Hi please could the developers stop, pause or postpone whatever cutting down thehedgerow along the bus route? Its established, been there for 5 years, and the reason being babyhedgehogs are born September and October and I know they live in there as i've seen hedgehogsdown there. Currently its being flattened with a heavy duty flail mower, they've started cutting itback completely, about 10%-20% so far. Google baby hedgehogs and then acknowledge whatyou're currently killing please, would be nice if you could avoid doing that.

We are looking to move into Paxton drive in August but we are now being put off due tothe new boiling that might happen. We chose to live in Paxton drive as first time buyers as thearea was lively and quiet, we had a nice garden so we didnt hear the fly over road and you couldalso get some evening sun.

This new building will effect all of that and also the propels living on the 3rd, 4th and city floorbecause now all they will see is the new flats!

All the wildlife will go, all the plants will go, everyone will leave the allotments that they've workedso hard for.

It will ruin the area around it and will cause more chaos.

I think it is essential to design this development around a wide cycle and pedestrianroute. Festival Way is a well used route from Hotwells to the Ashton Court Estate. The path iscurrently too narrow. Widen the path then build the houses.

Councillor Donald Alexander, I have only today read the Planning Officers report to committee for this development. Before this application goes to committee the committee should be aware that in the report it is stated that.

"Of the units, 12% will be fully wheelchair accessible, (PartM4(3) of Bregs), this is in excess of the 2% that would be required by DM4 and to be welcome."

While DM4 does suggest only a small proportion of new built dwellings need to be wheel chair accessible, the statutory requirement under the Building Regulations is that all new built dwellings need to comply with Part M Volume 1. Access and Use of Dwellings.

The local planning policy DM4 does not take precedence over a statutory requirement, if the committee were to grant this scheme, which as stated does not intend to provide legally compliant buildings consent they would be in breach.

Regards Robert Griffin

The latest version is an improvement on what was a completely unacceptable schemeof excessive height for this location. However it still falls well below the standard that should beaccepted for a very visible site in an area of outstanding importance. The only solution is tochange design team who have clearly been struggling with both place making and architecture!

I wish to object to the proposals as they still fall far short of the standards for thisimportant location and fully support all of the reasons for objection made by others.

My particular concerns are flood risk, my previous objection in the original application goes intothis in far more detail.

Safety of Road users, including cyclists and pedestrians. Road network has not been very wellthought out at all.

Over development

An important location which should enhance the entrance into Bristol with the landmarks (CliftonSuspension Bridge, Harbourside, Ashton Court and numerous of other important historic buildings)that are so important. This would only serve to detract from them.

Loss of Privacy by overbearing, overly close units.

Option to build a nice green environment with low level buildings. Obviously profitability for thedevelopers will not encourage this.

Lack of parking. Bristol may be aiming to become a Green City, but the reality is that people willstill have cars specifically electric one's in the future that this development does not appear to

have addressed adequately.

I would request that a far better design should be put forward that will offer the standard of designthat this area deserves.

Due to Covid restrictions, Paxton Drive Residents have still not had the opportunity tomeet as a group to discuss the implications of the proposed development.

It was distressing to see that a large part of the site was ruthlessly treated with powerful chemicalweed-killer a year or so ago which destroyed not just weeds but a whole ecological habitat. Thissurely should not have happened before the application had been considered.

It has been very interesting to read the report detailing comments on plans for developing the siteknown to many people as 'White City' and it is to be hoped that these will be considered seriously.Perhaps the most surprising thing is how little has been said about ACCESS on which the successof the whole project hinges. For many years this was always cited as the reason for lack ofdevelopment.,

A new two-way road is planned as access to the site. Paxton Drive residents would no longer havethe right of way to exit in the way currently used and would have to filter into the stream of trafficfrom the proposed development. It is a very short distance from Paxton Drive to the main roadfrom South Bristol where traffic emerges from the Ashton Underpass. Sometimes at great speed.Currently the Paxton Drive traffic filters first into traffic emerging from the Underpass only to queueup again to filter into the main road from the South West in order to reach Central Bristol andbeyond. In rush hours it has been known to take up to 15 minutes for cars to leave Paxton Drive.Both these roads are choc-a-bloc in rush hours and with the advent of on-line shopping deliveryvans are constantly busy during the day. Traffic seems to be increasing rather that decreasing at

present.

This, however is not the worrying part. The proposed new two-way road has to cross the MetrobusRoute at a point not very far from the main road access point. The crossing site will operate on an'Unsignalised Priority Give Way' basis apparently based on experience in two similar places. Thinkabout it......

The Metrobus route is designed to get an ever increasing number of Park and Ride passengersfrom outside Bristol into the City as quickly as possible using Public Transport instead of the car.The two other similar junctions mentioned are where the bus crosses the Vauxhall Bridge which isone-way and the other at the junction with Cumberland Road. Neither are similar to the proposedcrossing in any way - they are completely different.

Should there be any kind of holdup on the short road leading to the Metrobus crossing into thenew site, traffic would back-up and some could get stuck on the Underpass road causing hugehold-ups. Think 'rush-hour' when there will be traffic on the move from both sites including all theheavy machinery and construction equipment when the building work should take place.

Another sizeable problem. The word 'path' is used as if in passing, but its importance topedestrians and cyclists, school children and elderly people seems to have been overlooked.Where and how will this be created and what Safety issues have been considered with referenceto essential crossing of the new road ? These are not exaggerated comments - just plain commonsense. People need to have access to the Weston Road to get to Bower Ashton for buses intoBristol and to the underpasses which are essential for crossing the main road. Paxton Drive has asubway to Greville Smythe Park where the 24 bus serves passengers to areas betweenSainsburys on Winterstoke Road and Southmead Hospital. It is not possible to get anywhere inSouth Bristol on just one bus.|The importance of the 'path' has been completely underestimated. and detailed plans should bemade available.

The new site is really a quart in a pint pot and newresidents need to be sure that the access arrangements are adequate. The site really needs twoaccess points simply for safety reasons. Perhaps the access problem referred to in the past stillexists. It is extremely worrying when access to a big new site depends on the crossing of a veryexpensive Metrobus system

There should have been more comments about access problems but the site has attracted muchattention on a wide range of other opinions. One can only remain surprised that this wholedevelopment has been recommended with so little consideration about proper, unimpeded accessand ultimately, safety.

The panel continues to object to this proposal.The most recent revision, with a reduction in height of building D and Building E and consequentreduction in the number of dwellings does little to alter the harm of this development and the bulkof the Panel's earlier objections remain relevant.

Even as amended this proposal would significantly harm the setting, character and appearanceand landscape and historic value of the immediate and wider setting and relevant heritage assets,particularly the Sylvia Crowe Landscape, the Suspension Bridge, the B Bond warehouses, AshtonCourt and Greville Smyth Park.

This scheme continues to represent significant development in this area that would result in asignificant change to the area's character and appearance, particularly on the west side of BrunelWay. The proposed buildings remain too high and monolithic in terms of mass, scale and design.The site is set within a transitional landscape between the rural and urban edge of the city and theproposal would result in significant harm to principal views into and out of the Conservation Area.Views of Ashton Meadows, the allotments and sports ground, between Ashton Court andBedminster and the setting of the registered historic landscape and the Grade I listed mansionwould be subject to significant adverse effects.

The proposal would not provide sufficient public benefits to outweigh the harm caused andconsequently does not accord with relevant Local Plan heritage policies and the requirements ofthe NPPF.

We remain very disappointed by the attrition process adopted by the applicant inseeking to exceed the Site allocation of 150 units . After all these changes we are still nearly 50%above the original target and in a very poor place architecturally.

The site access and egress roads onto what is in effect a one-way Winterstoke road sliproad willreduce the green amenity of Paxton Drive Residents and prompt weird journeys from the car parks, eg Coronation Rd and North Street to access say Sainsburys Winterstoke Road. Other examplesof long-circles into the proposed CAZ-D abound.

The Metrobus crossing opens up a genuinely useful illegal route (Winterstoke Road toCumberland Road) and we have already seen various vehicles do variations on this by accident ordesign (Travellers Camping on Ashton Vale metrobus tracks, lost Taxis, etc)

We may now be in a position where Paxton Drive is being emulated in height, but the Northernand Eastern most blocks are far closer to the River than is Paxton Drive and directly border theCity Docks Conservation Area [CDCA] with the result that their impact on views and the publicperception of the rural fringe is deeply affected..

In particular the following interventions in views are harmful to those walking or riding in thegeneral hinterland of the Tobacco bonds A, B & C , on Clift House Road BS3 or exercising in theSylvia Crowe designed soft landscapes by the river Avon now far more popular for exercise andrecreation since the Covid-19 era began. This is a potentially vast clientele from the Wards of

Bedminster Southville, Hotwells& Harbourside and Clifton, not to exclude other Bristolians andTourists.:

Fig 03 - Proposed view #1 from Metrobus Bridge Ashton Meadows: Seen behind the flyover (orapproach viaduct)Poor architectural appearance. (All Conservation Area CDCA)A view so poor the applicants refused to show it earlier in this process.

Fig 07 - Proposed View #3 from A3029 at C-Bond To Ashton Court Mansion over JessopUnderpass. Building block intervenes blocking sight of Mansion. CDCA view to Grade 1 listedbuildingEffectively historic view from the Dower House [former Clift House ] to Mansion . The gardencentre view and Sylvia Crowe wooded hill view to AC Mansion probably similarly affected.

Fig 11 - Proposed view 5 from A-bond and chocolate path cycle route, To Sylvia Crowe softlandscapes (wooded hill and meadow.) Block breaks into the view and urbanises the illusion ofcontinuous countryside west of the river........ CDCA.

Fig 09 - Proposed view 4 from Pill to Bristol cycle path, the accommodation blocks Break into theview which is otherwise CDCA Rustic to Dundry hills.

This is directly harmful , please refuse the application .

I wish to object once again to the proposals to redevelop the former railway depot atClanage Road.

There are many reasons for objecting, for example:

worsening air pollutionpoorer quality of life of neighboursthe negative impact on nearby allotmentsthe negative impact on wildlifethe further negative impact on traffic congestionthe proximity to the river when water levels are risingthe lack of amenities such as schools, health centres or shopsinsufficient car parking

One concern in particular continues to disturb me ~ that it's proposed to build this development onwhat is effectively an island within a built up and developed area, that has no viable road access toit whatsoever. That alone would be an issue, and it's surely compounded by the fact that as far aswe know, nobody knows what the road network around the Cumberland Basin, Hotwells andBrunel Way will look like given the current ideas around redeveloping that area.

It seems to me that to redevelop the Clanage Road site along the lines of the current proposalswould be madness given that as I've stated, there is no road access in or out of the site. To

provide access will only worsen the congestion on this major route into and out of the city. And toredevelop the site knowing that the surrounding road network is about to be changedconsiderably, without knowing what those changes will be, is completely irresponsible.

I share others' concerns about access, and the strange circular journies residents willhave to take to navigate one-way systems which will includes the CAZ.

As an allotment holder the overshadowing from some buildings is also a concern, and the impacton nearby Paxton residents due to its scale will be high.

Under-provision of parking is designed to discourage car use but it categorically fails to discouragecar ownership. It is a tickboxing tokenist policy that has severe negative impacts on neighbours.The vast majority of residents here will own cars and they will park in the free-for-all on-street car-parks of Ashton Gate.

The cumulative effect of approximately 400 new homes planned with no parking in this small areaneeds to be considered instead of the siloed approach to planning that seems to prevail. Oursafety and amenity needs protecting from this onslaught and the Ashton Gate area needs an RPSbefore any of this takes place.

I also fully applaud another resident's comment about contractor parking. When a largedevelopment takes place nearby this is a serious blight on streets with no parking control, and itlasts for months. Streets full of vans for literally months with serious impacts on residents and parkusers.

Please can you actually do some planning and protect this neighbourhood from becoming car

storage for all these new homes with no parking. Extend Southville RPS.

Although there have now been two slight revisions to the proposal, it is still clear to methat the original proposal deliberately included some details (9 storey buildings) as sacrificiallambs - knowing they would be throewn out - in order to have the majority of the proposalaccepted. Too many of the objections raised have not been addressed and the bulk of my originalobjection, submitted on May 12th 2020, still stands.I agree entirely with the submission from 147 Paxton Drive in that:"Through many well raised objections and concerns by stakeholders and the public, it has beendemonstrated that the proposed development of this site for 220 dwellings, with 736 bedspaces(and likely more due to couples), as it currently stands (and in all of its previous forms too), isunsuitably dense for the site footprint, site amenities, and local service provisions. Parking isinsufficient for the proposed number of dwellings, and revisions of the site plan to remedy previousobjections regarding building massing has resulted in further loss of green-space and habitatprovision to accommodate the larger building footprints proposed by the developer, with nomeaningful reduction in visual density. The proposed development is also insensitive of itssurroundings, not respecting the building styles in its vicinity, including the tobacco factories - anextremely important part of Bristol's heritage, and Paxton Drive, which was clearly designed withred brick to compliment the style of the tobacco factories.Further concerns are raised regarding site access for emergency services. It has been stated thatfor a site of this size there must be two points of access for emergency services. At present this isnot clear in the proposed plans. BCC must insist that this is clarified before a final decision ismade on the proposed plans.While I appreciate the developer's efforts to reduce the heights of these buildings, I do not

appreciate the expansion of the footprint of these blocks, nor the increasing in height of otherblocks, notably G, to make up the shortfall. This highlights the solely financial incentives of thedevelopers because who else really benefits from this overcrowded and over-dense site?Residents will lose usable green space and be living in compacted conditions, neighbours will loselight, privacy, and enjoyment of their homes, the allotments will lose morning sunlight and viewswill be tarnished to and from important features in Bristol's heritage and landscape by thisdevelopments uninspired and unsightly architecture. I truly feel that this site has the potential to bedeveloped into a space that is beneficial to more people beyond the developers themselves withcareful consideration and more respect for this sensitive Bristol City gateway site"

Access I am at a loss to think how anyone cannot see there has to be twoindividual emergency access points for emergency vehicles for this development as I see it there'sonly one.Outlook I note the development is on an elevated location making the 5 stories appearing tobe considerably higher from the outlook of Paxton drive residents and most likely to cast shadowsand overlook onto the adjacent properties all year round Human rights not being addressedanywhere in the updated proposal.Development number I seem to remember that Bristol City Council advised an upper limit of150 dwellings how on earth is this figure now allowed to escalate to 220 surely this is going toimpact on an already contentious issue regarding parking spaces the developer seems totallyoblivious to this or chooses to be in denial of points made about this issue.

I object to the proposed development on three grounds: First, that the proposed numberof dwellings greatly exceeds the 150 dwellings assessed as being suitable for the site in theemerging Bristol City Council Local Plan. The developer has reduced the height of some buildingsbut increased the height of others to cram in more dwellings.

Second, that the design is ugly out of keeping for the area. As clearly shown from thephotomontages the development is far more prominent than the existing Paxton Drive. When youstand in this part of Bristol today, you see Ashton Court, the red-brick tobacco factories, thesuspension bridge and the terraces of Clifton above the river. If this development were approvedin the current form the semi-rural setting would be changed for the worse and for what reason - isit laziness or sheer contempt? South Bristol deserves better than this.

Thirdly, the proposed exit road for the new development is on land at the exit to Paxton Drive. Thiswould increase congestion on the access to Brunel Way and remove a green space withestablished trees.

The developer has made some changes but they need to go further. There is potential for adevelopment on this land to be positive contribution to the area and community, but this proposalisn't it.

I will object until the appearance of the development is improved and the number ofunits is brought closer inline with the Bristol City Council Local Plan. 150 dwellings seems like areasonable number for the area but 200+ is too many. I'm also concerned about how close to theoverpass some of the proposed buildings are and the number of flats that will be above the heightof the road.

I object to the proposed development on three grounds: First, that the proposed numberof dwellings greatly exceeds the 150 dwellings assessed as being suitable for the site in theemerging Bristol City Council Local Plan. The developer has reduced the height of some buildingsbut increased the height of others to cram in more dwellings.

Second, that the design is ugly out of keeping for the area. As clearly shown from thephotomontages the development is far more prominent than the existing Paxton Drive. When youstand in this part of Bristol today, you see Ashton Court, the red-brick warehouses, the suspensionbridge and the terraces of Clifton above the river. If this development were approved in the currentform the semi-rural setting would be changed for the worse and for what reason - is it laziness orsheer contempt? South Bristol deserves better than this.

Thirdly, the proposed exit road for the new development is on land at the exit to Paxton Drive. Thiswould increase congestion on the access to Brunel Way and remove a green space withestablished trees.

The developer has made some changes but they need to go further. There is potential for adevelopment on this land to be positive contribution to the area and community, but this proposalisn't it.

Dear BCC

I confirm receipt of the revised application however I am disappointed as the amendments areminor.

Therefore, my position remains largely the same as my comments on 13 January 2021, namely:

Height: The height of the dwellings are too high in respect of Paxton Drive. All of the proposedbuildings should be no higher than 4 storeys. Again, Bristol is not a high rise city and therefore asthe plans stand, the huge campus would look out of place on the "gateway into Bristol".

Number: The number of dwellings in the campus is also far too high. The proposal was originallyfor a large number of houses yet this has now been rapidly taken over by flats in order to makemore profit.

Parking: This has not been addressed at all. Paxton Drive is already overcrowded with vehiclesand there is no doubt this campus would overflow into this as current parking on the campus is notadequate. Equally the traffic on the surrounding roads ie the Ashton Bypass is already extremelybusy and this would cause further congestion.

Nature: The surrounding trees, plants and animals in the area have not been safeguarded.

Whilst, I am grateful that amendments have been made and the development is moving in theright direction, there is still a lot more to be addressed.

I look forward to seeing further revised plans to compliment the surroundings and become acommunity.

The design of the buildings in this application are still of very poor quality and design forthis gateway site and could set a precedent for the quality of design in subsequent planningapplications in the area in the future.The buildings are still too high, affecting views into and out of conservation areas, as an exampleFig 07 shows the proposed view from Coronation Road by the Bond C warehouse towards thegreen boundary of Bristol City and across to the Historic and Grade 1 listed Ashton Court estate,this view will be completely blocked by a monstrous, bland wall of buildings.The materials proposed do not help the apparent massing of the buildings, the designs are verybland and blocky.The proposed number of residences is still far more than the 150 recommended with a lack ofopen green space.The buildings will be overbearing and will overshadow the White City allotments and the cycle pathon the western side of the site. The plans originally had town houses in this western spot whichwould have made for a less overbearing boundary.The cycle path is far too narrow, 2 metres short of of the recommended 5m. This route isextremely busy and popular every day of the year with cyclists and walkers. It is a commutingroute for cyclists linking central Bristol with Long Ashton and beyond.According to the report to the committee it appears that the council are suggesting passing theseplans despite their report being full of the negative impacts of this proposed development.This site is so important it warrants really good but not overbearing architecture.

Site allocation still accedes 150 units. Reduction in height of the largest blocks would bemore welcomed if the other blocks had also been reduced and redesigned to complement thearea. It seems the developer is still intent on the creation dense housing that is very impractical inthe available space, and hugely detrimentally to the local area.

Very poor architecturally, no environmental innovation despite excellent passive house examples(both affordable and successful) elsewhere in the UK.

Green space removed from Paxton Drive residents with no compensation and a substantialreduction of access, due to the inevitable gridlock that will be created be the ill-thought-out access.Despite the development being car centric, parking supplied in the development "is significantlyless than the maximum standard" which will further compound the problems in Paxton drive withcars being park on the footpaths, over fire hydrants/water supplies and blocking wheelchair/pramaccess across the Paxton Drive development.

Given how urgently we need to decarbonise, couldn't a more forward thinking, innovative and lesscar centric development be created? Perhaps imposing cycling or e-scooter only access forresidents (strict no car policy in and outside development for residents supported with a RPS) anddiscreet access for deliveries and emergency vehicles only. This would avoid the inevitable bottleneck on Brunel way and Coronation Road, allow the car parking spaces to be given over to moregreen communal areas. The architects would also have space to design better lower rise buildingor townhouses instead of the poorly designed blocks.

Northern and Eastern most blocks still seem to blandly emulating the A, B and C bond buildingsdespite. Those blocks were designed and built as commercial factories and are not goodtemplates for homes. The designs in the mockups look like large breeze blocks dumped on greenspaces.

The designs will be an austere encroachment to valuable public green spaces by the harboursidethat have been invaluable through the COVID pandemic.

The current cycle paths around the site (Festival Way) will no longer meet the standards adoptedby the council in a recent change where they have adopted the new National standard requiring5m wide shared paths.

As a parent of a 16 month old child living in Paxton Drive, the health issues associated with theasbestos removal during any build are very troubling. Given how poorly conceived much of thedevelopment plans has been, with a disregard for local residents. I don't have much faith thatresidents will be given much consideration and protected from harm.

Loss of privacy will be incurred by the existing residents of Paxton Drive due to windows facedirectly opposite. As well as loss of light to Paxton Drive residents across the development.

Please refuse the application.

Festival Way needs to be wider and segregated. It is, and will increasingly be, a majorcycling and pedestrian route and will be dangerously overcrowded if it isn't widened.The quality of the design of the blocks is so poor for a development in a sensitive site betweenconservation areas. They are unvaryingly worse than merely bland, they are hostile and blank. Ifthe applicant wasn't still trying to overdevelop the site by 50% from the advised 150 units theblocks could be smaller, lower and town houses could be reintroduced adding variety.The photomontages show how shockingly ugly and insensitive this development would be fromevery view point. The contrast between view 4 and 5 shows how the current sense of gradualchange from city to countryside would be replaced by a wall of blocks obscuring the bondedwarehouses and ruining the setting of the cricket ground. Views 8 and 9 show how the open viewsacross to Dundry would be blocked and the sense of space would be replaced with a sense ofbeing hemmed in. The blocks are simply too massive and abrupt.Please demand better for this important site.

This is a critical site and will set the tone for any future 'Western Harbour' CumberlandBasin development. It is of inadequate design quality, and is now missing the town houses. Ifpermitted in its current form, it will set a precedent for poor design quality at Cumberland Basin, aparticularly important and sensitive development area.The Festival Way needs to be at least 5m wide and segregated. This route is being more andmore heavily used by pedestrians and cyclists.Please refuse this unattractive bland, blockish design, until improved.

I am very much in favour of this site being developed, but not with this design. Theresubmitted design is less bad, not good.

This brownfield site must be located in one of the most beautiful locations in the country. It looksonto a long swathe of green hills and parkland of Ashton Court, across the cricket pitch, up to theriverside, gorge and stunning Clifton Suspension bridge, and within easy walking distance of oneof the UK's best cities. Sorry for going on, but this is an unusually lovely location, and the design ofthe site hardly starts to make the most of this wonderful opportunity. There are no visuals providedfrom the site to the surrounding hills, or up to the bridge, not from balconies or from therecreational space, so it is difficult to conclude that it has been considered.

They have missed the point of the site. You can tell by the name, City Gate. They are thinking city.That isn't the character of the site; it's semi-rural, it's green. They should be thinking aboutmaximising how the people who live there and move through the site are connected to thewonderful surroundings and enjoy the wellbeing benefits of that.

The design of the blocks would be appropriate, if uninspired, in Temple Quarter. They look likeoffice blocks. The layout of the site is inward focused and boxed off from the surroundings, whereas it should connect the people of the city to the walks in the green hills.

Why is the play area, the orchard, the outside space for the residents, in the middle of thedevelopment surrounded by multi-story buildings which will cast long shadows most of the day,

when the site has such wonderful views? Why isn't the outside recreational space for residentsconnected to the wonderful surroundings?

Why doesn't the café have space for outside dining?

Why don't the ground floor flats have gardens?

Where is the place for residents to sit on a bench and look at the view?

For example, there is a uniform line of trees along the inside of the cycle path, screening thedevelopment from the cycle path, creating a flat visual line that cuts off the site from thesurroundings, rather than planting that reflects and draws the eye to the hillside.

There will be many people who move through the site, as it connects green spaces and transportroutes: the metrobus, a main cycle route, the pedestrian route from the city to the parkland atAshton Court, Bedminster, Greville Smyth Park, and the riverside, Portishead railway line. Lots ofpeople will walk and cycle through. It needs a welcoming connecting, open design. This is a boxy,enclosing design.

The design does not connect those routes as well as it could. For example, the pedestrian bridgeover the railway line should be easy to access from the metrobus and the pedestrian route toWinterstoke Road.

Also, with regards to the Visuals, Heritages, Point 1 - it's a bit misleading that they have chosen aviewpoint in the main gardens near Ashton Gate house where you can't see the development, asthere are plenty of points in the gardens near the house where you can see Paxton Drive, so youmust be able to see the new development. Wouldn't it be more informative to prepare the visualsfrom one of those points?

The dark corridor, filled with planting next to the cycle route, isn't a safe design. In Milton Keynesthese are prime sites for muggings.

From a personal perspective, I also continue to object to the design of Block A and its placementdirectly opposite the block on Paxton Drive. The block on Paxton Drive has been designed to beopen to the view on that side, and having a large block of flats close and directly facing into thewindows is going to reduce the privacy of the residents here. I request that the block be movedfurther away, or shifted so that it doesn't face directly in, and be reduced in height, or replaced withhouses.

The concerns I put in my earlier objections regarding the additional traffic onto Brunel Way remain,if slightly reduced by the small decrease in unit numbers.

This development is going to be there for a hundred years or more. Is less bad, really goodenough? This is a massive opportunity. This could be one of the best places to live in the country.This design will not deliver that. At the moment while it's on paper, it can be changed, so that itmakes the most of its wonderful situation. Don't accept anything less than a great design for thiswonderful place.

As before I welcome development here.I am pleased to see the change in height of the proposed buildings. The sort of height proposed isin keeping with the area.The reduction in density is also to be welcomed.However there is a lack of imagination in the design which remains very blocky and seem to haveno element of curvature to it to reflect the nature of the adjacent parkland and countryside. Theappearance in the plans, to the untrained eye, is very harsh and unsympathetic to its position.I am not sure that the proposed width of cycle/pedestrian way is sufficient given the traffic here.

Density - although the number of proposed units on site has been reduced very slightlybut will still exceed 220. The site was identified in the local plan (still being updated) identified thatthe site could support a maximum of 150 units/dwellings. The current planning applicationrepresents an unacceptable over-densification.Height of buildings - despite the minor reduction in the height of the northern buildings, they arestill far too high at 5 storeys, particularly for this very sensitive and key gateway site. Thedevelopment site is also on raised ground, which has not been taken into account in theapplication. Building E in particular does not take account of the lower and flat allotment ground tothe west but would create a "Berlin Wall" style effect, projecting considerably above that ground.The developer is seeking to reference the height of the Cumberland Basin flyover as anappropriate benchmark, which it is not given both the max 4 storied Paxton Drive development tothe east and flat allotment/riverside ground to the west.Adverse visual impact on key local listed buildings and sites. I agree whole-heartedly with theearlier comments made by Historic England, Avon Gardens Trust, North Somerset Council andthe Civic Society in this regard, with particular reference to the adverse visual impact on the Grade1 listed Clifton Suspension Bridge/Ashton Court Mansion and the Grade 2 listed park and gardensand the 2 local historic parks (notably Greville Smythe).The poor quality of the visual design and architecture (both of which are monotonous and hulking),have no respect for the local character or setting and are not of the necessary standard needed forthis key gateway site.The adverse impact on the adjoining and historic allotment site (see my original objection) withparticular regard to shading given the height and proximity to the allotment boundary of tall

buildings E. The developer has made no attempt to consult with or engage with the allotmentassociation about its plans.Non-compliance with para 127 NPPF which is quite clear that "Planning policies and decisionsshould ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area,not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as aresult of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic tolocal character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting,while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increaseddensities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets,spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live,work and visit." The proposed development also does not accord with the detailed policies ofBristol City Council's Urban Living SPD, or Policy DM26 of the Bristol Local Plan.

I appreciate the response of the developer to try and address the many concerns raisedby stakeholders and the public. However, many of the issues raised in my previous two objectionsdated 05/05/20 and 03/01/21 still stand, and unfortunately after reviewing the revised proposal Imust strongly object on the further grounds stated below.

Access:It comes to my attention that there is only one access route for emergency vehicles, when it hasbeen stated there must be two for a development of this size. The developers argue that oneaccess route exists from the Ashton Gate Underpass and the other from Paxton Drive, however,these conjoin at a pinch point beneath the busway, making it a single access point. If the secondproposed access route for emergency vehicles is the railway bridge, this is not suitable foremergency vehicle access, due to its limited load capacity, and narrow width.Visual Impact:Considering the proposed development is on raised land, the proposed 5 storeys for most blocksare still substantially higher than adjacent Paxton Drive. Despite efforts, this site is therefore stillnot in keeping with its surroundings, and will still tower above the most immediate infrastructure inthe region including Paxton Drive and the Brunel Way flyover. This can be observed in the revisedphotomontages. Within these, it is also clear that even with the reduction in height of thedevelopment, it will still negatively impact the views to and from important features in Bristol'sheritage and landscape, including the tobacco factories, the Suspension Bridge and Ashton Court.The visual appearance of this development is also not in keeping with the surroundings as clearlyshown in the photomontages, where dull, concrete jungle-style grey blocks can be seen, further

adding to the poor appeal of this development.It is convenient that most of the proposed flats are East and West facing to ensure all units willreceive a good level of direct sunlight and daylight, but the developers have paid little to no regardfor the loss of afternoon and evening light and privacy that will be incurred by Paxton Driveresidents, throughout the year. Even the smallest of these blocks will tower above Paxton Drivebecause the proposed development is on raised ground. I refer you back to my first objection fromApril which states under the Human Rights Act, Protocol 1, Article 1, "A person has the right topeaceful enjoyment of all their possessions, which includes the home and other land". This issueonce again has not been addressed in the amended plans.

Development Density and Provision of Amenities and Services:

I would like to re-highlight that BCC suggested the site was suitable for up to 150 dwellings,equating to 55 units/ha. "Up to" also suggests that this 150 should be an upper limit. Despitereduction from the initial 253 to 242 to the now proposed 220 dwellings (81 units/ha), this is stillsignificantly over the 150 the site was deemed suitable for. These 220 units will provide 736bedspaces in total. The developer justifies this over-densification of the site in the SPD ResponseRev A document using the site's proximity to the metro busway and the desire to create acommunity feel through open spaces. The proposed open spaces, however, are argued here asinsufficient for the proposed density of this site with the revised plans demonstrating further loss ofgreen space for recreation.On the topic of the over-densification of this site, could Vistry Partnerships or BCC please confirmwhether there will be sufficient provision of services for the increased population in this area,including GP surgeries and local schools? Recent personal experiences including an hour and ahalf on hold on the telephone just to get through to my local GP surgery has highlighted to me thatGP services in the region are clearly already overwhelmed before the addition of significant patientnumbers arising from this development.Increasing the footprint size of many of the proposed blocks in the revised plans has resulted infurther reduction of parking spaces on the site to 125 spaces. Parking has been expressed as aconcern throughout this consultation process, yet Vistry Partnerships have continuouslydisregarded this information.On the theme of parking, I would like to know what provisions are in place for electric vehicleparking given that under the government's proposed Green Plan all new cars must be electric by2030? The 28 electric vehicle parking places proposed are without question insufficient for a newdevelopment in this day and age.

Ecology:In the revised plans a simplified parking layout is presented that results in loss of the proposedopen mosaic habitat. The developers attempt to compensate for this with 1000 m2 of brown roofarea. I struggle to understand how this is of equivalent ecological value to ground-level habitat.This substitution of ground-level open mosaic habitat for brown roof will further intensify themassing of these buildings in this sensitive city gateway location.

The development is required to make a net positive biodiversity impact. In the addendum ecologyletter, their own calculations show them to make a net negative impact. This is justified with a briefsuggestion that hedges might make up the shortfall.The SPD Response Rev A document states that Paxton Drive has no public open space. Frompersonal experience there are several communal green spaces within the Paxton Drivedevelopment, a satellite measurement of public green space at Paxton Drive showed 1910 m2,not including the adjacent green space proposed for the new access route for the proposeddevelopment. This green area in adjacent Paxton Drive is larger than the proposed publiccommunal gardens at the development. The incorrect statement of facts by Vistry Partnershipshighlights their efforts to divert the attention of BCC to Paxton Drive to conveniently maximise theappeal of the proposed development.

Flooding and Contamination:

I thank the applicant for providing further information on the surface water drainage strategy.However, I was surprised to find in the revised drainage strategy that the discharge rates forcatchment areas B and C are stated, while A1 and A2 are still omitted from the body of the report.It is my understanding from the modelling data in Appendix F of the drainage report that thesepeak flows should be 2.0 l/s and 3.0 l/s. When this is summed with the stated numbers fromcatchments B and C of 2.2 l/s and 0.9 l/s, respectively, totalling 8.1 l/s. This is significantly above(> 60%) Wessex Water's requirement of less than 5.0 l/s. As the on-site water storage capacity iscalculated using this inflated flow I am concerned that the capacity will be insufficient and thatconsequently the flood risk is significantly underestimated.The likelihood of surface water flooding is further exacerbated by the increase in footprint of blocksG1, G2, and E2, which will further encourage runoff during rainfall events to inundate thesurrounding lower-lying areas, including the metro busway, Paxton Drive and the allotments. Ihave seen no assurances in the current reporting that surrounding areas are not at increased risk,except for the reported busway which is shown to be significantly impacted.Further relating to flooding and drainage, it is my understanding that the use of infiltration-basedSuDS has been deemed inappropriate for the site due to high levels of ground contamination.However, SuDS tree pits and permeable paving are still suggested to be flood attenuating featuresin the current design. Can the developer or BCC guarantee that this will not lead to waterinfiltration into the contaminated ground?As the Environment Agency have renounced responsibility for any flood or contaminant-relatedincidents, I would like to know what actions will be taken by BCC to indemnify the adjacent landusers - allotment owners and Paxton Drive residents alike, in the event of a flood?It appears that there is no updated ground report despite previous land contaminationassessments being performed by an unaccredited company. In the updated Drainage StrategyPart 2 Appendix E it states "The information provided indicates that significant organiccontamination is present in the form of hydrocarbons with a significant thickness of a light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) in some places. The laboratory used for the analysis does notappear to be accredited for that analysis. This is not acceptable to the Environment Agency. It is

not clear what the 'Organics' analysis relates to/covers in the results. It is not clear why T&PRegen did not discuss most of the lab results in their report. T&P Regen only appear to summariseresults for specific substances rather than TPH as a whole, it is not clear why this is the case asthis underestimates the risk in our view." It was also highlighted in T&P Regen's report that resultswere disregarded as they exceeded solubility limits. Have these issues been addressed sincethese questions were raised? If so, it would be good if the data from an accredited laboratorycould be shared for public consultation, and if not, I strongly suggest BCC insist on furtherinvestigation of ground contaminants and associated risk before making a final decision on thisproposed development.I would also like to emphasise to BCC that the Environment Agency have stated that no structuresunder any circumstances should be erected within 8 m of the Longmoor Brook Culvert. Currentplans still show a large retaining wall to be inside of the 8 m standoff which potentiallycompromises this critical flood defence structure.

Concluding Remarks:I strongly exhort Bristol City Council to see this development for what it is. Through many wellraised objections and concerns by stakeholders and the public, it has been demonstrated that theproposed development of this site for 220 dwellings, with 736 bedspaces (and likely more due tocouples), as it currently stands (and in all of its previous forms too), is unsuitably dense for the sitefootprint, site amenities, and local service provisions. Parking is insufficient for the proposednumber of dwellings, and revisions of the site plan to remedy previous objections regardingbuilding massing has resulted in further loss of green-space and habitat provision to accommodatethe larger building footprints proposed by the developer, with no meaningful reduction in visualdensity. The proposed development is also insensitive of its surroundings, not respecting thebuilding styles in its vicinity, including the tobacco factories - an extremely important part ofBristol's heritage, and Paxton Drive, which was clearly designed with red brick to compliment thestyle of the tobacco factories.Further concerns are raised regarding site access for emergency services. It has been stated thatfor a site of this size there must be two points of access for emergency services. At present this isnot clear in the proposed plans. BCC must insist that this is clarified before a final decision ismade on the proposed plans.While I appreciate the developer's efforts to reduce the heights of these buildings, I do notappreciate the expansion of the footprint of these blocks, nor the increasing in height of otherblocks, notably G, to make up the shortfall. This highlights the solely financial incentives of thedevelopers because who else really benefits from this overcrowded and over-dense site?Residents will lose usable green space and be living in compacted conditions, neighbours will loselight, privacy, and enjoyment of their homes, the allotments will lose morning sunlight and viewswill be tarnished to and from important features in Bristol's heritage and landscape by thisdevelopments uninspired and unsightly architecture. I truly feel that this site has the potential to bedeveloped into a space that is beneficial to more people beyond the developers themselves withcareful consideration and more respect for this sensitive Bristol City gateway site.

i strongly oppose this.

This plan appears to be incongruous within its setting. It would dominate the historicsetting with its bulk and height. I agree with the comments from Historic England as to thenegative visual impact of this plan in such an iconic part of the city.

This plan appears to be incongruous within its setting. It would dominate the historicsetting with its bulk and height. I agree with the comments from Historic England as to thenegative visual impact of this plan in such an iconic part of the city.

Views - The visuals prepared (especially Fig 3 View 1, Fig 7 View 3, Fig 11 View 4 andFig 9 View 4) show an ugly, blocking structure. It is inappropriate in the skyline and obscuressome of the views currently enjoyed from leisure areas such as Ashton Court and the base ofAvon Trail area

White City Allotments - There will be a lot of dust and disturbance in this area during the buildcausing an inconvenience to allotment holders. Once built, the structure will overshadow the plotsand make growing of some crops and flowers extremely difficult.

Traffic and pollution - Without development of the road system in the area the already extremelybusy roads, where we see standing traffic during busy times (twice per working day and also onmatch days), there will be even more pressure on the system with new houses in the area. Notonly will the traffic increase but also the level of pollution from increased traffic, this will notnecessarily clear quickly as the roads here are in a bowl, trapping gases. It would be interesting tosee a pollution survey prepared for the current Paxton Drive site to review current levels andincreases since that development was completed.

Massing - Given that the site was originally considered suitable for 150 properties by the council,this current proposal for 220 is overly dense.

Gateway to the city - The monolithic nature of this structure is hardly a fitting gateway to the cityfrom this direction, on this we agree with Historic England. Bristol deserves better.

Cycle paths - the current cycle paths around the site (Festival Way) will no longer meet thestandards adopted by the council in a recent change where they have adopted the new Nationalstandard requiring 5m wide shared paths.

Overall design comments - The design is ugly and uninspiring and not suitable for this location atall.

Whilst welcoming the revisions made to the application my objections of 13.01.21 stand.More specifically I believe that the proposed development is too dense (almost 50% above thesuggested 150 dwellings) and insensitive to the specific surroundings. In addition if permitted sucha development might lead to a domino planning effect with further degradation of the area.Secondly the proposed plans have a cynical attitude towards The Festival Way cycle path onlywidening it to 3.7 m over a section to enable the application to meet emergency vehicle accessregulations whilst leaving the remainder at 3m. An opportunity to improve and promote sustainabletravel is being missed whilst the developers use this minimal provision to justify their application.I have read the eloquent and well informed objections from various groups but wanted to add mypersonal comments as a resident of Bower Ashton and someone who walks extensively. Thepotential impact on views from Bower Ashton Conservation area is best represented by View 2(A369 adjacent to Cricket Ground) and it is significant. It should be noted that some of the morereassuring viewpoint simulations (including many Heritage Views) were based on photos taken inJune when there is maximum leaf coverage and a very different impression would be given in thelong winter months.Festival Way usage needs detailed consideration; it is referred to as a cycle path but is used bypedestrians, e scooters, runners, commuting cyclists and leisure cyclists all travelling at differentspeeds in both directions. Overtaking is frequent. At times of peak use it is already congested;Mon to Fri at school home time and during events at Ashton Gate or Ashton Court. The idea that 3m is adequate and that only widening it over a short section to 3.7 m to double up for emergencyvehicle access should be a non-starter.

Regarding the submission of planning application 20/01655/F, former Railway Depot,Clanage Road, Bristol, I would like to raise a series of objections and concerns to the proposeddevelopment:

The revised plans are still appears to be completely at odds with the values and vision of Bristol tobecome a forward thinking 'Green City'. As it stands, the development would still have a dramaticimpact to the South West entrance of the city with an interruption of the iconic views of the CliftonSuspension Bridge and views from the harbour up to Ashton Court. The plans are completelyunsympathetic to Bristol's historic heritage and culture of this significant area.

As is well acknowledged, the traffic flow on the Cumberland Basin continues to be incredibly poor,with an already complex and chaotic network of roads. This development proposes more cars tobe added to this, adding to the air pollution. Surely the development should be considered as partof the wider plan to redevelop the Cumberland Basin (Western Harbour), not just be another add-on to the area, which is the reason for the complex road system currently?

I understand the need for more affordable housing in Bristol, however I feel this is more driven byprofit than the needs of local people and respect to the area. This does not appear to be adevelopment fit for the future.

Access:There is only one access route for emergency vehicles, when it has been stated there must be twofor a development of this size. The developers argue that one access route exists from the AshtonGate Underpass and the other from Paxton Drive, however, these conjoin at a pinch point beneaththe busway, making it a single access point. If the second proposed access route for emergencyvehicles is the railway bridge, this is not suitable for emergency vehicle access, due to its limitedload capacity, and narrow width.

Visual Impact:Considering the proposed development is on raised land, the proposed 5 storeys for most blocksare still substantially higher than adjacent Paxton Drive. I am a second story dwelling and my flatlooks out at ground height to where you are planning to build. Despite efforts, this site is thereforestill not in keeping with its surroundings and will still tower above the most immediate infrastructurein the region including Paxton Drive and the Brunel Way flyover. It is also clear that even with thereduction in height of the development, it will still negatively impact the views to and fromimportant features in Bristol's heritage and landscape, including the tobacco factories, theSuspension Bridge and Ashton Court

I note most of the proposed flats are East and West facing to ensure all units will receive a goodlevel of direct sunlight and daylight, but the developers have paid little to no regard for the loss ofafternoon and evening light and privacy that will be incurred by Paxton Drive residents, throughoutthe year. My balcony and all windows within my flat will be shadowed and overlooked by the new

development. Ref - Human Rights Act, Protocol 1, Article 1, "A person has the right to peacefulenjoyment of all their possessions, which includes the home and other land". This issue onceagain has not been addressed in the amended plans.

Development Density and Provision of Amenities and Services:I would like to re-highlight that BCC suggested the site was suitable for up to 150 dwellings,equating to 55 units/ha. "Up to" also suggests that this 150 should be an upper limit. Despitereduction from the initial 253 to 242 to the now proposed 220 dwellings (81 units/ha), this is stillsignificantly over the 150 the site was deemed suitable for.

Increasing the footprint size of many of the proposed blocks in the revised plans has resulted infurther reduction of parking spaces on the site to 125 spaces. Parking has been expressed as aconcern throughout this consultation process, yet Vistry Partnerships have continuouslydisregarded this information.

Ecology:In the revised plans a simplified parking layout is presented that results in loss of the proposedopen mosaic habitat. The developers attempt to compensate for this with 1000 m2 of brown roofarea. I struggle to understand how this is of equivalent ecological value to ground-level habitat.This substitution of ground-level open mosaic habitat for brown roof will further intensify themassing of these buildings in this sensitive city gateway location.

The SPD Response Rev A document states that Paxton Drive has no public open space. there areseveral communal green spaces within the Paxton Drive development, a satellite measurement ofpublic green space at Paxton Drive showed 1910 m2, not including the adjacent green spaceproposed for the new access route for the proposed development. This green area in adjacentPaxton Drive is larger than the proposed public communal gardens at the development. Theincorrect statement of facts by Vistry Partnerships highlights their efforts to divert the attention ofBCC to Paxton Drive to conveniently maximise the appeal of the proposed development.

Access:There is only one access route for emergency vehicles, when it has been stated there must be twofor a development of this size. The developers argue that one access route exists from the AshtonGate Underpass and the other from Paxton Drive, however, these conjoin at a pinch point beneaththe busway, making it a single access point. If the second proposed access route for emergencyvehicles is the railway bridge, this is not suitable for emergency vehicle access, due to its limitedload capacity, and narrow width.

Visual Impact:Considering the proposed development is on raised land, the proposed 5 storeys for most blocksare still substantially higher than adjacent Paxton Drive. I am a second story dwelling and my flatlooks out at ground height to where you are planning to build. Despite efforts, this site is thereforestill not in keeping with its surroundings and will still tower above the most immediate infrastructurein the region including Paxton Drive and the Brunel Way flyover. It is also clear that even with thereduction in height of the development, it will still negatively impact the views to and fromimportant features in Bristol's heritage and landscape, including the tobacco factories, theSuspension Bridge and Ashton Court

I note most of the proposed flats are East and West facing to ensure all units will receive a goodlevel of direct sunlight and daylight, but the developers have paid little to no regard for the loss ofafternoon and evening light and privacy that will be incurred by Paxton Drive residents, throughoutthe year. My balcony and all windows within my flat will be shadowed and overlooked by the new

development. Ref - Human Rights Act, Protocol 1, Article 1, "A person has the right to peacefulenjoyment of all their possessions, which includes the home and other land". This issue onceagain has not been addressed in the amended plans.

Development Density and Provision of Amenities and Services:I would like to re-highlight that BCC suggested the site was suitable for up to 150 dwellings,equating to 55 units/ha. "Up to" also suggests that this 150 should be an upper limit. Despitereduction from the initial 253 to 242 to the now proposed 220 dwellings (81 units/ha), this is stillsignificantly over the 150 the site was deemed suitable for.

Increasing the footprint size of many of the proposed blocks in the revised plans has resulted infurther reduction of parking spaces on the site to 125 spaces. Parking has been expressed as aconcern throughout this consultation process, yet Vistry Partnerships have continuouslydisregarded this information.

Ecology:In the revised plans a simplified parking layout is presented that results in loss of the proposedopen mosaic habitat. The developers attempt to compensate for this with 1000 m2 of brown roofarea. I struggle to understand how this is of equivalent ecological value to ground-level habitat.This substitution of ground-level open mosaic habitat for brown roof will further intensify themassing of these buildings in this sensitive city gateway location.

The SPD Response Rev A document states that Paxton Drive has no public open space. there areseveral communal green spaces within the Paxton Drive development, a satellite measurement ofpublic green space at Paxton Drive showed 1910 m2, not including the adjacent green spaceproposed for the new access route for the proposed development. This green area in adjacentPaxton Drive is larger than the proposed public communal gardens at the development. Theincorrect statement of facts by Vistry Partnerships highlights their efforts to divert the attention ofBCC to Paxton Drive to conveniently maximise the appeal of the proposed development.

I strongly object to the proposed development as an owner of a resident in neighbouring Paxton Drive, for a number of reasons:

I feel most strongly about invasion of privacy and light into my property. The proposed development will force residents with a balcony facing the proposed development, to spend a lot of time without natural light and forced to keep curtains closed, which will have an impact on well-being.

I'm also concerned about the impact to the green space, parking and transport routes.

Please also note, that as a Paxton Drive I have already have had a huge undertaking in arranging solicitor support to deal with escalating ground rent, and the EWS1 worries that have all lead to deep concerns and stress that I'm going to be in impossible position to move, or put myself into negative equity

The reduced height Building E2 (3/4 storey) still overshadows adjacent allotments inmornings from Autumn to Spring.

It would have a huge beneficial impact if the 4 storey 'step up' of Block E2 closest to the allotmentscould be reduced to 3 storeys - This small adaption would also provided a more harmonious westelevation

I have read Historic England's letter which discusses the amendments made to theproposed development. I agree with their comments about the reduction in height and thank theplanning officer for achieving this reduction.However, I am still very concerned over the failure by the applicants to take on board the criticismsof the design of the proposed development and materials. This is such an important site and thepoor quality of the design is really depressing.I do hope that our planners will not give up at this point and allow the development to go ahead. Ifit does, I think it will have an adverse impact on the ability of our planners to make sure that anydevelopment of Cumberland Basin is of the highest quality.I thought that the recommendation from the transport commentators was that the Festival Waycycle/walking path should be widened to 5 metres. It is incredibly popular and deserves to beproperly segregated. I may have misunderstood the plans but it looks as though the proposal is fora 3 metre path. Why not take the opportunity of widening it?

Although this scheme is an improvement from the original plansI still feel the site is being over developed creating an extremely densely populated area ,and that5 storey blocks still represent a significant "blot on the landscape". when added to the existingPaxton `~Drive developmentI appreciate that BCC is trying to reduce car ownership but approving a development of 220apartments (with 356 bedrooms) but only 125 car parking spaces is not the way forward.You only have to visit Paxton Drive on an evening to realise that the car spaces in thisdevelopment is totally in adequate.

Although this scheme is an improvement from the original plansI still feel the site is being over developed creating an extremely densely populated area ,and that5 storey blocks still represent a significant "blot on the landscape". when added to the existingPaxton `~Drive developmentI appreciate that BCC is trying to reduce car ownership but approving a development of 220apartments (with 356 bedrooms) but only 125 car parking spaces is not the way forward.You only have to visit Paxton Drive on an evening to realise that the car spaces in thisdevelopment is totally in adequate.

I am pleased to see that the proposed buildings are much lower than the originalproposal. I am happy that the area will be able to provide much needed extra housing.

I continue to be unhappy about the plans for these reasons:

the layout of the buildings is uninspiring and unlikely to foster any sort of community spirit. Blankfaced blocks easily become urban slums.

the design of the buildings for such a sensitive site is undistinguished and makes no reference tothe semi rural surroundings. The building style is urban industrial and the proposed materials areharsh and insensitive to the green and watery landscape

the cycle path - which I use regularly - is narrower than the recommended width for such cycleroutes. It is already heavily used and with the increased housing proposed for the area will beused even more. It must be built to an acceptable width

I have reviewed the amended scheme summarised in the Design & Access Statement,Addendum Rev A. The changes do little to address my previous objections, therefore I stronglyoppose this development as proposed.

VISUAL IMPACT:

In principle I welcome the development of this site to provide affordable housing, however thescale and appearance of the proposed buildings is inappropriate for this outstanding location. TheLocal Plan estimated 150 dwellings; 220 is excessive.

This site forms the transition from the urban city to the wonderful landscape of Ashton CourtEstate. The scale, mass and heights of all the proposed buildings are inappropriate and will be anbrutal intrusion in this semi-rural landscape. Essentially these buildings are bland uninspiringboxes in straight lines, devoid of curvature and imagination.

The stunning vistas from and to Ashton Court, Avon Gorge, the Clifton Suspension Bridge and theslopes of Clifton will be irreparably spoiled. The area is the boundary of the city and has beautifulgreen space rich with nature; this scheme substitutes monolithic uninspiring buildings.

I fear the heights of the buildings will set a precedent for the proposed 'Western Harbour' schemeand provide a justification for a vulgar concrete jungle that will permanently ruin Bristol's uniqueharbourside.

DENSITY:

The excessively high density of the scheme means that most space around the blocks is givenover to access roads and car-parking, with only nominal space allocated as a children's play areaand for outdoor gatherings by residents.

LOSS OF PRIVACY:

The architects have very considerately designed the north face of Block A with no windows toavoid overlook with Block B, however they have ignored the far more serious loss of privacy thatwill be incurred by the existing residents of Paxton Drive. Many will now have to installcurtains/blinds to avoid being overlooked.

LOSS OF LIGHT

Blocks A and B will block out late afternoon and evening light on the existing blocks of PaxtonDrive.

ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION:

Section 2.6 of the Planning Statement Part 1 acknowledges that the "north and east is designatedas Important Open Space on the current Policies Map. A strip of land along the western boundary(including the now constructed metrobus corridor) is also defined as Important Open Space."Furthermore the land is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). Yet this applicationdestroys the strip alongside the metrobus road, and will negatively impact on the wildlife and faunaof the area.

Over the last year most vegetation on the site (ground cover and shrubs) has been destroyed bythe application of powerful chemical weedkiller. This action indicates that environmental claims bythe developer are greenwash. Rabbits, foxes and birds were common, but are scarce now thattheir habitat has been devastated. This scheme destroys many established trees, particularlyalong the western boundary. Landscaping the development with a few manicured shrubs andsmall trees is no substitute.

The site should be bordered by dense trees to reduce vehicle noise and pollution otherwiseresidents and will have to keep all windows closed 24/7.

I am concerned that the existence of asbestos has been identified and, as a near neighbour, I amworried about inhalation of fibres during excavation and building. "0.6m of suitable topsoil/subsoiland/or engineered fill" is insufficient long-term remediation.

FLOODING:

High spring tides (11.8m) occurred in March last year (2020) causing extensive overbank floodingin the Cumberland Basin area. There is growing scientific evidence that global warming is causingsea levels to rise at an even faster rate than predicted in current modelling. No developmentshould be allowed until sea-level defences have been developed that ameliorate the risk offlooding.

The area is already at risk of surface water flooding; the large expanse of paved area willaggravate this with rainwater run-off potentially flooding the metrobus road.

I wish to endorse the expert opinions on flooding previously expounded by Amelia Vale of 147Paxton Drive.

CAR PARKING:

Bristol aspires to be a 'green city' and significantly reduce car usage. The reality is that residentswill own cars until Bristol has an integrated light rail/bus/cycle infrastructure comparable to manyEuropean cities (clearly decades away at the present snail pace). Paxton Drive has one carparking space per flat yet there is a serious problem with more cars than parking availability. Thisresults in cars blocking pavements and also access to buildings by the disabled and parents withbuggies.

With only 124 car parking spaces for 220 homes I fear that residents and visitors to this newdevelopment will resort to overflow parking in Paxton Drive and other nearby roads.

The proponents claim many residents will choose not to have cars, yet the M2 bus to the citycentre stops soon after 9pm and does not run at all on Sundays, the 'X' buses from BlackmoorsLane are much less accessible and operate at irregular frequencies, and there is no publictransport to the shops and amenities on North Street. This can only be resolved by reducing thenumber of dwellings and providing adequate car parking.

CYCLE PATH:

I am delighted the amended scheme maintains the existing course of the Festival Way cycle path.However a 3m path is too narrow. This is a busy commuter and recreational route and manycyclists, rightly or wrongly, go fast. People and cycles should never be mixed unless existinggeography makes it completely unavoidable.

The opportunity should be taken to implement a wider path and separate cyclists and walkers. Itshould have adequate width to accommodate travel in opposite directions by both pedestrians andcyclists in groups.

The Festival Way cycle route must be available throughout site construction.

The provision of secure cycle parking in building A is an excellent idea. The lock-ups must berobust to withstand vandalism which I fear may occur.

LOCAL AMENITIES:

Consideration must be given to the pressure on local amenities such as schools and GPs due tothe increase of local population.

I question the viability of a cafe in an isolated residential estate when most people will passthrough by bus or bike. Cafes require high foot-fall and there are competing businesses at AshtonCourt Mansion, the Create Centre, Riverside Garden Centre and North Street. The nearest shopsare nearly one mile distant, therefore the provision of small local shops should be consideredinstead.

STRATEGIC PLANNING:

Development of this site should not be considered independent of the much larger developmentsbeing mooted for the Western Harbour, the Plimsoll Bridge and Brunel Way. Planning must beconsidered strategically, not in piecemeal parcels as proposed here.

SUMMARY:

The visibility of this location begs an innovative and imaginative solution that will resonate withaspirations of Bristol as a forward-thinking healthy green city. This scheme is a throwback to 20th-century build-it-cheap pack-'em-high thinking.

This unique site is ideally suited to the 21st-century concept of 'Passiv' ultra-low energy buildingsthat are increasingly appearing in Germany and Scandinavia and where environmental andeconomic costs are calculated in 100+ year timescales, not short-term profit for the developer.

I will close by repeating some words of Donna Ashford of Churchill, Winscombe, that are far moreeloquent than mine:

"Bristol is a wonderful City and should be valued, it has the most amazing approaches and theplanning should be carefully considered to protect that all makes Bristol the city it is. This proposalwill be an eyesore and will do nothing to enhance Bristol. Such an important site deserves better."

We still have grave reservations concerning car parking and in particular access to and from the site. Please regard this as an objection.

Pauline Barnes

We still have grave reservations concerning car parking and in particular access to and from the site. Please regard this as an objection.

Pauline Barnes

I have grave concerns in respect of car parking on the development and also regarding access to and from the site. Please regard this as an objection. Terry Barnes

April 2021The Society's response to 20/01655/F - Old Rail Depot, Clanage Road

Summary

These are the Society's comments on the revised planning application submitted in March 2021.The Society commented on the previous proposal. We continue to support the development inprinciple but consider that the quality of the layout and building design needs to be muchimproved. The current design will create a depressing environment for future residents.

The changes in the revised application

The main changes include the reduction in height of Block D (now 5 storeys) and the division ofBlock E into two buildings of between 3 and 5 storeys.

BCS comments

1) Building heights

We welcome the reduction in height and footprint of the northern buildings and we no longer objectto the height of the proposed scheme.

2) Layout

The diversion of the access road improves the large central space. However, the replacement oftown houses by blocks, and the completely rectilinear arrangement would seem to give an austerefeel to the space. The grid iron layout appears alien in this location. Although the layout is veryconstrained by the shape and access of the site, but is it not possible to design in more curvatureand variety to both public space and the buildings?

3) Design.

This is a key gateway location which is semi rural in character and transitional between the Cityand the countryside. We continue to consider that the current design of the blocks to be bland andinappropriate in such a location. In particular, we consider the design of the residential blocks tobe uninspiring and monotonous in terms of massing and roof heights. This will create a depressingliving environment for future residents of the scheme. This is a particularly sensitive location whereBristol's built environment meets the open landscape of Ashton Court. The proposed regimentedblocks of uniform design are considered inappropriate in such a setting.

4) Festival Way cycle and pedestrian route

We welcome the retention of the existing Festival Way route. We note that Transport DevelopmentManagement have recommended that the route "must be 5m wide, fully segregated, illuminatedand signed, whereas a 3m width is proposed. The Festival Way is a popular route, particularly asa leisure route at weekends, hence the justification for a wide route. Commuting cyclists will wantto travel more quickly and segregation is appropriate.

Although this is now vastly improved , I STILL very much object to the height of theblocks and believe that it should be LOWER than the current development at Paxton Drive.I still see NO improvement to the traffic flow/bottle neck situationand would like MORE green space being included by reducing the amount of dwellings.Incorporating space for people to have their own allotment space would be a huge benefit in manyways.The use of natural stone would improve the aesthetics and make it blend more into the localenvironment.PLEASE look to continue to improve the application.

I appreciate the response of the developer to try and address the many concerns raisedby stakeholders and the public. However, many of the issues raised in my previous two objectionsdated 05/05/20 and 03/01/21 still stand, and unfortunately after reviewing the revised proposal Imust object on the further grounds stated below.

Access:

It comes to my attention that there is only one access route for emergency vehicles, when it hasbeen stated there must be two for a development of this size. The developers argue that oneaccess route exists from the Ashton Gate Underpass and the other from Paxton Drive, however,these conjoin at a pinch point beneath the busway, making it a single access point. If the secondproposed access route for emergency vehicles is the railway bridge, this is not suitable foremergency vehicle access, due to its limited load capacity, and narrow width.

Visual Impact:

Considering the proposed development is on raised land, the proposed 5 storeys for most blocksare still substantially higher than adjacent Paxton Drive. Despite efforts, this site is therefore stillnot in keeping with its surroundings, and will still tower above the most immediate infrastructure inthe region including Paxton Drive and the Brunel Way flyover. This can be observed in the revisedphotomontages. Within these, it is also clear that even with the reduction in height of thedevelopment, it will still negatively impact the views to and from important features in Bristol's

heritage and landscape, including the tobacco factories, the Suspension Bridge and Ashton Court.The visual appearance of this development is also not in keeping with the surroundings as clearlyshown in the photomontages, where dull, concrete jungle-style grey blocks can be seen, furtheradding to the poor appeal of this development.

It is convenient that most of the proposed flats are East and West facing to ensure all units willreceive a good level of direct sunlight and daylight, but the developers have paid little to no regardfor the loss of afternoon and evening light and privacy that will be incurred by Paxton Driveresidents, throughout the year. Even the smallest of these blocks will tower above Paxton Drivebecause the proposed development is on raised ground. I refer you back to my first objection fromApril which states under the Human Rights Act, Protocol 1, Article 1, "A person has the right topeaceful enjoyment of all their possessions, which includes the home and other land". This issueonce again has not been addressed in the amended plans.

Development Density and Provision of Amenities and Services:I would like to re-highlight that BCC suggested the site was suitable for up to 150 dwellings,equating to 55 units/ha. "Up to" also suggests that this 150 should be an upper limit. Despitereduction from the initial 253 to 242 to the now proposed 220 dwellings (81 units/ha), this is stillsignificantly over the 150 the site was deemed suitable for. These 220 units will provide 736bedspaces in total. The developer justifies this over-densification of the site in the SPD ResponseRev A document using the site's proximity to the metro busway and the desire to create acommunity feel through open spaces. The proposed open spaces, however, are argued here asinsufficient for the proposed density of this site with the revised plans demonstrating further loss ofgreen space for recreation.

On the topic of the over-densification of this site, could Vistry Partnerships or BCC please confirmwhether there will be sufficient provision of services for the increased population in this area,including GP surgeries and local schools? Recent personal experiences including an hour and ahalf on hold on the telephone just to get through to my local GP surgery has highlighted to me thatGP services in the region are clearly already overwhelmed before the addition of significant patientnumbers arising from this development.

Increasing the footprint size of many of the proposed blocks in the revised plans has resulted infurther reduction of parking spaces on the site to 125 spaces. Parking has been expressed as aconcern throughout this consultation process, yet Vistry Partnerships have continuouslydisregarded this information.On the theme of parking, I would like to know what provisions are in place for electric vehicleparking given that under the government's proposed Green Plan all new cars must be electric by2030? The 28 electric vehicle parking places proposed are without question insufficient for a newdevelopment in this day and age.

Ecology:

In the revised plans a simplified parking layout is presented that results in loss of the proposedopen mosaic habitat. The developers attempt to compensate for this with 1000 m2 of brown roofarea. I struggle to understand how this is of equivalent ecological value to ground-level habitat.This substitution of ground-level open mosaic habitat for brown roof will further intensify themassing of these buildings in this sensitive city gateway location.

The development is required to make a net positive biodiversity impact. In the addendum ecologyletter, their own calculations show them to make a net negative impact. This is justified with a briefsuggestion that hedges might make up the shortfall.The SPD Response Rev A document states that Paxton Drive has no public open space. Frompersonal experience there are several communal green spaces within the Paxton Drivedevelopment, a satellite measurement of public green space at Paxton Drive showed 1910 m2,not including the adjacent green space proposed for the new access route for the proposeddevelopment. This green area in adjacent Paxton Drive is larger than the proposed publiccommunal gardens at the development. The incorrect statement of facts by Vistry Partnershipshighlights their efforts to divert the attention of BCC to Paxton Drive to conveniently maximise theappeal of the proposed development.

Flooding and Contamination:

I thank the applicant for providing further information on the surface water drainage strategy.However, I was surprised to find in the revised drainage strategy that the discharge rates forcatchment areas B and C are stated, while A1 and A2 are still omitted from the body of the report.It is my understanding from the modelling data in Appendix F of the drainage report that thesepeak flows should be 2.0 l/s and 3.0 l/s. When this is summed with the stated numbers fromcatchments B and C of 2.2 l/s and 0.9 l/s, respectively, totalling 8.1 l/s. This is significantly above(> 60%) Wessex Water's requirement of less than 5.0 l/s. As the on-site water storage capacity iscalculated using this inflated flow I am concerned that the capacity will be insufficient and thatconsequently the flood risk is significantly underestimated.

The likelihood of surface water flooding is further exacerbated by the increase in footprint of blocksG1, G2, and E2, which will further encourage runoff during rainfall events to inundate thesurrounding lower-lying areas, including the metro busway, Paxton Drive and the allotments. Ihave seen no assurances in the current reporting that surrounding areas are not at increased risk,except for the reported busway which is shown to be significantly impacted.

Further relating to flooding and drainage, it is my understanding that the use of infiltration-basedSuDS has been deemed inappropriate for the site due to high levels of ground contamination.However, SuDS tree pits and permeable paving are still suggested to be flood attenuating featuresin the current design. Can the developer or BCC guarantee that this will not lead to waterinfiltration into the contaminated ground?

As the Environment Agency have renounced responsibility for any flood or contaminant-relatedincidents, I would like to know what actions will be taken by BCC to indemnify the adjacent landusers - allotment owners and Paxton Drive residents alike, in the event of a flood?

It appears that there is no updated ground report despite previous land contaminationassessments being performed by an unaccredited company. In the updated Drainage StrategyPart 2 Appendix E it states "The information provided indicates that significant organiccontamination is present in the form of hydrocarbons with a significant thickness of a light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) in some places. The laboratory used for the analysis does notappear to be accredited for that analysis. This is not acceptable to the Environment Agency. It isnot clear what the 'Organics' analysis relates to/covers in the results. It is not clear why T&PRegen did not discuss most of the lab results in their report. T&P Regen only appear to summariseresults for specific substances rather than TPH as a whole, it is not clear why this is the case asthis underestimates the risk in our view." It was also highlighted in T&P Regen's report that resultswere disregarded as they exceeded solubility limits. Have these issues been addressed sincethese questions were raised? If so, it would be good if the data from an accredited laboratorycould be shared for public consultation, and if not, I strongly suggest BCC insist on furtherinvestigation of ground contaminants and associated risk before making a final decision on thisproposed development.

I would also like to emphasise to BCC that the Environment Agency have stated that no structuresunder any circumstances should be erected within 8 m of the Longmoor Brook Culvert. Currentplans still show a large retaining wall to be inside of the 8 m standoff which potentiallycompromises this critical flood defence structure.

Concluding Remarks:

I strongly exhort Bristol City Council to see this development for what it is. Through many wellraised objections and concerns by stakeholders and the public, it has been demonstrated that theproposed development of this site for 220 dwellings, with 736 bedspaces (and likely more due tocouples), as it currently stands (and in all of its previous forms too), is unsuitably dense for the sitefootprint, site amenities, and local service provisions. Parking is insufficient for the proposednumber of dwellings, and revisions of the site plan to remedy previous objections regardingbuilding massing has resulted in further loss of green-space and habitat provision to accommodatethe larger building footprints proposed by the developer, with no meaningful reduction in visualdensity. The proposed development is also insensitive of its surroundings, not respecting thebuilding styles in its vicinity, including the tobacco factories - an extremely important part ofBristol's heritage, and Paxton Drive, which was clearly designed with red brick to compliment thestyle of the tobacco factories.

Further concerns are raised regarding site access for emergency services. It has been stated that

for a site of this size there must be two points of access for emergency services. At present this isnot clear in the proposed plans. BCC must insist that this is clarified before a final decision ismade on the proposed plans.

While I appreciate the developer's efforts to reduce the heights of these buildings, I do notappreciate the expansion of the footprint of these blocks, nor the increasing in height of otherblocks, notably G, to make up the shortfall. This highlights the solely financial incentives of thedevelopers because who else really benefits from this overcrowded and over-dense site?Residents will lose usable green space and be living in compacted conditions, neighbours will loselight, privacy, and enjoyment of their homes, the allotments will lose morning sunlight and viewswill be tarnished to and from important features in Bristol's heritage and landscape by thisdevelopments uninspired and unsightly architecture. I truly feel that this site has the potential to bedeveloped into a space that is beneficial to more people beyond the developers themselves withcareful consideration and more respect for this sensitive Bristol City gateway site.

I object fully to this development. If COVID 19 has shown us anything, it's that we needto value our outdoor space and respect our conservation area's.You are proposing 220 dwellings but how many people with cars does this equate to?? Pleaseprovide an answer.

By continuing to build over every available space and build upwards we are just creating the samemistakes as we did in the late 60's where we have created ghettos and unsightly housing forhumans. As well as costly for tenants to maintain due to size of scaffolding required when anymaintenance is needed. Architects have shown you can get the same amount of houses in samearea as a Tower Block. As a parent i know and understand the difficulty in taking small childrenout, changes of clothes, needing the toilet, living in a flat makes it 100% harder to do those thingscompared with your own house and garden, where they can play. There is no mention ofadditional school or doctors being built, yet this and the wider area is earmarked for nearly 2000new homes. Does this still meet our 2030 climate goal?? Please show the evidence and vs totalamount of people proposed to be living here vs 2000 homes. You also need to hope you can getyour children into the local and already oversubscribed schools, no car you may have to leavereally early to walk the children in all weathers, all whilst living by a really busy highway which thecurrent incumbent mayor wants to make even busier by supporting an Airport expansion! Justleave the green spaces alone, they are the lungs of our city.

Though the height of the development has been reconsidered, this is only one aspect ofthe plan which has been amended. There is still no real consideration as to the access andincreased traffic that will inevitably come from the development.

All that's happened from the original is they.ve reduced it by 20 dwellings. All still thesame issues. This area is supposed to be part of bristol clean air. More polluting traffic in a alreadybusy area. These will be family's on lower incomes who can't afford green cars. There are fewerspaces to park, so cars we be parking anywhere( already a problem in paxton drive). Plus whenagents happen within ashton court, and bristol city football stadium, it will be chaos. This is ahistorical part of bristol. DONT RUIN IT.

All my previous comments from 11th January still stand after seeing revisions to theapplication:

We wholeheartedly object to this development in its present form, especially with regards toBlocks A and B. The particular concerns we have are;

Height of the development and loss of privacy (and views):Blocks A and B positioned opposite Paxton Drive still appear to be one storey taller than those inPaxton Drive. This would block out the pleasant view of green space to Leigh Woods and ofClifton Suspension Bridge that residents enjoy now and which gives us enjoyment of ourproperties. With the new development the view would be completely lost and we would just belooking at hulking buildings and properties able to overlook ours. Currently our flat feels privateand safe and this would be lost if the current proposals were to go ahead. This impact is amplifiedfor Paxton Drive residents situated more closely opposite the proposed development. All theywould see is more buildings instead of a pleasant space. As to how this will impact upon propertyvalues, I would suggest negatively. Has this been considered by the developer or Bristol CityCouncil?

There are still significantly more (220) properties proposed as part of this development than thesite is earmarked for in the local plan. This seems nothing more than an attempt by the developerto cram as many properties as possible into the space without regard for environmental or socialimpacts. If the council gives the go-ahead to this proposal, it will give the impression that

developers can ride roughshod over local policy.

This proposal also isn't particularly visionary for the Cumberland Basin site which has largehistorical and heritage significance. Nothing about these properties appears to reflect the place onwhich they're sited. They are just generic blocks, easy and relatively cheap to build and then sellat high prices in a desirable part of the city.

Parking:While the Metrobus connection does save on car journeys into Bristol and connects with TempleMeads, car ownership per household in the south west rose between 2015-2018 to approx. 1.4per household (https://www.statista.com/statistics/314912/average-number-of-cars-per-householdin-england/). This development has <1 parking space per household which indicatesthat residentsthere either without a space or more than one car would be forced to park their vehicles nearby,likely in Paxton Drive and other residential streets within a 5-10 minute walking radius. Are wereally to believe that prospective owners would give up their cars to live in a property that doesn'thave a dedicated space? The primary and secondary roads on the development would likelybecome car parks without enforcement, putting access by emergency, refuse/recycling and largervehicles at risk.

Road access:The new development includes a new access road that crosses the Metrobus lane and joinsAshton Gate Underpass/A370 where the Paxton Drive exit is located. This access road would bedisruptive in terms of traffic flow and also to residents of Paxton Drive (particularly Block F).Currently we enjoy relative peace in the evening and night-time but vehicles leaving and enteringthe new development would prove a disturbance from the engine noise but also headlights thatwould shine into windows during hours of darkness.

Flooding and drainageI would like to echo the concerns of Miss Amelia Vale (147 Paxton Drive). She has eloquently anddiligently outlined some clear concerns about drainage and flooding with regards to thisdevelopment.

I would also like to say that the developers appear to be taking advantage of local residents notbeing able to meet in person or attend consultations due to Covid-19. I feel that our collectivevoice about this development is not being heard. In addition, though I have only lived in my flat fora little under a year, I have received no engagement from the developer about their proposals forthis site. This may be due to the planning process being underway but if it is a choice on their part,then it does not sit well at all.

The revisions do nothing to address the totally inadequate level of design such a sitedemands, the still gross over development, a complete lack of understanding of the qualities of thesite, the festival way treated as a massive inconvenience rather than the show piece that a'gateway' for the city that is required.

Ive always love how that side of the river is dedicated to being a green space.as fornear the old railway, why don't you build a park? one of the main reasons i moved to Bristol 13years go now was because of the proximity of the densely populated city is to such lush greenuninhabited space. I would hate to see that side of the river fill up with houses. shops and carparks

As a keen walker/cyclist i feel that the development risks ruining a valuable outdoor andhisorical area, the area proposed is a gateway to the the countryside, views of our historicalheritage, woodland area and wildlife. By allowing this development it seems it will ruin the opengreen area on the southern edge of our city that so many people use.

I am opposing the redevelopment as the area is a valuable area for access to greenspace, has cultural, historical, nature and environmental importance and is used by diverse groupsin the city for recreation and, leisure. The housing plan will be too dense and risk ruining such agreat resource.

The area is a valuable area for access to green space, has cultural, historical, natureand environmental importance and is used by diverse groups in the city for recreation and, leisure.

The proposed housing plan will be too dense and risk ruining such a great resource.

These slightly amended plans fail to succeed in mitigating the extreme harm that thesetall, ill designed, incongruous and overmassed blocks would inflict upon important vistas of AshtonCourt Mansion & meadows, the Avon Gorge, the Suspension Bridge and its setting.

It would be a disaster for this City if they were to be implemented.

Height of the blocks of flats. Overcrowded site. Difficulty access onto main road .

This continues to represent significant development in this area that will result in asignificant change to the area's character and appearance, particularly on the west side of BrunelWay. The proposed buildings remain too high and monolithic in terms of mass, scale and design.The Panel supports Historic England's substantial objection to this proposal. This is set within atransitional landscape between the rural and urban edge of the city and will result in significantharm to principal views into and out of the Conservation Area. Views of Ashton Meadows, theallotments and sports ground, between Ashton Court and Bedminster and the setting of theregistered historic landscape and the Grade I listed mansion would be subject to significantadverse effects. The Panel notes that the existing route of the cycleway has been reinstated butthis has resulted in a layout that intensifies development. The proposal would not provide sufficientpublic benefits to outweigh the harm caused and consequently does not accord with relevant LocalPlan heritage policies and the requirements of the NPPF.

I object to this development.This land will be prone to flooding in the future. There are many grey sites that could be betterimproved and redeveloped. The plans don't give residents enough outdoor leisure space to give asafe post-pandemic lifestyle. On site parking is ugly. Why not put underground in when you havenew developments that are being built from scratch? Giving people more space to use thecommunal gardens? How will this development hamper the railway line developments whichshould happen in the future? How many objections will realistically change the trajectory of thisproject, will you listen to the people?

The historic landscape setting and iconic views of the Avon Gorge, the listed buildingsof the Clifton Suspension Bridge, Ashton Court and St Mary Redcliffe are all under threat from thispart of the plan to develop the Cumberland Basin ( Western Harbour) environs. Apart from thesecrucial heritage issues there is the problem of scale of the proposed 5, 7 and 9 story blocks.There are further archaeological issues about the old mine workings. I have concerns also aboutthe arboricultural plans and air pollution. The site is on a flood plain which a huge potentialproblem with Global Warming. And of course Bower Ashton is a Conservation Area.In the glory days of the Hotwell Spa, along what is now the Hotwell Road there were the extensiveNew Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens. It is highly desirable that any development of the CumberlandBasin environs should once again major on parks, gardens and other recreational facilities forchildren and adults.,

The Clifton and Hotwells Improvement Society strongly opposes these proposals. Thescale and massing of the proposed development are such that considerable harm would beinflicted upon the setting of Ashton Court, the Clifton Suspension Bridge and the Avon Gorge.Architecturally the design is of very poor quality, lacking in character or distinctiveness, and payingscant regard to the characteristics of the local area. The scheme is the opposite in terms of itsdrab monotony of the standards recommended by the Building Better, Building Beautiful reportand should be rejected.

If this area is to be 'developed' then this is a great opportunity for Bristol City Council tocome up with plans that respond to the site's unique context and prove to all that it cares andresponds to the heritage and beauty of that area.

It would be so good for Bristol if people came and could praise how well and sensitively it hadbeen accomplished. It could be done but the current application dismally fails in that respect.

I ask that this application is rejected and that a fresh approach is taken to any futuredevelopments.

2

Given the climate emergency, it is no longer appropriate to assume residents will primarily access the

site by car. Indeed, this site, with its difficult road access especially at peak hours, is a prime

candidate to be a car-free development. The need for regular site road access to cross the Metrobus

route is also a potential source of hazard and delay for bus passengers.

Bus connection into the city should be good using the Metrobus stop, but good walking connections

to local facilities are also essential. The site, along with the adjacent one on Paxton Drive, is severed

from shopping and the city by the A370 (Brunel Way). Walking links could be improved with another

direct link under or over the A370 to Greville Smyth Park to create the most direct walking link

possible to North Street and its shopping and entertainment facilities. Even small deviations will

deter walking. This should be designed with safety for walking at night in mind. If additional cycling

routes are also provided, they should be segregated from the walking routes by at least a kerb.

Bristol Walking Alliance

25 January 2021 enquiries@bristolwalkingalliance.org.uk

We note that the construction management plan does not address the contractorparking issue properly. The comments are obviously made to satisfy the initial application. Theproblem of contractor parking will become an issue of consern to residents and indeed lead theserious issue of people's wellbeing. Planning officers are requested to interogate this further andprovide endorsements from the developer. The developer cannot be detached from this.

The main objection is to the height of the buildings and their effect on the heritage landscape ofBristol. Also will the council detail where the CIL will be spent, schools, surgeries etc

- this development will be a blot on the landscape due to the building height

- Parking for potential residents has not been carefully considered

- increased number of vehicles in the area would cause further congestion and pollution in an areawhich already suffers with a poor road system, especially during rush hour

For the attention of Ms Jess LeighDear Ms Leigh,

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above application.

The proposals fall considerably short of what would normally be expected in a planning applicationof this type and particularly so, considering the sensitive location with its iconic setting and views.The proposals do not add to the overall quality of the area, are not visually attractive and areunsympathetic to the local character and history - of the site itself and of the wider builtenvironment and landscape setting. As such, they fall far short of the requirements of the NationalPlanning Policy Framework (NPPF).

I object on the following grounds:

1) The impact on the designated landscape from and to the Ashton Court Estate and Mansion;2) The insensitivity of the proposals to the neighbouring Bower Ashton Conservation Area;3) The building height, massing and density;4) Probable traffic impact at peak periods on the A370 Brunel Way, causing further backing up onthe A369 Clanage and Winterstoke Road underpass / junction; and5) The unsubstantiated comments made to justify the proposals.

Whilst it is true that the development site comprises 'brownfield' land, in that it has been previously

developed, this was in the form of low level railway sidings and occasional single storey buildings,which were hidden from view from nearly all aspects and, particularly, from Ashton Court Mansion.Until the late 1950s / early 1960s, with the construction of Ashton Park School and the art college(now UWE), there was no building greater than two storeys on the SW side of the A370 other thanthe mansion itself. Until Paxton Way was built (c. 2010), there was nothing higher than the A370elevated section on its western side coming into and out of the city. As a consequence, there wereuninterrupted views coming into Bristol and of Ashton Court coming out. There were alsouninterrupted views across the city and a clear connection of green space into Greville Smyth Parkfrom the Estate.

These views are some of the most impressive of any city in the United Kingdom and arguablyEurope, and are remarkable because they are largely uninterrupted in such close proximity to acity centre. They are iconic in the true sense of the word, something to be proud of, whether one isa Bristolian or not, to be cherished, enjoyed and protected.

The application seems to make very little of this, treats it with scant regard as if it's not importantor valuable. It asks us to believe that the creation of five massive monoliths adjacent to the A370,of between 4-8 storeys in height, rising in elevation towards the Cumberland Basin, that curtailsthese views, is not only necessary but a better as a 'Gateway' into the city. Really?

There is no real justification for the proposed building height or unit density. The Revised Designand Access Statement states that, "northwards scale needs to increase to reflex [typo - reflect?]the context that the proposal would be viewed in..." This is a most absurd statement. One mightask, from where - and why? If one is walking along the Festival Way towards the river that wouldprobably be the last thing on one's mind. Further, on my reading, there is no justification providedfor why the unit density has to be so much greater than that within the Bristol Local Plan.

And what about the landscape impact coming down the Portway into Bristol? Do we really need an8 storey tower block, approximately twice the height of the existing light pylons, rising out of whatis, to all intents and purposes, the floodplain? To imply that a building of this height and geometryis warranted because there are bonded warehouses of similar height on the eastern side of BrunelWay is pushing logic too far. The application dwellings look like industrial storage space but wouldone really want to live in one?

No, there is too much mutton dressed up as lamb in this application and too much of theEmperor's new clothes. This application is a blatant attempt to maximise unit density as a basis forprofit. The Applicant has not treated this land parcel with the sensitivity that it requires or theheritage of the surrounding area with the care it deserves.

On this basis I urge you to refuse permission.

The minor revisions to this scheme do not mitigate the damage that this developmentwill have on this important edge of city siteThe site is a real opportunity for sensitive development but the layout ,massing and very mediocrearchitecture of this proposal completely fails to meet that opportunity.It should be rejected as overdevelopment ( higher than the local plan indicates ) and on design grounds .

The development is too high, and is completely out of character with the semiagricultural area in which it sits.

I strongly object to this application.The following are the main reasons;loss of light - in the area all around, for those who live nearby or take recreation in the area.highway safety- the surrounding roads will become much busier thus placing lives at risk ofaccident and poor health through pollution of nearby residents and those travelling through.Thousands of Bristol residents use Ashton Court and Festival way because they are quiet andsafe- this will damage our health and well-being.traffic and parking issues - as above for highway safety.noise- this would significantly increase noise of traffic, thereby reducing our enjoyment of walkingand cycling in this area.wildlife- this would severely reduce wildlife due to increased traffic and more buildings.historic buildings- the beauty of Ashton court house would be badly affected by having thesebuildings nearbyconservation - a poor effectdesign- the wrong design for the surrounding areaappearance of the development- as above for design.

My notification letter date is 24th December, so ~I didn't get it until well after Christmas,which doesn't give much time for looking properly at the revisions. I hope the deadline of 14thJanuary will be extended to allow more time for people to respond.

I am glad to see that Festival Way will follow its existing route. It is much used by cyclists, and Ihope that the opportunity will be taken to widen it to 5 metres to provide a segregatedcyclist/pedestrian route.

One storey has been knocked off the original proposed height, but I hope that, particularly at thenorthern end of the site, the height will be further reduced. High density does not mean highbuildings, and I don't think high buildings are appropriate on this site.

This is a wonderful part of our city and deserves design of a vey high standard. I don't think thishas been achieved here.

This is a greedy unimaginative plan which will ruin some of Bristol's most spectacularviewpoints. The revised tower is still far too high. There are far too many flats crammed into thespace - why should social housing be so poky?Bristol is a beautiful city and this wretchedly ill-thought-out mess of a plan is mere corporatevandalism.

Thoughtless design with little creative effort. Will ruin views to and from Ashton Court -one of the most well known and aesthetically appealing parts of Bristol. Why would you want tocompromise that? Along with many other developments around Bedminster this proposal is tryingto squeeze to much into a space that can't accommodate it and will irreparably change the lookand feel of the area and the community for the worse. Not the sort of architectural legacy Bristolshould be aiming for.

I object on many accounts to this proposal to build on this sliver of land, wedgedbetween the high flyover of the A 370, one of our entrances to the city, and the beginning of therural landscape of North Somerset and our historic Ashton Court.

Bristol City Council has acknowledged that there is a serious problem with flooding in parts of thecity, especially near the river Avon and that this will certainly increase in the years soon to come.BCC's own Environment Agency team have stated that the flood risk to this site is unacceptable.Given that these will be people's future homes, isn't it important to make sure that the ground theystand on hasn't any risk of flooding.

Bristol City have also stated that we have now a Climate Emergency. Surely therefore alldevelopments should be 100% carbon neutral and completely sustainable in energy and use.Where are the PV 's on this proposal? Are the options for cycling and walking priorities?This proposal doesn't even meet BCC's present sustainability criteria.

These proposals also hugely breaches the Local Plan's recommendation for the density of numberof flats. The 242 number of flats proposed is a lot more than 150 recommended. The need formore housing and especially affordable should not mean that the quality of new housing should becompromised by building units of insufficient size and durability.

The size and especially the height of these proposals and their intrusion onto the City's historiclandscape is unforgiveable. The developer's amendment by reducing the tower block by one

storey is totally insufficient.

I wrote an objection with detail last summer and I am objecting again for mostly thesame reasons. I am concerned about the overall scale of the buildings and whilst there has been aslight reduction in height - this does not go far enough. The max height should be 5 stories and Istrongly object to 6,7 and 8 in this location.There is still too much hard paving and landscape on the site and not enough communual spaceswhere residents can relax and play.The change in site layout with relocation of access road to boundary seems to be an improvementalong with the retention of the public cycle route. However, Im note sure this scheme providesenough community facilities for the residents and others to enjoy.

My main concern is to do with height of Block E - at 8 storeys it is too tall for theparticular location and may detrimentally affect some of the views to and from Ashton Court.Good that 50% of the flats are meant to be affordable, but it does seem like the development isoverly dense.I am also concerned about the main pedestrian routes into the site - apologies if I've misreadsomething, but it seems that the access paths are either along the metro bus route (which is prettyquiet as it only has metro us traffic) or via the underpass and then in both instances through partsof the park. This doesn't seem ideal from a safety point of view given that parks should generallybe avoided after dark and there would be a lack of surveillance along all these paths. I'm not sureif the proposals mitigate these issues in any way. Given there is not a huge amount of parking aspart of the scheme having safe pedestrian/ cycling routes seems particularly important.

I hugely object to this application for the residential units proposed for the site adjacent to ClanageRoad.The major A370 road bringing you from the south west highlights the importance of this entranceinto our city, with the River Avon dividing the city from the rural and its historic story. Theseproposed residential units with their over-sized tower blocks and over-high density flats will bevisually over bearing on both the red brick warehouses on their east side and the flat green fieldsand historic parkland on their western side.This important area of green space for the people of Bristol will be impeded by the density of thedevelopment with its access roads and servicing. The planners should listen to the manycomments of the many amenity societies and refuse this application.

This land is in the Greenbelt. The idea of the Greenbelt is to prevent Urban Sprawl. Thisis Urban Sprawl and will facilitate other Urban Sprawl.

The group supports the objections of Historic England and Avon Gardens Trust.

Density - although the number of proposed units on site has been reduced very slightly but will stillexceed 240. The site was identified in the local plan which noted that it could support a maximumof 150 units/dwellings. The current planning application represents an unacceptable over-densification.

Height of buildings - despite the minor reduction in the height of the northern buildings, they arestill far too high at particularly for this very sensitive and key gateway site. The development site isalso on raised ground, and this has not been taken into account in the application. Building E inparticular does not take account of the lower ground to the west but would create a "Berlin Wall"style effect, projecting to c.20 m above that ground.The developer is seeking to reference the height of the Cumberland Basin flyover as anappropriate benchmark, which it is not given both the max 4 storied Paxton Drive development tothe east and flat allotment/riverside ground to the west.

The poor quality of the visual design and architecture (both of which are monotonous and hulking),have no respect for the local character or setting and are not of the necessary standard needed forthis key gateway site.

Non-compliance with para 127 NPPF which is quite clear that "Planning policies and decisionsshould ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area,

not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as aresult of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic tolocal character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting,while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increaseddensities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets,spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live,work and visit." The proposed development also does not accord with the detailed policies ofBristol City Council's Urban Living SPD, or Policy DM26 of the Bristol Local Plan.

Comments:

I comment both as an architect and 'neighbour' as well as a frequent user of the Festival Waycycle path. I am surprised to see that my previous comment has been removed from the planningportal - how many others?! The slightly amended plan is in every respect as bad as it ever was -so little need but to update my original comment:

This is a disastrous application that fails on all counts except it plays into the numbers game. It isarchitecturally abysmal, has no sense of place, and has sadly not improved since its first publicairing at the Create Centre when it was slated by both professional and public attendees alike.Reduction of the height of the tallest buildings by a storey still leaves it presenting a banalentrance to Bristol from the South West as well as damaging views, including significant harm tothe setting of some of Bristol's greatest treasures, Ashton Court's registered landscape, and viewsto and from the Avon Gorge and Grade I listed Clifton Suspension Bridge.

While I have no objection to the principle of development of this site, the layout is one that hasclearly been devised on the computer without proper reference to place - and with nounderstanding of the principles of good urban design. I cannot see the current professional ordevelopment team being able to pull the necessary rabbits out of the bag to make this schemeacceptable. It requires a complete rethink that enables a more natural incorporation of the FestivalWay, that is more family friendly in terms of landscape and environment, that significantly reducesthe extent of parking and raises its game in terms of architecture and urban design. Why build on

a principal cycle path into and out of the city and encourage car ownership that has been the baneof Bristol?

If planning is to have any purpose, principle and power left, it will refuse this application which isnot only abysmal in itself but would set a dangerous precedent for any future neighbouringdevelopment. Please refuse outright and don't encourage or accept some indifferent compromise!

George Ferguson

This plan does not fit in with the architecture of the local setting, nor does it haveadequate parking. This site has a huge footprint and will have a negative impact on those livingnearby, disrupting views to the countryside and increased traffic in an already busy area, not tomention the impact on wildlife. There are no plans with all of these building sites to increaseschool or doctors provisions which concerns me greatly.

I am writing to strongly object to this dreadful planning application, on the following grounds:

1) The proposed blocks of flats are still way too high, blocking views of the beautiful Grade 2Ashton Court parkland from the South.

2) The proposed blocks of flats will be adjacent to the 4-storey Paxton Drive, and also theallotments. Any development allowed on this site should therefore also be a maximum of 4 storeysto match.

3) The proposed blocks of flats are brutally ugly in design - reminiscent of Soviet-era tower blocks.The design is completely unsympathetic and will despoil the hamlet of Bower Ashton in which itsits, and the beautiful parkland of Ashton Court close by.

4) The current proposals would severely overcrowd the site; the Councils own Local Planrecommends that the site be used for a maximum of 150 homes at a density of 55 units perhectare, but the developers instead propose 242 homes with a density of 88 units/ha.

5) Road traffic access for this number of people is woefully inadequate and potentially dangerous.In addition to a number of private cars, road access will be needed for deliveries, drop-offs,visitors, taxis, rubbish collections and home removals, amongst other things.

The current proposals would provide for overcrowded, substandard accommodation withinadequate road access for future residents, in addition to ruining the amenity of existing BowerAshton and Southville residents. The proposals should be refused and required to be resubmittedwith much lower building heights and a more aesthetically pleasing design.

I write further to my original comments on this application and note the revisions thathave been made. However, I still have concerns about the density, height and nature of thisdevelopment.

As I noted in my original comments, critically the development site lies between the City DocksConservation Area and the Bower Ashton Conservation area. Whilst I have no objection to thedevelopment of this site, I believe it should be sympathetic and in keeping with the local area andshould not detract from it.

My concerns about the height of the tallest buildings remain. The height of the buildings should bereduced to four storeys across the development and to be in line with the height of the buildings inPaxton Drive. This will reduce the negative visual impact of the development and the density of theaccommodation. The iconic Clifton Suspension Bridge, a Grade 1 listed building, remains theworld's best known image of Bristol. What message does this send to the world if we cannotcreate a sustainable development that is both sustainable culturally as well as socially andecologically.

It is noted that the local plan estimated 150 dwellings and this development envisages 242 whichis excessive for the site and an overdevelopment. The number of proposed units on the siteshould be reduced. I also note that there are only 28 electric vehicle charging spaces which is notat all sufficient for a new development which should be forward thinking.

I note that the Festival Way cycle and walking route will be retained but am concerned about thewidth of this being reduced to 3 metres. This is a popular route and has become more so inlockdown, the segregation of cyclists and pedestrians is vital to avoid accidents and I note thatTransport Development Management have recommended that the route be 5 metres wide, arecommendation that I fully endorse. I also note that with the limited car parking available on thedevelopment, residents will presumably need this route to both commute and for leisure activities,all the more reason to make it wide enough for it to be safe for all.

I urge the planning department to consider the above comments, and those of the other residentsof Bristol, and organisations (Bristol Civic Society, Historic England, Avon Gardens Trust, PublicHealth England, North Somerset Council and Environment Agency etc), that seek to preserveBristol's best known landmarks and landscapes for future generations.

This development will over shadow the allotments and overcrowd a green space evenfurther. Please create a garden instead as the area is already too crowded and too polluted.

I am objecting to the proposal for this site as i believe it is too big, too tall. I amconcerned about access to this site and if the developers get their own way would have the wholeCumberland basin road system changed for it, which i think would be more detrimental to the areathan providing as asset. there is also the risk that they would try to push development intoGrenville Smith park and the adjacent allotments, both of which are spaces heavily used byBristolians especially at a time like this. My concern is also that there would be yet more peopleliving in the vicinity of Coronation road and they will be requiring the use of services such asdoctors and dentist all of which are over stretched.Mt next concern is that the design of the tower blocks not only look ugly and would make the areafeel dark and over shadowed, but will also cause a consistent shadow over the neighboringallotments which have been there since before the 1st world war (when it was temporally used asa training ground for the troops before they went off to battle and was returned to allotments after).I feel this has not taken in to consideration what so ever of its surroundings. The site woulddeprive the allotment holders of sun light that they need/require to grow their vegetables with. Thisis taking away their right to light! There doesn't seem to be any understanding of what the area isused for. It feels like the developers are bulling there way in and do not care for others.I my self have a plot there as i do not have much of a garden at home, this place has been a godsend throughout the lockdowns, some where i can come a breath take in fresh air and not feelworried about relaxing. I know this is how most of the allotment holders feel, most of which havebeen there for years and have put most of their retired life into the place. I think if you allow such atall development to go ahead you are diminishing the allotments rights. The design is not in-keeping with the surroundings, not expense spared there and possibly would cause quite a wind

funnel effect along the bike and footpath. Also enclosing the area which could potently make it feelunsafe for footpath users.

The revised application exists as an unsympathetic and blighted cousin of the original:

The design is over-massed and uninspired. There remains concern over strain on surroundinginfrastructure, access routes and amenity which are unresolved. The plan is considered too denseto be sustainable.

The development appears as an appendage: sprawling such as a college campus might sprawl totake over a neighbouring car park. The development requires a whole new vision that providesdeliberate focus, to amass the potential and benefit of its unique and cradling location and to usethis as a guide to its aesthetic and purpose - appreciative of its place, not ignorant of it.

I ask that the application is kindly refused with a suggestion of significant reconsideration withrespect of the density, scale and appeal of any subsequent proposal for this significant site.

A development up to 8 stories high will significantly impact on the local area, inparticular the leisure area and walkways, cycle path and allotments which currently benefit fromviews of countryside and Clifton and will instead feel claustrophobic and unpleasant. This willimpact on reducing people's exercise and wellbeing. Housing would be welcome but needs torespect the skyline and quality of life of existing residents.

Finally we have an appalling verified view across our park, previously withheld, theSylvia Crowe meadow beside the river in conservation area to a sort of Stalingrad set of blocksfrom Ashton Avenue river bridge . From other public vantagepoints including the Crowe "woodedhill" the view to Ashton court will obviously be obstructed.I don't think the dwelling count has reduced , but the interesting townhouses are gone with thecycle lobby bought off by "no change of route for Festival way" as their gain.It is still vastly over the site allocation , substitutes are more flats in block form , and some of theparking is internalised once again...This really isn't the right proposal for the site.The road access remains weird, and I can envisage residents driving to the co-op on CoronationRoad and then cutting through Southville to Wintersoke road to get home again.

In general I endorse the comments of Heritage England, & North Somerset Councilamong many other who object to the development in its current form.

I shall address two or three areas with which I have some knowledge & experience.

Views from Ashton Court

I shall first look at the St Mary Redcliffe V Humphrey Repton debate & frankly this is possiblydancing on a pin head but in para 2.10 Heritage Briefing notes from City Gateway, in contrast tothe argument made, I should like to point out that Repton was not writing from the perspective ofhis redesigned landscape but in support of his plan to move the main entrance to Ashton CourtMansion to his detailed redesign of the east side of the building. He referred to a view from here tothe city & docks of Bristol which even in the early 19th century remained clustered around &immediately north of St Mary Redcliffe ( & who's origins were later than Ashton Court's). Reptonsadvice suggested that the owner with his guests could enjoy the view - being the source of muchof his money - from afar & not have it intrude on the tranquillity of his rural home. His landscapedesign - relocating trees to hill tops or deep in the valley to disguise roads, worked in support ofthis model. He did not suggest that the city should come to Ashton Court.

Ever since BCC set out to acquire the parkland for the health & well being of its citizens, it hasplayed a hugely important role for the people of Bristol & North Somerset. To that end, walkinguphill alongside Summerhouse & Rownham plantations & from the plateau, the eye is always

drawn, almost marshalled east by the planting, towards Bristol, the city & the horizon where StMary Redcliffe is an important focal point. The college buildings are largely concealed & thefootball stadium to the south is an unfortunate distraction which should not be seen as aprecedent. The proposed application would be a very damaging eyesore within the views affordedby Repton's landscape enhancements

Views towards Ashton Court & the Suspension Bridge.

Rather than taking a keyhole view of neighbouring areas, the whole west end of the harbour, fromthe adjacent conservation areas to the Ancient Monument site of Underfall Yard & the Grade 1listing of the Suspension Bridge are interdependent and enhance each other within thegeographical & historical context, all set against the trees and cliffs of Burwalls, the gorge & theparkland of Ashton Court. The site is part of a pivotal turning & returning & arriving point for thevisitors to this area & the city; the multi million pound industry of tourism & visual arts appreciatethe differences between this city & others but the proposed buildings, their height, massing & lackof originality & detailing can only detract from & damage the intrinsic value of this unique historiclandscape. Any development of this old depot site should enhance the 'assets' of this whole area,but this looks as if it might be the thin edge of an ugly wedge.

Routes to, from & around the Festival way.

Getting to & from the parkland & North Somerset or to the gorge from the city, the cycle pathprovides a much used & sometimes too densely packed route during Covid. It is like a 'greenway'for escaping the urban environment & much appreciated by walkers, cyclists & skateboarders aswell as allotment holders enjoying the open space & long sunlight hours in the semi industrialgreen fringe that this part of Ashton has been for centuries.

It is a lifeline to those not wishing to enter the 'wildwood' nor walk as far as Ashton Court, but enjoyits proximity. Despite being bordered by parkland Southville & Ashton have very low park area percapita. On this issue I disagree with all who say in its current form the site offers nothing to thecity. The current path is barely wide enough.

Neighbour & Friends of Ashton Court Mansion /FAM

It is highly suspicious that the amended plans were released on Christmas eve during anational pandemic lockdown. I only heard about the updates 1 day ago via the allotmentassociation and I suspect many residents in the area would not have been informed of the newplans. The consultation should be extended and promoted properly to give more people theopportunity to express their views.

It is very disappointing that few of the objections/complaints have been addressed in the newplans. It seems the new designs have merely shuffled the flats around (removing the town housesthat few objected to) without addressing the main issue of excessive housing density and height ina small area. As many have noted in the maximum number of people that realistically should behoused in this area should be 150. The proposed plans far exceed this and will cause hugeproblems for the environment (increased flood risks and damage to nature/wildlife), heritage,traffic, cycling, privacy and general health and safety of local residents.

The developers seem intent on putting profit far above public need.A Passivhaus development with generous open public space and good quality social hosting (suchas https://www.pmcarchitects.com/sustainability-information-blog-content/the-first-social-passive-house-development) could be built in the area that could be a true inspiration to the city anddeserve the "City Gateway" name. Unfortunately this development is far from that. It will be ablight to the area. A depressing and embarrassing way to be introduced to the city, as well ascausing great harm to the local community.

Hello, i strongly object to the proposed development for the following reasons, as a homeowner directly opposite the proposed site.

-The design of the buildings is horrific, at least make them the same as paxton drive- The loss of light and privacy in my home is unacceptable, especially with the developers only reducing the height by one story. it is over bearing and unacceptable.- The danger to human life is unacceptable with where the entrance to the development has been placed-the danger to the green space of the south of Bristol, ashton gate and the wildlife within it are unacceptable. ruining the landscape from the ashton court view, which is a view that sells Bristol to future residents, on tv and online. - The highway safety of the entrance is unacceptable.- The noise will ruin this tranquil area of Bristol- Wildlife will suffer when the area could be put to much better and wildlife driven use.- The parking in the area will become even more ridiculous. - Traffic will be worse, Bristol as the previous green city for Europe needs to take a lead in looking forward with this green belt of Bristol at its forefront.

This iconic area that all visitors from the south gateway to the city see, including the iconic bridge, need to be able to continue to appreciate this wonderful entrance to our amazing city, and not look at ugly, unsafe, flats.

do not build these for the sake of the city, its children safety in the area and its beauty.

General Considerations:

- I note in the amended documents for the revised plan, numerous discrepancies regarding thenumber of properties being proposed. The inability of the consultancies and Vistry Partnerships toperform simple arithmetic and accurately quantify the number of properties instils very littleconfidence in the proposed plans themselves. Is it 253, 245 or 242?

- This site was originally reported to be suitable for around 150 dwellings, rather than the proposed240 + dwellings. I am concerned Vistry Partnerships have disregarded this information in theirplans.

- I am still extremely concerned about the loss of privacy and afternoon/evening light that will beincurred by neighbouring Paxton Drive residents, as even the smallest of these blocks will towerabove Paxton Drive because the proposed development is on raised ground. The Human RightsAct, Protocol 1, Article 1, "A person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions,which includes the home and other land".

- While I appreciate the importance of providing social housing, I do not feel that provision ofalmost exclusively 1- and 2- bed flats support the notion of family living and is there enoughcapacity in local schools and in the surrounding GP surgeries to provide the required educationand health services for the number of residents?

- I am still extremely concerned about the mobilisation of contaminated particulate matter,particularly during the excavation and construction phases of development. Groundwater floodingat the site could also mobilise contaminated matter and subsequently leach out of the substrateinto the surrounding environment, including the River Avon, which provides an important site formuch of Bristol's ecology.

- I am concerned to note that the cycleway is to be lit along its edge and the vehicular access willalso require lighting. I note the bat corridor runs along this and I am concerned that the additionalnoise and light pollution will have a detrimental impact on conservation, the bats and other wildlife

Visual Impact:

- Amended plans include the reduction in height of the previously proposed 9-storey building to an8-storey building. To make up for the loss of financial gain by reducing the number of storeys, theamended plans have replaced the initially proposed 14 townhouses with three 3-storey blocks offlats, meanwhile reducing the initially proposed greenspace significantly.

- Reducing the height of the tallest proposed building by 1-storey is insufficient to reduce the visualimpact from several important sites in Bristol, including most notably from Ashton Court Estate andthe Clifton Suspension Bridge. Vistry Partnerships.

- The amended plans suggest the site has been designed to fit in with its surroundings, with highrise buildings adjacent to the Brunel Way Flyover, and lower rise buildings in line with adjacentPaxton Drive. This is inaccurate in several regards: first the proposed development site adjacent toPaxton Drive is on significantly elevated ground compared Paxton Drive giving a much greaterfinished building height, second the taller blocks adjacent to the Brunel Way flyover dwarf this roadinfrastructure as evidenced in their own visual impact assessments. The buildings therefore do notconsider the surrounding area. This discrepancy can be visualised clearly in both the revisedvisual impact assessment, as well as in the Design and Access Statement Addendum. Theproposed site stands out disproportionately on the existing skyline, largely obscuring the view ofthe Tobacco Factories, some of the most important buildings for Bristol's heritage, from key sites.The site also dwarfs adjacent Paxton Drive despite claims that the site has been designed not toexceed the existing developments in the area.

- The visual impact of this proposed development has been a major stumbling point throughout theconsultation process and remains to be. I note that despite the insignificant reduction in height ofthe tallest building, Block B has been increased from 4-storeys to 5-storeys, and Block A isdisingenuously described as 4-storeys when in fact the presence of a café underneath this Blockmakes it 5-storeys. Furthermore, Block H described as a 3-storey apartment building has anadditional storey due to its undercroft parking. This makes Block H 4-storeys high and taller thanthe previously proposed town houses in this part of the development.

- It has been reported that the buildings will have interesting views in all directions. Theconsequence of this is that all pre-existing buildings in the vicinity will have their 'interesting' viewsseverely blighted with detrimental impacts on people's right to privacy, and health and well-being.

Flooding:

- Whilst I appreciate the proposal has revised and amended their flood risk assessment,increasing flood risk to high in large areas of the development highlights a key issue with this sitefor the proposed development.

Travel, Access and Parking:

- Amended plans proposed to reduce the already insufficient parking from 141 + 8 disabledparking spaces, to 134 + 11 disabled parking spaces. Vistry Partnerships justifies this inadequateprovision of parking. The adjacent Paxton Drive development, where parking provision is onespace per dwelling, exemplifies that restricting parking does not induce behavioural change asthere are constantly many more cars parked there than the allocated spaces. Should theinadequacy of parking in the proposed Clanage Road redevelopment lead to additional peopleattempting to park in Paxton Drive this could have fatal consequences by hindering access toemergency services.

- It is stated in the Travel Plan Part 1 document that "the travel transport model has been made inabsence of any data". It is also stated that "A full Travel Plan will be completed once initial travelsurveys have been undertaken for the residential dwellings". To grant planning permission beforethis critical information is available would be completely unacceptable.

General Considerations:

- I note in the amended documents for the revised plan, numerous discrepancies regarding thenumber of properties being proposed. The inability of the consultancies and Vistry Partnerships toperform simple arithmetic and accurately quantify the number of properties instils very littleconfidence in the proposed plans themselves. Is it 253, 245 or 242?

- This site was originally reported to be suitable for around 150 dwellings, rather than the proposed240 + dwellings. I am concerned Vistry Partnerships have disregarded this information in theirplans.

- I am still extremely concerned about the loss of privacy and afternoon/evening light that will beincurred by neighbouring Paxton Drive residents, as even the smallest of these blocks will towerabove Paxton Drive because the proposed development is on raised ground. The Human RightsAct, Protocol 1, Article 1, "A person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions,which includes the home and other land".

- While I appreciate the importance of providing social housing, I do not feel that provision ofalmost exclusively 1- and 2- bed flats support the notion of family living and is there enoughcapacity in local schools and in the surrounding GP surgeries to provide the required educationand health services for the number of residents?

- I am still extremely concerned about the mobilisation of contaminated particulate matter,particularly during the excavation and construction phases of development. Groundwater floodingat the site could also mobilise contaminated matter and subsequently leach out of the substrateinto the surrounding environment, including the River Avon, which provides an important site formuch of Bristol's ecology.

- I am concerned to note that the cycleway is to be lit along its edge and the vehicular access willalso require lighting. I note the bat corridor runs along this and I am concerned that the additionalnoise and light pollution will have a detrimental impact on conservation, the bats and other wildlife

Visual Impact:

- Amended plans include the reduction in height of the previously proposed 9-storey building to an8-storey building. To make up for the loss of financial gain by reducing the number of storeys, theamended plans have replaced the initially proposed 14 townhouses with three 3-storey blocks offlats, meanwhile reducing the initially proposed greenspace significantly.

- Reducing the height of the tallest proposed building by 1-storey is insufficient to reduce the visualimpact from several important sites in Bristol, including most notably from Ashton Court Estate andthe Clifton Suspension Bridge. Vistry Partnerships.

- The amended plans suggest the site has been designed to fit in with its surroundings, with highrise buildings adjacent to the Brunel Way Flyover, and lower rise buildings in line with adjacentPaxton Drive. This is inaccurate in several regards: first the proposed development site adjacent toPaxton Drive is on significantly elevated ground compared Paxton Drive giving a much greaterfinished building height, second the taller blocks adjacent to the Brunel Way flyover dwarf this roadinfrastructure as evidenced in their own visual impact assessments. The buildings therefore do notconsider the surrounding area. This discrepancy can be visualised clearly in both the revisedvisual impact assessment, as well as in the Design and Access Statement Addendum. Theproposed site stands out disproportionately on the existing skyline, largely obscuring the view ofthe Tobacco Factories, some of the most important buildings for Bristol's heritage, from key sites.The site also dwarfs adjacent Paxton Drive despite claims that the site has been designed not toexceed the existing developments in the area.

- The visual impact of this proposed development has been a major stumbling point throughout theconsultation process and remains to be. I note that despite the insignificant reduction in height ofthe tallest building, Block B has been increased from 4-storeys to 5-storeys, and Block A isdisingenuously described as 4-storeys when in fact the presence of a café underneath this Blockmakes it 5-storeys. Furthermore, Block H described as a 3-storey apartment building has anadditional storey due to its undercroft parking. This makes Block H 4-storeys high and taller thanthe previously proposed town houses in this part of the development.

- It has been reported that the buildings will have interesting views in all directions. Theconsequence of this is that all pre-existing buildings in the vicinity will have their 'interesting' viewsseverely blighted with detrimental impacts on people's right to privacy, and health and well-being.

Flooding:

- Whilst I appreciate the proposal has revised and amended their flood risk assessment,increasing flood risk to high in large areas of the development highlights a key issue with this sitefor the proposed development.

Travel, Access and Parking:

- Amended plans proposed to reduce the already insufficient parking from 141 + 8 disabledparking spaces, to 134 + 11 disabled parking spaces. Vistry Partnerships justifies this inadequateprovision of parking. The adjacent Paxton Drive development, where parking provision is onespace per dwelling, exemplifies that restricting parking does not induce behavioural change asthere are constantly many more cars parked there than the allocated spaces. Should theinadequacy of parking in the proposed Clanage Road redevelopment lead to additional peopleattempting to park in Paxton Drive this could have fatal consequences by hindering access toemergency services.

- It is stated in the Travel Plan Part 1 document that "the travel transport model has been made inabsence of any data". It is also stated that "A full Travel Plan will be completed once initial travelsurveys have been undertaken for the residential dwellings". To grant planning permission beforethis critical information is available would be completely unacceptable.

Further to my previous comments, I have been surprised to see what appears to bepreparatory groundwork being carried out, including the erection of fencing on the proposeddevelopment site side of the Metrobus way and the removal of large, well-established trees at theNorth end of the site. I am surprised that this has been going on as public consultation on thedevelopment is still ongoing and I am unaware of planning permission having been granted.

As outlined very clearly in the consultee comments from both Historic England andAvon Gardens Trust these proposals are not compliant with either Bristol or National Planningguidance. The development would do irreparable damage to several much loved views and vistasboth to and from Ashton Court.Site access has long been an issue with this site and the reality of the Paxton Drive developmentis cars parked not only in marked bays but across the landscaped verges. I do not believe that theproposals give a safe access point to/from the highway.There is also a definite negative impact on both the cycle track and abutting White City Allotmentsmost certainly during construction, but likely also permanently. The allotments are currently fullyoccupied and well used.And I can only agree with the Civic Society's comments:"We consider the design of the residential blocks to be uninspiring and monotonous in terms ofmassing and roof heights. This is a particularly sensitive location where Bristol's built environmentmeets the open landscape of Ashton Court. The proposed regimented blocks of uniform designare considered inappropriate in such a setting."

This is appalling, the proposalsare too high, ruining the visual amenity to, and from, Ashton Court. Instead of helping our mentalhealth, we will all just end up cross and angry.Something suitable please?

I wholeheartedly object to this monstrous proposal on the same grounds as my previousobjection.

There is a chance to develop this site into a project to be proud of in whichever form it takes, butnot as the giant carbuncle in these plans. This is an important historic part of Bristol and anythingput here should be sympathetic whether housing, parkland or otherwise.

It is overly dominant and the removal of a few apartments does nothing to enhance this. There hasbeen no consideration for the apartments in Paxton Drive or the potential residents of thisproposed development.

My main objections are on account of

AccessNot fitting for a historic location as the gateway into BristolOver-urbanisation of the siteLack of ParkingOverly dominant to the adjoining Paxton Drive developmentUgly Design

Why not use this site for a green eco, passivhaus type development which enhances Bristol's roleas a forward thinking Green City. No., not as much money will be made by the developers, but

what an amazing site to showcase 'Green Bristol' alongside the metro and the water. Please donot waste the opportunity.

My main objection is that I don't understand how any developments such as this can beplanned until it's known what's happening to the Cumberland Basin area. Surely the layout of theroad system there, the number of homes there, and the amenities there need to be known beforeplans can be drawn up for neighbouring spaces and the necessary modelling can be carried out?

If you're making a bicycle wheel you put the hub in position first and then add the spokes. Youdon't start off by arranging the spokes. Surely in this instance the river crossing and associatedroad network is the hub and the development we're concerned with is one of the spokes?

Unless of course the future of Cumberland Basin is already known to some but hasn't yet enteredthe public domain? No, surely not?

I have many other concerns ~ lack of essential amenities; flood prevention (or lack of); lack ofopen space; impact on wildlife; and the fact that reducing the height of the tallest buildings by onestorey makes very little difference in terms of their impact on the views from the surrounding area(whether those views are from a distance, for example from Clifton Observatory, or from close athand, such as Paxton Drive). Is it possible that 8 stories was what the developers wanted allalong, and so they made their opening bid by suggesting 9?

Some of my Paxton Drive neighbours have gone into far greater detail on these subjects than Icould ever hope to and so I would just say that I echo their concerns.

The proposed buildings are too high. This site is semi-rural and marks the transitionfrom city to countryside. It should not therefore have this density or height of buildings. In addition,the White City allotments would be overshadowed by this development. Why not build some niceterraced townhouses? It is good to see that festival way is no longer under threat.

The planned works fails to take into consideration a number of important matters. Thesehave been listed my other objectors.

On a practical level, it is unclear how the surrounding facilities, not least doctors surgeries, schoolsand infrastructure will be able to cope with a further increase in residents.

The fact the developers have decided to remove the housing and replace this with further blocksof flats seems ridiculous against the backdrop of more people seeking

The planned works fails to take into consideration a number of important matters. Thesehave been listed by other objectors and I agree with them wholeheartedly.

On a practical level, it is unclear how the surrounding facilities, not least doctors surgeries, schoolsand infrastructure will be able to cope with a further increase in residents.

The fact the developers have decided to remove the houses and replace these with further blocksof flats seems ridiculous against the backdrop of more people seeking outside space due tospending an increased number of hours at home. It also demonstrates that the developers aremotivated only by making the most amount of money possible, even at the expense of wildlife andgreen space and ultimately the well-being of new and existing residents (both at the newdevelopment and in surrounding areas).

There will significant levels of noise whilst the development is being built and this will no doubtaffect neighbouring residents, such as myself. This is incredibly problematic whilst so many peopleare working from home. In addition, the bus lane for the M2 is already being used by tradesmenand the buses have ceased. An decrease in public transport is not conducive to ensuring Bristolmeets it's environmental targets and is likely to cause disruption for many.

Finally, the view from many of the flats in Paxton Drive and surround areas will be permanentlyblighted by these tall tower blocks. This is unacceptable and is likely to further inhibit the mentalwell-being of nearby residents, as well as visitors to Ashton court and other beauty spots.

These objections relate to the revised plans for this development and are in addition tothose submitted by me on 14.05.20.The amendments in the revised plans are relatively small. The retention of the Festival Way iswelcome but at only 3m width its safe and useful function will be reduced. The buildings remaintoo tall and too dense. I believe that the plans are not sensitive to the context of the site; topromote the development as a "City Gateway" is a blinkered view as it is also the gateway toAshton Court's registered landscape, the semi-rural Bower Ashton conservation area, the CityDocks conservation area and outstanding views of the Clifton Suspension Bridge. Rather than thebuildings being taller than Paxton Drive they should grade downwards to ease the transition andnot upwards to 8 storeys.It is unreasonable to justify building heights relative to the Brunel Way flyover as althoughunattractive this is a curving platform and as a pedestrian or cyclist there are views of thesurrounding area from beside and beneath it. There are also plans being discussed to alter oreven demolish it in the future making it a poor reference point.

As an allotment holder at the White City allotments I selfishly object to this monstrosityof a development. On reading the other objections from the organisations that are experts innature and built environment I really think this development will be a detriment to the whole areaand its residents. This is evidence of yet another money making development with no ethicalconsideration made with regards to nature and the environment.

The proposed development is ridiculous on the basis that any approaching traffic willneed to do a full lap of the local area in order to access the development.

In order to acces you need to come from Wintertoke road, any other approach and you will need todrive around, over the bridge, and towards Sainsbury's, round the round about and back.

Again, on exiting, only exiting to the north will not require any additional driving around either thebridge or southville.

Councillors would be wrong to approve these plans on the basis that any car leaving or enteringthat estate is mandated to increase mileage and traffic in the local area.

This junction is probably the busiest in Bristol and the addition of hundreds of cars doing laps ofthe area cannot be welcomed.

This does not tie with the plans for Bristol to improve air quality and reduce emissions. If the planswere to be approved then they could only be so with an alternate entrance which would reducemileage for arriving or departing vehicles.

I suspect that the plans have been approved before public consultation has finished, which, if so,is a totally unacceptable and underhand way of completing the application process.

I emplore the deciding panel to replicate driving to and from the proposed entrance using routesthat are available currently to see how ridiculous the proposals are.

Driving from the portway requires a turn off onto winterstoke road, proceeding to the roundaboutfor a U-turn, to come back to the estate.

Driving from the airport requires a loop over the bridge into hotwells or onto spike island, followedby a lap around the aforementioned roundabout.

Driving from South Bristol into the estate mandates a route which travels over the aforementionedroundabout.

Leaving the estate will lead to similar issues depending on the direction you wish to travel - alljourneys will be mandated to start facing north.

These buildings will completely destroy the aesthetic of the area which currently hasiconic views. The buildings are way too tall and willTotally negatively impact the views of the area and beyond.

Such an ugly ,unimaginative design for such an important part of Bristol. It's too tall ,toodense and particularly ugly. It appears that the City Council has no interest in protecting the futureviability of White City Allotments or the historic views of The Suspension Bridge. Why botherconsulting when public views are never taken into consideration and revised plans are even worsethan the original. What happened to the aspiration to build sustainable eco affordable housing fitfor families!

Having read through the 'amended' plans for this site I can find no reason to change myoriginal objection as listed below. A reduction of one floor level and a few other cosmetic changesdoes nothing to reassure me this wouldn't be a wasted opportunity to enhance this approach tothe city. Indeed it would be a blight on the Cities historic views.

:We support the redevelopment of the former Railway Depot brown field, site but feelstrongly that this proposal wastes a great opportunity to enhance a major gateway to the City.We particularly object to the height and intensity of 7 to 9 storey blocks D & E at the northern endof the proposed site, which are completely unsuitable for the Green Belt / City boundary and willblight this approach to the City.Any development of this site should be consistent with the area and not exceed the form of thePaxton Drive estate which should be used as a benchmark.The proposed development exceeds the sites recommended capacity for dwellings by over 50%.The consequences would be to compromise future residents open spaces and severely overloadalready struggling local transport systems.Finally, the appearance of all of the proposed buildings can be described at best as functional.With the backdrop of Clifton, Cliftonwood and the Suspension Bridge, here is the chance toenhance the cities western approach. The old Bonded Warehouses were of their time and purposeand do not merit being a design model for any new, sustainable development

I am objecting to this revised application (little changed from the original) for thefollowing reasons.

Density - although the number of proposed units on site has been reduced very slightly but will stillexceed 240. The site was identified in the local plan (still being updated) identified that the sitecould support a maximum of 150 units/dwellings. The current planning application represents anunacceptable over-densification.

Height of buildings - despite the minor reduction in the height of the northern buildings, they arestill far too high at 6/7/8 storeys, particularly for this very sensitive and key gateway site. Thedevelopment site is also on raised ground, which has not been taken into account in theapplication. Building E in particular does not take account of the lower and flat allotment ground tothe west but would create a "Berlin Wall" style effect, projecting to c.20 m above that ground. Thedeveloper is seeking to reference the height of the Cumberland Basin flyover as an appropriatebenchmark, which it is not given both the max 4 storied Paxton Drive development to the east andflat allotment/riverside ground to the west.

Adverse visual impact on key local listed buildings and sites. I agree whole-heartedly with thecomments made by Historic England, Avon Gardens Trust, North Somerset Council and the CivicSociety in this regard, with particular reference to the adverse visual impact on the Grade 1 listedClifton Suspension Bridge/Ashton Court Mansion and the Grade 2 listed park and gardens and the2 local historic parks (notably Greville Smythe).

The poor quality of the visual design and architecture (both of which are monotonous and hulking),have no respect for the local character or setting and are not of the necessary standard needed forthis key gateway site.

The adverse impact on the adjoining and historic allotment site (see my original objection) withparticular regard to shading given the height and proximity to the allotment boundary of tallbuilding E. The developer has made no attempt to consult with or engage with the allotmentassociation about its plans.

Non-compliance with para 127 NPPF which is quite clear that "Planning policies and decisionsshould ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area,not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as aresult of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic tolocal character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting,while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increaseddensities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets,spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live,work and visit." The proposed development also does not accord with the detailed policies ofBristol City Council's Urban Living SPD, or Policy DM26 of the Bristol Local Plan.

I objected to this proposal in May and I object again on the grounds that the design isfar too high and will ruin the views in this area which is known for its far reaching vistas. Theremoval of the townhouses means that the development will not offer a good mix of housing types.The site will clearly be developed and rightly so but this is a totally unsympathetic proposal whichseems very greedy in terms of volume and height. The design is ugly and blocky and woulddetract from the surrounding area which is known for its beauty. This is a chance to develop animportant area with good design which seems to have been hijacked by a greedy aspiration tocram far too much in .

While the design density and siting of this development does not justify a planningconsent the proposal also ignores the protections afforded to Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Itis well known that Ashton Court Park has an SSSI status and is also listed in Bristols BiodiversityAction Plan. This site falls within the impact zone of the Ashton Court Park SSSI and thereforeboth Natural England and Avon Wildlife should have been informed of the proximity of the site to aSSSI and a BBAP. There is no evidence that this has been done.While the site does not offer exemplary specimen trees it does provide a wide area of dense wildplants/scrub that is a very great value to wildlife. The connection this site makes between the SSSIvia the Clanage grounds the White City allotments and Ashton Park and the Avon/Cut corridorshould be recognised and any proposal for this site should preserve and enhance this aspect.Some planning officers and planning committees have demonstrated a cavalier regard for wildlifelegislation in relation to similar recent schemes but it is now becoming a far more sensitisedaspect of our lives and this scheme should therefore be rejected.

Loss of Light and PrivacyOur property has 3 windows which all face west. The proposed properties will impact the privacyand natural light of our property as they will be directly in the line of the sun in the afternoon, whichis the only time of day we have natural sunlight. The proposed windows will also look directly intoour windows and onto our balcony depriving us of our privacy.Highway safety, traffic and parking issuesThe amount of traffic that currently exists on the A369, Brunel way and the surrounding area isalready up to an extreme amount during rush hour, match days etc. How will additional housing inthe area improve this? Increased traffic will also affect the safety of pedestrians by increasing thelikelihood of an accident (including school children at Ashton Park School with many childrencycling and walking to school). The amount of parking allocated to the estate is very inadequate,this will in turn result in residents parking on our estate which is already at maximum capacity.Noise, amenity, wildlife, historic buildings, conservationThe proposed site will destroy a green area which perfectly fits within this green part of Bristol. Thedestruction of this green area would destroy the habitat of wildlife and also interfere with thehistoric nature of the area with it being in an area close to Bristol's most famous landmark, thesuspension bridge. The noise of constructing the site would also affect the residents of PaxtonDrive and their mental health as a number of residents work a shift pattern and sleep would beaffected.Design and appearance of the developmentThe design of the development is somewhat ugly and does not at all fit in with the surroundingarea, full red brick buildings of this type can age very badly.

I still object to this application as dropping 1 floor and increasing other areas of thedevelopment does not even start to address the areas of concern as I stated in my last objectionlisted below. If a developer can still make money building low rise housing like they have on theM2 and A1 route which is in the middle of no where, then I do not see why we should blight avaluable nature space with this money grabbing over development.

I have many objections to this proposal with the three main ones being the height of all thebuildings which are all above the existing four stories of Paxton Drive and the rerouting of thecycle route. I also highly object to the timing of this application which I believe has been submittednow to reduce the number of people in the right mind space to object.

Cycle Path- National Cycle Route 33, The Festival Way The existing route, from Bedminster Cricket Club, toAshton Avenue Bridge, is wide, well used, easy to navigate, virtually car free and full of wildlife. Itis immensely popular with Commuters; Pupils at Ashton Park School; Students at the University ofthe West of England (city campus); Spectators at Ashton Gate Stadium and Visitors to AshtonCourt as well as residents from Bower Ashton heading to Ashton Gate Primary (to avoid thehundreds of Ashton Park students taking the Ashton Drive route), the docks and City Centre. Theproposed cycle route involves sharp corners and narrow pathways and I believe would put loneusers and children at higher risk of harm. The crossing and junctions present a hazard to bothcyclists and residents. The design is completely unsuitable for a busy cycle route that seeshundreds of people using it daily. There is no indication how the route would be maintained during

construction. If BCC genuinely wishes to promote cycling, then routes such as the festival wayneed to be improved not degraded. The route should be kept in its original place and the plansmodified to incorporate it.- Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy June 2011 says that "development should besited and designed in a way to avoid adversely impacting on environmental amenity or biodiversityof surrounding area by fumes, dust, noise, vibration, smell, light, other forms of air, land or waterpollution or exposing contaminated land". A development of this scale clearly inhibits adverseimpacts on several, if not all of these variables.- Re. section 2.4 in Planning Statement Part 1: "The site falls within the Bristol Air QualityManagement Area". Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) are declared when there is anexceedance or likely exceedance of an air quality objective. A development of this scale wouldexpose people within the vicinity and along the WSW path of prevailing wind (Bedminster andSouthville) to poorer air quality through extensive construction work and enhanced trafficcongestion in an already overly busy road network in Bristol. Residents of Paxton Drive are ofparticularly high risk to reduced air quality. The added congestion will also have a dramatic effecton air pollution for Bower Ashton residents who already suffer especially at peak times when thetraffic is at a standstill.- The construction phase of the development stands out as an area of particular concern. Duringconstruction, both contaminated and non-contaminated particulate matter will be mobilised fromthe substrate and due to the WSW prevailing wind will impact the populous areas of bothBedminster and Southville. In the short term this is a concern for people susceptible to respiratoryproblems such as asthma, among others.- It is further noted in section 6.46 of the Planning Statement Part 1 that "Asbestos fibresassociated with the site's historic railway use have been identified and are distributed across thesite". In the long term, the inhalation of asbestos-contaminated particulate matter can have majorhealth implications, including cancer. The proposed "capping of all soft landscaping and hardstanding with 0.6m of suitable topsoil/subsoil and/or engineered fill" is argued here as insufficientremediation for this and does not account for release of these fibres by mobilisation duringexcavation and construction. Extensive excavation will be required for both the foundations andthe construction of the inadequate water storage tanks proposed to stop the overwhelming of thesewers during floods.- It is noted that excavation is intended to be kept to a minimum for the purpose of not disturbingthe distributed asbestos, however significant groundwork is detailed. This is evidenced by the 4mdeep excavation for the access road which will be in very close proximity to the Paxton Drive areaand the busway. This is shown in the figure in Appendix A "Proposed access road cross section",p. 32 of the Drainage Strategy Part 1. It is also noted that the landscaping of this falls well withinthe 8 m standoff of the critical drainage structure, the Longmoor Brook culvert, of which thestructural strength (wall thickness) is apparently unknown according to the email from RichardBridge, p. 29 of the Drainage Strategy.Environmental Degradation- Re. section 2.6 in Planning Statement Part 1: It is noted that "Land to the north and east isdesignated as Important Open Space on the current Policies Map. A strip of land along the

western boundary (including the now constructed Metrobus corridor) is also defined as ImportantOpen Space". Reserved open spaces as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF) ought to offer protection from inappropriate development. Bedminster ward has little in theway of green spaces, something that is important to maintain for the health and wellbeing of thecommunity. To develop this site will cause removal of trees and vegetation to replace it with asterile housing development. It is also noted that the land for the proposed development is a Siteof Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI).- The land and visual application says that there are strong landscape boundaries which will act asbuffer zones but these are not shown on the plans. It is suggested that 32 established trees will bereplaced by 185 unestablished saplings scattered around the hardstanding and courtyard whichwill take decades to mature. The current existing buffer zone on the west side of the Metrobus waywill be removed.Travel, Access and Parking- The site will provide 141 parking spaces, 8 of these for disabled and 5 for the café. Only 28% ofpeople / families in Bristol (in Bedminster too) do not own a car suggesting that 72% do (asidentified in the application's own documents). This means that there is only parking for just over50% of the residents. Whilst it can be appreciated that local transport links, cycle ways andwalking may be possible it would seem unlikely at least in the short and medium-term people willget rid of their cars. Where are these people going to park their cars given that it has already beenidentified that parking in Paxton Drive is indiscriminate where the provision of parking is a spacefor every property?- Further to the previous point, residents are likely to need cars to access local services e.g.decent sized supermarkets, GP surgeries, schools and other local amenities, due to inadequateprovision of public transport. The metrobus only goes to Bristol City Centre, but not to other local,in-demand areas, e.g. North Street, Bedminster. Furthermore, buses only run Monday toSaturday, and during the Covid-19 outbreak the M2 bus service was the first of the Bristol servicesto be suspended. It is noted that a health needs assessment has been undertaken. The nearestGP surgery is 1.1 miles away which is a 25-minute walk, clearly not possible if you are elderly,infirm or unwell.Visual Objections- I believe that the visual assessment of these site plans was highly biased, presenting thedevelopment in an advantageous, yet wholly incomplete light. The visual assessment of thisPlanning Proposal failed to include the visual impact from the most affected sites, including thePaxton Drive estate, Bedminster Cricket Ground, Ashton Court Estate and Clifton SuspensionBridge.- It is noted from the visual impact surveys that this development will have a major detrimentalvisual impact from all aspects, particularly with regards to Blocks D and E, 7 and 9 storeybuildings, respectively. From the East (including Paxton Drive) the dense vegetation currentlypresent bordering the Metrobus guideway will be removed and replaced by 4 small trees. Thecurrent views from the listed Ashton Court grounds are destroyed by the aggressive dominance ofthe proposed buildings. The views from the nationally important and historic Clifton SuspensionBridge are of high sensitivity and the scale and design of the buildings severely impact on this

view. Furthermore, the three listed tobacco warehouses which currently dominate the views maynot be to everyone's taste but are a hugely significant part of Bristol's heritage. The developmentwould overwhelm their presence, detracting significantly from them. The view from National Cyclepath 41 is dominated by the 9-storey building and may mean that less people choose to cycle as aresult.

- Privacy will be taken from the residents of Paxton Drive, as the new development will directlyoverlook these pre-existing homes. Privacy within one's home is a basic human right and shouldbe respected. Under the Human Rights Act, Protocol 1, Article 1 it states that "a person has theright to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions, which includes the home and other land". Theplanners have shown a blatant disregard for the privacy of the Paxton Drive residents. Privacy forallotment holders will also be totally lost which will change the atmosphere and desirability tospend time there.- The proposed development plans will block natural light from Paxton Drive. The blocking of lightis particularly affected by the proposals of Buildings D and E, 7 and 9 storey blocks of flats,respectively.- A further objection towards these proposed 7 and 9 storey blocks D and E is that these tallbuildings are not in keeping with the surrounding infrastructure, nor the Green Belt / CityBoundary. There was significant public objection to the 7 storey and 11 storey buildings during thepublic consultation. Reducing the height of the largest building from 11 storeys to 9 as a result ofthis blatantly fails to reconcile the fact that the complaints also covered the height of the 7 storeybuilding and seems an insult to the consultation process.- The land visual report observes that the sensitive building designs will not dominate or influencethe landscape or townscape. However, the size of the buildings at two 5-storey, one 7-storey andone 9-storey will severely dominate and influence both the landscape and townscape, obviouslyconsidered so by the public reaction to these plans. Furthermore, these will also be severelyimpacted due to the finish combination of dark green cladding, dark red cladding, dark greycladding, red orange, dark grey, buff, brown, soft blue, dark blue, bridge red and bright orangebricks with black window frames and doors making the buildings look more like a patchwork quilt.These last two points are both in direct contravention of Bristol Council's own planning statementswhere developments should add overall quality to the area, be visually attractive, sympathetic tolocal character and have appropriate green spaces. It is also noted that the planning concept forthe site in 2013/14 was for 150 new houses not 253.If planning is to have any purpose, principle and power left, it will refuse this application which isnot only abysmal in itself but would set a dangerous precedent for any future neighbouringdevelopment. Please refuse outright and don't encourage or accept some indifferent compromise!This area is on the outskirts of the city, a beautiful green space full of nature and that is why wemoved here. Please do not allow the proposed increase in population density and the building ofthese high rise buildings. If we wanted to live in a concrete jungle we would be living in the citycentre where it is appropriate and common place.

I currently live directly opposite the proposed Block B.

Block B is proposed to be built less than 40m away from every window of my flat, (we only havewindows along one side of the flat to allow light in, every other wall is enclosed).

Every living area of my flat, every room in my flat, has a window which is floor to ceiling,

The proposal quite simply will be an invasion of privacy from at least 6 separate flats that areproposed. Not only will these proposed flats look directly into every room of my flat, but theproposed building will also tower over my living area by 1 storey.

Its a loss of privacy for myself, and also me walking naked around my flat probably isnt what newresidents want to see either.

Light wise, they are the only sources of natural light that these new buildings are going to be builtin front of, luckily with the clear view currently all residents on Paxton Drive get a good amount ofsunlight, from 11am - late sunset, (sets over Ashton Park) but that will not be possible with thenew plans, so dark and no privacy for starters.

The area may appear to visiting developers as unused land, perfect for making a quick profit, butin actuality there is a host of wildlife within the area proposed for build.

On the actual proposed land we have Owls roosting there, bats, foxes, rabbits, Turtle Doves seenthere on a few occasions (vulnerable conservation status). In addition to this the area issurrounded by numerous low lying allotment developments, and a cricket ground. The proposeddevelopment is within 500m of Grade II registered landscape and within 200m of Bower AshtonConservation Area.

The area is a respite to the West from the heavily congested A370 to the East. My main aversionto the development is that this site only needs to be developed once for the entire character of thearea to be gone. The profit that developers are hoping to make on this development is welloutweighed by the intrinsic value of having green land where nature can reside. This developmentisnt the saviour for affordable housing it it claims to be, it's a transparent grab for profit, and itsdisappointing that this is deemed the only suitable use for this land. It needs to be built on once,for the entire landscape to change forever, and thats what i fear will happen. Its currently animmediate transition from town to nature, and I think the council need to consider that it remainsas such.

Consideration of the statutory duty of section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings andConservation Areas) Act 1990 which requires your authority to pay special attention to thedesirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas I hopewill be taken into account.

Development will mean the area is over developed, the number of residents proposed is way toohigh, coming to an area that already has particularly bad congestion, I speak with unbiasedknowledge of how awful traffic is here! Its the worst part about living here, and now we'reintroducing another 250-c.500 possible cars for every rush hour. On top of which all residents ofPaxton Drive currently have to queue in and out especially at rush hour, now we'll also have togive way to leave our flats to the new development. Which is also going to be built outside thecurrent upcoming planned clean air act perimeter.

From an aesthetic view, the building is out of character with the surroundings, (as is Paxton Driveby the way!- dont use Paxton Drive as the benchmark standard!) The proposed building is ugly fora better word, and I'll have to look at it EVERY DAY. While I understand there is no right to a view,you can build something that isnt disgusting, it is possible!

The buildings proposed wont add to the value of the area, it will increase congestion, itsunsympathetic design, its not sympathetic to the local character which is so passionately beingfought for by local residents in objecting to the proposal. The plan is a monstrosity that is toogrand, too tall, too grey, to take position on such a key gateway sight between nature and town.

Take it down to 1 storey and it'll fit in aesthetically and without local impact, but money grabberswont want to hear that, because they wont be able to sell as many properties with a view which noone is entitled to, but they will sell for profit. Im also not looking forward to them cutting down all

the trees that are there, seems a step backwards.

Thanks,Alex

Objection on the following grounds:

1) The development still massively exceeds the 150 unit recommendation for this site.2) The excessive height and huge presence of the proposed blocks harm the setting of this 'edgeof the city' area and its connection with famous historic views of, and from: Clifton SuspensionBridge, Ashton Court Mansion and Parkland etc.3) The architecture remains uninspiring and harms the setting.4) The loss of town houses and the diversity these brought to the development is a pity.

Regarding the submission of planning application 20/01655/F, former Railway Depot,Clanage Road, Bristol, I would like to raise a series of objections and concerns to the proposeddevelopment:

The revised plans are still appears to be completely at odds with the values and vision of Bristol tobecome a forward thinking 'Green City'. As it stands, the development would have a dramaticimpact to the South West entrance of the city with an interruption of the iconic views of the CliftonSuspension Bridge and views from the harbour up to Ashton Court. The proposed building heightof 8 floors is particularly excessive and would tower above Paxton Drive and surroundinginfrastructure. The plans are completely unsympathetic to Bristol's historic heritage and culture ofthis significant area.

As is well acknowledged, the traffic flow on the Cumberland Basin continues to be incredibly poor,with an already complex and chaotic network of roads. This development proposes more cars tobe added to this, adding to the air pollution. Surely the development should be considered as partof the wider plan to redevelop the Cumberland Basin, not just be another add-on to the area?

I understand the need for more affordable housing in Bristol, however I feel this is more driven byprofit than the needs of local people and respect to the area. This does not appear to be adevelopment fit for the future and the post-COVID19 world.

The scale and mass even with this amended application looks to be inappropriate forthe location of the proposed buildings. This is a sensitive location and the development looks tohave a negative impact on the immediate area/heritage assets.

The main buildings in this development are still much too tall.

Regarding the submission of planning application 20/01655/F, former Railway Depot,Clanage Road, Bristol, I wish to add to the objections I raised to the original application in May ofthis year.

1) The revised application is so similar to the first as to be laughable. The reduction of the tallestblock from 9 storeys to 8 is of no material or aesthetic difference; the original objections still apply

2) Workmen are currently out erecting fencing on the Metro bus route to Corden off the site of theproposed development. The letter from the fencing company states that the fencing is beingerected 'securing the future development site', suggesting that the decision has already beentaken to approve the build.If this has been done before the public consultation is over, it is unacceptable, outrageous and, Isuspect, illegal.

3) I include below the objections made in May below. They all still apply. The proposal to reducefrom 9 storeys to 8 changes nothing. This seems to me to be case of the developers thinking, 'Ifwe ask for 9, we will hopefully get 7, at the worst, 5.' Giving them 8 is deplorable for the reasonsgiven below:

1. EnvironmentThe proposed buildings will be unsightly and out of keeping with the existing environment. As aresident of Paxton Drive, I was attracted to purchase one of the apartments in 2011 by the

attractive 'look' of the buildings. The red and white colouring is very different from the universallydull and dark cladding the proposed blocks. As a former member of Bedminster Cricket Club, I canassure you that these blocks would destroy the background of one of the most beautiful grounds inBristol indeed the country. Similarly visitors to the city will no longer be greeted by the site ofBrunel's iconic bridge serenely suspended over the Avon Gorge. Instead these tower blocks willdisrupt the landscape and block out attention from our most famous landmark.It may be pointed out that the proposed blocks are similar in design to the bonded warehousesand therefore fit in with the existing landscape. However, although the bonded warehouses are ofsimilar height to the proposed tower blocks, they are of cultural importance to Bristol and anestablished part of the city landscape that feature on Bristol artwork and tourist memorabilia, theyare not a contemporary reference point for design or height. The proposed height of the newdevelopment, and the aesthetically offensive design of high-rise blocks, will diminish the impact ofthe iconic buildings in the vicinity and forever alter the appearance of this iconic part of Bristol.Cycle Route 33 will be lost, not only during construction, but likely after it as well. The proposalsfor the Paxton Drive development assured people there would be an accessible cycle routethrough the development when it was completed. This has not happened because of the demandsof parking (see Point 2 below). The proposed cycle way is now used as overspill parking space; itis not safe for cyclists to use as it is permanently blocked by cars. Indeed, if cyclists do use it tocycle towards Bristol, they are forced to go the wrong way down a one-way street. It is impossibleto guarantee this will not happen in the new development.Construction of the site will involve a lengthy period when air quality is severely reduced (dust,petrol fumes etc). During construction of the Metrobus route in recent times, I was washing dust offmy car on a DAILY basis, as a result of the construction work. There will be families with youngchildren and people of all ages with asthma and respiratory problems breathing this in for months,if this proposal goes ahead. I am also led to believe, looking at other objections, that there isasbestos on the site that will inevitably become exposed to the atmosphere. I am not sure to whatextent that this has been made aware to the residents of Paxton Drive but it is of obvious seriousconcern.

The height of the proposed blocks, as well as their unsightliness, is unacceptable. The PaxtonDrive Blocks opposite the new development (Blocks FGH and J), are 4 storeys in height. There isno 7 or 9 storey building remotely near Paxton Drive (other than the aforementioned warehousesand, if you go far enough away, a tower block deemed so down at heel, it was used by the BBC asan iconic slum in 'Only Fools and Horses'). It is simply outrageous to propose building anything ofthat height in this vicinity. I can only assume that the reason the 7 and 9 storey buildings were inincluded in the plans were to make the proposal of 4 storey buildings more acceptable. The 4storey buildings themselves will be higher than those on Paxton Drive. The land is significantlyhigher on that side of the busway.The new blocks will both block out sunlight to Paxton Drive and take away privacy for residents inBlocks FGH and J.I would also note that the pictures of the proposed development in the planning application do notinclude any views of how the new buildings will appear from Paxton Drive itself and therefore thenegative impact that they will have on sunlight and privacy for residents. This amounts to a

deliberately mendacious attempt to mislead those making the judgement on whether the plansshould be adopted.2. ParkingAs I understand the proposal, there are to be 141 parking spaces for over 250 properties, most ofwhich are bigger than one bedroom in size. There is a better ratio of spaces to apartments inPaxton Drive and parking has been, and continues to be, a huge issue. Most properties will notonly have one car but two; people will, as a basic human right, have visitors during the day andfriends staying overnight. There is simply not enough parking space to accommodate that. Thiswill lead to a number of problems: safety will be negatively impacted with cars poorly ordangerously parked; access for emergency vehicles may therefore be a problem; if residentsreturn home to find their parking space filled or guests arrive and find no space, they may park inPaxton Drive, transferring the problem there; if (as I know from unpleasant experience) you arrivehome in the evening to find your parking space occupied, there is quite simply no street parkingavailable nearby. Cars will inevitably be left dangerously parked and residents will inevitably beforced to park on the opposite side of Greville Smyth Park (and even there there is limited parking)Car use is unlikely to reduce in the future, especially given the Covid-19 outbreak. Public transportfrom Paxton Drive / the proposed development is very limited. The Metrobus does not run onSunday (the day when most visits are likely to take place) and, even when one walks to thenearest public stop at Blackmoor Lane, all of the buses go the same way - into town; none gosouth of the river.3. AccessAccess to and from Paxton Drive is problematic at the moment but will become a major problem ifthe proposal goes ahead, with the only exit road (to be built on Green Space I believe) feeding into the existing single exit road from Paxton Drive. I currently leave home at 7.30am to drive towork in Backwell. This means I join the A370 on a one way carriageway going 'the wrong way'(towards Bristol) in very slow moving traffic. On average it takes me 7 minutes to turn the cararound to where I pass the Paxton Drive apartments going 'the right way' out of town towardsBackwell. The new development will certainly add to that congestion and quite possibly lead togenuine gridlock.The 'access in' is little better. Currently the slip road (Jessop Underpass) is an accident blackspotwhere traffic leaving the A370 heading to Temple Meads has to negotiate traffic joining the A370from Paxton Drive / Winterstoke Road. The 3 lane section of the A370 where cars filter in and out'like a zipper' at 40 mph is very short, built well before Paxton Drive was conceived, and thevolume of traffic using it makes this a very dangerous junction now. This will only worsen if theproposed plan goes ahead.4. AmenitiesDistance from, and access to, vital everyday amenities is a problem for existing residents ofPaxton Drive. Placing a development of over 800 beds in the same location will significantlyworsen the problem. The nearest GP surgery is over a mile away. The nearest shops (on NorthStreet) are a 10 minute walk for me, if I take the (significantly) shortest route. This involves walkingalong the Jessop Underpass - a major road with no pavement - and crossing a busy major road(Clift House Road), where there is no pedestrian crossing. A safer, but longer, route is through

Greville Smyth Park - tempting but dangerous after dark as there is no lighting and difficult in badweather. The safe route, via Marsh Road and Ashton Road, almost doubles the journey time andwill not, in practice, be used.5. Flood RiskI note with concern the points about flood risk raised in other objections to the scheme. I admit tohaving no expertise in this field but do know that, since I moved in to Paxton Drive in 2011, theriver has burst its banks close to the development, flooding Coronation Road, on two occasions.This is a situation that is likely to occur again and sooner rather than later. Building a developmentof this size even closer to the river than Paxton Drive seems irresponsible, if only for the creationof impermeable surfaces on the site.6. OtherI would also note the following from other objections to the scheme:Not all Paxton Drive residents have been informed of the proposed developmentThe proposed development is not in line with the draft Bristol City Council Local Plan whichstipulates a "heritage-led response which has regard to long distance views."The proposed development contains 253 units, more than double the number allocated to the sitein the draft Bristol City Council Local Plan.All of this only reinforces my belief, stated earlier, that the people proposing this scheme havedeliberately and mendaciously designed it to be over-ambitious and unacceptable in some ways(eg the inclusion of a 9 storey block), so that they can be more likely to have accepted what maybe seen as some kind of 'compromise' solution with reduced capacity and only 4 storey blocks.Any further development in this area is unacceptable however until:Road access is improved (and certainly more so than in these proposals)A safe and discrete route for cyclists is guaranteed both during and after construction(Safe) access to amenities for residents is providedSuitable parking with a sensible ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms is providedThe design of the buildings fits in aesthetically with the surroundingsA further and more balanced assessment of flood risk takes placeThe precise (and scientifically proven) risk to the residents of Paxton Drive of the existing asbestosis evaluated and explainedA full and proper consultation of all residents of Paxton Drive takes place

Nick BurnsResident: Paxton Drive13th January 2021

At 8 stories high these buildings will:Destroy the view of the valley leading to and from the world Heritage Clifton Suspension Bridge.They will be a major feature of the view from houses in Clifton and also from Bedminster Down tothe South.5 storeys should be the maximum to lie discretely in the valley.These buildings will shade and cause increased wind on my White City Allotment

I would like to reiterate the initial concerns and add further concerns I have over theproposed development on Clanage Road next to Paxton Drive.

Planning have suggested reducing the height of the proposed development by one storey. The isinsufficient and will have a catastrophic visual impact on some of Bristol's most iconic sites,Ashton Court, Clifton Suspension Bridge. Particularly during the warmer months, this will be to thedetriment of the wider Bristol community and have a major impact on Bristol's iconic skyline.

Outside space, particularly during 2020 is critical to people's well-being both mentally andphysically. The introduction of this development and reduction in green space will spoil communityspace that is enjoyed by local people in Southville, Bedminster and further afield who wish to enjoyBristol's outstanding natural beauty.

The building height, volume of homes and concrete surrounds display a complete disregard for theimmediate neighbourhood, Paxton Drive. The views that residents enjoy and make Paxton Drive aunique place to live will now be completely destroyed. By reducing the heigh of the tallest buildingby one storey doesn't justify increasing the heigh of another to further scar Bristol's scenery.

Parking is already insufficient on the Paxton Drive already without the introduction of the newdevelopment that is shown to be short of adequate parking. If residents begin parking on thePaxton Drive development when there is already and issue with football fans parking here, whathappens if the emergency services cannot access Paxton Drive? This could have fatal

consequences.

I have further concern over the volume of traffic in the local area. The new development doesn'taccount for green living. Not only will the development result in further congestion in the local areamaking access for existing residents difficult, it will also result in higher levels of vehicle emissionsin an area where wildlife and greenery is currently rife.

I am deeply concerned about the lack of privacy for residents of Paxton Drive. By choosing to livein this area, residents are uniquely isolated and it provides a bright oasis in the Summer months.This leads me onto another point about light. There is huge concern that the new development willresult in the blockage of the sun light.

These are just a few reasons why this development will not only have a catastrophic impact onresidents of Paxton Drive, but Bristol commuters, nature lovers and for anyone who cares aboutthis uniqueness of this beautiful City. It would be travesty to have such a development that clearlyhas no loyalty to the region, scar this stunning landscape.

Echoing the comments raised by many others in this second round of objections, thisproposal shows a complete lack of consideration for the local community and city of Bristol. It failsto seriously and/or comprehensively address the vast majority of objections raised last year, ofwhich there were many.

There is still an unreasonable difference between the number of flats in the proposal and theproposed number of parking spaces. The increase in pollution and congestion that will result fromthis development and its residents will add even more stress to the road network and residents inand around the Cumberland Basin area. Further more, the new access route at the bottom ofPaxton Drive is completely impractical and inconsiderate for local residents as it reduces theamount of parking available for residents and their visitors.

The development is out of keeping with local area, and will impede on the views towards and fromthe Bower Ashton conservation area. No considerations have been made for the White Cityallotments.

The height of the buildings in the proposal are too high, the views both to and fromAshton Court form part of the fundamental identify and heritage of South Bristol. To impose 8storey developments between Ashton Court and the city will seriously impact the skyline, existingresidents views of green spaces and the views thousands of visitors to Ashton Court enjoy ofBristol.

Although this application is an improvement on the first one, I STILL strongly object tothe fact the buildings are STILL higher than the current properties at Paxton Drive. They are goingadd a huge blot to the landscape of the Bristol skyline and from this perspective it is a recognised"Gateway" which will be severely hampered with this construction.If it could be agreed to be NO higher than Paxton Drive developments and if they were more inkeeping, perhaps with Bath stone and blending further with the view towards Ashton Court I feelthat it could be done with further consideration and in a yet more pleasing aesthetic way.I am also STILL very concerned about the access to the site and additional traffic that this willcause to an already busy roadway system.With the continual effects of the current lockdown situation, providing a larger private outdoorgarden area is VITAL. The addition of many more new trees and vegetation could help withdisguising a lower set of buildings.I STILL feel as if the developers are being greedy in wanting to fit too many flats into a smallspace...less is more!Lets make this development something to be proud of!

This comment is to supplement my previous comment (alongside the 200+ comments)which do not appear to be taken into consideration with the new proposal.

I write my considerations for your review below:

Privacy and Noise

As previously stated, a key concern with the development is that the blocks would be locatedextremely close to Paxton Drive and very high causing concern for privacy, noise and safety. Itappears that the latest application contains an additional storey which will create even less lightand will bring more tenants to disturb the current residents of Paxton Drive. In line with itssurroundings, I do not believe that the proposed development should be any taller than PaxtonDrive, specifically four storeys.

Aesthetic

The only way to describe this objection is as "the highrise" this suggestion is totally unacceptableas 1) it does not fit with its surroundings and should not be the first view of Bristol tourists andvisitors will see when entering Bristol from the Brunel Way, 2) the blockade of light and view toPaxton Drive, and 3) Bristol is not a highrise city, and this is well known around the country, thiswill therefore not fit with the aesthetic of the city and will in fact, be higher than a lot of offices inthe city centre!

Neighbourhood

The development appears to be cut off from Paxton Drive, and creates a divide rather thanbringing together two communities.

On top of this, there is LOTS of wildlife in this area of which the new development will disrupt andalso multiple trees and green space of which will be sacrificed. This element of the build needs tobe addressed and provide an adequate workaround.

As of today (13 January 2021), a fence has been erected along the Metrobus route and this isalready an eyesore and will disrupt nature.

Car Parking

Car parking is a huge issue with Paxton Drive, already heavily congested and no room for furthervehicles. It does not appear that the proposed development takes car parking into consideration.This raises a number of issues as to whether the residents will attempt to use Paxton Drives carparking resources which are already constantly overrun. If the response to this is the Metrobus thisis simply not feasible to expect hundreds of residents to utilise this service. As a Metrobus user,the bus is already extremely busy and around 95% of the time seats are not available by the timeit gets to the Paxton Drive stop. On top of this, the Metrobus has not been operating throughout2020 and if a situation alike were to occur, how would this be dealt with? The result is moreparking issues and heavily congested roads.

This is not an objection to the development as a whole, this is an objection to the development asit stands. It is not an acceptable community space and instead of tearing two communities apart(ie by not taking initial comments on board and returning with an additional storey on a building ofconcern and highrise) by instead working with the residents of Paxton Drive to create a communitywhich can be an addition and benefit to the area.

The scale and massing of these plans are too great for the location. They will ruin viewsto and from many parts of Bristol. This is not a city centre location, high rise developments haveno place in this spot.

The proposals put forward damage the local landscape to an unacceptable extent. Theheight of the buildings proposed is a particular concern. We are especially saddened to see thedetrimental impact this would have on the allotments.

I agree with the Bristol Civic Society who have argued: 'The boundary of the Green Beltis an unsuitable site for a landmark, contextual tall building of 9-floors above ground. The trafficnoise and pollution from the elevated road will blight the north end of the site which is the area withthe highest population density.' I am concerned about the impact of pollution (including noisepollution) on the White City allotments and about the impact on views towards Ashton Court.

The buildings are very ugly and pedestrian and much too high and will ruin a iconic viewfrom all aspects. there is not enough parking as the site is very isolated also it is obvious its not forfamilies as its next to a very busy road which will be nose to tail during the rush hourthis development is detrimental to a iconic area which has been well used during the variouslockdown and the pandemic which will continue for a whileThe light pollution will impact on us all and spread across the park.It will impact on many lives, humans and local wild life alike: with the local residents and theallotments holders being overshadowed, the skateboarders, the bike track by the flyover, thechildren coming home from school and dont forget the Badgers and foxes and rabbits, the otters inthe river.

I still believe that the most recent proposal is an affront to what is the gateway to the city from theriver. Traffic will increase as will pollution and potentially road traffic accidents. A moresympathetic approach is needed in the design and general planning of such a key area of the city.I am still unconvinced that the site is suitable for any sort of residential build as I believe that thesite may be contaminated.

It is annoying for such a time window to respond to this wholly inadequate rehash of thisplanned development.

This is still too tall, i have seen comments that it is lower or in line with the bonded warehousesacross the way, this is not the immediate neighbour in this case and those buildings are not notnearby. Paxton Drive is maybe 4 or 5 stories and if we do need to have this nearby those buildingsshould match this.

These buildings will completely block Paxton from the green surrounding.

The exit and entry plan for this estate is also inadequate - over 240 cars exiting and entering ontoan extremely busy road and then all Paxton residents having to also yield to this flow will causesignificant delays in already busy area.Public transport is woeful in this area and hte M2 takes a long time to get to the city centre, oftencrowded (in normal times) the cycle path (choc path) is still not repaired after two years and sothere is no safe route with no traffic.

The numbers of dwellings amounts to greed, transport cannot cope with this. Parking will be anissue and as Paxton drive is not adopted by the council we cannot get cars ticketed or removed fordangerous parking or stealing of resident spaces.

The Balloon fiesta causes the above issues every year and the added development will make the

area dangerous.

To keep the rural setting this development should be made of houses maybe three stories so wecan all still enjoy living in a rural area of Bristol and hte last green area of the harbourside.To add such high numbers of people and cars will increase air pollution and will damage ourwildlife.Foxes, rabbits, bats, dragonflies all live in the area and has only just recovered after the M2construction work.

due to the short response time i could not go through all the disingenuous comments by by thedeveloper. so i will quote my neighbour.

Flooding:- Whilst I appreciate the proposal has revised and amended their flood risk assessment,increasing flood risk to high in large areas of the development highlights a key issue with this sitefor the proposed development.- In the updated flood risk assessment, I note that Hydrock have disregarded guidance that statesanalysis of risk of the loss of floodplain storage using upper end climate change modelling shouldbe undertaken for vulnerable use. Their own reporting states that the residential development fallsunder the 'more vulnerable use'. I also take exception to the rationale that this has not beenconsidered as tidal flooding is deemed to be higher risk. This is not an acceptable justification fornot also analysing for the potential of other high risk flood events. It is also stated in theirconclusions as justification for passing the exception test that loss of floodplain storage is not arisk. How can this be known when the analysis has not been undertaken as per guidance?- In the initial flood risk assessment (April 2020) I note that fluvial flooding was regarded as 'lowrisk', meanwhile groundwater flooding was regarded as 'medium risk'. In the amended flood riskassessment (November 2020), fluvial flood risk has increased to 'medium risk', and groundwaterflooding has decreased to 'low risk'. In the earlier flood risk assessment, the report states "It islikely that groundwater flows through the site occur, and during unlikely times of high River Avonfluvial flows (which given its catchment size could remain high for several hours to days) and hightides, groundwater levels at the site are likely to be shallow (near surface)". Given that both tidaland fluvial flood risk have been increased in the new report, surely based on this statementgroundwater flood risk should also be increased, rather than the reported decrease? As the sitehas not changed or been altered in the time between reports, what is the justification for loweringgroundwater flood risk?- The surface water flooding document states that catchment areas A1, A2, B, and C will bedischarged to the Wessex Water sewer with a maximum allowable discharge rate of 5 l/s. Acursory examination of Hydrock's surface water modelling from Appendix F of this report indicatesthat the modelled flowrate out of these catchment areas to the sewer were around: A1- 2.0 l/s; A2-3.0 l/s; B- 2.2 l/s; and C- 0.9 l/s. As I assume a storm event would rain on all of these areas

simultaneously, I would like to see how Hydrock summed these numbers to produce a result ofless than 5 l/s? I also note that even with these seemingly exaggerated discharge rates the modelindicates flood risks in catchments A1, A2 and C which are not sufficiently discussed in the report.- Hydrock's surface water drainage analysis of all catchment areas also state that in the event ofthe single discharge route becoming blocked or a storm event above its design capacity (this initself is disingenuous as Hydrock's modelling indicates that this is also a possibility within thedesigned storm event when climate change is considered, from Appendix F), then thedevelopment will be protected by the finished floor levels of their buildings and flows are directedaway from buildings and the safe access/egress routes. From numerous elevation maps it isshown that this development is significantly higher than the adjacent metrobus route and PaxtonDrive development. As analysis of the effect of this event on the surrounding areas does notappear to have been undertaken, I fail to see how it has been proved to not elevate flood riskelsewhere, as required by the exception test.- I also thank Hydrock for providing the rainfall modelling data which I requested in my previousresponse. However this data still raises more questions than it answers and has only exacerbatedmy concerns around the management of surface water with only a 5 l/s outflow from catchmentareas A, B and C. Hydrock appears to have modelled these areas separately whereas I believethe fundamental first check is with the areas combined as they share this single outflow capacity.Using the catchment areas, climate change adjusted rainfall events and storage capacitiesprovided in the Drainage Strategy document and using a simple inflow vs outflow model I calculatethat there is definite risk of flooding from surface waters in many of the modelled events when theareas are considered together. The worst case appears to be 12.5 mm/hr of rainfall for 480 minswhich overwhelms the A, B, C combined storage capacity by almost 160 m3.- In Hydrock's Drainage Report 1 Section 8 Summary point 3 it is mentioned that the LongmoorBrook Culvert is very close to site access. As stated in the appendices, Wessex Water cannotguarantee that the information they have provided is accurate. Firm plans for site access are stillto be arranged. It is unacceptable for planning permission to be granted without these details asdamage to the culvert could cause catastrophic flooding to the site and surrounding areas, onceagain failing to meet the requirements of the exception test.Visual Impact:- Amended plans include the reduction in height of the previously proposed 9-storey building to an8-storey building. To make up for the loss of financial gain by reducing the number of storeys, theamended plans have replaced the initially proposed 14 townhouses with three 3-storey blocks offlats, meanwhile reducing the initially proposed greenspace significantly. Several issues persistwith regards to this amended plan.- I would argue reducing the height of the tallest proposed building by 1-storey is insufficient toreduce the visual impact from several important sites in Bristol, including most notably from AshtonCourt Estate and the Clifton Suspension Bridge. Vistry Partnerships amended visual impactassessment, following an uninsightful and ill-considered first attempt at a visual impactassessment, conveniently shows the visual impact during the summer months when greenery is atits maximum. For the majority of months during the year, these proposed high-rise buildings willhave an even worse visual impact on the City of Bristol skyline.

- By removing the 14 proposed townhouses and reducing the greenspace within the proposeddevelopment in order to add an additional three blocks of flats, the proposed development will bevoid of open space and have a 'concrete jungle' type appearance. Given that this development isaimed largely at families, it seems once-again ill-considered to reduce the already limitedgreenspace to maximise financial gain. If 2020 has taught anyone anything, it is that outside spaceis critical to people's wellbeing.- The amended plans suggest the site has been designed to fit in with its surroundings, with highrise buildings adjacent to the Brunel Way Flyover, and lower rise buildings in line with adjacentPaxton Drive. This is inaccurate in several regards: first the proposed development site adjacent toPaxton Drive is on significantly elevated ground compared Paxton Drive giving a much greaterfinished building height, second the taller blocks adjacent to the Brunel Way flyover dwarf this roadinfrastructure as evidenced in their own visual impact assessments. The buildings therefore do notconsider the surrounding area. This discrepancy can be visualised clearly in both the revisedvisual impact assessment, as well as in the Design and Access Statement Addendum. Theproposed site stands out disproportionately on the existing skyline, largely obscuring the view ofthe Tobacco Factories, some of the most important buildings for Bristol's heritage, from key sites.The site also dwarfs adjacent Paxton Drive despite claims that the site has been designed not toexceed the existing developments in the area.- The visual impact of this proposed development has been a major stumbling point throughout theconsultation process and remains to be. I note that despite the insignificant reduction in height ofthe tallest building, Block B has been increased from 4-storeys to 5-storeys, and Block A isdisingenuously described as 4-storeys when in fact the presence of a café underneath this Blockmakes it 5-storeys. Furthermore, Block H described as a 3-storey apartment building has anadditional storey due to its undercroft parking. This makes Block H 4-storeys high and taller thanthe previously proposed town houses in this part of the development.- It has been reported that the buildings will have interesting views in all directions. Theconsequence of this is that all pre-existing buildings in the vicinity will have their 'interesting' viewsseverely blighted with detrimental impacts on people's right to privacy, and health and well-being.Travel, Access and Parking:- Amended plans proposed to reduce the already insufficient parking from 141 + 8 disabledparking spaces, to 134 + 11 disabled parking spaces. Vistry Partnerships justifies this inadequateprovision of parking using a strategic model proposed in the Travel Plan Part 1 stating "the sitepromotes low car ownership from the outset with constrained parking provision". This is based onthe assumption that behaviours will change in response to inadequate provision of parking. Theadjacent Paxton Drive development, where parking provision is one space per dwelling,exemplifies that restricting parking does not induce behavioural change as there are constantlymany more cars parked there than the allocated spaces. Should the inadequacy of parking in theproposed Clanage Road redevelopment lead to additional people attempting to park in PaxtonDrive this could have fatal consequences by hindering access to emergency services.- Another issue related to the proposed parking provisions at the development is that there is onlyprovision of 28 electric vehicle spaces. This is not very forward or green -thinking given that in just9 years' time by 2030 there is a vision that all new car registrations will be electric vehicles and

therefore require regular charging.- It is stated in the Travel Plan Part 1 document that "the travel transport model has been made inabsence of any data". It is also stated that "A full Travel Plan will be completed once initial travelsurveys have been undertaken for the residential dwellings". To grant planning permission beforethis critical information is available would be completely unacceptable.- It is highly unsatisfactory that Hydrock fail to properly cite external data and evidence to supporttheir reports. This makes it difficult to confirm their conclusions and so requires an element of trust,of which I have very little after investigating data which could be confirmed. For example, I havefound their reporting on the "method of travel to work" from the 2011 census for the local MSOA(EA02003047) to be completely incorrect in the Travel Plan Part 1, as checked using the ONSnomis service to query QS701EW. The numbers they provide in the Travel Plan are used to justifytheir strategy and disingenuously indicate low car usage (Travel Plan Part 1: 21%; ONS census2011: 29%) and significantly exaggerated journeys by foot (Travel Plan Part 1 Report: 52.5%;ONS census 2011: 23%). I find it astonishing that a perceived expert report has made mistakes ofthis magnitude and I note that it is convenient that the incorrect data provided works significantly infavour of the development.- Using census data from 2011 is an inadequate basis for current travel modelling and the datadoes not align with my current experience of the vast majority of travel to work in the equivalentPaxton Drive seeming to be by car.Other Considerations:- I note in the amended documents for the revised plan, numerous discrepancies regarding thenumber of properties being proposed. The inability of the consultancies and Vistry Partnerships toperform simple arithmetic and accurately quantify the number of properties instils very littleconfidence in the proposed plans themselves. In the Flood Risk Sequential Test Document,Section 4 Development Proposal, Subsection 4.2 Summary of the Proposed Development, thetable states a total of 253 properties, when simple arithmetic in the same table gives a totalnumber of properties as 245. Elsewhere in other documents, such as the Framework ResidentialTravel Plan, the total number of properties is stated as 242.- The above point also reminds me that this site was originally reported to be suitable for around150 dwellings, rather than the proposed 240 + dwellings. I am concerned Vistry Partnerships havedisregarded this information in their plans.- I am still extremely concerned about the loss of privacy and afternoon/evening light that will beincurred by neighbouring Paxton Drive residents, as even the smallest of these blocks will towerabove Paxton Drive because the proposed development is on raised ground. I refer you back tomy first objection from April which states under the Human Rights Act, Protocol 1, Article 1, "Aperson has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions, which includes the home andother land". This issue has not been addressed in the amended plans.- While I appreciate the importance of providing social housing, I do not feel that provision ofalmost exclusively 1- and 2- bed flats support the notion of family living.- I am still extremely concerned about the mobilisation of contaminated particulate matter,particularly during the excavation and construction phases of development. Groundwater floodingat the site could also mobilise contaminated matter and subsequently leach out of the substrate

into the surrounding environment, including the River Avon, which provides an important site formuch of Bristol's ecology.- Is there enough capacity in local schools and in the surrounding GP surgeries to provide therequired education and health services for the number of residents?- It is commended that the original route of the cycle way will largely be maintained next to thevehicular access to the development. However, I am concerned to note that the cycleway is to belit along its edge and the vehicular access will also require lighting. I note the bat corridor runsalong this and I am concerned that the additional noise and light pollution will have a detrimentalimpact on conservation, the bats and other wildlife.

It is annoying for such a time window to respond to this wholly inadequate rehash of thisplanned development.

This is still too tall, i have seen comments that it is lower or in line with the bonded warehousesacross the way, this is not the immediate neighbour in this case and those buildings are not notnearby. Paxton Drive is maybe 4 or 5 stories and if we do need to have this nearby those buildingsshould match this.

These buildings will completely block Paxton from the green surrounding.

The exit and entry plan for this estate is also inadequate - over 240 cars exiting and entering ontoan extremely busy road and then all Paxton residents having to also yield to this flow will causesignificant delays in already busy area.Public transport is woeful in this area and hte M2 takes a long time to get to the city centre, oftencrowded (in normal times) the cycle path (choc path) is still not repaired after two years and sothere is no safe route with no traffic.

The numbers of dwellings amounts to greed, transport cannot cope with this. Parking will be anissue and as Paxton drive is not adopted by the council we cannot get cars ticketed or removed fordangerous parking or stealing of resident spaces.

The Balloon fiesta causes the above issues every year and the added development will make the

area dangerous.

To keep the rural setting this development should be made of houses maybe three stories so wecan all still enjoy living in a rural area of Bristol and hte last green area of the harbourside.To add such high numbers of people and cars will increase air pollution and will damage ourwildlife.Foxes, rabbits, bats, dragonflies all live in the area and has only just recovered after the M2construction work.

due to the short response time i could not go through all the disingenuous comments by by thedeveloper. so i will quote my neighbour.

Flooding:- Whilst I appreciate the proposal has revised and amended their flood risk assessment,increasing flood risk to high in large areas of the development highlights a key issue with this sitefor the proposed development.- In the updated flood risk assessment, I note that Hydrock have disregarded guidance that statesanalysis of risk of the loss of floodplain storage using upper end climate change modelling shouldbe undertaken for vulnerable use. Their own reporting states that the residential development fallsunder the 'more vulnerable use'. I also take exception to the rationale that this has not beenconsidered as tidal flooding is deemed to be higher risk. This is not an acceptable justification fornot also analysing for the potential of other high risk flood events. It is also stated in theirconclusions as justification for passing the exception test that loss of floodplain storage is not arisk. How can this be known when the analysis has not been undertaken as per guidance?- In the initial flood risk assessment (April 2020) I note that fluvial flooding was regarded as 'lowrisk', meanwhile groundwater flooding was regarded as 'medium risk'. In the amended flood riskassessment (November 2020), fluvial flood risk has increased to 'medium risk', and groundwaterflooding has decreased to 'low risk'. In the earlier flood risk assessment, the report states "It islikely that groundwater flows through the site occur, and during unlikely times of high River Avonfluvial flows (which given its catchment size could remain high for several hours to days) and hightides, groundwater levels at the site are likely to be shallow (near surface)". Given that both tidaland fluvial flood risk have been increased in the new report, surely based on this statementgroundwater flood risk should also be increased, rather than the reported decrease? As the sitehas not changed or been altered in the time between reports, what is the justification for loweringgroundwater flood risk?- The surface water flooding document states that catchment areas A1, A2, B, and C will bedischarged to the Wessex Water sewer with a maximum allowable discharge rate of 5 l/s. Acursory examination of Hydrock's surface water modelling from Appendix F of this report indicatesthat the modelled flowrate out of these catchment areas to the sewer were around: A1- 2.0 l/s; A2-3.0 l/s; B- 2.2 l/s; and C- 0.9 l/s. As I assume a storm event would rain on all of these areas

simultaneously, I would like to see how Hydrock summed these numbers to produce a result ofless than 5 l/s? I also note that even with these seemingly exaggerated discharge rates the modelindicates flood risks in catchments A1, A2 and C which are not sufficiently discussed in the report.- Hydrock's surface water drainage analysis of all catchment areas also state that in the event ofthe single discharge route becoming blocked or a storm event above its design capacity (this initself is disingenuous as Hydrock's modelling indicates that this is also a possibility within thedesigned storm event when climate change is considered, from Appendix F), then thedevelopment will be protected by the finished floor levels of their buildings and flows are directedaway from buildings and the safe access/egress routes. From numerous elevation maps it isshown that this development is significantly higher than the adjacent metrobus route and PaxtonDrive development. As analysis of the effect of this event on the surrounding areas does notappear to have been undertaken, I fail to see how it has been proved to not elevate flood riskelsewhere, as required by the exception test.- I also thank Hydrock for providing the rainfall modelling data which I requested in my previousresponse. However this data still raises more questions than it answers and has only exacerbatedmy concerns around the management of surface water with only a 5 l/s outflow from catchmentareas A, B and C. Hydrock appears to have modelled these areas separately whereas I believethe fundamental first check is with the areas combined as they share this single outflow capacity.Using the catchment areas, climate change adjusted rainfall events and storage capacitiesprovided in the Drainage Strategy document and using a simple inflow vs outflow model I calculatethat there is definite risk of flooding from surface waters in many of the modelled events when theareas are considered together. The worst case appears to be 12.5 mm/hr of rainfall for 480 minswhich overwhelms the A, B, C combined storage capacity by almost 160 m3.- In Hydrock's Drainage Report 1 Section 8 Summary point 3 it is mentioned that the LongmoorBrook Culvert is very close to site access. As stated in the appendices, Wessex Water cannotguarantee that the information they have provided is accurate. Firm plans for site access are stillto be arranged. It is unacceptable for planning permission to be granted without these details asdamage to the culvert could cause catastrophic flooding to the site and surrounding areas, onceagain failing to meet the requirements of the exception test.Visual Impact:- Amended plans include the reduction in height of the previously proposed 9-storey building to an8-storey building. To make up for the loss of financial gain by reducing the number of storeys, theamended plans have replaced the initially proposed 14 townhouses with three 3-storey blocks offlats, meanwhile reducing the initially proposed greenspace significantly. Several issues persistwith regards to this amended plan.- I would argue reducing the height of the tallest proposed building by 1-storey is insufficient toreduce the visual impact from several important sites in Bristol, including most notably from AshtonCourt Estate and the Clifton Suspension Bridge. Vistry Partnerships amended visual impactassessment, following an uninsightful and ill-considered first attempt at a visual impactassessment, conveniently shows the visual impact during the summer months when greenery is atits maximum. For the majority of months during the year, these proposed high-rise buildings willhave an even worse visual impact on the City of Bristol skyline.

- By removing the 14 proposed townhouses and reducing the greenspace within the proposeddevelopment in order to add an additional three blocks of flats, the proposed development will bevoid of open space and have a 'concrete jungle' type appearance. Given that this development isaimed largely at families, it seems once-again ill-considered to reduce the already limitedgreenspace to maximise financial gain. If 2020 has taught anyone anything, it is that outside spaceis critical to people's wellbeing.- The amended plans suggest the site has been designed to fit in with its surroundings, with highrise buildings adjacent to the Brunel Way Flyover, and lower rise buildings in line with adjacentPaxton Drive. This is inaccurate in several regards: first the proposed development site adjacent toPaxton Drive is on significantly elevated ground compared Paxton Drive giving a much greaterfinished building height, second the taller blocks adjacent to the Brunel Way flyover dwarf this roadinfrastructure as evidenced in their own visual impact assessments. The buildings therefore do notconsider the surrounding area. This discrepancy can be visualised clearly in both the revisedvisual impact assessment, as well as in the Design and Access Statement Addendum. Theproposed site stands out disproportionately on the existing skyline, largely obscuring the view ofthe Tobacco Factories, some of the most important buildings for Bristol's heritage, from key sites.The site also dwarfs adjacent Paxton Drive despite claims that the site has been designed not toexceed the existing developments in the area.- The visual impact of this proposed development has been a major stumbling point throughout theconsultation process and remains to be. I note that despite the insignificant reduction in height ofthe tallest building, Block B has been increased from 4-storeys to 5-storeys, and Block A isdisingenuously described as 4-storeys when in fact the presence of a café underneath this Blockmakes it 5-storeys. Furthermore, Block H described as a 3-storey apartment building has anadditional storey due to its undercroft parking. This makes Block H 4-storeys high and taller thanthe previously proposed town houses in this part of the development.- It has been reported that the buildings will have interesting views in all directions. Theconsequence of this is that all pre-existing buildings in the vicinity will have their 'interesting' viewsseverely blighted with detrimental impacts on people's right to privacy, and health and well-being.Travel, Access and Parking:- Amended plans proposed to reduce the already insufficient parking from 141 + 8 disabledparking spaces, to 134 + 11 disabled parking spaces. Vistry Partnerships justifies this inadequateprovision of parking using a strategic model proposed in the Travel Plan Part 1 stating "the sitepromotes low car ownership from the outset with constrained parking provision". This is based onthe assumption that behaviours will change in response to inadequate provision of parking. Theadjacent Paxton Drive development, where parking provision is one space per dwelling,exemplifies that restricting parking does not induce behavioural change as there are constantlymany more cars parked there than the allocated spaces. Should the inadequacy of parking in theproposed Clanage Road redevelopment lead to additional people attempting to park in PaxtonDrive this could have fatal consequences by hindering access to emergency services.- Another issue related to the proposed parking provisions at the development is that there is onlyprovision of 28 electric vehicle spaces. This is not very forward or green -thinking given that in just9 years' time by 2030 there is a vision that all new car registrations will be electric vehicles and

therefore require regular charging.- It is stated in the Travel Plan Part 1 document that "the travel transport model has been made inabsence of any data". It is also stated that "A full Travel Plan will be completed once initial travelsurveys have been undertaken for the residential dwellings". To grant planning permission beforethis critical information is available would be completely unacceptable.- It is highly unsatisfactory that Hydrock fail to properly cite external data and evidence to supporttheir reports. This makes it difficult to confirm their conclusions and so requires an element of trust,of which I have very little after investigating data which could be confirmed. For example, I havefound their reporting on the "method of travel to work" from the 2011 census for the local MSOA(EA02003047) to be completely incorrect in the Travel Plan Part 1, as checked using the ONSnomis service to query QS701EW. The numbers they provide in the Travel Plan are used to justifytheir strategy and disingenuously indicate low car usage (Travel Plan Part 1: 21%; ONS census2011: 29%) and significantly exaggerated journeys by foot (Travel Plan Part 1 Report: 52.5%;ONS census 2011: 23%). I find it astonishing that a perceived expert report has made mistakes ofthis magnitude and I note that it is convenient that the incorrect data provided works significantly infavour of the development.- Using census data from 2011 is an inadequate basis for current travel modelling and the datadoes not align with my current experience of the vast majority of travel to work in the equivalentPaxton Drive seeming to be by car.Other Considerations:- I note in the amended documents for the revised plan, numerous discrepancies regarding thenumber of properties being proposed. The inability of the consultancies and Vistry Partnerships toperform simple arithmetic and accurately quantify the number of properties instils very littleconfidence in the proposed plans themselves. In the Flood Risk Sequential Test Document,Section 4 Development Proposal, Subsection 4.2 Summary of the Proposed Development, thetable states a total of 253 properties, when simple arithmetic in the same table gives a totalnumber of properties as 245. Elsewhere in other documents, such as the Framework ResidentialTravel Plan, the total number of properties is stated as 242.- The above point also reminds me that this site was originally reported to be suitable for around150 dwellings, rather than the proposed 240 + dwellings. I am concerned Vistry Partnerships havedisregarded this information in their plans.- I am still extremely concerned about the loss of privacy and afternoon/evening light that will beincurred by neighbouring Paxton Drive residents, as even the smallest of these blocks will towerabove Paxton Drive because the proposed development is on raised ground. I refer you back tomy first objection from April which states under the Human Rights Act, Protocol 1, Article 1, "Aperson has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions, which includes the home andother land". This issue has not been addressed in the amended plans.- While I appreciate the importance of providing social housing, I do not feel that provision ofalmost exclusively 1- and 2- bed flats support the notion of family living.- I am still extremely concerned about the mobilisation of contaminated particulate matter,particularly during the excavation and construction phases of development. Groundwater floodingat the site could also mobilise contaminated matter and subsequently leach out of the substrate

into the surrounding environment, including the River Avon, which provides an important site formuch of Bristol's ecology.- Is there enough capacity in local schools and in the surrounding GP surgeries to provide therequired education and health services for the number of residents?- It is commended that the original route of the cycle way will largely be maintained next to thevehicular access to the development. However, I am concerned to note that the cycleway is to belit along its edge and the vehicular access will also require lighting. I note the bat corridor runsalong this and I am concerned that the additional noise and light pollution will have a detrimentalimpact on conservation, the bats and other wildlife.

I'd like to echo the many concerns of other members of Paxton Drive. I fear there aremany decisions being made without foresight, specifically traffic and parking, which is already anightmare and free for all in this area, one that is currently seeing a rise in car break ins.I trust the opinions of the neighbours I have spoken to and fully support their stance against this.

I'm against this development as I believe it is far too large for the amount of landavailable. It seems that development is being allowed to totally overshadow the very things thatmake Bristol attractive to live and work. What is the point of having places like Ashton Court, theSuspension Bridge, Clifton and the river if it is all smothered by high rise flats? At the momentBristol attracts a large amount of tourists, but if all the open spaces become overshadowed, thenwhere is the attraction? I'm also concerned that the target occupant might be students.Bedminster, South ville etc are predominantly a family area, but students bring a whole newdemographic which doesn't necessarily sit well with a family demographic.

Good evening,I didn't want to miss the deadline to say how speechless I am to see this project planned under ourwindows.I am not sure that our voices will be heard unfortunately but I wanted to share how sad andworried we are seeing that coming. I can't imagine the desaster it's going to bring us. Lack ofspace, green, horizon, lack of all we need to have a balance life. Paxton Drive is alreadycomplicated. What do this project will add Being surrounded by parks was one of the big plus ofthis address. I am also very disappointed to imagine this plan going ahead when I know howBristol cares about the environment. It's getting unbreathable but not only because of the cars.These building everywhere it's very worrying. Thank you to take consideration of theconsequences on people living in the neighbourhood.

Although I support the principle of development of this site, this proposal is an over-development which has resulted in monolithic blocks which are too tall for this important gatewaylocation. This is very clearly demonstrated in many of the montage views. A much more significantre-think is required rather than the minor modifications contained in the revised scheme.

As locals we believe the latest proposal will impact the local area in a negative way. Arecreational area enjoyed by so many will be wiped off the map and the views of Ashton court andsurrounding areas that attract so many will be no affected.

Objections on numerous grounds, many of which have been mentioned and wellcovered by numerous other Bristol residents. The development is too tall, reducing by just onestorey is not enough in this area of the city as it transitions into countryside. The proposeddevelopment will be spoiling or eliminating views of Ashton Court, Avon Gorge and theSuspension Bridge all of which are held dear by the people living in Bristol.This location is being detailed as important to develop owing to its close location to the city centreallowing people to travel into the city on foot and bike. Considering this, the amount of space beingallocated for parking spaces is wasteful in the extreme, and is prioritising the needs of carownership over the needs of housing. Making the whole development car free would allow moreunits to be included, at a lower height, ideally terraced townhouses with additional green spacewhich would be more sympathetic to the immediate surroundings, and also be a step in the rightdirection of enacting real change in response to the climate emergency that Bristol City Councilhave formally recognised.There are hundreds of valid objections from existing Bristol residents to these current plans andthe impact they will have on their local area, I hope that these are taken into account. There is agreat opportunity to produce a forward-thinking development here which would make the wholearea a nicer place to live and visit for both the new residents of the development, but also all thosewho already live in the area and the many more that travel through.

I do not believe new developments should affect/alter/scar the view line of existingproperties in the way this will do. It will risk reducing the value of properties as their views areaffected. I think before any housing can be thought of going here, especially of this amount, moreshould be done to reduce traffic in the area, improve the logistics for cycling, to beyond an afterthought as they currently are. I object.

First of all I'd like to raise my concerns over the manner in which notifications weredistributed regarding the progression of the application process. Nearly 6 months after the originaldecision date was expected, I received a single email on Christmas Eve followed by a letterarriving 6 days before the cut off date for feedback. I'm not sure if this is negligence or a moresinister motivation to prevent further overwhelming local concerns around the proposal from beingvoiced. Either way, I find it most disturbing and inadequate.

Regarding the proposal, the listed amendments do not take any serious consideration of theraised concerns and in most cases offer no mitigation.

The height of the buildings is still wildly disproportionate to the surrounding area, exceedingdouble the height of the neighbouring Paxton Drive development. At the very least, the maximumbuilding height should not exceed that of Paxton drive, or more suitably taper to a lower height toprevent the appearance of a concrete wall enclosing the city.

The proposal will strip away all the existing old growth trees in the vicinity, a key component ofwhat makes the area currently such a pleasure to live in. This will leave Paxton Drive an isolatedisland, surrounded by traffic, concrete and tarmac. Far greater effort needs to be put in to mitigatethe environmental impact of the proposal, not just a token scattering of a shrub here and there.

How the proposal can continue to suggest a parking capacity of less than 1 car per unit isacceptable is baffling. As stated by many others, car parking is already an issue at Paxton drive.

Any lack of parking provision on the proposed site will directly impact Paxton Drive, where accesspoints and green spaces are already frequently occupied by cars struggling to park in suitableplaces.

The access road for the development joins onto the Ashton Gate Underpass, a short stretch ofroad that is often at a complete standstill - even during the height of the pandemic. Is this really asuitable place to introduce additional stress on an already overwhelmed piece of infrastructure?

Concerns over the flood risk of the development do not seem to have been satisfied, nor has theincreased risk in flooding to Paxton Drive been considered as a result.

For this proposal to be taken seriously, I would suggest the developer pay proper and sincereattention to the concerns of the surrounding residents. Most notably:* Severely reducing the overall number of dwellings to a number more appropriate for the site* Reducing the maximum height of any building to that of the maximum height of the Paxton Drivedevelopment* Far greater allocation of space towards greenery, plants and trees* Provision of adequate car parking

Whilst I am not opposed to the development of the site, the scale of this proposal is well beyondthe reasonable and viable scope for such a plot. The current proposals are clearly driven by thesingle motivation of maximising profit for the developer, disregarding the local community. I hopeBristol City Council will ensure future sites around our city are developed in a suitable andsustainable fashion, putting local residents ahead of corporate profits.

Finally, I would request that the deadline for feedback to be submitted in response to theamendments be extended to allow those who were notified late in the day to fully review andanalyse the proposed amendments and formulate their responses.

More oversized, uninspiring, environmentally unfriendly, obtrusive, monotonous,incongruous and insensitive design? When will it end?

I am objecting to this development on various grounds.

1 The area is badly drained and prone to flooding.

2 Clifton Suspension Bridge is a World Heritage Site. Views of the bridge and views from thebridge will be less attractive. Do we want ro risk losing the World Heritage Site status. Anydevelopment should enhance the beauty of the gorge rather than detract from it.3 Access routes to and from the site will add to congestion on the already busy A370 main routeinto the city and the links onto that main road are already inadequate in rush hour periods.4 Insufficient parking on site.5 Loss of an open green space used by many city residents for enjoyment and exercise bothduring the Covid19 epidemic and in more 'normal' times.

Apart from putting the Festival Way back in a sensible place, which is welcome, therevisions to this application make little difference to the objections to this proposal. The site is stillbeing overdeveloped from a suggested 150 unit capacity, the block at the northern end is still fartoo tall and the design of all the blocks is unimaginatively 'blocky'.What is the justification for the blocks increasing height at the northern end? Perhaps a threestorey, really interestingly designed building with a café/restaurant at the northern end wouldinterface better with the park and river beyond and be a positive addition for the public and createmore of a sense of place.Losing the town houses in favour of another block of flats is a step in the wrong direction. Theyadded a bit of welcome variety as not everyone wants to live in a flat and they broke up thearchitectural monotony - not only of this development but this one combined with Paxton Drive -it's all just blocks.

Locating the road access at the South end of the site rather than the North isproblematic. This means the loss of a lot of large trees and green space, and that vehicle accesswill only be via Winterstoke Road? I foresee people using Paxton Drive as a cut-through/rat runand driving in through the exit of the new estate. At least if it was at the North end, it would havesimilar access as Paxton Drive does without residents of the new estate bombing through PaxtonDrive to get home.I feel that the proposed housing is still too close to the busway. As it is I feel we will significantlylose our privacy by having the neighbours across the way looking directly into our flat. If thebuildings were offset rather than directly opposite each other, or if they were set back the samedistance from the busway as those in Paxton Drive, I would not mind.I know that one cannot complain of the loss of view (though I am sad about it), and I recognise thatthe 9-storey building has been reduced to 8, but this doesn't feel like much of a compromise.There will still be two huge monoliths overpowering everything else around (the flats at eye levelwith the dual carriageway might be rather undesirable though). If all were the same height as theexisting buildings in Paxton Drive I would not mind.

I wrote an objection with detail in May 2020 and I am objecting again for mostly thesame reasons. I echo the concerns that have been very well made by residents of Paxton Drive.

We wholeheartedly object to this development in its present form, especially withregards to Blocks A and B. The particular concerns we have are;

Height of the development and loss of privacy (and views):Blocks A and B positioned opposite Paxton Drive appear to be one storey taller than those inPaxton Drive. This would block out the pleasant view of green space to Leigh Woods and ofClifton Suspension Bridge that residents enjoy now and which gives us enjoyment of ourproperties. With the new development the view would be completely lost and we would just belooking at hulking buildings and properties able to overlook ours. Currently our flat feels privateand safe and this would be lost if the current proposals were to go ahead.

There are also far more properties proposed as part of this development than the site isearmarked for in the local plan. This seems nothing more than an attempt by the developer tocram as many properties as possible into the space without regard for environmental or socialimpacts. If the council gives the go-ahead to this proposal, it will give the impression thatdevelopers can ride roughshod over local policy.

This proposal also isn't particularly visionary for the Cumberland Basin site which has largehistorical and heritage significance. Nothing about these properties appears to reflect the place onwhich they're sited. They are just generic blocks, easy and relatively cheap to build and then sellat high prices in a desirable part of the city.

Parking:While the Metrobus connection does save on car journeys into Bristol and connects with TempleMeads, car ownership per household in the south west rose between 2015-2018 to approx. 1.4per household (https://www.statista.com/statistics/314912/average-number-of-cars-per-household-in-england/). This development has <1 parking space per household which indicates that residentsthere either without a space or more than one car would be forced to park their vehicles nearby,likely in Paxton Drive and other residential streets within a 5-10 minute walking radius. Are wereally to believe that prospective owners would give up their cars to live in a property that doesn'thave a dedicated space? The primary and secondary roads on the development would likelybecome car parks without enforcement, putting access by emergency, refuse/recycling and largervehicles at risk.

Road access:The new development includes a new access road that crosses the Metrobus lane and joinsAshton Gate Underpass/A370 where the Paxton Drive exit is located. This access road would bedisruptive in terms of traffic flow and also to residents of Paxton Drive (particularly Block F).Currently we enjoy relative peace in the evening and night-time but vehicles leaving and enteringthe new development would prove a disturbance from the engine noise but also headlights thatwould shine into windows during hours of darkness.

Flooding and drainageI would like to echo the concerns of Miss Amelia Vale (147 Paxton Drive). She has eloquently anddiligently outlined some clear concerns about drainage and flooding with regards to thisdevelopment.

I would also like to say that the developers appear to be taking advantage of local residents notbeing able to meet in person or attend consultations due to Covid-19. I feel that our collectivevoice about this development is not being heard. In addition, though I have only lived in my flat fora little under a year, I have received no engagement from the developer about their proposals forthis site. This may be due to the planning process being underway but if it is a choice on their part,then it does not sit well at all.

I have a number of comments about this proposal-the maximum height of any new properties should be at the same level as Paxton Drive-there should not be a landmark building at the northern edge of this development ...this is a worldclass view that should be protected-the traffic levels are already unmanageable-pollution levels will worsen for local people

This development should be integrated into the broader Western Harbour development as a whole

I ask Councillors to bear in mind that the site in question was assessed as suitable foraround 150 dwellings in the emerging Bristol City Council Local Plan and that Vistry Partnershipsare proposing to cram in 242 dwellings.

The local plan also notes that any development on this should should "provide a contextual,heritage-led response which has regard to long distance views, including views of the Avon Gorgeand Suspension bridge from Bedminster Down, and which respects the visibility of the site,including in the setting of Ashton Court".

However, with seemingly complete disregard to this, the developers have done very little toaddress previous concerns about the impact of views from and towards the Suspension Bridge,Ashton Court and the old Tobacco Factory buildings. Instead, the revised proposal reduces thelimited green space in the original plan even further, replaces the proposed 14 townhouses witheven more flats, and offers an insignificant reduction in the height of the 9-storey building to an 8-storey building, which will do very little to reduce the visual impact of the development that willdwarf surrounding buildings and the fly-over.

Another disappointing change to the plan is the reduction in the limited number of parking fromfrom 141 + 8 disabled parking spaces in the previous proposal to 134 + 11 disabled parkingspaces.

The only proposed exit road for the new development is on land at the exit to Paxton Drive. Thiswould remove a green space with established trees and increase congestion on the access toBrunel Way.

I would like a Councillor to ask whether the impact of road noise been considered for the buildingclosest to the fly-over? Removing trees to build the development will increase noise pollution forresidents of the new development. Will sound barriers be included in the design?

Similarly, has It been considered that additional dwellings beyond the number stipulated in thedraft local plan will increase light pollution on the edge of bat corridor and the local allotments,which are a haven for a variety of wildlife? What is being done to mitigate this?

I would invite councillors to visit the proposed development site on any day and witness the largenumber of people who use the area immediately alongside the proposed development forrecreational purposes; in any given half-hour dozens of families walk through the area, childrenand young people use the area to skate, it is a key route for leisure cyclists and commuters onbikes, and allotment holders use the path to access their plots. This is not unloved, unused land.The development must be designed to be in keeping with the way the land is used and not turn theplace into a sterile, concrete jungle.

I believe a smaller, more attractively designed development of 150 homes with green space and aprotected wildlife corridor would be welcomed by everyone, but I strongly object to the plan in itscurrent form. Bristol deserves better than this.

I once again object in full to the amended plans for redevelopment of the Clanage Roadsite - Railway Depot, Clanage Road, Bristol (20/01655/F).

General Considerations:

- I note in the amended documents for the revised plan, numerous discrepancies regarding thenumber of properties being proposed. The inability of the consultancies and Vistry Partnerships toperform simple arithmetic and accurately quantify the number of properties instils very littleconfidence in the proposed plans themselves. Is it 253, 245 or 242?

- This site was originally reported to be suitable for around 150 dwellings, rather than the proposed240 + dwellings. I am concerned Vistry Partnerships have disregarded this information in theirplans.

- I am still extremely concerned about the loss of privacy and afternoon/evening light that will beincurred by neighbouring Paxton Drive residents, as even the smallest of these blocks will towerabove Paxton Drive because the proposed development is on raised ground. The Human RightsAct, Protocol 1, Article 1, "A person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions,which includes the home and other land".

- While I appreciate the importance of providing social housing, I do not feel that provision ofalmost exclusively 1- and 2- bed flats support the notion of family living and is there enough

capacity in local schools and in the surrounding GP surgeries to provide the required educationand health services for the number of residents?

- I am still extremely concerned about the mobilisation of contaminated particulate matter,particularly during the excavation and construction phases of development. Groundwater floodingat the site could also mobilise contaminated matter and subsequently leach out of the substrateinto the surrounding environment, including the River Avon, which provides an important site formuch of Bristol's ecology.

- I am concerned to note that the cycleway is to be lit along its edge and the vehicular access willalso require lighting. I note the bat corridor runs along this and I am concerned that the additionalnoise and light pollution will have a detrimental impact on conservation, the bats and other wildlife

Visual Impact:

- Amended plans include the reduction in height of the previously proposed 9-storey building to an8-storey building. To make up for the loss of financial gain by reducing the number of storeys, theamended plans have replaced the initially proposed 14 townhouses with three 3-storey blocks offlats, meanwhile reducing the initially proposed greenspace significantly.

- Reducing the height of the tallest proposed building by 1-storey is insufficient to reduce the visualimpact from several important sites in Bristol, including most notably from Ashton Court Estate andthe Clifton Suspension Bridge. Vistry Partnerships.

- The amended plans suggest the site has been designed to fit in with its surroundings, with highrise buildings adjacent to the Brunel Way Flyover, and lower rise buildings in line with adjacentPaxton Drive. This is inaccurate in several regards: first the proposed development site adjacent toPaxton Drive is on significantly elevated ground compared Paxton Drive giving a much greaterfinished building height, second the taller blocks adjacent to the Brunel Way flyover dwarf this roadinfrastructure as evidenced in their own visual impact assessments. The buildings therefore do notconsider the surrounding area. This discrepancy can be visualised clearly in both the revisedvisual impact assessment, as well as in the Design and Access Statement Addendum. Theproposed site stands out disproportionately on the existing skyline, largely obscuring the view ofthe Tobacco Factories, some of the most important buildings for Bristol's heritage, from key sites.The site also dwarfs adjacent Paxton Drive despite claims that the site has been designed not toexceed the existing developments in the area.

- The visual impact of this proposed development has been a major stumbling point throughout theconsultation process and remains to be. I note that despite the insignificant reduction in height ofthe tallest building, Block B has been increased from 4-storeys to 5-storeys, and Block A isdisingenuously described as 4-storeys when in fact the presence of a café underneath this Block

makes it 5-storeys. Furthermore, Block H described as a 3-storey apartment building has anadditional storey due to its undercroft parking. This makes Block H 4-storeys high and taller thanthe previously proposed town houses in this part of the development.

- It has been reported that the buildings will have interesting views in all directions. Theconsequence of this is that all pre-existing buildings in the vicinity will have their 'interesting' viewsseverely blighted with detrimental impacts on people's right to privacy, and health and well-being.

Flooding:

- Whilst I appreciate the proposal has revised and amended their flood risk assessment,increasing flood risk to high in large areas of the development highlights a key issue with this sitefor the proposed development.

Travel, Access and Parking:

- Amended plans proposed to reduce the already insufficient parking from 141 + 8 disabledparking spaces, to 134 + 11 disabled parking spaces. Vistry Partnerships justifies this inadequateprovision of parking. The adjacent Paxton Drive development, where parking provision is onespace per dwelling, exemplifies that restricting parking does not induce behavioural change asthere are constantly many more cars parked there than the allocated spaces. Should theinadequacy of parking in the proposed Clanage Road redevelopment lead to additional peopleattempting to park in Paxton Drive this could have fatal consequences by hindering access toemergency services.

- It is stated in the Travel Plan Part 1 document that "the travel transport model has been made inabsence of any data". It is also stated that "A full Travel Plan will be completed once initial travelsurveys have been undertaken for the residential dwellings". To grant planning permission beforethis critical information is available would be completely unacceptable.

With respect to the above planning application, I object on grounds of the spoiling of theviews for Paxton Drive residents, the flood zone; the waste amenity requirements and above allthe ugliness of this development. It would be a total eyesore for the area.

Please rethink this application.

Over the last years within Paxton Drive, we have been told that we would fall into a airpollution zone where diesel would have to pay charges. Now you intend to build 253 residentialapartment, with all the associated traffic, in an area which is already connected. This doesn't makeany sense. Double standard by the council. I thought we were trying to reduce emissions

This comment is in addition to my original objections dated 13/05/2020

I ask Councillors to bear in mind that the site in question was assessed as suitable for around 150dwellings in the emerging Bristol City Council Local Plan and that Vistry Partnerships areproposing 242 dwellings.

The local plan also notes that any development on this should should "provide a contextual,heritage-led response which has regard to long distance views, including views of the Avon Gorgeand Suspension bridge from Bedminster Down, and which respects the visibility of the site,including in the setting of Ashton Court".

However, with seemingly complete disregard to this, the developers have done very little toaddress previous concerns about the impact of views from and towards the Suspension Bridge,Ashton Court and the Tobacco Factory buildings. Instead, the revised proposal reduces the limitedgreen space in the original plan even further, replaces the proposed 14 townhouses with evenmore flats, and offers an insignificant reduction in the height of the 9-storey building to an 8-storeybuilding, which will do very little to reduce the visual impact of the development that will dwarfsurrounding buildings and the fly-over.

Another disappointing change to the plan is the reduction in the limited number of parking fromfrom 141 + 8 disabled parking spaces in the previous proposal to 134 + 11 disabled parkingspaces.

The only proposed exit road for the new development is on land at the exit to Paxton Drive. Thiswould remove a green space with established trees and increase congestion on the access toBrunel Way, particularly with the high number of dwellings proposed.

I would like a Councillor to ask whether the impact of road noise been considered for the buildingclosest to the fly-over? Removing trees to build the development will increase noise pollution forresidents of the new development. Will sound barriers be included in the design?

Similarly, has It been considered that additional dwellings beyond the number stipulated in thedraft local plan will increase light pollution on the edge of bat corridor and the local allotments,which are a haven for a variety of wildlife? What is being done to mitigate this?

I would invite councillors to visit the proposed development site on any day and witness the largenumber of people who use the area immediately alongside the proposed development forrecreational purposes; in any given half-hour dozens of families walk through the area, childrenand young people use the area to skate, it is a key route for leisure cyclists and commuters onbikes and allotment holders use the path to access their plots. This is not unloved, unused land.The development must be designed to be in keeping with the way the land is used and not turn theplace into a sterile, concrete jungle.

I believe a smaller, more attractively designed development with green space and a protectedwildlife corridor would be welcomed by everyone, but I strongly object to the plan in its currentform. Bristol deserves better than this.

My main concerns are outlined below.

The iconic view of as you enter Bristol from south across the Cumberland basin with thesuspension bridge a head and Ashton court to the left would be destroyed .In my opinion any blocks that are built should not be any higher than the existing Paxton Drivedevelopment.

The development of the site is excessive 242 apartments in such a s footprint ,there has not beenenough parking spaces allowed 134 there should be a minimum of a space per apartment .

The height and location of E blocks & I Block are of concern. They overlook the blocks to the northend of our development and would result in a lack of privacy and a deprivation of light which wecurrently possess.E blocks are also located extremely close to the Cumberland basin road system which is asmentioned in other comments a heavily congested area of Bristol with poor air quality. Both will getworst post pandemic as the traffic will increase though the system as Bristol bridge has beenclosed.

Although there is a great need for housing I object to this development. The proposeddevelopment will have a harmful effect on the setting of the Grade II* landscape of Ashton CourtManor, the character & appearance of the Bower Ashton Conservation Area, the City DocksConservation area & the Clifton Conservation area all of which surround the site. The design of thearchitecture is of poor quality for such an important gateway to this historic city. The buildings areblocky, office like and overbearing. Although the height of one block has been reduced by onestorey, the town houses have been removed and replaced with 3 blocks which are uninteresting,ugly and inappropriate design for this location. These 3 blocks are along the edge of the site thatborders white city allotments, they will completely overshadow the allotments. The development istoo dense, the recommended units are 150 but 242 are proposed. They also appear to be mostly2 bedroom units which will limit the mix of the community. The buildings are too high dwarfing theneighbouring Paxton drive, partly due to the raised ground level of the site. The proposeddevelopment will dominate the landscape and will not fit in. It will be seen and destroy views formall over this part of the city. Part of section 72 of the planning (listed buildings in conservationareas) act 1990 states that development should preserve or enhance the character or appearanceof a conservation area. Although this development is not in a conservation area it is bordered bythem and will affect them detrimentally. The planning act of 1990 also states that views into andout of conservation areas are of utmost importance and should not be compromised. The HeritageVisually Verified Montages show how harmful the development will be to these views. Thephotographs taken for the first application were misleading having been taken in the summer whenthe leaves were in the trees creating a screen. Some of the photographs of the altered plans havebeen taken in the autumn/winter and show the views without the leaves and show how damaging

the development will be. Many of the photographs appear to be have taken from relatively lowangles to make the dominance of the mass of the proposed buildings less. Fig 5 view 2, Fig 7 view3, Fig 11 view 5, Fig 18 view 10 all show how the development will blight the views into and out ofthe surrounding areas. This development does not seem to take its location in this very historicsensitive area into account. This area is all about views, views to and from the historic CliftonTerraces, views to and from Clifton suspension bridge, views to and from Ashton Court and thesurrounding countryside, views of the historic floating harbour and the listed heritage UnderfallYard and its chimney and this development compromises all of these views. There is a wonderfulfeeling of the progression from city to countryside but this development will blight it.

Although there is a great need for housing I object to this development. The proposeddevelopment will have a harmful effect on the setting of the Grade II* landscape of Ashton CourtManor, the character & appearance of the Bower Ashton Conservation Area, the City DocksConservation area & the Clifton Conservation area all of which surround the site. The design of thearchitecture is of poor quality for such an important gateway to this historic city. The buildings areblocky, office like and overbearing. Although the height of one block has been reduced by onestorey, the town houses have been removed and replaced with 3 blocks which are uninteresting,ugly and inappropriate design for this location. These 3 blocks are along the edge of the site thatborders white city allotments, they will completely overshadow the allotments. The development istoo dense, the recommended units are 150 but 242 are proposed. They also appear to be mostly2 bedroom units which will limit the mix of the community. The buildings are too high dwarfing theneighbouring Paxton drive, partly due to the raised ground level of the site. The proposeddevelopment will dominate the landscape and will not fit in. It will be seen and destroy views formall over this part of the city. Part of section 72 of the planning (listed buildings in conservationareas) act 1990 states that development should preserve or enhance the character or appearanceof a conservation area. Although this development is not in a conservation area it is bordered bythem and will affect them detrimentally. The planning act of 1990 also states that views into andout of conservation areas are of utmost importance and should not be compromised. The HeritageVisually Verified Montages show how harmful the development will be to these views. Thephotographs taken for the first application were misleading having been taken in the summer whenthe leaves were in the trees creating a screen. Some of the photographs of the altered plans havebeen taken in the autumn/winter and show the views without the leaves and show how damaging

the development will be. Many of the photographs appear to be have taken from relatively lowangles to make the dominance of the mass of the proposed buildings less. Fig 5 view 2, Fig 7 view3, Fig 11 view 5, Fig 18 view 10 all show how the development will blight the views into and out ofthe surrounding areas. This development does not seem to take its location in this very historicsensitive area into account. This area is all about views, views to and from the historic CliftonTerraces, views to and from Clifton suspension bridge, views to and from Ashton Court and thesurrounding countryside, views of the historic floating harbour and the listed heritage UnderfallYard and its chimney and this development compromises all of these views. There is a wonderfulfeeling of the progression from city to countryside but this development will blight it.

From reading the comments of my fellow neighbours in Paxton Drive, I can only echo all concerns raised.

I was shocked to read the response by Amelia Vale, who demonstrates an expertise in flood risk assessment and highlights some real concerns in the modelling. I can only hope that Bristol City Council has its own experts who can critique these reports in a similar way and raise questions to Hydrock and the developers. It should be the case that these reports can be relied upon to be impartial and accurate, however it is very much starting to appear that attempts are being made to conceal potential issues in order for the site to be approved. It is wrong that we have to rely upon experts in the community taking days of their own time to research and verify these claims, why aren't they correct in the first place and what repercussions are there for such inaccurate reporting?

I also note how incorrect reporting of data has been picked up on with regards to Census data regarding travel to work, and lastly Amelia also notes some holes and lack of attention to detail in Vistrys application such as total number of dwellings and misleading statements with regards to building heights, which overall does nothing to instill trust or faith in the developers and their integrity.

I would be interested to know, should the development be approved, who will be accountable for any future adverse incidents, such as flooding either on this site or neighbouring Paxton Drive, parking issues in the surrounding area and traffic flow problems? The council absolutely cannot ignore these concerns and, in my eyes, will

hold a big portion of the responsibility for any incidents, should they approve these plans.

My overall concerns about the development are no different to any others which have been raised, either in relation to the most recent application and also as written for the previous application, as very little has been done to address them and if anything the revised plans are worse.

This site needs to be scaled down, where the community, the residents and their wellbeing and the environment need to be put ahead of profit. The site itself has the potential to offer something great to the city, however these plans are wholly inappropriate and I think Vistry and their advisors such as Hydrock have demonstrated incredibility and as a result they should be denied the right to develop on this site.

My objections to the project are much the same as with the original design. Theamended design does very little to remedy the issues. They are trying to put far too many units onthe land, which has led to design decisions with serious problems for the development.

I am concerned about:-Loss of Privacy-Lessened amenity of living in Paxton Drive-Traffic Issues-Parking-Amenity of the area-Road safety

LOSS OF PRIVACY

I am concerned about the impact that the development will have on my privacy.

In the Avison Young Planning Statement Addendum item 4.35, they list some of the concernsraised by residents of Paxton Drive including loss of privacy, and in 4.36, they say that the reviseddesign addresses these issues. This is simply not true. The amended design is almost identical tothe previous design with regards to the size and height of blocks A and B, which are the twoblocks that are right opposite the blocks on Paxton Drive who's residents are going to be mostimpacted.

There have been no significant changes that address the issues. The blocks are the same heightas before. They are the same distance away. They are the same width of frontage. They still havelarge windows looking directly into the windows of the blocks on Paxton Drive, and penthouseswith balcony areas overlooking the blocks. At the moment my living room and bedrooms feel veryprivate. Apart from a couple of places where the cycle path isn't screened by trees, and there is adirect eyeline from the cycle path, no one looks into my flat, and they are far enough away thatthey couldn't see in, unless at night if I have the lights on. It is very peaceful. I have a feeling ofsecurity, privacy, light and space, when I'm in my flat, which is one of the reasons I love living in it.I will lose this if there is another block directly opposite, really quite close, looking straight in.

I think the developers know that blocks A and B are really too big and close to the blocks onPaxton Drive with too large windows and balconies facing them, because of how they havedesigned blocks G1 and G2. G1 and G2 are very similarly situated in relation to their blocks C andD as their blocks A and B are situated to the ones on Paxton Drive: they are to the west of them byabout the same distance. However, out of consideration of the privacy and amenity of theresidents in their blocks C and D, G1 and G2, are lower than blocks A and B (3 stories instead of4/5), generally smaller (15/12 units instead of 28/34) and the facing windows are smaller and withscreening trees in place. I think the residents on Paxton Drive should be given the sameconsideration.

NEGATIVE IMPACT ON AMENITY TO LIVING ON PAXTON DRIVE FACING THEDEVELOPMENT

The aspects of the development design that I am concerned about regarding the impact on privacyas above, will also really change the general feel of living in my flat and make it much lesspleasant to live in. From a feeling of light, space, green, nature, peace, I will look directly onto brickand other people's living spaces. I don't think this is necessary. If they weren't trying to fit manymore units on than was originally suggested, they could amend the design so the developmentwasn't directly overlooking the blocks on Paxton Drive.

TRAFFIC ISSUES - CONGESTION, DELAYS, POLUTION

The number of units has not been significantly reduced, and so the amount of traffic from the sitewill not have been significantly reduced. The bus system in Bristol is not yet at a level where youcan get everywhere you need to go by bus, and so the residents will either drive or use taxis.Taxis, not just resident owned cars, add to traffic. On usual peak hours, the road system that thetraffic will enter from and exit onto, is already snarled up and there are delays and the pollution isin excess of legal limits. This estate will make it significantly worse.

Also, the development doesn't take into account the proposed changes to the Brunel Way road

system.

ROAD SAFETY

I don't know enough about road design and safety to comment on how safe the proposed accessacross the metrobus route is, but I know from experience of driving into and out of Paxton Drivethat the filter off the Ashton Gate underpass onto Brunel Way/A370 and off Brunel Way onto theJessop underpass, where the traffic crosses, can be tricky when the junction is busy, and this willonly make it busier. Also, there are a lot of accidents at the top of where the Jessop Underpassleads onto the A370, which again will presumably become more frequent with more traffic on theroad.

PARKING

If the development is, as is likely, lived in by a similar demographic to those who live in PaxtonDrive, most flats occupiers will own at least one car, but a significant number will be shared byyoung professionals who will each have a car. Paxton Drive has significant issues with parkingand there are far more spaces per room than in the proposed new estate. That there is not enoughparking on the estate to accommodate these cars doesn't mean that the residents won't own them,it means that they will have to find somewhere else to park. This will cause parking difficulties forPaxton Drive, but also other nearby streets. It will also cause tensions between residents on thenew estate and problems for its management.

As admirable as it is to try to limit the number of new cars in the city and I understand that that isone of the reasons for not having one space per unit, it isn't all that effective in stopping peopleowning cars. The residents of the new estate will own more cars than there is parking for, and itwill cause issues for the residents of the estate and surrounding areas.

Could there be several car club spaces on the development, to give people an option for when thebuses don't go where they need to, or for travelling with luggage? Shared car ownership mightreduce the number of cars people need.

Also, there isn't enough bike storage, which will again cause issues.

AMENITY OF THE AREA

The development will detract from the amenity of the area. It will change it from a really specialwild, open, light, green space which is a part of the beautiful landscape of Ashton Court, theriverside and outlook from the suspension bridge, into a built up uninspiring one. The greenspaces between the buildings will be dark and cold because the buildings are too high and tooclose together. The design of bricks, black window frames and metal balconies is cold and office-like. They are just trying to cram too much into the site, and it has resulted in an oppressive design

which is the opposite of the current character of the landscape and will damage the generalamenity of the area.

OTHER COMMENTS

The design change has got rid of the bit of the development that I thought was best, the smallhouses. There is a lack of family housing near the centre of Bristol. I think that they should replaceBlock A with houses from the previous design, screened by trees and without windows lookingdirectly at Paxton Drive, and put Block B side on, like they suggest with Block H, or replace BlocksA and B with blocks designed like G1 and G2, screened from view of the residents of Paxton Drivewith trees.

1. My first point is an objection to the way the Council has handled the consultation onthese revised plans. New documents are dated 25th November, 1st December and 9th December,I believe. Notification is posted out nearly 2 weeks later on the 24th of December, so no chance ofreceipt of notification for at least 20 days! I have received my letter dated 24th December today8th January, leaving just 6 days for submission. This is not good enough and, assuming I am notthe only one, I would hope to see an extended date for submissions put up on the site immediatelyto allow reasonable time for people to respond.

2. I am pleased to see the prospect of development here, but as earlier in the year not asproposed.

3. I am pleased to see that the Festival way will essentially follow its current route. I would endorsethe view that it should be as wide as possible where it can be, recognising the need for goodmarking to warn of the narrowing path at the bridge and beyond when travelling out of the city.

4. The proposed density is still far too high to imagine this being a development with quality livingin mind. The proposed height of the buildings at the Northerly end of the site are still too high andoverbearing. There should be some variation in height of buildings and elements of designvariation. Buildings opposite the current Paxton Drive estate should not exceed that height.

5. It is difficult for me to assess the impact of any underground parking facilities on the height ofwhat is built above, but such facilities should not falsely raise the ground level of new builds to

what would effectively be level one.

6. I believe the removal of the town houses to be a retrograde step in terms of the mix of thedevelopment. It seems there are now no 4 bed units and only very few 3 bed units. I am notconvinced that the mix or density will create good community

7. The design still remains very blocky and rather unimaginative for this edge of city space. Itseems to take no account of its position and try and say something positive about the chance tolive in such a wonderful location.

In summary, build for a new community yes, but stop trying to cram people into a limited space bygoing upwards, develop a good mix of accommodations and design for an edge of the city spaceto try and enhance the crossover between city and country rather than designing for inner urbanareas.

My objection remains around the height of this development. Having looked at thedesign even 3 stories will have a major negative impact on light to the allotments, noise and thenatural environment. Going higher than 2 stories will certainly have significant negative impact onthe historic views to the Ashton Court estate. But if the buildings were kept low and were morespread out the developer would not make a shed load of money which appears to be the intention-cram 'em in, stack 'em high.

The footprint in the overall plan is small so a claustrophobic, over dominating development will bethe result.

I also believe this area is prone to flooding.

GP surgeries in the area have not been open to new patients so where will residents be able toaccess health care?

I am not convinced by the inclusion of 'affordable/social/shared ownership housing'. Affordable towhom?

I am pleased to note that Festival Way is now proposed to be maintained on its currentalignment. However, I consider that the scale and massing of the proposed development, evenwith the proposed changes, is still inappropriate for this location, which is typified by open spacesand lower height development. It is not a city centre location, and the development would lead toan unacceptable urbanising change to the character of the area. The eight storey block inparticular will be overbearing in views from Brunel Way on the approach to the River Avoncrossing, and from Ashton Meadows and Ashton Court. The development would also be seenwithin the context of the Suspension Bridge and Avon Gorge. I consider that the applicationrepresents overdevelopment of the site and that the number of units proposed for the site shouldbe significantly reduced.

***Q1.3 Does the scheme respond positively to either the existing context, or in areas undergoing significant change, an emerging context?

Our outlook has got worse as an additional storey has been included so more windows as well as a large terrace/balcony, therefore invading our privacy even more.

***Q1.5 Does the scheme deliver a comfortable micro-climate for its occupants, neighbours and passers by?

I have trawled through all the supporting documents and there is no visual of the "arrival pizza to the front of building A" it would be great to have a visual of this.

***Q1.6 Has access, car parking and servicing been efficiently and creatively integrated into the scheme?

In my experience at Paxton drive the low-level kerbing does not encourage low traffic speeds, it just encourages unsafe parking as there is no clear division between the pavement and the road. This is unsafe and forces people in pushchairs and wheelchairs into the road. (see pictures below)

Also reducing the number of spaces - not increasing is a bad idea as it is nearly impossible to live in the area without a car unless all you do is go into the city or the airport. One space per flat is nowhere near enough for Paxton Drive.

***Q2.3 Does the scheme provide sufficient outdoor space?

Disappointing that the early age groups play are has been reduced. Particularly as young families are likely to move to houses out of the area, as flats are not suitable for bringing up a 6-12-year-old kids with the limitations on bedrooms and outside space.

***Q2.7 Does the scheme safeguard privacy and minimise noise transfer between homes?

You note the importance of no overlooking, privacy, and airborne noise. All will be increase for us if the proposed development goes ahead.

Also, surely it would be good practice for the new properties to set them back from the busway, so the residents encounter less air/noise pollution from the busway when opening windows and being on balconies.

***Q2.8 Does the scheme maximise opportunities for natural illumination of internal spaces; avoiding single aspect homes?

Noting the importance of dual aspect home, unfortunately ours have been build and are single aspect all being overlooked by the proposed development. So, it would be good if the overlooked flats were considered.

***Q3.1 Is the tall building well located?

It seems the taking one storey off the larger building is a bit of smoke and mirrors for the other blocks. The amended proposal now has an additional storey on the building that overlook Paxton Drive.

(PWD003-184086-ID-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-08 - 0045 - P01)

TRAVEL PLAN

The travel plan assumes that everyone will be using public transport or walking and cycling. Unfortunately, the reality is very different, at Paxton Drive many flats have more than one car. This is a constant bone of contention at AGM meetings so much so, the safe pathways have been opened to provide additional parking by the management company.

Relying on the Metrobus as an excuse for parking provision is not enough. The local bus network is simply not good enough. For much of 2020 the Metrobus was not running and this includes pre-Covid months. This development will add further disruption to journeys by cutting over an uninterrupted busway. This will make the already struggling service even less desirable to the handful of people that ride the empty buses.

IF YOU EXIT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT – YOU CANNOT GET BACK TO YOUR FLAT WITHOUT A HUGE ROUND TRIP!!!

Because Paxton Drive has an exit one end and an entry point at the other end which follows the (extremely poorly designed) one-way system you can easily get back to your property.

Just imagine if the new development were to be built you would leave the exit and not be able to get back. You would have to drive along Brunel way (hoping that the bridge is not swung open!). Carry on down to Hotwells (B) and loop back on yourself to come down the Brunel way in the other direction. Now to get back to the site you would need to then pull off towards Ashton Gate stadium (Remember there can be Music Events, Football, Rugby on here several times a week + they are expanding!). Turn back on yourself at the roundabout (C) going back on yourself on the A3029 towards Ashton Court (Another popular venue that gridlocks when it hosts Music Festivals, Balloon Fiesta and so on). On a very good day with zero traffic this is a 10-minute journey. With no exaggeration this could be over an hour trip during busy periods!

This will create even more traffic in a hugely congested area. The poorly planned road network is just not able to cope with the increased traffic demands and the unnecessary journeys people will need for every trip they do by car. I feel for the safety at the end of the site as people will no doubt be using the Paxton Drive road to return and doing a dangerous u-turn on the exit of the development.

PWD003-11506-HYD-XX-XX-RP-TP-6001_P04-S4 (PAGE 10)

The illustrated safe footway in no longer accessible down the middle of Paxton Drive as this has been opened to create additional parking by the management company

ARBORICULTURAL ADDENDUM STATEMENT It is a real shame to see our outlook change so drastically, the removal of so many trees for the development seems so unnecessary as they are very mature and harbour a diverse range of wildlife. Currently us along with the children love seeing the wildlife from the windows and from the balcony, it will be sad to see this leave especially for the children.

Overall, the proposal seems to be taking steps backwards. The only sensible change was the repositioning of the festival way. However, I just do not understand why moving a path from the centre to the outside of a development means all the townhouses are removed? That makes no sense at all.

The proposal needs to go back to the drawing board to design an attractive and encompassing development based on the original estimated 150 dwellings. The proposal feels like the architect has been given a space of land and taken no consideration as to the context of where the development exists and pasted in some generic apartment blocks into the space.

There are some exciting developments in the local area with the Western Harbour, Ashton Gate and redirection of Brunel Way, there needs to be a more cohesive approach required with the local community to solve Bristol’s housing, transport, and traffic chaos – this just adds to the problem!

Too tall; too dense; ugly and obtrusive.

Too many ugly flats squashed into this small site. The blocks are too tall for the location.This many flats for this space will cuase problems with more traffic in an already congested city.The council should be discouraging car use.

Too tall, impacts views, building on flood plane, insufficient parking, shows zero regardfor the aesthetic and impact on community and is motivated by greed.

I object due to the size and massing of the development in relation to it's sensitivelocation to Ashton Court and the Suspension bridge.

The site is heavily constrained due to flood risk and access, which have not been adequatelyconsidered.

The site does not include suitable nature and biodiversity provision, in particular 10% biodiversitynet gain, which will shortly be the standard when the Environment Bill is approved in early 2021.

Buildings too tall, now extra high rise buildings added which means more people ,morecars and more light removed from allotments..Not enough room for car parking in the plan and willadd to local road congestion and pollution . Building on a flood plane. No regard for localresidents.

Too many dwellings squeezed into too small an area with no regard for quality of life ofthose living there. Insufficient parking. Insufficient biodiversity. No thought for aesthetics of thearea.

As is often the case this is about getting as much money as possible from a relatively small pieceof land. Building houses is a business and of course the developer needs to make money but notat the cost of the natural environment and current local residents. Any new residents also shouldbe able to have proper amenities and a pleasant environment to live in where they're notsqueezed together like cattle.

Too tall, destroys one of the fast disappearing distinguishing features of Bristol: itsinvaluable green "needles" that penetrate the city. In addition, building on flood plane, plusinsufficient parking, and, what is more, shows zero regard for the low-build aesthetic ofneighbouring communities of Bedminster and Ashton. The project appears to be motivated bycommercial greed and local government vanity.

20/01655/F Redevelopment of the site at Former Railway Depot Clanage Road Bristol

Building E Massing, height and proximity to boundary

The Applicant's EVALUATION (3.0 ) under Constraints and Opportunities, and Design Principlesstates;- to take advantage of the views towards....Clifton Suspension Bridge- create scale and proportion relevant to people and the surrounding buildings and spaces

When these two points are considered the latter has been largely ignored in favour of a desire tomaximise the former. The NW boundary to White City allotments commencing 14 metres from theBuilding E and the tended land, essentially flat with a scattering of garden sheds and fruit cagesclearly demonstrating that the stated design principle has been largely ignored.

The overall massing and height of the development should not be a hostage to the views butshould respect the local context and taper down in height at perimeters to achieve this. Building Ehas been designed with blinkers looking only towards Clifton and ignoring context at ground levelto the west, forming an artificial cliff (with balconies), rising approx 20metres above allotments.

Allotments -Physical Context

There appears to be no consideration of the White City Allotments in the planning application,(other than their existence, access, boundaries and photographs), nor of the effect of theproposals on them or their tenants.

The proximity to boundary and height of tall building E has a detrimental effect on the amenity ofadjacent allotments;

- Majority of allotment plots to W and NW of tall building E will suffer from varying degrees ofshading up to 12.30pm in December, increasing periods of frost.- For the majority of the year ie. Autumn - Spring, Plots in the immediate vicinity of building E willreceive significant morning shading and partial shading even in mid-summer.- The increased wind speed caused by building E at ground level could be detrimental to theallotments and the cycleway. Have any calculations been carried out to study this and what designparameters are proposed?

Building Works

What protections are to be provided during the demolition and construction phase to preventcontaminants from reaching the allotments?

I

The ambition to reduce car usage is welcome but the allocation of parking is insufficient.77% of households currently own a car and this development falls too far short of this to berealistic. It is not uncommon for developers to underestimate parking in order to maximise spacefor accommodation. It results in anti-social parking with people using verges or any spare spaceavailable to leave vehicles. If the current proposal is accepted then this will need to be mitigated.Perhaps with strict parking protocols both on site and in all surrounding areas.

This is a sensitive site at the point where the Bristol docks begin. The proposeddevelopment shows no architectural flair at all, and does not reflect the site, where floodmanagement is crucial. In particular the blocks are too high and too intrusive. There should bemore individual dwelling houses, rather than all flats. The proposals are off-the-shelf designs fornowhere in particular. This site (any site, come to that) deserves much better.

I object to the height of the buildings. The difficulty getting out on to the road from thesite. The overcrowding of this site.

Further to my initial objection 147 Paxton Drive dated 05/05/2020 I would like toreiterate some old concerns and add some additional concerns regarding the amended plans forthe former Railway Depot, Clanage Road, Bristol (20/01655/F). I once again object in full to theamended plans for redevelopment of the Clanage Road site. The amendments have highlighted tome the solely financial intentions of Vistry Partnerships T/a Galliford Try Partnerships, and theircomplete disregard for the City of Bristol's future 'Green' vision, as well as its heritage.

Flooding:

- Whilst I appreciate the proposal has revised and amended their flood risk assessment,increasing flood risk to high in large areas of the development highlights a key issue with this sitefor the proposed development.

- In the updated flood risk assessment, I note that Hydrock have disregarded guidance that statesanalysis of risk of the loss of floodplain storage using upper end climate change modelling shouldbe undertaken for vulnerable use. Their own reporting states that the residential development fallsunder the 'more vulnerable use'. I also take exception to the rationale that this has not beenconsidered as tidal flooding is deemed to be higher risk. This is not an acceptable justification fornot also analysing for the potential of other high risk flood events. It is also stated in theirconclusions as justification for passing the exception test that loss of floodplain storage is not arisk. How can this be known when the analysis has not been undertaken as per guidance?

- In the initial flood risk assessment (April 2020) I note that fluvial flooding was regarded as 'lowrisk', meanwhile groundwater flooding was regarded as 'medium risk'. In the amended flood riskassessment (November 2020), fluvial flood risk has increased to 'medium risk', and groundwaterflooding has decreased to 'low risk'. In the earlier flood risk assessment, the report states "It islikely that groundwater flows through the site occur, and during unlikely times of high River Avonfluvial flows (which given its catchment size could remain high for several hours to days) and hightides, groundwater levels at the site are likely to be shallow (near surface)". Given that both tidaland fluvial flood risk have been increased in the new report, surely based on this statementgroundwater flood risk should also be increased, rather than the reported decrease? As the sitehas not changed or been altered in the time between reports, what is the justification for loweringgroundwater flood risk?

- The surface water flooding document states that catchment areas A1, A2, B, and C will bedischarged to the Wessex Water sewer with a maximum allowable discharge rate of 5 l/s. Acursory examination of Hydrock's surface water modelling from Appendix F of this report indicatesthat the modelled flowrate out of these catchment areas to the sewer were around: A1- 2.0 l/s; A2-3.0 l/s; B- 2.2 l/s; and C- 0.9 l/s. As I assume a storm event would rain on all of these areassimultaneously, I would like to see how Hydrock summed these numbers to produce a result ofless than 5 l/s? I also note that even with these seemingly exaggerated discharge rates the modelindicates flood risks in catchments A1, A2 and C which are not sufficiently discussed in the report.

- Hydrock's surface water drainage analysis of all catchment areas also state that in the event ofthe single discharge route becoming blocked or a storm event above its design capacity (this initself is disingenuous as Hydrock's modelling indicates that this is also a possibility within thedesigned storm event when climate change is considered, from Appendix F), then thedevelopment will be protected by the finished floor levels of their buildings and flows are directedaway from buildings and the safe access/egress routes. From numerous elevation maps it isshown that this development is significantly higher than the adjacent metrobus route and PaxtonDrive development. As analysis of the effect of this event on the surrounding areas does notappear to have been undertaken, I fail to see how it has been proved to not elevate flood riskelsewhere, as required by the exception test.

- I also thank Hydrock for providing the rainfall modelling data which I requested in my previousresponse. However this data still raises more questions than it answers and has only exacerbatedmy concerns around the management of surface water with only a 5 l/s outflow from catchmentareas A, B and C. Hydrock appears to have modelled these areas separately whereas I believethe fundamental first check is with the areas combined as they share this single outflow capacity.Using the catchment areas, climate change adjusted rainfall events and storage capacitiesprovided in the Drainage Strategy document and using a simple inflow vs outflow model I calculatethat there is definite risk of flooding from surface waters in many of the modelled events when theareas are considered together. The worst case appears to be 12.5 mm/hr of rainfall for 480 minswhich overwhelms the A, B, C combined storage capacity by almost 160 m3.

- In Hydrock's Drainage Report 1 Section 8 Summary point 3 it is mentioned that the LongmoorBrook Culvert is very close to site access. As stated in the appendices, Wessex Water cannotguarantee that the information they have provided is accurate. Firm plans for site access are stillto be arranged. It is unacceptable for planning permission to be granted without these details asdamage to the culvert could cause catastrophic flooding to the site and surrounding areas, onceagain failing to meet the requirements of the exception test.

Visual Impact:

- Amended plans include the reduction in height of the previously proposed 9-storey building to an8-storey building. To make up for the loss of financial gain by reducing the number of storeys, theamended plans have replaced the initially proposed 14 townhouses with three 3-storey blocks offlats, meanwhile reducing the initially proposed greenspace significantly. Several issues persistwith regards to this amended plan.

- I would argue reducing the height of the tallest proposed building by 1-storey is insufficient toreduce the visual impact from several important sites in Bristol, including most notably from AshtonCourt Estate and the Clifton Suspension Bridge. Vistry Partnerships amended visual impactassessment, following an uninsightful and ill-considered first attempt at a visual impactassessment, conveniently shows the visual impact during the summer months when greenery is atits maximum. For the majority of months during the year, these proposed high-rise buildings willhave an even worse visual impact on the City of Bristol skyline.

- By removing the 14 proposed townhouses and reducing the greenspace within the proposeddevelopment in order to add an additional three blocks of flats, the proposed development will bevoid of open space and have a 'concrete jungle' type appearance. Given that this development isaimed largely at families, it seems once-again ill-considered to reduce the already limitedgreenspace to maximise financial gain. If 2020 has taught anyone anything, it is that outside spaceis critical to people's wellbeing.

- The amended plans suggest the site has been designed to fit in with its surroundings, with highrise buildings adjacent to the Brunel Way Flyover, and lower rise buildings in line with adjacentPaxton Drive. This is inaccurate in several regards: first the proposed development site adjacent toPaxton Drive is on significantly elevated ground compared Paxton Drive giving a much greaterfinished building height, second the taller blocks adjacent to the Brunel Way flyover dwarf this roadinfrastructure as evidenced in their own visual impact assessments. The buildings therefore do notconsider the surrounding area. This discrepancy can be visualised clearly in both the revisedvisual impact assessment, as well as in the Design and Access Statement Addendum. Theproposed site stands out disproportionately on the existing skyline, largely obscuring the view ofthe Tobacco Factories, some of the most important buildings for Bristol's heritage, from key sites.The site also dwarfs adjacent Paxton Drive despite claims that the site has been designed not to

exceed the existing developments in the area.

- The visual impact of this proposed development has been a major stumbling point throughout theconsultation process and remains to be. I note that despite the insignificant reduction in height ofthe tallest building, Block B has been increased from 4-storeys to 5-storeys, and Block A isdisingenuously described as 4-storeys when in fact the presence of a café underneath this Blockmakes it 5-storeys. Furthermore, Block H described as a 3-storey apartment building has anadditional storey due to its undercroft parking. This makes Block H 4-storeys high and taller thanthe previously proposed town houses in this part of the development.

- It has been reported that the buildings will have interesting views in all directions. Theconsequence of this is that all pre-existing buildings in the vicinity will have their 'interesting' viewsseverely blighted with detrimental impacts on people's right to privacy, and health and well-being.

Travel, Access and Parking:

- Amended plans proposed to reduce the already insufficient parking from 141 + 8 disabledparking spaces, to 134 + 11 disabled parking spaces. Vistry Partnerships justifies this inadequateprovision of parking using a strategic model proposed in the Travel Plan Part 1 stating "the sitepromotes low car ownership from the outset with constrained parking provision". This is based onthe assumption that behaviours will change in response to inadequate provision of parking. Theadjacent Paxton Drive development, where parking provision is one space per dwelling,exemplifies that restricting parking does not induce behavioural change as there are constantlymany more cars parked there than the allocated spaces. Should the inadequacy of parking in theproposed Clanage Road redevelopment lead to additional people attempting to park in PaxtonDrive this could have fatal consequences by hindering access to emergency services.

- Another issue related to the proposed parking provisions at the development is that there is onlyprovision of 28 electric vehicle spaces. This is not very forward or green -thinking given that in just9 years' time by 2030 there is a vision that all new car registrations will be electric vehicles andtherefore require regular charging.

- It is stated in the Travel Plan Part 1 document that "the travel transport model has been made inabsence of any data". It is also stated that "A full Travel Plan will be completed once initial travelsurveys have been undertaken for the residential dwellings". To grant planning permission beforethis critical information is available would be completely unacceptable.

- It is highly unsatisfactory that Hydrock fail to properly cite external data and evidence to supporttheir reports. This makes it difficult to confirm their conclusions and so requires an element of trust,of which I have very little after investigating data which could be confirmed. For example, I havefound their reporting on the "method of travel to work" from the 2011 census for the local MSOA(EA02003047) to be completely incorrect in the Travel Plan Part 1, as checked using the ONS

nomis service to query QS701EW. The numbers they provide in the Travel Plan are used to justifytheir strategy and disingenuously indicate low car usage (Travel Plan Part 1: 21%; ONS census2011: 29%) and significantly exaggerated journeys by foot (Travel Plan Part 1 Report: 52.5%;ONS census 2011: 23%). I find it astonishing that a perceived expert report has made mistakes ofthis magnitude and I note that it is convenient that the incorrect data provided works significantly infavour of the development.

- Using census data from 2011 is an inadequate basis for current travel modelling and the datadoes not align with my current experience of the vast majority of travel to work in the equivalentPaxton Drive seeming to be by car.

Other Considerations:

- I note in the amended documents for the revised plan, numerous discrepancies regarding thenumber of properties being proposed. The inability of the consultancies and Vistry Partnerships toperform simple arithmetic and accurately quantify the number of properties instils very littleconfidence in the proposed plans themselves. In the Flood Risk Sequential Test Document,Section 4 Development Proposal, Subsection 4.2 Summary of the Proposed Development, thetable states a total of 253 properties, when simple arithmetic in the same table gives a totalnumber of properties as 245. Elsewhere in other documents, such as the Framework ResidentialTravel Plan, the total number of properties is stated as 242.

- The above point also reminds me that this site was originally reported to be suitable for around150 dwellings, rather than the proposed 240 + dwellings. I am concerned Vistry Partnerships havedisregarded this information in their plans.

- I am still extremely concerned about the loss of privacy and afternoon/evening light that will beincurred by neighbouring Paxton Drive residents, as even the smallest of these blocks will towerabove Paxton Drive because the proposed development is on raised ground. I refer you back tomy first objection from April which states under the Human Rights Act, Protocol 1, Article 1, "Aperson has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions, which includes the home andother land". This issue has not been addressed in the amended plans.

- While I appreciate the importance of providing social housing, I do not feel that provision ofalmost exclusively 1- and 2- bed flats support the notion of family living.

- I am still extremely concerned about the mobilisation of contaminated particulate matter,particularly during the excavation and construction phases of development. Groundwater floodingat the site could also mobilise contaminated matter and subsequently leach out of the substrateinto the surrounding environment, including the River Avon, which provides an important site formuch of Bristol's ecology.

- Is there enough capacity in local schools and in the surrounding GP surgeries to provide therequired education and health services for the number of residents?

- It is commended that the original route of the cycle way will largely be maintained next to thevehicular access to the development. However, I am concerned to note that the cycleway is to belit along its edge and the vehicular access will also require lighting. I note the bat corridor runsalong this and I am concerned that the additional noise and light pollution will have a detrimentalimpact on conservation, the bats and other wildlife.

I echo everything I said before and also what other residences of Paxton drive havesaid

We have enough housing around this city and its being destroyed by greedy propertydevelooers getting theyre hands on every bit of space there is. What about the strain on doctorssurgeries and schooks its ridiculous and an apsolute no from me

As a local resident having read through the proposals, I share the concerns of PaxtonDrive residents. Including insufficient parking for the proposed number of homes. I struggled tofind in the planning documents any mention of provision for safe bicycle storage, and only 28electric vehicle spaces, not particularly forward thinking. For an area (esp. Brunel Way) thatalready struggles with traffic management, I cannot see sufficient consideration of the impact ofthis proposed building - extra vehicle traffic on this road is likely to impact the traffic flow at rushhours for the whole of south Bristol, considering the importance of Brunel Way in and out of thecity. Also, 2011 census data is inadequate for current travel modelling.Other concerns around flood risk assessments; loss of evening light; existing cycle pathways; andwildlife conservation.

The revised plans to lower the maximum height of the development from 9 to 8 storieswill still result in significant impact on historic views across the area to and from the Cliftonsuspension bridge and Ashton court estate. In addition to this the revised plans have simplyremoved the proposed town houses and replaced them with further blocks of flats to make up forthe loss in height. The original plans stated that this development was intended for families whichis not demonstrated by the number of flats proposed.

The development will have a negative impact on the adjacent allotments as it will restrict light. Itwill also impart light, views and privacy from the Paxton Drive flats/apartments.

I am a regular pedestrian/cyclist along the festival way path and re routing it through thedevelopment will make the journey longer and more dangerous as it is narrower, has blind bendsand crosses roads.

The development has not been designed in keeping with its surroundings nor with conservation inmind. Their will be a detrimental effect on the existing wildlife, including bats and bees.

There are too few car parking spaces for the number of flats proposed meaning that existingprivate spaces in Paxton Drive or residential parking will be used. The area already suffers fromtoo many cars. The new development will also result in more cars using Brunel Way andWinterstoke Road, areas of current heavy congestion in a high pollution zone.

The area is also highly susceptible to flooding. Removing green space will increase the flood risk.

If these plans are approved in their current form it will set a very dangerous precedent for futuredevelopment of the area, in particular the proposed western harbour. Any development shouldonly be approved if it is in keeping with the surrounding area and supports the conservation needsof the area. There should also be better plans for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport andelectric vehicles.

I have reviewed the amended documentations added to this application and they donothing to address the objections I have as below.

As resident of Paxton Drive, we strongly oppose the development at the former Railway Depot,Clanage Road due to the reasons laid out below.

Conservation

The development will impact the view from Ashton Court Estate, a registered park and garden.Ashton Court is a hugely valuable historical and communal asset that shouldn't be degraded bylarge tower blocks. The current proposal building heights are unsympathetic to the surroundingcountryside and will provide a harsh eyesore from the countryside as you come into the city.

The site and the height of the blocks will clearly be in view from the historic sights of CliftonSuspension Bridge.

Design, scale, massing

Although the proposal is an uninspiring design our main concerns are the scale and massing ofthe proposal. If the area has to be developed surely a more innovative, sustainable, high qualitydesign can be proposed with a smaller massing which could be enjoyed for generations by boththe residents and the onlookers. This current proposal is bland in design and overbearing in scale

and massing.

Environment

The increase in traffic and the removal of the greenery and trees within the sight will have anegative impact on the quality of air in the area. Furthermore as the UK is working towards endingthe use of petrol and diesel vehicles the site does not account for this. As a new site it should bedesigned with electric vehicles in mind, electric charging points, solar panels, use of cycle routesand walk ways. The Metro Bus route does not provide access to all areas of the cities andresidents will need to use other transport means to access the city.

The site is being built in a flood risk area in a time when the River Avon is recording extremelyhigh tides. The use of tarmac will only increase this risk as it will prevent water seeping into theground.

Wildlife

The proposal will destroy all the vibrant greenery along the Metro Bus route which we so enjoy towatch. With that gone all the wildlife will be destroyed and will never return. I have seen manyrabbits, foxes, birds and bee's that live there and I am sure there are many more animals that willlose their habitats.

Traffic and Parking

The proposal suggests 141 parking spaces for 253 residential dwellings. This is clearly far belowthe likely amount of vehicles that will require parking on the site. Residents will likely use PaxtonDrive for parking as this is the closest parking opportunity to the site, which already has limitedparking.

Access both in and out of the site will be onto Ashton Gate Underpass and onto Brunel Way.Brunel Way is a major access in and out of Bristol that experiences extremely heavy traffic in rushhour. The new site will only increase traffic on a road that is already unable to cope with thevolume of vehicles.

The access to the site will share the exit of Paxton Drive, with more than double the amount carsusing one exit at rush hour it will cause a build-up of traffic trying to exit the two residential sites.The access to the site will also cross the Metro Bus which runs buses at regular intervals. Thiscould cause traffic tailing back onto Ashton Gate Underpass and having a direct impact on thePaxton Drive exit.

Loss of Privacy

Our flat will be directly opposite a four storey block in the new site, with only the Metro Bus linkbetween. This will have a huge impact on our privacy as our living room and kitchen face directlytowards this block. We have lived here for four years and always really appreciated that this wasthe only side of our flat that had complete privacy. The proposal will destroy all our remainingprivacy.

Loss of Light

The proposal will block out our late afternoon and evening sunlight due to the height of the blocks,overshadowing our flat.

Highway Safety

Pupils of Ashton Park School walk through Paxton Drive on their route to and from the school. Theaccess to the site will be a further hazard to them.

Noise

Due to the increase in the vehicles the traffic noise will increase. The site is already on a busyroad with high levels of noise. The side of our flat which faces towards Ashton Court is the oneside that of us that is quiet, or with the peaceful sounds of trees and birds. A residentialdevelopment with infrastructure will remove this quiet, removing the lovely greenery forever andincrease the noise levels combined with the existing road to unbearable levels.

By removing the greenery we will also have to listen to all the noise from the site, particularly theblock that will be so close and opposite ours with nothing to shield the travel of the sounds.

We strongly object to this proposal and urge that the planning committee reject the proposal.

Yours sincerely,

Owen and Laura Holmes

I have reviewed the amended scheme, however the changes do little to address myobjections. Therefore I strongly oppose this development as proposed.

COMMENTING PROCEDURE:

Allowing only 3 weeks to submit comments is unacceptable, particularly as lock-down due to theCovid-19 virus prevents affected residents from meeting to exchange views about the proposals.

Some of the flats in Paxton Drive are tenanted therefore flat owners should be notified of planningproposals as well as occupants.

These constraints have curtailed our democratic right to see and influence local policy.

VISUAL IMPACT:

In principle I welcome the development of this site to provide affordable housing, however thescale and appearance of the proposed buildings is inappropriate for this outstanding location. TheLocal Plan estimated 150 dwellings; 242 is excessive.

This site forms the transition from the urban city to the wonderful landscape of Ashton Court Park.The scale, mass and heights of all the proposed buildings are inappropriate and will be an brutalintrusion in this semi-rural landscape. Essentially these buildings are bland uninspiring boxes in

straight lines, devoid of curvature and imagination.

The stunning vistas from and to Ashton Court, Avon Gorge, the Clifton Suspension Bridge and theslopes of Clifton will be irreparably spoiled. The area is the boundary of the city and has beautifulgreen space rich with nature; this scheme substitutes monolithic overbearing high-rise buildings.They will tower over the neighbouring allotments, limiting winter sunshine and creating coldground.

The Design & Access Statement Addendum claims: "As the site progresses Northwards the scaleneeds to increase to reflex (reflect?) the change in the context that the proposal would be viewedin .... the seven storey bonded warehouses and the elevated back drop of Hotwells and Clifton".The surrounding vistas do not justify building high; on the contrary tower blocks will detract fromthe stature and historical significance of the warehouses and obstruct an outstanding landscape.

I fear the height of building E will set a precedent for the proposed 'Western Harbour' scheme andprovide a justification for a vulgar concrete jungle that will permanently ruin Bristol's uniqueharbourside.

DENSITY:

The excessively high density of the scheme means that most space around the blocks is givenover to access roads and car-parking, with only nominal space allocated as a children's play areaand for outdoor gatherings by residents.

LOSS OF PRIVACY:

The architects have very considerately designed the north face of Block A with no windows toavoid overlook with Block B, however they have ignored the far more serious loss of privacy thatwill be incurred by the existing residents of Paxton Drive. Many will now have to installcurtains/blinds to avoid being overlooked.

LOSS OF LIGHT

Blocks A and B will block out late afternoon and evening sunlight on the existing blocks of PaxtonDrive.

ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION:

Section 2.6 of the Planning Statement Part 1 acknowledges that the "north and east is designatedas Important Open Space on the current Policies Map. A strip of land along the western boundary(including the now constructed metrobus corridor) is also defined as Important Open Space."Furthermore the land is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). Yet this application

destroys the strip alongside the metrobus road, and will negatively impact on the wildlife and faunaof the area. Rabbits, foxes and birds are common in this area and will be further displaced by theloss of more natural open space. Many established trees will be destroyed by the scheme,particularly those along the western boundary. Landscaping the development with a fewmanicured shrubs and small trees is no substitute.

The site should be bordered by dense trees to reduce vehicle noise and pollution otherwiseresidents and will have to keep all windows closed 24/7.

I am concerned that the existence of asbestos has been identified and, as a near neighbour, I amworried about inhalation of fibres during excavation and building. "0.6m of suitable topsoil/subsoiland/or engineered fill" is insufficient long-term remediation.

FLOODING:

High spring tides (11.8m) occurred in March this year (2020) causing extensive overbank floodingin the Cumberland Basin area. There is growing scientific evidence that global warming is causingsea levels to rise at an even faster rate than predicted in current modelling. No developmentshould be allowed until sea-level defences have been developed that ameliorate the risk offlooding.

The area is already at risk of surface water flooding; the large expanse of paved area willaggravate this with rainwater run-off potentially flooding the metrobus road.

I wish to endorse the expert opinions on flooding expounded by Amelia Vale of 147 Paxton Drive.

CAR PARKING:

Bristol aspires to be a 'green city' and significantly reduce car usage. The reality is that residentswill own cars until Bristol has an integrated light rail/bus/cycle infrastructure comparable to manyEuropean cities (clearly decades away at the present snail pace).

Paxton Drive has one car parking space per flat yet there is a serious problem with more cars thanparking availability. This results in cars blocking pavements and also access to buildings by thedisabled and parents with buggies.

With only 134 car parking spaces for 242 homes, I fear that residents and visitors to this newdevelopment will resort to parking in Paxton Drive, Canada Way and Clanage Road.

The proponents claim many residents will choose not to have cars, yet the M2 bus to the citycentre stops soon after 9pm and does not run at all on Sundays, the 'X' buses from BlackmoorsLane are much less accessible and operate at irregular frequencies, and there is no public

transport to the shops and amenities on North Street. This can only be resolved by reducing thenumber of dwellings and providing adequate car parking.

CYCLE PATH:

I am delighted the amended scheme maintains the existing course of the Festival Way cycle path.However a 3m path is too narrow. This is a busy commuter and recreational route and manycyclists, rightly or wrongly, go fast. People and cycles should never be mixed unless existinggeography makes it completely unavoidable.

The opportunity should be taken to implement a wider path to separate cycles and walkers. Itshould have adequate width to accommodate travel in opposite directions by both pedestrians andcyclists in groups.

The Festival Way cycle route must be available throughout site construction.

The provision of secure cycle parking in building A is an excellent idea. The lock-ups must berobust to withstand vandalism which I fear may occur.

LOCAL AMENITIES:

Consideration must be given to the pressure on local amenities such as schools and GPs due tothe increase of local population.

I question the viability of a cafe in an isolated residential estate when most people will passthrough by bus or bike. Cafes require high foot-fall and there are competing businesses at AshtonCourt Mansion, the Create Centre, Riverside Garden Centre and North Street. The nearest shopsare nearly one mile distant, therefore the provision of small local shops should be consideredinstead.

STRATEGIC PLANNING:

Development of this site should not be considered independent of the much larger developmentsbeing mooted for the Western Harbour, the Plimsoll Bridge and Brunel Way. Planning must beconsidered strategically, not in piecemeal parcels as proposed here.

SUMMARY:

The visibility of this location begs an innovative and imaginative solution that will resonate withaspirations of Bristol as a forward-thinking healthy green city. This scheme is a throwback to 20th-century build-it-cheap pack-'em-high thinking.

This unique site is ideally suited to the 21st-century concept of 'Passiv' ultra-low energy buildingsthat are increasingly appearing in Germany and Scandinavia and where environmental andeconomic costs are calculated in 100+ year timescales, not short-term profit for the developer.

I will close by repeating some words of Donna Ashford of Churchill, Winscombe, that are far moreeloquent than mine:

"Bristol is a wonderful City and should be valued, it has the most amazing approaches and theplanning should be carefully considered to protect that all makes Bristol the city it is. This proposalwill be an eyesore and will do nothing to enhance Bristol. Such an important site deserves better."

This development will ruin the views for many on the road, and for the skyline ingeneral. Though I do not object to new housing, this site is too small and the access/infrastructuretoo poor for this level of development. The main dual carriageway has huge traffic problems as it isand this will only make the access worse. This land could be put to better use.

I note the improvement in the routes for cyclists.I also note the reduction in height of most of the buildings.Block E is still two storeys too high. This makes it too prominent in the view of the site fom theNorth East/West. More importantly this carries the risk that the high density of the site, the heavyusage of the lift and/or stairs (especially when there is a mechanical failure) combined with thesignificant isolation of the site from social, retail and educational facilities makes it highly likely thatthe block becomes a future problem site. It may well be used to house those who are desperatefor housing of any kind but who resent the lack of access to other facilities and therefore neverbuild up a respect for their location.

I strongly object to these proposals.

The development would severely affect the character of the area and the number of properties arein excess of what is indicated in the local plan for the site. Views from surrounding green spaceswould be worsened and a part of Bristol which has a lovely, relaxing green environment would bespoiled by urbanisation on this scale. Residents of Paxton Drive enjoy lovely views of trees andthe Clifton Suspension Bridge to the west which would be lost for many with 4 - 9 storey buildings.

With the sun setting in the west I also fear that for properties in Paxton Drive adjacent to any new,tall properties included in the development plans would receive no direct sunlight at all any more.This can have a huge effect on people's mental well being, coupled with being overlooked andlosing existing levels of privacy within their properties.

In addition to the above, vehicular access and egress for this development would be detrimental toexisting traffic flows on the A370 which is already poor during peak periods.

A blot on the landscape.I object fully to the plans and the planned rerouted cycle path.Not fit for purpose D-

May objection relates to the proposed route and design of the Festival Way walking andcycling route. This is an especially important active travel route as it is one of the few ways totravel between the southern side of the city centre and Ashton Court, Long Ashton and the villagesbeyond, without using the busy A369/A370. Currently this is a wide shared surface that isrelatively straight and with gentle gradients. The proposed development is an ideal opportunity toimprove this part of the route in line with the new guidance recently published by the Government(LTN 1/20). However the route appears to have been treated as an afterthought, reduced in widthwith additional road crossings and right angled bends. It's an unacceptably poor example oftransport design that increases the risk to all users, especially the most vulnerable, and willincrease conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. The ramps will create additionalbarriers to those that are less able. This aspect of the development must be reconsidered.

The Panel strongly objects to this application.

The Panel endorses the comments made by Historic England, City Design Groups and CHIS. Theapplication proposal is set in a highly sensitive area of the city in terms of the proximity and impacton a range of heritage assets consequently this must be a conservation led design.

As it currently stands this proposal will significantly harm the setting, character and appearanceand landscape and historic value of the immediate and wider setting and relevant heritage assets.This will adversely affect the Sylvia Crowe Landscape, the Suspension Bridge, the B Bondwarehouses, Ashton Court Mansion and Greville Smyth Park. The justification of the height of thebuildings by reference to the bonded warehouses is not accepted. There is no justification for abuilding 9 stories high in this location between the river and the slopes of Ashton Park. Theproposed 253 dwellings is greatly in excess of a level of 150 set out in the emerging local plan. Alarge number of the flats would be single aspect which is contrary to the Urban Living SPD.

It is very concerning that the design of the Cumberland Basin by Sylvia Crowe is not referred to inthe Historical Assessment in the Design and Access Statement. It is also very disturbing to readthat the first two design studies were produced without a full understanding of the physicalconstraints of the site.

The applicant has been selective in their views assessment. They have only undertakenphotomontages of 5 of the 11 specified view points. Viewpoints 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 10 have not been

assessed, which raises the question of why.

The Gardens Trust has not been consulted on this application.

The Panel would support the redevelopment of this redundant site with a high quality,conservation led residential scheme. However this proposal does not accord with the Local Plan'srelevant heritage and design policies, nor does it meet the requirements of the relevantparagraphs of the NPPF. This application cannot be supported and must be refused.

While supporting plans to build much needed and affordable housing on this site thecurrent plans are completely out of keeping with their environment. Quite simply they areridiculously high for the site.

Sustrans' comments:

1. The proposed route of the Festival Way (National Cycle Network Route 33) through thedevelopment significantly reduces the level of service currently provided by the existing facility.The proposed route introduces four additional points of potential conflict (crossing the access roadat level 11.40, crossing the pedestrian access to the car park at level 10.70, the top of thepedestrian stairs from the Metro Bus route at level 10.40 and finally the access onto the Metro Busroute itself at level 9.26).2. The proposed route introduces two right-angle bends into the alignment of the Festival Way.Again this significantly reduces the level of service when compared to the existing route.3. Given the location of the development - close to the city centre and the proposed ratio of carparking spaces to the number of dwellings, we feel that the quality of walking and cycling provisionoffered by this proposal falls short of what could be done in a new development situation. Wewould expect new developments to have high quality walking and cycling infrastructure built infrom the start which complies or even exceeds the latest quality standards (for example CD 195and the London Cycle Design Standards)

Sustrans attended the public consultation event at the Create Centre (21 November 2019) andremain willing to engage with the developer in order to help design high quality walking and cyclinginfrastructure for this scheme and ultimately achieve a better outcome for the residents of thedevelopment.

Best wishes, Iain Stewart (South West Network Development Manager) and Jon Usher(Partnerships Manager).

Bristol Walking Alliance (BWA) objects to this development which forces a diversion of the main pedestrian route between the Floating Harbour and Ashton Court, is not sufficiently sustainable, and does not consider its obligations to improving travel in the surrounding area.

Festival Way pedestrian routeCurrently, there is a main pedestrian and cycle route, known as 'Festival Way' (including Canada Way), between the Floating Harbour and Ashton Court and the UWE Bower Ashton campus which passes inside the western edge of the site to be developed. The route is constrained at the southwestern end by the need to cross the railway line via a bridge. At the north-western end it passes under Brunel Way and crosses Brunel Open Space to Ashton Avenue Bridge. It forms part of National Cycle Network Route 33 from Bristol via Long Ashton to Nailsea.

The proposal is to re-route this shared pedestrian/cycle path through the centre of thedevelopment, but along straight lines with two right-angle bends as it passes between the blocks of buildings. The path will also include several ramps (with a gradient of 3.7% - 4%) and be constrained to 3m width along most of its length. In the ramped section, where it is constrained by retaining walls on each side, the width marginally increases to 3.5m.

BWA has several objections to the proposed path re-routing. This development should be anopportunity to improve this important pedestrian and cycle route to encourage more people to use the route to get to Ashton Court and the UWE Bower Ashton campus.

This is particularly important when there are events taking place at Ashton Court, such as the Bristol Balloon Fiesta, which regularly causes road traffic problems in the area. But it is also important to encourage active travel for commuting from the direction of Long Ashton.

In particular we object that the proposed route:

• is less direct• is too narrow for pedestrian/cycle shared use on a route that requires improvement• introduces an additional road crossing• introduces pinch-points through sharp corners at the road crossing and the ramp• will be a safety hazard at the sharp corners, especially on the ramp where constrained byretaining walls• sends pedestrian and cycle traffic through the middle of residential open space wherechildren might be playing

We believe that this development should contribute rather than detract from the Festival Way byincreasing the width to allow segregation of the walking and cycling paths by at least a kerb. The best way to achieve this is likely to be to retain the current route along the western boundary of the site rather than redirecting it through the middle of the site. Redirecting the route to the east of the site, by providing a more direct link between the railway bridge and the west side of the Metrobus route, would offer an alternative but would require rethinking the gradients at the entrance to the site.

Other pedestrian routes around the siteThe Clanage Road roundabout already has extremely high footfall, especially for access to Ashton Park School at school times and for the sports facilities at the school. However, the walking facilities are very poor and should be upgraded as part of this development. The poor facilities are glossed over in the proposals by making them sound good. There are positive words about the 1.5m footway, which is too narrow and runs alongside a very busy road, shared at school start and end time by two-way walking and cycling traffic.

Sustainability of the siteGiven the climate emergency, it is no longer appropriate to assume residents will primarily access the site by car. Indeed, this site, with its difficult road access especially at peak hours, is a prime candidate to be a car-free development. The need for regular site road access to cross the Metrobus route is also a potential source of hazard and delay for bus passengers.Bus connection into the city should be good using the Metrobus stop, but good walking connections to local facilities are also essential. The site, along with the adjacent one on Paxton Drive, is severed from shopping and the city by the A370 (Brunel Way). Walking links could be improved with another direct link under or over the A370 to Greville Smyth Park to create the most direct walking link possible to North Street and its shopping and entertainment facilities. Even small deviations will deter walking. This should be designed with safety for walking at night in mind. If additional cycling routes are also provided, they should be segregated from the walking routes by at least a kerb.

The limited amount of shared open space within the current plans seems at odds with the intensity of the development.

Bristol Walking Alliance

Just to view my objection points as per many others:--excessive development in height of buildings-not enough car parking spaces and to suggest people won't have cars is ridiculous. Just look howovercrowded Paxton Drive is with vehicles-alternative cycle path not adequate and interesting to see Bristol Cycyling objecting when theywant to encourage us all to get on our bikes.All points just show how "un thought through" this application and development plans have been

The proposed development of up to 9 storeys in height is excessive in terms of its scaleand massing and is inappropriate for this location, which is characterised by open spaces andlower height development, such as at Paxton Drive. The development would block many viewsfrom Bristol towards Ashton Court, as for example shown in the applicant's photomontage ofViewpoint 3. Many of these existing views connect the city of Bristol to the wider countryside withinwhich it sits and are important to maintaining the existing character of the city, the historic docksand open spaces along the River Avon. The photomontage of Viewpoint 4 shows that thedevelopment would be overbearing in appearance from the riverside.The applicant has provided only 5 photomontages from the 11 viewpoints presented with theapplication. Some important viewpoints are only presented as existing, rather than proposed. All11 views should be presented showing the proposed development. In addition, further viewsshould be shown from the vicinity of Ashton Court Mansion showing the views towards the citywhich would include the proposed development, and from higher up in the Park, where extensiveviews across the city are available. Will the proposed development block or affect views fromthese locations towards St Mary Redcliffe, for example?The proposed, re-routed Festival Way cycle path through the development looks too narrow toaccommodate the high level of usage that it receives at present, particularly at weekends. Theproposed cycle route also includes an additional road crossing. I cannot see this risk addressed insection 5 of the Stage 1 Road \Safety Audit Report and think it preferable that Festival Way shouldremain on its existing alignment.

I feel I must add my objection to the chorus of outrage over this development. Buildingwithin this extremely sensitive area of great national significance requires a great deal of sensitiveand conservation led master urban planning none of which is apparent in the concept of thisdevelopment. Not only do I object to this but to the potential future redevelopment plans for thisarea of Bristol and in particular changes to the Cumberland Basin of which this development site isa part and and has already been harmed with recent ad hoc developments. This area hasconsiderable significance in early postwar redevelopment. The location embraces some of thegreat iconic views of Bristol and is of significant heritage importance. The Covid 19 epidemic hashighlighted the importance of open spaces and here is such a place. A conservation led review forall future plans for this area of the City is urgently required followed by a team of world class urbandesigners to protect the these assets for the benefit of all Bristolians. I strongly object to thisunconvincing application.

Fully accept the plan for new housing at this site, but the developers are trying toshoehorn too many dwellings into too small a space. To remain in keeping it would make sense forthe new development not to exceed the height of nearby Paxton drive.

There isnt enough car parking spaces. Hoping that a significant number of households will becarless sounds unrealistic - so the plans should be withdrawn with cars parked on everyconceivable space.

The access by road for this quantity of housing will inevitably make an already congested stretchof road much worse - and potentially more dangerous.

The Mayor has proposed plans for the redesign of cumberland basin and the 'western harbour'. Asthis space is intergral to the redesign of cumberland basin, shouldn't the decisions be coordinated

I object to this proposalThe 7 and 9 storey elements are quite inappropriate in this key edge of city location .The claimedjustifications are not valid in my view (and could set a damaging precedent for Western Harbour )The massing and forms are poorly developed in design terms and the elevations are particularlyweak architecturallyI wouid hope that this scheme could be rejected both as too many units compared to local planguidance and in terms of very poor design quality .It's a good site to develop and an opportunity to have good urban design and architecture whichthis proposal sadly fails to provide

Hi,

I am away from my flat as I am in lockdown elsewhere at the moment ....and I believe I havemissed the deadline to formally register my objection.I do object to the proposal as it will seriouly impede the view from my flat and also that it willgenerate much higher levels of traffic in what already is a bit of a nightmare.Can you tell me if it is too late to register my objection and how I can stay in touch with thisapplication as it goes forward

Thanks

Steve

I am objecting to the development. Traffic is already too busy, so building more homeshere just puts additional strain on the existing infrastructure which is not in great condition. Thearea does not need high rise which will destroy the existing views for residents looking across toAshton Court, we live here because of the proximity to countryside, you are making this lastremaining area urban at a time where we desperately need green space. Where are the schoolsand Doctors for these additional people to go to, the Hotwells surgery is already closed, andschools are oversubscribed. After this outbreak of Covid high density flats where germs canspread quickly in lifts aircon due to shared spaces are not safe. We are not London, people movehere to escape the high density which will take away light in the winter when the sun sets in thewest.

I oppose this development because it would negatively impact the iconic views ofAshton Meadows and the suspension bridge. The proposed buildings are too high, and would seta precedent for building heights in other proposed nearby development on an area of naturalbeauty. It would also impact the festival way shared cycle pedestrian route, during developmentand thereafter. I'm concerned about motor vehicle access to and from the site.

I object to this on the grounds of height. Not appropriate for this sensitive site.

There is of course a pressing need for affordable housing, but we owe it to our fellowcitizens and to future generations to leave the City improved and fit for the future.

Other objections raise the proposed development's unfitness to face future changes in weatherand water, the proposal's lack of harmony in its surroundings, and to its negative impact onimportant sites.

I can only urge the Committee to heed the expressed views of the Environment Agency, and ofprofessional, concerned, architects.

Allotments are important places for locals especially in see times, it helps mental healthas well as feeding people.

Bristol Cycling Campaign object to the above application for the following reasons -- The proposed diversion of the existing Festival Way Cycle route is less direct and moreconvoluted than the existing route.- The proposed ramp and the proximity to the proposed steps introduce unnecessaryconflict between pedestrian (both users of Festival Way and residents) and cyclemovement through the site.- The width of the shared cycle and footway through the site appears to be inadequate.- The crossings over the roads do not provide priority for cycles or pedestrians.

1. Allotments

I have had an allotment at White City Allotments for 4 years. It is an active and productive site witha long waiting list. The proposed 9-storey building would create a severe shadowing effect overmine and many others plots (in full shadow during the winter and partial in the summer.) This willhave a huge impact on the production of food on this site for nearly all plot holders - this wouldmassively affect the community, our resilience and self-sufficiency. Given the times we are in, withthe threat of food shortages due to the global pandemic, this should be a key consideration whenreviewing this planning application. If this goes ahead, it sets a bad precedent that developers andplanners can disregard the importance of allotments, which are vital community spaces. Inaddition, the density and height of the building poses a threat to privacy - not only for plot holders,but for the residents on Paxton Drive.

2. Festival way cycle path

This is a highly used path that connects citizens to the countryside and green open space througha safe, enjoyable and car free route route. It is also a key route for uses of the Bower Ashton UWEcampus and Ashton Park School. The proposal would heavily disrupt this route. This is also a siteused by skateboarders, this recreational area will be lost and there does not appear to be anyprovision to replace this facility. The proposed diversion route of the Festival Way Path creates anarrow and confined route, with a sharp turn to use the access ramp on to the metro bus route.Why build on a principal cycle path into and out of the city and encourage car ownership that has

been the bane of Bristol? It is unclear what will happen to this route during construction if theproposed plans go ahead.

3. FloodingFlood risk in this area of Bristol already exists and will arguably increase as a direct consequenceof the new development. In March of this year (2020), extensive flooding around the CumberlandBasin was observed caused by high spring tides. The River Avon has the second highest tidalreach in the world, making its susceptibility to flooding unsurprising. On 12 March 2020 BristolHarbour reported 11.8m tides, which caused extensive overbank flooding across the CumberlandBasin and surrounding areas. This is not a one off event and flooding also occurred in this areaduring the floods of 2012.

4. Air Quality and PollutionA development of this scale would expose people within the vicinity to reduced air quality.

5. DensityThe draft Bristol City Council Local Plan Site Allocations Document (Site Reference BDA0303)suggests that this site has a capacity for around 150 homes, the planning submitted here has 253.This is 103 over what is recommended. This is an obscene increase and will place a huge strainon local amenities - doctors, schools, shops, roads etc. I appreciate that this development offersaffordable housing, which is desperately needed in this city, but the proposal does not offer anyquality in housing, which is more important.

6. Environmental DegradationTo develop this site will cause removal of trees and vegetation. In removing the trees and shrubs,a vital filter and wind-break which helps 'soak up' some of the road pollution from the continuoussurrounding traffic will be lost. There is much wildlife in the area that has already been disturbedby the metro bus route and this site is home to many foxes, rabbits etc. The tall blocks are out ofkeeping with the area and heritage.

Thanks

My objections are:

1. The Festival way cycle pathI use this path every day both for exercise and as a transport network. It connects Bristol to thecountryside and green spaces of Ashton Court. It is a pleasure to use the path and has been keyin maintaining my good mental health during this COVID crisis. It follows an attractive route thatallows cyclists and walkers space to travel alongside.The proposed diversion route of the Festival Way Path creates a narrow and confined route with asharp turn to use the access ramp on to the metro bus route. It is also unclear what will happen tothe route if this development is granted.Bristol City Council promotes the city as a cycling friendly city, why would it allow a buildingdevelopment to so negatively affect a prime cycle route into the city?

2. AllotmentsThe allotments are an important part of the city's green spaces. The proposed 9-storey buildingwould create a severe shadowing effect over the allotments and will affect both the growingconditions and wildlife.

3. DensityThe draft Bristol City Council Local Plan Site Allocations Document (Site Reference BDA0303)suggests that this site has a capacity for around 150 homes, the planning submitted here has 253.This is 103 over what is recommended and will be far too dense. The height of the buildings will

dominate the landscape and is out of keeping with the area and heritage.

The development fails to respect the infrastructure in place and disregards a realisticstrategy for use and amenity for the future.

Like many developers it regards its process in a vacuum without consulting properly the explosionof building and planning and the strain on already failing and exhausted roads, resources andamenity.

The build out of a new high density residential project in the backlot of a community that alreadysuffers insufficient transport access at peak time is disregard for the problems associated with thissite. Simply calling the car park a 'Plaza' and fantasising about annulling single occupancy motorvehicle use will not rid the plan of the manifesting problems that it represents.

I fully object to this proposal. And encourage its rejection in full and the reimagining of adevelopment capable of withstanding the challenges of future city living.

My objections are:

1. The Festival way cycle pathI use this path every day both for exercise and as a transport network. It connects Bristol to thecountryside and green spaces of Ashton Court. It is a pleasure to use the path and has been keyin maintaining good mental health during this COVID crisis. It follows an attractive route that allowscyclists and walkers space to travel alongside. The proposed diversion route of the Festival WayPath creates a narrow and confined route with a sharp turn to use the access ramp on to themetro bus route. It is also unclear what will happen to the route if this development is granted.Bristol City Council promotes the city as a cycling friendly city, why would it allow a buildingdevelopment to so negatively affect a prime cycle route into the city?

2. AllotmentsThe allotments are an important part of the city's green spaces. The proposed 9-storey buildingwould create a severe shadowing effect over the allotments and will affect both the growingconditions and wildlife.

3. DensityThe draft Bristol City Council Local Plan Site Allocations Document (Site Reference BDA0303)suggests that this site has a capacity for around 150 homes, the planning submitted here has 253.This is 103 over what is recommended and will be far too dense. The height of the buildings willdominate the landscape and is out of keeping with the area and heritage.

This proposed development will have an extremely negative impact on the whole area.The cycle route is an important part of the city's cycle network and it is important to ensure that wedo all we can to reduce carbon emissions from motor vehicles by encouraging people to cyclewhenever possible. The allotments are vital community asset and any attempt to downgrade themshould be seen for what it is ie. anti social behaviour by property developers looking to make aprofit at the expense of the local community. If Bristol City Council has any moral compass theyshould require a much more modest development which will enhance the area rather than this"lets how much we can cram in here!"p.s. Is there really a need for MORE coffe shops,resturaunts and shops?

1. Allotments next to development

White City Allotment is an active and productive site with a long waiting list. The proposed 9-storeybuilding would create a severe shadowing effect over many plots (in full shadow during the winterand partial in the summer.) This will have a huge impact on the production of food on this site fornearly all plot holders - this would massively affect the community, its resilience and self-sufficiency. Given the times we are in, with the threat of food shortages due to the globalpandemic, this should be a key consideration when reviewing this planning application. If this goesahead, it sets a bad precedent that developers and planners can disregard the importance ofallotments, which are vital community spaces. In addition, the density and height of the buildingposes a threat to privacy - not only for plot holders, but for the residents on Paxton Drive.

2. Festival way cycle path

This is a highly used path that connects citizens to the countryside and green open space througha safe, enjoyable and car free route route. It is also a key route for uses of the Bower Ashton UWEcampus and Ashton Park School. The proposal would heavily disrupt this route. This is also a siteused by skateboarders, this recreational area will be lost and there does not appear to be anyprovision to replace this facility. The proposed diversion route of the Festival Way Path creates anarrow and confined route, with a sharp turn to use the access ramp on to the metro bus route.Why build on a principal cycle path into and out of the city and encourage car ownership that hasbeen the bane of Bristol? It is unclear what will happen to this route during construction if the

proposed plans go ahead.

3. FloodingFlood risk in this area of Bristol already exists and will arguably increase as a direct consequenceof the new development. In March of this year (2020), extensive flooding around the CumberlandBasin was observed caused by high spring tides. The River Avon has the second highest tidalreach in the world, making its susceptibility to flooding unsurprising. On 12 March 2020 BristolHarbour reported 11.8m tides, which caused extensive overbank flooding across the CumberlandBasin and surrounding areas. This is not a one off event and flooding also occurred in this areaduring the floods of 2012.

4. Air Quality and PollutionA development of this scale would expose people within the vicinity to reduced air quality.

5. DensityThe draft Bristol City Council Local Plan Site Allocations Document (Site Reference BDA0303)suggests that this site has a capacity for around 150 homes, the planning submitted here has 253.This is 103 over what is recommended. This is an obscene increase and will place a huge strainon local amenities - doctors, schools, shops, roads etc. I appreciate that this development offersaffordable housing, which is desperately needed in this city, but the proposal does not offer anyquality in housing, which is more important.

6. Environmental DegradationTo develop this site will cause removal of trees and vegetation. In removing the trees and shrubs,a vital filter and wind-break which helps 'soak up' some of the road pollution from the continuoussurrounding traffic will be lost. There is much wildlife in the area that has already been disturbedby the metro bus route and this site is home to many foxes, rabbits etc. The tall blocks are out ofkeeping with the area and heritage.

This site should only have 150 units according to the local plan review, not 253! Mymain concern is the height of the two towers which are clearly intended to set a precedent forfuture 'Western Harbour' towers encroachment onto Ashton Meadows. Height should be similar toPaxton Drive.Other concerns are access, and the number of parking spaces. Festival Way cycle and walkingroute runs through the proposed site, and Metrobus runs adjacent. Therefore parking should beminimal with plenty of car club spaces, as the location of this site means that residents can takeMetrobus, walk or cycle.If this scheme is approved, it will create a dangerous precedent for the destruction of AshtonMeadows, and a highrise 'Western Harbour' development that would adversely affect the AvonGorge and skyline. It would be a threat to Bristol's heritage and attraction for visitors, prospectiveworkers and businesses.Please refuse this application.

Developments of 4 to 9 storeys are completely inappropriate in this area. They will blocklight for existing residents and change the character of the area for ever.

This seems to be a classic case of overdevelopment of a site. The site itself is brownfield and has mainly been unoccupied for some time so I would have no objection to a sympatheticand proportionate proposal. However this proposal has apartments up to 9 stories dwarfing thenearby Paxton Drive apartments which are already the only high rise development within this area,having attended the developers presentation last year we were told the building work would be ontop of the current old platforms etc in effect taking the height up to twice that of Paxton Drive!Traffic flow around the area is already awful and highly polluting in rush hour and this proposal willcompound the problems.Bristol already has major traffic flow and air quality issues and as such this proposal needs to havean intergrated transport plan utilising the nearby metro link and the reopening of the portisheadrailway link before any permissions are granted.

Description of development and height inappropriate for the area.

Please refuse. This will overcrowd the area, put further strain on the transport networkand increase air pollution.

Please refuse

Not against developing what is essentially a brownfield site, but the height of the flatsare too great for that situation and will set a precedent for any future development that takes placein that area.

The plans are out of keeping with the surrounding area. 9 stories is far too tall, it will betoo imposing for the area. It will also result in too many residents for a small area, particularlygiven the existing flats behind the planned location. It also pushes more car traffic through analready congested area at the bottom of Winterstoke road.

9 storeys? Here? Before BCC start messing with the basin system. Have they not readthe BCC planning guidance on density? Have they not considered the adjacent allotments? - thecurrent crisis highlights ever more the need for local food production - deny them light and thecrops don't grow. As for site access - this was never an easy site - as the extant developmentshows (was originally supposed to be near car free due to proximity to... everything) there are carsand vans parked randomly throughout. Sometimes sites simply don't lend themselves to mega residevelopment however keen the HCA want them to be...

This is an overbearing, over-dense, inappropriate and sub-standard application (thelatter both in terms of design and "consultation" with affected parties).- Overbearing. The proposed 9 and 7 storey blocks are far too high for this important and sensitivesite in immediate proximity to the iconic Clifton Suspension Bridge, Cumberland Basin, and AshtonCourt. In particular, these over-high and inappropriate blocks will overshadow both the existinglow-level flats at Paxton Court and the White City Allotments on the Ashton Court side. The oldTobacco Bond Warehouses should not be used as a height reference/comparator as this is simplyinappropriate. I have had an allotment at White City for 30 years and the shadowing effect of theseflats would be such that I would lose all sunlight to my plot in winter and most in summer with amassive adverse impact on growing conditions and wildlife (allotments are a vital wildlife corridoron this side of the city). Ditto fellow allotmenteers. This "right to light" should be protected and isnot acknowledged at all in the application (and noting there has been no engagement with theAllotment Association). There is no acknowledgment of serious shadowing in the application orany attempt to mitigate this (by lowering the height or buildings or reconfiguring the site0.- Over-dense. The proposed development is massively over-dense. The Bristol City Council LocalPlan Site Allocations Document (Site Reference BDA0303) suggests that this site has a capacityfor around 150 homes, but the planning application submitted here has 253. This is 103 over whatis recommended. The over-densification will also lead to further deteriorations in air quality in thispart of Bristol given that the site is poorly served by public transport (other than Metrobus). Thereare also issues surrounding the lack of relevant public infrastructure (schools, doctors, etc. )anywhere in the vicinity. All of these are already at full (or excess) capacity.- Inappropriate. The scheme is also contrary to the City Council's Supplementary Planning

Document on Urban Living which states that sites in excess of 2 hectares should be guided by amasterplan. The SPD sets out clear expectations for the Inner Urban Area of Bristol and also thegreen edges, none of which are followed in relation to this proposed scheme. In addition, theproposed diversion route of the heavily used and popular Festival Way Path would create anarrow and confined route, with a sharp turn to use the access ramp on to the metro bus route.- Quality of application. The proposed development is deeply mediocre (and worse) in terms ofdesign quality. It is completely out of keeping with this very sensitive site and neighbouringbuildings (such as they are). Single aspect flats (as proposed) which would be in very closeproximity to an arterial dual-carriageway would not be permitted in London and should not beentertained here. The "consultation" carried out by the developers has been cynically minimalistic.There has been no attempt to engage with obvious and directly affected groups notably theAllotment Association, skateboarders (who use the Festival Way Path) and walkers/cyclists (ditto).The "standard" BCC notice of planning application was only affixed last week (shortly before thedeadline for comments) and in a place where only those allotmenteers driving into the allotmentsite might see it.Please reject this application.

Please reject this planning application.

How can you destroy the allotments and the skatepark? There is so much going on inthat area, only to be ruined by more houses.

I live in the area and use the Cumberland Basin, Festival Way and Ashton Court on aregular basis, on foot and on my bicycle. The Festival Way provides a traffic-free route to AshtonCourt, and from there out into countryside. If the past few weeks have taught us anything, it is thatwe need quick and pleasant access to open spaces, without using cars. This developmentthreatens the cycle path, which seems absurd when people are finally realising that we all need towalk and cycle more. The development is too high for the area and will obscure views of AshtonCourt. It is too dense for the area and will result in increased traffic. It will have a detrimentalimpact on a much-used and well-loved green space. Please do not destroy this part of Bristol byallowing this development to go ahead.

I object to the proposed development on grounds of density and height.

The density appears 50%+ over the recommended urban density as accepted by the council.

In addition, the height of the development will cause enormous loss of amenity to the neighbouringallotments and housing.

Although the core site appears brownfield, the surrounding pathways and hedgerows are wildliferich and are at serious risk of harm under the proposed development.

The massing and height of this proposed development are inappropriate to this location.In addition, the architectural design standards/elevation treatments are utterly lacking inmerit/visual appeal. Another example of the mundane, depressing 'junk' architecture that seems toprevail in most recent development proposals in the city. Poor architecture has a major negativeimpact on lives. Bristol can, and must, do much better.

I have reviewed the planning application and would like to raise a series of objectionsand concerns to the proposed development. These are as follows:

1. Air Quality, Pollution and Environmental Impact

Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy June 2011 says that "development should be sitedand designed in a way to avoid adversely impacting on environmental amenity or biodiversity ofsurrounding area by fumes, dust, noise, vibration, smell, light, other forms of air, land or waterpollution or exposing contaminated land". A development of this scale clearly inhibits adverseimpacts on several, if not all of these variables.

Re. section 2.4 in Planning Statement Part 1: "The site falls within the Bristol Air QualityManagement Area". Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) are declared when there is anexceedance or likely exceedance of an air quality objective. A development of this scale wouldexpose people within the vicinity and along the WSW path of prevailing wind (Bedminster andSouthville) to poorer air quality through extensive construction work and enhanced trafficcongestion in an already overly busy road network in Bristol. Residents of Paxton Drive are ofparticularly high risk to reduced air quality.

The construction phase of the development stands out as an area of particular concern. Duringconstruction, both contaminated and non-contaminated particulate matter will be mobilised fromthe substrate and due to the WSW prevailing wind will impact the populous areas of both

Bedminster and Southville. In the short term this is a concern for people susceptible to respiratoryproblems such as asthma, among others.

It is further noted in section 6.46 of the Planning Statement Part 1 that "Asbestos fibres associatedwith the site's historic railway use have been identified and are distributed across the site". In thelong term, the inhalation of asbestos-contaminated particulate matter can have major healthimplications, including cancer. The proposed "capping of all soft landscaping and hard standingwith 0.6m of suitable topsoil/subsoil and/or engineered fill" is argued here as insufficientremediation for this and does not account for release of these fibres by mobilisation duringexcavation and construction. Extensive excavation will be required for both the foundations andthe construction of the inadequate water storage tanks proposed to stop the overwhelming of thesewers during floods.

It is noted that excavation is intended to be kept to a minimum for the purpose of not disturbing thedistributed asbestos, however significant groundwork is detailed. This is evidenced by the 4mdeep excavation for the access road which will be in very close proximity to the Paxton Drive areaand the busway. This is shown in the figure in Appendix A "Proposed access road cross section",p. 32 of the Drainage Strategy Part 1. It is also noted that the landscaping of this falls well withinthe 8 m standoff of the critical drainage structure, the Longmoor Brook culvert, of which thestructural strength (wall thickness) is apparently unknown according to the email from RichardBridge, p. 29 of the Drainage Strategy.

Re. section 2.6 in Planning Statement Part 1: It is noted that "Land to the north and east isdesignated as Important Open Space on the current Policies Map. A strip of land along thewestern boundary (including the now constructed Metrobus corridor) is also defined as ImportantOpen Space". Reserved open spaces as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF) ought to offer protection from inappropriate development. Bedminster ward has little in theway of green spaces, something that is important to maintain for the health and wellbeing of thecommunity. To develop this site will cause removal of trees and vegetation to replace it with asterile housing development. It is also noted that the land for the proposed development is a Siteof Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI).

2. Travel, Access and Parking

The site will provide 141 parking spaces, 8 of these for disabled and 5 for the café. Only 28% ofpeople / families in Bristol (in Bedminster too) do not own a car suggesting that 72% do (asidentified in the application's own documents). This means that there is only parking for just over50% of the residents. Whilst it can be appreciated that local transport links, cycle ways andwalking may be possible it would seem unlikely at least in the short and medium-term people willget rid of their cars. Where are these people going to park their cars given that it has already beenidentified that parking in Paxton Drive is indiscriminate where the provision of parking is a spacefor every property?

Further to the previous point, residents are likely to need cars to access local services e.g. decentsized supermarkets, GP surgeries, schools and other local amenities, due to inadequate provisionof public transport. The metrobus only goes to Bristol City Centre, but not to other local, in-demandareas, e.g. North Street, Bedminster. Furthermore, buses only run Monday to Saturday, andduring the Covid-19 outbreak the M2 bus service was the first of the Bristol services to besuspended. It is noted that a health needs assessment has been undertaken. The nearest GPsurgery is 1.1 miles away which is a 25-minute walk, clearly not possible if you are elderly, infirmor unwell.

It is noted that the National Cycleway N33 is to be re-directed through the estate but it is unclearwhat will happen during construction if the proposed plans go ahead. This is a popular bike route,connecting commuter villages and towns to Bristol City Centre, including Long Ashton, andNailsea. Site ConstraintsAs it stands, the current plans propose to transform one of the limited adjacent greenspaces at thetop end of Paxton Drive into an access road for the new development. This will also requirePaxton Drive residents to give way to the new development at an intersection which already has asignificant queueing problem. At peak times traffic already exists leaving/entering the Paxton Driveestate. Congestion is anticipated to worsen with the new development. I therefore strongly objectto the development of an access road to the new site using greenspace adjacent to the PaxtonDrive estate.

3. Privacy, Light and Visual Objections

Privacy will be taken from the residents of Paxton Drive, as the new development will directlyoverlook these pre-existing homes. Privacy within one's home is a basic human right and shouldbe respected. Under the Human Rights Act, Protocol 1, Article 1 it states that "a person has theright to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions, which includes the home and other land". Theplanners have shown a blatant disregard for the privacy of the Paxton Drive residents.

The proposed development plans will block natural light from Paxton Drive. The blocking of light isparticularly affected by the proposals of Buildings D and E, 7 and 9 storey blocks of flats,respectively.

A further objection towards these proposed 7 and 9 storey blocks D and E is that these tallbuildings are not in keeping with the surrounding infrastructure, nor the Green Belt / CityBoundary. There was significant public objection to the 7 storey and 11 storey buildings during thepublic consultation. Reducing the height of the largest building from 11 storeys to 9 as a result ofthis blatantly fails to reconcile the fact that the complaints also covered the height of the 7 storeybuilding and seems an insult to the consultation process.

The land visual report observes that the sensitive building designs will not dominate or influence

the landscape or townscape. However, the size of the buildings at two 5-storey, one 7-storey andone 9-storey will severely dominate and influence both the landscape and townscape, obviouslyconsidered so by the public reaction to these plans. Furthermore, these will also be severelyimpacted due to the finish combination of dark green cladding, dark red cladding, dark greycladding, red orange, dark grey, buff, brown, soft blue, dark blue, bridge red and bright orangebricks with black window frames and doors making the buildings look more like a patchwork quilt.These last two points are both in direct contravention of Bristol Council's own planning statementswhere developments should add overall quality to the area, be visually attractive, sympathetic tolocal character and have appropriate green spaces. It is also noted that the planning concept forthe site in 2013/14 was for 150 new houses not 253.

4. Flooding

This area is an outstanding area of elevated flood risk from both tidal and groundwater flooding,noted from sections 2.4, and 6.48-6.53 in the Planning Statement Part 1, as well as the HydrockFlood Risk Assessments, and Drainage Strategy Parts 1-3. Flood risk in this area of Bristolalready exists and will arguably increase as a direct consequence of the new development.

In March of this year (2020), extensive flooding around the Cumberland Basin was observedcaused by high spring tides. The River Avon has the second highest tidal reach in the world,making its susceptibility to flooding unsurprising. On 12th March 2020 Bristol Harbour reported11.8m tides, which caused extensive overbank flooding across the Cumberland Basin andsurrounding areas (follow link for photographic evidence: www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/gallery/pictures-high-spring-tides-flood- 3942718 ). This event shows inadequacies in thecurrent flood area risk assessment and I would suggest should increase the risk rating of theproposed development area significantly.

It is noted that the site is at "medium risk of groundwater flooding and at low risk from all othersources". Groundwater flooding of this land increases the likelihood of asbestos and soilcontaminant leaching out of the substrate into the surrounding environment, including the RiverAvon, which provides an important site for much of Bristol's ecology.

Only local skatepark and allotments will be destroyed

Height of development concerns me.

A catch all description that will undoubtedly change later to maximize private profit andset destructive and unsympathetic precedent for Cumberland basin.

The proposed development is much too tall for its setting which is a calm, quiet low-lying meadow-like environment. It would be utterly ruined by this large development which wouldcause significant environmental harm to an area which is popular with many residents of southBristol for recreation and relaxation.

Please refuse. Keep western harbour development free

The proposals are ludicrously high, totally unsuitable for this site.

This is far too high for this site. The access is unsuitable. It sets a precedent for highbuildings. It jeopardises essential green spaces at the allotments and impacts on a dedicatedcycle route.

I object to this application on the grounds of unsympathetic scale. This will wreck theviews in the area, especially from Clifton suspension bridge.

This has not been thought through! This is the WRONG type of development for thearea. I strongly object.

I comment as both a neighbour and local resident.

I would echo the comments made by Historic England and Bristol Civic Society.

Whilst I do not object to development of this site in principle, I believe the design and density ofdevelopment fails to take into consideration the unique setting of the site in the context of thishistoric and significant area in the Bristol landscape.

The materials proposed and design used are bland and uninspiring. The 'tower' is entirely out ofplace in height and design in the context of other local residential buildings. Why is it included?What does it add? It's far too tall and the materials proposed will do nothing other than detract theeye from the beauty of the historically significant and currently dominant bonded warehouses. Itwill also significantly inhibit the line of sight between Ashton Court and St Mary Redcliffe and to /from the Suspension Bridge (the former being a key design feature of both the Ashton Court andSylvia Crowe parkland).

Bristol can and should ensure far better design and a more sensitive approach to density than this.Surely, this prominent and significant site deserves better?

I would echo other comments that the proposed changes to the layout of the cycle path present apotential hazard to both cyclists and pedestrians. Where possible, car parking would be betterhidden under croft. As a resident living on the same busy road network, I would like to know what

mitigation has been factored in to protect future residents from the significant air and noisepollution caused by passing traffic. One of the recommendations in the recent Report of DuncanSelbie, Chief Executive, Public Health England was: "Redesigning cities so people aren't so closeto highly polluting roads."

Much of the current green space appears to be given over to hard landscaping. Where possible, Ibelieve that green space and natural water catchment ought to be incorporated.This feels particularly important given the local flood risk and proximity to two SSSIs and naturalwildlife habitats.

The current pandemic has also shown us the importance of private outdoor space for occupants,especially when those occupants are families with children, elderly or disabled. The current plansdo not provide any or any adequate outdoor space in all instances, nor do they make the size ofproposed balconies clear in others. This should also be addressed.

This is the wrong type of building and facilities. Is this Development just to make millions? Please reconsider the awful decision.

Development on this derelict site is needed but the present proposal is unimaginativeand too tall.

Nearby developments blend neatly into the landscape and don't interrupt views of Dundry fromHotwells and Clifton or Views of the Suspension Bridge from the Bridgewater Road to the South.

The present 7 and 9 storey buildings will spoil these views and the setting of AshtonCourt House.They will also caste significant shadow over the White City Allotments where I have a vegetablegarden.

The development will also disrupt a very well used footpath and cycle way which provides a directroute from the city to Ashton Court which is very busy during events at this site like the BalloonFestival.

I hope the plans can be amended.

I wish to object to the proposed building of 253 new homes on the development site on Stonemasons Yard / Railway Sidings near White City Allotment.

My first point that it is extremely difficult to access online comments page on the Bristol gov.uk site.

At the time of sending the email the page was unavailable for use and I am therefore expressing my own views and having to ask someone to e-mail it to you, as all the libraries are closed due to the Corona Virus and are therefore not usable. This means there is no private Democratic way to comment.

As a plot holder on the White City site I am able to say that the Sustrans Cycle Festival Way has always been very popular and provides a much-needed access route for cyclists and pedestrians to many places. With the effect of the Lockdown its use has been greatly increased and any path through a new density built Urban development would not cope with this. Monitoring is needed to show how devastating the affects of altering this pathway would be. Any form of dog-leg would definitely led to accidentsIt does not seem possible building work would not close present paths for such a large and densely proposed project. It has never been the case that people moving into new homes want strangers going through their site, and the Plaza area is insufficient for anything. They would object and the paths would not be put back into use. The present arrangement is orderly with a feel-good factor of being in the open and not overshadowed by nine floor high flats. It is becoming necessary to cater for two routes so that social distancing can be kept on new building works. A low rise of two or three floors would be in harmony with the present Caxton Gate site. Affordable housing as

part of schemes does little to reduce the number of cars parked. The access in and out of Caxton gate site would not cope with the present proposal. No mention is made of the present one lane road, over the railway line, that the Stonemasons yard used. Emergency vehicle access needs to be addressed for this proposal.

The present low level skyline is welcoming and enhances this area. The buildings of the Rowlands Stonemasons yard are one storey and only two or at most three would be acceptable. This is an extremely poor plan which does not fit in the overall plan that is required for development. The present proposals would blight an area that is already coping with vastly increased recreational activities. Low level homes with access to small gardens is required to young families a safe and pleasant environment to grow up without severely affecting those that use the area now

I don't oppose any development on this site, but I hope this application will be rejected.There seems at the moment to be a fetish for high-rise buildings with no regard to whether or notthey would be appropriate to a particular site.The plans produced at the pre-planning exhibition showed a maximum height of 12 stories, whichhas now been reduced to 9. This is still much too high.I believe the Civic Society hold a meeting recently to discuss high-rise versus high-density, andalmost all the attendees were in favour of the latter.This is a very prominent site with spectacular views of the Suspension Bridge, the small-scalenature of the White City allotments and the very-well used Festival Way cycle and walking route.In my view the proposed development doesn't add anything to this part of the City. I hope thePlanning Committee will be brave enough to reject this application and ask the proposeddevelopers to start again and design something we can all be proud of.

This application has no meritsThe buildings are too high, too bulky and lack any architectural distinction.They bear no relationship to their context in either design or materials.

They have no potential to create any sense of community - an aspect of any new developmentwhich has become particularly pertinent at the moment.

The design takes no account of the highly sensitive setting of the area with views of both AshtonPark and the suspension bridge adversely interfered with.

Sensitive development of this site would be appropriate but this scheme has nothing going for it

1.Viewing the document- FIG 10 - 20 VIEWPOINTSViewpoint 3 - 12b

This shows the development to be all but completely blocking out the view of Ashton Court and thesurrounding countryside from the A3029. This is main road leading to the exit of the city, and theview of the Ashton Court Estate and the surrounding countryside provides a wonderful display ofthe green areas around the city. Blocking off this view, means that this main road, has just anotherblock of standard flats at the end of it, with no indication that the view is at the city limits, andcompletely removing the views of the countryside.

1.Viewing the document- FIG 10 - 20 VIEWPOINTSViewpoint 9 - 18b

This shows the view from Ashton Court Estate over Bristol, with the new buildings added in. Thisshows the view changing from one of transition from countryside to city (with Greville Smyth Parkproviding a green link from the countryside to the city), to one where the city now has a muchharder, built border. The new buildings are very flat in their appearance and use horrible colouring('buff bricks' - horrible terracotta looking more like). They provide a solid barrier between city andgreen space. It brings the city boundary into starker contrast... and quite frankly an ugly,unsympathetic contrast.

3.The changes to the cycle route

The Festival Way cycle route is a very popular route with commuters. It is a wide, straight route,that provide ample space and visibility for cyclists and pedestrians to share the space and travel attheir various speeds. The existing route is very popular with school children traveling to AshtonGate School.Create a new route, with two sharp turns, and forcing cyclists and pedestrians into tighter spaces,would cause problems for the two types of travellers. I see one area where you have stairsmeeting with a ramp, so you'd have cyclist travelling up the ramp, meeting with pedestrians at thetop of stairs .This doesn't seem very safe or sensible. And quite frankly there isn't much room onthat cycle path... as I say, this is a busy, well used cycle route for cyclists.

This is an extremely uninspired design which will in no way enhance or even blend inwith its surroundings.

It will seriously harm the setting of the Clifton Suspension Bridge and seriously impinge uponviews of Ashton Court and the Avon Gorge.

Although CHIS does not normally comment on Applications outside the area of BS8, theproposed development would be prominent as seen from parts of Clifton, Cliftonwood andHotwells. In objecting to the proposals the Society fully endorses the comments made by HistoricEngland and wishes to voice its concern at the adverse impact of the proposed development onthe setting of Ashton Court mansion and park, the character and appearance of the Bower AshtonConservation Area and the setting of the City Docks Conservation Area. As Historic England'ssubmission concludes, the proposals represent 'a missed opportunity...to make good some of thescars imposed by historic infrastructure schemes and to reconnect Ashton with Ashton Court'.Instead it would impose new scars of its own.

IntroductionI am submitting this objection as a long term Hotwells resident, passionate about this part of theCity and clear that there is a great opportunity for the Council to promote the western edge of theCity as a highly sustainable location for a string of new neighbourhoods linked to a larger centre inHotwells, promoting a new urbanism that builds on the historic integrity of the area, celebrates thepast and plans positively for future generations.

This scheme for 253 units on a site which the City Council's Local Plan identifies for 150 unitsshould be refused.This is one of a number of sites that are coming forward on the western edge of the City. The CityCouncil urgently needs to consider these all as part of a masterplan for a 'new urban edge' toBristol. There is a fantastic opportunity to develop through a masterplan a series of new smallneighbourhoods that link together to form a great part of Bristol that could put the City at theforefront of urban planning and at the same times create much needed new homes, new jobs anda sustainable lifestyle predicated on walking and cycling.

This site is owned by Homes England the Government's agency for speeding up housing delivery.This site should be considered for acquisition by the City Housing Company Goram, or some otherjoint initiative and brought forward as an exemplar of a new 'post covid new urbanism' ie goodquality of homes, useable accessible public and private space, space for small businesses tooperate indoors and outdoors and above all safe, wide cycle and walkways to the City Centre andthe open space beyond the City.

SpecificallyThis scheme fails on the following points and should therefore be refused;- This is a very special setting not only due to the proximity and impact of the Suspension Bridgeand Ashton Park but also the much loved and underestimated character of the Cumberland Basin,the important junction of the River Avon with the harbour with significant landscape and wildlifesetting alongside the water, the entrance to the City's Harbour and to the City Centre as whole, anarea of European, if not worldwide, significance which we interfere with at our peril.- The consultation by the applicants on this scheme has been woeful - fancy not responding toHistoric England?! This is a site for development but not in this form. There should be genuineengagement with all local stakeholders on this and other sites on the western edge. The applicanthas failed to consult with the allotment association and the allotment holders therein, the skateboard users, the open space users, the local residents and Hotwells and Cliftonwood CommunityAssociation to name but a few. This lack of consultation has led to a scheme that's is notintegrated into the local area, and does not reflect a shared vision for the future of this area.- This is an unacceptably high density, tall, poorly designed housing scheme which misses theopportunity to create a beautiful scheme in this very special setting. The Local Plan indicates 150homes, this scheme is for 253, this is greedy, and leading to an unacceptably crowded, overdense site, with a scale and massing inappropriate on this site. The Local Plan also suggests aminimum indicative density of 50 dwelling per hectare for new schemes, this scheme is for 92.67dwelling per hectares, nearly double the minimum!- The scheme is also contrary to the City Council's Supplementary Planning Document on UrbanLiving which states that sites in excess of 2 hectares should be guided by a masterplan. The SPDsets out clear expectations for the Inner Urban Area of Bristol and also the green edges. There isan opportunity to design a scheme here that maximise the views to the north for many living onthis site, to positively knit the development with the open green edge of the City. There is anopportunity to create a new urbanism that promotes simple terraces like the surrounding inner city,with stacked maisonettes, dual aspect housing, with good access to greenspace. The proposedsingle aspect flats in the tall building alongside the flyover will lead to sub standard homes - wouldyou want to live there? In other cities such as London single aspect flats are not allowed.- The detailed design of the new houses in particular is very poor and does not create a good edgeto the city, these buildings should be taller and set the pattern for a new urbanism, they could faceonto a greenway, the cycle route, and link to the open space beyond including the skate boardpark, which appears to have been forgotten. The materials used are a bolt on and not integratedinto the design nor reflecting the context and strength of local materials including bath stone,rubble stone and brick , the palette of colours and materials should also be simpler- The environmental assessment fails to consider the noise and air pollution from the increasingtraffic on the Cumberland Basin flyover, the noise from the planned re-opening of the PortisheadRail route, this is not a good place to build right up to the site boundaries- The site is highly accessible and should stay that way, the diversion of the Festival Waycycleway is not acceptable, the proposed 90 degree bends in the route are not safe, not postCovid separate enough, the route should retain its current straight alignment and create an edge

to the development and provide strong links to the open space beyond.- With regard to the ground floors. There is some planned business space, it is unclear whetherthere is a community need for these units. This is a missed opportunity to create some more smallbusiness units and enhance the mixed used and potential liveability of a new neighbourhood. Awider masterplan for the western edge of the City needs to assess what the local business needsare and where they should be located. In the close vicinity to this site there are a lot of empty unitsin Hotwells alongside the Bear Public House which could support this and other housingdevelopment. With regard to the two business units this scheme proposes alongside themetrobus, these have single access from the front and no outdoor space, these will not work in apost pandemic world, businesses now need external space too, for cafes , for social space and forothers to pass through - there is a much better opportunity to locate some small business spacecreating a small square with the metrobus on one side and the small piazza on the other.- With regard to community space, there is an opportunity for all the new schemes to support anew community space for cultural, creative and music for the Community, a replacement for longlost Hope Centre, and in line with the recommendations of the Community Arts Hub Reportcommissioned by Hotwells and Cliftonwood Community Association in 2018. Presumably thiswould be covered by a CIL payment, there should be conversation with the local community aboutthis.- There is also a significant unanswered issue around the capacity of the local communityinfrastructure to cope with the number of new schemes coming forward for example, are thereenough nursery, primary and secondary school places which are sustainable accessible to thissite? Is there enough GP capacity? Are there enough adult care services? Is there access toformal sports facilities? These are all core requirements of good planning- This is one of many sites in the edge city centre which could be promoted as a Net Zero carbonscheme, the environmental credentials could be at the forefront of this scheme but they are notthis is an opportunity missed.

In ConclusionThis is a poorly conceived scheme, at too high density, creating poor quality homes and should berefused, the City Council is then urged to stand back and find another way of bringing forward abetter scheme on this site.

IntroductionI am submitting this objection as a long term Hotwells resident, passionate about this part of theCity and clear that there is a great opportunity for the Council to promote the western edge of theCity as a highly sustainable location for a string of new neighbourhoods linked to a larger centre inHotwells, promoting a new urbanism that builds on the historic integrity of the area, celebrates thepast and plans positively for future generations.

This scheme for 253 units on a site which the City Council's Local Plan identifies for 150 unitsshould be refused.This is one of a number of sites that are coming forward on the western edge of the City. The CityCouncil urgently needs to consider these all as part of a masterplan for a 'new urban edge' toBristol. There is a fantastic opportunity to develop through a masterplan a series of new smallneighbourhoods that link together to form a great part of Bristol that could put the City at theforefront of urban planning and at the same times create much needed new homes, new jobs anda sustainable lifestyle predicated on walking and cycling.

This site is owned by Homes England the Government's agency for speeding up housing delivery.This site should be considered for acquisition by the City Housing Company Goram, or some otherjoint initiative and brought forward as an exemplar of a new 'post covid new urbanism' ie goodquality of homes, useable accessible public and private space, space for small businesses tooperate indoors and outdoors and above all safe, wide cycle and walkways to the City Centre andthe open space beyond the City.

SpecificallyThis scheme fails on the following points and should therefore be refused;- This is a very special setting not only due to the proximity and impact of the Suspension Bridgeand Ashton Park but also the much loved and underestimated character of the Cumberland Basin,the important junction of the River Avon with the harbour with significant landscape and wildlifesetting alongside the water, the entrance to the City's Harbour and to the City Centre as whole, anarea of European, if not worldwide, significance which we interfere with at our peril.- The consultation by the applicants on this scheme has been woeful - fancy not responding toHistoric England?! This is a site for development but not in this form. There should be genuineengagement with all local stakeholders on this and other sites on the western edge. The applicanthas failed to consult with the allotment association and the allotment holders therein, the skateboard users, the open space users, the local residents and Hotwells and Cliftonwood CommunityAssociation to name but a few. This lack of consultation has led to a scheme that's is notintegrated into the local area, and does not reflect a shared vision for the future of this area.- This is an unacceptably high density, tall, poorly designed housing scheme which misses theopportunity to create a beautiful scheme in this very special setting. The Local Plan indicates 150homes, this scheme is for 253, this is greedy, and leading to an unacceptably crowded, overdense site, with a scale and massing inappropriate on this site. The Local Plan also suggests aminimum indicative density of 50 dwelling per hectare for new schemes, this scheme is for 92.67dwelling per hectares, nearly double the minimum!- The scheme is also contrary to the City Council's Supplementary Planning Document on UrbanLiving which states that sites in excess of 2 hectares should be guided by a masterplan. The SPDsets out clear expectations for the Inner Urban Area of Bristol and also the green edges. There isan opportunity to design a scheme here that maximise the views to the north for many living onthis site, to positively knit the development with the open green edge of the City. There is anopportunity to create a new urbanism that promotes simple terraces like the surrounding inner city,with stacked maisonettes, dual aspect housing, with good access to greenspace. The proposedsingle aspect flats in the tall building alongside the flyover will lead to sub standard homes - wouldyou want to live there? In other cities such as London single aspect flats are not allowed.- The detailed design of the new houses in particular is very poor and does not create a good edgeto the city, these buildings should be taller and set the pattern for a new urbanism, they could faceonto a greenway, the cycle route, and link to the open space beyond including the skate boardpark, which appears to have been forgotten. The materials used are a bolt on and not integratedinto the design nor reflecting the context and strength of local materials including bath stone,rubble stone and brick , the palette of colours and materials should also be simpler- The environmental assessment fails to consider the noise and air pollution from the increasingtraffic on the Cumberland Basin flyover, the noise from the planned re-opening of the PortisheadRail route, this is not a good place to build right up to the site boundaries- The site is highly accessible and should stay that way, the diversion of the Festival Waycycleway is not acceptable, the proposed 90 degree bends in the route are not safe, not postCovid separate enough, the route should retain its current straight alignment and create an edge

to the development and provide strong links to the open space beyond.- With regard to the ground floors. There is some planned business space, it is unclear whetherthere is a community need for these units. This is a missed opportunity to create some more smallbusiness units and enhance the mixed used and potential liveability of a new neighbourhood. Awider masterplan for the western edge of the City needs to assess what the local business needsare and where they should be located. In the close vicinity to this site there are a lot of empty unitsin Hotwells alongside the Bear Public House which could support this and other housingdevelopment. With regard to the two business units this scheme proposes alongside themetrobus, these have single access from the front and no outdoor space, these will not work in apost pandemic world, businesses now need external space too, for cafes , for social space and forothers to pass through - there is a much better opportunity to locate some small business spacecreating a small square with the metrobus on one side and the small piazza on the other.- With regard to community space, there is an opportunity for all the new schemes to support anew community space for cultural, creative and music for the Community, a replacement for longlost Hope Centre, and in line with the recommendations of the Community Arts Hub Reportcommissioned by Hotwells and Cliftonwood Community Association in 2018. Presumably thiswould be covered by a CIL payment, there should be conversation with the local community aboutthis.- There is also a significant unanswered issue around the capacity of the local communityinfrastructure to cope with the number of new schemes coming forward for example, are thereenough nursery, primary and secondary school places which are sustainable accessible to thissite? Is there enough GP capacity? Are there enough adult care services? Is there access toformal sports facilities? These are all core requirements of good planning- This is one of many sites in the edge city centre which could be promoted as a Net Zero carbonscheme, the environmental credentials could be at the forefront of this scheme but they are notthis is an opportunity missed.

In ConclusionThis is a poorly conceived scheme, at too high density, creating poor quality homes and should berefused, the City Council is then urged to stand back and find another way of bringing forward abetter scheme on this site.

IntroductionI am submitting this objection as a long term Hotwells resident, passionate about this part of theCity and clear that there is a great opportunity for the Council to promote the western edge of theCity as a highly sustainable location for a string of new neighbourhoods linked to a larger centre inHotwells, promoting a new urbanism that builds on the historic integrity of the area, celebrates thepast and plans positively for future generations.

This scheme for 253 units on a site which the City Council's Local Plan identifies for 150 unitsshould be refused.This is one of a number of sites that are coming forward on the western edge of the City. The CityCouncil urgently needs to consider these all as part of a masterplan for a 'new urban edge' toBristol. There is a fantastic opportunity to develop through a masterplan a series of new smallneighbourhoods that link together to form a great part of Bristol that could put the City at theforefront of urban planning and at the same times create much needed new homes, new jobs anda sustainable lifestyle predicated on walking and cycling.

This site is owned by Homes England the Government's agency for speeding up housing delivery.This site should be considered for acquisition by the City Housing Company Goram, or some otherjoint initiative and brought forward as an exemplar of a new 'post covid new urbanism' ie goodquality of homes, useable accessible public and private space, space for small businesses tooperate indoors and outdoors and above all safe, wide cycle and walkways to the City Centre andthe open space beyond the City.

SpecificallyThis scheme fails on the following points and should therefore be refused;- This is a very special setting not only due to the proximity and impact of the Suspension Bridgeand Ashton Park but also the much loved and underestimated character of the Cumberland Basin,the important junction of the River Avon with the harbour with significant landscape and wildlifesetting alongside the water, the entrance to the City's Harbour and to the City Centre as whole, anarea of European, if not worldwide, significance which we interfere with at our peril.- The consultation by the applicants on this scheme has been woeful - fancy not responding toHistoric England?! This is a site for development but not in this form. There should be genuineengagement with all local stakeholders on this and other sites on the western edge. The applicanthas failed to consult with the allotment association and the allotment holders therein, the skateboard users, the open space users, the local residents and Hotwells and Cliftonwood CommunityAssociation to name but a few. This lack of consultation has led to a scheme that's is notintegrated into the local area, and does not reflect a shared vision for the future of this area.- This is an unacceptably high density, tall, poorly designed housing scheme which misses theopportunity to create a beautiful scheme in this very special setting. The Local Plan indicates 150homes, this scheme is for 253, this is greedy, and leading to an unacceptably crowded, overdense site, with a scale and massing inappropriate on this site. The Local Plan also suggests aminimum indicative density of 50 dwelling per hectare for new schemes, this scheme is for 92.67dwelling per hectares, nearly double the minimum!- The scheme is also contrary to the City Council's Supplementary Planning Document on UrbanLiving which states that sites in excess of 2 hectares should be guided by a masterplan. The SPDsets out clear expectations for the Inner Urban Area of Bristol and also the green edges. There isan opportunity to design a scheme here that maximise the views to the north for many living onthis site, to positively knit the development with the open green edge of the City. There is anopportunity to create a new urbanism that promotes simple terraces like the surrounding inner city,with stacked maisonettes, dual aspect housing, with good access to greenspace. The proposedsingle aspect flats in the tall building alongside the flyover will lead to sub standard homes - wouldyou want to live there? In other cities such as London single aspect flats are not allowed.- The detailed design of the new houses in particular is very poor and does not create a good edgeto the city, these buildings should be taller and set the pattern for a new urbanism, they could faceonto a greenway, the cycle route, and link to the open space beyond including the skate boardpark, which appears to have been forgotten. The materials used are a bolt on and not integratedinto the design nor reflecting the context and strength of local materials including bath stone,rubble stone and brick , the palette of colours and materials should also be simpler- The environmental assessment fails to consider the noise and air pollution from the increasingtraffic on the Cumberland Basin flyover, the noise from the planned re-opening of the PortisheadRail route, this is not a good place to build right up to the site boundaries- The site is highly accessible and should stay that way, the diversion of the Festival Waycycleway is not acceptable, the proposed 90 degree bends in the route are not safe, not postCovid separate enough, the route should retain its current straight alignment and create an edge

to the development and provide strong links to the open space beyond.- With regard to the ground floors. There is some planned business space, it is unclear whetherthere is a community need for these units. This is a missed opportunity to create some more smallbusiness units and enhance the mixed used and potential liveability of a new neighbourhood. Awider masterplan for the western edge of the City needs to assess what the local business needsare and where they should be located. In the close vicinity to this site there are a lot of empty unitsin Hotwells alongside the Bear Public House which could support this and other housingdevelopment. With regard to the two business units this scheme proposes alongside themetrobus, these have single access from the front and no outdoor space, these will not work in apost pandemic world, businesses now need external space too, for cafes , for social space and forothers to pass through - there is a much better opportunity to locate some small business spacecreating a small square with the metrobus on one side and the small piazza on the other.- With regard to community space, there is an opportunity for all the new schemes to support anew community space for cultural, creative and music for the Community, a replacement for longlost Hope Centre, and in line with the recommendations of the Community Arts Hub Reportcommissioned by Hotwells and Cliftonwood Community Association in 2018. Presumably thiswould be covered by a CIL payment, there should be conversation with the local community aboutthis.- There is also a significant unanswered issue around the capacity of the local communityinfrastructure to cope with the number of new schemes coming forward for example, are thereenough nursery, primary and secondary school places which are sustainable accessible to thissite? Is there enough GP capacity? Are there enough adult care services? Is there access toformal sports facilities? These are all core requirements of good planning- This is one of many sites in the edge city centre which could be promoted as a Net Zero carbonscheme, the environmental credentials could be at the forefront of this scheme but they are notthis is an opportunity missed.

In ConclusionThis is a poorly conceived scheme, at too high density, creating poor quality homes and should berefused, the City Council is then urged to stand back and find another way of bringing forward abetter scheme on this site.

The site seems to be earmarked for 150 homes and yet now has an application for 253and 141 parking spaces. There appears to be an anomaly in the documentation as to the height ofthe buildings specifically the lower blocks which some docs state 5 storeys and others 4 storeys.

Apparently 1000 flyers were distributed in the area, which does not seem enough considering thepopulation of the area. I for one, was not given any information until recently (heard through wordof mouth) so have not had a chance to attend the public consultation event last year. It wouldappear that only 100 people attended the consultation which is a very low number. Many ownersof Paxton Drive in particular do not live in their properties and so they should have also beenmade aware of the proposal and believe that the deadline for comments should be extended toallow the applicants to notify all of the property owners a chance to respond.

My particular concerns are:-

Inadequate consultation with both owners and residents of the surrounding area.

Oppressive Building heights which dominate the area and are overbearing to both the occupantsof Paxton Drive and the users of the allotments.

Loss of Privacy over looking the Paxton Drive Apartments which have been built with largewindows to take advantage of the views.

Lack of facilities to support the local community, especially as it is anticipated that many of theoccupiers will not have cars due to inadequate provision of parking spaces. Residents will need tobe able to walk, cycle or catch a bus to go to the GP., Supermarkets, Schools, Work etc Whateverthe weather. Are these facilities going to be provided with ease of access? The sensible thingwould be to provide fewer properties with more parking spaces with EV charging units toencourage the use of green travel. Why not utilise under-ground parking and create more greenspace?

The design is very un-attractive, surely Bristol deserves better than this. An opportunity to putsomething forward thinking and providing homes that people can enjoy living in. I do not believethat cramming in these number of properties on such a small plot with inadequate parking withpoor access and facilities gives a quality of lifestyle that people deserve. Bristol has an opportunityto put a lovely Eco Village on this land, but guess that won't bring in the profit. It would be anopportunity to have low level housing with Eco values which blend in with the edge of thecountryside where wildlife could be encouraged to live alongside people.

The potential flood risk has not been addressed and since the original report there has beenserious flooding in the area due to the Spring tides. This threat of flooding will become worse withglobal warming and aggravated further by development. This land currently serves to absorbgroundwater whereas if it is excessively built over will compound the problem, potentially causingrisk to both the Metro Line and Paxton Drive. Any future development whatever the size shouldhave a plan as how to mitigate any flooding risk. We should learn from other developmentswhereby inadequate provision has not been put in and have experienced major problems.

Safety Concerns over both the new access and re-alignment of the Paxton access ticks a box onaccessibility but not safe accessibility. There are already parking problems in the area which hasbeen recognised in the report, but not the true extent of them as the site visits were made at nonrush hour and a more in depth survey should be carried out to analyse both traffic and parkingconsiderations in the area.

The cycling route will be severely compromised during the construction and potentially thereafterand needs further consideration.

The Asbestos on the site concerns me and I would request more in depth information on how thisis planned to be dealt with.

This is an important site in respect of the surrounding Bristol Clifton Suspension Bridge, AshtonCourt Mansion, Ashton Court Park, Bedminster Down and the views to and from these importantfeatures should be enhanced and valued by sensitive planning.

An awful proposal in it's current form. Bristol and it's residents deserve better.

After looking at the plans I see no reason why its necessary to build to these heights inthis location. Wapping wharf which seems imposing but works with its surroundings compared toBrandon yard which looks terrible and overpowers the existing tower and site. most new builds intown centre are mainly 6 storeys

I absolutely stand against the height of this development and will be happy to join anydemonstration to fight against it.

I HOPE THIS DOES NOT THEN GIVE IN TO DEVELOPING CUMBERLAND BASIN TO 9STOREYS ..... PLANNING DEPT NEEDS TO RE THINK NOW IT COMMUNICATES WITHCOMMUNITY

In principle I agree with the development of this site. I STRONGLY OBJECT to the lossof the existing footpath that runs alongside the allotments and AT NO POINT AGREE WITH A 9STOREY BLOCK OF FLATS . There should be a height restriction of 5/6 storeys to comply withthe other proposed blocks on this site, NO MORE.

The proposed development misses an opportunity to develop an important gateway sitein keeping with its proximity to noted and important Bristol features; The Clifton SuspensionBridge, Ashton Court Estate, the former bonded warehouses, regency terraces and nearbycountryside. The problem is partly one of scale; too many homes crammed into the site withexcessively high buildings. This combined with the architectural designs will combine to create adisproportionately distracting group of buildings.The area is already incredibly congested with road traffic and any increase would be to thedetriment of the people who already live in the area or commute through it whether by car, publictransport, on foot or cycling.

Thank you for updating that, even thinking about it more broader you would have the same issue leaving the development.

Once you have driven out of the development there is no way to get back due to the completely mad one way system. You would have to follow that same route down to Hotwells, back down the dual carriageway, over to Ashton Gate stadium and back under the dual carriage way.

So if you left your flat between 7-9am or 4pm-6pm and needed to return back. That would be a round trip of around 30 mins to get back to your property in the gridlocked traffic? This could be close to an hour if there was an event on at Ashton Gate or Ashton Court which can be a couple of times a week. Not to mention these roads next to Ashton gate get closed when music concerts are on!

In addition to this any one who needs to access the new estate would need to drive directly past Ashton Gate as there is no other way in. Ashton Gate also have plans in the pipeline for a new restaurants, conference centre, basketball stadium adding to this congestion on an even more regular basis.

The whole access issue make this whole development a complete non starter - before you even begin to weigh in with the other completely unconsidered ideas for the development itself.

I object to the proposed developments on the old railway yard!When my partner and I first heard that this site was to get turned into housing we thought that thedevelopment would be in keeping with the area.We did not expect that there would be buildings up to 9 storeys high most likely preventing lightand the feeling of privacy considering the proximity of the town houses to our flat.

The plans clearly do not consider the welfare of the people living at Paxton Drive and seriouslylack a responsible access to the proposed housing. There is hardly any parking around here as itis and that is another glaring problem with these plans. We've had to put up with the constructionof the Metrobus being built for over 2 years and finally feel like we've got a break only to receivenews of these plans which are going to overshadow our home for years to come if it goes aheadand after they're in place too.

I feel strongly that these plans need to be revised. They're simply not in keeping with the area andnot an appropriate design for the outskirts of Ashton Court.

I am EXTREMELY concerned about the impact that this development will have upon analready very busy traffic area and an area with very limited parking. This is already an area wherethere have been highly dangerous traffic accidents, some resulting in death! There are very fewamenities close to this site so would not be suitable for elderly people, families or social housing.With our current COVID19 situation a very important factor is OUTDOOR SPACE to supportmental wellbeing, surely this space would be better used for the development of allotments sopeople can grow their own fruit, veg. support wildlife and conservation.The block proposed is ridiculously CLOSE to the bus lane and already built flats, which wouldcause the current residents in the blocks, a feeling of being enclosed and claustrophobic. I verystrongly object to this particular space being developed in this way, though I am very aware of theshortages of housing. I feel that redevelopment of spaces that already have dilapidated buildingsis a much better consideration. As I walk around Bristol City Centre I have become aware of somany dwellings that are not occupied.

As a city resident and regular user of the Festival Way path, I am extremely concernedabout this development which will imapact the local (and wider) community in the following ways:

1. Allotments

White City Allotments is an active and productive site with a long waiting list. The proposed 9-storey building would create a severe shadowing effect over mine and many others plots (in fullshadow during the winter and partial in the summer.) This will have a huge impact on theproduction of food on this site for nearly all plot holders - this would massively affect thecommunity, their resilience and self-sufficiency. Given the times we are in, with the threat of foodshortages due to the global pandemic, this should be a key consideration when reviewing thisplanning application. If this goes ahead, it sets a bad precedent that developers and planners candisregard the importance of allotments, which are vital community spaces. In addition, the densityand height of the building poses a threat to privacy - not only for plot holders, but for the residentson Paxton Drive.

2. Festival way cycle path

As a resident of the city, I use this path several times a week to access Ashton Court. It is a highlyused path that connects citizens to the countryside and green open space through a safe,enjoyable and car free route route. It is also a key route for uses of the Bower Ashton UWEcampus and Ashton Park School. The proposal would heavily disrupt this route. This is also a siteused by skateboarders, this recreational area will be lost and there does not appear to be anyprovision to replace this facility. The proposed diversion route of the Festival Way Path creates anarrow and confined route, with a sharp turn to use the access ramp on to the metro bus route.Why build on a principal cycle path into and out of the city and encourage car ownership that hasbeen the bane of Bristol? It is unclear what will happen to this route during construction if theproposed plans go ahead.

3. Flooding

Flood risk in this area of Bristol already exists and will arguably increase as a direct consequenceof the new development. In March of this year (2020), extensive flooding around the CumberlandBasin was observed caused by high spring tides. The River Avon has the second highest tidalreach in the world, making its susceptibility to flooding unsurprising. On 12 March 2020 BristolHarbour reported 11.8m tides, which caused extensive overbank flooding across the CumberlandBasin and surrounding areas. This is not a one off event and flooding also occurred in this areaduring the floods of 2012.

4. Air Quality and Pollution

A development of this scale would expose people within the vicinity to reduced air quality.

5. Density

The draft Bristol City Council Local Plan Site Allocations Document (Site Reference BDA0303)suggests that this site has a capacity for around 150 homes, the planning submitted here has 253.This is 103 over what is recommended. This is an obscene increase and will place a huge strainon local amenities - doctors, schools, shops, roads etc. I appreciate that this development offersaffordable housing, which is desperately needed in this city, but the proposal does not offer anyquality in housing, which is more important.

6. Environmental Degradation

To develop this site will cause removal of trees and vegetation. In removing the trees and shrubs,a vital filter and wind-break which helps 'soak up' some of the road pollution from the continuoussurrounding traffic will be lost. There is much wildlife in the area that has already been disturbedby the metro bus route and this site is home to many foxes, rabbits etc. The tall blocks are out ofkeeping with the area and heritage.

These plans appear to be entirely unsuitable for the location. In an area that bordersonto the Bower Ashton Conservation area and Ashton Court there should be cause for verycareful consideration for such a development. This appears to have been designed to cram in asmany residential units as possible whilst giving the appearance of caring for residents and theenvironment by including some trees, a play park and re-routing the Festival way cycle route!

The local plan review suggests 150 units, but this plan massively exceeds this by densely packingin the buildings and making some of them at a height completely unsuitable and out of characterfor the area. In turn this will also be a big impact on the residents of Paxton Drive who will havetheir environment, views and light completely changed.The allowance for parking spaces is also inadequate in an area of South Bristol already underpressure for adequate parking, not to mention the parking chaos in the area on match days atAshton Gate.

The re-routing of the cycle path will not only cause disruption whilst the building is in progress, butwill change what is an excellent, fast and well used route both for leisure cyclists, commuters andschool children, especially from Ashton Park School. The re-routing through a residential area andnear the entrance to a play park is really not suitable for this route and will most likely result inconflict and danger for path users and residents.

I am also really concerned about increased pressure on the local road network, which is already indiscussion with the idea of plans for the Western Harbour area. As a local resident I find that if

there is any change at all in traffic density anywhere nearby it has a knock-on effect to the traffic.Most noticeably for Bower Ashton residents the roundabout by Blackmoors Lane gets blocked up.

In my experience a larger planning application like this normally goes on display in a place wherelocal residents and those with concerns can go and look more clearly at the plans. I am sure thatless people will have commented on this application because of Covid-19 restrictions becausethey were unaware of the plans having been submitted or unable to properly view the plans.

COMMENTING PROCEDURE:

Allowing only 3 weeks to submit comments is unacceptable, particularly as lock-down due to theCovid-19 virus prevents affected residents from meeting to exchange views about the proposals.

Some of the flats in Paxton Drive are tenanted therefore flat owners should be notified of planningproposals as well as occupants. I asked the Management Company for most of Paxton Drive todistribute a notice to owners, however they rejected my request so some of the people mostaffected are unaware of this scheme.

These constraints have curtailed our democratic right to see and influence local policy.

VISUAL IMPACT:

In principle I welcome the development of this site to provide affordable housing, however thescale and appearance of the proposed buildings is inappropriate for this outstanding location. TheLocal Plan estimated 150 dwellings; 253 is excessive.

The 7 and 9-storey blocks are alien to the 4/5-storey tradition of western Bristol. They should beharmonised with existing Paxton Drive buildings in height and scale, not overpower. They willtower over the neighbouring allotments, limiting winter sunshine and creating cold ground.

The three bonded warehouses do not form a "contemporary template" for the massive building E.They are a unique remnant of a particular period in Bristol's history and it is insulting to use this asan argument to impose high-rise structures that detract from their stature and historicalsignificance.

The stunning vistas both from and to Ashton Court, Avon Gorge, the Clifton Suspension Bridgeand the slopes of Clifton will be irreparably spoiled. The area is the boundary of the city and hasbeautiful green space rich with nature; this scheme substitutes monolithic overbearing high-risebuildings.

I fear the height of building E will set a precedent for the proposed 'Western Harbour' scheme andprovide a justification for a vulgar concrete jungle that will permanently ruin Bristol's uniqueharbourside.

DENSITY:

The excessively high density of the scheme means that most space around the blocks is givenover to roads and car-parking, with only nominal space allocated as a children's play area and foroutdoor gatherings by residents. The plans do not cater for families because the majority of thedwellings are 1 and 2 bedroom flats.

LOSS OF PRIVACY:

The architects have very considerately designed the north face of Block A with no windows toavoid overlook with Block B, however they have ignored the far more serious loss of privacy thatwill be incurred by the existing residents of Paxton Drive. Many will now have to installcurtains/blinds to avoid being overlooked.

ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION:

Section 2.6 of the Planning Statement Part 1 acknowledges that the "north and east is designatedas Important Open Space on the current Policies Map. A strip of land along the western boundary(including the now constructed Metrobus corridor) is also defined as Important Open Space."Furthermore the land is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). Yet this applicationdestroys the strip alongside the Metrobus road, and will negatively impact on the wildlife and faunaof the area. Rabbits, foxes and birds are common in this area and will be further displaced by theloss of more natural open space. Many established trees will be destroyed by the scheme,particularly those along the western boundary. Landscaping the development with a fewmanicured shrubs and small trees is no substitute.

The site should be bordered by dense trees to reduce vehicle noise and pollution otherwiseresidents and will have to keep all windows closed 24/7.

I am concerned that the existence of asbestos has been identified and, as a near neighbour, I amworried about inhalation of fibres during excavation and building. "0.6m of suitable topsoil/subsoiland/or engineered fill" is insufficient long-term remediation.

FLOODING:

High spring tides (11.8m) occurred in March this year (2020) causing extensive overbank floodingin the Cumberland Basin area. There is growing scientific evidence that global warming is causingsea levels to rise at an even faster rate than predicted in current modelling. No developmentshould be allowed until sea-level defences have been developed that ameliorate the risk offlooding.

The area is already at risk of surface water flooding; the large expanse of paved area willaggravate this with rainwater run-off potentially flooding the metrobus road.

I wish to endorse the expert opinions on flooding expounded by Amelia Vale of 147 Paxton Drive.

CAR PARKING:

Bristol aspires to be a 'green city' and significantly reduce car usage. The reality is that until Bristolhas an integrated light rail/bus/cycle infrastructure comparable to many European cities (clearlydecades away at the present snail pace), residents will own cars. Paxton Drive has one carparking space per flat yet there is a serious problem with more cars than parking availability. Thisresults in cars blocking pavements and also access to buildings by the disabled and parents withbuggies.

The proponents claim many residents will choose not to have cars, yet the M2 bus to the citycentre stops soon after 9pm and does not run at all on Sundays, the 'X' buses from BlackmoorsLane are much less accessible and operate at irregular frequencies, and there is no publictransport to the nearest shops and amenities on North Street. This can only be resolved byreducing the number of dwellings and providing adequate car parking.

CYCLE PATH:

The Festival Way cycle path is a busy commuter and recreational route and many cyclists, rightlyor wrongly, go fast. The path should not be diverted through the middle of the residential area butinstead retain the existing route along the western boundary.

The current proposal is dangerous; it involves several tight manoeuvres on narrow pathwaysshared with pedestrians. People and cycles should never be mixed unless existing geographymakes it completely unavoidable. Paths must be of suitable width to accommodate travel in

opposite directions by both pedestrians and cyclists in groups.

The proposed layout has a shared cycle/pedestrian path between blocks B and C. I find it bizarrethat the architects chose this option instead of routing cycles down the adjacent vehicular roadwhich only provides access for 24 parking bays and the occasional refuse truck / delivery van.

The Festival Way cycle route must be available throughout site construction.

The provision of secure cycle parking in building A is an excellent idea. The lock-ups must berobust to withstand vandalism which I fear may occur.

LOCAL AMENITIES:

Consideration must be given to the pressure on local amenities such as schools and GPs due tothe increase of local population.

I question the viability of a cafe in an isolated residential estate when most people will passthrough by bus or bike. Cafes require high foot-fall and there are competing businesses at AshtonCourt Mansion, the Create Centre, Riverside Garden Centre and North Street. The nearest shopsare nearly one mile distant, therefore the provision of small local shops should be consideredinstead.

STRATEGIC PLANNING:

Development of this site should not be considered independent of the much larger developmentsbeing mooted for the Western Harbour, the Plimsoll Bridge and Brunel Way. Planning must beconsidered strategically, not in piecemeal parcels as proposed here.

SUMMARY:

These plans are unsuitable, inadequate and unsustainable. They do not resonate with aspirationsof Bristol as a forward-thinking healthy green city.

This scheme is a throwback to 20th-century build-it-cheap pack-'em-high thinking. This unique siteis ideally suited to the 21st-century concept of 'Passiv' ultra-low energy buildings that areincreasingly appearing in Germany and Scandinavia and where environmental and economiccosts are calculated in 100+ year timescales, not short-term profit for the developer.

I will close by repeating some words of Donna Ashford of Churchill, Winscombe, that are far moreeloquent than mine:

"Bristol is a wonderful City and should be valued, it has the most amazing approaches and the

planning should be carefully considered to protect that all makes Bristol the city it is. This proposalwill be an eyesore and will do nothing to enhance Bristol. Such an important site deserves better."

Dear Planning Dept

Whilst I appreciate and understand the need for additional housing to be provided in the city andthe Former Railway Depot / Clanage Road provides a suitable development site which issustainable I am concerned over the amount of development being proposed on one small sitealong with the scale of buildings. I also have concerns that the proposals do not fit into a largermasterplan scheme to ensure that we are building balanced communities.

I therefore wish to object to the planning application submitted and these are my comments:

Adjoining Paxton DriveThe adjoining Paxton Drive development comprises of large residential blocks 3 - 5 stories highproviding 184 one, two and three bed apartments. This is already considered to be a high densitydevelopment which should not be used as a baseline/starting point for the new development tothen exceed!

Scale and HeightThe proposed development takes it cue from Paxton Drive Site and continues the idea of a line ofblocks on the other side of the metro bus route but these blocks are both larger and taller. Thedesign of these blocks are both monolithic and substantial with less attempt to step back andarticulate their form.

They start off being 4 stories high opposite Paxton Drive buildings but then increase in height asthey run Northwards becoming 5 then 7 stories high with 9 storeys at the far end.The tall block on the North end is 9 stories high which I would suggest is the most sensitive part ofthe site !

Development attempts to fill the site right up to the road system and there is no obvious reason forits rise in height other than to provide the maximum number of units / profit.

If anything I would expect to see more town houses on the site and perhaps these follow theWestern and parts of the Northern boundary

Balance between houses and flat is not good - 239 flats compared to 14 town housestoo many flats. This should be a more balanced community.

The developers are taking their clue and trying to justify the size of the blocks from the nearbytobacco bond houses which are already a dominant feature and the possible future redevelopmentof western Harbour. But as yet nothing has been put in stone and you cant base a scheme onanother development which has not yet been confirmed or designed.

The proposal is too large and bulky being so close to sensitive areas like the historic entrance tothe docks and green belt spaces.

The building are too high for this end of Bristol and not respectful. I would suggest a max height of4-5 stories

The developer suggests that the taller buildings at North end take advantage of the views. Surely itshould be the other way round and their height should be respectful of the surrounding area andviews from Green Belt and historic areas.

The developer use words like 'Bold, creative architecture will ensure the impact is positive andinspiring'. They want to 'create a landmark architecture feature'. I would suggest the developmentis aggressive, detrimental and encroaches too much onto this end of the city.

AccessSingular access on to Brunel Feeder Road could cause congestions and back ups at rush hour

Not Mixed UseThe site proposes too much housing and too many flats - there should be more mixed use andpossibly some works shops /community space for the occupants to use. A large cafe in Block A isnot enough!

Future Impact on Western HarbourThis development as it stands is not right or sensitive for this end of Bristol and more akin to thehigh density buildings and development around Temple Meads.I am concerned that if this development is approved in its current state it will set the wrongprecedent and have a detimental affect for whatever is designed for Western Harbour and anyfuture road and housing plans.

No Masterplan being considered by BCC for the larger areaThere are many individual large developments being submitted to the Council for this end of theCity and it is not right to be considering them as 'stand alone' entities. There should be an overallmasterplan on how we are going to tackle the need for extra housing and this needs to take intoaccount infrastructure and community facilities etc. so we build balanced neighbourhoods.

Yours sincerely

Caroline Grazebrook

This is an appalling proposal in so many ways. It is a gross overdevelopment of the site,way beyond the recommendation of the Local Plan, and the blocks are way too big and way toohigh. They also lack any aesthetic merit or sense of place. Trying to cram so many units into thespace means design is compromised and so would be the quality of life of future residents and thecurrent residents of Paxton Drive.The proposed development is completely out of character with the surrounding area and interruptsviews of and from important heritage assets. This gateway to the city has the gorge, the bridgeand the listed warehouses to create a striking impression - it doesn't need an ugly, overbearingdevelopment ruining all that.Please refuse this outright and save this area from this proposed blight.

Regarding the submission of planning application 20/01655/F, former Railway Depot,Clanage Road, Bristol, I would like to raise a series of objections and concerns to the proposeddevelopment:

The development appears to be completely at odds with the values and vision of Bristol to becomea forward thinking 'Green City'. As it stands, the development would have a dramatic impact to theSouth West entrance of the city with an interruption of the iconic views of the Clifton SuspensionBridge and views from the harbour up to Ashton Court. The proposed building height of 9 floors isparticularly excessive and would tower above Paxton Drive and surrounding infrastructure. Theplans are completely unsympathetic to Bristol's historic heritage and culture of this significant area.

Road Traffic

As is well acknowledged, the traffic flow on the Cumberland Basin continues to be incredibly poor,with an already complex and chaotic network of roads. This development proposes more cars tobe added to this, adding to the air pollution. Surely the development should be considered as partof the wider plan to redevelop the Cumberland Basin, not just be another add-on to the area?

ParkingThe proposal states that out of a total of 253 residential dwellings it only provides 141 parkingspaces, so there will be a considerable shortfall of parking spaces (despite the statistic that 72% ofhouseholds in Bristol own a car). As seen by the current parking issues at Paxton Drive, this

results in access being blocked on entry and exit roads. This will only worsen with a newdevelopment.

I understand the need for more affordable housing in Bristol, however I feel this is more driven byprofit than the needs of local people and respect to the area. This does not appear to be adevelopment fit for the future and the post-COVID19 world.

Though we welcome the 'development' of this space, we have several objections to thecurrent plan,

1. The height and mass of these buildings, especially Building E are unsympathetic to the greenbelt conservation area around them and it appears to far exceed the initial Local Plan Review.

2. In particular the damaging effect they will have in blocking valuable sunlight to the adjacentallotments due to the excessive height (9 floors).

3. The proposed re-routing of Festival Way through the new development makes no sense and willcause more problems than it solves. It is popular commuter/leisure route with both cyclists andpedestrians and currently flows well, taking it through two 'dog-leg' turns within the proposed sitewill be an unwelcomed recipe for congestion and accidents.

4. The development appears to be about cramming as many people (and cars) in with nosupporting infrastructure which will have a detrimental effect on the already stretched localservices.

5. The additional traffic created by the number of vehicles will only add to the already congestedroad system and further pollution.

6. The noise and traffic pollution from the elevated section of Brunel Way will blight the northern

end of the site which is the area with the highest population density.

7. Blocks D&E at the northern end are highly unsuitable as landmark buildings for the boundary ofthe green belt. A development of this nature deserves to have some award-winning architectureand landscaping rather than boring office block style blandness.

8. In addition the amount of disruption caused to the area by several years of construction work interms of traffic and pollution, especially to those tending to the allotments in the vicinity will beextremely damaging.

Though we welcome the 'development' of this space, we have several objections to thecurrent plan,

1. The height and mass of these buildings, especially Building E are unsympathetic to the greenbelt conservation area around them and it appears to far exceed the initial Local Plan Review.

2. In particular the damaging effect they will have in blocking valuable sunlight to the adjacentallotments due to the excessive height (9 floors).

3. The proposed re-routing of Festival Way through the new development makes no sense and willcause more problems than it solves. It is popular commuter/leisure route with both cyclists andpedestrians and currently flows well, taking it through two 'dog-leg' turns within the proposed sitewill be an unwelcomed recipe for congestion and accidents.

4. The development appears to be about cramming as many people (and cars) in with nosupporting infrastructure which will have a detrimental effect on the already stretched localservices.

5. The additional traffic created by the number of vehicles will only add to the already congestedroad system and further pollution.

6. The noise and traffic pollution from the elevated section of Brunel Way will blight the northern

end of the site which is the area with the highest population density.

7. Blocks D&E at the northern end are highly unsuitable as landmark buildings for the boundary ofthe green belt. A development of this nature deserves to have some award-winning architectureand landscaping rather than boring office block style blandness.

8. In addition the amount of disruption caused to the area by several years of construction work interms of traffic and pollution, especially to those tending to the allotments in the vicinity will beextremely damaging.

I tstrongly object to this development on several levels.!. The development will further increase traffic congestion around Ashton gate especially on matchdays where irresponsible parking can often case inconvenience and more worrying a hazard.2. The development will increase air pollution in an area already saturated with fumes.3. The development will cause privacy issues for many existing residents doing the build and ofcourse on completion.4. Noise levels will increase dramatically.5. wildlife and conservation will be seriously affected.6. When my former company tried to acquire the site in 2002 we were told that the site wasunsuitable for residential purposes because it was contaminated and unless the ground haschanged somehow it must still be contaminated !

Although understanding that there will be development on this site, I object to theseplans on the grounds that it is far too high, the capacity of the site is not suitable to sustain somany homes, it will interfere with a much used cycle route, and it is on a flood plain. In addition itwould be an unsightly and inappropriate set of buildings at what is an important gateway to the cityand negatively impact the vista to the suspension bridge and Clifton wood and also be detrimentalto the White City allotments.

I have serious concerns about the proposed development of the Former Railway Depot,Clanage Road, particularly regarding the design, the number of units built and the height of thebuildings.

Visual impact from Bristol landmarks:

I support comments made by Historic England and others on the inappropriateness of the designand height of the buildings for the setting.

I believe the area will suffer hugely as a result of the proposed development unless significantchanges are made to the plans. The current designs are impressively unimaginative, out ofkeeping with the area and so ugly they're sure to be in line for the Carbuncle Cup, the famousarchitecture award for "the ugliest building in the United Kingdom completed in the last 12months."

Moreover, I believe that many parts of the submitted application are deliberately misleading; thevisual impact report does not include an assessment of views from the cricket ground or fromPaxton Drive and the visualisation supplied for Ashton Court is from the deer park and not themansion - I believe this location was chosen to downplay the impact of the development. It alsoheavily relies on the claim that tree coverage will obscure the buildings from viewpoints such asthe Clifton Suspension Bridge and Ashton Court.

For comparison, the top floor of the 4 storey buildings of Paxton Drive are visible from AshtonCourt, the historic allotments adjacent to Ashton Court, Bedminster Cricket Ground, GrevilleSmyth Park and the Clifton Suspension Bridge, despite the presence of fully mature trees. Theproposed 5, 7 and 9 storey buildings, the tallest more than twice the height of Paxton Drive, willcertainly be visible from all of these significant sites. The proposed removal of 32 mature trees willonly worsen the impact and it will take decades for new plantings to cover the first few storeys ofthe development.

Although the bonded warehouses are of similar height to the proposed tower blocks they are ofcultural importance to Bristol and an established part of the city landscape that feature on Bristolartwork and tourist memorabilia, they are not a contemporary reference point for design or height.The proposed height of the new development, and the aesthetically offensive design of high-riseblocks, will diminish the impact of the iconic buildings in the vicinity and forever alter theappearance of this iconic part of Bristol.

It should be taken into consideration that the draft Bristol City Council Local Plan notes that anydevelopment on this should should "provide a contextual, heritage-led response which has regardto long distance views, including views of the Avon Gorge and Suspension bridge from BedminsterDown, and which respects the visibility of the site, including in the setting of Ashton Court".

The proposed development will not just impact on the immediate surrounding area, it will alsointerrupt views of the suspension bridge and Ashton Court Park from many places acrossBedminster and the approach towards Bristol from the airport.

Visitors to the city will no longer be greeted by the site of the bridge serenely suspended over theAvon Gorge, instead these lazily designed tower blocks will be in the foreground, drawing attentionfrom our most famous landmark. Please, if they are to be built, at least make them worthy of theirsetting.

Travel, access and parking:

The only proposed exit road for the new development is on land at the exit to Paxton Drive. Thiswould remove a green space and trees, worsen queues to exit Paxton Drive and increasecongestion on Brunel Way.

The application makes note of the popular commuter cycle route (National Cycle Route 33) andplans for this to be rerouted through the development but does not make it clear where the cyclepath will run while construction is underway. This should be made clear in the application or werisk losing an important and green transport link for the duration of development.

Flood risk:

As evidenced by the floods in March 2020, the risk of flooding is greater than is claimed in theplanning application. This is either under-researched using old data or deliberately misleading. Iwould urge councillors to ask that due diligence is done and an accurate flood risk assessmentcarried out by the developers.

Impact on Paxton Drive residents:

The drawings supplied by the developer are misleading as they do not accurately reflect the lengthof the shadows cast by the proposed buildings. The Paxton Drive buildings closest to thedevelopment would experience a loss of natural light and privacy as a result of the height of thedevelopment.

Furthermore, not all Paxton Drive residents have been made aware of the proposed developmentas only some apartment blocks received notices. As a resident of Block A, I consider myself to bea 'neighbour' of the new development and yet have received no communication regarding it. Irequest that all Paxton Drive residents are contacted and the deadline for submitting objectionsextended to allow time to respond.

Other:

I would like the committee to consider where the residents of the proposed development will sendtheir children to school and which GP surgery they will register with. The Hotwells GP Surgeryclosed a few years ago and it is already incredibly difficult to get an appointment at the remainingpractices.

In summary:

- The proposed development is not in line with the draft Bristol City Council Local Plan whichstipulates a "heritage-led response which has regard to long distance views."

- The proposed development contains 253 units, more than double the number allocated to thesite in the draft Bristol City Council Local Plan.

- The only proposed exit route is through green space at the end of Paxton Drive and wouldworsen congestion in the area.

- The flood risk has been minimised in the planning application and does not accurately reflect thelikelihood of a moderate or major flooding event.

- The application minimises the visual impact of the development: the proposed height of thedevelopment would dominate the surrounding landscape and negatively impact views from AshtonCourt and the Clifton Suspension Bridge.

- There is no clear plan for rerouting Cycle Route 33 during construction.

- Paxton Drive residents would experience a loss of privacy from being overlooked by 7 and 9storey apartment buildings.

- Paxton Drive residents would experience a loss of natural light from the proposed height of thebuildings.

- Not all Paxton Drive residents have been informed of the proposed development.

On these grounds, I object to the proposed redevelopment of the Former Railway Depot, ClanageRoad, Bristol.

Dear Ms Leigh

As a resident of Paxton Drive, we strongly oppose the development at the former Railway Depot,Clanage Road due to the reasons laid out below.

Conservation:

The development will impact the view from Ashton Court Estate, a registered park and garden.Ashton Court is a hugely valuable historical and communal asset that shouldn't be degraded bylarge tower blocks. The current proposal building heights are unsympathetic to the surroundingcountryside and will provide a harsh eyesore from the countryside as you come into the city.

The site and the height of the blocks will clearly be in view from the historic sights of CliftonSuspension Bridge.

Design, scale, massing:

Although the proposal is an uninspiring design our main concerns are the scale and massing ofthe proposal. If the area has to be developed surely a more innovative, sustainable, high qualitydesign can be proposed with a smaller massing which could be enjoyed for generations by boththe residents and the onlookers. This current proposal is bland in design and overbearing in scaleand massing.

Environment:

The increase in traffic and the removal of the greenery and trees within the sight will have anegative impact on the quality of air in the area. Furthermore as the UK is working towards endingthe use of petrol and diesel vehicles the site does not account for this. As a new site it should bedesigned with electric vehicles in mind, electric charging points, solar panels, use of cycle routesand walk ways. The Metro Bus route does not provide access to all areas of the cities andresidents will need to use other transport means to access the city.

The site is being built in a flood risk area in a time when the River Avon is recording extremelyhigh tides. The use of tarmac will only increase this risk as it will prevent water seeping into theground.

Wildlife:

The proposal will destroy all the vibrant greenery along the Metro Bus route which we so enjoy towatch. With that gone all the wildlife will be destroyed and will never return. I have seen manyrabbits, foxes, birds and bee's that live there and I am sure there are many more animals that willlose their habitats.

Traffic and Parking:

The proposal suggests 141 parking spaces for 253 residential dwellings. This is clearly far belowthe likely amount of vehicles that will require parking on the site. Residents will likely use PaxtonDrive for parking as this is the closest parking opportunity to the site, which already has limitedparking.

Access both in and out of the site will be onto Ashton Gate Underpass and onto Brunel Way.Brunel Way is a major access in and out of Bristol that experiences extremely heavy traffic in rushhour. The new site will only increase traffic on a road that is already unable to cope with thevolume of vehicles.

The access to the site will share the exit of Paxton Drive, with more than double the amount carsusing one exit at rush hour it will cause a build-up of traffic trying to exit the two residential sites.The access to the site will also cross the Metro Bus which runs buses at regular intervals. Thiscould cause traffic tailing back onto Ashton Gate Underpass and having a direct impact on thePaxton Drive exit.

Loss of Privacy:

Our flat will be directly opposite a four storey block in the new site, with only the Metro Bus linkbetween. This will have a huge impact on our privacy as our living room and kitchen face directlytowards this block. We have lived here for four years and always really appreciated that this wasthe only side of our flat that had complete privacy. The proposal will destroy all our remainingprivacy.

Loss of Light:

The proposal will block out our late afternoon and evening sunlight due to the height of the blocks,overshadowing our flat.

Highway Safety:

Pupils of Ashton Park School walk through Paxton Drive on their route to and from the school. Theaccess to the site will be a further hazard to them.

Noise:

Due to the increase in the vehicles the traffic noise will increase. The site is already on a busyroad with high levels of noise. The side of our flat which faces towards Ashton Court is the oneside that of us that is quiet, or with the peaceful sounds of trees and birds. A residentialdevelopment with infrastructure will remove this quiet, removing the lovely greenery forever andincrease the noise levels combined with the existing road to unbearable levels.

By removing the greenery we will also have to listen to all the noise from the site, particularly theblock that will be so close and opposite ours with nothing to shield the travel of the sounds.

We strongly object to this proposal and urge that the planning committee reject the proposal.

I object on the following grounds:

1) Development density. 243 dwellings is an awful lot for a plot this size. This will have adetrimental impact on the community that ends up living here.

2) Building height. In particular the blocks at the northern end of the sight. These will have adetrimental impact on the skyline, detracting from the unique presence of the historic warehousesnearby. They will also impose and rob light from the allotments and the nearby Paxton drivedevelopment.

3) Building design. It's not very inspiring architecture is it?

4) Cycle route. It is important that cycle routes work properly from the point of view of the cyclist,otherwise it risks not being used, or for the users to put themselves and others at risk. The currentroute works pretty well and is very well used. The proposed changes to the route would make itless user friendly. Sharp turns are not ideal on cycle routes. Nor are several crossing points wherepriority has to be conceded to motorists. This is not a positive move in de-carbonising travel withinthe city.

To be clear, I am not opposed to this site being developed into a residential area, I am justopposed to this particular proposal for the above reasons.

Dear Sirs

I am writing this comment to strongly object to this proposed build.

My reasons for the objection are as follows:

Lighting:

The prospective plan includes the building of 5 - 9 story buildings which will overlook the residentsof Paxton Drive. As you will be aware, natural light is paramount to ones mental well being andshould this be taken away due to maximising the private profit of residency, this will have adetrimental effect on the residents of Paxton Drive.

Privacy:

The prospective plan (to a non-architectural eye) appears to be less than 40 metres distance fromPaxton Drive. As a result of this, the residents will be deprived of privacy as the newly proposedresidential buildings intended to be up to 9 stories high will tower above and overlook the currentresidents. It could also be said that this will propose a danger to the residents, with personal lifeand belongings being unnecessarily on show.

Traffic/Parking:

The BS3 area is already heavily congested and further development will only increase this. Thenumber of accidents and deaths on the surrounding roads may increase with the introduction ofover population. On top of this, the residents of Paxton Drive already have many parking issueswith residents, family and friends receiving fines for parking due to the lack of parking spaces. Ifthis development does go ahead, how do the developers plan on policing and ensuring that thesespaces will not be used by this development and thus incurring loss of monies to residents ofPaxton Drive in fines. The sheer number of flats that are being proposed would cause ahorrendous bottleneck around the surrounding areas where there are already many, many issues.

Appearance of the development:

As someone that will potentially be overlooked by the design of the 9 story builds, I must say thatthe suggested appearance is appalling, especially for a design of which the backdrop is the Cliftonsuspension bridge and Ashton Court. As people enter Bristol via the Cumberland basin they willbe greeted by a 9 story monstrosity that looks like it was designed in the late 90's. Obscuring thebeauty of Ashton Court a real gem of Bristol's skyline.

Noise:

Due to the proximity and size of the build, the prospective noise level fills me with distress anddiscomfort. As a family orientated area, this is not something which is safe and practical in thisenvironment.

Wildlife and conservation:

The prospective development area is home to a number of bird species and also countless wildrabbits, should this go ahead, I am certain that the wildlife in the BS3 and preserved Ashton Courtarea will drop and therefore bring much sadness to all in the "proudly green" area. On top of this,the area is populated by trees which are decades old and have been providing much neededoxygen to a heavily congested city, if these are removed for the development this will lessen 1) theaesthetic, 2) the quality of air, 3) the greenness of the area, and 4) the general wellbeing of thepublic.

For the reasons set out above, I firmly object to the proposed development. However, should thebuild move forward, the proposals need a thoroughly deep review and improvement to be mindfulof the area, roads and residents nearby.

Lacey

Dear Sirs

I am writing this comment to strongly object to this proposed build.

My reasons for the objection are as follows:

Lighting:

The prospective plan includes the building of 5 - 9 story buildings which will overlook the residentsof Paxton Drive. As you will be aware, natural light is paramount to ones mental well being andshould this be taken away due to maximising the private profit of residency, this will have adetrimental effect on the residents of Paxton Drive.

Privacy:

The prospective plan (to a non-architectural eye) appears to be less than 40 metres distance fromPaxton Drive. As a result of this, the residents will be deprived of privacy as the newly proposedresidential buildings intended to be up to 9 stories high will tower above and overlook the currentresidents. It could also be said that this will propose a danger to the residents, with personal lifeand belongings being unnecessarily on show.

Traffic/Parking:

The BS3 area is already heavily congested and further development will only increase this. Thenumber of accidents and deaths on the surrounding roads may increase with the introduction ofover population. On top of this, the residents of Paxton Drive already have many parking issueswith residents, family and friends receiving fines for parking due to the lack of parking spaces. Ifthis development does go ahead, how do the developers plan on policing and ensuring that thesespaces will not be used by this development and thus incurring loss of monies to residents ofPaxton Drive in fines. The sheer number of flats that are being proposed would cause ahorrendous bottleneck around the surrounding areas where there are already many, many issues.

Appearance of the development:

As someone that will potentially be overlooked by the design of the 9 story builds, I must say thatthe suggested appearance is appalling, especially for a design of which the backdrop is the Cliftonsuspension bridge and Ashton Court. As people enter Bristol via the Cumberland basin they willbe greeted by a 9 story monstrosity that looks like it was designed in the late 90's. Obscuring thebeauty of Ashton Court a real gem of Bristol's skyline.

Noise:

Due to the proximity and size of the build, the prospective noise level fills me with distress anddiscomfort. As a family orientated area, this is not something which is safe and practical in thisenvironment.

Wildlife and conservation:

The prospective development area is home to a number of bird species and also countless wildrabbits, should this go ahead, I am certain that the wildlife in the BS3 and preserved Ashton Courtarea will drop and therefore bring much sadness to all in the "proudly green" area. On top of this,the area is populated by trees which are decades old and have been providing much neededoxygen to a heavily congested city, if these are removed for the development this will lessen 1) theaesthetic, 2) the quality of air, 3) the greenness of the area, and 4) the general wellbeing of thepublic.

For the reasons set out above, I firmly object to the proposed development. However, should thebuild move forward, the proposals need a thoroughly deep review and improvement to be mindfulof the area, roads and residents nearby.

Lacey

The plans are huge for the area which is a city location but adjacent to countryside. Thelargest building is incredibly high and overlooks a countryside cricket pitch and obscure the view ofthe iconic Clifton Suspension bridge on the route into the city.

Lastly, the traffic in this area is a big problem - it is a real pinch point and already carries hugevolumes especially at rush hour but throughout the day - and the river means extra access routesare not possible.

Therefore, this area can not sustain a building project of this size, nor does it fit the area. I think itshould be scaled back considerably.

I am not completely opposed to the building of these flats but having looked at the planand read the detail, I am surprised at the fact that some of the proposed blocks will be up to 9storeys high. Apart from this being unsightly and out of keeping with the area it is also completelyinconsiderate for neighbours particularly those of us at Paxton Drive who's properties face theproposed site. Being overlooked by such an imposing structure and losing the privacy that wecurrently enjoy is a concern.

I am concerned about the wildlife in the area that will be displaced and would like detail of anyconsideration given to this.

I understand that the plans do not currently allow for adequate parking (at least 1 space perhousehold plus additional visitors spaces), as you are probably aware there are no nearby streetswhich could accommodate additional vehicles. Paxton Drive already has parking issues and I fearthat this may be exacerbated should the proposed development not have ample parking provision.

Is there an alternative in the plans for the current safe path that is used by walkers and cyclists? Ididn't notice anything on the plans.

I would appreciate if the proposed development was considered compassionately taking intoaccount the issues raised by those that are opposing, there are some valid points raised that areworth taking the time to explore and if dealt with at this early stage would eliminate issues furtherdown the line for those of us that already live in the area and for the new residents of these

homes.

When I first heard that this site was going to be redeveloped for housing, I thought thiswould be in keeping with other development within the area. I appreciate the need to developbrownfield sites (such as this one) however following a review of the planning application for20/01655/F, I have a number of concerns and objections that are listed in the points below.

PLANNING DOCUMENTS

From reviewing the 'Bristol Local Plan Review document - Draft Polices and DevelopmentAllocation' (March, 2019), page 23 contains information about what development on this siteshould demonstrate. Apparently, the estimated capacity for residential homes is 150, yet theapplication quotes 253 homes? This clearly needs further justification as this is over 100+ thenumber of properties which are allocated within the Council's document. By providing this manyhomes it will place a huge strain on local amenities including schools, doctors, shops etc.

This Bristol City Council document also states that development should "provide a contextual,heritage-led response which has regard to long distance views, including views of the Avon Gorgeand Suspension bridge from Bedminster Down and which respects the visibility of the site,including the setting of Ashton Court". From a review of current plans Block D & E are proposed tobe seven-to-nine storey buildings - this is not consistent with the setting and goes againsteverything quoted above by having a negative impact on the character of the area.

Furthermore within policy 'BCS21 Quality and Urban Design' (which is being retained as part of

the Bristol City Council's new Local Plan) it is stated that new development should "deliver highquality, adaptable buildings that make a positive contribution to an areas character and identity".Developing seven-to-nine storey buildings does not adhere to this policy within this area and, asalready mentioned, will have a negative and detrimental impact on the character of the area.

Another policy which is being retained within Bristol City Council's new Local Plan is 'DM29 Designof New Buildings'. This proposed development at Clanage Road does again not adhere to thispolicy. DM29 requires developers to "ensure that existing and proposed development achievesappropriate levels of privacy, outlook and daylight" and should "incorporate exteriors andelevations that provide visual interest from a range of viewing distance and are visually organisedand well-proportioned". Developing seven-to-nine storey buildings will invade the privacy of thoseliving in the existing development at Paxton Drive and will have a detrimental effect whenconsidering outlook and daylight. The second quote again proves that this development should notbe permitted as it stands, as visually the proposed design are not consistent with the surroundingarea and will negatively affect views within the surrounding area. This shows there has beenminimal thought and consideration given to the aesthetics of the proposed development.

PARKING

The proposed development plans indicate that 141 parking spaces will be provided. How does thispossibly work when 253 dwellings are being proposed, many of which will have more than oneoccupant? How many visitors space are being provided? Where will contractors park? Everyresident within Paxton Drive will advise that parking is already insufficient within this area and bynot providing enough parking within this development, it will potentially make things worse withinthe surrounding area.

Traffic is already a significant problem within this area and adding 253 dwellings, many of whichwill have vehicles, will only exacerbate this problem. This in turn is likely to negatively effect airquality for those who already reside within the area.

I hope these public objections are strongly considered and actioned upon, with development plansrevised accordingly.

I am appalled by the proposed developments on the old railway yard.When I first heard that this brownfield site was to be put to housing I was pleased, assuming thatthe development would be in keeping with the area. What I did not expect was for the entireskyline outside my home to be obliterated and to have to look forward to a complete loss ofprivacy as flats would be built opposite at an uncomfortably short distance, with my newneighbours staring directly into my living room.I will not only lose my privacy but also any sense of being on the outskirts of Ashton Court as theview of anything natural disappears behind ugly high rises. Gone will be the glimpses of the gorgeand suspension bridge as a 7 storey high-rise is built, with a further 9 storey next to it.It seems that no effort has been made to think about the quality of life of the residents of PaxtonDrive, and instead the onus has been to squeeze as much profit as possible out of every squaremetre on this site.We've already had to put up with 2 years of construction of the Metrobus system and the constantnoise and disruption that brought. It seems we have been given only 1 year of normal living beforethe bulldozers and jackhammers move in again.The only thing we have to look forward to after that is living in a nest of concrete towers, where myhome becomes a fish bowl for everyone in the flats opposite.

The buildings are too high, unsightly and inappropriate for the setting, compounded bythe fact that the development site is adjacent to a conservation area and close to iconic views ofthe bridge and gorge. This project sets a precedent for plans for future development of this uniqueand special area, which is much enjoyed, in its current form, by residents and visitors to Bristol.Moreover, these plans do not reflect the immediate environment, the heritage, or the expectationof residents in England's first cycling city. This development disrupts a well-used and popularcommuter cycle route, planned with foresight and recently invested in by the City Council, namelythe new link track, just opened, through Ashton Court. The disruption will have a significantdetrimental impact on the many walkers and cyclists who use 'Festival Way'. I strongly object tothis development which is out of character and synch with both its environment, its people and thecycling infrastructure that has become so important and valued to people in Bristol.

I have several major concerns with the development and object to its development in itscurrent form:

Traffic:The development is of excessive size in an already highly congested area of Bristol. It will almostcertainly create traffic chaos and the plans do not seem to have considered the amount ofadditional cars that will be parked on pavements from residents that have 2 cars. This is already aproblem at Paxton Drive and will be compounded with the new larger development. This willcreate more danger for the large families who regularly travel by bike or foot through the area.

The proposed access routes to the development using Paxton drives exit will be create abottleneck for both Paxton drive and the proposed Clanage Road development. This does notseems workable. This will add to noise, pollution and safety concerns for pedestrians at best andat worst could cause total gridlock on the slip road to Brunel way.

Pollution/Health:

"development should be sited and designed in a way to avoid adversely impacting onenvironmental amenity or biodiversity of surrounding area by fumes, dust, noise, vibration, smell,light, other forms of air, land or water pollution or exposing contaminated land".Based on the plans the above quote, is clearly not true.Adding so many additional cars to the area will greatly increase to pollution in an area that is

already at dangerous levels of carbon emissions. As a father of a 6 month old it is a great concernand would surely result is poorer health for residents, particularly children that live at Paxton drive.It is disappointing that a more environmentally considerate development was not prioritised overwhat seems to be a very generic car centric proposal.

Also the loss of so many trees at a time of climate change is a terrible decision and the trees thatare promised to be planted in place will not come close to compensating the increase in thecarbon footprint.

Section 6.46 of the Planning Statement Part 1 there is a risk from Asbestos fibres associated withthe site's historic railway. This is a major risk to the residents and particularly children living atPaxton Drive. What measures will be put in place to ensure no fibres are blown towards nearbyproperties in Paxton Drive during any construction. At present it seems like Paxton Drive residentsare being endangered for short term profit.With the long term impacts of COVID-19, high rise flats are going to be highly problematic for theresidents and neighbours. As such a high population density building will cause a major healthrisks if the outbreak continues long term or a new pandemic arises.

Nature/Wild:The area is rich with wildlife, birds, rabbits, foxes, wild flowers important for bees etc. The planstake very little care to protect these habitats. Only the bare minimum is done to meet regulations itseems.

Also the increasing water levels in the area (which recently causes a landslide on CumberlandRoad) will only be exacerbated by the large areas of concrete and reduce amount of trees. Addingsuch large buildings to unstable ground in addition to the "Western Harbour" plans seems like arecipe for disaster.

Design/Appearance:

The design is very uninspired, generic and inappropriate for the location. The main goal seems tohave been to pack as many flats into the space a possible and the larger tower blocks in particularwill create an oppressive environment for people living and travelling through the area for work orleisure. The area is a life line for people during lockdown to exercise and improve their mental andphysical health. The 9 story block in particular will block light and create a much more oppressiveand unwelcoming environment for the large amount of people who use the Portway and FestivalWay routes, as well as the nearby allotments.

The design seems to have ignored the historic significance of the area, not just the portway andsuspension bridge, but the White City (https://www.bristolmuseums.org.uk/bristol-archives/whats-on/bristols-white-city/). This development could have been a great opportunity to create adevelopment like that at SS Great Britain/M Shed/Whapping Warf. Which are both a vibrant

community spaces, as well as high quality housing that are in keeping with the area and heritage.

The blocks directly opposite Paxton drive (e.g. Block A of the new development is placed directlyopposite Block G/H and very close to the Metros bus line.) will block light and greatly infringe theprivacy of residents with large amount of Clanage road flats looking directly into the Paxton Driveflats. Why was this not taken into account? The smaller town houses houses could have beenplaced opposite Paxton Drive (behind a tree line) and avoided privacy concerns for residents ofboth developments and reduced the loss of light.

*Cycle Route 33 will be blocked possibly permantely the is a major commuter route for cyclists andwould be a massive lost to the city and have additional negative impact on Bristol's carbonfootprint by discouraging cycling.

The retail space seems an afterthought to meet minimal requirements and will likely be of minimalbenefit to the community, if a business is found to fill the premises during the coming recession.Why not create a much needed community centre/space as part of the development? If it has tobe a retail space why not create something like a multi-use market space similar to the schemecreated at the Tobacco factory.

There are sustainable cost effective developments such as examples below that are innovate andconsider the environment they are being place. It is disappointing that a more imaginative designand use of space could not have been commissioned.

https://www.designboom.com/architecture/bjarke-ingels-group-big-dortheavej-low-income-housing-copenhagen-10-08-2018/

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/11/spacious-and-green-norwich-award-winning-new-council-houses-goldsmith-street

https://www.dezeen.com/2019/09/22/feld72-maierhof-housing-estate-austria-architecture/?li_source=LI&li_medium=rhs_block_2

Overall support as long as environmental factors are considered including cycle accessto Ashton Court.

It is a shame that this space has not been used considering the desperate need for housing onBristol.

Parking should be considered, especially with proximity to stadium. There is enough space toensure sufficient parking.

While Bristol is a growing city requiring more development for housing as a result, thereare a number of concerns with the proposed redevelopment of the former Railway Depot atClanage Road (20/01655/F).

1. Flooding

Flooding is a factor which must be considered in all development projects, and with the extensiveflooding that residents and commuters experienced in Cumberland Basin in March 2020 it shouldbe a factor that is given paramount consideration. The River Avon has experienced manyinstances of alarming high tides early this year causing one of the locks to overflow which resultedin flooded parking lots and walking paths close to the proposed site.

It has been a growing concern amongst residents in the area that the development will result in anincreased risk of flooding to the area which could potentially lead further and more frequentgroundwater flooding, contamination of the surrounding land and harmful effect on the Avonecology.

2. Road Traffic, Access and Parking

Traffic flow and access around this area has already proved quite impractical for current residents.On a daily basis, not only during rush hour, the A370 motorway that runs alongside Paxton Driveexperiences a great deal of traffic congestion for prolonged periods of time. It would be extremely

reasonable to assume that this congestion will only worsen with the development. Considering thedocuments submitted with the application, it is suggested that 72% of people/households in Bristol(including Bedminster) own a vehicle. This undoubtedly raises concerns that with the potentialdevelopment bringing in new residents who will also have vehicles, the traffic (pollution), access,and parking in the Ashton area will surely suffer.

Furthermore, public transportation in this area of Bristol has proven to be extremely inadequatewithin the last six months. Even if a smaller percentage of new residents to the development donot have vehicles, they will thus rely on public transport, i.e. the metrobus M2 line. Even if it wereto be disregarded that the M2 bus service was the first of the Bristol services to be suspendedduring the Covid-19 outbreak, there are a number of inadequacies which persisted before thepandemic.- The metrobus line only runs directly to the City Centre, ignoring in-demand areas such as NorthStreet and Bedminster;- The buses only run Monday to Saturday and have been subject to regular delays in scheduledstops.

Moreover, recently, due to the landslide which occurred along Cumberland Drive in January of thisyear, it has become quite obvious that any traffic obstruction has a substantial adverse effect onthe flow of traffic throughout the Ashton Gate, Southville, and Bedminster area. Not only will thedevelopment cause further obstruction with an influx of vehicle and foot traffic, but it is also notedthat the National Cycleway N33 is to be re-directed through the estate which would suggest thatduring construction, this route may be compromised as well, hindering further, a popular bike routeand commuter travel to and from Bristol City Centre.

3. Negative Environmental Impact

Further, the impact that the development will have on the environmental on and surrounding theproposed land will be detrimental. Section 2.6 of the Planning Statement Part 1 recognizes theland to the north and east as Important Open Space which is defined in the National PlanningPolicy Framework (NPPF) as land that ought to be offered protection from inappropriatedevelopment. Open spaces within city infrastructures are crucial for the health and wellbeing of thecommunity. They are also home to an abundance of wildlife. Development of the site will result inthe removal of trees and plant life which will be replaced with a housing development riddled withflaws in its implementation beyond this environmental point. Furthermore, the proposed site isdesignated as a Site of Natural Conservation Interest which ultimately means that it hassubstantive local nature conservation and geological value. Developing the land into a sterilehousing development would ignore the intention and purpose of such a crucial label indevelopment responsibility.

Not only will the ecology of the area be negatively impacted, but the air pollution as a result ofincreased traffic congestion is an additional adverse environmental consequence. It has been

stated in the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy June 2011 that "development shouldbe sited and designed in a way to avoid adversely impacting on environmental, amenity orbiodiversity of surrounding area by fumes, dust, noise, vibration, smell , light, other forms of air,land or water pollution or exposing contaminated land". A development such as the one proposedhere would clearly have this scale of environmental impact in not one, but most certainly most ofthese factors. As health has recently taken a more crucial position on the global stage, we as asociety need to be taking factors into consideration such as the environmental impact of aninadequate and flawed development plans in order to prevent further risk to the health of thosewho have grown up here or those who chose to make this city their home.

In conclusion, these are just a small number of the concerns which have gone unanswered by theproposal. Residents in the area have already been feeling the pressure of poor infrastructure inthis area of Bristol and a development which hold all the signs of negatively impacting saidinfrastructure further would be a grave misfortune for residents, commuters, and wildlife in thearea. Until these concerns and those further concerns of my fellow neighbours have beenanswered, it would be unprincipled to support a development such as the one reflected in theplanning application 20/01655/F. For these reasons, I have no choice but to object to theredevelopment of the Former Railway Depot, Clanage Road, Bristol.

My concerns include density of buildings (243 dwellings when initial recommendationwas for 150), flood risk, asbestos pollution, loss of the festival way cycling route/dangerousrevisions to it, loss of privacy and light for Paxton Drive residents and allotment owners, increasein car pollution and traffic, unsafe access/exit points merging with existing road, ugly buildingdesigns impacting Bristol skyline and obscuring views from Ashton Court, lack of amenities fornew residents (school capacity, no local shops within reasonable walking distance), less than 1parking space per dwelling, lack of affordable provision for families (most are 1 to 2 bedroomflats).

I believe that there are considerable benefits to the development of the area. Paxtondrive residents will benefit from a growing community and improved access to the whole area.

However, my two objections are clear and shared with many local residents.

Building Height:I believe that the building heights are excessive. Over 9 floors, this is not in keeping with buildingsin the same area. I would support a maximum building height of what already exists on Paxtondrive would be far more appropriate in this setting. It would also go a long way to alleviate anyobjection from residents who feel the development would ruin their view or access to light.

Parking:THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE, I should not need to expand on this further, but the parking issues andlack of parking are huge problem for residents in this area. Please consider providing excessiveparking, not sufficient park.

Why not develop the land beneath the fly over as overflow parking for the area.?

Traffic on A370 and Brunel Way is already at full capacity every morning with traffic.The noise and air pollution every day is horrendous for local people and park users. More highdensity flats would make this situation worse.

Regarding the submission of planning application 20/01655/F, former Railway Depot,Clanage Road, Bristol, I have reviewed the planning application in detail and would like to raise aseries of objections and concerns to the proposed development. These are as follows:

Is the current Corona Virus pandemic being used as a backdrop to help get this developmentsigned off with the minimum visibility, attention and accountability by the Bristol Planning Office?

Traffic/Parking -

Whilst the development site lists there are to be a total of 253 residential dwellings it only provides141 parking spaces, so there will be a considerable shortfall of parking spaces. Where will all theextra cars from the new development park? There definitely will be more vehicles than theavailable spaces can accommodate, this is clearly demonstrated at Paxton Drive, where eachproperty is allocated one parking space, however, this is not enough as many properties own anduse more than one car resulting in double parking on access and exit roads as well as adjacent toproperties. The problem will only be worse at the proposed new development.

The A4 is already very overcrowded making it dangerous to join or leave when entering/exitingPaxton Drive so increased traffic from the new development will only exacerbate these problems.To make matters worse, the current plans propose an access intersection to the new developmentbe made at a greenspace area at the top of Paxton Drive. This would require Paxton Drive

residents to give way to traffic from the new development at an intersection that already has asignificant queueing problem. The increased traffic would also significantly affect traffic travellinginto the City via the A4 at peak travelling times.

Flooding -

The area is well known as being a high flood risk, indeed these points were flagged when Ipurchased my own property . (Sections 2.4 and 6.48-6.53 in the Planning Statement Part 1 as wellas the Hydrock Flood Risk Assessments and Drainage Strategy Parts 1-3). I feel increaseddevelopment, concreting and tarmacking over ground that acts as a soakaway will only exacerbatethe situation by increasing the risk from groundwater flooding as excessive rain water will not haveadequate means of soakaway/drainage. Also the excessive wet weather conditions like weexperienced in February/March 2020 together combined with high spring tides highlighted thehuge risk of tidal flooding from the River Avon to which this area is also at a risk. Having read thedetailed points raised regarding flooding and the reports associated with it together with Globalwarming forecasts for the future that appear to suggest a likely increase in flooding risk, I questionthe wisdom of allowing this development to take place.

Air Quality and Pollution - Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy June 2011 says that"development should be sited and designed in a way to avoid adversely impacting onenvironmental amenity or biodiversity of surrounding area by fumes, dust, noise, vibration, smell,light, other forms of air, land or water pollution or exposing contaminated land". A development ofthis scale clearly inhibits adverse impacts on several, if not all of these variables. The noise levelsfrom traffic are already extreme without the additional traffic attached to the new development.The site falls within the Bristol Air Quality Management Area a scheme put in place to protectpeople's health and the environment when there is concern qualities are not likely to be achieved.The increase in noise and fumes from the extra traffic associated with the new development willput residents, particularly those of Paxton Drive to a higher risk of reduced air quality. I also note inSection 6.46 of the Planning Statement Part 1 there is a risk from Asbestos fibres associated withthe site's historic railway, I hope stringent measures will be put in place to ensure no fibres areblown towards nearby properties in Paxton Drive during any construction.

Green spaces -

There are only a very small limited amount of adjacent greenspaces to Paxton Drive and thecurrent plans propose to use one area for an access road. This is totally unacceptable apart fromall the extra congestion, noise and fumes the traffic will bring to the Paxton Drive residents, todestroy one of the open green spaces is unthinkable. If one thing the Corona virus pandemic andits subsequent lockdown has taught us, is the importance of having a greenspace where we cango to exercise, get fresh air or just to look at for our peace of mind and wellbeing.

I am also very concerned about the potential damage to the local biodiversity. Lots of differenttypes of birds visit the greenspace outside my apartment in Paxton Drive and I fear they may stopcoming if the greenspace is developed/lost. It also attracts lots of insects which are very importantto the local ecosystem as well as providing food for the birds. Among the various insects are beeswhich recent studies have shown to be in decline and they should be protected at all costs as wehumans are dependent on their survival as they pollinate plants and crops. I notice from theplanning document that there is a bat corridor through part of the proposed development and thatmeasures will be taken to reroute this, however, many other animals have made their home in thewoodlands under threat and they will be at best displaced due to the development. All thegreenery of the area would be removed to be replaced by brick, concrete and tarmac, destroyingall the nature of the area, very much contrary and at odds to the message of Bristol being a greencity. Why would any City Council want to do this and be responsible for causing the loss of suchan important area?

In the development plan's supporting document "Statement of Community involvement" itmentions several times that the proposed properties have "quality views towards the AshtonCourt", however, no mention is made of the detrimental view the proposed development wouldgive looking the opposite way from Ashton Court or of the negative impact for existing views fromPaxton Drive especially with regards to the 9 and 7 storey buildings. Not only will residents losetheir views but their privacy and natural light too.

I feel strongly this development should not go ahead and have voiced my concerns regarding theissues from excess traffic, insufficient/inadequate parking provision, possible flooding, increasedhazards of poor air quality, noise pollution, loss of greenspace and privacy so I wish to register myobjection to the redevelopment of the Former Railway Depot, Clanage Road, Bristol.

From the information I can see it is not easy to make a thorough comment. I can onlyguess where the newly routed cycle path will go. The relevant map has no key to confirm theroute.

Whilst I support all developments that include a good number of affordable houses I am neversure we want them to be high rises.

Some visuals would help to understand what the development would look like.

We need to ensure that all current 'green spaces' are kept.

We also need to think about all developments with consideration to the wider area. In this case theWestern Harbour and Cumberland Basin need to be considered - as does the development'scloseness to Ashton Court and Clifton Suspension Bridge.

I would be concerned about the increased traffic around the area, as well as the impactthis development will have on views to and from Ashton Court. They're too tall for the area and willdominate the landscape.

Hi,

Some really great Objections have been voiced so far, there have been concerns voiced inregards to the selectiveness of those deemed 'neighbours' to this development that I agree with, itseems a very limited list of people were approached with details of this development.

I live between 50-100yards from one of the proposed buildings which will be two stories taller thanthe height of my flat, and I can confirm we didnt have any consultations in November whichapparently occurred?

My stance to these plans is one of outright objection. I have concerns for: The Flood Risk for thearea, the ugly and imposing design of the proposed plans, the use of the land for residential use ingeneral, the complete lack of consideration of increase in traffic and therefore pollution to the area.

The road leaving Paxton Drive and joining the A370 is gridlocked twice a day at rush hour as it is,and is additionally gridlocked on any day that an event is being held at Ashton Park Stadium. Theplans proposed suggest that traffic footfall is increased on the A370 and Ashton Gate Underpass.To use Ashton gate Underpass as a way in to the proposed site is shortsighted, and whollyinconsiderate to the existing residents in the area, and the new residents who will be sold theseproperties. There is already concerns locally for residents regarding air pollution from the A370,this will exacerbate this issue- as an increase in cars will result in even worse traffic jams (which Icurrently consider couldn't be any worse! But they will be should this development go ahead as

planned).

- In addition to this Paxton Drive currently has a very bad parking issue for residents as notenough car spaces were built. This new development has even less spaces for cars for residentsbuying the proposed new properties.

The area immediately to the North of the site has been flooding at a progressively worsening rateyear on year recently. I am not convinced the future flooding risk has been properly assessed anda short sighted view of flood risk has only been considered. It will flood within at least the next 20years.

The general design of the residential buildings is excessive. I dont see how building such largeimposing buildings can be considered acceptable. I dont know about the politics involved in thissort of application, but its very clear that the only ambition of the developers is to squeeze asmuch money as possible out of the land being used.- It is a real, real shame that it doesn't appearthat Bristol Council have any objection to the permanent change of this land. It's currentlyovergrown and not in use by humans. BUT, I just think its a real shame that it is clearly used bywildilfe. You hear Owls in those trees at night, you've got silver birches where caterpillars resideand provide food for Bluetits which also nest down there and have been generationally. Once thisarea is built on, its irreversible - and I think that a) that needs to be carefully considered b) what imalluding to, is that should this plan be implemented - it would be a travesty! The land is currentlybeing used in a more productive way by wildlife! On balance, this plan is giving back 40%affordable housing, but taking a considerable amount from the area.

Finally, I accept that no one has a right to a view. However, it is hypocritical to approach residentswho enjoy a view, build 5 and 9 storey buildings in front of that view, claim they dont have a rightto the view, and then use that view as a unique selling point to sell new properties for profit. Thedevelopers know how great that view is, have no problem destroying the view and adding pollutionfor current and future residents so they can make a quick profit selling it to someone else. I knowthe view is important because I guarantee that the 40% affordable houses will be the ones thatlook out onto the A370! The 60% of the development that isnt affordable will be the houses thathave panoramic views of Ashton Park, The Suspension Bridge and Clifton - which will be used asa unique selling point.

Object to the general negativity this design brings to the area - increase in pollution, increase intraffic, - the ruining of existing views, - destruction of an area which is valuable to wildlife but notdeemed valuable to humans, all so the developers can make as much profit as possible andcreate an irreversible new concrete jungle extension. Cheers Developers!

Alex

Regarding the submission of planning application 20/01655/F, former Railway Depot,Clanage Road, Bristol, I would like to raise a series of objections and concerns to the proposeddevelopment. These are as follows:

1.Environment

* The proposed buildings will be unsightly and out of keeping with the existing environment. As aresident of Paxton Drive, I was attracted to purchase one of the apartments in 2011 by theattractive 'look' of the buildings. The red and white colouring is very different from the universallydull and dark cladding the proposed blocks. As a former member of Bedminster Cricket Club, I canassure you that these blocks would destroy the background of one of the most beautiful grounds inBristol indeed the country. Similarly visitors to the city will no longer be greeted by the site ofBrunel's iconic bridge serenely suspended over the Avon Gorge. Instead these tower blocks willdisrupt the landscape and block out attention from our most famous landmark.

* It may be pointed out that the proposed blocks are similar in design to the bonded warehousesand therefore fit in with the existing landscape. However, although the bonded warehouses are ofsimilar height to the proposed tower blocks, they are of cultural importance to Bristol and anestablished part of the city landscape that feature on Bristol artwork and tourist memorabilia, theyare not a contemporary reference point for design or height. The proposed height of the newdevelopment, and the aesthetically offensive design of high-rise blocks, will diminish the impact ofthe iconic buildings in the vicinity and forever alter the appearance of this iconic part of Bristol.

*Cycle Route 33 will be lost, not only during construction, but likely after it as well. The proposalsfor the Paxton Drive development assured people there would be an accessible cycle routethrough the development when it was completed. This has not happened because of the demandsof parking (see Point 2 below). The proposed cycle way is now used as overspill parking space; itis not safe for cyclists to use as it is permanently blocked by cars. Indeed, if cyclists do use it tocycle towards Bristol, they are forced to go the wrong way down a one-way street. It is impossibleto guarantee this will not happen in the new development.

* Construction of the site will involve a lengthy period when air quality is severely reduced (dust,petrol fumes etc). During construction of the Metrobus route in recent times, I was washing dust offmy car on a DAILY basis, as a result of the construction work. There will be families with youngchildren and people of all ages with asthma and respiratory problems breathing this in for months,if this proposal goes ahead. I am also led to believe, looking at other objections, that there isasbestos on the site that will inevitably become exposed to the atmosphere. I am not sure to whatextent that this has been made aware to the residents of Paxton Drive but it is of obvious seriousconcern.

*The height of the proposed blocks, as well as their unsightliness, is unacceptable. The PaxtonDrive Blocks opposite the new development (Blocks FGH and J), are 4 storeys in height. There isno 7 or 9 storey building remotely near Paxton Drive (other than the aforementioned warehousesand, if you go far enough away, a tower block deemed so down at heel, it was used by the BBC asan iconic slum in 'Only Fools and Horses'). It is simply outrageous to propose building anything ofthat height in this vicinity. I can only assume that the reason the 7 and 9 storey buildings were inincluded in the plans were to make the proposal of 4 storey buildings more acceptable. The 4storey buildings themselves will be higher than those on Paxton Drive. The land is significantlyhigher on that side of the busway.

* The new blocks will both block out sunlight to Paxton Drive and take away privacy for residentsin Blocks FGH and J.I would also note that the pictures of the proposed development in the planning application do notinclude any views of how the new buildings will appear from Paxton Drive itself and therefore thenegative impact that they will have on sunlight and privacy for residents. This amounts to adeliberately mendacious attempt to mislead those making the judgement on whether the plansshould be adopted.

2. Parking

* As I understand the proposal, there are to be 141 parking spaces for over 250 properties, mostof which are bigger than one bedroom in size. There is a better ratio of spaces to apartments inPaxton Drive and parking has been, and continues to be, a huge issue. Most properties will notonly have one car but two; people will, as a basic human right, have visitors during the day and

friends staying overnight. There is simply not enough parking space to accommodate that. Thiswill lead to a number of problems: safety will be negatively impacted with cars poorly ordangerously parked; access for emergency vehicles may therefore be a problem; if residentsreturn home to find their parking space filled or guests arrive and find no space, they may park inPaxton Drive, transferring the problem there; if (as I know from unpleasant experience) you arrivehome in the evening to find your parking space occupied, there is quite simply no street parkingavailable nearby. Cars will inevitably be left dangerously parked and residents will inevitably beforced to park on the opposite side of Greville Smyth Park (and even there there is limited parking)

* Car use is unlikely to reduce in the future, especially given the Covid-19 outbreak. Publictransport from Paxton Drive / the proposed development is very limited. The Metrobus does notrun on Sunday (the day when most visits are likely to take place) and, even when one walks to thenearest public stop at Blackmoor Lane, all of the buses go the same way - into town; none gosouth of the river.

3. Access

* Access to and from Paxton Drive is problematic at the moment but will become a major problemif the proposal goes ahead, with the only exit road (to be built on Green Space I believe) feeding into the existing single exit road from Paxton Drive. I currently leave home at 7.30am to drive towork in Backwell. This means I join the A370 on a one way carriageway going 'the wrong way'(towards Bristol) in very slow moving traffic. On average it takes me 7 minutes to turn the cararound to where I pass the Paxton Drive apartments going 'the right way' out of town towardsBackwell. The new development will certainly add to that congestion and quite possibly lead togenuine gridlock.

* The 'access in' is little better. Currently the slip road (Jessop Underpass) is an accident blackspotwhere traffic leaving the A370 heading to Temple Meads has to negotiate traffic joining the A370from Paxton Drive / Winterstoke Road. The 3 lane section of the A370 where cars filter in and out'like a zipper' at 40 mph is very short, built well before Paxton Drive was conceived, and thevolume of traffic using it makes this a very dangerous junction now. This will only worsen if theproposed plan goes ahead.

4. Amenities

* Distance from, and access to, vital everyday amenities is a problem for existing residents ofPaxton Drive. Placing a development of over 800 beds in the same location will significantlyworsen the problem. The nearest GP surgery is over a mile away. The nearest shops (on NorthStreet) are a 10 minute walk for me, if I take the (significantly) shortest route. This involves walkingalong the Jessop Underpass - a major road with no pavement - and crossing a busy major road(Clift House Road), where there is no pedestrian crossing. A safer, but longer, route is throughGreville Smyth Park - tempting but dangerous after dark as there is no lighting and difficult in bad

weather. The safe route, via Marsh Road and Ashton Road, almost doubles the journey time andwill not, in practice, be used.

5. Flood Risk

* I note with concern the points about flood risk raised in other objections to the scheme. I admit tohaving no expertise in this field but do know that, since I moved in to Paxton Drive in 2011, theriver has burst its banks close to the development, flooding Coronation Road, on two occasions.This is a situation that is likely to occur again and sooner rather than later. Building a developmentof this size even closer to the river than Paxton Drive seems irresponsible, if only for the creationof impermeable surfaces on the site.

6. Other

I would also note the following from other objections to the scheme:* Not all Paxton Drive residents have been informed of the proposed development* The proposed development is not in line with the draft Bristol City Council Local Plan whichstipulates a "heritage-led response which has regard to long distance views."* The proposed development contains 253 units, more than double the number allocated to thesite in the draft Bristol City Council Local Plan.

All of this only reinforces my belief, stated earlier, that those proposing this scheme havedeliberately and mendaciously designed it to be over-ambitious and unacceptable in some ways(eg the inclusion of a 9 storey block), so that they can be more likely to have accepted what maybe seen as some kind of 'compromise' solution with reduced capacity and only 4 storey blocks.

Any further development in this area is unacceptable however until:

* Road access is improved (and certainly more so than in these proposals)* A safe and discrete route for cyclists is guaranteed both during and after construction* (Safe) access to amenities for residents is provided* Suitable parking with a sensible ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms is provided* The design of the buildings fits in aesthetically with the surroundings* A further and more balanced assessment of flood risk takes place* The precise (and scientifically proven) risk to the residents of Paxton Drive of the existingasbestos is evaluated and explained* A full and proper consultation of all residents of Paxton Drive takes place

Nick BurnsResident: Paxton DriveMay 12th 2020

I wish to object to the development due to the following concerns: Flood watermanagement,Pollution control, including asbestos from previous contamination of the site,A lack of adequate parking for the number of householdsA lack of infrastructure including schooling,Denigration of important architectural features in the areaLoss of privacy for existing residents.

My principal concerns are:- How will the developers ensure 24/7 access to emergency services even in the event of amoderate flood? (Regular emergencies are not inconceivable with an anticipated population of 860people).- Will the flood risk assessment be revised to include the recent floods of March 2020, as well asinclude the effects of climate change on flooding in 100 years time?- Will surface water drainage plans be reconsidered to provide adequate surface water drainageduring extreme rainfall events?- What will be done to prevent reduction in air quality by asbestos contaminated and non-contaminated particulate matter during the construction phase of development?- How will excavated asbestos and contaminated soil be disposed of?- How will the developers ensure ample provision of parking and that residents do not use localhighways or other nearby developments, e.g. Paxton Drive, to park their cars?- Does local schooling have the capacity to increase their numbers for the resident children?

- What will happen to the N33 commuter cycle route if proposed plans go ahead?- Why have provisions been made to reduce privacy issues between the developers blocks butsigh times across to Paxton Drive flats have been ignored?- How can modern 7 and 9 storey blocks be considered to be complementary to the bondedwarehouses in Hotwells?

I wish to object strongly to the development due to the following concerns:

A significant increase in density and scale since the public consultation.Flood water management,Pollution control, including asbestos from previous contamination of the site,A lack of adequate parking for the number of householdsA lack of infrastructure including schooling,Denigration of important architectural features in the areaLoss of privacy for existing residents.

My principal concerns are:- How will the developers ensure 24/7 access to emergency services even in the event of amoderate flood? (Regular emergencies are not inconceivable with an anticipated population of 860people).- Will the flood risk assessment be revised to include the recent floods of March 2020, as well asinclude the effects of climate change on flooding in 100 years time?- Will surface water drainage plans be reconsidered to provide adequate surface water drainageduring extreme rainfall events?- What will be done to prevent reduction in air quality by asbestos contaminated and non-contaminated particulate matter during the construction phase of development?- How will excavated asbestos and contaminated soil be disposed of?- How will the developers ensure ample provision of parking and that residents do not use local

highways or other nearby developments, e.g. Paxton Drive, to park their cars?- Does local schooling have the capacity to increase their numbers for the resident children?- What will happen to the N33 commuter cycle route if proposed plans go ahead?- Why have provisions been made to reduce privacy issues between the developers blocks butsigh times across to Paxton Drive flats have been ignored?- How can modern 7 and 9 storey blocks be considered to be complementary to the bondedwarehouses in Hotwells?

I object to the development plans for the reasons listed below, and echo many of theviews expressed within others objections.

PrivacyThe layout of the development means the residents of Paxton Drive whose balconies andbedroom windows overlook the metrobus route will be severely encroached upon. Paxton Drive isbuilt with wonderfully large windows so residents can enjoy the light and views of the surroundingareas, however with the new proposed development residents will have to install blinds andcurtains to prevent being overlooked.

Any new plans need to consider this, and revising the height of all structures to match PaxtonDrive seems like an obvious move towards mitigating against this.

Density

The proposed development is built for profiteering and not for quality of life. The tall blocks are outof keeping with the area and will tower over the allotments and Paxton Drive. The tallest blocksare placed close to the flyover road, where residents will be plagued by the ever increasing trafficnoise, day and night. It was noted in the noise plans that residents will have to choose betweenstifling hot living conditions or road noise, unless some sort of cooling system is installed.

As a resident of Paxton Drive I can vouch for the noise of encroaching traffic, which for me is at

least mitigated by tall, leafy trees, however there is a significant absence of natural noise barriersin the new plans, and I couldn't see any proposed plans for internal cooling systems.

In addition, the preference for cramming in buildings as opposed to providing shared spaces isanother factor which further contributes to profiteering over quality of life and wellbeing.On the final point of density, the proposed plans do not cater for families in the area, with themajority of dwellings being 1 and 2 bedroom flats. More 3 bedroom flats, and the addition of someadditional townhouses will increase the provision of accommodation for families in need ofaffordable housing.

Appearance

Whilst the Paxton Drive has been criticized in the plans for the new proposed development, theproposed development aesthetics neither improve upon or compliment Paxton Drive or the widersurroundings, and instead are offensive and uninspiring. Given the buildings are going to be seenfrom around the city, why not make them coloured like the iconic houses which line the horizons ofthe Harbourside and Totterdown?

There didn't appear to be any image modelling of how the proposed development will appear fromPaxton Drive.

As others have highlighted, it is hypocritical to say to residents we are not entitled to a view andthat isn't a valid reason for an objection, however a large building can be put in the way of thatview with inflated prices for dwellings which have such a view.The views to and from Ashton Court need to be preserved for all to enjoy, as well as the iconicsuspension bridge, which for now is appreciated by many residents of Paxton drive.

Again, an obvious solution towards this would be to reduce the height of the buildings to at mostmatch those of Paxton Drive.

Access for pedestrians and cyclists

Festival way is a popular and busy route for local pedestrians, cyclists, students and visitors to thearea, and the proposed adjustment to the route presents safety issues with tight bends andbottlenecks.

In addition, there are no proposals for how this route will be diverted during the construction,particularly considering the hazardous airborne matter which will be released as a result of theasbestos on site.

In the reports on access, Paxton Drive is referenced as an accessible route for pedestrians and

cyclists on the new development. You only need to visit Paxton Drive and try to walk down it torealise that due to the lack of parking, cars are parking on the roadside, an area that was designedto be a footpath. This forces pedestrians and cyclists into the road, and therefore walking up anddown Paxton Drive is dangerous. An alternative walkway for pedestrians from the newdevelopment needs to be considered.

Wildlife

Walking around the proposed site and dusk reveals the abundance of wildlife in the area, includingbirds, rabbits and foxes, who have already been forced to move their homes as a result of themetrobus development, and they will be further pushed out the city as a result of theredevelopment of this site. Their presence, as well as the insects and bees, are a precious part ofthe ecosystem.

Parking

I am concerned about the significant lack of parking accounted for on the new development. WhilstI appreciate Bristol has aspirations to be a green city and reduce car usage, the fact of the matteris this site isn't within a reasonable walking distance to amenities for many, for example theelderly, disabled and young families. Therefore people will be reliant on their cars for gettingaround, and with less than 1 car parking space per flat, there is bound to be issues with parking.

Paxton Drive, despite allocating 1 space per flat (50% more that the proposed development) stillsuffers similar, and it encourages neighbour disputes over spaces and a reluctance to leave homedue to worries of coming home and being unable to park, with no other options nearby. This issuewill be somewhat resolved if the density of the site is reduced and less flats are squeezed on tothe site.

An alternative solution is to make use of some of the derelict space under JessopsUnderpass/Brunel way, which at the moment is accumulating debris and obstacles in an attemptto recreate a skate park.

Traffic

Linked to the above topic on cars and parking, presents another issue- traffic. The surroundingroads are often gridlocked from 8am-10am and 4pm-6pm, as well as other random times of theday when the bridge swings and also on match days at Ashton Gate Stadium. The proposeddevelopment will further contribute to this issue, however of more significant concern is theproposed access and exit route for the development, which will have a major impact on residents

from Paxton Drive, who already have to give way to the right to traffic coming from WinterstokeRoad. Not only does it present access issues but residents of Paxton Drive lose some of theirgreen space and distance between themselves and the road.

The overall road layout for Cumberland Basin needs to be considered as part of this issue, as the'island' we find ourselves on in Paxton Drive means making U-turns down by Riverside GardenCentre just after Jessop Underpass if we want to head in the direction of Winterstoke Road, or wehave to take a long detour down Brunel way.

Pollution

Linked to traffic concerns are also concerns around pollution, from the cars on the road and theasbestos on site. I note the issue of asbestos has been raised, particularly with regards to airborneparticles during construction and then waterborne particles when rain falls and drains fill.

Flooding

Huge flaws in the proposed development flood modelling have been raised in other comments,and I echo these. The concerns raised suggests there has been some sort of oversight ormiscalculation of flood risk, and I would like to see the council planning department conduct anindependent review on the accuracy of the submitted flood modelling, making their findings andcomments accessible to all.

As someone who lives in Paxton Drive, our homebuyers report highlighted the development asbeing at high flood risk, noting that it would be very difficult to obtain home buildings insurance.Fortunately, as I'm in a flat, the freeholder provides this insurance, however how will the owners offreehold buildings (i.e. the townhouses) on the new site be able to insure their homes? This seemsof particular importance given the flood risk to the site and lack of mitigation against flooding.Having ones home deemed uninsurable would result in significant hardship should a flood occur.

Local Amenities

It has already been raised that there seems to have been an omission of consideration for thecapacity of local amenities such as schools and GPs to cope with the proposed populationincrease to the area. Consultation with the schools and GPs needs to occur to ensure that newresidents will be able to access essential amenities.

In addition, increasing the provision of amenities on the proposed site, for example including a'tesco express' or similar, would provide some essential provisions for local residents, reducing

their need to get in their car and drive to the shops, which are over a mile away- a distance manywouldn't walk when they have run out an essential item like bread or milk and just need to 'pop' tothe shops.

In summary, the plans, as they stand, are entirely unsuitable, inadequate and unsustainable. Theydo not sit with the values of Bristol as a forward thinking, healthy, green city, and need significantreconsideration, where wellbeing of residents is put before profiteering. The height of the buildingsneeds to be reduced, their appearance needs to be improved, and the layout of the developmentrevised to account for pedestrians, cyclists and local road users, and it's safety improved toaccount for flooding risks and environmental preservation.

The residents of Paxton Drive were not invited to earlier consultations, and only half of theresidents were written to about the planning application being live.

It's great that a local community actively participate in matters which involve them, and I'm surethey would welcome the opportunity to work with you to come to a solution which helps solveBristols affordable housing crisis without a cost to them, or the environment.

Despite the comprehensive planning application, I need to object to this application forthe following reasons:

- Access & infrastructureThe A370 Brunel causeway is often heavily congested and access is difficult for local residents.Adding in another access point to this one way system can only add to this congestion.

The Metrobus is the main public transport available for this area. It has recently been redirecteddue to the closure of the Cumberland Road. This demonstrates that when one route is disruptedthe area of the proposed development has limited access to public transport.

- Environmental impactThere are a large amount of mature vegetation surrounding the proposed site which provide animportant wildlife corridor and protection from flooding. Removing this during construction andreplanting would take a long time to re-establish.

- Height of Block EThe high storey Block E is out of keeping the rest of the development and significantly affects theoutlook of the surrounding area. This block is a lot higher than the surrounding landmarks (PaxtonDrive & trees) and can be seen from a long distance. I appreciate that this appears to have beenmodelled on the existing red brick buildings (i.e. Create centre), but the proposed development istoo far away from these existing buildings to maintain continuity.

I am a neighbour, I have an allotment at White City, am a frequent user of the FestivalWay Cycle Path and I work at UWE's Bower Ashton campus.

1. Allotments

I have had an allotment at White City Allotments for 4 years. It is an active and productive site witha long waiting list. The proposed 9-storey building would create a severe shadowing effect overmine and many others plots (in full shadow during the winter and partial in the summer.) This willhave a huge impact on the production of food on this site for nearly all plot holders - this wouldmassively affect the community, our resilience and self-sufficiency. Given the times we are in, withthe threat of food shortages due to the global pandemic, this should be a key consideration whenreviewing this planning application. If this goes ahead, it sets a bad precedent that developers andplanners can disregard the importance of allotments, which are vital community spaces. Inaddition, the density and height of the building poses a threat to privacy - not only for plot holders,but for the residents on Paxton Drive.

2. Festival way cycle path

This is a highly used path that connects citizens to the countryside and green open space througha safe, enjoyable and car free route route. It is also a key route for uses of the Bower Ashton UWEcampus and Ashton Park School. The proposal would heavily disrupt this route. This is also a siteused by skateboarders, this recreational area will be lost and there does not appear to be any

provision to replace this facility. The proposed diversion route of the Festival Way Path creates anarrow and confined route, with a sharp turn to use the access ramp on to the metro bus route.Why build on a principal cycle path into and out of the city and encourage car ownership that hasbeen the bane of Bristol? It is unclear what will happen to this route during construction if theproposed plans go ahead.

3. Flooding

Flood risk in this area of Bristol already exists and will arguably increase as a direct consequenceof the new development. In March of this year (2020), extensive flooding around the CumberlandBasin was observed caused by high spring tides. The River Avon has the second highest tidalreach in the world, making its susceptibility to flooding unsurprising. On 12 March 2020 BristolHarbour reported 11.8m tides, which caused extensive overbank flooding across the CumberlandBasin and surrounding areas. This is not a one off event and flooding also occurred in this areaduring the floods of 2012.

4. Air Quality and Pollution

A development of this scale would expose people within the vicinity to reduced air quality.

5. Density

The draft Bristol City Council Local Plan Site Allocations Document (Site Reference BDA0303)suggests that this site has a capacity for around 150 homes, the planning submitted here has 253.This is 103 over what is recommended. This is an obscene increase and will place a huge strainon local amenities - doctors, schools, shops, roads etc. I appreciate that this development offersaffordable housing, which is desperately needed in this city, but the proposal does not offer anyquality in housing, which is more important.

6. Environmental Degradation

To develop this site will cause removal of trees and vegetation. In removing the trees and shrubs,a vital filter and wind-break which helps 'soak up' some of the road pollution from the continuoussurrounding traffic will be lost. There is much wildlife in the area that has already been disturbedby the metro bus route and this site is home to many foxes, rabbits etc. The tall blocks are out ofkeeping with the area and heritage.

1. Allotments

I have had an allotment at White City Allotments for 4 years. It is an active and productive site witha long waiting list. The proposed 9-storey building would create a severe shadowing effect overmine and many others plots (in full shadow during the winter and partial in the summer.) This willhave a huge impact on the production of food on this site for nearly all plot holders - this wouldmassively affect the community, our resilience and self-sufficiency. Given the times we are in, withthe threat of food shortages due to the global pandemic, this should be a key consideration whenreviewing this planning application. If this goes ahead, it sets a bad precedent that developers andplanners can disregard the importance of allotments, which are vital community spaces. Inaddition, the density and height of the building poses a threat to privacy - not only for plot holders,but for the residents on Paxton Drive.

2. Festival way cycle path

This is a highly used path that connects citizens to the countryside and green open space through

a safe, enjoyable and car free route route. It is also a key route for uses of the Bower Ashton UWEcampus and Ashton Park School. The proposal would heavily disrupt this route. This is also a siteused by skateboarders, this recreational area will be lost and there does not appear to be anyprovision to replace this facility. The proposed diversion route of the Festival Way Path creates anarrow and confined route, with a sharp turn to use the access ramp on to the metro bus route.Why build on a principal cycle path into and out of the city and encourage car ownership that hasbeen the bane of Bristol? It is unclear what will happen to this route during construction if theproposed plans go ahead.

3. Flooding

Flood risk in this area of Bristol already exists and will arguably increase as a direct consequenceof the new development. In March of this year (2020), extensive flooding around the CumberlandBasin was observed caused by high spring tides. The River Avon has the second highest tidalreach in the world, making its susceptibility to flooding unsurprising. On 12 March 2020 BristolHarbour reported 11.8m tides, which caused extensive overbank flooding across the CumberlandBasin and surrounding areas. This is not a one off event and flooding also occurred in this areaduring the floods of 2012.

4. Air Quality and Pollution

A development of this scale would expose people within the vicinity to reduced air quality.

5. Density

The draft Bristol City Council Local Plan Site Allocations Document (Site Reference BDA0303)suggests that this site has a capacity for around 150 homes, the planning submitted here has 253.This is 103 over what is recommended. This is an obscene increase and will place a huge strainon local amenities - doctors, schools, shops, roads etc. I appreciate that this development offersaffordable housing, which is desperately needed in this city, but the proposal does not offer anyquality in housing, which is more important.

6. Environmental Degradation

To develop this site will cause removal of trees and vegetation. In removing the trees and shrubs,a vital filter and wind-break which helps 'soak up' some of the road pollution from the continuoussurrounding traffic will be lost. There is much wildlife in the area that has already been disturbedby the metro bus route and this site is home to many foxes, rabbits etc. The tall blocks are out ofkeeping with the area and heritage.

Views of Ashton Court Estate blocked if 9 stories. Please consider views from AshtonMeadows and Greville Smyth Park and this rural area.

I use this area as a recreational space, due to having a workspace in Spike IslandStudios. This area being on the doorstep of quite rugged nature will change dramatically with sucha large development planned.The draft Bristol City Council Local Plan Site Allocations Document (Site Reference BDA0303)suggests that this site has a capacity for around 150 homes, the planning submitted here has 253.This is 103 over what is recommended. This will place a huge strain on local amenities - doctors,schools, shops, roads etc. I appreciate that this development offers affordable housing, which isdesperately needed in this city, but the proposal does not offer any quality in housing, which ismore important.Also, there will be some serious loss of nature due to building works happening for thisdevelopment. To develop this site will cause removal of trees and vegetation. In removing thetrees and shrubs, a vital filter and wind-break which helps 'soak up' some of the road pollutionfrom the continuous surrounding traffic will be lost. A development of this scale would exposepeople within the vicinity to reduced air quality.

Regarding the submission of planning application 20/01655/F, former Railway Depot,Clanage Road,Bristol, I have reviewed the planning application and would like to raise a series of objections andconcerns to the proposed development. These are as follows:1. Flooding - Flood risk in this area of Bristol already exists and will arguably increase as a directconsequence of the new development.2. Environmental Degradation - To develop this site will cause removal of trees and vegetation toreplace it with a sterile housing development.3.Travel, Access and Parking - Parking at Paxton Drive is already an issue, Parking at thisdevelopment will no doubt also be an issue.Traffic in this area of Bristol is already a major issue in rush hour and a new development of thiskind will only increase that. Traffic is far worse when there are Football and Rugby events atAshton Gate and traffic stacks back coming away from Coronation road onto the CumberlandBasin.4. Air Quality and Pollution - The area in Bristol is one which is in consideration for the BristolClean air zone - why build more houses with more cars in this area?5. Visual Objections - No consideration has been made for Paxton Drive residents or BedminsterCricket club.This part of Bristol is historic in its appearance and a development of this nature will be a blot onthe landscape the development is vast in size particularly the block closest to the Cumberlandbasin and dramatically change an area that makes Bristol iconic - suspension Bridge/AshtonCourt/ Painted houses/River/Tobacco Factory buildings etc The tall blocks are out of keeping with

the area and heritage and will tower over the allotments blocking essential sunlight. The currentviews from the listed Ashton Court grounds are destroyed by the aggressive dominance of theproposed buildings.

Whilst I am not a resident I am Bristolian and feel very passionate about Bristol's heritage. Thisdevelopment does not sit right with me and I am fearful if this development gets the go ahead itwill lead to further development such as the Wester Harbour of which I am strongly against inparticular the new proposed road on the Western bank.

The proposal has a density of buildings that is way, way too high for the area. (243dwellings when initial recommendation was for 150). It is on a flood risk, at risk of asbestospollution and means the loss of the festival way cycling route/dangerous revisions to it. It alsomeans a significant loss of privacy and light for Paxton Drive residents and allotment owners,increase in car pollution and traffic, unsafe access/exit points merging with existing road, buildingdesigns impacting Bristol skyline and obscuring views from Ashton Court, lack of amenities fornew residents (school capacity, no local shops within reasonable walking distance), less than 1parking space per dwelling, lack of affordable provision for families (most are 1 to 2 bedroomflats).

The building of this new development would dramatically change the local ecology ofthe area, including the white city allotments.It sets a bad precedent if the city council planners do not value the importance of allotments, whichare vital community spaces. In addition, the density and height of the building poses a threat toprivacy - not only for plot holders, but for the residents on Paxton Drive.

Festival way cycle pathThis is a highly used path that connects citizens to the countryside and green open space througha safe, enjoyable and car free route route. It is also a key route for uses of the Bower Ashton UWEcampus and Ashton Park School. The proposal would heavily disrupt this route. This is also a siteused by skateboarders, this recreational area will be lost and there does not appear to be anyprovision to replace this facility. The proposed diversion route of the Festival Way Path creates anarrow and confined route, with a sharp turn to use the access ramp on to the metro bus route.Why build on a principal cycle path into and out of the city and encourage car ownership that hasbeen the bane of Bristol? It is unclear what will happen to this route during construction if theproposed plans go ahead.

Air Quality and PollutionA development of this scale would expose people within the vicinity to reduced air quality.DensityThe draft Bristol City Council Local Plan Site Allocations Document (Site Reference BDA0303)suggests that this site has a capacity for around 150 homes, the planning submitted here has 253.

This is 103 over what is recommended. This is an obscene increase and will place a huge strainon local amenities - doctors, schools, shops, roads etc. I appreciate that this development offersaffordable housing, which is desperately needed in this city, but the proposal does not offer anyquality in housing, which is more important.

We purchased our flat back in 2016 after falling in love with the views, community andrural atmosphere of the local area. The proposed plan completely destroys all of this.

***Damage to views and the local area***- We will lose our views of the Clifton Suspension Bridge, Ashton Court, surrounding fields andgreen trees.- Our privacy will be totally compromised, we will be completely overlooked by the proposedbuildings.- Paxon Drive will lose its place as part of the easy-going Ashton community and will become "CityGate" an urban community which does not fit in.- Being ground floor we will now be constantly overlooked being at eyelevel.- With 2 young children although living near city centre, we get a diverse range of wildlife in viewfrom our balcony which I fear will be lost when this development happens, and the surroundinggreenery and trees are lost.- Likely loss of light due to the buildings being in such close proximity to our flat.- Added flood risk in an already vulnerable area, where we are seeing flooding events far toooften.- Security of our flat. Our balcony and all of our windows/doors are facing the development,already problems with people jumping and damaging fences as the metrobus stop was so poorlypositioned.

***Safety, Disruption, Noise & Pollution***- We will get increase noise pollution from the buses as the sound will reflect back from thebuildings- Several years of noise and disruption for us. What mitigating measures do you have in place forthis? As we were promised things like window/balcony cleaning when the metrobus was plannedwhich never happened, leaving us to clear up the mess.- Years of delays and problems with the metrobus, finally settled down now more disruption.- Increased noise and light pollution from the new development will change the way we live.- Another 141 cars along with visitors, delivery and service vehicles adding to the already illegallevels of pollution we have in the city.- More frequent busses will be required, which in turn will mean more diesel busses for themetrobus, busses that do not even comply with the councils clean air zone plans.- Cars will somehow have to cut across the metrobus line? How do you plan to control thepedestrians & cyclists using the route so they will be able to cross safely? This will also slow downthe bus transit times and make the bus service even more unreliable and unpopular, on a sectionpurposely build to speed up bus efficiency.

***Transport, Buses and Parking***- Yes, there is a metrobus stop, however using this is somewhat of a treat at £9 for a return for acouple to the city centre.- The route offers connections to the Airport, park and ride and the city centre. However, trying toget anywhere day to day like a supermarket, leisure centre, work, doctors and so on you need acar. The timeframes and changes involved making these journeys make near impossible to livewithout a car.- Car parking is a constant bone of contention at our AGM meetings. With the majority of flatshaving allocated parking spaces, multiple visitor spaces. This is still a major issue ongoing sincethe site was built. And still unresolved on how we manage parking.- Local events causing major disruption. Close proximity to Ashton Gate with up to 27,000 peoplegoing watch Football, Rugby & concerts causing huge local congestion. As well as Ashton CourtBalloon Fiesta, Events and Music Festivals that attract crowds of tens of thousands, which grindthe local area to a halt.- With the ongoing traffic issues currently in consultation with the council. The plan is to re-routethe existing road network. Would it be better to wait and see more finalised plan of the WesternHarbour development? As solutions to fix this may be able to be incorporated to help a site with noaccess?- How do you plan to manage the parking spaces. We have huge problems when events are on atAshton Gate & Ashton Court (a few times week). In addition to this people using the area as apark and ride to get to the airport. Currently it is nearly impossible to manage this on private land.- Are the parking spaces designed to include Electric charging points for vehicles as in line withBristol's clean air zone plans most motorists will have to make the decision to scrap diesel carsand buy electric vehicles to get across the city.

***Suitability of the proposed design***- The buildings have been designed in such a way they run right up to the bus lane to theperimeter of the plot. This is completely unreasonable as our view will now be of peoples windows.- Yes, they are coined as affordable however building a 1 bedroom flat, with no parking,overlooking a road as shared ownership is the cheapest possible dwelling you could build so it isgoing to be affordable as they offer no value to people.- Our outlook is being obstructed and overlooked to optimise views for "affordable homes" asdetailed in the plans.- The plans need to be much more considerate to the local area with regards to height andpositioning of the buildings as they have been optimised for saleability not to coexist with theexisting community.- The plot does not have proper access and we have been pressed to try and open up 3 accesspoints across our site to "improve access for the metrobus" which obviously had this developmentin mind.- The buildings are ugly and just looked to be designed to get around a planning application asopposed to the aesthetics of the development.

Housing more and more people in less that suitable accommodation does not satisfy the housingneed of a community. Proper transport infrastructure needs to be implemented before projects likethese can even be considered. building on the promise of better infrastructure is not good enough.

Consultations were held at times impossible for working people to attend and now forcing thisthrough while the community is unable to get together to object about this is completely unfair.

I completely object to nearly every aspect of this development however when money is involved,things like this will inevitably get forced through. The main concern is how close the blocks are tothe Paxton Drive buildings and a huge amount of the concerns end up relating back to this. If theycould be positioned on the other side of the plot or more centrally, I think many residents will feelthat is reasonable. This would also mean that the footprint of blocks A&B would sit on whereexisting structures are currently positioned which makes more sense?

In addition to this the roads and busses are a huge problem and that needs sorting beforeanything is agreed. There is just not the capacity to accommodate such a development at thistime. However with some reasonable compromises and working along with community to designthe right development. We will be more than happy to help to work on a solution for everyoneinvolved.

The site that is proposed for building the dwellings is currently a beautiful piece of landthat helps the community connect with nature, hosts allotment that provides people's wellbeing,homegrown food, connection with like-minded people and their sanity.

The proposed dwellings are far too high (please assure a maximum height of 3 stories).

The proposed dwellings will block views of the green space from large parts of Southville,bedminster and Ashton, which robs people of their connection to nature and green space.

If the dwellings are to be approved, they should have the car parking places (1 per address), in thebasement, thus not visible from the riad, which would increase the size for green space possibleand removes ugly and unsafe car parks (eg for children).

Please refrain from allowing a multistory or any building from being build on this spot.

- TrafficThe estate will add extra traffic to a major entrance to Bristol which is already snarled up at peaktimes and cannot cope with the current traffic levels, and because of the one way system, will addmore traffic than you might expect.

The proposed access is onto and from the Ashton Gate Underpass, which is a slip road from theA3029 to the A370. Because it's part of the convoluted one way system, one car entering theestate has to go along several roads (if they are coming in from anywhere but the A3029), creatingmore additional traffic than if there were simple access. For example, to enter the estate from thesouth west A370, you would need to drive past the estate on the A370, turn around in Hotwells,come back out on the A370, go east on the A3029 to the first roundabout and do a u-turn to comeback on yourself to get onto the Aston Gate Underpass. So the additional traffic created, in thisalready very busy road system, is more than you would expect.

Furthermore the traffic system is confusing and has poor visibility coming onto the A370. Theaccess to the estate is just before there is a filter on and off the A370 and exit onto CoronationRoad. At peak times traffic filtering here often causes both roads to come to a standstill, this thensnarls up the A369 roundabout. The A370 and A369 roundabout are on lots of bus routes, whichcauses delays. Increasing the traffic will also increase the risk of accidents.

Construction traffic will also make the congestion worse.

- Loss of privacy for flats facing the new development on Paxton DriveThe flats on Paxton Drive facing the metrobus route have been designed to be open to thewonderful views to the Ashton Court and up to the Clifton Suspension Bridge. They have widefloor-to-ceiling windows; the windows to the living/dining/kitchens are the nearly width and heightof the rooms. Block A of the new development will face directly into the windows of the blocks onPaxton Drive containing numbers 119 to 160. Not only are the flats directly opposite, they areclose to the Paxton Drive flats, pretty much right up to the metrobus, closer than the current treeline/hedge, replacing an outlook of light and green open space with other people's interiors anddull red brick. Similarly Block B on the new development looks straight into the living andbedrooms of flats to 161 to 184. Although the balconies on these flats were always in a publicspace, the flats themselves (especially the upper stories) have so far been private, with no onelooking directly in. That they would, under the current site layout, have flats looking directly intotheir living areas is a significant loss of privacy.

- Impact on the character of the areaThe site is in an area of Bristol which has a unique character; it feels like the edge of the city,where the wild comes in. It is surrounded by green space to the west and north - allotments,Ashton Court Estate, and the open space by the riverside. It also has an urban feel, especiallyunder the Brunel Way with the graffiti and the skateparks. Lots of people use this space for leisure,to walk and cycle out to Ashton Court, to the harbourside, and along the river towpath up to LeighWoods. The path alongside the metrobus line feels open and green and people are starting to useit for leisure and dog walking. This development will ruin that unique sense that you are both in thecity and somewhere wild and green as it is too intensive, more appropriate for a city centredevelopment.

The design statement says that it wants the metrobus line to have the feel of an avenue, whichwould fit with the open character of the area, if it were a wide green avenue, but in the design theblocks are placed close to the metrobus line (which is much narrower than a standard road), andare so large (particularly Block D) that rather than feeling like an open green avenue, it will feelbuilt up and hemmed in. I think it would be successful if the blocks were placed further back, withthe green and open spaces in the development situated by the metrobus in the public space,rather than in the centre of the development. Also, under the current design Blocks A and B aredirectly opposite and close to blocks on Paxton Drive, which will be oppressive. It would retain theopen feel of the area if Blocks A and B were further back or replaced with more town houses.

In contrast, although Paxton Drive is also and intensive development, the intensity is focused onthe road of Paxton Drive and the A370, rather than the public spaces nearby or otherdevelopments.

- HeightThe proposed development is too tall. The blocks on the metrobus side of Paxton Drive, which it isusing as a guidestick, have smaller flats on the top 4th floor and an interesting roofline which

makes them feel less imposing and breaks up the silhouette. The proposed new blocks are fivestories minimum.

Blocks D and E are much bigger than anything in the area, other than the bonded warehouses, butthe bonded warehouses have much more space around them, rather than being placed inproximity to other large blocks.

- Future redevelopment of the road systemThe council is expecting to redevelop the area including replacing Brunel way and the PlimsollSwing Bridge. The road system does need improvement, it isn't coping with current traffic. It wouldmake sense to know what the design for the new road system was going to be, rather than forBlock E, for example, to be built and then need demolishing 10 years later or limiting the roadwayredesign to an inferior option.

- Safety of cyclists on the path alongside the metrobus lineLots of cyclists use the path alongside the metrobus to travel to/from Ashton Vale/BedminsterDown. Provision must be made to make sure that there are no collisions between cyclists usingthe path alongside the metrobus line and cars entering/leaving the estate. The access road to thedevelopment cuts across this cycle route. Drivers focused on checking whether there is ametrobus coming may not also pay attention to the cyclists.

- Small balconiesThe design plan mentions making the most of the beautiful views from the site, but the proposedbalconies on the side facing Ashton Court park are small. This is a lost opportunity. The balconieson the Paxton Drive, with the same aspect, are as deep and 2 or more times as long.

- Insufficient parking/parking overspillThere is insufficient parking on the site for each flat to have a car. It is likely that a significantproportion of the two bed flats will be shared by 2 young professionals, both of which will havecars. There also needs to be spaces for health visitors, vans from tradespeople/deliveries etc. Thecar spaces provided must be allocated, otherwise it will cause arguments and bad feeling on theestate. It is insufficient to simply provide limited parking and hope that that will prevent people fromhaving cars, it won't. If there are not going to be enough car parking spaces for everyone, it needsto be in a covenant on the flats that the flat users can only have one or zero cars, otherwise theywill just park nearby elsewhere.

- Insufficient secure cycle spacesThere are not enough secure cycle spaces. There should be at least a bike space per bed space.Lots of people have two bikes, (one town bike and one for the trails in Leigh Woods/Aston Court).Also, families will often all have a bike.

- Design

The design of the blocks, particularly A, B and D are unattractive and unimaginative, they arerectangular brick boxes which are too large for their context. They seem to have been inspired bythe bonded warehouses, in that they are large boxes. However the warehouse blocks are muchmore attractive in terms of brick detail and shape, and are all different. Furthermore, there isnowhere within the Bedminster area where the warehouse blocks are as close together.

All the blocks look more like office blocks rather than residential blocks. Although the site wasindustrial, the buildings were small (one or two levels, and screened by trees except for from thecycle path), so there's no need to reference the industrial history of the site in the new designs.Other than the bonded warehouses, the adjoining buildings are all residential.

At least block C's top level is set back, breaking up the shape a bit.

Block E is attractive, and the town houses fit well with the area and environment.

Contrary to the assertion in the design statement, Paxton Drive fits well into the view from bothAshton Court and the Clifton Suspension bridge, as the panels of white cladding and red brick andthe broken roofline stops the Paxton Drive development from looking like boxes. There is a rhythmto the design.

- Housing for familiesThere is insufficient provision for family homes in the development. In Bristol generally there is ashortage of housing for families, particularly housing available for rent. There should be morehouses and larger flats in the blocks. This would also be more in character with the area.

- Insufficient public consultationI live on Paxton Drive. My flat faces the metrobus line and is one that will be most impacted by theproposed development. I didn't get a flier inviting me along to the viewing of the designs, and sodidn't get the opportunity to feed my comments on the proposed development layouts

- Lack of amenitiesIt is great that there is going to be a cafe on the site. That will add to the area and fit with its use asa gateway to the open space at Ashton Court and the riverside. However, given how many newresidents it will be adding to the area it would also benefit from a small local supermarket, like thenew development on Coronation Road has.

- Flat design, small kitchensAre the kitchen areas in the flats large enough to be proper functioning kitchens? It's difficult to tellfrom the plans. Although there are lots of wonderful places to eat in Bedminster, most people can'tafford to eat out every night. Being able to cook and store good food is essential to health andwellbeing.

- WildlifeThe trees and hedgerows along the metrobus line are a haven for wildlife, particularly birds. Thisdesign will take them all out. A survey should be done of the wildlife on the site to see if there areany rare species that need protecting.

I object to this development on the following grounds:

- Parking and infrastructureThe parking allocation is unrealistic and the number of cars people actually have per household.The public transport that this development relies on has been stopped or diverted in the long termdue to the issues on Spike Island, which severely limit the service to serve this site. Thereforeresidents would be forced to drive and access to the A370 Brunel Way is heavily congested atoeak time and adding another access point to this one way system can only add to thiscongestion.

- Flooding riskThe site it too close to the river and, for predicted high tide and storm tides in the near future dueto climate change, is at risk of flooding.

- Environmental impactThere is a large amount of mature vegetation on and surrounding the site which provide animportant wildlife corridor. It is unrealistic that this can be completely replaced after construction asit would take decades to re-establish

- Height of the developmentThe height of the development is out of place in the local area and could cause significant visual

impact and intrusion to the local area- from Bower Ashton and Southville. In particular Block E isout of keeping the rest of the development and significantly affects the outlook of the surroundingarea. This block is a lot higher than the surrounding landmarks (Paxton Drive & trees) and can beseen from a long distance. This appears to have been modelled on the red brick tobaccowarehouses but the proposed development is a long way from the cluster of these 3 buldings andis therefore not in-keeping.

Concerns over building height of proposal, potentially impairing views and enjoyment oflocal parks/green space/cricket club/ashton court.Development too large for space.Inadequate parking proposed for size of development.Potential issues with redesign of already complex road layout - concerns over safety andcongestion.Impairment of local cycling route.

Could I just make an additional comment that I have missed off after reading some other residents concerns.

The access road is completely ridiculous to get into the estate. If you were approaching coming from the airport direction in you would have to...- Drive past the estate.- Continue over the swing bridge (providing it's not open (then take alternate route via Bedminster)- Reach hotwells and do a loop around towards the pump house- Join back onto the swing bridge heading in the opposite direction back towards the estate.- Take a left off the dual carriage way.- Head past Ashton Gate and turn around at the roundabout- come back on yourself and go under the dual carriageway and you are finally on the correct road to enter the new development!?

In an already hugely congested area that is complete madness!

I have many objections to this proposal with the three main ones being the height of allthe buildings which are all above the existing four stories of Paxton Drive and the rerouting of thecycle route. I also highly object to the timing of this application which I believe has been submittednow to reduce the number of people in the right mind space to object.

Cycle Path- National Cycle Route 33, The Festival Way The existing route, from Bedminster Cricket Club, toAshton Avenue Bridge, is wide, well used, easy to navigate, virtually car free and full of wildlife. Itis immensely popular with Commuters; Pupils at Ashton Park School; Students at the University ofthe West of England (city campus); Spectators at Ashton Gate Stadium and Visitors to AshtonCourt as well as residents from Bower Ashton heading to Ashton Gate Primary (to avoid thehundreds of Ashton Park students taking the Ashton Drive route), the docks and City Centre. Theproposed cycle route involves sharp corners and narrow pathways and I believe would put loneusers and children at higher risk of harm. The crossing and junctions present a hazard to bothcyclists and residents. The design is completely unsuitable for a busy cycle route that seeshundreds of people using it daily. There is no indication how the route would be maintained duringconstruction. If BCC genuinely wishes to promote cycling, then routes such as the festival wayneed to be improved not degraded. The route should be kept in its original place and the plansmodified to incorporate it.

- Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy June 2011 says that "development should besited and designed in a way to avoid adversely impacting on environmental amenity or biodiversity

of surrounding area by fumes, dust, noise, vibration, smell, light, other forms of air, land or waterpollution or exposing contaminated land". A development of this scale clearly inhibits adverseimpacts on several, if not all of these variables.

- Re. section 2.4 in Planning Statement Part 1: "The site falls within the Bristol Air QualityManagement Area". Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) are declared when there is anexceedance or likely exceedance of an air quality objective. A development of this scale wouldexpose people within the vicinity and along the WSW path of prevailing wind (Bedminster andSouthville) to poorer air quality through extensive construction work and enhanced trafficcongestion in an already overly busy road network in Bristol. Residents of Paxton Drive are ofparticularly high risk to reduced air quality. The added congestion will also have a dramatic effecton air pollution for Bower Ashton residents who already suffer especially at peak times when thetraffic is at a standstill.

- The construction phase of the development stands out as an area of particular concern. Duringconstruction, both contaminated and non-contaminated particulate matter will be mobilised fromthe substrate and due to the WSW prevailing wind will impact the populous areas of bothBedminster and Southville. In the short term this is a concern for people susceptible to respiratoryproblems such as asthma, among others.

- It is further noted in section 6.46 of the Planning Statement Part 1 that "Asbestos fibresassociated with the site's historic railway use have been identified and are distributed across thesite". In the long term, the inhalation of asbestos-contaminated particulate matter can have majorhealth implications, including cancer. The proposed "capping of all soft landscaping and hardstanding with 0.6m of suitable topsoil/subsoil and/or engineered fill" is argued here as insufficientremediation for this and does not account for release of these fibres by mobilisation duringexcavation and construction. Extensive excavation will be required for both the foundations andthe construction of the inadequate water storage tanks proposed to stop the overwhelming of thesewers during floods.

- It is noted that excavation is intended to be kept to a minimum for the purpose of not disturbingthe distributed asbestos, however significant groundwork is detailed. This is evidenced by the 4mdeep excavation for the access road which will be in very close proximity to the Paxton Drive areaand the busway. This is shown in the figure in Appendix A "Proposed access road cross section",p. 32 of the Drainage Strategy Part 1. It is also noted that the landscaping of this falls well withinthe 8 m standoff of the critical drainage structure, the Longmoor Brook culvert, of which thestructural strength (wall thickness) is apparently unknown according to the email from RichardBridge, p. 29 of the Drainage Strategy.

Environmental Degradation- Re. section 2.6 in Planning Statement Part 1: It is noted that "Land to the north and east isdesignated as Important Open Space on the current Policies Map. A strip of land along the

western boundary (including the now constructed Metrobus corridor) is also defined as ImportantOpen Space". Reserved open spaces as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF) ought to offer protection from inappropriate development. Bedminster ward has little in theway of green spaces, something that is important to maintain for the health and wellbeing of thecommunity. To develop this site will cause removal of trees and vegetation to replace it with asterile housing development. It is also noted that the land for the proposed development is a Siteof Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI).

- The land and visual application says that there are strong landscape boundaries which will act asbuffer zones but these are not shown on the plans. It is suggested that 32 established trees will bereplaced by 185 unestablished saplings scattered around the hardstanding and courtyard whichwill take decades to mature. The current existing buffer zone on the west side of the Metrobus waywill be removed.

Travel, Access and Parking- The site will provide 141 parking spaces, 8 of these for disabled and 5 for the café. Only 28% ofpeople / families in Bristol (in Bedminster too) do not own a car suggesting that 72% do (asidentified in the application's own documents). This means that there is only parking for just over50% of the residents. Whilst it can be appreciated that local transport links, cycle ways andwalking may be possible it would seem unlikely at least in the short and medium-term people willget rid of their cars. Where are these people going to park their cars given that it has already beenidentified that parking in Paxton Drive is indiscriminate where the provision of parking is a spacefor every property?

- Further to the previous point, residents are likely to need cars to access local services e.g.decent sized supermarkets, GP surgeries, schools and other local amenities, due to inadequateprovision of public transport. The metrobus only goes to Bristol City Centre, but not to other local,in-demand areas, e.g. North Street, Bedminster. Furthermore, buses only run Monday toSaturday, and during the Covid-19 outbreak the M2 bus service was the first of the Bristol servicesto be suspended. It is noted that a health needs assessment has been undertaken. The nearestGP surgery is 1.1 miles away which is a 25-minute walk, clearly not possible if you are elderly,infirm or unwell.

Visual Objections- I believe that the visual assessment of these site plans was highly biased, presenting thedevelopment in an advantageous, yet wholly incomplete light. The visual assessment of thisPlanning Proposal failed to include the visual impact from the most affected sites, including thePaxton Drive estate, Bedminster Cricket Ground, Ashton Court Estate and Clifton SuspensionBridge.

- It is noted from the visual impact surveys that this development will have a major detrimentalvisual impact from all aspects, particularly with regards to Blocks D and E, 7 and 9 storey

buildings, respectively. From the East (including Paxton Drive) the dense vegetation currentlypresent bordering the Metrobus guideway will be removed and replaced by 4 small trees. Thecurrent views from the listed Ashton Court grounds are destroyed by the aggressive dominance ofthe proposed buildings. The views from the nationally important and historic Clifton SuspensionBridge are of high sensitivity and the scale and design of the buildings severely impact on thisview. Furthermore, the three listed tobacco warehouses which currently dominate the views maynot be to everyone's taste but are a hugely significant part of Bristol's heritage. The developmentwould overwhelm their presence, detracting significantly from them. The view from National Cyclepath 41 is dominated by the 9-storey building and may mean that less people choose to cycle as aresult.

- Privacy will be taken from the residents of Paxton Drive, as the new development will directlyoverlook these pre-existing homes. Privacy within one's home is a basic human right and shouldbe respected. Under the Human Rights Act, Protocol 1, Article 1 it states that "a person has theright to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions, which includes the home and other land". Theplanners have shown a blatant disregard for the privacy of the Paxton Drive residents. Privacy forallotment holders will also be totally lost which will change the atmosphere and desirability tospend time there.

- The proposed development plans will block natural light from Paxton Drive. The blocking of lightis particularly affected by the proposals of Buildings D and E, 7 and 9 storey blocks of flats,respectively.

- A further objection towards these proposed 7 and 9 storey blocks D and E is that these tallbuildings are not in keeping with the surrounding infrastructure, nor the Green Belt / CityBoundary. There was significant public objection to the 7 storey and 11 storey buildings during thepublic consultation. Reducing the height of the largest building from 11 storeys to 9 as a result ofthis blatantly fails to reconcile the fact that the complaints also covered the height of the 7 storeybuilding and seems an insult to the consultation process.

- The land visual report observes that the sensitive building designs will not dominate or influencethe landscape or townscape. However, the size of the buildings at two 5-storey, one 7-storey andone 9-storey will severely dominate and influence both the landscape and townscape, obviouslyconsidered so by the public reaction to these plans. Furthermore, these will also be severelyimpacted due to the finish combination of dark green cladding, dark red cladding, dark greycladding, red orange, dark grey, buff, brown, soft blue, dark blue, bridge red and bright orangebricks with black window frames and doors making the buildings look more like a patchwork quilt.These last two points are both in direct contravention of Bristol Council's own planning statementswhere developments should add overall quality to the area, be visually attractive, sympathetic tolocal character and have appropriate green spaces. It is also noted that the planning concept forthe site in 2013/14 was for 150 new houses not 253.

If planning is to have any purpose, principle and power left, it will refuse this application which isnot only abysmal in itself but would set a dangerous precedent for any future neighbouringdevelopment. Please refuse outright and don't encourage or accept some indifferent compromise!This area is on the outskirts of the city, a beautiful green space full of nature and that is why wemoved here. Please do not allow the proposed increase in population density and the building ofthese high rise buildings. If we wanted to live in a concrete jungle we would be living in the citycentre where it is appropriate and common place.

I wish to object to these development plans for a number of reasons.

Previous objections

Others, with more knowledge than me about such things, have already raised objections regardingthe adverse impact the development is likely to have on pollution, and I would echo theirobjections.

Likewise with regard to the possibility of flooding, again I echo the objections of others. Havingwitnessed the high spring tides in March this year at first hand, and with the average global sealevel continuing to rise (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/), the prospect of higher tidesin the future surely makes the risk of flooding even greater.

A bigger picture

The Bristol Post tells us that "4,513 new homes being planned within 800 yards of the pitch atAshton Gate"

(www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/transformation-ashton-gate-4513-homes-4071959)

Until Bristol City Council decide what to do with Brunel Way and the western approach to the city,how can any proposal be made for new junctions to and from roads into this new cul-de-sac when

Brunel Way may not even exist in its current form?

Shouldn't all these developments be looked at as one, in terms of the adverse impact on thecurrent residents of the area? Some are already being built, and other plans are at different stagesof development. How can this corner of Bristol cope with so many more residents? Surely, wecan't go on squeezing more and more people into an ever-decreasing space?

Doing so will only cause distress to everyone, reducing quality of life, stretching resources such asroads, the police, hospitals, medical centres, schools and the retail sector even further. Pollutionwill worsen, there'll be an adverse impact on mental health, and perhaps crime will increase aswell.

I have no data to back any of this up but surely, isn't it just common sense?

Instead of trying to squeeze more and more of us into parts of a city that already can't functionproperly because, for example, the roads are too narrow, and because there are more of us thanplanners of generations gone by can ever have imagined, what's really needed is a new city!

Because if all these developments are allowed to go ahead, what next? There will always be morepeople, but in Bristol there will never be more space. At some point this has to stop, and I'dsuggest that at least in our corner here, we've already reached that point.

I believe it would be far better to try to make the area into parkland and connect it to the BrunelOpen Space. To try to improve the quality of life of the community that's already here, not make itworse. I realise that the asbestos issue might be a problem but surely that needs resolvinganyway, regardless of what takes place?

Of course, as I sit and type this with my wonderful view of the Suspension Bridge, I don't want tolose that. But I feel deeply that this is about so much more than that.

Finally, the developer's documents that I've read are full of errors and typos, and clearly haven'tbeen proofread. I do hope that this isn't indicative of the quality of the rest of their work.

Thank you

I stand alongside my other Paxton Drive neighbours to voice my concern about theproposed building across from the metro bus lane. For conciseness, I have listed my mainconcerns below:

1. Loss of light: Our flat only has windows that face west, which are our only means of naturallight. I worry that the height and density of the proposed estate would block sunlight from reachingour flat, significantly affecting our quality of life.

2. Loss of privacy: While privacy between the new buildings seems to be thought of, the privacy ofexisting flats on Paxton Dr has not been looked after. As mentioned, all west-facing flats only havewindows on this side of our buildings, which means we will look directly into the new buildings, andvice versa. This will most likely mean keeping curatains drawn, further reducing access to naturallighting. The loss of privacy and sunlight both reduce quality of life.

3. Loss of access to historically significant sites. The large buildings will block both Ashton Courtand the suspension bridge from the southeast. These are important local and national landmarksthat will be obscured by the tall, dense proposed buildings. This will compromise the natural landas well as the quality of our living conditions we currently have.

4. Increased traffic and danger to pedestrians. The Paxton Dr estates already suffer from a lack ofparking space and regulation in our car park, the latter is particularly compromised when eventsare held at Ashton Gate. With the limited parking assigned to the new building blocks, there will be

further congestion and parking issues added to this community. As a pedestrian, I currentlystruggle feeling safe navigating the congested roads during my commute. As others have stated,the metro bus has limited service and does not provide transport to local grocery stores or nearbyhigh streets. The expectation that new residents would not need cars of their own is bothunrealistic, insensitive to residents with mobility limitations, and shows a lack of foresight based oneasily-accessible examples from the Paxton Dr estate.

5. Increased air and noise pollution. Living near the motorway already provides some general levelof noise, as does the metro bus lane, when it is running. More cars and people will mean morenoise for residents. Those of us facing the bus lane also anticipate a potential echo chamber thatwill be made with buildings both facing the bus lane. With limited landscaping proposed in the newblocks, the additional hard surfaces will only maximize the noises around the area.

6. Loss of natural beauty. While I would welcome affordable housing and more communitymembers in this area, which is pretty isolated from the rest of Bristol and Ashton Vale, the numberand size of the proposed buildings is much too big for the space. This has already been indicatedin the initial proposal for 150 flats, which has now been grossly inflated to 250 flats. The size of thebuildings and number of flats will negatively affect the current area that benefits from local greenspaces that are open to the public and used everyday by local residents and commuters. Losingaccess to these spaces and the overpopulation of these spaces will reduce the quality of thisarea's natural beauty and undermines its historical importance. The land surveyor assessmentsprovided in the proposal do not estimate the effects the new building block will have on Paxton Drresidents. Moreover, the view from Ashton Court, which is a tourist destination as well asfrequented by residents for its views of the gorge and the basin will be significantly affected. Thiscould contribute to tourism revenue loss.

6. Flooding risks and health hazardsDocumentation provided in the proposed report shows that there are risks to flooding in this area,which grading and drainage will also affect. Just this winter, we saw flooding of the basin andPaxton Dr was put on flood alert. What considerations have been made to these risks both to thenew buildings and existing area?It has also been alleged that there is asbestos contamination in the building site and it is unclearwhat measures will be taken to protect current residents from harm during land remediation andbuilding. As a current resident who faces the proposed building site and lives with a immuno-compromised partner, I am concerned about how construction might affect our air quality andsafety

While I understand that Bristol is growing and more affordable housing is needed, this plan lacksconsideration for current residents and the character of the area. Most of us who live here enjoythe semi-detached aspect of the area that affords us green space, quiet, and access toBedminster and Ashton Vale. I appreciate adding to this community, especially multi-use buildingsthat could provide needed access to food resources. However, this addition should be in the spirit

and character of the area and the proposed building is most decidedly not that. I think you will findmost current residents object to losing this quality and character of our home, rather than towelcoming new neighbours to the area.

Wildlife

I strongly object to the removal of the existing corridor of mixed native trees and shrubs betweenthe metro way and the proposed development. Having lived on Paxton Drive for 9 yrs, I haveobserved a diverse range of wildlife including badger/fox/hedgehog and a variety of bird life thatthrive along this well established area, hedgehog especially,which are becoming a rare sight.I would also like to add, that by removing the trees and shrubs, a vital filter and wind break whichhelps 'soak up' some of the road pollution from the continuous surrounding traffic will be lost.

Flats

I agree with other residents with regard to the 9 storey block that it will not be in keeping with thesurrounding area it will become a focal point, taking away from the natural beauty of the area .

Firstly, I would like to say that I only knew about this planning application through wordof mouth from a relative. Should I not have been informed as a property owner of Paxton Driveeven if I do not live there at the moment?

Unfortunately due to the late notice, I have not had time to put forward a more comprehensiveobjection.

Whilst I understand the need for housing and in particular AFFORDABLE Housing, I do not believethat this proposal offers anything of value to this need. People deserve a certain standard ofdevelopment both in new plans and the effect on the neighbourhood.

Bristol is a wonderful City and should be valued, it has the most amazing approaches and theplanning should be carefully considered to protect that all makes Bristol the city it is. This proposalwill be an eyesore and will do nothing to enhance Bristol. Such an important site deserves better.

There is an opportunity to use the land for something that Bristol could be proud of. It could furtherput Bristol on the map for positive reasons and not for the wrong reasons. Something that could beheld up as the way forward in positive planning for people.

My Apartment overlooks Ashton Court and the Clifton Suspension Bridge, which is why we boughtit. These are the views that the developers are proudly extolling in promoting their own plans. Nomention of the detrimental effect that allowing such a development would have on the existing

properties, not to mention the views from both Ashton Court and the Clifton Suspension Bridge.The Bond Warehouses are also part of Bristol's history, whilst not pretty they are iconic and itwould appear that this development is trying to compete on scale with these buildings.

Trees were removed when the metro was put in and now further established trees will be removedshould this development proceed creating a barren vista.

The proposals for even the smaller buildings overlook and dominate the existing Paxton DriveApartments resulting in loss of privacy and light to the West Facing dwellings. They will beoverbearing and an eye sore. The design of these buildings have no appeal whatsoever! Thelarger buildings are hideous and offer nothing at all. They are UGLY, UGLY, UGLY.

These buildings offer nothing in the way of 'quality of life'. The proposals are for 253 dwellingscrammed in to maximise profits and to help mitigate the costs for site clearance. The balance ofvalue is heavily in favour of the developer offering very little for the potential occupier.

The lack of parking in well thought area's may work, but experience shows that people need theircars to access work/supermarkets/medical/visiting friends and family. So the likelihood is thatmany will own cars and then the problem of parking becomes a big issue not just for them but forthe surrounding neighbourhood as you can see in Paxton Drive.

The Road Access is not acceptable, and does not work for all of the reasons mentioned by otherobjectors.

This is already an often gridlocked area. The reports were done at times when the reality of trafficand parking issues in the area would not be at it's most problematic. And of course, furtherdevelopment is only going to compound the issue in many ways.

The Safety of both cyclists and pedestrians will be compromised by this development and has notbeen thought out at all. Sustrans should have some input into such an important proposal and theeffect on cyclists.

Then there is the flooding! It was not that long ago that Bristol experienced high tides. This site isin a high risk flood area and by further developing this will only exacerbate the problem. I do notfeel that the report gives a true indication of the impact of current and future flood and drainageconsiderations. I would request more in depth research be done on this very important point. I amaware of other developments where the drainage has not been dealt with adequately (and warnedby knowledgeable people) and had all sorts of problems both on their own site and a knock oneffect on surrounding land due to not dealing with the issue correctly.

This proposal is a great big carbuncle and should not be allowed in it's current form.

I agree with the many points made by the other objectors which have been put very eloquently andI cannot improve on them.

Loss of Light and Privacy

Our property has 3 windows which all face west. The proposed properties will impact the privacyand natural light of our property as they will be directly in the line of the sun in the afternoon, whichis the only time of day we have natural sunlight. The proposed windows will also look directly intoour windows and onto our balcony depriving us of our privacy.

Highway safety, traffic and parking issues

The amount of traffic that currently exists on the A369, Brunel way and the surrounding area isalready up to an extreme amount during rush hour, match days etc. How will additional housing inthe area improve this? Increased traffic will also affect the safety of pedestrians by increasing thelikelihood of an accident (including school children at Ashton Park School with many childrencycling and walking to school). The amount of parking allocated to the estate is very inadequate,this will in turn result in residents parking on our estate which is already at maximum capacity.

Noise, amenity, wildlife, historic buildings, conservation

The proposed site will destroy a green area which perfectly fits within this green part of Bristol. Thedestruction of this green area would destroy the habitat of wildlife and also interfere with thehistoric nature of the area with it being in an area close to Bristol's most famous landmark, thesuspension bridge. The noise of constructing the site would also affect the residents of Paxton

Drive and their mental health as a number of residents work a shift pattern and sleep would beaffected.

Design and appearance of the development

The design of the development is somewhat ugly and does not at all fit in with the surroundingarea, full red brick buildings of this type can age very badly.

Following a review of the planning application for 20/01655/F, former Railway Depot,Clanage Road, Bristol, I have a number of concerns and objections that are listed in the pointsbelow:

Site Constraints:

The access point for the proposed development has been located in an area that already suffersfrom very high levels of traffic congestion. Residents already have to queue to enter and/or exitPaxton Drive during morning and evening commutes. Traffic congestion will only increase duringthe construction phase of the proposed development, and furthermore once residents move in. Istrongly object to the development of an access road to the new site replacing the greenspaceadjacent to Paxton Drive. The Transport Assessment does not accurately reflect the levels of thecongestion levels in and around Brunel Way, Ashton Gate Underpass. The council have alreadybeen looking at options to change or develop the road network in this area to reduce congestion,surely this should be sorted first instead of adding a pre existing issue?

There is no consideration or mention in the report about the ability of the local schools, GP anddentist surgeries being able to increase their capacity to cater for an increased demand and sizeof the local population?

Air Quality and Pollution:

Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy June 2011 says that "development should be sitedand designed in a way to avoid adversely impacting on environmental amenity or biodiversity ofsurrounding area by fumes, dust, noise, vibration, smell, light, other forms of air, land or waterpollution or exposing contaminated land". Constructing a development of this size will clearly resultin negative impacts on several, if not all of these variables.

Re. section 2.4 in Planning Statement Part 1: "The site falls within the Bristol Air QualityManagement Area". This development would expose residents of Paxton Drive, and Bedminsterand Southville in general, to poorer air quality due to the extensive construction work and theenhanced traffic congestion in an already overly congested area of the road network in Bristol. Theroads around Paxton Drive are already often gridlocked between 7.30-9.00 and 16:00-18:00Monday to Friday and the residents of Paxton Drive are of particularly high risk to a furtherreduction in air quality.

Section 6.46 of the Planning Statement Part 1 states "Asbestos fibres associated with the site'shistoric railway use have been identified and are distributed across the site". Inhalation ofcarcinogenic asbestos-contaminated matter can obviously have major negative healthimplications. "Capping of all soft landscaping and hard standing with 0.6m of suitabletopsoil/subsoil and/or engineered fill" is an insufficient provision of safety, and does not account forthe release of the asbestos fibres during excavation and construction. Extensive digging isnecessary for the installation of the development's foundations and the (meagre) water storagetanks proposed to stop the overwhelming of the sites sewers during floods

ParkingAccording to the proposal, the development will include 141 parking spaces. This are nowherenear enough spaces for every flat to have access to a space. Some households will requiremultiple spaces for multiple vehicles and spaces will also be required for visitors and contractors topark at the site. Where will people be forced to park, especially during weekday evenings as wellas on weekends, when matches are taking place at Ashton Gate and demand for parking is at apremium?

Visual Objections:

Minimal thought and consideration has clearly been given to the aesthetics of the proposeddevelopment and the negative effects these will have on the local area, and local residents fordecades to come.

The construction of 7 & 9 storey buildings (blocks D and E) would be visually detrimental forresidents and visitors of South West Bristol. The views from Ashton Court looking towards thesuspension bridge and the city will be dominated by the proposed buildings. The views from

Clifton and the historic Suspension Bridge, across South West Bristol would be negativelyeffected. The tallest buildings in the development would also overwhelm and detract from the threelisted tobacco factories nearby. The view from National Cycle path 41 will be dominated by the 9-storey building and may result in less people choosing to cycle this route as a result. The views ofthose approaching the city from the South West via Brunel Way would also be massively impaired.

The proposed development of blocks D & E will clearly block natural light from accessing parts ofPaxton Drive. Paxton Drive residents will also subsequently experience a significant reduction oftheir privacy as a result of the height of these proposed buildings.

The proposed 5, 7 & 9 storey residential buildings are clearly not in keeping with the surroundingarea and Green belt/City boundary; the buildings will dominate the local townscape andlandscape. The townscape will also be negatively effected by the plans to finish the buildings withdark green cladding, dark red cladding, dark grey cladding, red orange, dark grey, buff, brown, softblue, dark blue, bridge red and bright orange bricks with black window frames. This isn't visuallyattractive, and/or sympathetic to the character of the local area

The application states that the proposed trees and shrubs will provide moderately beneficialeffects on the views from Paxton Drive. There are only 4 small trees detailed on the plans. This isan insult to the residents of Paxton Drive

I am an allotment holder in the White City Allotments. The tall blocks proposed are outof keeping with the area. The buildings should be no higher than those in Paxton Drive. Thedevelopment does not seem to take account of the surrounding area and the buildings will towerover the allotments. I am also a regular user of the cycle path. I am unsure of the effect of thedevelopment on the path as I have tried to view the planning documents but most of them seemunavailable for viewing at this time?

I am objecting the proposed redevelopment of the site for residential apartments for thefollowing reasons.

As a former resident of Paxton drive, the road access to the area for car users is alreadyextremely congested and is gridlocked during common commuting hours and on match-days. Theproposal does not appear to consider the seriousness of the traffic congestion. This is a knownproblem area as highlighted by Council plans to redesign the bridge to Hotwells.

There also appears to be insufficient parking permits given the number of dwellings and likelynumber of car users. This is likely to lead to increased illegal parking and create further congestionon surrounding roads.

The proposed apartments would begin encroachment on the beautiful Ashton Estate, river basinand Leigh Woods. Bristol council must do all it can to protect and encourage the local wildlife toflourish and the noise pollution, additional noise and commuter traffic will inevitably intimidate anddeter this wildlife. Bristol declared as recently as February 2020 that there is an ecologicalemergency over loss of wildlife. The construction of these apartments will completely undermineany trust the public has in the council's commitments to restore the local wildlife populations.

I appreciate the requirement to build affordable living space in Bristol but there must be other siteswhich can be used, such as derelict buildings, to house the increasing population.

20/01655/F | Redevelopment of the site to provide residential apartments includingaffordable housing (social rented and shared ownership) across five buildings between 4 - 9storeys, townhouses, flexible retail/café space, public realm, landscaping including ecologicalmitigation measures, access and associated groundworks. | Former Railway Depot Clanage RoadBristol

Comments:- I can certainly support development on this site. However it needs to reflect and compliment thedevelopment already there on Paxton Drive. Whilst I might support some increase in elevationabove the 4 storeys proposed for blocks A and B I believe that 7 and 9 storey blocks are quite outof keeping and will have an adverse impact on the current development as well as on views andperspectives from elsewhere.- The proposal is excessive in terms of density of the development. The Local Plan Reviewidentifies the site for development with an estimated capacity of 150 homes. This developmentexceeds that by a considerable margin and requires justification, which I do not think can befound.- I am not convinced that the plan demonstrates a suitable selection of units to assist in creating amixed community. The provision of 3 bed units should not be so exclusive to town houses.- Access to and egress from the site remain a concern given the metro bus route alongside. Iwould fear blockages spilling onto the main highway, if, as you would expect, the metro-bus traffictakes priority.- Surface car parking should be reduced to a minimum - visitors and disabled. There should be a

significant enough number of spaces for car club cars that would offset any perceiveddisadvantage to a reduced number of car parking spaces. Discouraging car ownership need notprevent car journeys when necessary.- I found it very difficult to see the detail concerning the prospective route for the Festival Waycycle path. This is very well used by walkers and cyclists and if it is to pass through the estate with2 right angle turns there must be aspects of safety for residents that need to be addressed.- Whilst recognising that this is principally a residential scheme, there is, in my view, more scopefor commercial and community facility space than has been planned here.

I make the general comment that it is exceedingly difficult for the average member of the public(me) to make detailed analysis of the plans and comments if documents are regularly "unavailablefor viewing at this time"

I would like to object to this development as to the highly likely flooding, the inevitableparking chaos that will be ensue with the number of homes that are proposed and the privacy thatwill be lost by many of the flats opposite to this development along with the loss of daylight manywill suffer

These buildings are just too tall and big for the area. They will impact the White Cityallotments taking away morning sun. This area is one of low rise domestic and industrial buildings.So they will dominate the skyline and seem overbearing. 9 stories should be taken down to 5.

Regarding the submission of planning application 20/01655/F, former Railway Depot,Clanage Road, Bristol, I have reviewed the planning application and would like to raise myobjections.

1. Flooding

Flood risk in this area of Bristol already exists and will arguably increase as a direct consequenceof the new development. In March of this year (2020), extensive flooding around the CumberlandBasin was observed caused by high spring tides. The River Avon has the second highest tidalreach in the world, making its susceptibility to flooding unsurprising. On 12 March 2020 BristolHarbour reported 11.8m tides, which caused extensive overbank flooding across the CumberlandBasin and surrounding areas. This is not a one off event and flooding also occurred in this areaduring the floods of 2012.

2. Air Quality and Pollution

A development of this scale would expose people within the vicinity to reduced air quality. Duringconstruction, both contaminated and non-contaminated particulate matter will be mobilised andthis is a big concern for me as my elderly mother suffer with respiratory problems, operating onjust 42% lung capacity and visits me regularly at my home for respite.

3. Environmental Degradation

To develop this site will cause removal of trees and vegetation. Removing the trees and shrubs, avital filter and wind break which helps 'soak up' some of the road pollution from the continuoussurrounding traffic will be lost.

There is much wildlife in the area that has already been disturbed by the metro bus route and thissite is home to many foxes, rabbits etc.

The tall blocks are out of keeping with the area and heritage and will tower over the allotmentsblocking essential sunlight.

4. Travel, Access and Parking

The site will provide 141 parking spaces. This means that there is only parking for just over 50% ofthe residents. Paxton drive has a space per flat and this is still not adequate.

Due to inadequate provision of public transport, the metrobus only goes to Bristol City Centre, butnot to other local, in-demand areas, e.g. North Street, Bedminster. Furthermore and only runsMonday to Saturday until 9pm it is likely households will need a car.

It is noted that the National Cycleway N33 is to be re-directed through the estate but it is unclearwhat will happen during construction if the proposed plans go ahead. This is a popular bike route,connecting commuter villages and towns to Bristol City Centre, including Long Ashton, andNailsea

Children and students also use this to access the local school and college. In the reports onaccess, Paxton Drive, a private road, is referenced as an accessible route for pedestrians andcyclists on the new development. You only need to visit Paxton Drive and try to walk down it torealise that due to lack of parking pedestrians and cyclists are forced to walk in making itdangerous.

5. Site Constraints and Access

It is proposed that the site will provide approximately 860 beds and 8176m2 of public realm openspace. It is also noted that the planning concept for this land locked site in 2013/14 was for 150new houses not 253.

It would appear from these plans that there is insufficient communal and green space proposed,particularly given that the development is targeting young families.

As it stands, the current plans propose to transform one of the limited adjacent greenspaces at thetop end of Paxton Drive into an access road for the new development. This will also require

Paxton Drive residents to give way to the new development at an intersection which already has asignificant queuing problem.

At peak times traffic already exists leaving/entering the Paxton Drive estate so much so I will notleave my flat. Congestion is anticipated to worsen with the new development particularly with theone way access system if coming from the Portway or city centre.

6. Loss of privacy and light

My property has 3 windows all facing west. These properties will impact my privacy as they will bedirectly opposite my home and balcony.

The proposed development plans will block natural light into my home and balcony. Block A of theproposed new development will overshadow my flat in the evening so when I get home from work Iwill no longer be able to enjoy the outdoor space during the summer and my flat will be darker andcolder during the winter months as a result.

7. Noise

The noise from the construction of the metro bus that went on for an age was unbearable with mybedroom backing directly onto this. Work would start at 7-7.30 in the morning and when the projectover run it was on Saturdays also, I dread to think of the implications if this project is given the go-ahead. There will not be any peace for residents, not all of which work 9-5.

9 storeys is far too high this wil block the lght to the allotmentsShould be low riseShould be affordable to normal bristolian people

I object to the planning application & agree with other comments

As raised by local residents, these plans raise an aesthetic problem. Clearly, the impactof high rise buildings will be felt most by people living close to the site, who I imagine enjoy thevast views that part of the city offers. As a resident of Bristol, I care for the landscape of this city,and am already concerned about iconic features overshadowed by modern builds.

Given Bristol's clean air plan, the traffic congestion caused by both the construction of the buildand increased resident population is concerning. Pollution has been an issue raised by residents,concerning both this matter and the issue of exposure to asbestos during construction. It appearsthese matters have not been taken into consideration in the planning phase.

Traffic is already a major problem in inner city Bristol and the surrounding areas, only worsened byconstruction and building projects. More specifically, local residential spaces such as Paxton Drivewill undoubtedly be negatively impacted in the long term if independent entrance and exit routesare not considered.

I object to the development plans for the reasons listed below, and echo many of theviews expressed within others objections.

Privacy

The layout of the development means the residents of Paxton Drive whose balconies andbedroom windows overlook the metrobus route will be severely encroached upon. Paxton Drive isbuilt with wonderfully large windows so residents can enjoy the light and views of the surroundingareas, however with the new proposed development residents will have to install blinds andcurtains to prevent being overlooked.

Any new plans need to consider this, and revising the height of all structures to match PaxtonDrive seems like an obvious move towards mitigating against this.

Density

The proposed development is built for profiteering and not for quality of life. The tall blocks are outof keeping with the area and will tower over the allotments and Paxton Drive. The tallest blocksare placed close to the flyover road, where residents will be plagued by the ever increasing trafficnoise, day and night. It was noted in the noise plans that residents will have to choose betweenstifling hot living conditions or road noise, unless some sort of cooling system is installed.

As a resident of Paxton Drive I can vouch for the noise of encroaching traffic, which for me is atleast mitigated by tall, leafy trees, however there is a significant absence of natural noise barriersin the new plans, and I couldn't see any proposed plans for internal cooling systems.

In addition, the preference for cramming in buildings as opposed to providing shared spaces isanother factor which further contributes to profiteering over quality of life and wellbeing.

On the final point of density, the proposed plans do not cater for families in the area, with themajority of dwellings being 1 and 2 bedroom flats. More 3 bedroom flats, and the addition of someadditional townhouses will increase the provision of accommodation for families in need ofaffordable housing.

Appearance

Whilst the Paxton Drive has been criticized in the plans for the new proposed development, theproposed development aesthetics neither improve upon or compliment Paxton Drive or the widersurroundings, and instead are offensive and uninspiring. Given the buildings are going to be seenfrom around the city, why not make them coloured like the iconic houses which line the horizons ofthe Harbourside and Totterdown?

The views to and from Ashton Court need to be preserved for all to enjoy, as well as the iconicsuspension bridge, which for now is appreciated by many residents of Paxton drive.

Access for pedestrians and cyclists

Festival way is a popular and busy route for local pedestrians, cyclists, students and visitors to thearea, and the proposed adjustment to the route presents safety issues.

In addition, there are no proposals for how this route will be diverted during the construction,particularly considering the hazardous airborne matter which will be released as a result of theasbestos on site.

In the reports on access, Paxton Drive is referenced as an accessible route for pedestrians andcyclists on the new development. You only need to visit Paxton Drive and try to walk down it torealise that due to the lack of parking, cars are parking on the roadside, an area that was designedto be a footpath. This forces pedestrians and cyclists into the road, and therefore walking up anddown Paxton Drive is dangerous. An alternative walkway for pedestrians from the newdevelopment needs to be considered.

Wildlife

Walking around the proposed site and dusk reveals the abundance of wildlife in the area, includingrabbits and foxes, who have already been forced to move their homes as a result of the metrobusdevelopment, and they will be further pushed out the city as a result of the redevelopment of thissite.

Parking

I am concerned about the significant lack of parking accounted for on the new development. WhilstI appreciate Bristol has aspirations to be a green city and reduce car usage, the fact of the matteris this site isn't within a reasonable walking distance to amenities for many, for example theelderly, disabled and young families. Therefore people will be reliant on their cars for gettingaround, and with less than 1 car parking space per flat, there is bound to be issues with parking.

Paxton Drive suffers similar, and it encourages neighbour disputes over spaces and a reluctanceto leave home due to worries of coming home and being unable to park, with no other optionsnearby. This issue will be somewhat resolved if the density of the site is reduced and less flats aresqueezed on to the site.

Traffic

Linked to the above topic on cars and parking, presents another issue- traffic. The surroundingroads are often gridlocked from 8am-10am and 4pm-6pm, as well as other random times of theday when the bridge swings. The proposed development will further contribute to this issue,however of more significant concern is the proposed access and exit route for the development,which will have a major impact on residents from Paxton Drive, who already have to give way tothe right to traffic coming from Winterstoke Road.

Pollution

Linked to traffic concerns are also concerns around pollution, from the cars on the road and theasbestos on site. I note the issue of asbestos has been raised, particularly with regards to airborne

particles during construction and then waterborne particles when rain falls and drains fill.

Flooding

Huge flaws in the proposed development flood modelling have been raised in other comments,and I echo these. The concerns raised suggests there has been some sort of oversight ormiscalculation of flood risk, and I would like to see the council planning department conduct anindependent review on the accuracy of the submitted flood modelling, making their findings andcomments accessible to all.

As someone who lives in Paxton Drive, our homebuyers report highlighted the development asbeing at high flood risk, noting that it would be very difficult to obtain home buildings insurance.Fortunately, as I'm in a flat, the freeholder provides this insurance, however how will the owners offreehold buildings (i.e. the townhouses) on the new site be able to insure their homes? This seemsof particular importance given the flood risk to the site and alck of mitigation against flooding.Having ones home deemed uninsurable would result in significant hardship should a flood occur.

Local Amenities

It has already been raised that there seems to have been an omission of consideration for thecapacity of local amenities such as schools and GPs to cope with the proposed populationincrease to the area. Consultation with the schools and GPs needs to occur to ensure that newresidents will be able to access essential amenities.

In addition, increasing the provision of amenities on the proposed site, for example including a'tesco express' or similar, would provide some essential provisions for local residents, reducing

their need to get in their car and drive to the shops, which are over a mile away.

In summary, the plans, as they stand, are entirely unsuitable, inadequate and unsustainable. Theydo not sit with the values of Bristol as a forward thinking, healthy, green city, and need significantreconsideration, where wellbeing of residents is put before profiteering. The height of the buildingsneeds to be reduced, their appearance needs to be improved, and the layout of the developmentrevised to account for pedestrians, cyclists and local road users, and it's safety improved toaccount for flooding risks and environmental preservation.

I echo the Concerns of the other residents of Paxton drive

As a regular user of the Festival Way cycle path, I'm disturbed to see that then plan is tore-route this through the centre of the development's "village green", including two very tightbends. This route is extremely popular with walkers, cyclists and runners, and having to negotiate90' bends with people travelling at speed (which they do and will continue to do), will only causeaccidents and bad feeling. People will also tend to cut the corners and leave the surroundinglandscape muddy and damaged. Festival way needs to be left to follow it's current course, aroundthe edge of the site rather than introducing conflict amongst users in the centre. Might make yourarchitect's model look pretty, but practically it won't work.

As a resident and owner of a property in Paxton Drive, with a balcony overlooking themetro bus, I strongly object to the development.It would have a detrimental impact to the area And to me personally, in the form of:- Additional noise Pollution. There is already considerable impact with the Metrobus, and thiswould further exasperate- Traffic and parking. Already a big issue, there is no capacity to take on additional volume- Visual obstruction. Light to my ground floor flat is already limited. The design of the proposallooks a large eyesore which will impact both my privacy and sunlight. Forcing me to close blindsand spend less time on the balcony.- Access to local amenities. It already takes over 3 weeks to get a GP appointment. With thisdevelopment clearly this is only going to grow.- impact to green spaces and wildlife in the surrounding areas.

Too high, imposing buildings in the space. Interruption of views to Gorge & SuspensionBridge.

As a resident of Paxton Drive I strongly oppose this development.

It will be of detriment to myself, my family and the local area in general.

I understand the need for additional houses. however the plans look excessive given the servicesthat are in the area:Specifically:

Parking and Traffic. Already a big issue in the area.Noise pollution: Paxton Drive residents have already had to endure the Metrobus developmentand the excessive noise that has brought.Visual impairment: the size of the development will impact sunlightPrivacy: the new development will overlook my ground floor flat, providing numerous strangerswith an u wanted view into my family life. This will force me to spend more time indoors with thecurtains drawn. Impacting mental healthlocal amenities: it is already a huge challenge getting a GP appointment.

This should not allowed to proceed in this manner.Nine stories would block all views of residents at Paxton drive and would cause loss of light at thatheight.The plans are not inspired and would be a stark contrast to the natural and green environment.

Metro bus caused animals to be disturbed and have only started to be seen again in the area.

Parking - no matter what plans are for cycles, people will not get rid of their cars. This is a dangerto Paxton Drive. Paxton is a private road and already is crowded, on match days and balloonfiesta people dump their cars all over the verges and pavements due to not being public. With notenough parking at the new site, this will inevitably mean residents dumping extra cars on this road.

Any development should not exceed heights of Paxton Drive. Should include green spaces andtherefore gaps in the skyline to maintain views over the area.House prices on those flats with balconies looking toward the gorge will be affected.

Vehicle access, this is an extremely busy traffic route (in normal times) another 200 cars in thissmall area will cause greater congestion. And will increase pollution in this area.

This is a greedy attempt to pack em in and stack em high.

As a local resident I object to more housing being built around this area. We don't havelarge parks or wildlife areas like other parts of Bristol do. This is all we have. Festival Way is agood, car free way to get to work and, quite frankly, I'm not sure you have the right to take thisaway from thousands of people who use it for either walking or cycling. This was built as analternative to driving a car into and beyond Bristol. The council are already proposing to ban carsfrom driving into the centre and now you're stopping people from using an alternative way to getthere. We already have no bus service to speak of. What is it you want from us? Crawling on ourknees to get around Bristol? It's a great area to use for leisure, wildlife and for people to have acertain quality of life. There is no need to build more housing, have more pollution and spoil theview around the river. It's a great educational tool for children from the local schools. We don'tneed the area destroyed for sheer greed. I know we don't matter as much as other residents inBristol and I know we're not as important but we need and use this area for our mental andphysical well being.

My concerns include density of buildings (243 dwellings when initial recommendationwas for 150), flood risk, asbestos pollution, loss of the festival way cycling route/dangerousrevisions to it, loss of privacy and light for Paxton Drive residents and allotment owners, increasein car pollution and traffic, unsafe access/exit points merging with existing road, ugly buildingdesigns impacting Bristol skyline and obscuring views from Ashton Court, lack of amenities fornew residents (school capacity, no local shops within reasonable walking distance), less than 1parking space per dwelling, lack of affordable provision for families (most are 1 to 2 bedroomflats).

With the road layout changes and bad traffic as it is, it's little point adding more to theproblem with more housing.

I strongly oppose this development. White City Allotment would be hugely affected as itwould be totally overlooked and the risk of pollution would be very high. The amount of residentsin such a big development would be out of proportion in relation to amenities, access andsurrounding roads. The views over to Ashton Court are some of the best in Bristol and give peoplea big connection to the surrounding green space that we're lucky to have. These views would beruined by 9 storey tower blocks. I understand the need for new, affordable housing but this areajust isn't equipped to accommodate buildings of this scale.

Objection to proposed development of the Former Railway Depot, Clanage Road,Bristol.

Having reviewed the planning application (20/01655/F) I'd like to express my objections andconcerns to the proposed development.

Privacy and visual impact:

The layout of the proposed development will cause many residents of Paxton Drive to experiencea significant loss of privacy as the pre-existing homes will be directly overlooked by 5-9 storybuildings. These plans show a blatant disregard for the privacy of Paxton Drive residents strippingthem of a basic human right which should be respected at all costs. Under the Human Rights Act,it states that "a person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions, which includesthe home and other land".

Further to my point above, these development plans will affect natural light to Paxton Drive. Thenatural light will be particularly affected by the 5-9 storey buildings.

These buildings are not in keeping with the Green Belt / City Boundary and therefore completelyunsuitable.

The visual impact report would suggest that the planners have been deliberately misleading in theaffects the new development will impose visually. The report does not include any form ofassessment of views from Paxton Drive nor Bedminster Cricket Ground. The proposed plansboast views from the new development with no consideration of the impact on the pre-existingdevelopments in the surrounding area.

Flooding:

The risk of flooding is far greater than what is stated in the planning application and should bereviewed, the planners should conduct a further flood risk assessment including evidence of theflooding in March 2020.

Parking:

As a resident of Paxton Drive, there is already an on-going issue with parking and the lack ofspaces forcing residents to park on what should be walkways. The proposed development plansillustrate that there will be less than 1 space per household and therefore are at risk of similarproblems and worsening what is already a difficult issue in Paxton Drive.

Access and Traffic:

The proposed plans show that the only exit road for the new development will be situated at theexit road of Paxton Drive. Traffic congestion in the area and Brunel Way is an existing problem,traffic is at an all-time high during rush-hour and based on the forecasted population of the newdevelopment this is highly likely to worsen.

Local Amenities:

There have been several concerns raised around the consideration of local amenities which Iecho. It is increasingly difficult to get an appointment at the local GP's following the closure ofHotwells General Practice and therefore consultation with the remaining practices should begranted to assess the viability of access to essential services for the new residents. The samewould apply to the local schools and whether their capacity can withstand the added demand.

In summary, the current plans, as they stand, are totally unacceptable and I strongly object to theirapproval without serious review.

I regularly walk or cycle along Festival Way and feel that the proposed housing is not inkeeping with the surrounding area. The proposed buildings are too tall and will adversely affect theviews of Clifton and the Suspension Bridge. Further the allotments will also be adversely affectedby the increased housing and shade. Whilst it may be appropriate to build some residentialdwellings on the derelict site these should be much more sympathetic to the surrounding area.

I object wholeheartedly with this development. My concerns regarding this proposeddevelopment include

* density of buildings (243 dwellings when initial recommendation was for 150),*flood risk,*asbestos pollution,*loss of the festival way cycling route/dangerous revisions to it,*loss of privacy and light for Paxton Drive residents and allotment owners,*increase in car pollution and traffic,*unsafe access/exit points merging with existing road,*ugly building designs impacting Bristol skyline and obscuring views from Ashton Court,*lack of amenities for new residents (school capacity,*no local shops within reasonable walking distance),*less than 1 parking space per dwelling,*lack of affordable provision for families (most are 1 to 2 bedroom flats)

Comment:I object to the development plans for the reasons listed below, and echomany of the views expressed within others objections.PrivacyThe layout of the development means the residents of Paxton Drive whose balconies andbedroom windows overlook the metrobus route will be severely encroached upon. Paxton Drive isbuilt with wonderfully large windows so residents can enjoy the light and views of the surroundingareas, however with the new proposed development residents will have to install blinds andcurtains to prevent being overlooked.Any new plans need to consider this, and revising the height of all structures to match PaxtonDrive seems like an obvious move towards mitigating against this.DensityThe proposed development is built for profiteering and not for quality of life. The tall blocks are outof keeping with the area and will tower over the allotments and Paxton Drive. The tallest blocksare placed close to the flyover road, where residents will be plagued by the ever increasing trafficnoise, day and night. It was noted in the noise plans that residents will have to choose betweenstifling hot living conditions or road noise, unless some sort of cooling system is installed.As a resident of Paxton Drive I can vouch for the noise of encroaching traffic, which for me is at

least mitigated by tall, leafy trees, however there is a significant absence of natural noise barriersin the new plans, and I couldn't see any proposed plans for internal cooling systems.In addition, the preference for cramming in buildings as opposed to providing shared spaces isanother factor which further contributes to profiteering over quality of life and wellbeing.

On the final point of density, the proposed plans do not cater for families in the area, with themajority of dwellings being 1 and 2 bedroom flats. More 3 bedroom flats, and the addition of someadditional townhouses will increase the provision of accommodation for families in need ofaffordable housing.AppearanceWhilst the Paxton Drive has been criticized in the plans for the new proposed development, theproposed development aesthetics neither improve upon or compliment Paxton Drive or the widersurroundings, and instead are offensive and uninspiring. Given the buildings are going to be seenfrom around the city, why not make them coloured like the iconic houses which line the horizons ofthe Harbourside and Totterdown?The views to and from Ashton Court need to be preserved for all to enjoy, as well as the iconicsuspension bridge, which for now is appreciated by many residents of Paxton drive.Access for pedestrians and cyclistsFestival way is a popular and busy route for local pedestrians, cyclists, students and visitors to thearea, and the proposed adjustment to the route presents safety issues.In addition, there are no proposals for how this route will be diverted during the construction,particularly considering the hazardous airborne matter which will be released as a result of theasbestos on site.In the reports on access, Paxton Drive is referenced as an accessible route for pedestrians andcyclists on the new development. You only need to visit Paxton Drive and try to walk down it torealise that due to the lack of parking, cars are parking on the roadside, an area that was designedto be a footpath. This forces pedestrians and cyclists into the road, and therefore walking up anddown Paxton Drive is dangerous. An alternative walkway for pedestrians from the newdevelopment needs to be considered.WildlifeWalking around the proposed site and dusk reveals the abundance of wildlife in the area, including

rabbits and foxes, who have already been forced to move their homes as a result of the metrobusdevelopment, and they will be further pushed out the city as a result of the redevelopment of thissite.ParkingI am concerned about the significant lack of parking accounted for on the new development. WhilstI appreciate Bristol has aspirations to be a green city and reduce car usage, the fact of the matteris this site isn't within a reasonable walking distance to amenities for many, for example theelderly, disabled and young families. Therefore people will be reliant on their cars for gettingaround, and with less than 1 car parking space per flat, there is bound to be issues with parking.Paxton Drive suffers similar, and it encourages neighbour disputes over spaces and a reluctanceto leave home due to worries of coming home and being unable to park, with no other optionsnearby. This issue will be somewhat resolved if the density of the site is reduced and less flats aresqueezed on to the site.TrafficLinked to the above topic on cars and parking, presents another issue- traffic. The surrounding

roads are often gridlocked from 8am-10am and 4pm-6pm, as well as other random times of theday when the bridge swings. The proposed development will further contribute to this issue,however of more significant concern is the proposed access and exit route for the development,which will have a major impact on residents from Paxton Drive, who already have to give way tothe right to traffic coming from Winterstoke Road.PollutionLinked to traffic concerns are also concerns around pollution, from the cars on the road and theasbestos on site. I note the issue of asbestos has been raised, particularly with regards to airborneparticles during construction and then waterborne particles when rain falls and drains fill.FloodingHuge flaws in the proposed development flood modelling have been raised in other comments,and I echo these. The concerns raised suggests there has been some sort of oversight ormiscalculation of flood risk, and I would like to see the council planning department conduct anindependent review on the accuracy of the submitted flood modelling, making their findings and

comments accessible to all.As someone who lives in Paxton Drive, our homebuyers report highlighted the development asbeing at high flood risk, noting that it would be very difficult to obtain home buildings insurance.Fortunately, as I'm in a flat, the freeholder provides this insurance, however how will the owners offreehold buildings (i.e. the townhouses) on the new site be able to insure their homes? This seemsof particular importance given the flood risk to the site and alck of mitigation against flooding.Having ones home deemed uninsurable would result in significant hardship should a flood occur.Local AmenitiesIt has already been raised that there seems to have been an omission of consideration for thecapacity of local amenities such as schools and GPs to cope with the proposed populationincrease to the area. Consultation with the schools and GPs needs to occur to ensure that newresidents will be able to access essential amenities.In addition, increasing the provision of amenities on the proposed site, for example including a'tesco express' or similar, would provide some essential provisions for local residents, reducingtheir need to get in their car and drive to the shops, which are over a mile away.In summary, the plans, as they stand, are entirely unsuitable, inadequate and unsustainable. Theydo not sit with the values of Bristol as a forward thinking, healthy, green city, and need significantreconsideration, where wellbeing of residents is put before profiteering. The height of the buildingsneeds to be reduced, their appearance needs to be improved, and the layout of the developmentrevised to account for pedestrians, cyclists and local road users, and it's safety improved toaccount for flooding risks and environmental preservation.

This is too many dwellings for the plot size in my opinion. This is likely to lead to issueswith traffic, parking and pollution in the area.

The building height will negatively impact the skyline, eg when looking down across the AvonGorge. The new development should be kept at a similar height to the neighbouring Paxton Drive.

I support new housing in this location but these proposals should be modified to reduce thenumbers.

Privacy The layout of the development means the residents of Paxton Drive whosebalconies and bedroom windows overlook the metrobus route will be severely encroached upon.Paxton Drive is built with wonderfully large windows so residents can enjoy the light and views ofthe surrounding areas, however with the new proposed development residents will have to installblinds and curtains to prevent being overlooked.

Any new plans need to consider this, and revising the height of all structures to match PaxtonDrive seems like an obvious move towards mitigating against this.

Density

The proposed development is built for profiteering and not for quality of life. The tall blocks are outof keeping with the area and will tower over the allotments and Paxton Drive. The tallest blocksare placed close to the flyover road, where residents will be plagued by the ever increasing trafficnoise, day and night. It was noted in the noise plans that residents will have to choose betweenstifling hot living conditions or road noise, unless some sort of cooling system is installed.

As a resident of Paxton Drive I can vouch for the noise of encroaching traffic, which for me is atleast mitigated by tall, leafy trees, however there is a significant absence of natural noise barriersin the new plans, and I couldn't see any proposed plans for internal cooling systems.

In addition, the preference for cramming in buildings as opposed to providing shared spaces is

another factor which further contributes to profiteering over quality of life and wellbeing. On thefinal point of density, the proposed plans do not cater for families in the area, with the majority ofdwellings being 1 and 2 bedroom flats. More 3 bedroom flats, and the addition of some additionaltownhouses will increase the provision of accommodation for families in need of affordablehousing.

Appearance

Whilst the Paxton Drive has been criticized in the plans for the new proposed development, theproposed development aesthetics neither improve upon or compliment Paxton Drive or the widersurroundings, and instead are offensive and uninspiring. Given the buildings are going to be seenfrom around the city, why not make them coloured like the iconic houses which line the horizons ofthe Harbourside and Totterdown?

The views to and from Ashton Court need to be preserved for all to enjoy, as well as the iconicsuspension bridge, which for now is appreciated by many residents of Paxton drive.

Access for pedestrians and cyclists

Festival way is a popular and busy route for local pedestrians, cyclists, students and visitors to thearea, and the proposed adjustment to the route presents safety issues.

In addition, there are no proposals for how this route will be diverted during the construction,particularly considering the hazardous airborne matter which will be released as a result of theasbestos on site.

In the reports on access, Paxton Drive is referenced as an accessible route for pedestrians andcyclists on the new development. You only need to visit Paxton Drive and try to walk down it torealise that due to the lack of parking, cars are parking on the roadside, an area that was designedto be a footpath. This forces pedestrians and cyclists into the road, and therefore walking up anddown Paxton Drive is dangerous. An alternative walkway for pedestrians from the newdevelopment needs to be considered.

Wildlife

Walking around the proposed site and dusk reveals the abundance of wildlife in the area, includingrabbits and foxes, who have already been forced to move their homes as a result of the metrobusdevelopment, and they will be further pushed out the city as a result of the redevelopment of thissite.

Parking

I am concerned about the significant lack of parking accounted for on the new development. WhilstI appreciate Bristol has aspirations to be a green city and reduce car usage, the fact of the matteris this site isn't within a reasonable walking distance to amenities for many, for example theelderly, disabled and young families. Therefore people will be reliant on their cars for gettingaround, and with less than 1 car parking space per flat, there is bound to be issues with parking.

Paxton Drive suffers similar, and it encourages neighbour disputes over spaces and a reluctanceto leave home due to worries of coming home and being unable to park, with no other optionsnearby. This issue will be somewhat resolved if the density of the site is reduced and less flats aresqueezed on to the site.

Traffic

Linked to the above topic on cars and parking, presents another issue- traffic. The surroundingroads are often gridlocked from 8am-10am and 4pm-6pm, as well as other random times of theday when the bridge swings. The proposed development will further contribute to this issue,however of more significant concern is the proposed access and exit route for the development,which will have a major impact on residents from Paxton Drive, who already have to give way tothe right to traffic coming from Winterstoke Road.

Pollution

Linked to traffic concerns are also concerns around pollution, from the cars on the road and theasbestos on site. I note the issue of asbestos has been raised, particularly with regards to airborneparticles during construction and then waterborne particles when rain falls and drains fill.

Flooding

Huge flaws in the proposed development flood modelling have been raised in other comments,and I echo these. The concerns raised suggests there has been some sort of oversight ormiscalculation of flood risk, and I would like to see the council planning department conduct anindependent review on the accuracy of the submitted flood modelling, making their findings andcomments accessible to all.

As someone who lives in Paxton Drive, our homebuyers report highlighted the development asbeing at high flood risk, noting that it would be very difficult to obtain home buildings insurance.

Fortunately, as I'm in a flat, the freeholder provides this insurance, however how will the owners offreehold buildings (i.e. the townhouses) on the new site be able to insure their homes? This seemsof particular importance given the flood risk to the site and alck of mitigation against flooding.Having ones home deemed uninsurable would result in significant hardship should a flood occur.

Local Amenities

It has already been raised that there seems to have been an omission of consideration for thecapacity of local amenities such as schools and GPs to cope with the proposed populationincrease to the area. Consultation with the schools and GPs needs to occur to ensure that newresidents will be able to access essential amenities.

In addition, increasing the provision of amenities on the proposed site, for example including a'tesco express' or similar, would provide some essential provisions for local residents, reducingtheir need to get in their car and drive to the shops, which are over a mile away.

In summary, the plans, as they stand, are entirely unsuitable, inadequate and unsustainable. Theydo not sit with the values of Bristol as a forward thinking, healthy, green city, and need significantreconsideration, where wellbeing of residents is put before profiteering. The height of the buildingsneeds to be reduced, their appearance needs to be improved, and the layout of the developmentrevised to account for pedestrians, cyclists and local road users, and it's safety improved toaccount for flooding risks and environmental preservation.

My thoughts on the proposed development are extremely negative, primarily on the height of the development. As a resident of Paxton drive and a neighbour to be to this development, the height and amount of buildings proposed will have the following impacts on me directly:- loss of natural light into my home- loss of privacy

The lack of details surrounding the traffic flow in and out of the new development is worryingly sparse. The height of the buildings will in turn bring a huge amount of traffic to the area and you have not detailed how the A369 and other roads are to cope with this. There's is also not enough on site parking for the proposed amount of flats, thus putting more strain on the already minimum local parking. There is no need for the height of 9 stories, it will dominate the local landscape from all angles- and the design is hardly appealing to the eye! As the southern gateway into Bristol, the looming 9 stories will be unwelcoming to say the least! I suggest a re design with a maximum height of four stories to bring it in line with the existing Paxton drive development.

CHRISTIAN WALSH

I object to the development plans for the reasons listed below, and echo many of theviews expressed within others objections.

PrivacyThe layout of the development means the residents of Paxton Drive whose balconies andbedroom windows overlook the metrobus route will be severely encroached upon. Paxton Drive isbuilt with wonderfully large windows so residents can enjoy the light and views of the surroundingareas, however with the new proposed development residents will have to install blinds andcurtains to prevent being overlooked.

Any new plans need to consider this, and revising the height of all structures to match PaxtonDrive seems like an obvious move towards mitigating against this.

Density

The proposed development is built for profiteering and not for quality of life. The tall blocks are outof keeping with the area and will tower over the allotments and Paxton Drive. The tallest blocksare placed close to the flyover road, where residents will be plagued by the ever increasing trafficnoise, day and night. It was noted in the noise plans that residents will have to choose betweenstifling hot living conditions or road noise, unless some sort of cooling system is installed.

As a resident of Paxton Drive I can vouch for the noise of encroaching traffic, which for me is at

least mitigated by tall, leafy trees, however there is a significant absence of natural noise barriersin the new plans, and I couldn't see any proposed plans for internal cooling systems.

In addition, the preference for cramming in buildings as opposed to providing shared spaces isanother factor which further contributes to profiteering over quality of life and wellbeing.On the final point of density, the proposed plans do not cater for families in the area, with themajority of dwellings being 1 and 2 bedroom flats. More 3 bedroom flats, and the addition of someadditional townhouses will increase the provision of accommodation for families in need ofaffordable housing.

Appearance

Whilst the Paxton Drive has been criticized in the plans for the new proposed development, theproposed development aesthetics neither improve upon or compliment Paxton Drive or the widersurroundings, and instead are offensive and uninspiring. Given the buildings are going to be seenfrom around the city, why not make them coloured like the iconic houses which line the horizons ofthe Harbourside and Totterdown?

The views to and from Ashton Court need to be preserved for all to enjoy, as well as the iconicsuspension bridge, which for now is appreciated by many residents of Paxton drive.

Access for pedestrians and cyclists

Festival way is a popular and busy route for local pedestrians, cyclists, students and visitors to thearea, and the proposed adjustment to the route presents safety issues.

In addition, there are no proposals for how this route will be diverted during the construction,particularly considering the hazardous airborne matter which will be released as a result of theasbestos on site.

In the reports on access, Paxton Drive is referenced as an accessible route for pedestrians andcyclists on the new development. You only need to visit Paxton Drive and try to walk down it torealise that due to the lack of parking, cars are parking on the roadside, an area that was designedto be a footpath. This forces pedestrians and cyclists into the road, and therefore walking up anddown Paxton Drive is dangerous. An alternative walkway for pedestrians from the newdevelopment needs to be considered.

Wildlife

Walking around the proposed site and dusk reveals the abundance of wildlife in the area, including

rabbits and foxes, who have already been forced to move their homes as a result of the metrobusdevelopment, and they will be further pushed out the city as a result of the redevelopment of thissite.

Parking

I am concerned about the significant lack of parking accounted for on the new development. WhilstI appreciate Bristol has aspirations to be a green city and reduce car usage, the fact of the matteris this site isn't within a reasonable walking distance to amenities for many, for example theelderly, disabled and young families. Therefore people will be reliant on their cars for gettingaround, and with less than 1 car parking space per flat, there is bound to be issues with parking.

Paxton Drive suffers similar, and it encourages neighbour disputes over spaces and a reluctanceto leave home due to worries of coming home and being unable to park, with no other optionsnearby. This issue will be somewhat resolved if the density of the site is reduced and less flats aresqueezed on to the site.

Traffic

Linked to the above topic on cars and parking, presents another issue- traffic. The surroundingroads are often gridlocked from 8am-10am and 4pm-6pm, as well as other random times of theday when the bridge swings. The proposed development will further contribute to this issue,however of more significant concern is the proposed access and exit route for the development,which will have a major impact on residents from Paxton Drive, who already have to give way tothe right to traffic coming from Winterstoke Road.

Pollution

Linked to traffic concerns are also concerns around pollution, from the cars on the road and theasbestos on site. I note the issue of asbestos has been raised, particularly with regards to airborneparticles during construction and then waterborne particles when rain falls and drains fill.

Flooding

Huge flaws in the proposed development flood modelling have been raised in other comments,and I echo these. The concerns raised suggests there has been some sort of oversight ormiscalculation of flood risk, and I would like to see the council planning department conduct anindependent review on the accuracy of the submitted flood modelling, making their findings and

comments accessible to all.

As someone who lives in Paxton Drive, our homebuyers report highlighted the development asbeing at high flood risk, noting that it would be very difficult to obtain home buildings insurance.Fortunately, as I'm in a flat, the freeholder provides this insurance, however how will the owners offreehold buildings (i.e. the townhouses) on the new site be able to insure their homes? This seemsof particular importance given the flood risk to the site and alck of mitigation against flooding.Having ones home deemed uninsurable would result in significant hardship should a flood occur.

Local Amenities

It has already been raised that there seems to have been an omission of consideration for thecapacity of local amenities such as schools and GPs to cope with the proposed populationincrease to the area. Consultation with the schools and GPs needs to occur to ensure that newresidents will be able to access essential amenities.

In addition, increasing the provision of amenities on the proposed site, for example including a'tesco express' or similar, would provide some essential provisions for local residents, reducingtheir need to get in their car and drive to the shops, which are over a mile away.

In summary, the plans, as they stand, are entirely unsuitable, inadequate and unsustainable. Theydo not sit with the values of Bristol as a forward thinking, healthy, green city, and need significantreconsideration, where wellbeing of residents is put before profiteering. The height of the buildingsneeds to be reduced, their appearance needs to be improved, and the layout of the developmentrevised to account for pedestrians, cyclists and local road users, and it's safety improved toaccount for flooding risks and environmental preservation.

Hi

I have been made aware of the development plans around Paxton Drive.

I would like to object on the basis that this would mean a significant loss of privacy for residents,given the proposed height of these buildings.

Having lived at Paxton Drive for just over a year, it really feels like my home and I would love tostay here for many more years.

From speaking to my neighbors, one of the most cherished things about living at Paxton Drive isthat the flats face some really lovely green spaces which attract all kinds of wildlife from foxes tobutterflies and various birds.

I know a few young families who make daily use of the space being proposed for the developmentand it would be very sad to see the particular area in question being developed into flats.

Whilst I appreciate the need for housing, with Bristol becoming a very popular place to live, PaxtonDrive is already a huge development housing a lot of people.

The people who live here really appreciate the privacy, parking, wildlife and conservation that wehave access to and I feel that the proposed development could compromise all of these things.

There is a great sense of community and residents really do make the most out of the areaproposed for development.

Speaking for myself, I know that if more flats were to be erected opposite my flat, I would considermoving elsewhere as it would take so much of the good away from my experience of being aresident at Paxton Drive.

I hope you are all well, and consider all of our views.

Yours SincerelyHannah Weir

I have several objections to the proposed development application. The main ones areas follows:

Asbestos

I am horrified that the asbestos, which I understand is currently present on site, could enter thelocal atmosphere in the form of dust due to construction activities. This could well lead to fatalities.

Air pollution

Permanent increase in air pollution

I notice the new traffic entrance to the proposed development will be right outside Block E ofPaxton Drive where I live. As an asthmatic I am particularly concerned about the increased trafficpollution that would be created by all the extra motor vehicles that would use the new junction asan entrance and exit. The area is already heavily polluted due to traffic. The residents noticed abig increase in the volume using the road since the Bristol southern bypass was completed. Wehave noticed many more trucks from quarries and other freight which then head on down thePortway to Avonmouth docks.I noticed that as part of the new development none of the trees and shrubs in general, but inparticular parallel to the Metro bus route, would be preserved, The trees present currently on thesite do, to some extent, mitigate the air pollution.

Has the provision of electric charging points for all new parking spaces at the proposeddevelopment been considered?

Air pollution due to Construction activities

This also concerns me greatly as an asthmatic. During the recent works to create the Metrobusroute we noticed a big increase in the amount of visible dust.

Traffic Noise

Increased traffic due to the proposed development would increase the already high levels of trafficin the area. See also remarks above.

Traffic safety

Quite a few school children who attend Ashton school come through Paxton Drive on foot and bybike and cross the currently quite exit to Paxton Drive on route to school. Clearly there would bean increased hazard when crossing if the current junction is increased in size and has more trafficusing it.

Parking issues

Currently there are acute parking problems within the Paxton Drive development. The newdevelopment seems to have low levels of provision of parking places compared to the number ofproposed new residents. This would worsen the parking problems in the area.

Design and appearance of the development

The proposed design does not seem harmonious with the Paxton Drive development. The scale ofsome of the buildings above four storeys seems totally mis-matched. There is no precedent in thearea for tall buildings. The nine-storey building which is not aesthetically pleasing would spoil theview for many in the general area and visitors and would stick out in the context of the backdrop ofthe historic Bristol suspension bridge and the valley below. The proposed ground level for the siteappears higher than Paxton Drive. Could this be lowered to match?

The aesthetics of the proposed buildings too do not seem to tie in well with the aesthetics ofPaxton Drive.

Ecology / Wildlife

Whilst the site proposed for development is technically a brown field site there is wildlife abundantin the area. I have noticed several foxes and rabbits. Also, there are quite a few bird species

present in the area. I have noticed green woodpeckers, magpies, jays, wagtails, goldfinches aswell seagulls and pigeons. I assume some of which are nest in the area. The proposeddevelopment does not seem to preserve any of the existing trees and shrubs which would destroythe habitat of the species listed above. The loss of vegetation would exacerbate the air pollution,remove barriers to traffic noise and remove the pleasure of nature present in the area.

Summary

All the points listed above would lower the quality of life for the residents of Paxton Drive. I believethe proposed development is very detrimental in the context of the local area.

I object to the height of buildings in the planning proposal being more than double theheight of surrounding architecture. It will destroy views of the area, block natural light, reduceprivacy, and feel totally at odds with the landscape. I think it's great that some housing will beaffordable, and it's really important it's built to high environmental standards (insulation, solarpanels, fully electric) but please don't remove any mature trees. I'm also concerned the cycle routewill be closed during construction or rerouted into roads. I don't get the impression there's anyeffort to increase infrastructure like GP surgeries, we lost one a few years ago which was neverreplaced and wait times for appointments at the remaining surgeries can be weeks. I support theother objections raised regarding flood risk, visual impact and transport and access.

As a resident of Paxton Drive I am writing to strongly object to the development of thesedwellings for a number of reasons.

- Living towards the lower end of Paxton Drive, the proposed entrance road to the development isill placed both in terms of encroaching on existing green space and on the long term effect ofcompounding already existing traffic problems the road already suffers from. The dual carriagewayis a road system which already has standstill traffic in the mornings and during rush hour whichcreates noise pollution and emissions; the development would unquestionably increase car usageinto this area and worsen the problem.

- This is not in line with Bristol's pledge for lowering pollution and creating more green spaces. Adevelopment of this scale will also have negative effects on existing wildlife in the area.

- Many of the residents of Paxton Drive enjoy views across Bristol which will be blocked by thisdevelopment; similarly due to the height of these new buildings, residents are likely to suffer froma reduction in light.

- Bristol is already a very crowded area; though I can appreciate that housing is required in Bristol,this plot is not suitable for the development of these buildings due to the proximity to Paxton Drivefor the reasons above.

As a resident of Paxton Drive I am writing to strongly object to the development of thesedwellings for a number of reasons.

- Living towards the lower end of Paxton Drive, the proposed entrance road to the development isill placed both in terms of encroaching on existing green space and on the long term effect ofcompounding already existing traffic problems the road already suffers from. The dual carriagewayis a road system which already has standstill traffic in the mornings and during rush hour whichcreates noise pollution and emissions; the development would unquestionably increase car usageinto this area and worsen the problem.

- This is not in line with Bristol's pledge for lowering pollution and creating more green spaces. Adevelopment of this scale will also have negative effects on existing wildlife in the area.

- Many of the residents of Paxton Drive enjoy views across Bristol which will be blocked by thisdevelopment; similarly due to the height of these new buildings, residents are likely to suffer froma reduction in light.

- Bristol is already a very crowded area; though I can appreciate that housing is required in Bristol,this plot is not suitable for the development of these buildings due to the proximity to Paxton Drivefor the reasons above.

I comment both as an architect and 'neighbour' as well as a frequent user of the FestivalWay cycle path.

This is a disastrous application that fails on all counts except it plays into the numbers game. It isarchitecturally abysmal, has no sense of place, and has sadly not improved since its first publicairing at the Create Centre when it was slated by both professional and public attendees alike.Reduction of the height of the tallest buildings by a storey or two still leaves it presenting a banalentrance to Bristol from the South West as well as damaging views, including significant harm tothe setting of some of Bristol's greatest treasures, Ashton Court's registered landscape, and viewsto and from the Avon Gorge and Grade I listed Clifton Suspension Bridge.

While I have no objection to the principle of development of this site, the layout is one that hasclearly been devised on the computer without proper reference to place - and with nounderstanding of the principles of good urban design. I cannot see the current professional ordevelopment team being able to pull the necessary rabbits out of the bag to make this schemeacceptable. It requires a complete rethink that enables a more natural incorporation of the FestivalWay, that is more family friendly in terms of landscape and environment, that significantly reducesthe extent of parking and raises its game in terms of architecture and urban design. Why build ona principal cycle path into and out of the city and encourage car ownership that has been the baneof Bristol?

If planning is to have any purpose, principle and power left, it will refuse this application which is

not only abysmal in itself but would set a dangerous precedent for any future neighbouringdevelopment. Please refuse outright and don't encourage or accept some indifferent compromise!

George Ferguson

I wish to object to the proposal as followsRerouting National Cycle Route 33, The Festival WayThe existing route, from Bedminster Cricket Club, to Ashton Avenue Bridge, is wide, well used,easy to navigate and virtually car free. It is immensely popular with Commuters; Pupils at AshtonPark School; Students at the University of the West of England (city campus); Spectators atAshton Gate Stadium and Visitors to Ashton Court. The proposed cycle route involves sharpcorners and narrow pathways. The crossing and junctions present a hazard to both cyclists andresidents. The design is completely unsuitable for a busy cycle routeThere is no indication how the route would be maintained during construction,Historic England has described the existing route as "difficult to follow", while this is partiallycorrect; it cannot be described as "tortuous".If BCC genuinely wishes to promote cycling, then routes such as the festival way need to beimproved not degraded

I endorse the objections of residents of Paxton Drive on the grounds of loss of light andprivacy and also flooding concerns. Paxton Drive was on flood alert this past winter.

However my principal objection is on the grounds of highway safety and traffic and parking issues.

Access to and from Paxton Drive by car is already very challenging as we are forced to merge intoa very busy and complicated one-way system. To exit Paxton Drive we must first merge with thetraffic from the A3029 Ashton Gate underpass. This can be travelling at speed. Almostimmediately, we then merge with the A370, the Brunel Way dual carriageway. This is a mainarterial road providing access into Bristol from the south and west, including from the M5. There isno filter lane to join the A370 and visibility is poor. This junction is particularly hazardous as theA370 traffic is pulling across the dual carriageway at this point to exit via the Jessop underpass totravel east along Coronation Road. This is another very busy route. At peak times the congestionand queues cause long delays. At all times the junctions and the road layout are far from safe.

If we wish to travel south out of Paxton Drive we must first turn north and follow this one-waysystem all the way across the bridge to Hotwells before we can turn and travel back up the otherside of the dual carriageway. This always feels like a lengthy detour, especially when traffic is at astandstill.

All residents of the new development will be adding to the traffic negotiating this inconvenient,congested and often hazardous one-way system. For the residents of Paxton Drive their current

traffic problems will obviously increase.

Two further hazards will be caused by traffic access to the new development.First, to access the development a new left turn will be required off the Ashton Gate underpass atthis tight junction at the exit from Paxton Drive.Second, this traffic leaving the Ashton Gate underpass to enter the new development willfrequently be held up by traffic controls for the metrobus, leading to queuing back into the trafficstream.

Our objection is that the proposed car access to the new development will be inconvenient andhazardous for the residents and will impact adversely on residents of Paxton Drive and all driverstravelling north into the city.

We are also concerned that lack of parking provision may encourage residents and their visitors totry to park on Paxton Drive, where parking is already problematic for visitors and emergencyvehicles.

Comment Reasons: lack of access to Information Comment:Regarding the submission of planning application 20/01655/F, former Railway Depot, Clanage Road, Bristol, I would like to raise a series of objections, questions and concerns to the proposed development. These are as follows: 1. Under current conditions of Covid 19 im unable to attend to view and plans etc and therefore would like to request copies of the complete planning application to be posted to myself, i hope there will be no charge for this, should there be then i would alter my request to a freedom of information requested to include, and not limited to, any correspondence letters, plans, emails , recorded telephone calls, meeting minutes associated to this application between, and again not limited to , Mayor George Ferguson, Mayor Marvin Rees, Bristol City Council, councilors and any associated representatives, Developers, Architects and resident liaison 2. Im informed that there is a proposal of several blocks of flats to be built opposite me and i would like to ask the question to wether these are to be built on the previously raised ground level or if the site is to be leveled back to its orginal level, also can you confirm if the raising of this land was landfill or hardcore. 3. I would also like confirmed and guaranteed the final altitude heights of each block to their highest points. with identification to roof level and the finished high of any services or lift housing that may be included on top of the roof level, so to confirm the i wish to have the altitude of the roof level and the altitude of the highest points of each block this must be guaranteed not estimated

Statement : I moved to Paxton Drive on the pretence as i got older i would not need as much space and allowing my house to be available for growing families, and was sold to a young family. I bought the flat with lovely views over ashton court and the grounds, i was informed when purchasing that no further development would take place due to the metro bus plans, it apears you are going to build blocks of flats ontop of raised land, spoiling the out look of the surrounding area and having a major impact on the inviroment which has been question by several residents with simular concerns, this develpoment with be a mixture of social housing and private rented student properties by demand, in consideration of the lack of Public funding within the bristol city council i feel it would be wiser to develop this site for the older genration with town houses and bungalows of which will free up housing stock in the city but also bring in on going revenue for bristol city council, my point being the lack of funding in our city being the impact on Coucil tax payers who pay your wages and your suppose to represent, over social housing that draws resorces and money from the council pot and puts no funding back in which is not there fault and down to circumstance, my point being neither social housing or students pay council tax which amouts to millions every year of loss revenue this develpoment alone would mostly withhold a income of £200,000 per annum which is much needed My other concerns are the impact of motor vehicles, the noise and parking issues this brings as i understand access with be directly across land on our side of the embankment and will impact our access points. Also the increased noise From metro bus as the noise bounces of both buildings either side My final concern at this point is the flood risk that is present and not catered for within this development creating further surface water. This development will have a massive impact on my property investment and my social and mental well beginning of which no one has any concern. I hope you all respect everyone's concerns and address all requests before proceeding with consideration to everyone's inability to engage fully due to covid19 Kind Regards Ken Smith

Regarding the submission of planning application 20/01655/F, former Railway Depot,Clanage Road, Bristol, I have reviewed the planning application in detail and would like to raise aseries of objections and concerns to the proposed development. These are as follows:

1. Flooding

- It comes to my attention that this area is an outstanding area of elevated flood risk from both tidaland groundwater flooding, noted from sections 2.4, and 6.48-6.53 in the Planning Statement Part1, as well as the Hydrock Flood Risk Assessments, and Drainage Strategy Parts 1-3. As a PhDstudent in the geographical/geological sciences, with a deep understanding of flooding, its causesand effects, these development plans are of great concern to me. Flood risk in this area of Bristolalready exists and will arguably increase as a direct consequence of the new development.

- Re. sections 2.4 and 6.51 in Planning Statement Part 1, Flood Report, Drainage Report: "Themajority of the site is within Flood Zone 1 (low risk), with only the far northwest corner within FloodZone 2 (medium risk). The source of this risk is tidal flooding from the River Avon. The site is at amedium risk of groundwater flooding and at a low risk from all other sources". It is noted that thereare inaccuracies/contradictions between the Planning Statement Part 1, section 6.51 and theFlood Risk Assessment, section 3.1, where the latter reports medium flood risk from bothgroundwater and tidal flooding.

- In March of this year (2020), extensive flooding around the Cumberland Basin was observedcaused by high spring tides. The River Avon has the second highest tidal reach in the world,making its susceptibility to flooding unsurprising. On 12th March 2020 Bristol Harbour reported11.8m tides, which caused extensive overbank flooding across the Cumberland Basin andsurrounding areas (follow link for photographic evidence: www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/gallery/pictures-high-spring-tides-flood-3942718 ). This event shows inadequacies in thecurrent flood area risk assessment and I would suggest should increase the risk rating of theproposed development area significantly.

- The flood modelling approach taken in the risk assessment is to take the currently approvedCAFRA downstream River Avon tidal boundary and apply climate change adjustments for 100years' time. I would overwhelmingly disagree with this approach as the currently approved tidalboundary seems to significantly underpredict the flood risks now, let alone for 100 years' time.This is evident based on the 12th March 2020 11.8 m tides that inundated large areas within thevicinity of this site. Evidence of this can be found in the following report (https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR040011/TR040011-000419-5.6%20Flood%20Risk%20Assessment%20Appendix%20App%20N%20part%201%20(Part%206%20of%2017).pdf ) which offers alternative flood modelling of the area and shows greater than50% of the development submerged (section 4.3.2, fig. 4). I therefore consider it unlikely that theflood assessment presented in this plan will adequately protect the development.

- "Levels vary across the site with the MetroBus route and proposed access around 3.5 metreslower than the adjacent land". The plans for the access road (the sole vehicular in/out route for thedevelopment) show a proposed elevation of 8.0 m (Transport Assessment). By their own floodmodelling and risk assessment, the expected peak tidal flood conditions could reach 10.283 m.Were this level of flooding to occur then the only vehicular access route in or out of thedevelopment would be under approximately 2.2 m of water. This leads me to believe that a muchless significant (smaller but higher probability), tidal flood would dangerously restrict access(including emergency service) to and from the development. Significant risk analysis of flooding tothe residential and commercial units seems to have been undertaken, less so for the vital accessroute.

- The amount of hardstanding paving among other impermeable surfaces on the site is likely toexacerbate the flooding problem, by enhancing surface water, overland flow and providinginsufficient drainage for potential excess water. It has been decided that surface water from thesite can only be disposed of through the foul water sewage system. Whilst some tanks on the siteare to be put in to mitigate this problem, the local sewer foul system has flooded once in the lastfive years. The addition of 253 flats/houses and accompanying surface water would suggest thereis an exceptionally high chance of this happening again with subsequent risk to health.

- I request that the rainfall data used for the 1:30yr and 1:100yr surface flooding scenariosmodelling be made public, as some rudimentary calculations call into question the validity of theeffectiveness of the planned drainage system. Using a notable example from Extreme Rainfall andFlood Event Recognition R&D Technical Report: FD2201, DEFRA /Environmental Agency Floodand Coastal Defence R&D Program 2002, 175mm of rain fell in 9 hours in Chew Stoke, Bristol in1968. Assuming this rainfall engulfed Catchment Area A, fell consistently across the 9 hours and a5 l/s outflow into the WW sewer, the 900 m3 storage capacity would have been overwhelmed in4.2 hours, leaving the remaining 4.8 hours of rainfall to submerge the development (to an averagedepth of 86 mm across the entire site). An alternative rudimentary calculation shows a "violentshower" of 50 mm/hour would overwhelm the onsite storage capacity in only 1.5 h. I would notconsider this event a 1:100yr occurrence. It would appear that storage capacity is insufficient forthe large hardstanding area considering the paltry 5l/s drainage allowance into the WW sewer.

- It is noted that the site is at "medium risk of groundwater flooding and at low risk from all othersources". Groundwater flooding of this land increases the likelihood of asbestos and soilcontaminant leaching out of the substrate into the surrounding environment, including the RiverAvon, which provides an important site for much of Bristol's ecology.

2. Air Quality and Pollution

- Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy June 2011 says that "development should besited and designed in a way to avoid adversely impacting on environmental amenity or biodiversityof surrounding area by fumes, dust, noise, vibration, smell, light, other forms of air, land or waterpollution or exposing contaminated land". A development of this scale clearly inhibits adverseimpacts on several, if not all of these variables.

- Re. section 2.4 in Planning Statement Part 1: "The site falls within the Bristol Air QualityManagement Area". Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) are declared when there is anexceedance or likely exceedance of an air quality objective. A development of this scale wouldexpose people within the vicinity and along the WSW path of prevailing wind (Bedminster andSouthville) to poorer air quality through extensive construction work and enhanced trafficcongestion in an already overly busy road network in Bristol. Residents of Paxton Drive are ofparticularly high risk to reduced air quality.

- The construction phase of the development stands out as an area of particular concern. Duringconstruction, both contaminated and non-contaminated particulate matter will be mobilised fromthe substrate and due to the WSW prevailing wind will impact the populous areas of bothBedminster and Southville. In the short term this is a concern for people susceptible to respiratoryproblems such as asthma, among others.

- It is further noted in section 6.46 of the Planning Statement Part 1 that "Asbestos fibres

associated with the site's historic railway use have been identified and are distributed across thesite". In the long term, the inhalation of asbestos-contaminated particulate matter can have majorhealth implications, including cancer. The proposed "capping of all soft landscaping and hardstanding with 0.6m of suitable topsoil/subsoil and/or engineered fill" is argued here as insufficientremediation for this and does not account for release of these fibres by mobilisation duringexcavation and construction. Extensive excavation will be required for both the foundations andthe construction of the inadequate water storage tanks proposed to stop the overwhelming of thesewers during floods.

- It is noted that excavation is intended to be kept to a minimum for the purpose of not disturbingthe distributed asbestos, however significant groundwork is detailed. This is evidenced by the 4mdeep excavation for the access road which will be in very close proximity to the Paxton Drive areaand the busway. This is shown in the figure in Appendix A "Proposed access road cross section",p. 32 of the Drainage Strategy Part 1. It is also noted that the landscaping of this falls well withinthe 8 m standoff of the critical drainage structure, the Longmoor Brook culvert, of which thestructural strength (wall thickness) is apparently unknown according to the email from RichardBridge, p. 29 of the Drainage Strategy.

3. Environmental Degradation

- Re. section 2.6 in Planning Statement Part 1: It is noted that "Land to the north and east isdesignated as Important Open Space on the current Policies Map. A strip of land along thewestern boundary (including the now constructed Metrobus corridor) is also defined as ImportantOpen Space". Reserved open spaces as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF) ought to offer protection from inappropriate development. Bedminster ward has little in theway of green spaces, something that is important to maintain for the health and wellbeing of thecommunity. To develop this site will cause removal of trees and vegetation to replace it with asterile housing development. It is also noted that the land for the proposed development is a Siteof Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI).

- The land and visual application says that there are strong landscape boundaries which will act asbuffer zones but these are not shown on the plans. It is suggested that 32 established trees will bereplaced by 185 unestablished saplings scattered around the hardstanding and courtyard whichwill take decades to mature. The current existing buffer zone on the west side of the Metrobus waywill be removed.

4. Travel, Access and Parking

- The site will provide 141 parking spaces, 8 of these for disabled and 5 for the café. Only 28% ofpeople / families in Bristol (in Bedminster too) do not own a car suggesting that 72% do (asidentified in the application's own documents). This means that there is only parking for just over50% of the residents. Whilst it can be appreciated that local transport links, cycle ways and

walking may be possible it would seem unlikely at least in the short and medium-term people willget rid of their cars. Where are these people going to park their cars given that it has already beenidentified that parking in Paxton Drive is indiscriminate where the provision of parking is a spacefor every property?

- Further to the previous point, residents are likely to need cars to access local services e.g.decent sized supermarkets, GP surgeries, schools and other local amenities, due to inadequateprovision of public transport. The metrobus only goes to Bristol City Centre, but not to other local,in-demand areas, e.g. North Street, Bedminster. Furthermore, buses only run Monday toSaturday, and during the Covid-19 outbreak the M2 bus service was the first of the Bristol servicesto be suspended. It is noted that a health needs assessment has been undertaken. The nearestGP surgery is 1.1 miles away which is a 25-minute walk, clearly not possible if you are elderly,infirm or unwell.

- It is noted that the National Cycleway N33 is to be re-directed through the estate but it is unclearwhat will happen during construction if the proposed plans go ahead. This is a popular bike route,connecting commuter villages and towns to Bristol City Centre, including Long Ashton, andNailsea.

5. Site Constraints

- The proposed development has a mixture of social, affordable and private housing for youngpeople with families. It strikes me that this development has very limited impact for social andaffordable housing for families. There are going to be 95 one-bedroom flats, 140 two-bedroomflats- arguably insufficient for family accommodation-, two three-bedroom flats and fourteen four-bedroom townhouses, which are unlikely to be affordable to young people with families.

- It is proposed that the site will provide approximately 860 beds and 8176m2 of public realm openspace. It would appear from these plans that there is insufficient communal and green spaceproposed, particularly given that the development is targeting young families, most of whom will beliving in flats with no personal outdoor space, i.e. gardens. Recent restrictions have illustrated howchallenging it is for young families to maintain health and wellbeing in these conditions.

- The application suggests that there will be employment opportunities on the finished site. Theyexpect this to be around 11 people in total, arguably insufficient to provide significantemployment/economic benefits.

- There is no mention in the report about local schooling and whether they have capacity toincrease their numbers. I suggest as this development is largely aimed at families, an investigationshould be made into the capacity of local schools prior to development.

- As it stands, the current plans propose to transform one of the limited adjacent greenspaces at

the top end of Paxton Drive into an access road for the new development. This will also requirePaxton Drive residents to give way to the new development at an intersection which already has asignificant queueing problem. At peak times traffic already exists leaving/entering the Paxton Driveestate. Congestion is anticipated to worsen with the new development. I therefore strongly objectto the development of an access road to the new site using greenspace adjacent to the PaxtonDrive estate.

- The evidence presented in the Transport Assessment does not appear to represent the truth ofqueueing on the Ashton Gate Underpass and Brunel way, easy evidence of this can be found onthe Google Street view images taken from Paxton Drive July 2019.

6. Visual Objections

- I believe that the visual assessment of these site plans was highly biased, presenting thedevelopment in an advantageous, yet wholly incomplete light. The visual assessment of thisPlanning Proposal failed to include the visual impact from the most affected sites, including thePaxton Drive estate, and Bedminster Cricket Ground.

- It is noted from the visual impact surveys that this development will have a major detrimentalvisual impact from all aspects, particularly with regards to Blocks D and E, 7 and 9 storeybuildings, respectively. From the East (including Paxton Drive) the dense vegetation currentlypresent bordering the Metrobus guideway will be removed and replaced by 4 small trees. Thecurrent views from the listed Ashton Court grounds are destroyed by the aggressive dominance ofthe proposed buildings. The views from the nationally important and historic Clifton SuspensionBridge are of high sensitivity and the scale and design of the buildings severely impact on thisview. Furthermore, the three listed tobacco warehouses which currently dominate the views maynot be to everyone's taste but are a hugely significant part of Bristol's heritage. The developmentwould overwhelm their presence, detracting significantly from them. The view from National Cyclepath 41 is dominated by the 9-storey building and may mean that less people choose to cycle as aresult.

- Privacy will be taken from the residents of Paxton Drive, as the new development will directlyoverlook these pre-existing homes. Privacy within one's home is a basic human right and shouldbe respected. Under the Human Rights Act, Protocol 1, Article 1 it states that "a person has theright to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions, which includes the home and other land". Theplanners have shown a blatant disregard for the privacy of the Paxton Drive residents.

- The proposed development plans will block natural light from Paxton Drive. The blocking of lightis particularly affected by the proposals of Buildings D and E, 7 and 9 storey blocks of flats,respectively.

- A further objection towards these proposed 7 and 9 storey blocks D and E is that these tall

buildings are not in keeping with the surrounding infrastructure, nor the Green Belt / CityBoundary. There was significant public objection to the 7 storey and 11 storey buildings during thepublic consultation. Reducing the height of the largest building from 11 storeys to 9 as a result ofthis blatantly fails to reconcile the fact that the complaints also covered the height of the 7 storeybuilding and seems an insult to the consultation process.

- The land visual report observes that the sensitive building designs will not dominate or influencethe landscape or townscape. However, the size of the buildings at two 5-storey, one 7-storey andone 9-storey will severely dominate and influence both the landscape and townscape, obviouslyconsidered so by the public reaction to these plans. Furthermore, these will also be severelyimpacted due to the finish combination of dark green cladding, dark red cladding, dark greycladding, red orange, dark grey, buff, brown, soft blue, dark blue, bridge red and bright orangebricks with black window frames and doors making the buildings look more like a patchwork quilt.These last two points are both in direct contravention of Bristol Council's own planning statementswhere developments should add overall quality to the area, be visually attractive, sympathetic tolocal character and have appropriate green spaces. It is also noted that the planning concept forthe site in 2013/14 was for 150 new houses not 253.

- The land and visual application states that the proposed trees and shrubs provide moderatelybeneficial effects on the views from Paxton Drive. There are only 4 small trees shown on the planswhich will not confer any beneficial effect on the detrimental views for Paxton Drive residentscompared to the current expansive green spaces.

I believe these plans leave a lot of unanswered questions including:

- How will the developers ensure 24/7 access to emergency services even in the event of amoderate flood? (Regular emergencies are not inconceivable with an anticipated population of 860people).- Will the flood risk assessment be revised to include the recent floods of March 2020, as well asinclude the effects of climate change on flooding in 100 years time?- Will surface water drainage plans be reconsidered to provide adequate surface water drainageduring extreme rainfall events?- What will be done to prevent reduction in air quality by asbestos contaminated and non-contaminated particulate matter during the construction phase of development?- How will excavated asbestos and contaminated soil be disposed of?- How will the developers ensure ample provision of parking and that residents do not use localhighways or other nearby developments to park their cars?- Does local schooling have the capacity to increase their numbers for the resident children?- What will happen to the N33 commuter cycle route if proposed plans go ahead?

Overall, I have highlighted several of my principal concerns regarding i) elevated flood risk andinsufficient flood alleviation plans for the new development, ii) mobilisation of contaminated and

non-contaminated particulate matter, iii) inevitable environmental degradation, iv) inadequateparking provision for the proposed number of properties, v) poor transport links, vi) theinconsiderate 7 and 9 storey blocks of flats that are not in keeping with neither the surroundinginfrastructure nor the greenbelt/city boundary, vii) the privacy loss for Paxton Drive residents. Forthe aforementioned concerns I am forced to object to the redevelopment of the Former RailwayDepot, Clanage Road, Bristol.

20/01655/F Redevelopment of the site at Former Railway Depot Clanage Road Bristol

Building E Massing, height and proximity to boundary

The Applicant's EVALUATION (3.0 ) under Constraints and Opportunities, and Design Principlesstates;- to take advantage of the views towards....Clifton Suspension Bridge- create scale and proportion relevant to people and the surrounding buildings and spaces

When these two points are considered the latter has been largely ignored in favour of a desire tomaximise the former. The drawing Building E Section in Context conveniently cuts through thelower 5 storey link and shows the floating elevated road section to indicate scale, presumably toindicate that views beyond are possible.

Equally useful context added to Building E - Section A would show the boundary to White Cityallotments commencing 9 metres from the building and the tended land, essentially flat with ascattering of garden sheds and fruit cages; more clearly demonstrating that the stated designprinciple has been largely ignored.

The overall massing and height of the development should not be a hostage to the views butshould respect the local context and taper down in height at perimeters to achieve this. Building Ehas been designed with blinkers looking only towards Clifton and ignoring context at ground level

to the west, forming an artificial cliff (with balconies), rising 22metres above allotments only 9metres from the boundary.

The town houses set in front of taller blocks A-C successfully demonstrates that a tapered effect ispossible when viewed from the west.

Physical Context

The Bonded Warehouses do not form a contemporary template for the massive Building E. Theyare a unique remnant of a particular period in Bristol's history and should remain unique in scaleand context.

I also fail to see what relevance the photos of random dwellings in Clifton have under the headingPhysical Context?

Allotments -Physical Context

There appears to be no consideration of the White City Allotments in the planning application,(other than their existence, access, boundaries and photographs), nor of the effect of theproposals on them or their tenants.

The proximity to boundary and height of tall building E has a detrimental effect on the amenity ofadjacent allotments;

- Majority of all allotment plots to W and NW of tall building E will suffer from varying degrees ofshading up to 12.30pm in December, increasing periods of frost.- For the majority of the year ie. Autumn - Spring, Plots in the immediate vicinity of building E willreceive significant morning shading and partial shading even in mid-summer.- The increased wind speed caused by building E at ground level could be severe. Have anycalculations been carried out to study this and what design parameters are proposed?

Given that the proposal significantly exceeds the suggested number of units in the Local PlanReview, it would be beneficial if the tall and massive buildings E (and D) could be reduced andreconfigured to address all the points above.

Festival Way National Cycle Route 33

The Applicant's EVALUATION (3.0 ) under Constraints and Opportunities states;- to provide a development with excellent transport links

The proposed re-routing of the NCR 33 is not an ideal replacement for the current location (alongthe west boundary) that is straightforward and direct.Have Sustrans been consulted in this design?It is not clear if or how a temporary route could be maintained during construction.

- the proposed route involves several tight manoeuvres on narrow pathways- the pathway is shared with pedestrians and needs to be of suitable width to accommodate travelIn opposite directions by both pedestrians and cyclists (often in family groups)- changes in direction should be of adequate width and have suitable vision splays to avoidcollisions- this route is the principle (largely) car free route from Bristol centre to Ashton Park, Leigh Woodsand further, it is very heavily used during many festivals and its routing through a housingdevelopment may give rise to antisocial behaviour- the route adds additional pedestrian, vehicular and refuse collection crossings to the existingroute and passes close to the main entrance to the external young children's play area, which maypresent dangers of collisions and accidents- will this routing be made suitable for use after dark?

In view of these added complexities and potential hazards would it not be more appropriate tomaintain the existing NCR 33 route along the west boundary by slightly altering the route's entrypoint to the site at the NW corner and create a buffer zone between the allotments and thedevelopment.

I appreciate that this would involve some adjustment to the tall Building E, but again thepreoccupation of maximizing potential views may be overriding a more logical balancing ofpriorities and degrading an already excellent transport link conveniently passing through the site.

It's a flood zone and an already heavily populated area.

Too many housing units with no services, education institutions, medical services,transport connections to support them. Let our green boundaries remain green. Keep tall buildingsin the city centre where sustainable transport is in place.

Absolutely greedy to build high rise, ruins view no respect of green belt

Living on paxton drive the plans show greedy developers ruining a beautiful historicalpart of Bristol. The clean area air zone that bristol wants to promote will be totally ruined by theadditional traffic chaos. Destruction of many green trees safety of cyclist and pedestrians sharing avery small path. The route into the developement from paxton drive will be a nightmare as this isalready a extremely busy area. The maximum height from any development within the area shouldnot exceed 3 storeys and architecturally should fit the green surroundings and not the red brickeyesore in plans. I think this will be a big mistake for Bristol and our green belt areas.

While I support the use of this site for housing, particularly as it indicates that it wouldinclude affordable housing, I do not support the density of the proposed development (over 250units?) nor the proposed height of 9 storeys for part of the development. In my opinion adevelopment of this height will be out of keeping with the surrounding views of Bristol and thedensity will also bring far too much additional traffic (presumably residents will have at least onecar per household?) to a relatively small area where traffic levels and car parking are alreadychallenging concerns.

While I support the use of this site for housing, particularly as it indicates that it wouldinclude affordable housing, I do not support the density of the proposed development (over 250units?) nor the proposed height of 9 storeys for part of the development. In my opinion adevelopment of this height will be out of keeping with the surrounding views of Bristol and thedensity will also bring far too much additional traffic (presumably residents will have at least onecar per household?) to a relatively small area where traffic levels and car parking are alreadychallenging concerns.

We support the redevelopment of the former Railway Depot brown field, site but feelstrongly that this proposal wastes a great opportunity to enhance a major gateway to the City.

We particularly object to the height and intensity of 7 to 9 storey blocks D & E at the northern endof the proposed site, which are completely unsuitable for the Green Belt / City boundary and willblight this approach to the City.

Any development of this site should be consistent with the area and not exceed the form of thePaxton Drive estate which should be used as a benchmark.

The proposed development exceeds the sites recommended capacity for dwellings by over 50%.The consequences would be to compromise future residents open spaces and severely overloadalready struggling local transport systems.

Finally, the appearance of all of the proposed buildings can be described at best as functional.With the backdrop of Clifton, Cliftonwood and the Suspension Bridge, here is the chance toenhance the cities western approach. The old Bonded Warehouses were of their time and purposeand do not merit being a design model for any new, sustainable development.

With large schemes like this it is difficult to cover every aspect of the application.I suspect that the pedestrian and cycle routes across the site do not take into account the desirelines of such users. If they do not do so this will lead to short cuts which may conflict with otherusers and landscape elements.However my main objection is to the over-development of this site by the introduction of buildingsover 5 storeys in height.One obvious element of this is that it will generate car ownership way more that the parkingprovision proposed.More difficult to predict is the effect on the social development of the site. Social housing on theedge of cities in areas of limited or distant access to most social facilities. This can mean suchsites are only acceptable to some who are desperate for housing of any sort but who have nopositive view of their new location. This is a recipe for anti-social behaviour and the creation ofslums of the future. Some such developments have been demolished within 30 years ofconstruction. A reduction in the social housing element to 30% would seem an acceptablecompromise for a reduction in density.The priority in achieving consent for this application should be the reduction in height to fivestoreys.

Having seen the planning application and studied it in detail we are appalled that thecouncil would even consider destroying land that is used by so many for recreation purposes - fora development that is largely objected to publically.

As a resident I have more personal objections to the development, these are notably:

- Loss of natural light: As a ground floor flat facing out to where the development is to be built andgiven the close proximity of the new buildings it will wipe out all our natural light. Given natural lightis already hampered by the current tree-line - the even taller building will cause a very big drop innatural light that needs to be considered.

- On top of the lack of light: we are going to suffer a serious loss of privacy with all the newwindows overlooking our flat, all our windows face directly at the new building and will provide uszero privacy as a ground floor flat.

- Loss of nature - Currently there are a lot of trees in the area that the development is going tooccupy so this will remove an important part of the eco-system close to the city centre. Given allthe concerns about air quality in the city and the development is to be built inside the new lowemission zone it is criminal to then knock down existing natural resources. Building thisdevelopment at the expense of natural resources will undermine everything we are trying toachieve as a city.

- Traffic Generation/Roads/Access - The current access to the development is only going tostretch what is already one of the busiest and most congested roads in Bristol (Further reducingair quality). Given there are already so many plans to re-work the road system around the area toimprove things, this is only going to hamper those improvements.

On the whole, this development provides far more problems for the city than it solves and if plansare approved it will further provide evidence that the council is not working in the best interests oflocal residents and the future sustainability of the city. Especially as this new development will ruinthe famous views that Bristol is famous for.

Having seen the planning application and studied it in detail we are appalled that thecouncil would even consider destroying land that is used by so many for recreation purposes - fora development that is largely objected to publically.

As a resident I have more personal objections to the development, these are notably:

- Loss of natural light: As a ground floor flat facing out to where the development is to be built andgiven the close proximity of the new buildings it will wipe out all our natural light. Given natural lightis already hampered by the current tree-line - the even taller building will cause a very big drop innatural light that needs to be considered.

- On top of the lack of light: we are going to suffer a serious loss of privacy with all the newwindows overlooking our flat, all our windows face directly at the new building and will provide uszero privacy as a ground floor flat.

- Loss of nature - Currently there are a lot of trees in the area that the development is going tooccupy so this will remove an important part of the eco-system close to the city centre. Given allthe concerns about air quality in the city and the development is to be built inside the new lowemission zone it is criminal to then knock down existing natural resources. Building thisdevelopment at the expense of natural resources will undermine everything we are trying toachieve as a city.

- Traffic Generation/Roads/Access - The current access to the development is only going tostretch what is already one of the busiest and most congested roads in Bristol (Further reducingair quality). Given there are already so many plans to re-work the road system around the area toimprove things, this is only going to hamper those improvements.

On the whole, this development provides far more problems for the city than it solves and if plansare approved it will further provide evidence that the council is not working in the best interests oflocal residents and the future sustainability of the city. Especially as this new development will ruinthe famous views that Bristol is famous for.

The Society's response to 20/01655/F - Old Rail Depot, Clanage Road.

The proposalVistry Partnerships (the Developer) proposes to redevelop the former railway maintenance depotthat is a brownfield site cleared of buildings to build a residential led scheme, including affordablehousing (social rented and shared ownership), across five buildings between 4 - 9 storeys,townhouses, flexible retail/café space, public realm, landscaping including ecological mitigationmeasures, access and associated groundworks. The scheme would build 253 new homes on a2.73-hectare site, a density of 93 dwellings per hectare.

Planning backgroundThe Local Plan Review (the Review) identifies the site for development with an estimated capacityof 150 homes. We recognise that the advised figure of 150 homes is not determinative, but theadvice is based on recently assessed material planning considerations. A development thatexceeds the advice by 68% requires to be fully justified.

ConclusionThe Society supports the principle of redevelopment of this derelict land with a residential ledscheme. The Society supports aspects of the proposal. We regret that overall, we cannot supportthe scheme. Our principal objection is that the 7 - 9-storey buildings, Blocks D & E, at the northernend of the site would have a significant negative impact on the character of the area. The Core

Strategy proposes a minimum density of 30 dph in this area of the city. The Society supports theadvice of Urban Living, Making Successful Places Higher Densities (Urban Living) that somesuburban sites could support higher densities than the policy minimum. However, theconsequences of the development intensity of Blocks D & E on the city boundary would harm tothe public realm and compromise the future residents' open space amenity. We support the heightand massing of the lower rise blocks A - C, and the town houses. The Society could support adevelopment that did not exceed the height of the Paxton Drive estate which should be treated asthe benchmark.

Part 1 of the Urban Living provides advice to applicants of major development schemes. Thequestionnaire sets out best practice in relation to urban design and place making at a city,neighbourhood, block and street level.

City

Q1.1 Has the scheme adopted an approach to urban intensification which is broadly consistentwith its setting?

This development is on a sensitive site with a distinctive character to protect. It will be prominent ina viewing arc from Cliftonwood through to Bower Ashton. There will be close views from theBrunel Way, the allotments, and Paxton Drive. The development will form the boundary to thecity's built-up area. To the west are allotments, a cricket ground, and the Ashton Court Estate allwithin the Green Belt where further development is unlikely. The boundary of the Green Belt is ahighly unsuitable site for a landmark, contextual tall building of 9-floors above ground. Blocks D &E are not consistent with their setting. The development will be grouped visually with the PaxtonDrive estate as a separate 'urban village'. All parts of the scheme should harmonise and notexceed the form of the Paxton Drive estate if it is to be consistent with its site on the edge of thebuilt-up area. The traffic noise and pollution from the elevated Brunel Way will blight the north endof the site which is the area with the highest population density.Neighbourhood

Q1.2 Does the scheme contribute towards creating a vibrant and equitable neighbourhood?

An additional residential population will complement the existing, physically isolated Paxton Driveestate, support the local social infrastructure and, possibly future transport.

Q1.3 Does the scheme respond positively to either the existing context, or in areas undergoingsignificant change, an emerging context?

We support the proposal to build a row of town houses on the edge of the development whichwould shield the taller Blocks A - C when viewed from the west. The possible redevelopment ofthe Western Harbour is not a material planning consideration and cannot justify the height of

Blocks D & E. There is no adopted policy to develop the Western Harbour. The proposal isaspirational and faces considerable impediments that include the need to obtain a Department forTransport capital funding grant, highways management, and flooding, of which there is recentexperience. The local landmark buildings, the former bonded warehouses are too distant from theBlocks D & E to form a visual connection or supply a comparable scale. The elevated Brunel Wayforms a visual barrier to the east of the site.1.4 Does the scheme provide people-friendly streets and spaces?

The creation of a Metrobus Street to separate the development from the Paxton Drive Estatemakes a positive contribution to mitigate the constraint of the busway. The single access to theestate, negotiated with Transport Development, inevitably determines the linear form ofdevelopment. We comment below on the area of surface car parking. Currently, the 'non-car parkspace' is laid out as a linear park separated by a wide promenade from Blocks A - C. The Societysupports the provision of substantial landscaping. But we support the comments made by otherrespondents who were concerned about the proximity of green/amenity spaces to the site carparking. To attract use by the future residents the amenity space needs to have 'intimate' areas.There are many examples of open spaces around flatted blocks in the city that were poorlyplanned and are unused. The open green area will be exposed to the prevailing south-westerlywind.

The Festival Way cycling route from Ashton Court to Ashton Avenue Bridge and the city centre isfrom Clanage Road (A369) through the site. The route through the site is a dogleg with two right-angle bends. This is not ideal. It reflects the site constraint of the single-access road on a north-south axis, and the rectangular block layout of the site. Faster cyclists will tend to take the moredirect route across the access road to the Metrobus route. It would be sensible to make provisionfor this. The desire line for walkers and cyclists coming from the same south-west access point tothe south-east access point, via the Metrobus route to Ashton Gate, does not seem to have beenconsidered.

Block & Street

Q1.5 Does the scheme deliver a comfortable microclimate for its occupants, neighbours andpassers-by?

See answer to question 1.4.

Q1.6 Has access, car parking and servicing been efficiently and creatively integrated into thescheme?

This is not a highly sustainable site. The only destination of the Metrobus is the city centre.Currently, there is no Sunday service. Public transport does not serve the Ashton, Southville, andBedminster local retail centres. The level of car ownership on the Paxton Drive estate suggests

that the scheme should supply the car parking calculated using the schedule to the SitesAllocation and Development Management DPD. The consequence of supplying a more realisticand higher number of surface spaces is that parked cars would dominate the site. The Societysuggests that the developer consider a separate parking area to release the remaining space for asoft landscape and children's play area. A reduction of the height of Blocks D & E to the height ofBlocks A-C would reduce the number of car-owning households and mitigate the demand for carparking. The provision of car parking for 253 new homes will have a negative impact on theexternal amenity space. The Society would support under croft parking if it did not increase theheight of the apartment blocks.

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

The entrances appear well planned.

Q2.2 Does the scheme provide practical, attractive and easily accessible communal amenityspace that meets the needs of its target resident profile? AndQ2.3 Does the scheme provide sufficient private outdoor space? AndQ2.4 Does the scheme create attractive, well designed and well maintained private outdoorspaces? AndQ2.5 Does the scheme creatively integrate children's play?We refer to our answers to questions 4 and 6.

Individual homes

Q2.6 Are internal layouts ergonomic and adaptable?

Few of the flats will get much sunlight; they are mostly aligned north south which will limit the sunlithours for the single aspect flats. The fronts of the terrace of houses face south west but eachhouse has another house projecting in front of it. Will layout adversely affect the availablesunlight? The main windows face Clifton. We cannot judge whether the flats' balconies are largeenough to be habitable.

Q2.7 Does the scheme safeguard privacy and minimise noise transfer between homes? AndQ2.8 Does the scheme maximise opportunities for daylight and sunlight of internal spaces;avoiding single aspect homes?

The response assumes that the scheme achieves the Council's minimum space standards. TheSociety draws attention to the proportion of single aspect flats.

Visual quality

Q3.1 Is the tall building well located? AndQ3.2 Does the scheme make a positive contribution to the long-range, mid-range and immediateviews to it?

We refer to the answer to Question 1.1

Q3.3 Does the scheme demonstrate design excellence?

We note the strong criticism by this developer of the design of the Paxton Drive Estate. Wesupport the view of other respondents who found the elevations monolithic and unsuited to thecharacter of this city boundary site. We would prefer to see greater articulation and response tolocal context. The flat roofline adds nothing to the character of the area. Subject to sample, theSociety supports the choice of materials. We question the use of the bond warehouses as adesign model. We doubt whether today's planning regime would permit them.

Functional quality

Q3.4 Does the scheme ensure the safety of occupants and passers-by? AndQ3.5 Does the scheme interfere with aviation, navigation or telecommunication, and does it have adetrimental effect on solar energy generation on adjoining buildings? AndQ3.6 Has the scheme's future servicing, maintenance and management been well considered?

The Society makes no response to these questions.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to strongly suggest that amendments are made to the proposals to give a muchgreater allowance for cyclists and pedestrians. This is a key route for those who want to accessAshton Park and Leigh Woods and is already narrow and congested at times. Whilst I appreciatethat there may be a need to move the route, enough space and cosideration must be given toaccess through the site. This is a key part of enabling Bristol city to meet it's health responsibilitiesto its citizens, reduce air pollution and meet climate goals through reducing traffic be enablingother forms of transport priority.

Yours faithfully,

James Neill

We note that our previous comments and objections do not appear to have beenactioned/taken into account.

As we have been ignored/not consulted further we feel we must object to this application

Your list of options isn't appropriate for my comment. I am broadly in agreement for thedevelopment of this site, particularly for affordable and shared housing. I strongly object to theheight of the two 9 storey blocks of flats. This is completely out of character for such a sensitivearea of Bristol and not sympathetic to the existing blocks of flats or surrounding area. I am alsoconcerned about access . The existing small lane over the railway bridge is completely unsuitable.

Whilst development of this site is welcomed, I wish to object to the proposal as follows.

The height of buildings D and E is excessive and out of keeping with the area. It would beacceptable if all buildings were of similar height to buildings A, B, C.

Sole vehicle access to and from the site is proposed to be via a new junction with the Ashton GateUnderpass, leading onto Brunel Way (A370). This will lead to increased congestion onWinterstoke Road (A3029), Ashton Gate Underpass and Brunel Way. Of particular concern is theslip road where Ashton Gate Underpass merges with Brunel Way and which will affect theimmediately following slip road access for traffic leaving Brunel Way for the Jessop Underpass toClift House Road (A370). Also, during Cumberland Basin bridge swings, this entire section ofroads is at a standstill: access to and from the proposed site will be impossible at these times. It isnot clear how traffic from the north or west will be able to access the site, nor how traffic departingthe site and wishing to go south or west will proceed.

There will be disruption to the Festival Way cycling and walking route as the plans show that it isto be rerouted through the centre of the development site. This is a busy route for Bristol residentsgoing to and from Ashton Court and for students going to and from the UWE site. There is no safealternative during this disruption.

There are so many issues with this proposal it is hard to know where to start.The height of the buildings is out of keeping with the area and will dominate a landscape currentlydominated by open green space and views towards Ashton Court and the Suspension Bridge.They will tower over the allotments and block out light there.The figures pulled together concerning the traffic report skim over the realitites of real life, asmentioned in a previous objection, the area is already significantly congested and at a standstillfrequently during rush hour. Yes there is the proximity to Metro Bus but this service is underusedand I can't imagine will magically gain in popularity. Residents will still mostly drive to do their bigsupermarket shop, probably to their job, primary school, nursery etc as well as to reach doctors,dentists etc; no space has been allocated for these essential services in these proposals, so yetmore pressure will be heaped on the local services which are already over subscribed.Festival Way will be re-routed: again as previously mentioned, this is a very heavily used route,will provisions be made for ensuring access during construction?The buildings are so ugly! Why? Come up with something beautiful for a change! Add in a livingwall, a green roof, roof top garden!There are, as with all modern development proposals, too many bathrooms. Why does eachbedroom need a bathroom? it is unnecessary and ensures that bedrooms are small and crampedwith little room for storage space.The area is in a flood risk area, flooding incidents are getting more frequent with climate changeand the development area is on the river flood plain, instead of mitigating measures, the wholearea will be covered in paving and tarmac...

The proposed diversion route of the Festival Way path will lead to a detrimental impacton its current users. It creates a relatively narrow and confined route with a sharp turn to use theaccess ramp on to the metrobus route. This area is also likely to be highly congested withpedestrians, especially small children and parents entering the proposed play area.

I suggest this could be overcome by introducing a new shared pedestrian/cycle access point to thedevelopment in the North East corner to link with the Metrobus route to. This would provide a morelinear and faster route along the quiet road through the development; it would also improvepedestrian connectivity of the development for residents, especially in the north end of thedevelopment, who would otherwise have to first walk south to the currently proposed metrobusaccess point to head into the city.

Finally, the wider north section of the Festival Way through the site is currently a popular spot forskateboarders. This recreational area will be lost and there does not appear to be any provision toreplace this facility. I suggest the developer should seek to work with Bristol City Council toprovide alternate or purpose-built facilities in the adjoining area to mitigate the loss from thisdevelopment.

The Festival Way is an incredibly important transport link and any development should seek toenhance it rather than add a bottleneck and increase travel times for users. Regular users willalready be aware that this section of the Festival Way can become heavily congested at peaktimes and therefore the proposed development should seek to widen the path wherever possible.

Finally, in the summary of comments from the public consultation there it is noted that "a numberof individuals called for a 'greener' cycle path and a joined up approach with Sustrans" (Statementof Community involvement, Section 3). However, in the applicant's responses to this consultationtheme (Section 4) there is no response or consideration to this second aspect of response to thecycle path proposal with the developer simply choosing to summarise only the positive aspects offeedback to the cycle path integration.

Good afternoon

I have lived at 178 Paxton Drive since January 2019 have purchased the property as my firsthome. I have lived in the local area my whole life. I strongly object to the proposal of building thesenew homes on the opposite side to the metrobus line. The metrobus line, whilst aestheticallyunappealing was a worthwhile addition to connect the City. However, the senseless building ofnew homes goes against the very reason that residents of Paxton Drive chose to live here. We aresurrounded by areas of outstanding beauty, Ashton Court and Clifton Suspension Bridge. Theproposal will change our way of living forever with noise pollution, obstructing our view of greenspaces and it'll change Bristol's landscape forever. The Clifton Suspension and Avon Gorge arepart of Bristol's long standing heritage and I truly believe this will damage the City's tourism andidentity for good.

I share this view with so many other residents within Paxton Drive who will share their perspective.I strongly believe this have a really destructive effect on the amount of people that visit the area forlong walks, socialising and exercising.

Our apartment looks out over the green spaces of Ashton Court and up into Clifton, this will begone forever. This will be devastating for all of us.

Thank you for taking the time to read this comment.

Toby Osborne178 Paxton Drive, Bs3 2bn