it could be

considered by either of the DC committees.

5. Early contact with the case officer is recommended in order to establish the

reasons for any potential referral and to explore potential solutions to the

situation.

There's a desperate need for more accommodation in the area. People being able tolive within walking distance of their work so they don't need to drive into town and park around theedge of the residents zones........or live in camper vans on the downs!Additionally, people living here rather than just commuting in for work will be welcome support tothe independent shops, restaurants and businesses of Whiteladies road.

This planning application seems to me to support a very well thought out redevelopmentplan to utilise the space available around Whiteladies road. As a nearby resident i support thisproposal, and think it is a just plan to help improve the prosperity of the neighbourhood. I think itwill provide much needed accommodation for the ever increasing amount of young professionalsin the area, which will benefit the city as well as local businesses on Whiteladies.

HI I support this application , it seems sustainable and environmental friendlydevelopment seems to have high energy efficientlyI think it will improve Whiteladies road by filling in the blank façade currently presentProvides much needed accommodation for young professionals rather than StudentaccommodationGreat public transport routes to city centrePlenty of cycling provisionNeighbouring properties seems a fair distance away

Mr C Hill BS6

A sustainable and environmental friendly development, which will provide much neededaccomodation for young professionals.

I am in support of this application for the following reasons:

1. It will provide much needed housing. Housing is a clear issue in Bristol and the country as awhole and it is good to see a good number (not a huge number though) of well sized flats detailedhere. It is also good to see the housing is for professionals rather than students and that aproportion will be affordable.

2. Efficiency: the housing appears to be energy efficient

3. Transport: there is large cycling provision provided here as opposed to vehicle provision. This isexcellent and will hopefully reduce the number of cars associated with the building. In addition thelocation of the building is very close to bus routes which would similarly encourage occupants tonot have cars.

We strongly object to this application for a number of reasons:This is happening outside our front door with no thoughts from the applicant being made to theirneighbours. The works are scheduled to last for a long period time and we have two very youngchildren under the age of four yrs old who sleep during the day and will be distressed with thebuilding works being carried out outside our front door. The noise pollution we will not put up with.

We have already had to put up with the St Vincents development which has taken years to buildwith the constant building noise and contractors parking their vehicles all over Grove Road andeven blocking our access to St Vincents Hill on a daily basis. This development has (and stilldoes) cause a great deal of disturbance. But this is now happening on our doorstep rather thancirca 20 metres away. I do not see how this project will be any different and from our prospectiveeven worse as it is too close to our property.

St Vincent's Hill is a very narrow lane and does not have the capacity for building vehicles andskips to travel up and down it. We are very concerned about the debris which will occur from theproperties being torn down. I am an Asthmatic and my two young children will be restricted fromleaving the house to play in are garden as a result of the works for an unacceptable period of time,let alone huge dust concerns for our property and vehicles.Grove Road already has a lot of traffic on it and car parking is difficult hence cars are constantlyblocking access to St Vincent's Hill on a regular basis and this will only add to the problem. All the

flats in the proposed development do not have parking so they will end up parking in the closeststreets.

Whiteladies rd and the vicinity is a conservation area and building these flats will ruin its currentcharacter (which quite frankly has already deteriorated to a low level with permissions alreadygranted).

Also the height and size of building proposed is ridiculous. None of the current buildings in thearea are the height currently been proposed and this will block sunlight coming into our gardenand property as well as our garden and house being heavily overlooked by flat owners, workersetc, which is not the case at present. So absolutely object to the size, scale and layout of theapplication. There is also an increased security risk for our property and children if thisdevelopment is allowed. In fact at present we are praised by visitors as to how quiet and beautifulour home currently is, given its close proximity to the main road. I suspect this is why our homehas maintained a listed classification.

The previous owners of our property applied for planning permission for a loft conversion byincreasing the height of the roof by a few metres but this was rejected by the Council as not beingin character of the conservation area and effecting the neighbours. As a result there should be noway that this proposed development can be passed as this contradicts the previous application -the size and scale of this project is enormous in comparison!

We bought our home two years ago and paid a premium for the character, location and beauty ofthe property and surrounding area. This development will significantly reduce the value of ourproperty if it goes ahead, whilst the applicant is allowed to make a significant profit at our expense.The entire project is a profitable venture. All the buildings proposed to be demolished are alreadymaking a profit as they are being rented. We cannot and simply will not step back if the applicantis supported by the Council to be somewhat greedy.

We will not grant permission to the applicant to access our property/shared areas in pursuing theproposed plans. Our Driveway to our property will be severely impacted by the works and becauseof the close proximity to St Vincent's Hill to our drive way and the current garages it is impossiblefor it not to effect us. For the avoidance of doubt, regardless of what happens to the garages - it isabsolutely vital that the area immediately in front of the garages (but before the footpath) are keptclear to allow our vehicles to access /turn into our car parking spaces. We have a right of wayacross this area.

From speaking to one of the designers at the public consultation - he mentioned that the applicantowned all the land and properties and was only going to let the new properties and not selling any,so I am perplexed to read on the application that there will be 20% affordable housing?

As a shopkeeper on Whiteladies Road, I welcome the fresh new design proposed andthink the development will breathe much welcome new life into the area. I understand the housingwill attract professionals who will utilise the facilities at the top of Blackboy Hill.

As a resident of St Vincent's Hill I live adjacent to this proposed site in a conservationarea. The proposal increases the living units from 6 to 60. This probable 900% increase inpopulation density (on top of the 65 soon to be completed apartments at The Vincent) will bringwith it substantial increase in traffic volumes. My objections are:

1. Inadequate Parking Provision. The Transport Assessment figures give a calculation of parkingrequirements for 1,2 and 3 bedroom units. Using their figures there should be 66.5 spaces. Theplans show provision for 30 spaces.

2. Office Parking. The 265sq m of office accommodation fronting onto Blackboy Hill shows visitorparking (unspecified number) accessed adjacent to the bus stop but no provision for those workingthere.

3. Planning & Housing Statement. At para 2.2.3 it states vehicular access will be via Redland Hilland St Vincent's Hill. St Vincent's Hill is a single track and is regularly congested at the GroveRoad junction serving the current residents. Vehicle access via St Vincent's Hill is not viable.

I have focused on traffic issues as this is already contentious with very limited parking spacesagainst high demand. At a minimum I would suggest that access and vehicle parking are revisitedto ensure sensible and adequate provision. This is not the case on the current proposal.

I have no objection to the principle of this development, PROVIDING the followingconcerns are addressed:

1. This development meets the current 20% CO2 reduction policy in the local plan, but given thenew local plan which will be adopted soon requires 100% (as does our citywide 2030 carbonneutral target), shouldn't the emerging local plan policy be given some weight here, to get a higherpercentage carbon reduction?

2. Does the 'agent of change' principle apply here, re. new residential flats next to a 24hr petrolstation with overnight tanker deliveries? See comment from Asda for more detail.

3. Please ensure that vehicle access via Redland Hill is safe for elderly residents of St Vincents.

4. There is a pedestrian footpath running along the south edge of the site (from St Vincents Hill toWhiteladies Road, round the back of the petrol station). This path and the broken lamppost on ithave been an ongoing source of casework, as the ownership status of the lane is unclear so noperson or organisation currently has responsibility for maintaining it. I have been unsuccessful inpersuading BCC to take it on. Some nearby residents do it occasionally out of goodwill, as has theowner of the application site. But with 60+ new residents the path will be used much more often,so there is a strong argument for either requiring an S106 payment to the Council to improve and

maintain it, or condition that responsibility upon the landowner. Please add this condition.

5. Can the height be reduced a bit? The last plans I saw via the community involvement meetingsand emails in 2018 had the tallest part of the development slightly shorter than St Vincents, butthis application has it slightly taller.

The Society's response to planning enquiry - 20/00542/P - Land at Home Gardens Redland Hill

1 The proposalElizabeth Blackwell Properties (the Developer) seek planning advice upon the feasibility ofredeveloping their site at Land At Home Gardens Redland Hill to demolish existing buildings (1-4Home Gardens, 1-2 The Bungalows and the erection of two new buildings to provide up to 60residential units (including 20% affordable housing) and up to 265sqm of flexible office space toWhiteladies Road frontage

2 SummaryThe Society supports redevelopment of this low-density site but has concerns about theconsequences of the density of redevelopment upon the amenities that this site would offer to itsfuture residents. The Society has noted the conversations with planning officers about overlookingneighbouring properties. This response is written on the basis that this proposal overcomes theoverlooking the problem.

3 Demolition

The existing buildings have a pleasant inter-war design suitable for their context. However, theSociety accepts that the increased density of the site would outweigh the retention of the currentbuildings.

4 Change of useThe only change of use would be the introduction of a modest office development, which theSociety supports.

5 Height and massThe Society supports the Council policy to increase land use density in the centre of the city. Thesite is approximately 0.3125 ha of brownfield land. The proposed density for the scheme is192dph. The optimum density of for this area of Bristol proposed by Urban Living Special PlanningDocument - making successful places at higher densities is 120dph. While the SPD does not set amaximum residential density threshold this is a high density for this location and would suggestthat the density is too high for the context of the area. A design-led approach faces seriouschallenges managing this level of density. There are always questions about the quality of theamenities offered to the future residents. The floor plans show single aspect flats that lack crossventilation.

6 Design and materialsThe Society welcomes the design proposals. The broken outline of the roofs makes a welcomechange from the flat roofs offered in many flat developments. We also support the opportunity toenhance the permeability of the site with more public and private open space. Subject to sample,we support the use of the proposed construction materials.

Re the above application for outline planning permission we would comment as follows:1. We would like to state that there have been no leaflets advertising this application until onetoday (18th March) anywhere in the vicinity and although it states that 65 apartments at theVincent have been notified, only 7 are occupied at the present time in the new build and VincentHouse is not occupied yet so no letters can have been sent there.2. We have looked at the artists impression plans and proposed 3D view and it is not clear whatthe final height of the 7 storey building will be , but we feel it would have considerable impact onthe whole area including neighbouring buildings such as Harper House and also the part listedQueen Victoria House. While the impression given is that it would not be much higher than theQueen Victoria House, there is a great difference on the appearance of this - Queen VictoriaHouse is a magnificent period building which is being sympathetically restored. The outline of theproposed new building is crammed onto a small site and is being built right up to the boundarywith the Vincent land leaving no provision for screening.3. The only access is through the Vincent access. This is a narrow access lane which will haveparking for Vincent residents on both sides once building has finished. We do not see that therecan be safe access for residents of the Vincent which can supply extra care facilities, particularlyfor wheelchair users with the only access from this lane. If this proposal is allowed there would beadditional cars for 65 flats and offices, also visitors accessing this development, deliveries etconce the site is finished putting residents of the Vincent at considerable risk as the lane is toonarrow for pavements. Also there would be considerable danger from the contractors using this

sole access.4. We note that Bristol Waste have stated that they cannot collectwaste unless the road is adopted which we understands not the case.For all these reasons we would asked that this application be rejected.

Re the above application for outline planning permission we would comment as follows:1. We would like to state that there have been no leaflets advertising this application until onetoday (18th March) anywhere in the vicinity and although it states that 65 apartments at theVincent have been notified, only 7 are occupied at the present time in the new build and VincentHouse is not occupied yet so no letters can have been sent there.2. We have looked at the artists impression plans and proposed 3D view and it is not clear whatthe final height of the 7 storey building will be , but we feel it would have considerable impact onthe whole area including neighbouring buildings such as Harper House and also the part listedQueen Victoria House. While the impression given is that it would not be much higher than theQueen Victoria House, there is a great difference on the appearance of this - Queen VictoriaHouse is a magnificent period building which is being sympathetically restored. The outline of theproposed new building is crammed onto a small site and is being built right up to the boundarywith the Vincent land leaving no provision for screening.3. The only access is through the Vincent access. This is a narrow access lane which will haveparking for Vincent residents on both sides once building has finished. We do not see that therecan be safe access for residents of the Vincent which can supply extra care facilities, particularlyfor wheelchair users with the only access from this lane. If this proposal is allowed there would beadditional cars for 65 flats and offices, also visitors accessing this development, deliveries etconce the site is finished putting residents of the Vincent at considerable risk as the lane is toonarrow for pavements. Also there would be considerable danger from the contractors using this

sole access.4. We note that Bristol Waste have stated that they cannot collectwaste unless the road is adopted which we understands not the case.For all these reasons we would asked that this application be rejected.

1. The very high buildings would block the view from The Vincent and other localdwellings.2. The increased traffic would be dangerous for elderly local residents walking and usingwheelchairs in the area.3. There would be little or no access by road and car-parking would be an issue.4. There is no designated road, so Bristol Waste and other agencies would have no access.5. There would be a substantial increase in traffic congestion.6. The potential noise pollution is considerable.7. The air pollution on Whiteladies Road is already bad.8. There is a general lack of local infrastructure.9. The local services are already insufficient for the population.10. The proposed development is incongruous with the Redland landscape, in all senses of thatword.

Close neighbors at 7 Saint Vincents Hill and 27A Grove Road. We feel that it isabsolutely unnecessary to have more disruptive building work in the area, but more so, we do notthink that 65+ properties are needed addition to the area and we do not support this application.We are extremely concerned about car traffic because of this proposal, and it will cause unduenoise pollution.

Thank you for the notification. The redevelopment of this site with a bold and excitingdesign is a welcomed addition.

us updated with the Environmental Health Officer's consultation response as they will presumably have the same concerns as Asda and will be looking to reduce the potential for future noise complaints.Yours sincerelyKatherine Sneeden