Please could you update on this application. It appears nothing has happened sinceMay 2020 ?

I object to the application on the following grounds:1. The mast is shown in land subject to a TVG application previously registered, as such I believethrough reading TVG application notes that it is not lawful for the local authority to accept andregister a planning application on the land in question.2. The mast is proposed within the cartilage of a listed building and therefore this sort of crassdevelopment is unacceptable.

, I am deeply concerned about this CCTV application for two reasons

1/ Privacy - This is a off campus site that in its lease has shared access with the community . ThisGreen Space ( before and after the fence) is a place local teenagers go to get away from theirparents . Its a place they go to mix together , share their first kiss , roll around in the grass togetherand just hang out .Young Girls and Women sunbath regularly in this park in the summer andyoung men play football with their tops off when the sun is out .This will all be recorded by CothamSchool 24/7 which is very concerning as a parent .Now mission creep sets in and what started off as two cameras is now four cameras withoutpermission, now application for five cameras .It is their right of passage as young people to have privacy as with other individuals and theyshould not be able to be monitored in relaxing Green Space.

The worry is there lack of Surveillance Camera Code of Practice shown under section 29 of theProtection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the relevance is that the code emphasises that thesurveillance may interfere with the qualified right to respect for private and family life providedunder Article 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights in this application .Were is this data stored , is it secure , can it be hacked ?It is a dangerous precedent that I'm sure the NSPCC, ICO , CCTV watchdogs would take veryseriously cameras in shared access green space .

2/ Listed buildingThis Camera and pole is out of place next to a Grade II listed building and its Green Space setting.

I went to half a dozen Secondary schools in the Bristol area to look at their overt CCTVsurveillance equipment . By far Cotham School has more cameras at than any other by more than50% in my opinion they seems obsessive compared to other schools but there may be a goodreason .

Cotham School has a beautiful Art Deco main building that has CCTV surveillance now on it and itis a shame such a lovely building has plastered with these cameras and should have been carriedout more sympathetically with covert cameras on facade . The Grade II building at Stoke Lodgeshould not suffer the same fate as this building which is listed .I frequent Ministry of Defence bases with less overt CCTV on the same size footprint than isplanned for this Green Space .

The University of Bristol Coombe Dingle Sports Complex is a multi-million pound sporting facilityless than 500m away from Stoke Lodge with expensive buildings and machinery and is ofcomparable size if not bigger . This complex has no overt CCTV and has no or very littlevandalism and has been here for decades with no trouble and fits in with the community .

This proposed location of this camera is so close to such a beautiful listed building in a sharedGreen Space and it should be refused.Thankyou :)

Dear Case Officer Boxwell , I am deeply concerned about this CCTV application for tworeasons

1/ Privacy - This is a off campus site that in its lease has shared access with the community . ThisGreen Space ( before and after the fence) is a place local teenagers go to get away from theirparents . Its a place they go to mix together , share their first kiss , roll around in the grass togetherand just hang out . Girls and Women sunbath in this park and young men play football with theirtops off when the sun is out .This will all be recorded by Cotham School 24/7.It is their right of passage and should not be able to be monitored for 24/7 by a teacher or facilitymanager on their mobile phone app or laptop at school or even from the comfort of their ownhome any day of the weekend with these new technologies used .I am concerned that this camera and footage may be misused and teenagers as well as othermembers of the community may be spied upon .Now mission creep sets in and what started off as two cameras is now four cameras withoutpermission, application for five and what goes from archive feed leads to 'Live' feed streamed onstaff mobile phones .

I know nobody likes to talk about the P word but paedophilia in schools and churches is a very realconcern. It was only four years ago 2016 that here in Bristol at Clifton College a teacher was sentto prison for having footage (over 300 tapes and DVDs) of youngsters on site at schools in variousstages of undress .

I am NOT suggesting anyone past or present at Cotham school has been involved in any activitylike this . I take this very seriously having seen the damage this can do to young people .

The worry is there lack of Surveillance Camera Code of Practice shown under section 29 of theProtection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the relevance is that the code emphasises that thesurveillance may interfere with the qualified right to respect for private and family life providedunder Article 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights in this application .

If Bristol City Council were to grant the application and footage of children fell into the wronghands would BCC be responsible once the lawyers got involved .Were is this data stored , is it secure . What if it the servers hacked by paedophiles either inside oroutside the school ? If viewing at home on a mobile phone or Laptop could a teacher or facilitiesmangers share this video or even just show unauthorised persons ?It is a dangerous precedent that I'm sure the NSPCC, ICO , CCTV watchdogs would take veryseriously cameras in shared access green space .

2/ Listed buildingThis Camera and pole is out of place next to a Grade II listed building and its Green Space setting.

I went to half a dozen Secondary schools in the Bristol area to look at their overt CCTVsurveillance equipment . By far Cotham School has more cameras at than any other by more than50% in my opinion they seems obsessive compared to other schools but there may be a goodreason .

Cotham School has a beautiful Art Deco main building that has CCTV surveillance now on it and itis a shame such a lovely building has plastered with these cameras and should have been carriedout more sympathetically with covert cameras on facade . The Grade II building at Stoke Lodgeshould not suffer the same fate as this building which is listed .I frequent Ministry of Defence bases with less overt CCTV on the same size footprint than isplanned for this Green Space .

The University of Bristol Coombe Dingle Sports Complex is a multi-million pound sporting facilityless than 500m away from Stoke Lodge with expensive buildings and machinery and is ofcomparable size if not bigger . This complex has no overt CCTV and has no or very littlevandalism and has been here for decades with no trouble and fits in with the community .

This proposed location of this camera is so close to such a beautiful listed building in a sharedGreen Space and it should be refused.Thankyou :)

paying for through my rates. I STRONGLY OBJECT to the request by Cotham for this or any other camera at Stoke Lodge. It is time the Councillors took note of all the rule breaking of Cotham and used their authority to enforce the public rights in their lease.

Gill Cleverdon

loss of privacy

This is a totally unnecessary eyesore that will impact all users of the field and their rightto a private life. Stoke Bishop as you will know has one of the lowest recorded crime figures for thewhole city, this camera will not change that. The damage caused by the visual impact andperceived or actual intrusion into ones private enjoyment of this open space far outweigh anybenefits this camera could bring.

This visual impact and imposing nature of this installation will spoil a local listedtreasure. I have enjoyed using this open space for more years than I care to divulge, thisunnecessary intrusion into my enjoyment of this space is totally unnecessary and I wouldencourage you to decline the application.

This is my second comment but it has just occurred to me that there are no details ofthe size of the foundations for this installation.In my experience as a telecommunications engineer and radio amateur, large towers need largefoundations and this will mean a big hole with a lot of concrete. This is likely to be impossible toremove in the future and digging the hole is also likely to cause damage to trees and shrubs.

I object to this application for many reasons.

I started coming to Stoke Lodge in childhood with my family, from Redland. Many people go therefrom outside BS9 because it's an unusual, lovely place, like a park but better because it's morenatural and free. Now I bring my children. It's a Bristol asset, not just a local one.Now Stoke Lodge needs saving from any further development, and the huge pole for anotherCCTV camera should not even be considered. This is an Important Open Space, not schoolpremises, not just a Sports Ground, or a playing field. Any development on it should fit in with itsmain use, which is for leisure and recreation by the community. Only a small fraction of it is usedfor PE about 10 hours a week in termtime by Cotham School. Cotham's lease is quite explicit andprotects community use. The fence they put up without planning permission was meant to keepthe community out, and the pole-mounted camera they are applying for has the same aim. Thisshould not be allowed because it will further spoil Stoke Lodge for the community.

The cameras already on the field are unnecessary and ineffective. There isn't anything for them tosee, so they haven't seen anything. We can be sure that if they had, we would know about it. It's avery low crime area. So it's a total waste of money to put up another camera, on a conspicuouspole, we aren't told how high or where it will be. Anyway, it would be completely out of place. Itwould spoil the look of the beautiful old Grade II listed house and the outlook over the parkland,with all its amazing mature trees and green space.Just as important, the pole and camera would always be intruding on our mental space. Knowingyou're being constantly watched will be a horrible disruption. Subconsciously you'll always beaware, you can't forget, that while you're in the play park or on the field with a football or bikes withyour children and friends, or just walking peacefully to get a few quiet minutes enjoying the trees,

you're being watched. Someone you don't trust and who doesn't want you to be there, eventhough you have a right to be, can watch you and record you and you have no way of knowingwhat, or where, or by whom images of you and your family are seen or kept.This would be very serious change and damage to a beautiful, historical asset which deserves tobe protected, and is supposed to be under our planning legislation.

I think, too, that the application form is full of errors. Its lack of exact information about the pole orthe camera means we can't tell precisely, but it looks as if it will cover the play park, the perimeterpaths round the lower field, and look into the back gardens of many of the houses that back ontothe field. It will also overlook the cottages, and the surroundings of Stoke Lodge, including thecarpark, so people going to classes at the AEC will be affected too. It would be an invasion of ourright to privacy and family life without point or justification. What are they expecting to see?

The application form also says there are no public rights of way considerations or trees or hedgesin the vicinity of where the pole would go, though that too is unclear since the plans are not in dateor accurate. This is all incorrect. There are several protected trees in the immediate area, includingthe former Bristol Tree of the Year, and the walnut tree near the gates. There is a public right ofway waiting for registration that could well be obstructed by any pole.The foundations of the pole aren't mentioned either. Even if it was the minimum - 4 metres - itwould need a large hole and plenty of concrete, but as it could be up to 12 metres, even largerfoundations would be necessary, and it would then have to be a considerable distance from anytree roots, and it would be an even more exposed and an absolute eyesore. It seems the applicanthasn't even considered this.

There are no good reasons for erecting this pole and camera. Spying on and antagonising thepeople who have a right to use Stoke Lodge, in the hope that we'll all go away and leave Cothamto monopolise this Important Open Space, is not a good reason. It's no excuse for snooping onpeople's family lives and invading their privacy. Nor is keeping watch on a fence that shouldn't bethere because it splits a listed house from its proper setting, and undermines our right to enjoyStoke Lodge.Please, please reject this application.

CCTV on Stoke LodgeI am writing, wishing to object the application to install a further CCTV camera on Stoke Lodge ofwhich my house has a direct view.With the instalment of this camera, the desire of the area will be compromised as for many yearsthis large open space has been used for recreational purposes by the local community with StokeLodge itself being a Grade II listed building.The proposed camera, as well as being unsightly, will impact directly on all those directlyneighbouring the field and PROW. This pole and camera will be visible from a large part of the sitewhich for many like myself, will deter the use of this space for recreational purposes. The highlevel of surveillance is completely unnecessary and there will be a feeling that our privacy is beinginfringed.I understand the proposed installation is 'high-spec' and consistent with its use at locations suchas prisons, car parks and railway stations. As such it is inconsistent with an installation at asuburban field used by the local community within a low crime area. This is unbelievable!

I acknowledge Bristol City Council, as the owner of Stoke Lodge, has a duty to exercisemeaningful control over the level of surveillance of a public space, However, as I understandCotham School has already put up three surveillance cameras on the Stoke Lodge site, withoutplanning permission, which is surely enough surveillance on what is land only leased by the schooland is not their premises. Currently, I have seen no compelling justification for any CCTV use onsite at all.

I understand in its Data Privacy Impact Assessment, signed off in December 2019, the schoolstated that it had no plans to increase CCTV coverage. IN April it makes the present application.

What has changed in that interval to justify this application?

In conclusion, this application is only setting out to provoke and cause controversy at a time whenother applications are being considered, relating to Stoke Lodge. These include town or villagegreen status and an application for a public right of way.

I fully object to this application for the following reasons1. The proposed pole is a huge 4 metres high and the large camera is a modern technologicalitem that would not sit well with the appearance of the house and its natural surroundings.2. GDPR the said camera would have such a large scan that this would surely breach GDPRrights.3. If the aim is to protect the building the applicant should consider smaller cameras on thebuilding, which would not breach GDPRI trust my comments will be taken into considerationKind regards,Stephen Small

Will be intrusive to neighbouring houses and playground. Totally unneccessary.

I wholeheartedly object to this Application on the following grounds.

The application is inaccurate and incomplete. It does not provide the information required in orderto assess its merits. The plans provided are incomplete or outdated and seem to rely onguesswork on the placement of the proposed pole, or the extent and disruptiveness of theconcrete foundations it requires. Similarly, we are left to guess the eventual height of the pole andthe reach and range of the camera as it scans and zooms in on the field, the carpark, theplayground and the footpath, and onwards into private gardens and houses.The applicant is an employee of the school, not the owner of Stoke Lodge any more than theschool is, despite his declaration.The applicant ignores the many protected trees, hedgerows, wildlife habitats: fox holes, badgersetts, bat roosts, bird nesting places, cover, breeding sites and foraging for the many speciesStoke Lodge supports.The applicant also ignores the existence of ongoing TVG applications, and the public right of wayapplication awaiting registration. The latter should be dealt with before any development proposalfor Stoke Lodge, particularly since it looks likely to clash with the projected pole position.

As other comments have explained, Stoke Lodge is designated an Important Open Space, andmeets the definition of a public place, despite the school's assertions that it is part of their schoolpremises. This application should not have been made without thorough consultation with thepeople who will be most affected by the proposed surveillance, i.e. the local community whoregularly use the site. They will be the ones suffering the intrusion into family life and the loss ofprivacy. If they do not see what benefits they will receive in return, the scheme will be unsupportedby them and cannot succeed.

In an area documented as recording the third lowest crime levels in Bristol, it is hard to see howthe upside of installing the pole and camera would outweigh the downside. The downside includesintrusion, loss of privacy both on a public place and in their homes and gardens, and loss of thevisual amenity, sense of safety, continuity, relaxation, stress relief and other benefits usuallyenjoyed on Stoke Lodge.The upside, however, simply does not exist. There is no vandalism, no criminal damage affectingthe site and very little in the immediate area, nothing the community wants to trade in exchange forloss of privacy and fifth surveillance camera. The fence, erected by the school itself to keep thecommunity off the field, is the source of the problem the school itself is trying to solve, byinappropriate and draconian means, i.e. blanket surveillance.Cameras have not broken the impasse, because the impasse is in the head of Cotham School'slead on the Stoke Lodge project. The problem is non-acceptance: a) the school's non-acceptanceof the community's right to retain access to the field, a right enshrined in the school's own lease,and b) the community's non-acceptance of being fenced out, lied to, accused of offences theyhave not committed and, finally, surveilled day and night like criminals and vandals andmiscreants, while their treasured community space is degraded and damaged, and their time andenergies and patience exhausted by resisting an unreasonable succession of hostilities, includingthe present application.

What we can see is an irreplaceable piece of Bristol's history, culture, environment, wildlife - thebackdrop to the lives of thousands of people - being thrown to the dogs by the wrong-headednessand political expediency of Bristol City Council's conduct in this seemingly interminable case. Ihope that this wholly unjustified, outrageous application will be the step too far that brings theschool's senseless project to a halt. There is no problem other than their own unrealisticexpectations and greed. There are several ways their legitimate need for space to fulfil theirstudents' needs for outdoor exercise can be met, here or elsewhere, without over-the-topsurveillance, hugely expensive equipment and two communities at loggerheads.

But first, please refuse this application.

1/ Privacy - This is a off campus site that in its lease has shared access with the community . ThisGreen Space ( before and after the fence) is a place local teenagers go to get away from theirparents . Its a place they go to mix together , share their first kiss , roll around in the grass togetherand just hang out . Girls and Women sunbath in this park and young men play football with theirtops off when the sun is out .This will all be recorded by Cotham School 24/7.It is their right of passage and should not be able to be monitored for 24/7 by a teacher or facilitymanager on their mobile phone app or laptop at school or even from the comfort of their ownhome any day of the weekend with these new technologies used .I am concerned that this camera and footage may be misused and teenagers as well as othermembers of the community may be spied upon .Now mission creep sets in and what started off as two cameras is now four cameras withoutpermission, application for five and what goes from archive feed leads to 'Live' feed streamed onstaff mobile phones .

I know nobody likes to talk about the P word but paedophilia in schools and churches is a very realconcern. It was only four years ago 2016 that here in Bristol at Clifton College a teacher was sentto prison for having footage (over 300 tapes and DVDs) of youngsters on site at schools in variousstages of undress .

I am NOT suggesting anyone past or present at Cotham school has been involved in any activitylike this . I take this very seriously having seen the damage this can do to young people .The worry is there lack of Surveillance Camera Code of Practice shown under section 29 of theProtection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the relevance is that the code emphasises that the

surveillance may interfere with the qualified right to respect for private and family life providedunder Article 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights in this application .

If Bristol City Council were to grant the application and footage of children fell into the wronghands would BCC be responsible once the lawyers got involved .Were is this data stored , is it secure . What if it the servers hacked by paedophiles either inside oroutside the school ? If viewing at home on a mobile phone or Laptop could a teacher or facilitiesmangers share this video or even just show unauthorised persons ?It is a dangerous precedent that I'm sure the NSPCC, ICO , CCTV watchdogs would take veryseriously cameras in shared access green space .

2/ Listed buildingThis Camera and pole is out of place next to a Grade II listed building and its Green Space setting.

I went to half a dozen Secondary schools in the Bristol area to look at their overt CCTVsurveillance equipment . By far Cotham School has more cameras at than any other by more than50% in my opinion they seems obsessive compared to other schools but there may be a goodreason .

Cotham School has a beautiful Art Deco main building that has CCTV surveillance now on it and itis a shame such a lovely building has plastered with these cameras and should have been carriedout more sympathetically with covert cameras on facade . The Grade II building at Stoke Lodgeshould not suffer the same fate as this building which is listed .I frequent Ministry of Defence bases with less overt CCTV on the same size footprint than isplanned for this Green Space .

The University of Bristol Coombe Dingle Sports Complex is a multi-million pound sporting facilityless than 500m away from Stoke Lodge with expensive buildings and machinery and is ofcomparable size if not bigger . This complex has no overt CCTV and has no or very littlevandalism and has been here for decades with no trouble and fits in with the community .

This proposed location of this camera is so close to such a beautiful listed building in a sharedGreen Space and it should be refused.Thankyou :)

1. Impact of the proposed pole and CCTV on the amenity of a listed environmentI do not consider that the proposed pole and CCTV camera are appropriate in the close vicinity ofa Grade ll listed building and in an area of open space that has been enjoyed by local residents formany years. It is obtrusive and threatening. It is the sort of facility one might expect at a prison ordetention centre. Along with the fencing, appallingly closed off even during the recent lockdown, isit the intention of Cotham School to create a sterile environment and, if so, to what end?2. The Council's rights and dutiesIt is my understanding that the school requires the Council's consent to this proposal, as the landdoes not belong to the school, despite the signs that may suggest otherwise.Is it appropriate to have a 24/7 CCTV camera observing the day to day traffic of legitimate visitorsto the Adult Education Centre, parents and children going to the playpark, dogwalkers round theperimeter, and other casual visitors, when the school deigns to leave the gates unlocked? Is it notvery intrusive?Why is there such a pressing need for this intrusion?Will there be requests for more and more of these cameras?Is it appropriate to be considering this at all when there are Town or Village Green applicationsand a public right of way application in progress?Finally I am concerned that the camera will have access to local properties and the playpark. Iunderstand that access to the camera footage can be generated from a home address. This has tobe wrong.

I object as a Woman I feel my privacy will be invaded when I relax on this shared GreenSpace having a camera following my movements .Also it is near a listed building it will look so out of place .

I object to this proposal on the following grounds;

1. The proposed equipment is unnecessarily large, and not in keeping with the surroundingenvironment, beautiful parklands, forming part of a grade 2 listed site.

2. Many immediate neighbours will be overlooked by this CCTV.

3. Crime in this location is negligible.

4. The area is subject to both Public Rights of Way, and a Town & Village Green application, bothof which would be impacted by the planning application.

I object to this application for a number of reasons1. The structure is unnecessarily large and not in keeping with the historic parkland and listedbuilding. It is a parkland not a prison.2. There are already several CCTV situated around the site, there is no need for another one andindeed they are an invasion of privacy for the public and school children using the site.3. It is not clear how the footage will be stored or used. Deeply worrying when it will overlookhouses backing on to the parkland as well as children using the site.

I urge the council to encourage the school to use precious funds for the education of children notspying and petty fights.

I would like to add comments to my previous objection.

First, it is by no stretch of the imagination normal for schools to have pan/tilt cameras mounted onpoles that are anywhere from 4-12m high around their playing fields. Objectors to this applicationhave pointed out that pupils of other Bristol state schools use unfenced detached playing fieldswith no such surveillance, and an example has been given of a local primary school whose playingfields are next to a high security prison, again without any need for CCTV. Nor is this type ofsecurity required by either the Department for Education or Ofsted; indeed, Ofsted has made itclear that it does not require detached playing fields to be fenced, so references suggesting thatthere is a requirement for a 'secure perimeter' with 24/7 CCTV are deliberately misleading. Theschool has not demonstrated any need that would counterbalance the negative effect on a listedbuilding and the intrusive impact of surveillance of a public space and private properties - indeed,it has not even tried to do this.

This application omits crucial details - a camera on a 4m pole is a very different proposition to acamera on a 12m pole and the structural support required and impact on the setting andenvironment would also vary hugely. There is simply not sufficient technical detail provided toapprove this application - even the indicated location is woefully imprecise - and therefore officerscannot reasonably assess the proposal or its impact, and the public has not been fully informed ofthe details as part of this consultation.

Supporters of the application have repeatedly mentioned claims of vandalism to the fence,perhaps in an effort to make up for defects in the application itself. Official crime statistics showthat there were just two reported incidents of criminal damage in the area in March 2020. If these

related to Stoke Lodge, they may refer to fence panels being unscrewed and opened or movedaside (in a way that can easily be reversed) during the lockdown - a period of over 2.5 months todate during which the school still continues to unlawfully exclude the community in breach of itslease (the lease has been confirmed by the Council's own legal advice as protecting access by thecommunity in the form in which it existed prior to the lease being granted). I also note that twoincidents of violent or sexual crime occurred in the school's postcode in March 2020, but that theschool has not suggested that additional CCTV is required there. Supporters' claims about a verysmall number of comparatively minor (and reversible) recent incidents, which are clearly referableto the school's action in locking the gates contrary to the lease, have no planning relevance whenconsidering an application for a permanent structure and invasive monitoring. A more appropriate,simpler and cheaper response would be for the school to comply with its lease and unlock thegates, rather than seeking to install additional expensive and intrusive surveillance on site, furtherantagonising the local community.

I also note that the school already has 4 CCTV cameras on site. Some of the gaps in the fence,about which supporters have complained, have occurred within a few feet of these existing CCTVcameras. The evidence therefore simply does not support an argument that further CCTV wouldprevent these incidents; rather, it appears that if the school had complied with its lease andunlocked the gates, the issue would not have occurred in the first place. Not only is this asledgehammer to crack a nut, but the nut is of the school's own making. Clear detriment to thesetting of a listed building cannot be justified on such a comparatively trivial and self-manufacturedbasis.

There is no evidence that the CCTV cameras have any deterrent effect in relation to an empty fieldin this very low crime area. In fact, on 3 June 2020 an offence was committed within a few inchesof two of those cameras when branches that were obscuring the view of one of the cameras wereripped off a TPO tree. I understand that this incident is currently under investigation by theCouncil.

In addition, the application provides no details of any claimed need at all, let alone a 'pressing' one(in sharp contrast to other planning applications for similar CCTV structures in more appropriatelocations (e.g. car parks) elsewhere). The application pays no heed at all to issues such aslocation, context, heritage, amenity and the need for/appropriateness of CCTV surveillance. BristolCity Council's Surveillance Camera Strategy states that all CCTV proposals must involveconsultation with people most regularly affected by the scheme to address concerns aroundprivacy. No such consultation has taken place. The installation of the pole is for the explicit andsole purpose of installing CCTV so these two elements of the application cannot be consideredindependently of each other.

The proposed pole appears to be sited on or very near a public right of way and BCC's ownpublished information suggests that an application to register a PROW should be prioritised (i.e.jump the queue) if it is affected by a planning application or development proposal.

The application entirely fails to demonstrate any need for constant surveillance of a public spaceand private residential properties in one of the lowest crime areas in Bristol. At a time when theMayor has just announced a new commission to review Bristol's heritage and history - a heritageand history in which Stoke Lodge and its owners and inhabitants have played a significant part - itwould be wholly inappropriate to permit still further damage to the setting and amenity of this listedbuilding by approving this ill-conceived, incomplete and unnecessary application.

Completely unnecessary structure that will have an adverse visual impact on the GradeII listed Stoke Lodge buildings and its curtilage, including its surrounding parkland. Unacceptableintrusion of privacy of the users of the perimeter walkway and surrounding properties and roads.The structure would not be in keeping with the character of the area and there is no justification forit given the low crime rate in the area.

I object to the proposed application to construct a pole mounted CCTV camera at StokeLodge for a number of reasons.

Firstly, having read the application I do not accept that there is a legitimate aim for the proposedapplication. I am aware that there has been some low level vandalism to the fence since theCovid-19 lockdown where a number of fence panels have been carefully removed. Whilst I do notcondone this behaviour I do not agree that this merits the installation of a pole mounted camera(between 4 and 12 metres in height) to survey the area. I think instead, this is a perfect opportunityfor the school and community to build a better relationship and allow the community theopportunity to use a site during these unprecedented times, whilst students were not at school. Asa parent, with children at primary and secondary school age, I absolutely understand the need tosafeguard students while they are using the fields but in my view this can be done by theaccompaniment of staff and does not warrant the need for surveillance cameras of this nature. Myeldest child attends a local state secondary school which utilises unfenced playing fields withpublic access and without security cameras. My younger children exercise on school playing fieldswithin metres of a high security prison but there are no pole mounted cameras on their playingfields. I do not see how this site justifies such substantially different security measures tosafeguard its own students.

Secondly, it is my understanding that the school do NOT follow the Surveillance Camera Code ofPractice under section 29 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It is not clear from theapplication how tall the pole and how far reaching the sight of the 'pan and tilt' camera will be. I amgreatly concerned as a resident who has a garden backing onto the Lodge of the safeguarding ofmy own children as they play in their garden. This concern is compounded by my understanding

that the footage from the camera may be viewed remotely by staff from other sites outside CothamSchool.

My final points relate to the location of the proposed camera. The application is to construct thecamera outside of Stoke Lodge house on a claimed public right of way, on TVG application land.This site means that the camera will provide surveillance for the lower playing fields. This area ofLodge is very rarely used by the students. The land at this end of Stoke Lodge is greatly slopingwhich makes it very difficult to play sports, particularly football and rugby, and therefore thestudents use the flatter land at the other end of the Lodge for PE. The installation of a camera herewill not improve the safeguarding of students as they do not use these fields. Finally, but no lessimportantly, the proposed position of the camera is directly outside of Stoke Lodge House which isa grade 2 listed property. A camera of this nature is not discreet and will most definitely detractfrom the visual appearance of the building and its immediate grounds.

As a parent with children who attend local state primary and secondary schools it saddens me topush back on another local school. Over the past years I have tried to be as balanced as possiblewith my views on the use of the playing fields by Cotham School. I have very physical children andspend many hours standing on various school and club touchlines/cricket boundaries acrossBristol. I firmly believe that everyone should have access to safe sporting facilities. However, Ithink there should be access and opportunity for all. Step by step, Cotham School have taken thatopportunity away from the local community. I still see opportunity here for the school andcommunity to work together and agree a way that both can make the most of this beautiful site. Iwholeheartedly object to installation of further security and instead urge the school to considerworking together rather than pushing the community further away.

I object to the proposed application to construct a pole mounted CCTV camera at StokeLodge for a number of reasons.

Firstly, having read the application I do not accept that there is a legitimate aim for the proposedapplication. I am aware that there has been some low level vandalism to the fence since theCovid-19 lockdown where a number of fence panels have been carefully removed. Whilst I do notcondone this behaviour I do not agree that this merits the installation of a pole mounted camera(between 4 and 12 metres in height) to survey the area. I think instead, this is a perfect opportunityfor the school and community to build a better relationship and allow the community theopportunity to use a site during these unprecedented times, whilst students were not at school. Asa parent, with children at primary and secondary school age, I absolutely understand the need tosafeguard students while they are using the fields but in my view this can be done by theaccompaniment of staff and does not warrant the need for surveillance cameras of this nature. Myeldest child attends a local state secondary school which utilises unfenced playing fields withpublic access and without security cameras. My younger children exercise on school playing fieldswithin metres of a high security prison but there are no pole mounted cameras on their playingfields. I do not see how this site justifies such substantially different security measures tosafeguard its own students.

Secondly, it is my understanding that the school do NOT follow the Surveillance Camera Code ofPractice under section 29 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It is not clear from theapplication how tall the pole and how far reaching the sight of the 'pan and tilt' camera will be. I amgreatly concerned as a resident who has a garden backing onto the Lodge of the safeguarding ofmy own children as they play in their garden. This concern is compounded by my understanding

that the footage from the camera may be viewed remotely by staff from other sites outside CothamSchool.

My final points relate to the location of the proposed camera. The application is to construct thecamera outside of Stoke Lodge house on a claimed public right of way, on TVG application land.This site means that the camera will provide surveillance for the lower playing fields. This area ofLodge is very rarely used by the students. The land at this end of Stoke Lodge is greatly slopingwhich makes it very difficult to play sports, particularly football and rugby, and therefore thestudents use the flatter land at the other end of the Lodge for PE. The installation of a camera herewill not improve the safeguarding of students as they do not use these fields. Finally, but no lessimportantly, the proposed position of the camera is directly outside of Stoke Lodge House which isa grade 2 listed property. A camera of this nature is not discreet and will most definitely detractfrom the visual appearance of the building and its immediate grounds.

As a parent with children who attend local state primary and secondary schools it saddens me topush back on another local school. Over the past years I have tried to be as balanced as possiblewith my views on the use of the playing fields by Cotham School. I have very physical children andspend many hours standing on various school and club touchlines/cricket boundaries acrossBristol. I firmly believe that everyone should have access to safe sporting facilities. However, Ithink there should be access and opportunity for all. Step by step, Cotham School have taken thatopportunity away from the local community. I still see opportunity here for the school andcommunity to work together and agree a way that both can make the most of this beautiful site. Iwholeheartedly object to installation of further security and instead urge the school to considerworking together rather than pushing the community further away.

I strongly and fully object to Cotham School's latest plans to erect further CCTV onStoke Lodge on the following grounds:

PRIVACY - Cotham are proposing to install a pan/tilt camera with sufficient range to cover theStoke Paddock lower end of the field. This camera would be able to film both the play park andalso my back garden. I do not want my family including my young children being filmed by CothamSchool anymore than they would wish me to film their children on the fields.

Given the size of the lower end of the field surely further cameras would be needed to effectivelycover the area. There are already 3 x CCTV cameras installed. How many more to be effective?

It is also of concern that the school is not intending to abide by the Surveillance Camera Code ofPractice under section 29 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This code is best practice and itis usual for schools to maintain a CCTV policy which is not the case here. The code statessurveillance may interfere with the qualified right to respect for private and family life providedunder Article 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights, and 'Use of a surveillance camerasystem must always be for a specified purpose which is in pursuit of a legitimate aim andnecessary to meet an identified pressing need'.

What is the pressing need here? The lower end of the field is hardly ever used by the school. Asingle additional camera will not effectively cover the area in question.

The School's Data Privacy Impact Assessment, signed off in December 2019, states that it had noplans to increase CCTV coverage. There are already 3 x CCTV cameras installed. How many

more?

NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE 'AMENITY', APPEARANCE & PLEASANCE OF THE LODGE - Thistype of pole / CCTV is typically used in prisons and detention facilities, car parks and would be atleast 4m high. Stoke Lodge is a Grade II listed building and the land is designated as ImportantOpen Space. A further camera will negatively impact the amenity of the listed building andbeautiful parkland / field.

This installation would see increased surveillance of public leisure activities by Cotham School atan important open space designated for recreation, leisure and community use.

The Council, as landowner, has the right and duty (acting in the public interest) to exercisemeaningful control over the level of surveillance of a public space. Clause 2.1 of the lease statesthat the school's rights under the lease are 'subject also to all existing rights and use of theproperty including use by the community'.

INSTALLATION WILL FURTHER WORSEN RELATIONS WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY - I ama father with young children who go to state Secondary & Primary Schools. The erection of adisputed fence, the locking of the disputed fence during the 'lockdown period' and now a proposalto install more CCTV. Is this really a sensible course of action to take? I am deeply concerned theschool and local community should be seeking common ground and a sustainable way forwards orcurrent issues will only become more and more acute and divisive. It is a real and tragic concernwe are where we are today and further installation of CCTV will only be more divisive andcontentious.

TIMING OF THE APPLICATION - Is the timing of this application appropriate given the ongoingprogress of two Town or Village Green applications and a public rights of way application?

For these key reasons I strongly object to this application.

I would like to lodge my objection to the planning application to erect a pan and tiltCCTV at StokeLodge Sports Grounds, Shirehampton Road, Bristol. ref No . 20/01826/F.

A structure this tall is totally out of keeping being so close to a Grade2 building and also pleasantand attractive grounds (minus the fence).

The camera would cover a wide range looking over private properties and gardens, a publicplayground and public footpaths. This would be illegal viewing of children without parentalapproval and an invasion of our rights to privacy.

I therefore urge you to reject this application.

I strongly object to the installation of a CCTV camera at this location for a number ofreasons, but primarily for issues around privacy, having a camera on what is a public right of way.There is also the visual impact on a listed environment. But above all, I have no desire to be filmedevery time I wish to take a walk in my local area. Citizens deserve the right to peaceful enjoymentof public spaces, without private companies being allowed to record data and use it for whateverunspecified purpose they have. Please think carefully about the precedent that this sets andrefuse this application.

Objection to additional CCTV in Stoke Lodge Parkland.

My point relates to the location of the proposed camera. The application is to construct the cameraoutside of Stoke Lodge house which is grade 2 listed, on a claimed public right of way and apending TVG application. This location means will only provide surveillance of the lower playingfields. This area of Stoke Lodge is very rarely used by the students and serves no purpose at all.

I strongly oppose this planning application. It is an absolute waste of school funds andan infringement to the rights of all those people who use the pathways, children's playground,common areas and also the surrounding properties in direct line of sight of the proposed camera.Moreover, this camera will serve to exacerbate the ongoing dreadful relationship between StokeBishop residents and Cotham School.

The application should be rejected!

I strongly object to the installation of an unslightly and unnecessary CCTV camera nearStoke Lodge, a Grade II listed building. The CCTV camera would be detrimental to this historichouse and grounds. The application of the camera seems to locate it on a Public Right of Way.

The proposed placement of this camera would be a cause of concern as a gross intrusion ofprivacy to homes , gardens and childrens play area, all within the vicinity of the camera .

Cotham School have not upheld the terms of the lease with Bristol City Council.The schools rights under the lease are subject to all existing rights and use of the propertyincluding use by the community. By giving consent to the camera the Council, as landlord wouldbe giving consent to increased surveillance of an open space that is designated for recreation,leisure and community use. Surveillance by Cotham School of these public leisure faciliites, wouldagain, be a gross intrusion of privacy. No attempt has been made in the Schools application todemonstrate a legitimate or pressing need for CCTV.

I strongly object to the installation of an unslightly and unnecessary CCTV camera nearStoke Lodge, a Grade II listed building. The CCTV camera would be detrimental to this historichouse and grounds. The application of the camera seems to locate it on a Public Right of Way.

The proposed placement of this camera would be a cause of concern as a gross intrusion ofprivacy to homes , gardens and childrens play area, all within the vicinity of the camera .

Cotham School have not upheld the terms of the lease with Bristol City Council.The schools rights under the lease are subject to all existing rights and use of the propertyincluding use by the community. By giving consent to the camera the Council, as landlord wouldbe giving consent to increased surveillance of an open space that is designated for recreation,leisure and community use. Surveillance by Cotham School of these public leisure faciliites, wouldagain, be a gross intrusion of privacy. No attempt has been made in the Schools application todemonstrate a legitimate or pressing need for CCTV.

I object to any form of CCTV at Stoke Lodge playing fields as it invades the privacy ofthe public which is has been currently used for up until recently when this hideous fence was putup!My family and I grew up on Bell Barn Road and we used to have lots of free time in this beautifulopen space and walk dogs which is what it has been used for for many years!! It saddens me toeven drive past Stoke Lodge now to see the residents and public all locked out !! The fence needsto come down, along with any CCTV cameras !!!

Firstly , I object to the unsightly cctv piles and cameras in close proximity to a grade 2listed building and beautiful grounds.

I also object to the prison style cctv being placed in an area for locals and school children . Itwould make me very anxious about who is viewing the footage and why , both as a recreationaluser of the space and a parent .

CCTV cameras in this open space would negativity affect freedoms and mental health of themajority of users of the space.

I strongly object to the installation of this CCTV pole, the Stoke Lodge site has alreadybeen decimated and this will only add to it. We regularly use the children's play park and to knowthat you're constantly being watched is a pure invasion of privacy, there is already CCTV on thesite and I see no reason to add a tall and obtrusive pole that will be an eyesore.

PROWAs noted on other comments, before anything else is considered, the existing application for aPublic Right of Way should be dealt with - as it appears on the plan, the pole will be sited on orvery close to the public right of way. The information available from Bristol City Council says thatan application to register a PROW should be brought forward if it is affected by a planningapplication or development proposal, which this is.

NOT SCHOOL PREMISESWhile it is not directly relevant, it does set the background for following points, so I would like toaddress the school's persistence in maintaining that Stoke Lodge is school premises.

Darren Jones, our MP posed the written question to the Minister for School Standards inParliament as to whether this is the case. The response was that Stoke Lodge is not schoolpremisesBased on the fact of minority use; both the area used by the school (around an eighth of total bymy personal calculations) and the total time of usage (max 2 hours five times a week during termtime) andBecause of the terms of the lease (eg. 'shared facility that the school makes use of alongsideothers').

Some time after this, a parent representative (who has commented) wrote to the Department forEducation asking for confirmation that Stoke Lodge is, in fact, school premises, explaining(incorrectly) that the school had an 'exclusive lease' which it does not. Once the correct

information and been received the DfE was happy to confirm the opinion of the Minister for SchoolStandards: Stoke Lodge is NOT school premises. Documents will back this up.

SURVEILLANCE CONCERNSCode of PracticeAfter the school put up the existing CCTV cameras (without any public consultation) severalquestions were asked of the school who confirmed that they do not follow the SurveillanceCamera Code of Practice as they should: most other schools do. They are using their argumentthat Stoke Lodge is 'school premises' to say that they don't need to.

They say they have their own policy and guidelines regarding use of, and sharing of, CCTVimages, but all it requires is an anonymous tip that something untoward may be happening on thefield for the school to then look through all the footage that these four cameras have recorded. I'mafraid I am not alone in having absolutely no confidence whatsoever in the school's properhandling of this data. The way that representatives and governors have allowed confidentialdocuments to be shown on social media (which was reported to Ofsted) and the reporting to thepress of 'damage done by members of the community' to fence post bolts which was witnessed byseveral people to have been done by the Facilities Manager (who will be one of the staff memberswith access to this footage) does nothing to engender trust.

PersonalMy house, and the bedroom and bathroom windows, are, potentially, in direct line of sight of thiscamera so I am of course, particularly concerned about the excessive intrusion by people I'mafraid I just do not trust.

Play parkEqually disturbing is the surveillance of a children's play park. If the camera is powerful enough tosee as far as the boundary at the lower end of the field, some 190m, it is certainly powerfulenough to see into the windows of the cottages by the pavilion, the houses at the top of CheyneRoad and along Stoke Paddock Road. The children's play park is even closer still.

PublicThere is a fence just inside the boundaries of the lease forming narrow boundary walkways whichthe public have to use for dog walking as the school have banned dogs from the entire twentyacres at all times, disregarding the clause allowing existing community use to continue. The publicalso uses these walkways when the school is using the field regardless of whether or not gatesare locked, and also when the gates are locked which is seemingly regardless of whether theschool is there or not.Will these walkways be surveilled as well? How can the school guarantee that surveillance willstop at the a given point?

The lease stipulates that the school's rights under the lease are subject to community use; as it is

an area that the public can lawfully access, the school cannot lawfully monitor the public goingabout their business.

ALLEGED SECURITY REQUIREMENTSSupporters of this application have quoted from guidance for main school sites - school premises -talking about 'secure perimeters', but there is no requirement for detached playing fields socomments referring to this are irrelevant. In any case, Avon & Somerset Police have confirmedthat there have been no reports of antisocial or criminal behaviour at Stoke Lodge, only two of'vandalism in March of this year which related to fence panels being unbolted (reversible, nodamage) so that the community could access as is their lawful right and exercise at a safedistance during lockdown. To my knowledge there are no reported incidents of locals using thespace when the school had locked it before the pandemic. Any statements in comments on thisportal alleging criminal behaviour are untrue and should be disregarded as malicious.

VISUAL AMENITYIt is bad enough that a two metre, steel mesh security fence is now jarringly visible as you walkaround or to the side of the Grade II Listed House, to add a galvanised steel twelve meter highpole with CCTV cameras adds insult to injury; the impact on the amenity of the setting would beenormous.

It's interesting to note that almost all the supporting comments are from people who don't live nearStoke Lodge and who would rarely, if ever, use it. They are very poorly placed to give a balancedview on the way in which equipment suited to car parks, railway stations and prisons would beharmful to the setting.

CCTV - THE RIGHT SOLUTION?The application fails to identify any legitimate aim or pressing need for the CCTV which isrequired, and there has been no consultation for this proposed work (or any of the work done todate) on Stoke Lodge.Generally, CCTV - due to cost, maintenance, appearance (in this sort of setting) and the risk tohuman rights violations as detailed in other comments - would be a last resort.

Yet again, lack of clarification from the school leaves us with no alternative but to glean what wecan from parents. From public comments it can be seen that those supporting it do so because:'The children would not be safe without it' - The children are not left alone; many, many schoolstake children on outings to unfenced, un-surveilled areas for trips and outings, cross countrytraining, matches against other schools etc and Cotham School used Coombe Dingle SportsCentre for years and until recently without CCTV or fence and with open gates. Well plannedlessons, discipline and watchful staff is used with success in other schools.'There has been crime in the area' - There hasn't. Stoke Bishop is one of the lowest crime areas inBristol.'It will stop fly-posting' - Again something touted on school social media, the only posters I've everseen which were ripped down were regarding planning applications and Coronavirus Public Health

Advice from the government website. The school called a representative from Bristol Waste toremove 'offensive' posters in April I believe, he made the 'essential' trip but in his opinion therewere none fitting that description and he left. Waste of time and public funds.'The fence has been vandalised' - The school has chosen to keep twenty acres locked in breach ofthe lease, there are no cafes, toilets, pitches, goal posts or anything that would require it to belocked, Bristol City Council have not required it, nor have the insurers. The fence panels havebeen unbolted by an unknown member of the community (easily closed again) as a result of thedecision to again lock the community out of the space, there are several examples of the school'mistakenly' locking the field or taking astounding decisions to keep it locked such as when GretaThurnburg spoke on College Green. A better relationship with the community and respecting theterms of the lease would have meant that this simply would not have happened.'The cameras would enable the school to prosecute anyone seen using the field or tampering withthe fence' - Firstly, the four cameras already there have done nothing to prevent any of this,secondly, we can see that this is intended not as a means to prevent any problems but as a way tocatch and punish (or, as none of this is criminal, far more likely to publicly humiliate on socialmedia) anyone whose image they can capture.'The camera would sit well in the setting' - I can't even begin to imagine how anyone could explainthat.

In conclusion, this is a bitter and complex situation, The application in itself - the odd postcode, thelack of information regarding the capabilities of the set-up, is inflammatory and threatening.The situation needs mediated talks so that the community and school can work together ratherthan against each other, this could have saved, and would still save the school, thousands ofpounds in CCTV and other security measures which are simply not required if the relationship canbe turned around, the field and the setting for the beautiful and historically important house can besaved, the children can be shown a better way of handling things and the school could savemoney better spent on staff and facilities.

I feel it is an invasion of people's privacy, both local people's and the school students.They are high definition cameras with a long range so can see people clearly and can beaccessed at any time. This makes children vulnerable to voyeurs. I feel it is a safe guarding riskand puts property (a large empty fenced field) above people.

I object to the proposed development to install yet another CCTV camera on a pole atStoke Lodge, Bristol.

The grounds of my objection are as follows;

1. The adverse visual impact of the development on this parkland setting.2. The lack of clarity as to the exact nature size and design of the proposed development.3. The lack of detailed drawing of the development site.4. The development is out of character with the setting of historic parkland and listed buildingadjacent.5. The development is for CCTV coverage which is unnecessary given the low level of proven risk.6. CCTV over open spaces which will also cover private land and impinge upon the private lives ofpersons legally and entitled to be using the land.

I object to the proposal to erect a tall CCTV camera near this grade II listed building(Stoke Lodge) because it is unsightly and intimidating. What guarantees are there that the camerawouldn't be capturing the residential housing across the field and the children's play park, which isjust outside the fence and frequented by children and their families? The field is leased to CothamSchool subject to all existing rights and use of the property including use by the community. I thinkthat security issues were not an issue prior to Cotham School erecting a huge perimeter fence tokeep the neighbouring community out. If the school wants an additional CCTV camera to monitorwhat is a publicly used space (not privately owned by the school) then it should comply with theSurveillance Camera Code of Practice under section 29 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. Asthere are now two Town or Village Green applications and a public rights of way application inprogress would it not be prudent to wait until the outcome of these are known and, if these do notproceed, then to rethink the design to a solution more in keeping with a listed building andimportant green site of local heritage and importance?

I object to the proposal to erect a tall CCTV camera near this grade II listed building(Stoke Lodge) and green space because it is unsightly and intimidating. What guarantees arethere that the camera wouldn't be capturing the residential housing across the field and thechildren's play park, which is just outside the fence and frequented by children and their families?The field is leased to Cotham School subject to all existing rights and use of the property includinguse by the community. I think that security issues were not an issue prior to Cotham Schoolerecting a huge perimeter fence to keep the neighbouring community out. If the school wants anadditional CCTV camera to monitor what is a publicly used space (not privately owned by theschool) then it should comply with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice under section 29 ofthe Protection of Freedoms Act. As there are now two Town or Village Green applications and apublic rights of way application in progress would it not be prudent to wait until the outcome ofthese are known and, if these do not proceed, then to rethink the design to a solution more inkeeping with a listed building and important green site of local heritage and importance?

I am writing of behalf of my family and I, as residents, to object to any further installationof CCTV on Stoke Lodge (in ref to the application 20/01826/F)

Firstly, as a father of a young family we often visit and use the local playground (prior to thecurrent restrictions) right by Stoke Lodge. If planning permission is given to install a 4-12 metreshigh CCTV I have serious concerns about privacy issues as the application it says the camera willcover the lower end of the playing field (which incidentally I don't ever recall being used byCotham School). It is also I believe a tilt and turn camera. Surely this will mean not only will it beable to view a playground full of young children but also view into the gardens and houses of thelocal vicinity.

I believe that Cotham School has confirmed that it does not follow the surveillance camera code ofpractice. I would like to know who has access to the data/pictures and who will bemonitoring/controlling the camera? I see this not only as serious breach of privacy and data (whichcould serious legal ramifications) but raises several questions about who can view these imagesand what they intend to do with them.

Secondly, from the application made by the school the camera's indicated location is next to StokeLodge House which is a historical Grade II listed building. The purposed pole and CCTV states itwill be between 4 and 12 metres. I strongly believe that this is not an appropriate structure thatshould be attached so close to a Grade II listed building and its surrounding curtilage. Stoke Lodgeis neither Horfield Prison nor Stalag 17 so there should be no reason why Cotham School shouldbe allowed to erect this type of structure

Thirdly the application has been made by the "owner" of Stoke Lodge, which is clearly not CothamSchool. It is owned by Bristol Council who have in turn leased this to the school, not sold it. Thelease was agreed on the basis that it is 'subject also to all existing rights and use of the propertyincluding use by the community'. Therefore, Stoke Lodge is deemed a public space and thecouncil would be consenting to the surveillance (by Cotham School) of an important open spacethat is designated for recreation, leisure and community use by everyone

And lastly its interesting to see that most of the support for the application is from outside of thelocal area and therefore would have absolutely zero impact on their privacy or lives. I wonder howthey would feel if their neighbours put up CCTV that could see into their gardens whilst childrenplay

For these reasons above I strongly urge you to reject this application

I strongly object to this flawed and vague application for many reasons, including:

- SERIOUS HARM TO THE AMENITY OF A MUCH LOVED LISTED BUILDING AND ITSSETTING WITHIN PARKLANDStoke Lodge, Grade II Listed for its special architectural / historic interest, was one of the area'sfirst fine houses, built in the 1830s in a style that had been in vogue in early Tudor times. It is animportant historic (pre-Victorian) and cultural example of Stoke Bishop's residential transformation,and its asymmetric design incorporates many attractive architectural features that add to itscharm.

Its curtilage was planted as a fine arboretum just after the house was built, and its many majestictrees are protected with TPOs, with a large number listed as being of NATIONAL IMPORTANCE.

Stoke Lodge sits in a prominent position and is a local landmark in this pleasant and low-crimearea. It has been much loved by its many users -- including local residents, sports teams using itsgrass pitches from the 1920s onwards, schools, and wildlife - who have shared this IMPORTANTOPEN SPACE (as designated for protection in the Bristol Local Plan) successfully over manyyears.

Under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended, theSETTING OF A LISTED BUILDING IS PROTECTED, and the Local Authority has an obligation toensure this protection. The Local Authority's appreciation of and care for the site since itspurchase in the 1940s has been documented over the years, with many officer reports referring toits valued "views into and out of the site", the "parkland" nature of its extensive "curtilage" and its

lovely trees.

Included in Stoke Lodge's PROTECTED SETTING is the quirky old gazebo (recently restored byBCC) built to afford fine views over the lower parkland and Kings Weston Hill in the background.The application proposes that the CCTV pole be installed extremely NEAR THE GAZEBO ANDHIGH OLD STONE WALL and much TOO CLOSE TO THE LISTED HOUSE as well.

I have looked carefully through the CCTV pole catalogue cited in the application. The photos showhow well such a dominating eyesore fits in with depressingly ugly, concreted areas such as largecar parks, desolate warehouse premises and prison yards.

As useful as it may be for those grim locations, an ugly and intrusive CCTV pole would look totallyincongruous in Stoke Lodge's green and peaceful setting and would seriously harm the amenityenjoyed over generations by SPOILING VIEWS BOTH INTO AND OUT OF THE PARKLAND.

In addition, the tranquillity and feeling of well-being experienced by those who love to visit StokeLodge would be destroyed by the threatening nature of a panning CCTV camera atop this massivepole.

Such an ugly and overbearing structure would be totally inappropriate on such a lovely site andruin the visual amenity of this important heritage asset.

- INVASION OF PRIVACY TO USERS OF STOKE LODGE PARKLAND AND TO RESIDENTSLIVING ADJACENT TO THE SITEVisual damage to such a valued amenity is insult enough, but the fact that this eyesore could havethe ability to follow, zoom In and photograph lawful users of Stoke Lodge adds a sinisterdimension - especially when we have no idea who is controlling it or from where, or how any datacollected would be used or stored.

This does not seem to me to be within the spirit of the lease, which BCC specially worded toensure the community's legal right to continued use.

In addition to infringing upon the right to privacy of people visiting the site or young families usingthe play area, the ground's sloping nature means that a CCTV camera on WHATEVER SIZE polein this location would have the capability of seeing into the gardens and windows of manyproperties bordering the site. Surely this excessive intrusion is improper and wholly unacceptable.

- LACK OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THE APPLICATIONAmongst a number of omissions and errors in the application, the most blatant is the lack of anyjustification for the significant harm that such an intrusive and ugly structure would cause to theamenity provided by a treasured heritage asset.

Please reject this unnecessary and damaging development.

I object to the installation of the CCTV in Stoke Lodge Playing field in this application.

I have 3 clear grounds for my objection:

1) Breach of my Human RightsPut simply the CCTV will have an unrestricted view across the field towards our house at the endof Stoke Paddock and has specifically been designed to overlook us (as it states in thepermission).

This will have a view into 3 bedrooms and one bathroom at our property. While this will berestricted in summer by foliage for 6 months of the year there will be a deliberate direct line of siteinto our property.

I believe that this is a direct violation of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 2000 which reads:

Right to respect for private and family life1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and hiscorrespondence.2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such asis in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of nationalsecurity, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder orcrime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms ofothers.

The claim in the application is that the reason for needing a CCTV is because of vandalism.However, a recent incident occurred were a tree that had a TPO order on it with branchescovering a CCTV camera on this field was vandalised. The imagery was right in front of the CCTVbecause it was those branches that were vandalised. No Police were called, no enforcementaction was taken. This indicates that not only will CCTV have no deterrent effect on vandalism butthat this is not the intended use of the CCTV.

In addition current Police records for the area can be found here https://www.police.uk/pu/your-area/avon-somerset-constabulary/stoke-bishop/.

This shows that crime has been falling in this area since April 2019. What little crime that might becalled Vandalism did not even happen in an area that would be within the purview of this CCTVsystem.

2) Illegal collection of dataIt is because of this possible violation of my human rights that the information Commissionersoffice introduced a code of conduct which recommends a privacy impact assessment be made. InThe ICO's "CCTV Code of Practice" v 1.2 https://ico.org.uk/media/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf itclearly stated on page 32 "Privacy impact assessments are also beneficial because consultation isa key element of the process; this will help you to understand the public's reaction to your proposaland people's views about potential privacy intrusion."

The school has failed to provide this, and this should cause planners concern, it could mean thatthe ICO could rule that the data collected from this system cannot be used because it has notbeen legally gathered.

There is a further challenge that the authority should satisfy itself with before granting permission,whether the applicant has legal permission to collect, store and process this data. The existingICO registration for Cotham School dates to 2002, before this "applicant" even existed as a trust.

Before the council permits the erection of this CCTV system it should satisfy itself that there is alegal basis for it.

The same Code of Practice calls for specific governance measures to be in place to protect thecommunity. This CCTV will have a view of a children's playing area in Stoke Lodge maintained byBristol City Council. The council should satisfy itself that images from the CCTV of children at playwill not be accessed in a way that breaches the law. As this entire system will be operatedremotely and be recording 24 hours a day using storage "in the cloud", there is a need for thecouncil to satisfy itself that the ICO's Guidance on Using Cloud Computing under the DataProtection Act 1988 has been complied with which would the possibility of the children in the Cityof Bristol being exposed to offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978 which make it

illegal to take, distribute, show or possess for the intent of showing or distributing an indecentphotograph of a child under the age of 18.

3) AmenityOur house has a view over a Grade 2 listed property and its' curtilage (including outbuildings). Themap only specifies a very vague location for the placement of the CCTV system, however existingworks to install electrics for this system, which were put in last year, long before any allegedvandalism will place the pole directly hindering our view of this amenity. As such the applicantshould be required to conduct a Residential Amenity assessment.

This ugly pole is within a few feet of a grade II listed gazebo and detrimental to this important openspace which is designated as such based on the following criteria: recreation, leisure, communityuse, townscape and visual amenity.

I implore the council to throw out this application and ask the applicant to consider alternativeways to protect its property as the ICO suggests.

I strongly object to this application which should not even have been allowed to proceedto this point because it contains deep, fundamental inaccuracies. These inaccuracies mean thatthis application should be thrown out and the applicant be required to offer a complete, accurateapplication so that it can be properly evaluated by both Planners and neighbours.

The largest and grossest of these errors goes to the heart Ownership of the land. The claimedapplicant does not own the land, it leases the land and has not received permission from thelandowner to erect this CCTV system.

The second error relates to the applicant. The applicant is not a legally authorised applicant onbehalf of Cotham School and does not carry the legal authority to be granted the application, soeven if it is approved it would be given to the wrong legal entity.

Thirdly, the applicant in section 25 states that Ownership Certificates are Cotham School and thata declaration has been made. However, this is clearly inaccurate and no certificate is attached.

Fourthly, The application states "The works are to install a CCTV pole and camera adjacent to thegate behind the neighbouring Stoke Lodge Adult Learning Centre. CCTV will cover the lower endof the playing field (behind Stoke Paddock) and the immediate area around the base of the pole, itwill not cover areas outside of the school premises." This is clearly inaccurate it is impossible tocover the lower end of the playing field (behind Stoke Paddock) without covering area that is notschool property and still have a view of the fence.

Fifthly, the applicant makes a crucial error in their application, this CCTV system is on property

that does have asbestos and even putting in the electrics for this system will require the asbestosin the "derelict hut" to be disturbed causing significant possible health hazard to the applicant,school children and local residents.

Sixthly, the applicant states that hours of operation aren't relevant, this is clearly not true. Theplaying fields are used during certain hours and not during others, it is during those unused hoursthat the issues occur.

Seventh, and finally, the map shows an area that must be 10m x 10m but does not highlight asingle location for a poll. The applicant expects planners to grant it a broad licence to determinewhere to put the CCTV. This is a deliberate attempt to mislead planners.

For these seven reasons planners should not permit this application to pass.

Both plans submitted shown different positions for the location of the CCTV pole, so it ishard to work out exactly where it will be positioned. The submitted plans are wrong, they don'tshow the Bristol Tree of the Year nearby, newer houses on West Dene and they don't show thenearby children's playpark, all which would end up being covered by the range of the CCTV too.This would result in the loss of privacy to park users and house owners bordering the playingfields. This might be a coincidence to deceive the planning officer, as this throws up a wholenumber of privacy issues.

The application doesn't specific how high is the pole going to be. The spec supplied says between4m-12m, but that is a huge difference in height and will look very out of place in the current natureparkland setting. The location is in the curtilage of a Grade II listed building - that precedent hasbeen set in all previous planning applications for this site over the past 20yrs. As such, theinstallation of a CCTV steel grey pole will greatly impact on the visual amenity, looking very out ofplace and spoilt the view of the rear area of the Grade II listed building and the surroundinggrounds - it is not appropriate for the area and won't prevent crime that doesn't exist in the firstplace.

The applicant claims the CCTV is required for student safety when using the playing fields. . I feelthis statement is a lie as based on the schools previous 12 months of usage at Stoke LodgePlaying Fields, they only use it for 10hrs per week, (Mon-Fri) the vast majority of the time they onlyuse the top section (already covered by four existing CCTV camera and not covered by this newproposed CCTV camera) and always have a 1 teacher to 15 pupils teaching ratio, so the studentsare always under close supervision. Also, the site is fully fenced and the five pedestrian accessgates closed when the school are using the field. There is clearly no justifiable reason for this

CCTV camera to be installed by the school.

- The school's application suggests that Stoke Lodge is 'school premises' but this is not the case.When requesting this confirmation, representatives of the school misinformed the Department forEducation that the school had an 'exclusive lease' of Stoke Lodge; however, the DfE haspreviously confirmed, based on accurate data about the terms of the lease and the school's use ofthe land, that Stoke Lodge is a 'shared facility that the school makes use of alongside others', notschool premises. The authoritative test was stated by the Minister for School Standards inParliament in response to a Written Parliamentary Question from Darren Jones MP. On the basisof the school's minority use of the field (in area and in hours per week) and the terms of the lease,the field is not the 'premises' of the school. This is in any event not a relevant planningconsideration for this application.

- Neither the DfE nor Ofsted has issued any guidance relating to security requirements fordetached playing fields. School supporters have pointed to selective quotes from guidance formain school sites referring to 'secure perimeters', but Ofsted has specifically confirmed on multipleoccasions that it does not require a fence at Stoke Lodge or on other detached playing fields. Thisconclusively demonstrates that the guidance being quoted does not apply to Stoke Lodge. Thisplanning application rests solely on the documents provided by the school.

- The application fails to identify any legitimate aim or pressing need for the CCTV and schoolsupporters appear to be trying to make up for this omission by making a series of unsubstantiatedclaims about alleged incidents. These allegations are based on false claims and rumours - in factAvon & Somerset Police have confirmed that there have been no reports of antisocial or similarbehaviour at Stoke Lodge, so any claims by school supporters that incidents have occurred andhave been reported are false. These comments have no relevance from a planning perspectiveand because of their malicious and defamatory nature, statements that include these falseallegations should be disregarded.

- To the extent that supporters of the application are relying on claims of vandalism to the fence,crime statistics show that there were just two reported incidents at Stoke Lodge in March 2020.We believe these may relate to fence panels being moved during the lockdown, when the schoolhad unlawfully excluded the community from using the land in breach of its lease. These claimsabout a small number of recent incidents, which are clearly referable to the school's action inlocking the gates contrary to the lease, have no planning relevance when considering the school'sapplication for a permanent structure and invasive monitoring. A more appropriate response wouldhave been for the school to comply with its lease and unlock the gates, rather than seeking toinstall further expensive and intrusive surveillance on site. The application fails to demonstrate theneed for this surveillance of a public space and private residential properties in one of the lowestcrime areas in Bristol.The school has specifically confirmed that it does not follow the Surveillance Camera Code ofPractice even though this is standard practice in most other schools. There is also evidence of the

school breaching its own policy in its use of, and sharing of, CCTV images. The community doesnot have confidence in the school's proper handling of data and is particularly concerned aboutexcessive intrusion into private residential property of Stoke Lodge Cottages, houses at the end ofWest Dene, properties on Stoke Paddock Lane and the surveillance of a children's play park, aswell as the impact on the amenity of the setting and the public's use of this important open space.It is important to bear in mind that the school's rights under the lease are subject to communityuse; it has no automatic right to monitor the public lawfully using that space. There is no possibilitythat the camera's range can or would be limited to the boundaries of the school's leased area. Theapplicant says that it is not live monitored unless there is an incident in progress. But of course it'sentirely up to them what constitutes an 'incident'. Past history shows the school are incrediblepetty and in their eyes an incident could simply be a member of the public talking to a staffmember or a community note being cable tied to the fence! As the school doesn't follow theSurveillance camera Code of Practice and have confirmed that the CCTV footage would be livemonitored offsite / home (if out of hours) from personal mobile devices, there is no control overwho views the footage, what they do with the footage and what happens to it. There is nothing tostop the CCTV operator viewing / sharing footage with other friends or spying and a similarincident like the one mentioned in this news article below occurring at Stoke Lodge Playing Fields:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4081742/blackburn-rovers-security-man-arrested-cctv-camera-12-girl/

- Comments made about other planning applications have no relevance to this one; the location,context and level of community consultation involved in other applications, together with thelegitimate aim and pressing need demonstrated by other applicants, may make a significantdifference to outcomes. Indeed, the careful attention paid by other applicants to issues such asheritage, amenity, and the need for/appropriateness of CCTV surveillance serve only to highlightthe glaring inadequacies of this application. The school's application provides none of thenecessary detail about the proposed pole or camera and no consideration whatsoever of theheritage and privacy implications. In particular, Bristol City Council's Surveillance Camera Strategystates that all CCTV proposals must involve consultation with people most regularly affected bythe scheme to address concerns around privacy. No such consultation has taken place. Theinstallation of the pole is for the explicit and sole purpose of installing CCTV so these two elementsof the application cannot be considered separately. In particular, as the school already has fourCCTV cameras monitoring the site, which have apparently had no deterrent impact, there is noindication that installation of further intrusive surveillance would achieve positive results. Crimelevels in this area are among the lowest in Bristol and the two specific reports in recent months(during the lockdown) relate to minor and reversible incidents.

- The proposed pole appears to be sited directly on a public right of way and BCC's own publishedinformation suggests that an application to register a PROW should be prioritised (i.e. jump thequeue) if it is affected by a planning application or development proposal.

- Is it wise to approve planning on a site that is subject to two ongoing TGV's, whom outcome

might involve the removal of the fence and another structures erected within the past five years?Surely better to wait until the outcome of the TGV before approving any further development of thesite.

I object to the proposed CCTV pole and camera for the following reasons.There are serious safeguarding and security issues for the public with regard to this pole andcamera. The system is privately operated and the school has specifically confirmed that it does notfollow the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice even though this is standard practice in mostother schools. In the past, footage obtained from Cotham schools CCTV has ended up on socialmedia and in the press which is simply a breach of human privacy rights. The proposed CCTVcameras range will overlook private home-owners gardens and a public children's play park aswell as Stoke Lodge field. The school has no automatic right to monitor the public lawfully usingthat space. This is intimidation and intrusion.

The design, appearance and materials of the proposed CCTV pole and camera are completely outof keeping with the rest of the area. Its proposed site is within the curtilage of a listed building in anarea of conservation and natural wildlife setting. It will be an eyesore.

There is inaccuracy in the application about trees and hedges - section #10 of the application formwhich explicitly asks "if there are trees and hedges on land adjacent to the site that might beimportant as part of the landscape character? Stoke Lodge Field is a historic arboretum parkwhich has no fewer than 38 TPO protected tree groupings. Some of the most densely planted andimportant of these TPO groupings are in close proximity to the proposed location of this camera -adjacent to the house. The applicant says there are no hedges or trees nearby.

Proposed CCTV site is on a claimed Rights of Way - shouldn't that be determined first beforeconsidering this application?

The application fails to identify any legitimate aim or pressing need for extra CCTV. Cothamschool already have four CCTV cameras on site. Surely these cameras offer ample securitycoverage in an area that the school itself barely uses? I am astonished at the level of security,high end devices and prison-style cameras they propose to install on a basic green field in one ofthe safest neighbourhoods of the city.

I object to this Application, and ask you to reject it.

In the absence of any consultation with the community to be surveilled, the Application seeksapproval for Cotham Academy School to install a pan and tilt remotely controlled camera ofunspecified range and capacity (though I note facial recognition capability is claimed by theschool's unofficial Twitter account holder in her supporting comment). The proposed camera is tobe mounted on a pole of indefinite height ( up to 12m), and is intended as a solution to anunidentified problem on a large area of Stoke Lodge that the school never uses for sport, andwhich is superfluous to its PE requirements.

24 hours a day, the camera will capture images and data relating to unspecified members of thelocal and wider community - including children in the play park, users of the Adult Learning Centre,passers by on footpaths - going about their legitimate, private business and pleasure on publicland to which they have lawful right of access. It will cover some individuals in their gardens andmaybe even inside their back windows. These images can be watched live, and recorded forviewing later, by unknown numbers of people, as well as by the Facilities Manager of CothamSchool, at home, via his VPN connection, in conditions that are unregulated by the SurveillanceCamera Code of Practice, that Cotham does not adhere to but which is regarded as best practiceand normally followed by schools using surveillance. We have no reason for confidence aroundsafeguarding people's images and data.

The Application is the logical consequence of a string of contentious decisions that have allowedCotham School to evade the restrictions of local and national planning legislation, and to breachthe terms of their lease on Stoke Lodge. Applied city- or country-wide, this strategy would have

devastating consequences on the environment, public health (not least mental health), and ourremaining national heritage, and so has always been unsustainable. I ask you now to stop thisprogressive undermining of planning regulations in its tracks before further damage is caused topeople, heritage, environment and wildlife.

My specific objections follow.

1. The Application itself is incorrect on several points. The plans are outdated and incomplete, theexact location of the pole is not pinpointed, its height (relevant to the camera's range)is merelygiven as between 4m and 12m, and there are no details given on the camera itself. The applicantis Nathan Allen, who inaccurately claims ownership of the property but is an employee of theacademy. Instead of the commonly accepted names for the site, the Application uses the nameStoke Lodge Sports Ground, and a new postcode, neither of which material change had beenconsulted on or agreed with the community. The Application should be dismissed on thesegrounds.

2. There are Public Right of Way applications (one which looks likely to be obstructed by theproposed pole), and two duly made TVG applications in relation to Stoke Lodge. Those existingapplications should take priority over this one (i.e. jump the queue, according to BCC's ownguidance on PROW applications) in order to safeguard the public's rights in those ongoingmatters.

3. The proposed pole is blatantly unsuited to the setting of Stoke Lodge, and the school's owndata sheet describes it as intended for built up, urban or institutional settings with an obvioussecurity threat, such as prisons, detention centres, car parks, industrial complexes, and someacademic and school premises. I do not remember seeing any such brutal, ugly structure onCotham School's premises. It is certainly inappropriate for Stoke Lodge, in close proximity with thebeautiful, stone built, gabled, Tudor-revival, Grade 2 listed, pre-1840 House itself. Unusually, it isstill set in its original parkland that retains its historic character, expansive vistas and scores ofimportant, protected trees. The parkland was included with the house in the original listing, and itssurreptitious removal to accommodate the school's fencing project was both underhand andcontentious.That the school does not even recognise the enormity of its proposal to degrade Stoke Lodge inthis way, is eager to continue its trashing of such a unique asset of Bristol, and national, history forthe sake of its own unexplained purposes, speaks for itself.To allow the erection of this unsightly pole and camera here would harm and greatly reduce theamenity value of Stoke Lodge, i.e. 'the visual appearance and pleasance of the environmentgenerally, including the general characteristics of the locality and any feature of architectural,cultural or similar interest there.' For example, close to the ugly gates adjacent to which theApplicant claims the pole will be, is Stoke Lodge's unusual and lovely, recently restoredBelvedere, set into the old wall. The gates, and the fence itself, ruin the view of and from thisatmospheric architectural feature, and interrupt long loved and valued vistas across the parkland.

The fence and gates contravened national and local planning policies and legislation relating tolisted historical assets. That they were allowed as permitted development, thus evading properplanning scrutiny, is part of the trail of unsustainable planning legislation subversion that hasculminated in the present Application, which should be refused to stop the rot.The National Planning Policy Framework requires 'clear and convincing justification' for 'Any harmto, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, orfrom development within its setting) ...' . This Application gives no justification at all for theinstallation.

4. Without applying for planning permission, the school unilaterally installed three CCTV cameraswithout warning or consultation. Despite then declaring they would need no further cameras, theyrecently replaced two of the originals with three higher-tech models, again without consultation orpermission, bringing the total to four.None of these cameras has prevented or identified any crime, or caught any miscreant, or avertedany harm. They have been utterly ineffective. This is an exceptionally low-crime area, as policefigures and statistics show: no criminal damage, no vandalism, no dog attacks. Stoke Lodge iswell kept, safe, litter-free and clean, thanks to the residents, as it always has been.For no good reason or justifiable purpose, then, the pole-cam would spoil and interrupt our visualperception of Stoke Lodge as a harmonious, unspoilt, peaceful retreat from the stresses of busystreets and lives and problems. It would also detract from the calming, energising, emotionallyuplifting effects of being in Stoke Lodge's green space alongside the old stone house and itsnatural surroundings, unspoilt mature trees and other flora and fauna within its peaceful, spaciouswooded boundaries, through the seasons.These are effects essential for everyone's wellbeing, resilience and good mental health, but thepole and camera threaten to change them for the uncomfortable (and, for some, anxious) feelingsof being watched, accused, recognised, recorded, probably by the very Cotham staff who havetreated many of our community, with hostility and rudeness. Their clear purpose being to breachthe terms of their lease and unlawfully exclude us from our last local green space, we are unlikelyto consider them fit persons to have control over our images or data, and under these negativeinfluences Stoke Lodge would change and lose its free, accepting, peaceful, relaxed character.It appears that this must be the purpose of the camera. It cannot be intended for security, or childprotection, since school students must be supervised by staff, and anyway the lower field area tobe overseen by the camera is not used by the school.

4. The Surveillance Camera Code of Practice applies to the use of all surveillance cameras usedin public places in England and Wales. Cotham's business manager says the school has noinformation on the code since 'the school site including its site at Stoke Lodge is not publicproperty, it is private property leased by the school and therefore the act [i.e. the Protection ofFreedoms Act 2012] or the guiding principles [i.e. the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice,which is part of the Act] are not applicable to the school.'However, this is incorrect. The definition of 'public place' in the Public Order Act (1986, Section 16(b)) is 'any place to which at the material time the public or any section of the public has access,

on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission.'Therefore that definition covers all of Stoke Lodge and explains why other schools choose tocomply with the best practice the Code represents. Stoke Lodge is a public place, and it is notschool premises, as the Minister for School Standards confirmed, since it does not have exclusiveuse under the conditions of the lease, or majority use of the land.

The Surveillance Camera Code of Practice requires that surveillance cameras in a public placeare used 'in pursuit of a legitimate aim', and are 'necessary to meet a pressing need,''proportionate', 'effective' and 'compliant with any legal obligations'. It also requires transparency inthe use of surveillance, signs, a contact point for access to information and for complaints. As faras I am aware, Cotham has complied with none of these requirements to offset the loss of privacysurveillance inflicts.

BCC's own Surveillance Camera Strategy complies with the Code and adds other considerations.They stress that 'All schemes must involve consultation with people most regularly affected by thescheme to address concerns around privacy' and ask 'Whether the main stakeholders support theaims of the scheme'. None of this was considered in relation to Cotham's apparently entirelyunregulated installation of the first four cameras. Hence the level of opposition they areencountering. It is a pity BCC yet again ignored its own guidelines in that instance, because it hasbeen a singular failure. It is unlikely another camera would succeed in solving Cotham's inventedproblem at Stoke Lodge.

BCC's Surveillance Camera Strategy makes another crucial point. Any surveillance camerascheme, it says, should demonstrate sustainability. This requirement is most certainly not beingmet at Stoke Lodge, and it never will be while Cotham refuses all consultation. Levels ofacceptance and trust have dropped from low to non-existent, as an inevitable consequence of theschool's insulting treatment of the community. Surveillance founded on spite and resentmentcannot be acceptable and therefore it will not be sustainable, because the school is three milesaway, but the community is here all the time.

What we have always needed are consultation, compromise and mutual respect. Without them,Cotham's project at Stoke Lodge will be unsustainable, and another useless camera won't fix it.Please reject this flawed application.

I strongly object to this application and have detailed some of my reasons below:

The Applicant has answered "No" to the following question on the application form "Are there anynew public rights of way to be provided within or adjacent to the site?". However, there arepending PROW and TVG applications for this site. The CCTV proposed would directly impinge onthe PROW and TVG areas and enable viewing and recording of the public using this site. Indeed, Ithought that a new planning application, such as this, was supposed to cause the pending PROWand TVG applications to be brought forward?

The application does not explain that the local community has shared use of the site according tothe lease and thus CCTV on this site will be directly observing and recording members of thepublic as they go about their private activities. There has been no consultation with members ofthe local community and the neighbouring residents.

The location of the "CCTV pole and camera adjacent to the gate behind the neighbouring StokeLodge Adult Learning Centre", will put it directly adjacent to a Grade II listed building, greatlyimpacting on its visual amenity from a wide viewing angle. The height of the pole is such that it willbe above much of the surrounding hedgerow/trees and thus visible from a great distance, andpossibly from inside the Grade II listed building and its garden as well.

The applicant states that the "CCTV will cover the lower end of the playing field (behind StokePaddock)" and thus will also be capable of viewing and recording activities in the gardens andthrough windows of the properties on Stoke Paddock/Cheyne Road. This would be of particularconcern in the winter when the trees and hedgerow has lost its leaves, and after dark when room

lights are on in the houses.

I understand that the school do not follow the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice under section29 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is extremely worrying. I frequently use the lowerfield for solitary exercise and have a teenage child who has grown up playing on this field, and Iam very uncomfortable at the thought of us being watched and/or recorded. Who has access tothe data? How is it stored? What is it used for? Is it shared? Is it secure?

Finally, I do not think there is any justification to install this pole and CCTV. The school do not usethis lower area of the field, as it is sloping and extremely boggy and wet in the winter. The area isextremely safe, and this is enhanced naturally by the shared use of the site by local residents andcommunity users. Indeed, now the warm summer evenings are with us, it is a pleasure having alate evening walk, watching the sunset and enjoying seeing all the families and friends playing insuch a beautiful open green space. A CCTV on a tall pole, viewing and recording all this is totallyinappropriate and disproportionate and I strongly object.

The presence of further surveillance of open area where community access is requiredby lease yet often frustrated by the leaseholder gives yet further offence to the local communitythat has had free and unfettered access for many years.

Intrusive surveillance technology is inappropriate to the Grade 2 Listed building nearby.

Further infrastructure placed near TPO protected trees and in beautiful surroundings adds to theinjury of inappropriate fencing.

Please reject this further deterrent to community use of this space as is required by the lease.

I object to the installation of a CCTV camera at this location for a number of reasons,but primarily for issues around privacy, having a camera on what is a public right of way. There isalso the visual impact on a listed environment. But above all, I have no desire to be filmed everytime I wish to take a walk in my local area. Citizens deserve the right to peaceful enjoyment ofpublic spaces, without private companies being allowed to record data and use it for whateverunspecified purpose they have. Please think carefully about the precedent that this sets andrefuse this application. Thank you.

It seems inconceivable that any organisation would wish to harm this beautiful site withsuch an unsympathetic application.

Stoke Lodge is a fine late 19th century listed building that is immediately adjacent to the proposedsite of this camera. The grounds surrounding Stoke Lodge are akin to parkland ( as describedwhen assessed as a potential site for a school )The grounds of Stoke Lodge were severed fromthe house by an oversight of planning law or on a flimsy technicality that allowed a fence to beconstructed without a planning application.

The Court of Appeal case of a Steer v SSCLG confirms that BCC should mean that the planningofficer should take a wide construction of the definition of setting .The setting is the surroundingsin which the listed building is experienced. It should be clear to everyone that this applicationinvolves the setting of a listed building.

More importantly,this seems to be a cumulative proposed change that will harm the setting. Theplanning officer must take this essential point into account when assessing this application. Thisapplication combined with the hideous fence (that would not have been given planning had anapplication been necessary ) combine to harm this beautiful parkland and further distract from thebeauty and significance of the asset. And Cotham Academy has a history on their home site ofmaking cumulative applications that one by one erode the beauty of a listed site. Each applicationmakes the subsequent application easier.

It is obvious that a pole mounted camera will harm the visual amenity of Stoke Lodge. Why is thisharm required?

It would appear that this application is a knee jerk reaction to the opening of the fence during theCorona Virus disaster that continues to impact everyone's well being, health and finance There isno detailed analysis of the perceived risk, no analysis of what steps are required to prevent theperceived risks. The application is quiet. It invites the planning officer to accept that an uglygalvanised pole is the only solution because the school says so.

There is no coherent surveillance strategy. The school cannot be even bothered to specify theexact height of the pole or the cameras visual range. It treats the planning officer in the same waythat it treats the local residents.

.

The camera purpose seemingly is to survey the bottom end of the field which has been usedpredominately for watching grass grow and practising lawn mowing. I don't think that a singlegame of sports was played there for the entirety of the year. A few groups of school pupilorienteers briefly went down there and there might have been a five a side game at the weekendonce. Some football posts were purposelessly erected and dismantled.

There has been no security breaches of the fence during games

Stoke Lodge and its grounds are classed as open space and recreational ground. BCC havealways known that the land was used by try public and for many years debated transferring it fromEYPS to parks and recreation. However the use of the sports fields had been assigned to CothamAcademy. Once they were granted the lease and somehow permitted to fence the field we haveended up with a hybrid situation. BCC still pay for all the maintenance of the trees and walls andthe public in recognition of this fact ( after all, their taxes are subsidising the site and letting theacademy off maintenance costs ) under the terms of the lease have access to the playing fieldswhen not in use and use of the narrow perimeter walkway at all times. A small area for aplayground and grass is outside the lease. The solicitors acting for Cotham asked BCC to takeresponsibility for the walls and trees because 'except for the playing field use it was to all intentsand purposes 'open amenity land.'

People use the grounds for all manners of activities. You can see children flying kites, young ladsand their not so young fathers practise cricket, one man persevere with his golf practise, kidscreate goals posts out of coats, an elderly man does interval sprints and elderly pick elderflower tomake into wine. Some young girls flop down on a blanket to sunbathe and read books. Thecamera will see all this. It might also see into the gardens of the many properties edging onto thefield. The playground will also be under surveillance and maybe the sensory garden that is meantto be a retreat from 21st Century life. A student getting out of her car in the carpark might be undersurveillance. She didn't even a have a chance to object as the Education Centre was closed whenthis application was made,

Where is all this information going to be collated? ? Who will control the camera? Who will controlthe data?

People were promised that they could use the grounds peacefully when they school was not suitthe field. They did not expect a tall oppressive camera staring down at them. The camera is amethod for the school to assert their dominance over the site and make the public feeluncomfortable.

Yes things have clearly gone wrong. The school have decided to arbitrarily wield their powerdeciding as and when to lock or unlock gates in an inconsistent,haphazard manner. The schoolhave opened the field at odd times or sporadically so that very young infant children would easilyhope to cycle to school and find their route blocked by locked gates unexpectedly. The school hadinconsistently chosen not to open the gates that morning forcing them into the road..

This school refused to open the field over October half term 12019 over the flimsiest of excusesdespite earnest pleas from the Community .

They closed the gates for months when the Covid outbreak occurred when all they were closingwas a wide open space.

They have persistently broken the terms of their lease and BCC have done nothing.

This has all combined to form a feeling of hostility directed from the school to the local community.And there is also a sense that the Community has to be punished for any misdemeanours.

A few panels were removed. I strongly believe that this action was wrong. But someone ( whoafter all like everyone else paying for the tree maintenance and wall repair ) decided to place some

panels to the side so that they could easily be restored once the crisis is over. The school is notlikely to be able to use the field for months. I suspect that their justification was that at least thepublic can use the asset.

However, this 'wrong' action is no justification for a pole mounted camera and a punishment to theCommunity. I have no idea who has done this .

The school seem intent upon upsetting the a Community by almost deliberately threatening toharm the asset still further by this application . The application displays the details of the camera.It's the type of security pole typically used for an industrial or commercial unit, retail parks orprisons and detention centres. There is reference to schools but probably it would be suitable for aschool in an urban setting not in land deemed parkland.

People cannot easily forget that the fence was originally meant to be black but was only the lessintrusive green because the school made a mistake with their order. Even the fencing contractorscould not believe that anyone would order a black fence. Would planning in a month of Sundayshave approved an overpowering black fence on a listed site?

The same organisation that deliberately chose a black fence now wishes to install an ugly metalpole and camera contrary to any concept of visual amenity and aesthetic and seemingly with nodata control.

There are no details of the height of the proposed CCTV pole. The data sheet providedin the supporting documents only states between 4 and 12m high. I would have thought that theplanning application should contain the exact details of the proposed structure, i.e. it's height.

The pole will not be in keeping with its surrounding area. It will have the result of making the openfield urbanised with an industrial pole and CCTV camera. Also, it is situation very close to thelisted Stoke Lodge.

The children's playground, adjacent to the fenced area, is NOT shown on either of the planssubmitted.

The play area (not shown on either plan submitted with the application) is significantly closer to thecamera than the bottom end of the field. The application states "CCTV will cover the lower end ofthe playing field", it also states that "it will not cover areas outside of the school premises". Howcan the playground not be covered, it the camera is designed to cover the lower end of the playingfield which is further away than the play area? I have young children that use that play area and Iwould not be happy to know that they could be followed by a CCTV camera, whether it is fixed orcontrolled.

I cannot see the need to monitor this area of green space. It's a field used by Cotham School forsports, what is there of value that needs to be watched? The application does not state whetherthe camera is fixed, able to move or domed.

I object to the proposal as being unsightly, unnecessary and intrusive. Stoke Lodge is apleasant house set in parkland that is gradually being reduced in amenity by intrusive andunnecessary construction of fences, gates, and cctv cameras In what is a public space forschoolchildren and members of the public to enjoy

I wish to object to this planning application on the following grounds:

1 Like many people who have examined this application, I am not entirely sure of the exactlocation of this proposed camera/ pole. The application states that it will be adjacent to the gatebehind the neighbouring Stoke Lodge Adult Learning Centre. The square on the plan covers alarge area (rendering this plan fairly useless to determine the location) and is not exactly in thelocation described by the application. The circle is vaguely within the area covered by the largersquare. So which is correct? Where exactly will this pole be? What exactly is BCC being asked toapprove and why is this not communicated?

2 No-one seems to actually knew the proposed height of this pole. The accompanying documentsstate a height range of 4M - 12M. Perhaps the applicant has no idea themselves or they justneglected to mention this important detail? The obvious relevance is that there is a hugedifference between the view of a camera on a 4 metre pole as opposed to a 12 metre pole. Again,what is BCC being asked to approve and why is this not communicated?

3 There are some inaccuracies on the application. The existing use of the field is school playingfield and as prescribed by the lease, community use. As far as I was aware there is an applicationfor a new right of way that will run adjacent to the proposed site of the camera. It's hard to tell asthe exact site is not known. Trees are adjacent to the proposed development. There are protectedbats and badgers on this site.The applicant is also stated as Nate Allen not Cotham Academy. The

application is for CCTV only but presumably the school wishes to include the pole as well as thecamera?

4 The camera mounted on a galvanised steel pole will be completely hideous and out of keepingwith the surrounding area and will obviously damage the setting of this handsome listed building.This type of surveillance is more suited for an urban setting eg car parks, retail parks, warehousesor prison exercise yard and not for the beautiful parklands of Stoke Lodge.

5 There has never been an official detachment of the grounds from the house via a planningapplication and they should continue to be construed as one planning unit. Regardless of thispoint, it it patently obvious that the camera will be within the setting of Stoke Lodge as it will beadjacent to the house and setting is widely construed. Clearly, this will cause substantial harm tothe amenity of the listed building. Cotham Academy have failed to produce any cogent evidencethat this harm is justified as part of the damage/ benefit balancing act that the planning officer mustdo.

6 I am unaware of any serious crime in the area. Stoke Bishop has a low crime rate. I gather (from the few letters in support from parents or staff) that Cotham Academy are irked that a fencehad panels temporarily removed during the Covid 19 period. I do not condone this action in theleast but it would seem that Cotham Academy had failed to honour their lease and keep the gatesunlocked at the time when open green space was crucial for the wellbeing of the many keyworkers, children, disabled, elderly , NHS doctors and nurses who all live in close proximity toStoke Lodge.These doctors have had to wear PPE equipment all day long, toil hard to save livesand were saddened to find that they were locked out of the green space near to their homes. Thealleged vandalism ( that supporters of this application mention) consists of temporary removal ofpanels to one side to allow people onto the field as permitted by the lease. It is appalling thatCotham Academy locked these key workers, the disabled and elderly ( there is a vulnerablehousing site adjacent to the field for elderly and in-firmed ) out of the field and made them takeexercise along an extremely narrow perimeter to get some well needed fresh air at this time ofcrisis when people were not permitted to drive to an exercise spot...

7 I have been told that Cotham Academy already have some cameras on the site. Do they?Where are the signs? I find it extraordinary that people are being filmed with no notice. Does theschool not comply with any Surveillance Camera Code? Where is the published contact details foraccess and complaints communicated?

8 I am not sure why they want to survey the bottom of the field as it is rarely used by the school.Also, the school children are always accompanied by their teachers and are under constantsupervision. The camera operator will also possibly be able to see into the toddlers and young

children's playground and the adjacent area where many infant school aged children play withtheir parents. What safeguarding does the school have to protect these images? I doubt that anyparent would expect or be happy about their very small vulnerable children to be undersurveillance. It might also be able to see into the sensory gardens, the car park and the backgardens of houses on Stoke Paddock Road, Shirehampton Road and West Dene. Moreover,under the terms of the lease the public have a right to use the field so that the camera will be ableto capture images of small children , elderly and highly vulnerable disabled legally using the fieldfor recreation. Some young girls sunbathe on the field in their bikini tops . There are manydisabled people in this area who use the field. This all seems incredibly intrusive. Article 8 of theHuman Rights Act states that everyone has the right to respect for his family life. ' Isn't thisrelevant here?

9 Who will have access to these images and where will they be stored? How long will they bestored for? Who will decide when to delete them? Where will the images be viewed and who willhave access to that room? Who will operate the surveillance camera and what technical andcompetency standards have they met? What systems do they have in place to prevent hacking ofthe system - particularly concerning as many toddlers use the field and playground. I am unsurebut it seems that this camera will use face recognition. If this is true, than Cotham Academy mustbe storing a databank of local faces to be used to identify people in proximity to the site. Thisseems very intrusive. Do they have the right to store this type of data. Is there a legitimate aim forany of this?

10 This application shows a complete lack of necessity and proportionality to the ( we have tospeculate) perceived issue. What is the pressings identified need? Where is it articulated clearly inthis application.

11 To be frank, it seems to me that the school wishes to create a hostile environment to stoppeople using the field in accordance with their legal entitlement enshrined in the lease . I believethat the school has kept the gates locked on the flimsiest of pretexts or has opened the gates atinconsistent times so that people are unsure whether the gates will be opened or not.

12 Any benefit given to Cotham Academy is completely outweighed by the assault upon peoples'privacy and damage to the setting of a heritage building.

I have only just found out about Cotham School's application to propose a CCTVcamera to be situated near the Grade 2 listed Stoke Lodge and wish to add my voice to theobjection.This will be an invasion of privacy to anyone using Stoke Lodge fields.It will be an eyesore situated close to the beautiful listed house of Stoke Lodge.No reasons have been publicised as to why the school 'needs' a camera sited in land they barelyuse. Since fencing off the fields which in the past have been heavily used by the local community Ihave never seen the school put them to use.

I object to this application as it is unecessary and this land is for shared access with thecommunity. It is waste of public funding and could cause environmental damage to thesurroundings, given that Cotham School have a poor reputation of adhering to the rules forsafeguarding listed trees.

I object to this application as it is against the spirit of shared community access (a leyelement of the lease) and is unecessary and intusive. This is waste of public funds, particularly asthere has already been a failry recent installation.Cotham School have a very poor reputation when it comes to safeguarding listed trees and theyhave already commenced these works, causing damage.The works must be stopped immediately and Cotham School obliged to work with the localcommunity instead of repeatedly trying to antagonise it.

The proposed CCTV camera will have direct line of sight access to my front garden,driveway, lounge window and bedroom window. This is an uninvited and unwarranted invasion ofmy privacy and is not justified under any circumstances, and certainly not by a private individualworking as a school groundsman.

Stoke Lodge nestles in a low crime rate area with the highest concentration of elderlyResidents in Bristol but the Parkland is now the ONLY remaining green space in Stoke Bishop, soit is a vital space for recreation for both young children and our many frail and disabled neighboursliving in sheltered housing close to the field.Also, despite the schools attempts to prevent public access this spring; locals have continued toutilize the Parkland for recreation, picnics and barbecues yet (daily) there is not a single piece ofrubbish/bottles/cans or any other detritus to be found anywhere on the twenty three acres of PublicParkland, unlike areas such as The Downs!Nevertheless, the imposition of another grossly invasive CCTV camera on PUBLIC LAND that hasnever had a pupil safekeeping issue, is an insult to a peaceful law abiding community; basicallythis is a control issue (by the school) masquerading as a health and safety concern.This Parkland has been a shared open space for more than seventy years and during this timethere has been peaceful cooperation between various schools and the community; nothinguntoward has taken place in all that time that could possibly warrant the prison-like fencing or thefour current cctv cameras that appear to be trained on public footpaths rather than the sportspitches.The latest proposal for a cctv camera adjacent to a Grade 2 listed property and children's playarea is on a largely abandoned area of the Parkland with only low key activities, such as Frisbee,orienteering or kickabouts, confined to the top end of the field (not covered by this new camera)but rarely for more than an hour or so at any time.Previously, I submitted two objection letters to this planning application but like others, mystatements have been unilaterally removed without explanation or notification. However, theycontained only factual information but evidently that did not chime with an anonymous arbitrator.

There is absolutely no need for this. It will totally change the character and naturalbeauty of a listed historical building as well as detract from beautiful parkland and woodlandWhy it it needed? Does Stoke Lodge House need it or requested it. Money really needs to bespent on maintaining safe footpaths and enhancing the natural beauty of the area.Also I feel there is a big invasion of privacy issue here that cannot be ignored

Objection:

Looking at the application document, there are some glaring errors, which should not be possibledue to the in depth knowledge and communications given to both Cotham School and NathanAllen personally. These include the omission of the fact that there is an active Badger Sett on thesite; usage of the stoke lodge parkland is not only as school playing fields, but common exercisegrounds and paths for the community. The school's lease is very explicit on this point and it hasbeen reminded innumerable times of this fact. In fact the school only uses the facility for a tinyfraction of the week during school terms and the area which would be covered by this proposedcamera is almost never used. The camera is superfluous to any perceived requirement. Norequirement is apparent from the application.

The applicant, Nathan Allen, is not the owner of the land with regard to the freehold, nor theleasehold, in spite of his assertion in section 25. Neither of the "plans" submitted are accurate asthey do not accurately show the lease line, if indeed the red line is supposed to be that line. Thereis no indication of the source of the "plans", no legend to indicate what information is beingportrayed and no indication to whom these inaccuracies should be highlighted for correction.

There is nothing in the application which gives a reason for the erection of a CCTV camera and forthat reason alone this application should be refused.

The area is one of significant biodiversity with rare bat species in residence, the aforementionedbadgers, foxes, small mammels and many bird species. This list is not exhaustive. Points alsomissing from the application.

The application document states that the area to be covered is "School Premises". No part ofStoke Lodge Parkland is Cotham School premises, it is purely leased to the school for physicaleducation purposes and reverts to community use when school activities are not taking place, asper the conditions of the lease.

The camera and pole are not in keeping with historic estate, including the house which dates from1836. The data sheet on the camera and pole show a product which would be better used in aPrison or Industrial area and certainly not what is suitable for an historic estate, even if there wasan actual need for it.

The camera would be able to look into the gardens and windows of the houses surrounding thePark Land. This is a massive infringement on privacy and the right to enjoy private family life.

The camera would serve no purpose, but to look at grass and is therefore unnecessary.

The camera would be able to spy on children in the adjacent Play area. I am extremelyuncomfortable with persons unknown and those I deem unsuitable being able to video mychildren. This camera is both unnecessary and an invasion of my and my children's liberties.

In conclusion, I strongly object to the erection of a prison style camera, or any other camera atStoke Lodge.

Peaceful parkland within the grounds of a listed building will be further blighted by aman made structure. Those enjoying Stoke lodge want to see the trees and natural beauty notsome ugly inappropriate camera mast that is intruding their privacy.

Cameras are already evident around the site and so there is no need for them.

A real eyesore for no benefit that will reduce the feeling of well-being and relaxation a visitor totheir local open space has. I think the application should be rejected.

I wish to object to the planning application submitted by Cotham Academy to erect apan and tilt CCTV at Stoke Lodge Sports Grounds, Shirehampton Road, Bristol. Ref.No.20/01826/F

The need for the camera installation has not been fully assessed. There are a range of optionsthat can and should be considered which could improve site security whilst not potentially being sointrusive on members of the public.

A large structure such as this should not be allowed so close to a Grade 2 listed building.

The camera has the potential to cover a significant range - looking over private houses andgardens, a public playground and also the playing fields inside the fenced off area which aremeant to be open for public use when the fields are not being used by the school.

The need for, control and use of any potential safety measures should be fully assessed andconsidered before any equipment is installed.

This is a totally unnecessary intrusion into the privacy of the local community. It enablesclose monitoring of all those legitimately using the field and surrounding 'pathways'. It is also aterrible waste of public funds since it is taxes that pay the budget of the school and consequentlythe citizens of Bristol who will effectively be monitored in their daily comings and goings.

It is also ugly and out of keeping with the area lending it the atmosphere of mistrust and criminalityfor which there is no foundation in fact.

There has been enough damage to the environment already in this area without the absoluteviolation of the privacy of the citizens of BS9 and those who walk through it.

NB THIS IS A RE-SUBMISSION as my original submission on 10:56 AM on 17 May2020 does not appear on your website .

I object to this proposal both as a neighbour - Stoke Lodge is my nearest park- and as Chair ofStoke Bishop Local History Group which cares about our listed buildings and grounds. My reasonsfollow:

1) It is contrary to the lease granted to Cotham School by BCC which clearly states that school'srights under the lease are 'subject also to all existing rights and use of the property including useby the community'. In law the Stoke Bishop Playing fields are a public place (Section 16(b) of thePublic Order Act 1986) and the BCC have a duty to exercise meaningful control over the level ofsurveillance of a public space.

2) Stoke Lodge is a grade 2 listed building and one of the older historic buildings of Stoke Bishop.Its grounds contain many large protected specimen trees. Installing a CCTV camera mounted ontop of a steel pole of at least 4m, and possibly up to 12m high, of a type that is typically used inprisons and detention facilities on the grass in Stoke Lodge would quite simply be a desecration ofa Grade II listed building and an Important Open Space.

3) The map in the application is inaccurate and out of date . The site of the pole on the map isnear the far edge of the car park and not 'adjacent to gate' as stated in the application. The mapdoes not include 26 West Dene which was built in the last 8 years. It is unclear what the red linerepresents.

4) The CCTV could be observing 24/7 (according to Cotham's CCTV policy) and it not only coversthe lower part of the playing field but also looks into the properties of the 4 homes on the edge ofthe field: 24,26 West Dene and 1 & 2 Stoke Lodge Cottages. In addition, families in the playparkarea would feel observed especially when the trees are not in leaf.

Planning officers and the planning committee please refuse this application!

the mentality of people that would want one more camera to watch grass grow when the National death toll from Covid 19 (at the time of writing) approaches 37,000.

To be specific:The proposed tower will be erected on parkland within meters of a beautiful Grade 2 listed building. The fence has already (in my opinion) greatly impacted the peace and beauty of this site and this would be an even more ugly intrusion. The kind of thing, I believe that is used for surveillance in prisons!This land is subject to pending public right of way and Town and Village Green applicationsc) This is shared space despite, as previously stated, Cotham's ignoring of this so this camera would be (as are the existing ones in my opinion!) a gross invasion of privacy. I fail to see how this could not be looking at Stoke Lodge Adult Education Centre (the Grade 2 listed building just a few yards from it), the playpark, and nearby homes as well as people just trying to have a bit of healthy exercise Especially as we do not even know what kind of camera is to be on its varying height pole!Had Cotham Academy ever taken the time to respond to numerous requests for talks with the community - to find some mutual acceptable solution to our different positions- cameras (and fence) would not be necessary!!So I strongly object and could indeed go on for many more pages but I think that you have got the idea!

A large structure such as this should not be allowed so close to a Grade 2 listedbuilding.

Please do not grant Cotham School to erect a CCTC camera on Stoke Lodge playingfields. It would be in the grounds of a listed building which is used for adult learning classes andalso adjacent to a children's play area. Many people also use the adjacent arboretum for walkingand leisure purposes. it is simply not right to have a camera filming regular people going abouttheir business in a residential area. The privacy of homes that back onto Stoke Lodge may also beaffected.Part of this land is leased to Cotham School but not all of it and there refusal to engage with thelocal community to share this land in harmony is very sad.There are currently TVG applications going ahead on this land plus a Public right of way accessapplication. I would urge you to not to allow this application before these other applications areresolved and before a proper consultation with the neighbours and community that now have avery limited use of this precious outdoor space. Surely Coronavirus has shown us how importantcommunity and supporting each other is.

I object to the application to install the CCTV pole and camera.There are many objections provided by others, which I have scrutinised carefully, and find they areall valid.I list briefly my own particular objections:

1 THE INSTALLATION IS NOT NEEDED

The CCTV installation is unnecessary for the protection of the school children using the playingfields. The fence and teachers will keep them safe.

So what is it for?

It must be to protect the ground and trees (property of Council but leased to the School) and thefence. There has never been any history of damage to the grass or trees. The fence is hardly ofsufficient value to justify a system normally used to protect high security premises

2 INTRUSIONThe proposed installation has the potential to violate the privacy of neighbouring homes, and allowinappropriate viewing and recording of children in the public playpark

It would be visually intrusive

3 VANDALISM CLAIM NOT JUSTIFIED

Supporters have stated that there is a high level of vandalism at the site. Police reports show thisis not the case. "Damage" occurring seems to be limited to the occasional displacement (notremoval) of panels of the fence to allow the public to use the field for exercise, in accordance withtheir rights, granted to them by the donor of the land, and as allowed by the lease between theCouncil and the School.

Supporters have cited the burnt-out pavilion as evidence of high levels of vandalism. But the fire(even if it was caused by vandalism) was a one-off, very many years ago, long before CothamSchool used the field.

The fact that the building of Stoke Lodge itself does not suffer vandalism, nor need CCTVprotection of the level applied for by the School, shows the claims of vandalism are false.

COMMENT ABOUT FENCE BREACHING RIGHTS OF PUBLIC GRANTED BY LEASEI make the following comments about the School's complete exclusion of the public from the majorpart of the site.I agree that when the field is being used for school activities, the children should be kept safe. Inthe past this was achieved by the teachers accompanying the children, but it has sadly nowbecome necessary to take greater care, and therefore members of the public should be kept awaywhilst it is being used by the school.A closed fence is therefore appropriate whilst the filed is being used by the School during term-time. Out of term-time it should be open to public use in accordance with the lease between thecouncil and the School, which states that the School's use of the playing fields is "Subject to allexisting (i.e. the previous) rights and uses, including use by the community",So the fence as currently installed is in contravention of the terms of the School's lease., as itexcludes members of the public at all times.Can't the Council insist that there are gates in the fence (about 6 would be sufficient to allowconvenient access to the public) which can be closed by the teachers when the school is using thearea?

I object to this Planning Application for a fourth CCTV camera in an area that has beenused for many years without such excessive surveillance of and intrusion into the use of thiscommunity open space.There is no obvious "specified purpose which is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary tomeet an identified pressing need" (Art 8, European Charter of Human Rights).The proposed camera on a pole 4 to 12 metres high is totally inappropriate in an area with a listedbuilding and in close proximity to private housing.

The camera at such a height will be able to record live footage of anyone using the area and theplay park and this cannot be legal without express permission of those being filmed.

The school only leases the ground for games lessons during term time, it does not own the land.The Council should therefore act as a responsible land owner and insist the terms of the lease tobe followed.

I strenuously object to this application.

Two initial points to note regards processing this application.Firstly, the installation of the pole is for the explicit purpose of installing CCTV thus these twoelements of the application CANNOT be considered separately.

Secondly, the application infers that Stoke Lodge is 'school premises' which is simply not the case.The school initially misinformed the DfE that it had exclusive use of Stoke Lodge which after thelease was reviewed by DfE showed the school to be liars as, when DfE were given the correctinformation and a copy of the lease to make up their own minds, when coupled with the usage byCotham School DfE determined that Stoke Lodge is in fact NOT school premises.

I have four areas to address which are Planning matters, Bristol City Council's rights and duties, aresponse to Supporting Comments and matter of process.

1) My objection on planning aspects of this applicationThe application should be rejected because of the enormous impact to the amenity of Stoke Lodgehouse and its grounds and other planning considerations.The pole and camera, a structure, of minimum height 4m so very imposing at even its lowestpossible height, are to be placed next to a Grade II listed property which WILL negatively impactthe amenity of a listed building. It would be unpleasant to view or photograph a listed building witha TV antenna and a 4-12m pole with camera and presumably deterrent spikes would havesignificantly adverse impact. Even without spikes such a structure next to the house is certainlynot in keeping with the house and grounds and would impact a Bristol heritage building. Our

council are responsible for protecting Bristol's assets and this installation most certainly detractfrom it.The installation height of the pole is not specified by the applicant and should be rejected as itwould be impossible to determine the full impact.The applicant has marked a location on the diagram which does not match his description of theproposed location. The applicant should have been crystal clear about the location which makesyou wonder what he is trying to hide by being ambiguous about the location. The applicationshould be rejected outright.The description of the pole and camera states that it is most used in prisons, detention centresand railway stations. It is hard to see how this design would be remotely acceptable against thebackdrop of a Grade two listed red brick, with ornate windows and beautiful wooden doors.Historic England say it is important to consider the proposal in general in relation to its setting atStoke Lodge. This application fails to enhance the property and would detract significantly theamenity of the listed house. Does Stoke Lodge house look like a prison or a railway? No. Theapplication should be rejectedEven if the house were not part of the backdrop the land itself is designated as an important OpenSpace which the wider community have enjoyed for over 70 years. It is hard to see how anypositioning of the camera could not view well beyond the school's leased area which would be anunnecessary intrusion on private properties, certainly the playpark and users of the Stoke Lodgeadult education centre (AEC). The application should be rejected.I see supporting comments referencing other planning applications and duly remind you that otherplanning applications have no relevance to this one with its enormous shortcomings,misinformation and indeed lack of information on considerations such as heritage and privacy(covered in the next part of my objection). Where is the detail in this application concerningheritage and amenity? Where is any form of mitigation such as appears on the other applications?Is it because this applicant has no regard for Bristol's Grade II listed heritage asset belonging toALL Bristol residents under the stewardship of BCC?Will the School be putting in an application for a guard's tower and installing barbed wire fencinglater? It is time for this ridiculous uncaring attitude of Cotham School to Bristol's assets, building,fields and TPOs to STOP and for Bristol City Council officer to step up and protect Bristol's assets.The application should be rejected outright on planning groundsThere is NO pressing need for either the pole or camera. This is not about safeguarding childrensince the school themselves, as is well documented, do not use the lower field and did only usethe fields for 15% of the time, and currently 0% for the entire field. It seems highly unlikely that withsocial distancing measures in place that the school children will be able to return to use StokeLodge safely this year. The existing cameras have not deterred fence panels being removedwithout damaging them and placed to one side which one imagines must take considerable effortand time within sight of the existing cameras. Why would one more ugly abhorrent camera makeany difference? This application is therefore NOT a proportionate measure, is COMPLETELYunnecessary and should be rejected.

2) BCC rights and duties

On all of the following points the application should be rejectedThe application states that the camera will be positioned to cover the lower field behind StokePaddock Road and the area around the base of the pole, but not areas outside of the school'sleased area. How can this be ensured and privacy of private dwellings protected? It cannot. Thisapplication should be rejected for intrusion.Cotham school has specifically confirmed that it DOES NOT follow the Surveillance Camera Codeof Practice. Because of the lease the school have NO automatic right to monitor the public lawfullyusing that space. This application must be rejected.In particular one should bear in mind that the applicant himself would be able to view all imagesfrom his home and there is nothing in place to prevent non school personnel present in his home,friends, family or visitors from also viewing footage taken from the field (and beyond) whetherintentionally or not. Does he do a CRB check on every person entering his house? He, and theschool, have NO rights to monitor and record (for an unspecified period) my arrival, or anyoneelse's, at Stoke Lodge AEC no matter how they get there. I have no confidence in the school, andin particular this applicant's proper handling of data obtained from recordings. Indeed, it appearsthe footage from other Cotham School CCTV surveillance cameras have been shared on socialmedia by the applicant. This cannot be ignored and should not be tolerated.There has been NONE of the required consultation. Not one letter, not one posted notice, not oneemail; all of this is contrary to BCCs Surveillance Camera Strategy which says "all CCTVproposals must involve consultation with people most regularly affected by the scheme to addressconcerns around privacy". On this point alone you should reject the applicationConsent IS required under the lease from BCC as landowner for this structure for both the cameraand the pole (of indeterminate length but greater than 4m). The Council should not be consentingto increased surveillance of an important open space that is designated for recreation, leisure andcommunity use and certainly not when it is available by the applicant in his home. Who know whocould be watching and the recordings are 24/7.Is it necessary to remind you that that clause 2.1 of the school's lease states that the school'srights under the lease are 'subject also to all existing rights and use of the property including useby the community'. Stoke Lodge Playing Fields are a public place with a lease with aSPECIFICALLY added clause to protect the rights of the community to use the land. Cothamschool's compliance with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice under section 29 of theProtection of Freedoms Act 2012 appears to be thin at best. This code applies to the use ofsurveillance camera systems that operate in public places in England and Wales. 'Public place'has the meaning given by Section 16(b) of the Public Order Act 1986 and includes 'any place towhich at the material time the public or any section of the public has access, on payment orotherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission'. Further: 'Use of a surveillancecamera system must always be for a specified purpose which is in pursuit of a legitimate aim andnecessary to meet an identified pressing need'. Is this pressing need the capability to look intopeople's homes beyond the leased area? This camera does NOT serve a pressing need asconfirmed by the low number of incidents recorded in this area by the police. Thus the applicationshould be rejected as completely unnecessary.Less than 6 months ago Cotham school said it had no intention of adding further cameras. Yet

already one extra camera has already been added to the white shed with the capability of lookinginto people's homes on Parrys Grove and observing users of a public footpath along Parrys Lane.If this abomination of an application were to be approved you can readily see from their actionsthat the school officers simply cannot not be trusted at their word and one might expect furtherrequests even more surveillance. All pointless in a Covid world where people wear scarves andmasks regularly and with good reason it would be impossible to identify anyone.

3) Response to Supporting commentsAs referred to in my opening statement, after being corrected by misinformation given to them byCotham School there was confirmation from Department for Education that Stoke Lodge Playingfields is NOT premises of Cotham school. Thus, any comment reliying on the field being premisesof the school should be ignored.Supporting comments relying on claims of vandalism to the fence are false. Avon & SomersetPolice can confirm that there have been ZERO reports of antisocial behaviour at Stoke Lodge,thus any claims by school supporters that incidents have occurred and have been reported arefalse and any such supporting comments should be disregarded.Further the Police confirm there have been just two incidents in March 2020 in relation to the fencewhich appear to have taken place when the school breached the lease and locked the gates at atime when the entire country, specifically because of the COVID pandemic, was clamouring forgreen spaces to be accessible in order to maintain social distancing which would have beenimpossible in some of the less than 1m perimeter in places around Stoke Lodge. This applicationdoes not therefore demonstrate a pressing need of this public space in one of the lowest crimerate areas of Bristol. Twitter references and newspaper reports of £1,000s damage to the screwsbeing drilled out were NEVER reported to the police as this act of vandalism was performed by theapplicant themselves and observed by numerous community members. If the gates were to beopened by Cotham School right now, as is required by their lease, I am certain there would be nofurther incidents during this pandemic. Indeed, there are four cameras overlooking the site andthese cameras appear to have had zero deterrent impact. It is hard to see how this proposedmonstrosity of a prison camera would deter the public's continued right to use the land as grantedunder the lease and repeatedly breached by Cotham School.Finally, in response to some supporting comments note that OFSTED have NEVER given anyadvise to Cotham School saying a fence was need nor have they advised CCTV is required. Suchsupporting comments should be ignored.

4) Point of process:Shouldn't the determination of PROWs take precedence and be seen before this applicationaccording to the council's own published documentation and the PROWs prioritised now that allfour outstanding PROWs are affected by this application?The determination of this application needs to go in front of full council and not determined bycouncil officers.I find it appalling that this application was verified within 48 hours of submission compared to themonths that the PROW and TVG applications took when they should have taken no longer than 10

days. I hope council officers are not acting impartially in the case of Stoke Lodge.

20/01826/FObjection to application to install a CCTV pole and camera adjacent to the gate behind StokeLodge Adult Learning Centre and Stoke Lodge Sports Ground, Shirehampton Road, Sea Mills,Bristol.

My objections are set out below:

A. Errors in application formalitiesFirst Whilst Cotham School may be the leaseholder of the land (Section 25 of the application), thatlease states the playing fields are also subject to the existing rights of the community to use themas at the time the lease was granted.

Second the application refers to Stoke Lodge Field as being part of the 'premises' of CothamSchool. This is not correct:The premises of Cotham School are located almost three miles away at BS6 6DT. Stoke Lodge isa detached facility used for PE lessons under the terms of the lease which the school signed withBCC in 2011 - a lease which states in its section 2.1 that the school's use of the property is"Subject to all existing rights and uses, including use by the community". The question of whetherStoke Lodge Field could be considered part of the premises of Cotham School was addressed bylocal MP Darren Jones on 22/11/2018 to the Secretary of State for Education which was answeredon 27/11/2018 that "The Department's understanding of the term 'used wholly or mainly' indetermining if land forms part of a school's premises, is whether the school has exclusive ormajority use or enjoyment of the land for greater than 50% of the time."As stated above, Cotham School's lease on Stoke Lodge is non-exclusive, and they use the site

for less than 10% of the time according to local community monitoring records. Stoke Lodgecannot therefore be considered to be part of the premises of Cotham School and the application isincorrect in this respect.

Third an inaccurate statement about Rights Of Way (section 8 of the application). There are in factmultiple relevant TVG and PROW applications currently in progress.

Fourth an inaccurate statement about Trees & Hedges section 10 of the application). The entiresite of Stoke Lodge Field is an historic planted arboretum park which has no fewer than 38 TPOprotected tree groupings which form an important part of the landscape. Some of the most denselyplanted and important of these TPO groupings are in close proximity to the proposed location ofthis camera pole.

Fifth an inaccurate Statement about Wildlife (section 12 of the application). There are live badgersetts, fox dens and bat roosts in very close proximity to the exact location of the proposed camerapole.

Sixth, with regard to the "Existing Use" (section 6 of the application), the site has other uses thanas a "School Playing Field". It is also used as an adult education centre, children's' playpark andby the general public, both inside and outside of the fence, for a wide variety of legitimate reasons.None of these other users have been consulted by the applicant or indeed Cotham School on theplans nor on operation of the camera.

B. General Planning Issues

The proposed camera, mounting and tall pole, of a length unspecified but between 4 and 12metres will have a negative impact and are completely inappropriate given their proximity to StokeLodge House, a listed building, and detract from the pleasant visual appearance of the House, itssurroundings and parkland. It will affect an area currently enjoyed and rights exercised bymembers of the public within an important open space.Given the potential capabilities and height of the proposed camera - none of which have beenadequately detailed or explained in the application - it will be able to record live footage of areasthat are legally accessible to the public, both within and outside of the fence. Members of thepublic in many areas potentially covered by the camera will not be aware of its reach, capabilitiesfor recording and powerful facial recognition. For example, the playpark, people walking alongEbenezer Lane, visiting Stoke Lodge House or its gardens.In addition it seems to me to be a totally unjustified invasion of the privacy of residents who live inproperties on the boundaries of Stoke Lodge. There is also clearly a risk that people havingnothing to do with or do not access Stoke Lodge will be videoed without their permission orknowledge.Finally, neither the applicant nor Cotham School adheres to the Surveillance Camera Code ofPractice. Quite apart from falling short on the planning issues, it has not demonstrated that it can

be trusted as a custodian of the surveillance material this proposed camera might produce, or iscapable of acting effectively in response to the monitoring material produced by its existingsurveillance devices covering other parts of the site.

The proposal is for a tilt and pan controllable CCTV camera with a high power opticalzoom lens system mounted on a pole between 4 and 8m high which would be capable of intrudingon the privacy of surrounding homes. This type of surveillance equipment is normally installed toprotect high security premises. It would be inappropriate in a residential neighbourhood. It wouldalso detract from Stoke Lodge House which is a historic 19th century Grade II listed building (ListUID: 1202564).There has been no public consultation with the local community in which the site lies or with localcouncillors. The application states that no pre-application advice has been sought. Both publicconsultation with the local community and seeking pre-application advice from the planningauthority are normal procedures for potentially controversial applications.

I am a local resident, very concerned about this (utterly unnecessary) proposedinstallation of a pole-mounted surveillance camera immediately adjacent to, and within the settingof, the Listed Stoke Lodge. Like the fence, this is cruelly intrusive and seems designed tointimidate the local community - with absolutely no regard to the setting - as part of the applicant'songoing campaign against the local community. This at a time when other planning challenges areongoing.

Furthermore, the application itself is surely incomplete for the following reasons:-

The camera proposed would overlook many adjacent private houses and gardens, yet there is noinformation given as to its field of view nor as to how the applicable Codes of Practice (includingas to compliance with Data Protection Regulations) for installation and use of surveillancecameras will be complied with.2. The camera would necessitate foundations, cable connections and some form of securityprotection - yet the application explains none of this. There are many protected tree roots in theimmediate vicinity at risk of such works. Are all school playing fields (both the applicant's andothers') surveilled by large pole-mounted cameras?3. If the applicant's true purpose is surveillance of school pupils, then surely that is the job ofteachers (in realtime), rather than via CCTV.4. There has been no proper public consultation, nor any real attempt to engage with the affectedlocal community.5. If surveillance cameras are genuinely required (and it is noted that the applicant has not offeredany proper justification for even that basic principle), then why would lower-impact fence-mountedcameras not suffice?

6. Finally, the impact upon the immediately adjacent Listed Stoke Lodge does not appear to haveeven been considered

A huge amount of vandalism is occurring. All monies spent on fixing this vandalism ismoney that cannot be spent on the students' education. This school is not a wealthy school anddoesn't serve a wealthy part of the city. CCTV is the least expensive and least intrusive option fordeterrence and prosecution of vandals. There are other CCTV operations in the area.

It will be useful

I have an additional objection to this planning application prompted by a representativeof Cotham School (18th May support) who states that the main purpose will be facial recognition.Can they please state what database will be used, or is it intended to link this camera to Googleimages in order to directly identify anyone who comes within the camera view - i.e everyone usingthe adjacent footpaths, and adjacent houses whose windows face the camera?I thought facial recognition use was still under judicial review, so until this is clarified, could BCCplanning please clarify this current application.Also, why are a number of supporting letters quoting the incidence of "theft of fence panels" whichhas not happened, but these statements are so consistent one would suspect that this comes froma common source.

I object to this planning application for the following reasons:Stoke Lodge is owned by Bristol City Council and not Cotham School - they merely lease a portionof the fields and in fact only use a small part of the field on the Shirehampton Road side.The intended site for this pole is within the grounds of a beautiful Grade 2 listed building and isentirely out of keeping with the setting. Section 66 of the Listed Building and Conservation Actstates that the Local Authority must have 'special, regard to the desirability of preserving andconserving a listed building and its setting.'

There are currently two outstanding Town or Village Green Applications, as well as an applicationfor Public Right of Way Access. These should be considered before this planning application isheard.

There are no exact specifications regarding the height, camera and recording capabilities of theCCTV but I believe that it will not only be able to survey the children's play area but also numerousprivate dwellings situated in South Dene, West Dene, Stoke Paddock Road and Cheyne Road.These should be visible on the plan of the proposed installation however it is clearly out of date asthe house number 26 West Dene is not shown on the plan.

Clearly Blaise Castle & Kingsweston House exist as BCC owned examples of large 1ih century country estates of national interest but the niche that Stoke Lodge holds is that of a 191 century city estate. The Westbury on Trym tithe map of 1841 lists around twenty houses in the Sea Mills & Stoke Bishop tythings attached to Westbury on Trym that existed some 180 years ago. If we try to look at the current position of each these houses on the 1841 map I hope that the members of BCC will begin to realise just how important and virtually unique the Stoke Lodge house and parkland is to North West Bristol.

1) The Grove (tithe no660) house, garden, orchard etc 10 acres- demolished and housing built c1996 upon grounds2) Druid Stoke (no614)- house, buildings etc 16 acreshouse still stands as nursing home; groundslost to Druid Stoke Avenue housing development3) The Glen (no610) house, etc 8 acres house demolished and land lost to Glen Drive housing developmentRiverside House (no603) house, etc 9 acres house (c1712) still stands overlooked byPartway road grounds lost to housing in Sea Mills Lane & Roman Way5) Pitch & Pay & Mythe (no555/556) house, gardens, field etc 5 acres demolished and grounds lost to housing development6) Downside (no526) house, gardens etc 19 acres house remains as Wills Hall studentaccommodation for University; grounds private to Bristol University7) Down House (no521) house, yards etc 8 acres house still stands as nursing home grounds lost to housing8) Grange (no520) house, gardens etc? acres- house still stands grounds lost to housingdevelopment at Hollybush Lane9) Cooks Folly (no575)- house, garden etc? acres- house stands; grounds lost to Cooks Folly cui de sac housing10) Knoll later Bishops Knoll (no576pt)- house demolished for flats. Wood & parkland saved byWoodland Trust (only as too steep to build on)11) Avon Grove (no573pt)- house remains but grounds lost to 12 house development of Avon Grove surrounding the old house12) Old Sneed Park & Little Sneyd Park (no586/587) - houses both demolished for Glenavon Parkdevelopment; part of parkland owned by BCC fell into ruinous state before rescued by Nature reserve volunteers13) Howcroft (no657) - house, gardens etc- house demolished for building of flats14) Stoke Park House (no540) - house , gardens, park 50 acres- Stoke House (c1699) still stands but the development of Stoke Park Road and the University Halls

now surround the building15) lvywell House (no553)- house, gardens etc- house still stands grounds lost to housing in lvywellRoad16) Sea Mills Farm (no563) -farmhouse, fields etc- farmhouse stands alone surrounded by BowdenFields etc housing development17) Stoke Abbey Farm (no532)- farmhouse, fields etc- farmhouse stands alone surrounded by Hornby& Shaplands housing developments18) Old Halt (no547)- house & garden- Old Halt still stands; grounds lost to Downleaze housing19) Severnleigh (no548)- house & garden- house still stands converted into flats with grounds taken by further blocks of flats20) Towerhirst (no574)- cottage & garden- cottage now house stands overlooking Avon Gorge;grounds lost to Sea Walls housing developments21) Stoke Lodge (no638)- house, garden etc 24 acres- house remains as Adult Education Centre; the24 acres of ground remain as parkland with over 30 trees (covered by Tree Preservation Orders).

I hope that this list brings home to BCC members, that although there are other houses still existing from the1841 map, that the combined house and parkland of Stoke Lodge is unique in North West Bristol having existed virtually unchanged since 1841. Thus I believe it remains a unique asset in being open to and enjoyed by the general public and local community as of right under the lease given by BCC.

I am aware that the BCC members have already permitted the erection of a two metre high almost mile long fence within the grounds of a listed building but firmly believe that two wrongs do not make a right.

Thus I strongly object to this planning application for the above reasons and I urge that this planning application be rejected at the forthcoming meeting.

I wish to object to the planning application for an additional CCTV camera on StokeLodge playing fields for the following reasons.

1. The size, height and appearance of the proposed CCTV camera, will have a negative impact onthe visual appearance of Stoke Lodge, a Grade 2 listed property.

2. The proposed CCTV camera will have the ability to monitor nearby private properties, users ofthe children's playground and people using the field for relaxation and exercise, including thoseinside and outside the school's designated area. In the winter when the foliage has died back theintrusion into private properties will increase significantly.

3. The installation of the proposed CCTV camera would appear to be unnecessary because thebottom half of the field is very rarely utilised by the school and if it is there should be staff presentto monitor the children. In any case the gradient of this part of the field makes it a fairly unusablearea for sports purposes.

The ongoing vandalism at the fields and the cost to the school show that CCTV isessential.

I wish to strongly object to the above application for the following reasons:-1) I consider the impact of a cctv pole & camera on the amenity of this listed building to be out ofplace. It will have a negative effect on the appearance & ambiance of such an important & historicsite & house.2) The parkland surrounding Stoke lodge is designated as Important Open Space in the LocalPlan. I feel the proposal is unnecessary & an intrusion into the privacy of neighbouring properties,persons using the parkland & children playground.3) The camera by virtue of it's position will cover a much more extensive area than intended.4) As someone who has been using the amenity of the site for over 60 years without the need forany cctv or fences, this is another example of rights being curtailed. This affects both localresidents & the much wider community who have traditionally used the site.5) The camera & size of pole is much larger than is needed for a site that doesn't suffer from anyvandalism.

I OBJECT TO THIS PLANNING APPLICATION FOR THE REASONS:-1) LOSS of Privacy2) This is a Grade 2 Historic setting & Parkland. The proposal impacts badly on the amenity of alisted site.3) Unsightly for its position. Unattractive in the setting of peaceful tranquility in the attractiveparkland.4) Stoke Lodge playing fields were gifted to the citizens by aPhilanthropic forefather of Bristol - for the benefit of the public. There is no need for cctv to bespying on an area which does not suffer from vandalism.

The Sports Ground has been subject to high level of vandalism. The low-level andtherefore vulnerable CCTV previously installed was also vandalised to facilitate further vandalism.Money spent fixing the vandalism could be better spent on the students' education. This school isnot a wealthy school and doesn't serve a wealthy part of the city.CCTV on a pole is the least expensive and least intrusive option for deterrence and prosecution ofvandals. There are other CCTV operations in the area.

The School Sports Ground has been subject to continuing and targeted vandalism.CCTV that was previously installed was vandalised to allow further site vandalism to take place.This vandalism negatively impacts the school, not least financially; money spent repairing thedamage reduces the money available for students education. This school is not wealthy it andserves a diverse socio-economic part of the city.CCTV on a pole is the least expensive and least intrusive option for deterrence and prosecution ofvandals. It will hopefully deter vandalism or allow perpetrators to be brought to justice.

The School Sports Ground has been subject to continuing and targeted vandalism.CCTV that was previously installed was vandalised to allow further site vandalism to take place.This vandalism negatively impacts the school, not least financially; money spent repairing thedamage reduces the money available for students education. This school is not wealthy it andserves a diverse socio-economic part of the city.CCTV on a pole is the least expensive and least intrusive option for deterrence and prosecution ofvandals. It will hopefully deter vandalism or allow perpetrators to be brought to justice.

I am writing to object to the application for a CCTV camera and pole situated by StokeLodge Adult Education Centre and Children's Playground in Stoke Bishop (not Sea Mills as perthe applicants claim). Under recent boundary changes, Sea Mills ward starts at Sylvan Way andgoes towards Shirehampton).

The school's application suggests that Stoke Lodge is 'school premises' but this is not the case.They do not have an exclusive use lease and it is written into the lease that Stoke Lodge shouldbe shared with the community as it was before the lease started.

Neither the DfE nor Ofsted has issued any guidance relating to security requirements for detachedplaying fields. Ofsted has specifically confirmed on multiple occasions that it does not require afence at Stoke Lodge or on other detached playing fields. Whilst this application is not about thenon structure that is a fence that was erected without planning permission, it does cover astructure to look at it. Quite simply this CCTV camera is not required.

Avon & Somerset Police have confirmed that there have been no reports of antisocial or similarbehaviour at Stoke Lodge, so any claims by school supporters that incidents have occurred andhave been reported are false. These comments have no relevance from a planning perspectiveand because of their malicious and defamatory nature, statements that include these falseallegations should be disregarded. If there have been no reports of antisocial or similar behaviourat Stoke Lodge then why the need for CCTV at all?

Supporters of the application are relying on claims of vandalism to the fence, crime statistics showthat there were just two reported incidents at Stoke Lodge in March 2020. I believe these may

relate to fence panels being moved (note not removed as they were still on the fence) during thelockdown, when the school had unlawfully excluded the community from using the land in breachof its lease. These claims about a small number of recent incidents, which are clearly referable tothe school's action in locking the gates contrary to the lease, have no planning relevance whenconsidering the school's application for a permanent structure and invasive monitoring of thecommunity. A more appropriate response would have been for the school to comply with its leaseand unlock the gates, rather than seeking to install further expensive and intrusive surveillance onsite. The application fails to demonstrate the need for this surveillance of a public space andprivate residential properties in one of the lowest crime areas in Bristol.

And what if you decide the school does need to survey the local community using a playground orlocal space. What happens to the images from this hideous pole that can intrude and look into theplay park at families playing and local residences where people should expect to live their liveswithout intrusion?

The school has specifically confirmed that it does not follow the Surveillance Camera Code ofPractice even though this is standard practice in most other schools. There is also evidence of theschool breaching its own policy in its use of, and sharing of, CCTV images. The community doesnot have confidence in the school's proper handling of data and is particularly concerned aboutexcessive intrusion into private residential property and the surveillance of a children's play park,as well as the impact on the amenity of the setting and the public's use of this important openspace. It is important to bear in mind that the school's rights under the lease are subject tocommunity use; it has no automatic right to monitor the public lawfully using that space. There isno possibility that the camera's range can or would be limited to the boundaries of the school'sleased area. It is understood that images from current CCTV on site are already transmitted awayfrom school premises to individual homes of staff members.

Comments made about other planning applications have no relevance to this one; the location,context and level of community consultation involved in other applications, together with thelegitimate aim and pressing need demonstrated by other applicants, may make a significantdifference to outcomes. Indeed, the careful attention paid by other applicants to issues such asheritage, amenity, and the need for/appropriateness of CCTV surveillance serve only to highlightthe glaring inadequacies of this application. The school's application provides none ofthe necessary detail about the proposed pole or camera and no consideration whatsoever of theheritage and privacy implications. In particular, Bristol City Council's Surveillance Camera Strategystates that all CCTV proposals must involve consultation with people most regularly affected bythe scheme to address concerns around privacy. No such consultation has taken place. Theinstallation of the pole is for the explicit and sole purpose of installing CCTV so these two elementsof the application cannot be considered separately. In particular, as the school already has fourCCTV cameras monitoring the site, which have apparently had no deterrent impact, there is noindication that installation of further intrusive surveillance twould achieve positive results. Crime levels in this area are among the lowest in Bristol and the

two specific reports in recent months (during the lockdown) relate to minor and reversibleincidents.

The proposed pole appears to be sited directly on a public right of way and BCC's own publishedinformation suggests that an application to register a PROW should be prioritised (i.e. jump thequeue) if it is affected by a planning application or development proposal.

The Adult Education centre is a listed building, as is the curtilage, everything inside the wall ofStoke Lodge has an impact on this. A structure such as the CCTV camera and associated pole willhave a negative impact on these historic surroundings of local and national importance.

Then there is the question of connectivity, the infrastructure for this pole and camera doesn't seemto be planned for, trees in Stoke Lodge are all covered by TPO's (though the applicant seems tohave scant regard for either these if history is to go by).

I urge you to turn down this application.

Yours sincerelyBruce Quilter

I strongly object to this application for the following reasons:

- Invasion of Privacy. A camera in this position will be able to monitor nearby private properties,users of the playground and legitimate users of the field (which is publicly owned shared land andnot private land for sole use by the school),- The school do not follow the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice,- The negative impact on the visual appearance of Grade 2 listed Stoke Lodge.

The application does not set out a convincing need for CCTV in this position and therefore doesnot justify overriding the many objections that have been made.

Objections:

I wish to object to this planning application on the following grounds:

Certificate of Ownership:The applicant listed in section #25 of the form is not the owner of the property in question. Thisalone should automatically invalidate the application as per section 65(6) of The Town andCountry Planning Act (1990) which says that "It is an offence to issue a false certificate ofownership either knowingly or recklessly when making a planning application."

Premises:The application refers to Stoke Lodge Field as being part of the 'premises' of Cotham School. Thisis factually incorrect. The premises of Cotham School are located almost three miles away at BS66DT. Stoke Lodge is a detached facility used for PE lessons under the terms of a non-exclusivelease which the school signed with BCC in 2011 - a lease which states in its section 2.1 that theschool's use of the property is "Subject to all existing rights and uses, including use by thecommunity".

The question of whether Stoke Lodge Field could be considered part of the premises of CothamSchool was addressed by a written parliamentary question submitted by our local MP DarrenJones on 22/11/2018 to the Secretary of State for Education which was answered on 27/11/2018.For reference : (from UK Parliament Online records)Q - "What his Department's definition is of wholly or mainly used when deciding whether adetached playing field is part of a school's premises or is a facility used by a school"

A - "The Department's understanding of the term 'used wholly or mainly' in determining if landforms part of a school's premises, is whether the school has exclusive or majority use orenjoyment of the land for greater than 50% of the time."

As previously noted, Cotham School' s lease on Stoke Lodge is non-exclusive, and they actuallyuse the site for less than 10% of the time according to local community monitoring records. StokeLodge cannot therefore be considered to be part of the premises of Cotham School, and afalsehood is being perpetuated in this application.

Amenity:The proposed location for this CCTV camera pylon is in close proximity to Stoke Lodge Housewhich is a historic 19th century Grade II listed building (List UID: 1202564). The proposed metalpylon is described as being between 4 to 8m tall, with anti-climb spikes, and supporting a tilt andpan controllable CCTV camera with a high power optical zoom lens system. Camera pylons of thistype are normally installed on the perimeters of prisons and other high security installations - (Themanufacturer's own brochures explicitly refer to such uses of the product in question). Such aninstallation would be wholly incompatible with the visual amenity of a historic planted arboretumpark like Stoke Lodge, and the nearby listed Stoke Lodge House which was originally built in 1836.

Inaccurate statement about Rights Of Way:The applicant has ticked NO on section #8 of the form which asks "if there any new public rights ofways to be provided within and adjacent to the site" (There are in fact multiple relevant TVG andPROW applications currently in progress).

Inaccurate statement about Trees & Hedges:The applicant has ticked NO on section #10 of the application form which explicitly asks "if thereare trees and hedges on land adjacent to the site that might be important as part of the landscapecharacter ? " (As previously noted, the entire site of Stoke Lodge Field is a historic plantedarboretum park which has no fewer than 38 TPO protected tree groupings. Some of the mostdensely planted and important of these TPO groupings are in close proximity to the proposedlocation of this camera pylon.

Inaccurate Statement about about Wildlife:The applicant has ticked NO on section #12 of the application form which asks "Are there any bio-diversity features that might need to be taken into account ?" (There are in fact live badger setts,fox dens and Noctule bat roosts in very close proximity to the exact location of the proposedcamera pylon).

Stated Purpose:The stated purpose of the new camera pylon in Section #5 of the form is "to cover the lower end ofthe playing field (behind Stoke Paddock) and the immediate area around the base of the pole"In reality Cotham School simply do not use these areas of the field for any of their regular PE

activities. The pupils are only ever seen in those lower parts of SL when they are being sent off on'Treasure Hunts' looking for numbered question boards.

Claims made by Cotham School that an extra CCTV camera is somehow needed to fight crimeare at variance with official police crime statistics for this area. BS9 has one of the lowest levels ofcrime in the entire city, with just two reported incidences of criminal activity around Stoke LodgeField in March 2020.

Given that the school already have four CCTV cameras on site, it is difficult to understand whythey think they now need another to cover an area which they do not use, or why installing a fifthwould make the slightest difference to any other aspect of their use of the field.

This planning application is so lacking in detail that I emailed the Planning Officer on11th May 2020 asking for greater clarification regarding the pole height and camera capabilities. Idid not received a reply, instead my email was "posted" as a comment.So there are no further details re the camera or pole height or why a further camera is required.How can this application be assessed without those details?

No reason has been given by the applicant for the need for a further camera.Comments from supporters seem to imply that it is to prevent vandalism to the fence. Thespokesperson for Justice for Cotham gives a much more detailed account of the camera'scapabilities i.e. it will have "unrestricted views and clear facial recognition" and "cameras will coverCotham School's leasehold land and not other people's premises." How would the latter claim bepossible? Sadly details of the camera are not in the application so cannot be assessed.

Also this support statement states that "objections to a single CCTV pole seem arbitrary and petty"and highlight Planning Application no. 17/07083/LA, which was an application by University ofWest of England (UWE) for the erection of a pole and CCTV camera, near a listed building. Thiswas granted and it is implied that a precedent has been set by BCC planning officers and,therefore, Cotham School's (CS) application should be granted. However the cases could not bemore different. The UWE application gave precise details of the pole height, camera specification,a full assessment of the heritage impact and provided evidence as to the aim and the need for theCCTV. Crucially the CCTV was for a car park and the Planning Officer in his summary states"positioned away from neighbouring properties.....No neighbouring or public objections have beenraised."CS's proposed CCTV location is surrounded by the Adult Education Centre, the play park, ( not

shown on the plan submitted by CS but built in 2014) and many residential dwellings.

My house, no 26 West Dene is one of them, being directly opposite the proposed CCTV,approximately 88 metres away. There is no tree cover between the proposed camera and myhouse. You won't find my house on the plan CS has submitted as they have used an out of dateplan, but it is between no 24 West Dene and Stoke Lodge Cottages.Although the applicant states the camera is to view the Stoke Paddock end of the field, it is notunreasonable to assume that, in order to protect the fence (and the pavilion, especially if it isrefurbished) the camera will need to pan around. In so doing it will see into my bedrooms, groundfloor rooms and garden, and not only see but RECORD 24/7! Photos have already been sent toyou to show how disturbing this will be, and those photos were taken with a hand held domesticcamera. Modern Surveillance cameras far exceed that capability, DAY and NIGHT!Also of great concern is the security of access to these images. It has been admitted by a CSemployee that they are able to access this footage, whilst away from school premises, 24/7. AlsoCS do NOT follow the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice!

CS in their Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) dated DECEMBER 2019 at point 9 state

"CCTV camera locations....have been selected with privacy in mind....we avoid overlooking anarea in the first place if it is likely to concern neighbours of the school....cameras will be sightedand configured not to overlook private dwellings and other areas where privacy is expected".

Obviously in this application CS have failed to follow their own DPIA, as the camera will cover anarea that is of great concern to neighbours (as can be seen by the many adverse comments to thisapplication). The camera will potentially look directly into private dwellings where privacy isexpected.

To conclude I believe this application must be rejected because

1. Insufficient details to assess it2. Out of date plan used3. No justification for CCTV included4. No consultation with neighbouring properties to assess the impact the camera will have on theirprivacy.5. No Heritage Impact Statement6. Does not comply with their own DPIA

I am looking to BCC Planning Officers to uphold my rights to privacy and refuse this application.

I wish to object to the application to erect a further CCTV camera at Stoke Lodge. Therear of my home is close by.

The amenity of this area is potentially impacted by any development at the Stoke Lodge site whichis a large open space used for years for recreational purposes by the local community.Stoke Lodge itself is a Grade II listed building

The proposed pole and camera, as well as being unsightly, will be visible from a large part of thesite and, therefore a constant reminder that users of the site are always potentially 'on camera'.For many, myself included, this will detract from our enjoyment of the site.

I understand the proposed installation is 'high-spec' and consistent with its use at locations suchas prisons, car parks and railway stations. As such it is inconsistent with an installation at asuburban field used for a variety recreational and leisure purposes. Really!

I understand Bristol City Council, as the owner of Stoke Lodge, has a duty to exercise meaningfulcontrol over the level of surveillance of a public space, which Stoke Lodge is. It needs to exercisethis duty having regard to the interests of all those who use or live in the vicinity of Stoke Lodgeand not just the interests of the school.

There is a clear and very real risk that activities that fall within the 'gaze' of the proposedinstallation will include those taking place outside the curtilage of Stoke Lodge itself, in otherwords, over locations in which the school has no legitimate interest. The rights of such userswould accordingly be infringed.

Those in the wider community who enjoy and make use of Stoke Lodge face having their right to'private and family life' impacted by what is proposed. I have seen no compelling evidence onbehalf of the applicant that its own reasons for the application are so substantial as to justify thepotentially damaging impact on others. When the Council comes to weigh the competingarguments, it should be reluctant to find the balance rests in favour of the Applicant where there isno such compelling justification.

I understand in its Data Privacy Impact Assessment, signed off in December 2019, the schoolstated that it had no plans to increase CCTV coverage. In April it makes the present application.What has changed in that interval to justify this application?

It seems to me this application is nothing if not provocative and controversial at a time when otherapplications relating to Stoke Lodge are under consideration: Town or Village Green applicationsand a public rights of way application.

120 Parrys LaneStoke BishopBRISTOL BS9 1BJ

Patrick BoxwellDevelopment ManagementCity HallBristol City CouncilPO Box 3399BRISTOL BS1 9NERef 20/01826/FInstallation of CCTV pole & camera at Stoke Lodge Sports Ground, Shirehampton Road, Bristol

28 May 2020

Good morning Mr Boxwell

I composed an objection to the above planning application and attempted to copy & paste assuggested in the preamble on the planning site. I met with no success so left a message that I hadbeen unsuccessful and am sending my objection below by letter post.

I should be grateful if you would acknowledge thesafe receipt and that my objection will beconsidered along with all other comments. Thanking you.

Cheers John Moore

I object to the proposed installation of yet another CCTV camera by Cotham School within thecartilage of a Grade II listed building for the following reasons:

Firstly the applicant is in error in stating that he is the owner of the land. The land is Council ownedproperty.

Secondly the camera positioning & height is not fully set out in the planning application. I feel thatin the absence of such details the Council should reject this application and require that a moreconsidered and detailed application be made.

Thirdly that a camera of this nature (excessive height, 24/7 use of remote control swivel) is suitedto a detention centre or prison but certainly not to a Grade II listed house & parkland such asStoke Lodge.

Fourthly that the camera mounted at 4 metres or above height would be an intrusion of the privacyof:-a) the neighbouring properties into whose upper rooms the lens could peerb) the children's playground less than 50 yards distant from the likely site of the camerac) the general public who have rights to use the parkland when not in use by the schoold) and indeed the school children of Cotham School when undertaking PE lessons in the grounds

In particular I would like to draw to the attention of the Bristol City Council (BCC) members exactlywhat the grade II listed Stoke Lodge House & Parkland represent in terms of the history of NorthWest Bristol.

Clearly Blaise Castle & Kingsweston House exist as BCC owned examples of large 17th centurycountry estates of national interest but the niche that Stoke Lodge holds is that of a 19th centurycity estate.

The Westbury on Trym tithe map of 1841 lists around twenty houses in the Sea Mills & StokeBishop tythings attached to Westbury on Trym that existed some 180 years ago. If we try to look atthe current position of each these houses on the 1841 map I hope that the members of BCC willbegin to realise just how important and virtually unique the Stoke Lodge house and parkland is toNorth West Bristol.

1) The Grove (tithe no660) - house, garden, orchard etc 10 acres - demolished and housing builtc1996 upon grounds2) Druid Stoke (no614) - house, buildings etc 16 acres - house still stands as nursing home;grounds lost to Druid Stoke Avenue housing development3) The Glen (no610) - house, gardens etc 8 acres - house demolished and land lost to Glen Drivehousing development4) Riverside House (no603) - house, gardens etc 9 acres - house (c1712) still stands overlookedby Portway road grounds lost to housing in Sea Mills Lane & Roman Way5) Pitch & Pay & Mythe (no555/556) - house, gardens, field etc 5 acres - demolished and groundslost to housing development6) Downside (no526) - house, gardens etc 19 acres - house remains as Wills Hall studentaccommodation for University; grounds private to Bristol University7) Down House (no521) - house, yards etc 8 acres - house still stands as nursing home groundslost to housing8) Grange (no520) - house, gardens etc ? acres - house still stands grounds lost to housingdevelopment at Hollybush Lane9) Cooks Folly (no575) - house, garden etc ? acres - house stands; grounds lost to Cooks Folly culde sac housing10) Knoll later Bishops Knoll (no576pt) - house demolished for flats. Wood & parkland saved byWoodland Trust (only as too steep to build on)11) Avon Grove (no573pt) - house remains but grounds lost to 12 house development of AvonGrove surrounding the old house12) Old Sneed Park & Little Sneyd Park (no586/587) - houses both demolished for Glenavon Parkdevelopment; part of parkland owned by BCC fell into ruinous state before rescued by Naturereserve volunteers13) Howcroft (no657) - house, gardens etc - house demolished for building of flats14) Stoke Park House (no540) - house , gardens, park 50 acres - Stoke House (c1699) still standsbut the development of Stoke Park Road and the University Halls now surround the building15) Ivywell House (no553) - house, gardens etc - house still stands grounds lost to housing inIvywell Road16) Sea Mills Farm (no563) - farmhouse, fields etc - farmhouse stands alone surrounded byBowden Fields etc housing development17) Stoke Abbey Farm (no532) - farmhouse, fields etc - farmhouse stands alone surrounded byHornby & Shaplands housing developments18) Old Halt (no547) - house & garden - Old Halt still stands; grounds lost to Downleaze housing19) Severnleigh (no548) - house & garden - house still stands converted into flats with groundstaken by further blocks of flats20) Towerhirst (no574) - cottage & garden - cottage now house stands overlooking Avon Gorge;grounds lost to Sea Walls housing developments21) Stoke Lodge (no638) - house, garden etc 24 acres - house remains as Adult EducationCentre; the 24 acres of ground remain as parkland with over 30 trees (covered by Tree

Preservation Orders).

I hope that this list brings home to BCC members, that although there are other houses stillexisting from the 1841 map, that the combined house and parkland of Stoke Lodge is unique inNorth West Bristol having existed virtually unchanged since 1841. Thus I believe it remains aunique asset in being open to and enjoyed by the general public and local community as of rightunder the lease given by BCC.

I am aware that the BCC members have already permitted the erection of a two metre high almostmile long fence within the grounds of a listed building but firmly believe that two wrongs do notmake a right.

Thus I strongly object to this planning application for the above reasons and I urge that thisplanning application be rejected at the forthcoming meeting.

I object most strongly to the application by Cotham School to erect a CCTV cameraadjacent to Stoke Lodge House. The house being grade two listed must not be spoiled by thecamera and the mandatory sign next to it.The camera would have a huge range looking over the dozens of houses and gardens in thevicinity and the residents privacy would be greatly infringed.The camera would also be very near to the children's playground and that surely cannot bepermitted because there is no way of knowing who can watch the footage. I certainly would not behappy taking my young grandchildren there to play with 'big brother ' watching.I played school sports on the parkland from 1957 until 1963 and we didn't need hideous fences ornumerous cameras to keep us or the surrounding area 'safe'The school have seen fit to ruin the outlook of the parkland and to restrict access to it dramaticallyeven though their lease states that there must be continued access for the community. The schoolare continuing to do as much as they possibly can to alienate the community and to blight whatwas and should be a beautiful green area for all to use without being fenced out and spied on.

I'm worried my neighbour's properties can be spied upon and viewed by this camerawhile they are in there gardens or through their household windows . Also who is viewing thisfootage ? Living next to the property this could happen to me one day . It all seems creepy to me!

Stoke Lodge is such a lovely setting why do we have to always spoil the natural things in life byputting up all this metal poles and cameras . We seem to never learn from our mistakes .

I wish to object to this planning application on the following grounds:Certificate of Ownership:The applicant listed in section #25 of the form is not the owner of the property in question. Thisalone should automatically invalidate the application as per section 65(6) of The Town andCountry Planning Act (1990) which says that "It is an offence to issue a false certificate ofownership either knowingly or recklessly when making a planning application."Premises:The application refers to Stoke Lodge Field as being part of the 'premises' of Cotham School. Thisis factually incorrect. The premises of Cotham School are located almost three miles away at BS66DT. Stoke Lodge is a detached facility used for PE lessons under the terms of a non-exclusivelease which the school signed with BCC in 2011 - a lease which states in its section 2.1 that theschool's use of the property is "Subject to all existing rights and uses, including use by thecommunity".The question of whether Stoke Lodge Field could be considered part of the premises of CothamSchool was addressed by a written parliamentary question submitted by our local MP DarrenJones on 22/11/2018 to the Secretary of State for Education which was answered on 27/11/2018.For reference : (from UK Parliament Online records)Q - "What his Department's definition is of wholly or mainly used when deciding whether adetached playing field is part of a school's premises or is a facility used by a school"

A - "The Department's understanding of the term 'used wholly or mainly' in determining if landforms part of a school's premises, is whether the school has exclusive or majority use or

enjoyment of the land for greater than 50% of the time."As previously noted, Cotham School' s lease on Stoke Lodge is non-exclusive, and they actuallyuse the site for less than 10% of the time according to local community monitoring records. StokeLodge cannot therefore be considered to be part of the premises of Cotham School, and afalsehood is being perpetuated in this application.Amenity:The proposed location for this CCTV camera pylon is in close proximity to Stoke Lodge Housewhich is a historic 19th century Grade II listed building (List UID: 1202564). The proposed metalpylon is described as being between 4 to 8m tall, with anti-climb spikes, and supporting a tilt andpan controllable CCTV camera with a high power optical zoom lens system. Camera pylons of thistype are normally installed on the perimeters of prisons and other high security installations - (Themanufacturer's own brochures explicitly refer to such uses of the product in question). Such aninstallation would be wholly incompatible with the visual amenity of a historic planted arboretumpark like Stoke Lodge, and the nearby listed Stoke Lodge House which was originally built in 1836.Inaccurate statement about Rights Of Way:The applicant has ticked NO on section #8 of the form which asks "if there any new public rights ofways to be provided within and adjacent to the site" (There are in fact multiple relevant TVG andPROW applications currently in progress).Inaccurate statement about Trees & Hedges:The applicant has ticked NO on section #10 of the application form which explicitly asks "if thereare trees and hedges on land adjacent to the site that might be important as part of the landscapecharacter ? " (As previously noted, the entire site of Stoke Lodge Field is a historic plantedarboretum park which has no fewer than 38 TPO protected tree groupings. Some of the mostdensely planted and important of these TPO groupings are in close proximity to the proposedlocation of this camera pylon.Inaccurate Statement about about Wildlife:The applicant has ticked NO on section #12 of the application form which asks "Are there any bio-diversity features that might need to be taken into account ?" (There are in fact live badger setts,fox dens and Noctule bat roosts in very close proximity to the exact location of the proposedcamera pylon).Stated Purpose:The stated purpose of the new camera pylon in Section #5 of the form is "to cover the lower end ofthe playing field (behind Stoke Paddock) and the immediate area around the base of the pole"In reality Cotham School simply do not use these areas of the field for any of their regular PEactivities. The pupils are only ever seen in those lower parts of SL when they are being sent off on'Treasure Hunts' looking for numbered question boards.Claims made by Cotham School that an extra CCTV camera is somehow needed to fight crimeare at variance with official police crime statistics for this area. BS9 has one of the lowest levels ofcrime in the entire city, with just two reported incidences of criminal activity around Stoke LodgeField in March 2020.Given that the school already have four CCTV cameras on site, it is difficult to understand whythey think they now need another to cover an area which they do not use

No reason has been given by the applicant for the need for a further cameraAlso of concern is the security of access to these images. It has been admitted that they are ableto access this footage, whilst away from school The camera will potentially look directly into privatedwellings where privacy is expected.To conclude I believe this application must be rejected because1. Insufficient details to assess it2. Out of date plan used3. No justification for CCTV included4. No consultation with neighbouring properties to assess the impact the camera will have on theirprivacy.5. No Heritage Impact Statement6. Does not comply with their own DPIA

I wish to object to this planning application on the following grounds:Certificate of Ownership:The applicant listed in section #25 of the form is not the owner of the property in question. Thisalone should automatically invalidate the application as per section 65(6) of The Town andCountry Planning Act (1990) which says that "It is an offence to issue a false certificate ofownership either knowingly or recklessly when making a planning application."Premises:The application refers to Stoke Lodge Field as being part of the 'premises' of Cotham School. Thisis factually incorrect. The premises of Cotham School are located almost three miles away at BS66DT. Stoke Lodge is a detached facility used for PE lessons under the terms of a non-exclusivelease which the school signed with BCC in 2011 - a lease which states in its section 2.1 that theschool's use of the property is "Subject to all existing rights and uses, including use by thecommunity".The question of whether Stoke Lodge Field could be considered part of the premises of CothamSchool was addressed by a written parliamentary question submitted by our local MP DarrenJones on 22/11/2018 to the Secretary of State for Education which was answered on 27/11/2018.For reference : (from UK Parliament Online records)Q - "What his Department's definition is of wholly or mainly used when deciding whether adetached playing field is part of a school's premises or is a facility used by a school"

A - "The Department's understanding of the term 'used wholly or mainly' in determining if landforms part of a school's premises, is whether the school has exclusive or majority use or

enjoyment of the land for greater than 50% of the time."As previously noted, Cotham School' s lease on Stoke Lodge is non-exclusive, and they actuallyuse the site for less than 10% of the time according to local community monitoring records. StokeLodge cannot therefore be considered to be part of the premises of Cotham School, and afalsehood is being perpetuated in this application.Amenity:The proposed location for this CCTV camera pylon is in close proximity to Stoke Lodge Housewhich is a historic 19th century Grade II listed building (List UID: 1202564). The proposed metalpylon is described as being between 4 to 8m tall, with anti-climb spikes, and supporting a tilt andpan controllable CCTV camera with a high power optical zoom lens system. Camera pylons of thistype are normally installed on the perimeters of prisons and other high security installations - (Themanufacturer's own brochures explicitly refer to such uses of the product in question). Such aninstallation would be wholly incompatible with the visual amenity of a historic planted arboretumpark like Stoke Lodge, and the nearby listed Stoke Lodge House which was originally built in 1836.Inaccurate statement about Rights Of Way:The applicant has ticked NO on section #8 of the form which asks "if there any new public rights ofways to be provided within and adjacent to the site" (There are in fact multiple relevant TVG andPROW applications currently in progress).Inaccurate statement about Trees & Hedges:The applicant has ticked NO on section #10 of the application form which explicitly asks "if thereare trees and hedges on land adjacent to the site that might be important as part of the landscapecharacter ? " (As previously noted, the entire site of Stoke Lodge Field is a historic plantedarboretum park which has no fewer than 38 TPO protected tree groupings. Some of the mostdensely planted and important of these TPO groupings are in close proximity to the proposedlocation of this camera pylon.Inaccurate Statement about about Wildlife:The applicant has ticked NO on section #12 of the application form which asks "Are there any bio-diversity features that might need to be taken into account ?" (There are in fact live badger setts,fox dens and Noctule bat roosts in very close proximity to the exact location of the proposedcamera pylon).Stated Purpose:The stated purpose of the new camera pylon in Section #5 of the form is "to cover the lower end ofthe playing field (behind Stoke Paddock) and the immediate area around the base of the pole"In reality Cotham School simply do not use these areas of the field for any of their regular PEactivities. The pupils are only ever seen in those lower parts of SL when they are being sent off on'Treasure Hunts' looking for numbered question boards.Claims made by Cotham School that an extra CCTV camera is somehow needed to fight crimeare at variance with official police crime statistics for this area. BS9 has one of the lowest levels ofcrime in the entire city, with just two reported incidences of criminal activity around Stoke LodgeField in March 2020.Given that the school already have four CCTV cameras on site, it is difficult to understand whythey think they now need another to cover an area which they do not use

No reason has been given by the applicant for the need for a further cameraAlso of concern is the security of access to these images. It has been admitted that they are ableto access this footage, whilst away from school The camera will potentially look directly into privatedwellings where privacy is expected.To conclude I believe this application must be rejected because1. Insufficient details to assess it2. Out of date plan used3. No justification for CCTV included4. No consultation with neighbouring properties to assess the impact the camera will have on theirprivacy.5. No Heritage Impact Statement6. Does not comply with their own DPIA

Stoke Park is a listed house in old parkland and an unsightly CCTV pole and camera atStoke Lodge, as proposed in the application, and is unnecessary as cameras are already in place.

The pole is not in keeping with the listed building and excessive use of surveillance of the land thatthe applicant does not have exclusive access to is concerning for me.

I would like to object to this proposal for the reasons that :

1. insufficent information has been submitted to fully assess the application.

A site plan is needed showing the location of the CCTV pole and base, the CCTV feeder pillaralready erected, the fence and gates, and the Grade II listed gazebo and walls of the walledgarden. The height and type of the pole should be specified. Photomontages showing theappearance of the CCTV development in its setting should be submitted. A Heritage Statement isalso needed showing an understanding of the significance of the heritage assets of Stoke Lodgeand the impact of the proposed CCTV development on it, in accordance with the Government'sNational Planning Policy Framework and Policy DM31 Heritage Assets of the Bristol Local PlanSite Allocations and Development Management Policies : "Development proposals that wouldaffect heritage assets will be expected to demonstrate, by a thorough understanding of thesignificance of the asset, how any proposed change would conserve and, where appropriate,enhance that significance." Information should also be submitted about the proposed use of theCCTV and the data recorded, and its overriding need justified.

2. The CCTV development would substantially harm the setting of the Grade II listed gazebo andadjoining garden walls, and the historic parkland setting of the Grade II listed house, thusdamaging the significance of Stoke Lodge as a heritage asset.

The house at Stoke Lodge was built in Elizabethan style in 1846 and later advertised for sale as "asubstantial, elegant and commodious freehold residence...with lawns, gardens, orchard and landsurrounding the same, containing in the whole 33 acres..fitted up with every attention to the

comfort and convenience of a Gentleman's family." A variety of unusual trees were planted aroundthe house and in the parkland.

The Council bought Stoke Lodge in 1947 when the Western Daily Press reported that it was "anestate of about 22 acres which represents the biggest single area in Stoke Bishop not yet coveredby houses..A feature of the property has been the lovely cedars and other trees which must havegiven pleasure to very many passers-by."

The Stoke Lodge house and outbuildings are now nationally important, Grade II listed buildings,and the historic parkland is their curtilage and setting.

One of these listed buildings is the attractive gazebo set in the walls of the garden behind thehouse (which is now partly used as a car park). Having a single bay window, the gazebo wasdesigned to enable visitors to enjoy the views over the parkland to the Blaise and Kings Westonridge beyond. In his book North Bristol Through Time Anthony Beeson says "The gazebo, possiblyeighteenth century in date, gave occupiers spectacular views to Blaise, Kings Weston andPortishead Point." The photo of it captioned "Gardeners pose in Stoke Lodge's superb walledflower garden around 1930" is also on the Council's Know Your Place website :https://maps.bristol.gov.uk/kyp/?edition= The gazebo was recently restored by the Council, and isthe only garden building at Stoke Lodge, giving it particular value.

In 'The Settings of Heritage Assets' Historic England gives guidance on understanding andmanaging change within the settings of heritage assets such as listed buildings.It is clear from this that due to its proximity within a few metres of the gazebo, the CCTVdevelopment would be sited within its setting. With the height of the pole and camera up to 12m(39 ft) and its utilitarian, eye-catching appearance, it would be a distracting and inappropriateelement in the view out from the window of the gazebo over the parkland. The purpose andcharacter of the gazebo as a viewing point over open parkland would be harmed. In views of thegazebo and garden walls from the parkland setting of the house the CCTV development would beboth prominent and incongruous, spoiling the natural landscape setting of the house rather thanconserving it.

As a result the proposal would substantially harm the significance of Stoke Lodge as a heritageasset, and be contrary to the Council's Policy DM31 which says that "Development that has animpact upon a heritage asset will be expected to conserve and, where appropriate, enhance theasset or its setting. Listed Buildings : "..development in their vicinity will be expected to preserveor, where appropriate, enhance those elements which contribute to their special architectural orhistoric interest, including their settings."

3. No justification for the CCTV development has been made for the substantial harm it wouldcause to the significance of Stoke Lodge as a heritage asset.

The N.P.P.F. says that "When considering the impact of a proposed development on thesignificance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset'sconservation... Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from itsalteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear andconvincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of : (a) grade II listed buildings ...should beexceptional."

The only information submitted about the use of the CCTV is that it "will cover the lower end of theplaying field (behind Stoke Paddock) and the immediate area around the base of the pole. It willnot cover areas outside of the school premises." The need for the CCTV has not been explainedor justified.

Following the Council's purchase of Stoke Lodge in 1947 the local community has used the landfor informal recreational use. Such activity successfully co-existed with its use as a school playingfield. The Council required that this use should continue by making the lease of part of the land toCotham School in 2011 subject to "existing rights and use of the Property including use by thecommunity". The community therefore has the right to use the land, and filming people doing sowould be an invasion of their privacy. Thus there is "no clear and convincing justification" for theharm that the CCTV development would do to Stoke Lodge as a heritage asset.

For these three reasons I ask that the application is refused.

I have a number of reasons for objecting:- The style of camera seems totally out of keeping with the general appearance of the site,particularly that of Stoke Lodge itself and its environment.- I do not understand the need for a camera that has the capability to monitor footfall on land notleased by the school.- I am not clear if the school has adequate security and controls preventing the use of this camerafor reasons not related to security over the leased land- I am not exactly sure of its location and whether it is on any public right of way.Thank you.Paul Stephenson

I have a number of reasons for objecting:- The style of camera seems totally out of keeping with the general appearance of the site,particularly that of Stoke Lodge itself and its environment.- I do not understand the need for a camera that has the capability to monitor footfall on land notleased by the school.- I am not clear if the school has adequate security and controls preventing the use of this camerafor reasons not related to security over the leased land- I am not exactly sure of its location and whether it is on any public right of way.Thank you.Paul Stephenson

Generations of my family have enjoyed walking unhindered on Stoke Lodge since 1977.In recent years Cotham School has decided to shut us out, along with the wider community, fromuse of this field in spite of the Bristol City Council lease which allows use for the communityalongside use by the school - who only ever use a small part of the many acres for a few hours aweek.

Now there is a proposed plan to erect a tower for another CCTV camera at this beautiful site, nextto the Grade II Listed building, so that legitimate users of the field can be watched by anyone atCotham School. I object strongly to this idea for the following reasons:

1. The application for Stoke Lodge to be granted TVG status is pending, as is confirmation of thehistoric Public Rights of Way which exist right across the field. No further development of any kindshould be considered until these have been dealt with.

2. In the winter when the trees are bare, the operator of a CCTV camera on a high pole/towerwould be able, remotely from wherever and whenever they wish, watch mothers and children ofthe community in the playground adjacent to the building, and its surrounding area. If the tableswere turned I don't think the pupils of Cotham would be happy if the community were to set upcameras to watch them? Of course the school would deny that they would do that, but how wouldwe, the community, know what they were up to - there'd be no way of checking once the camerawas up and running.

3. The school has replaced locks on the gates of the field with remotely controlled systems so theyneed not send anyone to open and close gates. This could further restrict access for the

community and also there would be a risk of a person or people being locked in - the CCTVs mightnot spot them if it was quite dark, winter, misty or raining and there are hidden angles of the field -or maybe nobody looks at the footage at a crucial or dangerous time. This could be an absoluterisk to life.

4. What do the school say they want to achieve? This area of Stoke Bishop is virtually completelycrime free and there is nothing on the field to steal or damage: the pavilion building is a ruin, andthe ex-Nissan hut has nothing to damage, except the school's recently erected CCTV camerathere, not even windows to break. The only conclusion is the school's continuing refusal to allowlegitimate use of the grounds by those who are entitled to use it. There are now (approx.) 22 acresof field which will remain unused by the school until, they have stated, September and yet theywish to exclude anyone else rightfully enjoying this open space.

5. It is appalling that the school have tried to stop anyone using this huge space during thecoronavirus crisis. The path they have left around the outside edge of the fence is in places sonarrow that people wishing to get their permitted daily exercise have not been able to socialdistance on the paths. I have spoken to NHS front line workers seeking respite from long hours,disabled people living in the sheltered housing adjoining the field, children who of course needsomewhere to safely run or play and ordinary citizens of Bristol - none of whom want or need to bespied on.

I urge you to reject this application outright.

Generations of my family have enjoyed walking unhindered on Stoke Lodge since 1977.In recent years Cotham School has decided to shut us out, along with the wider community, fromuse of this field in spite of the Bristol City Council lease which allows use for the communityalongside use by the school - who only ever use a small part of the many acres for a few hours aweek.

Now there is a proposed plan to erect a tower for another CCTV camera at this beautiful site, nextto the Grade II Listed building, so that legitimate users of the field can be watched by anyone atCotham School. I object strongly to this idea for the following reasons:

1. The application for Stoke Lodge to be granted TVG status is pending, as is confirmation of thehistoric Public Rights of Way which exist right across the field. No further development of any kindshould be considered until these have been dealt with.

2. In the winter when the trees are bare, the operator of a CCTV camera on a high pole/towerwould be able, remotely from wherever and whenever they wish, watch mothers and children ofthe community in the playground adjacent to the building, and its surrounding area. If the tableswere turned I don't think the pupils of Cotham would be happy if the community were to set upcameras to watch them? Of course the school would deny that they would do that, but how wouldwe, the community, know what they were up to - there'd be no way of checking once the camerawas up and running.

3. The school has replaced locks on the gates of the field with remotely controlled systems so theyneed not send anyone to open and close gates. This could further restrict access for the

community and also there would be a risk of a person or people being locked in - the CCTVs mightnot spot them if it was quite dark, winter, misty or raining and there are hidden angles of the field -or maybe nobody looks at the footage at a crucial or dangerous time. This could be an absoluterisk to life.

4. What do the school say they want to achieve? This area of Stoke Bishop is virtually completelycrime free and there is nothing on the field to steal or damage: the pavilion building is a ruin, andthe ex-Nissan hut has nothing to damage, except the school's recently erected CCTV camerathere, not even windows to break. The only conclusion is the school's continuing refusal to allowlegitimate use of the grounds by those who are entitled to use it. There are now (approx.) 22 acresof field which will remain unused by the school until, they have stated, September and yet theywish to exclude anyone else rightfully enjoying this open space.

5. It is appalling that the school have tried to stop anyone using this huge space during thecoronavirus crisis. The path they have left around the outside edge of the fence is in places sonarrow that people wishing to get their permitted daily exercise have not been able to socialdistance on the paths. I have spoken to NHS front line workers seeking respite from long hours,disabled people living in the sheltered housing adjoining the field, children who of course needsomewhere to safely run or play and ordinary citizens of Bristol - none of whom want or need to bespied on.

I urge you to reject this application outright.

Comments for Planning Application 20/01826/FApplication SummaryApplication Number: 20/01826/FAddress: Stoke Lodge Sports Ground Shirehampton Road Sea Mills BristolProposal: The works are to install a CCTV pole and camera adjacent to the gate behind theneighbouring Stoke Lodge Adult Learning Centre.Case Officer: Patrick BoxwellCustomer DetailsName: Sharon LloydAddress: 1A Cheyne Road, Stoke Bishop Bristol BS9 2DHComment DetailsCommenter Type: NeighbourStance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Objections:Once again Mr Nathan Allen has taken to applying for permission over grounds that he neitherowns nor has the right to control and has submitted false information for a second time!

This application in containing falsehoods is inadmissible.It is wholly unacceptable that the community has to spend hours providing evidence to anapplication that is inadmissible, let alone giving the multiple reasons why the application isinappropriate, unacceptable and outright false in presentation of facts.Comment: Objections to the camera1 The submitted plans fail to show with any accuracy the placement of the camera or the factual

features of the grounds. A very significant size tree in front of the house is omitted, as are some ofthe houses on Ebenezer Lane, which will be within reach of the camera lens.2 Failure to specify exact details of the camera and its' instillation: could be at a height anywherebetween 4 or 12 metres. It is unacceptable to leave this so vague as any installation should beclearly described with specific figures re: model, function, materials and how it is to beapplied/used if any objective evaluation of such an installation can be made.3 Similarly, where precisely the camera is to be positioned is required, as this will impact on theheight installation, as well as the range it can photograph/record.4 This camera can scan (it is a pan-tilt moving system, identical to that used in prisons) andthereby record data of the children's playground, the area below the playground, Stoke Lodge carpark, the sensory garden, houses (Shirehampton Road, Stoke Paddock Road, Cheyne Road,Ebenezer Lane and Stoke Lodge itself), gardens and the walkers forced into the perimeterwalkway. A camera recording such data is a total invasion of personal privacy for the play areausers, as well as the residents (more so as the trees lose their leaves) and there is no statementof management, use of or control (data protection) of what Mr Allen uses these recording for, orgives access to - I need say no more about recording private family residences and children inplaygrounds - just look at the research of the 'Dark Web', and any officer making decisions on thismatter should be fully informed of this.5 Whilst software privacy blocks might be set, planning officers will agree that these are notenforceable. Thus, such a camera is unacceptable and in breach of Article 8 of the Human RightsAct -and Article 1 of the first protocol. The community have a right to use the playground, car park,perimeter, their homes and gardens without being placed under Cotham Academies' surveillance.(If in any doubt ask yourself if you would like a surveillance camera pointing in to your own house).

6 There is no other school in Bristol that uses camera-intrusive instalments to survey playingfields, neither are there any on the Downs or other public parks and spaces - Bristol University hastwice the size of secured space, but does not need cameras so why does Mr Allen feel in thisresidential setting comprising a significant number of retirees, that he needs this level of camerasurveillance over a portion of the playing area that is not even used because is has a 10 metredrop from top to bottom and so cannot be 'a level playing field' for the purpose of sport...as well asbeing waterlogged much of the winter.7 There have been no incidents of incursions into the field whilst PE takes place. This playing fieldsite is not adjacent to the school and pupils do not use it for lunch break, recreation or informalplay. The teachers supervise the children into the field and lock the gates. Under legalrequirements when the children are on the field every child should be within the sight of asupervising adult in any event as they do sports - safety and safe guarding cannot be deferred tocamera surveillance8 Less the current reviewers of this application are not aware (and why the flagrant falsehoods ofthe applicant are all the more shocking) Stoke Lodge is classed as 'open space' and a recreationalspace. The public have a right to access the field as per the lease when the school is not using it.The field is meant to support local people to relax and exercise, not a surveillance program for CA.9 Stoke Lodge is a beautiful listed building with a lovely arboretum, It was stripped of its grounds

by the process of CA being allowed to construct a fence by the landlord without any planningpermission being required. However, the grounds still form part of the amenity and are thecurtilage of Stoke Lodge a fine, grade two listed building, surrounded by 36 trees with preservationorders on them, and some of oldest trees in Bristol. It is not the place for a highly incongruous,glaring eyesore of a permanently scanning, threatening - perceived as intimidating, prison exerciseyard - camera.10 Section 66 of the Listed Building and Conservation Act states that the Local Authority musthave 'special, regard to the desirability of preserving and conserving a listed building and itssetting.' The camera will be sited in the setting of Stoke Lodge as the field forms part of thebackdrop for the house. ( See Steer v SSCLG where a wide definition of setting was given...theplanning officer is bound by this ).11 There has been no local consultation with local residents and in fact outright refusal to do so,but as with all of CA's other behaviours, this application combined with constant locked gates, isdesigned to intimidate the community by creating a hostile environment to stop them legitimatelyusing the field when not being used by the school.

Dear Case Officer Boxwell , I am deeply concerned about this CCTV application for tworeasons

1/ Privacy - This is a off campus site that in its lease has shared access with the community . ThisGreen Space ( before and after the fence) is a place local teenagers go to get away from theirparents . Its a place they go to mix together , share their first kiss , roll around in the grass togetherand just hang out . Girls and Women sunbath in this park and young men play football with theirtops off when the sun is out .This will all be recorded by Cotham School 24/7.It is their right of passage and should not be able to be monitored for 24/7 by a teacher or facilitymanager on their mobile phone app or laptop at school or even from the comfort of their ownhome any day of the weekend with these new technologies used .I am concerned that this camera and footage may be misused and teenagers as well as othermembers of the community may be spied upon .Now mission creep sets in and what started off as two cameras is now four cameras withoutpermission, application for five and what goes from archive feed leads to 'Live' feed streamed onstaff mobile phones .

I know nobody likes to talk about the P word but paedophilia in schools and churches is a very realconcern. It was only four years ago 2016 that here in Bristol at Clifton College a teacher was sentto prison for having footage (over 300 tapes and DVDs) of youngsters on site at schools in variousstages of undress .

I am NOT suggesting anyone past or present at Cotham school has been involved in any activitylike this . I take this very seriously having seen the damage this can do to young people .

The worry is there lack of Surveillance Camera Code of Practice shown under section 29 of theProtection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the relevance is that the code emphasises that thesurveillance may interfere with the qualified right to respect for private and family life providedunder Article 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights in this application .

If Bristol City Council were to grant the application and footage of children fell into the wronghands would BCC be responsible once the lawyers got involved .Were is this data stored , is it secure . What if it the servers hacked by paedophiles either inside oroutside the school ? If viewing at home on a mobile phone or Laptop could a teacher or facilitiesmangers share this video or even just show unauthorised persons ?It is a dangerous precedent that I'm sure the NSPCC, ICO , CCTV watchdogs would take veryseriously cameras in shared access green space .

2/ Listed buildingThis Camera and pole is out of place next to a Grade II listed building and its Green Space setting.

I went to half a dozen Secondary schools in the Bristol area to look at their overt CCTVsurveillance equipment . By far Cotham School has more cameras at than any other by more than50% in my opinion they seems obsessive compared to other schools but there may be a goodreason .

Cotham School has a beautiful Art Deco main building that has CCTV surveillance now on it and itis a shame such a lovely building has plastered with these cameras and should have been carriedout more sympathetically with covert cameras on facade . The Grade II building at Stoke Lodgeshould not suffer the same fate as this building which is listed .I frequent Ministry of Defence bases with less overt CCTV on the same size footprint than isplanned for this Green Space .

The University of Bristol Coombe Dingle Sports Complex is a multi-million pound sporting facilityless than 500m away from Stoke Lodge with expensive buildings and machinery and is ofcomparable size if not bigger . This complex has no overt CCTV and has no or very littlevandalism and has been here for decades with no trouble and fits in with the community .

This proposed location of this camera is so close to such a beautiful listed building in a sharedGreen Space and it should be refused.Thankyou :)

As a resident of Stoke Bishop I increasingly feel that Cotham School are not being fair to theresidents.They promised to that when they put up the fence it would not interfere with the trees. The plan ofthe fence they produced showed that they had not taken this into account.They promised the residents enough space to walk round the playing field. The land they left is atsome points so narrow that it gets extremely muddy and is unusable for long periods.They promised that the gates would be left open so residents could use the playing fields whennot in use by the school. They have failed to do so.During the COVID lock down it is readily apparent that it is not possible to socially distance on thenarrow strip of land round the field. Cotham School have left the gates locked despite the fact thatthey are not using the land during the lockdown.I believe that the lease states that the land should be shared and as local residents and ratepayers we should be entitled to rely on the terms of the lease.In the circumstances I feel that it is completely unreasonable to allow Cotham School to put up aCCTV camera. It is not in keeping with the local area to have poles being put up with cameras ontop.It will also feel like the residents are being watched when in fact they are entitled to use the playingfields.The aim of the School is to make use of the land by the residents so difficult that they give up andthe proposal to install another camera to intimidate us is just part of this campaign.

The CCTV camera and pole proposed for Stoke Lodge will represent an enormousinfringement on the privacy of local houses and visitors to Stoke Lodge.What will they achieve? The school will have footage, but won't be able to react in time to preventdamage or identifying the trespassers.This is another example of the school taking action to secure the use of the space entirely foritself, to the exclusion of locals. Contrary to the written agreement that is in place.The request should be refused.

I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms against this planning application onthree counts.

Firstly, I am extremely concerned that the images from this camera will be available to theFacilities Manager, Nate Allen, at his home. Cotham School have clarified that they are not signedup to any protocol in this regard. As a Safeguarding expert, I am astonished and alarmed by this. Ihave experience in cases where offenders have hacked into accounts holding such information,manipulated them, and traded them on the internet. It has been clear for some years that CothamSchool have little understanding of Safeguarding, particularly contextual safeguarding, and this isone further example. Not only will families on the perimeter path be able to be viewed, but thechildren's playground will too. This is unacceptable.

Secondly, this camera affords the opportunity to view the private property of surroundingresidences, including social housing. Again, there is no thorough control on these images andresidents are rightly angry and concerned that their private gardens and the inside of theirproperties can be viewed, including, again, images of children.

Cotham School has complained that local residents have photographed children on the playingfield. This was proven to be untrue, but with that in mind, it is an appalling double standard to thenmake this application. I believe both the school and the City will be risking legal challenge shouldthis camera be allowed and images of local children captured.

Finally I note that the supporters of this planning application live in other parts of the city and soare not directly affected. There have been falsified complaints about vandalism including

allegations that local residents have damaged the fence, when the damage in question was doneby the Facilities Manager, and recorded.

I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms against this planning application onthree counts.

Firstly, I am extremely concerned that the images from this camera will be available to theFacilities Manager, Nate Allen, at his home. Cotham School have clarified that they are not signedup to any protocol in this regard. As a Safeguarding expert, I am astonished and alarmed by this. Ihave experience in cases where offenders have hacked into accounts holding such information,manipulated them, and traded them on the internet. It has been clear for some years that CothamSchool have little understanding of Safeguarding, particularly contextual safeguarding, and this isone further example. Not only will families on the perimeter path be able to be viewed, but thechildren's playground will too. This is unacceptable.

Secondly, this camera affords the opportunity to view the private property of surroundingresidences, including social housing. Again, there is no thorough control on these images andresidents are rightly angry and concerned that their private gardens and the inside of theirproperties can be viewed, including, again, images of children.

Cotham School has complained that local residents have photographed children on the playingfield. This was proven to be untrue, but with that in mind, it is an appalling double standard to thenmake this application. I believe both the school and the City will be risking legal challenge shouldthis camera be allowed and images of local children captured.

Finally I note that the supporters of this planning application live in other parts of the city and soare not directly affected. There have been falsified complaints about vandalism including

allegations that local residents have damaged the fence, when the damage in question was doneby the Facilities Manager, and recorded.

It is totally inconsiderate, unnecessary and unacceptable of Cotham school to evenconsider making an application for surveillance with a pan and tilt camera positioned so high that itwill allow many members of the community to be spied upon, with intrusive views of, not only theenvirons of Stoke Lodge itself, but also a number of the private properties adjacent to the fieldwhere the residents will not be aware of the intrusion or, if they are, not allowed access to thevideo data available to those anonymous people who do have access to these data. This is NOTacceptable in a democratic society.If it is intended to erect a Pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) camera then it is even more objectionable, since thistype of camera is capable of wide-area surveillance with tracking, monitoring and zooming-in forclose-ups of the unsuspecting innocent people as hitherto mentioned, even though it might appealto the minority of those people willing to infringe the personal liberties of innocent people. Again,this is NOT acceptable in a democratic society.Since the existing CCTV was claimed by Cotham School to be sufficient, I can see no need for theschool to have this extraordinary level of surveillance installed.It is incredible to think that during this unprecedented world-wide pandemic Cotham School isfocussing (excuse the pun) on selfishly spying on the general public rather than helping us allexercise properly in the Stoke Lodge playing field. We all need more help in these trying times andnot for Cotham School to place more stress on the innocent public with the possibility of damagingthe mental health of those that are vulnerable to such intrusions.I implore Bristol City Council to totally reject this unwarranted Planning Application.

I submitted the comments below on at 7:18 pm on May 19 2020. I received anacknowledgment email but my comments have not appeared on the portal so I am submittingthem again on 30 May.I object to this application because:-1. The Applicant has provided a product catalogue as a description of the intended CCTVinstallation but has not specified the height of the intended equipment; it is available in heightsbetween 4 metres and 12 metres ( 13 feet - 39 feet). It is impossible to properly consider the visualand amenity impact given such a large range in possible heights. The Applicant must know whatthe height of the intended installation would be and his failure to be explicit is troubling.2. Whatever the height of the pole, the appearance of this heavyweight surveillance equipmentwould offend the amenity of the nearby listed Stoke Lodge. This type of equipment is notappropriate to setting.3. I understand that the school already has 4 CCTV cameras covering the playing fields but theirpurpose is unclear. When there are school children on the site, they will be accompanied byteachers and CCTV cannot assist. If they are intended to deter the unauthorised opening of thefence, the existing cameras have been singularly ineffective. Adding another camera is unlikely toeffective. I believe that the main motivation for the CCTV installation already in place and anyadditional equipment is to intimidate the local community and to discourage our presence, contraryto the requirements of the lease under which Cotham School have use of the fields.4. The proposed CCTC pole and camera will apparently enable viewing of all the lower area of theplaying fields from the indicated position. If able to pan to view the nearby gateway (as seemslikely) it would look across the rear of the Stoke Lodge building, to the car park. It would also beable to view the children's playground. These are areas outside the area leased by CothamSchool and frequented by the public. I object to such potential surveyance of those areas as I and

my grandchildren use them. I object to the intrusion into my private and family life.5. Cotham School has promised to allow access for the community when the school is not usingthe playing fields. I would be one of may who would wish to go onto the fields but I feeluncomfortable and threatened by the several CCTV cameras which allow I know not who to spyupon the area. Another camera will simply make the playing fields feel more like a prison exerciseyard instead of the glorious safe, open parkland it used to be, populated as it is by some of themost beautiful trees in Bristol.

I need to object to the installation of extra CCTV which is absolutely unnecessarysurveillance and another attempt by Cotham Academy to create an Orwellian state and assertcontrol where there is no need thereby creating an even greater divide between the communityand the school.

I do not understand why there is so much disdain for a community that will actively support them ifthey were not making every attempt to destroy the fundamentals of our community throughexcessive antagonism, fear mongering and reputation tarnishing. The question remains as to whythey are making every attempt to destroy a community with petulant actions ignoring both the spiritand legal wording of their lease. I would wholeheartedly encourage the Bristol City Council tostand up to this bully with the disregard for the greater good who make promises and under deliveron every account.

This is an attempt to assert control and instil fear in the community, a peaceful community whosimply want to go about their lives without intrusion. There is always the question as to why thereis such a disregard for the greater good and what will this actually achieve? My opinion is nothingapart from attempting to cement a blatant land grab in a community where green space is limitedand precious. They are continuing to alienate the community with their entitled approach, lack ofconsideration for the children, families and elderly who used Stoke Lodge peacefully and want tocoexist without concentration camp style fences dividing us apart.Tear down these walls, and lets build a better environment where we can teach all to share andrespect each other.CCTV as well as everything else is not the answer.

Cotham school officials again betray a stupid lack of understanding of what theirbehaviour should be in terms of their relationship with the local community. There is absolutely noreason whatsoever for there to be yet another CCTV camera installed for surveillance of this areaof parkland.

There is already CCTV available at the old shed at the top end of the field, presumably to protectwhat machinery it may contain for insurance purposes, but as the doors to the shed are not withinthe view of the camera, or even within the curtilage of the fence, this seems to be fairly pointless.

I feel extremely aggrieved at the way the School seeks to impose its will at whim, on people whoseek only to use the field within the terms of the Lease. It makes me wish to use very stronglanguage.

Erection of this proposed CCTV pole would be an invasion of privacy, and greatly to the detrimentof the pleasant listed buildings of the Stoke Lodge Adult Education Centre. It could be trained onwindows and gardens of nearby houses, particularly when the leaves are off the trees in winter,and provides another example of wasteful and unnecessary expense from the school's resources.

Perhaps Cotham's parents and students are not to be relied upon to behave in a correct manner,necessitating surveillance of this sort? The community certainly wants to see the field being usedby the school for sports and recreation, but also to enjoy our rights granted in the terms of theLease to be given access to the area when the school is not using it - without being spied upon byCCTV without personal consent.

Cotham School always adopted the highest ethical standards when my daughter Anne Davey wasHead Girl in the 1980's. Parents, staff and students enjoyed delightful social occasions when endof term school plays etc. were performed. "No, No, Nanette" was our favourite. It seems to havebeen a very different place at that time. It would be good to return to those days of a greatrelationship between the local community and the school. Current dictatorial attitudes would seemto precludethat.

Reginald K. DaveyR.I.C.S. Retired.

What possible advantage can there be to Cotham School to erect another expensiveand pointless CCTV camera on such a sensitive site, so close to listed buildings, and invasive ofthe privacy of the community? They must have money to burn.

I deeply resent the idea of being on camera when having a walk or taking my grand-children to theplay area (when it is open again). I have nothing to hide, but that is not the point, I feel they haveno right to pry on my personal activities.

It will be wonderful to see the school students using the field again, but we long for the freedom towalk across the grass and play ball or frisbee games without the restrictions of the fence andpadlocked gates, which OUGHT TO BE OPEN when the school is not using the field, according tothe terms of their Lease. We are a responsible community, law-abiding, and appreciative of this,our beautiful green area. We do our best to protect it and have done quite a lot of gardeningoutside the fence already - we resent the intrusion the proposed camera would represent,especially being filmed without personal consent, and with the ability for the camera to focus onnearby homes and gardens.

If the CCTV is for insurance purposes - what damage can we possibly be expected to do at thatpoint which would need insurance cover? Perhaps bending the grass by walking on it? It'sridiculous!There is already CCTV at the shed at the top end of the field, presumably to protect the contentsof the ramshackle old shed, and we do not need further privacy-invasive CCTV on the proposedsite. Our family have been using the field responsibly since 1973 and are extremely upset aboutthis application, as you can probably tell from the tone of this comment.

I do hope common sense will prevail.

Sincerely,Anthea (Anni) Davey

The School's Application should be rejected. It is an abuse of the School's position asleasee to seek to monitor use of the land by the public when school's lease of the land is subjectto existing public use. Clearly the application is a knee jerk reaction by the school to the removal offence panels by certain parties keen to gain access to this land during the covid-19 crisis. Thatposition is the result of the school's decision to lock the playing fields during the crisis. Removal ofthe panels cannot be condoned, but the solution to this action is for the school to comply with thelease and allow the public access to the land.

This camera will be an intrusion on local homes, a children's playground and acommunity park. The children's playground could be watched by paedophiles which is frightening.The camera positioning is against the date protection act is 1998.It's positioning would be a massive personal intrusion.I object to it. It is quite unessessary and as there has never been any need to erect one it shouldnot be allowed to go ahead.

Oh dear. Censorship. I thought this was part of the UK. It was the Applicant who firstreferred to Prison and Detention facilities in a descriptive document submitted with the Application.

I am both appalled and dismayed by this Application. I wonder how the Applicant can begin tothink that it is tolerable in any way for such a proposal to be appropriate in this setting and to beacceptable by the Community.

I would point out that the Applicant does not own the land despite his signed declaration that hedoes. He is an employee of a Business which leases the land from the true landowner, which isBristol City Council.

The order in which I make my points does not represent any order of importance.

The setting:

It is not clear from the two plans submitted exactly where it is proposed that this tall pole with apan and tilt camera should be erected.One site plan suggests that it will be close to the listed wall of a small rear car park which was inturn a former garden of the Grade II Listed Stoke Lodge (House), and is indeed very close to thehouse.Very close to the (likely) proposed site of the steel pole is a gazebo/belvedere built in to thegarden wall and renovated in recent years.A photograph of that delightful building can be found here:

https://www.bristolcourses.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Stoke-Lodge-History-PDF.pdfJust imagine what a surveillance camera would look like close to the most pleasing amenity of thatbuilding!

The Applicant has provided a list of the sorts of premises suitable for the installation of such acamera.

o Industrial and commercial premiseso Perimeter detectiono Schools and universitieso Prisons and detention facilitieso Railway platforms & car parkso Car parkso Public area CCTVo Retail Parkso Sports stadia

An industrial surveillance camera, which is described in the literature provided by the Applicant asbeing suitable for prison premises, is not suitable for such a setting as this. I object most stronglyto a tall nasty pole and camera being sited anywhere on the land surrounding Stoke Lodge. It isnot in keeping with the atmosphere and environs of such a place. I object to any surveillancecamera, tall or short, pole or wall mounted, pan and tilt or static, being located anywhere tofacilitate the observation and recording of the playing field. I accept reluctantly the need forcameras to protect the security and fabric of the House. The cameras used for that purpose arediscreet. This proposal is exactly the opposite.

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states: "Inconsidering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a Listed Buildingor its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State, shall havespecial regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of specialarchitectural or historic interest which it possesses".This principle is expanded in the NPPF to cover a range of heritage assets: "Significance can beharmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within itssetting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincingjustification". (my italics and emphasis).

The camera, on its steel industrial pole, would be in a sylvan setting surrounded by TPO trees in aParkland close to a Listed Building. In fact, one wonders, should planning permission be granted,whether the Secretary of State should become involved subsequently.

Plotting the Eastings and Northings supplied by the Applicant in the Application usinghttps://gridreferencefinder.com suggests that the pole is to be erected in an entirely different placein the Field from that marked on the plans accompanying the Application, about half way between

the derelict pavilion and the "arboretum". So, which is the true site for the pole in the Application?Neither site is acceptable. Each detracts from the ambience and amenity of the Parkland.

The need for the camera, and the privacy of the citizens using the "spaces" in the domain of view

There is a code of practice associated with surveillance camera installation and its ongoing use.How can the Community know and accept that the policies to be followed are robust, and thatthere will be adherence to them? The Community has no reason to accept that the School willadhere to correct procedures.

The Council has a duty to make sure that any use of the camera proposed would comply with itsown code. Who at the Council is going to make sure that the School has any Policy, and thathe/she will comply? The Community's experience with compliance with TPO regulation by theschool, and with the efforts, or even the inclination, of Planning Enforcement at the Council toadminister TPO regulations on the site, have so far not been encouraging. How could we thus beconfident that the management of anything as invasive and nosey as a surveillance camera wouldbe properly managed? Would there be compliance with any regulation, required by law, imposed?

I quote the Council's policy with regard to camera surveillance of public places:

Bristol City Council , The Use of Surveillance Cameras in Bristol: 2014 :

Guiding Principle:

The guiding principles of this strategy will be to ensure that individuals and wider communitieshave confidence that surveillance cameras are deployed to protect and support them, rather thanspy on them.

The government considers that wherever overt surveillance in public places is in pursuit of alegitimate aim and meets a pressing need, any such surveillance should be characterised assurveillance by consent, and such consent on the part of the community must be informed consentand not assumed by a system operator.

Surveillance by consent should be regarded as analogous to policing by consent. In the Britishmodel of policing, police officers are citizens in uniform. They exercise their powers to police theirfellow citizens with the implicit consent of their fellow citizens. Policing by consent is the phraseused to describe this. It denotes that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is basedupon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers,demonstrating integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so.

In order to achieve this, the strategy sets out guiding principles that should apply to all surveillancecamera systems in public places. These guiding principles are designed to provide a framework

for operators and users of surveillance camera systems so that there is proportionality andtransparency in their use of surveillance, and systems are capable of providing good qualityimages and other information which are fit for purpose.

Surveillance Camera Strategy:

1. Use of a surveillance camera system must always be for a specified purpose which is in pursuitof a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identified pressing need.2. The use of a surveillance camera system must take into account its effect on individuals andtheir privacy, with regular reviews to ensure its use remains justified.3. There must be as much transparency in the use of a surveillance camera system as possible,including a published contact point for access to information and complaints.4. There must be clear responsibility and accountability for all surveillance camera systemactivities including images and information collected, held and used.5. Clear rules, policies and procedures must be in place before a surveillance camera system isused, and these must be communicated to all who need to comply with them.6. No more images and information should be stored than that which is strictly required for thestated purpose of a surveillance camera system, and such images and information should bedeleted once their purposes have been discharged.7. Access to retained images and information should be restricted and there must be clearlydefined rules on who can gain access and for what purpose such access is granted; the disclosureof images and information should only take place when it is necessary for such a purpose or forlaw enforcement purposes.8. Surveillance camera system operators should consider any approved operational, technical andcompetency standards relevant to a system and its purpose and work to meet and maintain thosestandards.9. Surveillance camera system images and information should be subject to appropriate securitymeasures to safeguard against unauthorised access and use.10. There should be effective review and audit mechanisms to ensure legal requirements, policiesand standards are complied with in practice, and regular reports should be published.11. When the use of a surveillance camera system is in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and there is apressing need for its use, it should then be used in the most effective way to support public safetyand law enforcement with the aim of processing images and information of evidential value.12. Any information used to support a surveillance camera system which compares against areference database for matching purposes should be accurate and kept up to date.

No doubt the first part of BCC's own policy is an attempt to enshrine Article 8 of the EuropeanCharter of Human Rights. I quote:Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life1. Everyone has the right of respect for his private and family life, his home and hiscorrespondence.2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as

is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of nationalsecurity, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder orcrime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms ofothers.

The Applicant does not state why the surveillance of the lower field is required.If it is for the supervision of the pupils of the school whilst participating in sport, then one has toask why that is required, when surely the pupils are then under the direct supervision of membersof the school staff.

If it is for the supervision of the residents of Bristol whilst using the land, then that is an invasion ofprivacy. Who is viewing the images? Where will the images be stored? Where is the consent?

Because the Applicant has not specified the purpose for making this Application, surely this is nota valid Application? Where is the evidence for:breaches of national security?risks to public safety?risks to the economic well-being of Stoke Bishop or Greater Bristol?the need for the prevention of disorder or crime?a deterioration in the health or morals of the local residents of the area or the users of the AdultLearning Centre?and the loss of protection of the rights and freedoms of others?that would be required to justify, under Article 8, the camera surveillance of the lower field of StokeLodge Playing Field.

To my mind placing a surveillance camera in this site can only be for spying, because the Schoolpupils are supervised during their presence on the Field by adult members of staff. There can beno legitimate requirement for further surveillance.

The School, in its own Data Protection Impact Assessment, dated 2nd December 2019, stated"There are no plans to extend the scope of the current CCTV system. A new Data ProtectionImpact Assessment would be carried out prior to commissioning any changes." Yet here we are, 5months later, with an Application to extend the surveillance on the site. It is worthy of note that noearlier Applications were made to install the existing CCTV cameras at the Playing Field.

In that same DPIA is given the information that the images are "Monitored in real time to detectand respond to unlawful activities. Monitored in real time to track suspicious persons/activity."That sounds "live" to me, and is not safeguarding of pupils (not that any reasons for the proposedsurveillance are given in the Application).

There has been no consent given by the Community. Consent has not been sought, and judging

by the response from the Community to this Application, consent would not be given were it to besought. Neighbours of the property (a very long list) were notified today, 12th May. Is thatconsultation prior to the Application - or merely a (delayed) notification?

The scope of the possible surveillance will not, and cannot, be limited to the boundary of the Field.It must extend in to the private gardens of properties, and the rooms within the houses, abuttingthe perimeter of the land in Stoke Paddock Road, Shirehampton Road, Woodland Grove, CheyneRoad etc., and, more alarmingly, it must "cover" the children's playground, where the potentialscope of image recording and real time monitoring could only be described as questionable, andeven more requires the Applicant and the Council to obtain the consent of all of the users of theplayground.

Please reject this Application on the grounds ofDespoiling the setting and amenity of a Listed BuildingandInvasion of privacy contrary to the European Charter of Human Rights where the siting of asurveillance camera flouts the principles for the siting of same.

I object to my previous objections being summarily rejected and removed without thedecency of the council employee responsible for doing so to inform me by email, not only for theirrejection but also the reasons for doing so

I OBJECT TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION because of inaccuracies within the applicationdocument itself, and because of my wish to record my total opposition to the installation of yetanother CCTV.

Section 2 - Applicant Details: Nathan Allen states he is the applicant and his company or employeris Cotham School, yet in Section 25 he states that he is 'a person with a freehold interest orleasehold interest' as the applicant. Cotham School is the owner of the relevant certificates soNathan Allen appears to be stating he IS Cotham School and NOT an employee of the school.

Section 5 - Description of the Proposal: 'The works are to install a CCTV pole and camera" but inSection 20 'This application is for CCTV only'. Which statement is true? Section 5 also states thatwork or change of use started on 20/04/2020 yet there has been no sign of any such work beingcarried out.

The lease the school signed included the clause "subject to all existing rights and use of theproperty including use by the community". Recent legal advice on the actual meaning of thisspecific clause was confirmed to Bristol City Council that the lease protects the rights of thecommunity to use the land. Previous applications, granted by Bristol City Council, contravened thenow legally upheld meaning of this clause. If this new application is granted then Bristol CityCouncil will not be protecting the rights of the community, but protecting the interest of their non-

rental-paying tenants in degrading what was once an Important Open Space into a Closed Spaceinaccessible to the community.

The visual amenity that was Stoke Lodge was spoiled by the installation of a 1400+ metre, non-structural fence and 3 unplanned by approved CCTVs. The installation of a further CCTV at thetop of a pole between 4 and 12 metres high will be totally out of character with the adjacent GradeII listed Stoke Lodge and will detract from the already compromised views. If the pole and CCTVcan be seen by the surrounding community in their houses and gardens, what will the CCTV beable to focus on and record? From its planned position this CCTV will also have visual access tothe children's play park and other areas that lie outside the lease-line but which are enjoyed by thepublic.

What rights or protection will the public and community have from intrusive and objectionablesurveillance, and what redress will they have against the School which has stated, since theexisting CCTV units were installed, that the field is 'private property' and therefore 'not covered bySection 29 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 or its guiding principles because they are notapplicable to the school'.

The school has consistently ignored all reasonable approaches and is intent on securing the field,for whatever devious reason, so that it is unavailable for the local community to use and thisdirectly contravenes the terms and clauses of the lease it signed.

This planning application must be rejected, and the applicant severely censured or fined formaking a false declaration or providing false information.

I object to my previous objections being summarily rejected and removed without thedecency of the council employee responsible for doing so to inform me by email, not only for theirrejection but also the reasons for doing so

I OBJECT TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION because of inaccuracies within the applicationdocument itself, and because of my wish to record my total opposition to the installation of yetanother CCTV.

Section 2 - Applicant Details: Nathan Allen states he is the applicant and his company or employeris Cotham School, yet in Section 25 he states that he is 'a person with a freehold interest orleasehold interest' as the applicant. Cotham School is the owner of the relevant certificates soNathan Allen appears to be stating he IS Cotham School and NOT an employee of the school.

Section 5 - Description of the Proposal: 'The works are to install a CCTV pole and camera" but inSection 20 'This application is for CCTV only'. Which statement is true? Section 5 also states thatwork or change of use started on 20/04/2020 yet there has been no sign of any such work beingcarried out.

The lease the school signed included the clause "subject to all existing rights and use of theproperty including use by the community". Recent legal advice on the actual meaning of thisspecific clause was confirmed to Bristol City Council that the lease protects the rights of thecommunity to use the land. Previous applications, granted by Bristol City Council, contravened thenow legally upheld meaning of this clause. If this new application is granted then Bristol CityCouncil will not be protecting the rights of the community, but protecting the interest of their non-

rental-paying tenants in degrading what was once an Important Open Space into a Closed Spaceinaccessible to the community.

The visual amenity that was Stoke Lodge was spoiled by the installation of a 1400+ metre, non-structural fence and 3 unplanned by approved CCTVs. The installation of a further CCTV at thetop of a pole between 4 and 12 metres high will be totally out of character with the adjacent GradeII listed Stoke Lodge and will detract from the already compromised views. If the pole and CCTVcan be seen by the surrounding community in their houses and gardens, what will the CCTV beable to focus on and record? From its planned position this CCTV will also have visual access tothe children's play park and other areas that lie outside the lease-line but which are enjoyed by thepublic.

What rights or protection will the public and community have from intrusive and objectionablesurveillance, and what redress will they have against the School which has stated, since theexisting CCTV units were installed, that the field is 'private property' and therefore 'not covered bySection 29 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 or its guiding principles because they are notapplicable to the school'.

The school has consistently ignored all reasonable approaches and is intent on securing the field,for whatever devious reason, so that it is unavailable for the local community to use and thisdirectly contravenes the terms and clauses of the lease it signed.

This planning application must be rejected, and the applicant severely censured or fined formaking a false declaration or providing false information.

Others have expressed their opposition to the application far better than I could ever dobut I would reiterate that the application does not explain why such surveillance is necessaryespecially of an important open space where the lease allows use by the community. There canbe no reason to install a camera capable of surveying families using the playpark activities orwalking in the surrounding area. If one were to be installed, presumably there would have to benotices all over the place telling people that they were under surveillance. In addition, it wouldseem that the camera is quite capable of infringing the privacy of houses outside of the parklanditself and there can surely be no need for these properties to be subjected to this interference.

A further objection, to which others have drawn attention, is the proximity of the camera to StokeLodge, an important listed building, which would have a deleterious effect on the curtilage of thehouse.

The proposed camera will be able to look into my property and gardens and is aninvasion of my privacy.

I have tried to copy and paste my objection here without success.I shall send a copy of my objection by post to you.

I feel that the installation of a CCTV camera is totally unnecessary to protect an area ofgrass.There are very few incidents of crime in the locality, it is surely one of the safest areas of Bristol.It would be an invasion of privacy for those using the playing field and for the nearby residents.It would also be an eyesore spoiling a much needed green space for the locality.It was my playing field when I attended Fairfield Grammar School when we had no need for fencesor cameras.

I wish to express my strong objection to this planning application. As a regular user ofthis public green space which is subject to two current TVG applications, I consider the installationof the proposed camera, etc, would be a serious threat to my personal privacy and other users ofthis wonderful public space. I can see no reason why such invasive equipment is required in apublic space, within an area of low crime.

I strongly object to this planning application. It is completely unnecessary. Furthermore,I would like to make the following points:

- Stoke Lodge is a grade 2 listed building. I own a grade 2 listed building and would not be allowedto install something like this anywhere near it, which I fully appreciate. I fail to see why the samerules shouldn't apply to Stoke Lodge.

- This is public land, in a very low crime area. It is completely unrequired.

- This represents a gross invasion of my privacy and that of many others, including users of theplay park and the adult learning centre. Depending on the height of this camera, it will be able tosee things it shouldn't, including into private residences. This surely is not acceptable.

- Cotham School use a tiny proportion of this land for a few hours a week during term time. Theland can be shared perfectly safely. This land should be shared, there is simply no justification atall to the contrary.

Finally, I would just like to comment that this application was put forward on 28th April, in the midstof the worst global pandemic this generation. Tens of thousands of people have already died inthe UK. To prevent access to public land during this time when the school isn't using it, and to tryand implement increased surveillance, is quite one of the most unpleasant acts I have heard of inmy 43 years.

There is no apparent need for more CCTV coverage at Stoke Lodge. This is part ofCotham schools overall plan to try and build a defence of their actions and alienate the localcommunity further.I also question why the school feels the need to spend such a large amount of money on theCCTV when it could be better spent on providing SEND facilities within the school.

I strongly object. I use this space with young children and I need to know who isaccessing this footage. I would need to know who, when and to what purpose.

This surveillance is necessary due to multiple acts of vandalism at the site. It's clearlyan emotive issue to many of the local residents but it seemsthis emotion is actually encouraging site damage unfortunately. The CCTV will protect the school'sproperty.

I am deeply concerned about this CCTV application for two reasons

1/ Privacy - This is a off campus site that in its lease has shared access with the community . ThisGreen Space ( before and after the fence) is a place local teenagers go to get away from theirparents . Its a place they go to mix together , share their first kiss , roll around in the grass togetherand just hang out . Girls and Women sunbath in this park and young men play football with theirtops off when the sun is out .This will all be recorded by Cotham School 24/7.It is their right of passage and should not be able to be monitored for 24/7 by a teacher or facilitymanager on their mobile phone app or laptop at school or even from the comfort of their ownhome any day of the weekend with these new technologies used .I am concerned that this camera and footage may be misused and teenagers as well as othermembers of the community may be spied upon .Now mission creep sets in and what started off as two cameras is now four cameras withoutpermission, application for five and what goes from archive feed leads to 'Live' feed streamed onstaff mobile phones .

I know nobody likes to talk about the P word but paedophilia in schools and churches is a very realconcern. It was only four years ago 2016 that here in Bristol at Clifton College a teacher was sentto prison for having footage (over 300 tapes and DVDs) of youngsters on site at schools in variousstages of undress .

I am NOT suggesting anyone past or present at Cotham school has been involved in any activitylike this . I take this very seriously having seen the damage this can do to young people .The worry is there lack of Surveillance Camera Code of Practice shown under section 29 of the

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the relevance is that the code emphasises that thesurveillance may interfere with the qualified right to respect for private and family life providedunder Article 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights in this application .

If Bristol City Council were to grant the application and footage of children fell into the wronghands would BCC be responsible once the lawyers got involved .Were is this data stored , is it secure ? . What if it the servers and cameras are hacked bypaedophiles either inside or outside the school ? If viewing at home on a mobile phone or Laptopcould a teacher or facilities mangers share this video or even just show unauthorised persons ?It is a dangerous precedent that I'm sure the NSPCC, ICO , CCTV watchdogs would take veryseriously cameras in shared access green space .

2/ Listed buildingThis Camera and pole is out of place next to a Grade II listed building and its Green Space setting.

I went to half a dozen Secondary schools in the Bristol area to look at their overt CCTVsurveillance equipment . By far Cotham School has more cameras at than any other by more than50% if not more . There may be a good reason for this (Is it student behaviour or external threats?) but it may also suggest the psyche of the management team at the school compared to all theother schools.Cotham School has a beautiful Art Deco building that stands out like a beacon but now the siteresembles a Young Offenders Institute with a plethora of CCTV surveillance . I frequent Ministry ofDefence bases with less overt CCTV on the same size footprint.

The University of Bristol Coombe Dingle Sports Complex is a multi-million pound sporting facilityless than 500m away from Stoke Lodge with expensive buildings and machinery . This complexhas no overt CCTV and has no or very little vandalism and has been here for decades with notrouble and fits in with the community .

Aesthetically this pole and camera is fit for a prison and is ugly and the location so close to such abeautiful listed building in a shared Green Space should be refused.Thankyou

I wish to add my objection to the many others that have already been submitted. I willnot re-iterate the very valid comments made by others but as mentioned by these other objectors:

- Any form of surveillance camera is both unnecessary and a breach of residents' privacy, both ofthose who live nearby and visitors to the parkland and play park.- No justification is given for the need for a camera in this location. Although some supporters ofthe application have quoted instances of vandalism, these claims do not appear to be supportedby any hard evidence.- The siting of the camera close to Stoke Lodge, an important local listed building, cannot bejustified.- There are severe flaws in the application form itself.

I strongly object to this planning application. The negative impact has been welldocumented within the many other objections already lodged, however my my main reasons are:-

The visual impact upon the Grade 2 listed Stoke Lodge building.

The invasion of privacy; Cotham School has previously advised the they do not follow theSurveillance Camera Code of Practice under section 29 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012.

There has been no demonstrable need for CCTV within this area.

The proposed location appears from the application maps, t be directly on a claimed public right ofway and is also on TVG application land.

I am a parent to a Year 7 pupil at Cotham School. I have been upset to hear of thevandalism targeted at the school playing fields, so fully support the installation of CCTV to assist intackling this issue. It is upsetting that some people don't seem to think Cotham School pupilsshould have the same access to safe sports facilities as those ar other schools, many of whichcater for more privileged children who, arguably, have less.need to access sports and ipen spacesthrough school.

I support this application as it is important to improve security at the Stoke LodgePlaying Fields. The fence has been repeatedly vandalised at the school's expense divertingessential funds from frontline education.

Cotham School have invested significant funds in developing their playing fields atStoke Lodge to ensure it meets DoE safeguarding requirements. As a parent it's vital that ourchildren can exercise in safe and secure environment and the upkeep of the fence is thereforeimportant. Recently the fence has sadly been subjected to repeated vandalism and the School hasto use valuable funds to repair and replace the fence. The CCTV camera is important to preventthis vandalism and will give everyone, including the local community, assurance that this needlessvandalism can be stopped.

I support the application for the extra CCTV camera which Cotham School wish toinstall at their playing field at Stoke Lodge. My father is an ex-teacher working in Withywood Bristolfor over 30 years, we are very well aware of the need for proper security during all aspects ofschool activity, none more so than when the students are taken to another school site for sport.When my father began teaching there was no security in schools whatsoever, he saw colleaguesassaulted by incomers, as well as students threatened, and targeted by riffraff who for obviousreasons were and are drawn to school premises. As stated by an acquaintance in a previoussupporting comment - I believe that objectors tend not to understand the difficulties schools face inprotecting their students and downplay the level of risk and the rightly very high expectations thatparents and carers have of the level of security that should be provided as a matter of course. Asa local community member and as a parent to two children at Cotham school I fully support theproposal.A walk around the school's playing fields at Stoke Lodge reveals that every school sign has beendamaged and there is the obvious eyesore of a burnt-out pavilion which confirms that it was not asafe space in the past either. The fence around it has been opened in several places and bent. Iknow that since the fence was put up there have been avid and constant surveillance of theschool's activities on the fields from the barrage of complaints on social media about what areperceived to be the school's misdemeanours. However, even such enthusiastic monitors and self-dubbed 'guardians' of the playing fields have never seen any of this vandalism taking place andsay that they do not know who the perpetrator(s) are. There is obviously therefore a major securityproblem which needs addressing urgently. The multiple cameras around Stoke Lodge ALC bearwitness to this also.

I am tired of reading about and seeing the relentless targeting and vandalising of thefence around Cotham School's playing fields. If the CCTV can act as a deterrent or even lead toprosecution then I am fully in support of it. The draining of school funds to repair the fence, gates& signs in order to maintain safeguarding is quite frankly is unacceptable.

I have 2 sons at Cotham School.The school's playing field has been subject to a significant amount of vandalism. The boundaryfences have been damaged so that the school has no control over who enters the fields.Repairing and replacing these fences is costly and the school has to use its own funds to do so.The legal position of the school to use this site is well documented.Installation of CCTV will hopefully deter further vandalism, or help identify those carrying out suchwilful damage.

Please support this planning application as the school is in desperate need of a safeplace for sport, and has battled endlessly to make this so, with a ridiculous amount of hurdles tojump over. I fully support Cotham and hope that this application will be passed.

As a parent of a child at Cotham School, I realise it is impt for health and wellbeing toundertake sports and can't do it because the fence panels have been stolen rendering the placeuseless.

Whilst an unfortunate step of CCTV and expense for the school it is necessary.

This CCTV camera will have a detrimental impact to the amenity of a Grade 2 listedbuilding.The suggested height of minimum 4 metres, but up to 12 metres, is wholly inappropriate for usenear a listed building.The type of pole proposed is typically used in prisons, car parks, border control etc, not in a quietand peaceful residential area of Bristol.

The land around Stoke Lodge is designated as Important Open Space in the Local Plan and hasbeen enjoyed by the community for over 70 years for recreation, leisure etc.Giving permission for a camera will increase unnecessary surveillance in this public area andcause concerns for usersof the play park, families using the field and users crossing the field to access the Adult LearningCentre.

Surveillance of families, children in the play area and even neighbouring properties is possible andan invasion of privacy.We are not living in a controlling dictatorship based on 1984. This would affect those using thearea,

causing unnecessary stress and concern on what should be personal or family relaxationactivities.

There are several errors in the application, the most concerning being that the applicants do NOTown the land as, stated.Secondly it states "trees within 200 metres". Technically true but there are trees of significance,

some protected, within nearer 20 metres rather than 200.

It is unclear what the need is for this camera and why it is being applied for now. CCTV is alreadyin place.The lower part of the field is hardly ever used by the school and the camera feed is not meant tobe monitored live.The timing of the proposal is inappropriate given the ongoing progress of the TVG and publicrights of way applications.

I would like to lodge my objection to this planning application.

This CCTV camera will have a detrimental impact to the amenity of a Grade 2 listed building. Thesuggested height of minimum 4 metres as well as the type of pole proposed, which is typicallyused in prisons, car parks etc, is wholly inappropriate for use near a listed building.

The land around Stoke Lodge is designated as Important Open Space in the Local Plan and hasbeen enjoyed by the community for over 70 years for recreation, leisure etc. Giving permission fora camera will increase unnecessary surveillance in this public area and cause concerns for usersof the play park, families using the field and users crossing the field to access the Adult LearningCentre.

It is unclear what the need is for this camera and why it is being applied for now. The lower part ofthe field is hardly ever used by the school and the camera feed is not meant to be monitored liveanyway. The timing of the proposal is inappropriate given the ongoing progress of the TVG andpublic rights of way applications.

I strongly object to the proposed erection of this mast for a number of reasons.1. The erection of a CCTV mast in this situation adjacent to a listed building flies completely in theface of why such a building is listed in the first place and would significantly change the visualimpact of what was once a very elegant grand house.2. Further extensive CCTV monitoring by one of the two parties tasked with sharing this publicspace is an unreasonable, intimidating and threatening action.3. Because the space is shared and accessible to the public at times during the day, it is aninvasion of our privacy to be recorded in this way, to which I strongly object. I am not walking onprivate property, but rather am doing so on land to which I have a shared right of access.4. What is the purpose of CCTV monitoring and whose safety are we protecting? I do not needprotecting when walking in the open air. Other public spaces do not need CCTV monitoring tocover their whole area, so why Stoke Lodge?

I strongly object to the erection of a CCTV pole by Stoke Lodge house.

Firstly: the erection of this unsightly pole would affect the setting of the grade 2 listed building ieStoke Lodge House. An ugly 4-12 metre high pole that is mainly used to protect prisons, railwaystations, car parks etc is is over-bearing, and out of character and will certainly not enhance thebeautiful ambiance of Stoke Lodge house and its surrounding fields.

Bristol's own Planning Policy BCS22 states that 'Development proposals will safeguard orenhance heritage assets and the character and setting of areas of acknowledged importanceincluding... historic buildings both nationally and locally listed'.

This CCTV pole certainly fails to do that.

Secondly: I think there is a Privacy issue which is covered under the Human Rights Act Article 8 ofthe Act entitled "The Right to Respect for private and Family Life" .

The camera at a height of 4-12m would easily be able to see into many of the houses surroundingthe field, those in The Cottages adjacent to Ebeneezer Lane, Stoke Paddock Road andShirehampton Road, particularly in the winter when the trees are bare. There is no certainty at allthat Cotham school would not accidentally tilt a camera by a few degrees enabling them to viewinto the houses on these roads. I feel this is would be a real breach of privacy.

Stoke Lodge is available under the lease for use by the Community and as such when I am onStoke Lodge I do not wish to filmed and monitored for no acceptable reason. Cotham school haveno right or need to do this. Their school children are very rarely even on this part of the field, andwhen they are they should be supervised by staff, not cameras.

I also think that the camera would be capable of filming the use of the children's playground and Ithink this is totally unacceptable for the children using this facility.

I also think people should be able to come and go from Stoke Lodge House without surveillance,it's a breech of their privacy for no good reason.

What happens to the photos taken, who is looking at the images and for what purpose?

Thirdly: Policy DM17 also applies to this Important Open Space and states that 'Development onpart, or all, of an Important Open Space as designated on the Policies Map will not be permittedunless the development is ancillary to the open space use'.

Stoke Lodge field is not part of Cotham school. It is used by the school and the public have right ofaccess. Permitting intrusive CCTV surveillance of open space designated for recreation, leisureand community use would conflict with policy DM17.

I object to the installation of a CCTV camera system as outlined in the planningapplication, for a number of reasons.

1. Detrimental effect on a listed building and surrounding historic parklandThe planning application states that the camera pole will be 4-12m high: therefore it must beassumed that the pole may be as much as 12m high when considering the application.Stoke Lodge House is a listed building. A camera pole, such as that proposed with highlyaggressive spikes is clearly detrimental to the visual amenity of Stoke Lodge House and thesurrounding historic parkland, contrary to the The National Planning Policy Framework and BristolCity Council's own Planning Policy BCS22.A 12m high pole would dominate the whole area, over-shadowing not only Stoke Lodge House butalso the fields.

2. Contrary to Bristol City Council's Policy DM17Installation of a CCTV camera is not 'ancillary to the open space use': BCC Policy explicitly statesthat if this is not the case then such development will not be permitted.

3. Loss of privacy and overlookingThe camera brochure provided with the application depicts a typical pan-tilt camera. Suchcameras usually also have zoom capability. Therefore it must be assumed that if this application isgranted the applicant will be free to install a camera with these capabilities.I have taken photographs, taken from approximately 2m high, from the position of the proposed

camera pole (as best I can ascertain from the application).The photographs are standard high-definition resolution (as is normally used now with CCTVcameras) and were not taken with a particularly long lens (140mm).The lack of foliage in winter time would mean that almost all the rear bedrooms of the houses inStoke Paddock Road, Shirehampton Road and The Cottages on Ebenezer Lane would be clearlyvisible, particularly if a light was on in the bedroom as would be the case in the darker wintermonths. With a 12m high pole the camera would also be able to see down into gardens andground floor rooms.

As I cannot attach the photographs to this comment I have sent the photographs by email todevelopment.management@bristol.gov.ukattention Patrick Boxwell.In the photographs for the sake of the privacy of the householders I have obscured the bedroomwindows but a CCTV camera would have clear sight into these bedrooms.

As also shown by the photographs the CCTV camera would also have clear over-sight of thechildren's playground and everyone walking on the fields as well as areas outside.The public has a right to use the fields, as stated in the Cotham School lease and as such are apublic space, as are the areas outside the fence which will be surveilled from such a camera,contrary to the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice.

Given the sloped ground of the fields, if the CCTV camera is pointing towards the fence adjacentto The Cottages on Ebenezer Lane, then panning the camera to the left will inevitably mean that itthen sees into the rear bedrooms of the houses on Stoke Paddock Road.The applicant has offered no means to prevent this; probably because it is not feasible to do so. Ifthe CCTV camera is pointed such that it only sees up to the top edge of the fence adjacent toStoke Paddock Road, if the camera is tilted up by only 1 degree the camera will then see into thebedrooms.

4. Lack of legitimate aim and no pressing needThe applicant has provided no justification, pressing need nor legitimate reason for installing aCCTV system: this is the most fundamental element of legal compliance (Article 8 of the EuropeanCharter of Human Rights and other legislation).Stoke Bishop has one of the lowest crime levels in Bristol.

In the photographs for the sake of the privacy of the householders I have obscured the bedroom windows but a CCTV camera would have clear sight into these bedrooms. As also shown by the photographs the CCTV camera would also have clear over-sight of the children's playground and everyone walking on the fields as well as areas outside. The public has a right to use the fields, as stated in the Cotham School lease and as such are a public space, as are the areas outside the fence which will be surveilled from such a camera, contrary to the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice. Given the sloped ground of the fields, if the CCTV camera is pointing towards the fence adjacent to The Cottages on Ebenezer Lane, then panning the camera to the left will inevitably mean that it then sees into the rear bedrooms of the houses on Stoke Paddock Road. The applicant has offered no means to prevent this; probably because it is not feasible to do so. If the CCTV camera is pointed such that it only sees up to the top edge of the fence adjacent to Stoke Paddock Road, if the camera is tilted up by only 1 degree the camera will then see into the bedrooms. Regards, Thomas Dove

This simply rubs salt into the wound of having our access to open parkland restricted bythe woeful fence. I object to the infringement on my right to walk around without being monitoredBig Brother style. This is England, not North Korea!

This is unacceptable to put up a camera in Stoke Lodge, it's an invasion privacy in apublic space.

Spending our tax money again - Bristol Council should use our tax money in more useful areaslike increasing public transport.

Stoke Lodge is a large space for neighbours to use for walking and activity for family around thesearea.

Why don't council spending money refurbish playground areas and making them bigger forchildren.

If they are concerned about children safety!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am writing to object to the application made by Cotham School to erect a pole andCCTV camera in the grounds of Stoke Lodge. This land is designated as an Important OpenSpace in the local plan, which has been used and enjoyed by the community for decades. StokeLodge is a Grade 2 listed building and the position, and height of this type of pole and CCTVcamera proposed here have no place in such a beautiful environment.

BCC as landowner of Stoke Lodge, has a duty to act in the public interest and enforce the terms ofthe lease. So far this has not been the case. The lease states that the school's rights under thelease are 'subject to all existing rights and use of the property including use by the community' Is itright that a school from 3 miles away, can use surveillance like this on a community that onlywished to share and continue enjoying the land with the school. This CCTV Camera would be anintrusion and is very concerning for the users of the play park, families using the field (as is ourright stated in the lease) and anyone crossing the field to go to the ALC.

What is the reason given for the need of such an unsightly camera and pole? The bottom half ofthe field has hardly ever been used by the school and another consideration is, the back of thehouses on Stoke Park Rd, would their private family life be under surveillance too? What is the'pressing' need for this CCTV, it surely can't be for the pupils benefit, as they have hardly everused this portion of the land, and the feed is allegedly not monitored live. So what is the purpose?

Lastly, there is a TVG application in process, therefore is it an appropriate time for the school to bespending even more money without knowing what the outcome will be. Surely not.

Please BCC do the right thing for this community, do not grant permission to Cotham School forthis unsightly looking camera and pole and please enforce the terms of the lease.

Yours faithfullyCamilla Jefferson

As a resident I wish to object to the fence around Stoke Lodge for several reasons.1 The fence now enclosing Stoke Lodge park seems like an unjustified and unjustifiableappropriation. Residents of the area are very happy for others living further afield to use it as well.We never claimed authority over it. The fence has now however shut off Stoke Lodge to localpeople both by physically keeping us out and emotionally by symbolising how somehow we areunwelcome.2 As I understand, the fence went ahead without the approrpiate procedure having beencompleted.3 At a time when school budgets are eever more stretched, I question whether this apporach wasreally a wise investment. Could the goal of using the field safely not ahve been much moreeffecitvely reached by talking with local residents, explaining the situation, and gathering support?4 The use of the field by Cotham School does not seem to require a fence at all or to justify one.THe school children cannot be at risk in ways that a fence would prevent. What is more, the sizeof the area enclosed by the fence means that if they were free to go anywhere with in itsboundaries a large number of adults would be needed to ensure their safety . The fence is nottherefore keeping out dnagers from a controllable space.5 The security camera which has appeared lately seems unjustified. The type of camera installedis not typical for such purposes and conveys hte impression that those around the park are allcriminals.6 Cotham School promised that the gate providing access through the fence would be unlocked atcertain times over the weekend. Regularly I would find that it was in fact locked. The trust of localresidents has been eroded and the impression of disregard strenghtned by this cavalier attitude.7 The fence has created access problems for disadvantaged local residents. The people usingStoke Lodge --including crossing it--are not necessarily affluent or without special caring, mental

hearlth, or other needs conditions that are exacerbated by the fence. Was an assessmentconducted to assess how people in legally protected groups and other marginalised persons mightbe impacted? In sum, I feel the actions taken and process followed by Cotham School isquestionable on the grounds of process and justification and certainly not the only or the best wayof achieving its goal.

I strongly object to the planning application for CCTV on Stoke Lodge.

The application should be rejected for several reasons as set out below.

1. Visual Amenity and the detrimental impact of the proposed camera.

The camera's noted location is next to Stoke Lodge House, a Grade II listed building. The Houseis set in Stoke Lodge a large expanse of open green space which has been designated asImportant Open Space.

In the data sheet submitted with the application it states the supporting pole for the camera is 4mto 12m tall and typically used in industrial and commercial premises, prisons and detentioncentres.

It is completely inappropriate in the setting of a Grade II listed building and the surroundingcurtilage of the parkland. It would be a complete eyesore and totally out of character with all itssurroundings.

In 2018 Cotham School applied for planning permission by for a sign by Stoke Lodge House andthat application was rightly rejected by Councillors who stated the sign was misleading andthreatening.

The proposed camera is far more intrusive and visually threating than a sign and must thereforefollowing the precedent already set have the planning application rejected on that basis alone.

2. There are serious privacy issues about the possibility of having a CCTV camera on StokeLodge.

In the application it says the camera will cover the lower end of the playing field and the cameradata sheet says it is a tilt and turn camera. This means due to its height (4 -12m) it will be able toview the houses and gardens of Stoke Paddock Road, Shirehampton Road, the houses oppositeStoke Lodge House in West Dene and the children's play area.

The school has confirmed that it does not follow the surveillance camera code of practice. Thisraises serious questions about privacy. Who will be monitoring and controlling the camera ? Whatwill be done with any recordings ? How will the data be stored ? Who will have access to it ? Howwill sharing it be prevented ? Apparently, the school's facilities manager can view the images fromhis house, surely this is completely inappropriate bearing in mind what it can view.

This is a gross invasion of privacy.

3. There is not a legitimate need for a camera.

The school rarely use the playing fields, especially the lower field. As this is the case what are theschool intending to watch ?Stoke Bishop is a low crime area. The Police have confirmed there have been no reports ofantisocial behaviour. So what is the point of a highly intrusive camera ?

The terms of the lease given to Cotham School from the landlord, Bristol City Council (BCC) statethat the land is, "subject to all existing rights and use of the property including use by thecommunity."

Why do Cotham School think they have a need to monitor and record members of the localcommunity walking, jogging, exercising and lawfully enjoying the Important Open Space of StokeLodge ?

The school claim in their support of the application that there have been acts of vandalism againstthe fence they erected around Stoke Lodge. To put this in context, immediately after the coronavirus lockdown was announced, Cotham School, in breach of the terms of the lease giving thecommunity rights of access to Stoke Lodge, unilaterally locked all the access gates to thisImportant Open Space.

Then apparently there were two incidents reported in March, '20, where the fence was opened.

There have been no incidents of opening the fence prior to this lock out by Cotham School.

If the school was a responsible and reasonable body it would unlock all the access gates andallow people access as it is required to do. Why won't it do the right thing at a time of Nationalcrisis ?

However, despite the schools immoral and disreputable actions in breaching the lease, that is aseparate matter and not a planning issue that should be considered in this application. The issueis that there is no overriding need for an intrusive camera.

4. Cotham School, despite what they say, do not own Stoke Lodge, they have a lease on it fromBristol City Council (BCC) who is the landlord. The terms of the lease state that the land is,"subject to all existing rights and use of the property including use by the community."

The Department for Education (Dfe) have also confirmed previously that Stoke Lodge is a, "sharedfacility that the school makes use of alongside others." It is not School premises. This has alsobeen confirmed in parliament in a written response to the local MP.

Stoke Lodge is a public space and BCC as landowner and leaseholder have a duty to act in thepublic interest and exercise meaningful control over the surveillance of a public space. There is nopublic interest in an intrusive CCTV camera in Stoke Lodge.

This application should be rejected.

There are already a large number of well-made objections to this planning application,and so what follows is just an overview of some of the key points:1. The proposed pole and CCTV would be completely out of character with the environment andcharacter of Stoke Lodge (SL) as a historic Grade II listed building and site which is ImportantOpen Space (which it very much is for the local community, and is designated as such in the LocalPlan). SL is not a prison, commercial car park, railway station etc, and such an arrangement iswholly inappropriate to the setting.2. Surveillance on this scale and with this level of intrusiveness has implications to the rights toprivacy for all users at Stoke Lodge, as well as potentially neighbouring properties. Localcommunity groups could find it difficult to continue using SL in these circumstances, and it is hardto believe this is either legal (under the European Charter of Human Rights) or justified. Theschool does not seem to believe it has to adhere to the Surveillance Camera Code of Practiceunder section 29 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, or any other code and it is known thatemployees have access to existing CCTV footage from their home. This is unacceptable on manylevels.3. The context is an issue: Cotham School refuse to accept the terms of their own lease with BCC,with regard to the rights of the community - clause 2.1 of the lease states that the school's rightsunder the lease are 'subject also to all existing rights and use of the property including use by thecommunity'. This is not school property or the school's outdoor classroom to do with as they wish,and they have repeatedly shut out and alienated the local community in contravention of the lease.

4. As a result of point 3 above, there are currently TVG and PROW applications pending. Usingpublic funds on inappropriate surveillance measures in these circumstances is not actingresponsibly with the public purse.

5. There are various basic errors in the application, which call into question the accuracy andtherefore competence of the school in making this application.As landowner, BCC has the right and duty (acting in the public interest) to exercise meaningfulcontrol over the level of surveillance at SL, and I would urge you to reject this application.

I object to this application.

The proposed camera, mounting and tall pole are completely inappropriate given their proximity toStoke Lodge House, which is a listed building. The presence of a camera would ruin the currentpleasant visual appearance of the House, its surroundings and seamlessly attached parkland. Thesite is of considerable historical and cultural significance and is inextricably linked with the socialdevelopment of this part of Bristol. In planning terms, the presence of the camera on aincongruous pole would seriously affect "Views from, towards, through, across and including theasset" (asset = Stoke Lodge House and parkland); detract from Stoke Lodge House's "Visualdominance, prominence or role as focal point", ruin the "Sense of enclosure, seclusion, intimacy orprivacy" that is currently evident, both on the parkland and in the niche areas within and around it,particularly close to the House; negatively affect the "Accessibility, permeability and patterns ofmovement" currently enjoyed and exercised by members of the public within an important openspace.

Given the capabilities and height of the proposed camera it will be able to record live footage ofareas that are legally accessible to the public, both within and outside of the fence. Citizens inmany areas potentially covered by the camera will not be aware of its reach, capabilities forrecording and powerful facial recognition. For example, the playpark, people walking alongEbenezer Lane, visiting Stoke Lodge House or its gardens or invading the privacy of residentswho live in properties that abut Stoke Lodge. Some limited signage seems inadequate to cover allof these cases. There is clearly a risk that people having nothing to do with or do not access StokeLodge will be videoed without their permission or knowledge and this seems wrong (especiallysince Cotham School does not adhere to the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice).

I am concerned at the accuracy of the application. In section 6 "Existing Use", the question isasked "Please describe the current use of the site" and the answer "School Playing Field". It istrue that one of the uses of the field is as a school playing field. However, the site has many uses,such as an adult education centre, childrens' playpark and use by the general public, both insideand outside of the fence, for a wide variety of legitimate reasons. Fundamentally, all the users ofStoke Lodge that are not associated with Cotham School have been ignored by this application:they have not been consulted on the plans nor on operation of the camera.

I object to this proposal. This local space is for local residents as well as others withsporting interests. The addition of cctv and a pole over 4 metres height is unacceptable andunnecessary and commits an intrusion on private lives. The site so close to a listed building wouldbe unaesthetic and out of keeping with the appearance of the Dtoke Lodge grade 2 listed building..the site in the planning application and the location map are different.Council duty towards this important open space and used by residents for over 70 years and assuch the terms of the lease have been totally ignored. In my view the school lease should becancelled as it does not uphold the terms of the lease.

Dear Sir/Madam

As a local resident that frequents stoke lodge playing fields with my young children I object to theeye sore that this will create particularly right next to a listed building.

I further object to being recorded and monitored with my children when using the field andsurrounding areas this is an infringement of privacy and a horrible feel to be videoed without mypermission.

Kind Regards

Abigail

I wish to object to the recent planning application, from Cotham School for an additionalCCTV at Stoke Lodge Parkland. Many valid issues have already been raised for consideration,therefore I would like to emphasise some of those already listed.

1. The applicant is not the owner of the site, nor is it school premises.

2. The application contravenes rules and regulations around Grade 11 listed properties.

3. This application does not appear to follow council or government rules concerning CCTVprotocols which affect both private and public areas.

4. The position of the proposed CCTV is situated outside the back walled car park by Stoke LodgeEducation Centre, with the land dropping at least 2-3 metres in elevation to the bottom of the field,which overlooks those properties on Stoke Paddock Road at the end of the field. This means anyCCTV will have an additional outlook over and above the actual height of the CCTV pole. This willbecome even more obvious in the winter once the summer foliage has died back.

5. This CCTV will therefore be able to see straight into private properties on three sides of thefield, including Ebenezer Lane which is a public walkway, especially as it has a swivel capability.This will constitute a gross invasion of privacy. The controller of the CCTV will therefore be able toview into private properties surrounding this field from a home residence as will others in theresidence at any time of the day or night. This cannot be permitted.

6. The CCTV will also have views of the children's play area, yet another potential misuse of any

CCTV coverage and must constitute a further intrusion of privacy. Is this bordering on illegal?

Please consider the above comments and many others already raised and reject this applicationfor the sake of decency as well as personal and public privacy.

I have two key objections to the proposed security camera:(i) its impact on Stoke Lodge which is a fine Grade II listed building. The appearance of thesecurity camera is totally incongruous to the adjacent buildings; and(ii) the potential gross intrusion on the privacy of both users of Stoke Lodge and the residentssurrounding the Stoke Lodge park lands.

Thank you for contacting me, and for inviting my comments on the above application. Iwrite as a neighbour of Stoke Lodge Playing Fields, and I wish to object in the strongest possibleterms to this spurious, factually incorrect application.

There are many reasons for objecting to this application, but I will confine myself to just two: thecamera itself and its setting.

1) I do not understand why a camera is required. The application states that the purpose of thehigh rise camera is to cover the lower end of the playing field and the area around the base of thepole. Why? Where is the evidence in the application that there is an urgent need for a lighting poleand surveillance camera in this very, very low crime area known as Stoke Bishop? The applicantstates that the area is Sea Mills, and this is simply untrue.

2) I note that the application is for a pan/tilt camera, so it would be safe to assume that it would beable to look in different directions and at different angles. This means that the camera will also belooking into the rear gardens of the houses along Stoke Paddock Road, and also into houses onShirehampton Road. I do not wish my privacy to be invaded in this way, and I cannot imagineanyone else would either.

3) There is also the very serious question of intrusion into the privacy of the Children's Play Parkarea. This is a much loved and well used facility by local families. Is it right that innocent children,and their young parents, should be spied on this way? I am aware that Cotham Academy'sfacilities manager, Nathan Allen, would be able to access the camera's CCTV feed from his home,day or night, and I do not believe that this should be allowed.

4) Stoke Lodge is a grade 2 listed building and the grounds within its curtilage are designated asan important green space within the Local Plan. How can a high rise camera, with or withoutspikes on top, which is typically installed in prisons and detention centres be appropriate for thisbeautiful, historically important area? It beggars belief that anyone should even begin tocontemplate such an application as this, unless they have complete contempt for the community,or are completely lacking in aesthetic sensibilities.

It is for these reasons that I urge Bristol City Council's Development Management Team to rejectthis application without delay.

Sincerely

Alan W Preece

Attachment: 1.Letter from Director of Legal Services

2. Definitive map associated with the PROW application

I wish to object to this planning application on the following grounds:

Applicant:The applicant is listed on the form as Nathan Allen who is employed as the Facilities Manager ofCotham School. He is not however the owner of the site in question - even though the answergiven on section #25 of the form explicitly certifies that he is claiming to be the owner.

Stoke Lodge Field belongs to the Bristol City Council. Cotham School only have a lease allowingthem to use the field for sports activities "Subject to all existing rights and uses of the propertyincluding use by the Community" (section 2.1 of their lease).

I believe that it's actually an offence under section 65(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act(1990) to issue a false certificate of ownership either knowingly or recklessly when making aplanning application. What is more it's the second time this particular individual has done so. Onlylast September 2019, BCC planning department received another Application #19/04039/VP byNathan Allen asking permission to cut back branches on a TPO protected ash tree in order toimprove sightlines for yet another CCTV surveillance camera on the West Dene side of the site.On that application Mr Nathan Allen claimed to be the 'owner' of the tree in question

A written statement subsequently issued by BCC read -> "We write to advise you the aboveapplication has been cancelled for the following reason - The Local Planning Authority hasestablished that an incorrect ownership declaration has been made"

Given the long history of specious claims of ownership at Stoke Lodge by Nathan Allen, may I

request that you throw this application out immediately, and also consider prosecuting him for hisrepeated abuse of planning procedure protocols ?

Premises:In his application, Mr Nathan Allen states that the camera "Will not cover areas outside the schoolpremises". Given that the premises of Cotham School are actually located almost three milesaway from Stoke Lodge in BS6, it is rather hard to understand how he plans to achieve thisremakable feat.It would require a camera with a truly exceptional telephoto lens to image theschool premises from Stoke Lodge.

Stoke Lodge is not part of the premises of Cotham School. It never has been and it never will beeither. The factual authority for this rests on an answer to a written parliamentary question givenby the Rt Hon Nick Gibb Minister for Schools in November 2018 which answered a query from ourown local MP Mr Darren Jones, by confirming that Stoke Lodge was not deemed to be part of thepremises of Cotham School because it was a detached site used solely for PE, and for less than50% of the relevant time by the school (Cotham School actually use the site for less than 10% ofthe relevant time).

Amenity:According to the application, the proposed location for this camera tower is in close proximity toStoke Lodge House which is a grade II listed building dating from 1836. From the informationavailable to date, the structure would involve a profoundly ugly 4+ metre tall metal column withanti-climb spikes at the top supporting a tilt and pan security CCTV. Unless you happen to believethat a brutalist prison camp aesthetic is somehow consistent with the arcadian vision of a plantedarboretum originally enacted within the curtilage of Stoke Lodge back in the 19th century, then it isdifficult to imagine how such a CCTV installation could add to or improve the visual amenity of thesite. Most reasonable people I submit would conclude that it would do the exact opposite.

It is noteworthy that on the form the applicant has ticked NO to :- Section #8 which asks if there any new public rights of ways to be provided within and adjacentto the site (There are in fact multiple relevant TVG and PROW applications in progress).- Section #10 which explicitly asks if there are trees and hedges on land adjacent to the site thatmight be important as part of the local landscape character (The entire site is a historic plantedarboretum and park).- Section #12 which asks if there are any biodiversity conservation features that might need to betaken into account. (There are live badger setts, fox dens and Noctule bat roosts in close proximityto the proposed site of the new CCTV camera).

Purpose:The stated purpose of the new camera tower in Section #5 of the form is "to cover the lower end ofthe playing field (behind Stoke Paddock) and the immediate area around the base of the pole"

In reality Cotham School simply do not use these areas of the field for any of their regular PEactivities. The pupils are only ever seen in those lower parts of SL when they are being sent off on'Treasure Hunts' looking for numbered question boards.

Several months ago Cotham School went to the expense of marking out new pitches and installingseveral new sets of football goalposts and nets in the lower Stoke Paddock end of the field. Butthey subsequently *never* used them ! Not once ! Not even when they actually had pupils on thefield playing games of football. They played those games using yellow plastic poles as goalpostson makeshift pitches in the upper half of the field near the white mower shed instead.

The newly marked pitches in the lower field were left completely unused until the goalposts weretaken down again in April. Local residents believe that the new pitches were erected purely forshow, and that the entire basis of this latest CCTV planning application is completely specious,and without any factual basis at all in terms of improving the management of Cotham School's PEactivities - because they simply don't use the entire lower half of the field to start with.

Claims made by Cotham School that an extra CCTV camera is somehow needed to fight crimeare at variance with official police crime statistics for this area. BS9 has one of the lowest levels ofcrime in the entire city, with just two reported incidences of criminal activity around Stoke LodgeField in March 2020. Given that the school already have four CCTV cameras on site, it is difficultto understand why they think they now need another, or why installing a fifth would make theslightest difference.

Cotham School have a long history of inventing entirely fictional claims about the level of 'threat'they supposedly face from from local residents in BS9. But whenever Cotham School have beenchallenged to substantiate these lurid claims they have failed to do so.

On two occasions within the last year Cotham School have accused local residents of inflictingcriminal vandalism at Stoke Lodge, only for it to emerge that it was the school's own employees orcontractors who were responsible for the damage in question.

When is this going to stop?

Over the past year + this area has slowly been allowed to lose all natural character- the hugefence, the locked gates. The recent installation of huge security cameras are ugly, out of characterfor the area, completely disproportionate and have questionnable use.

This is a precious area of green space which should be maximised for the use of all. Instead itsbeen systematically removed from public use and this is the latest tool to do this.

As a local resident, I object to the proposed installation of this CCTV pole and cameraon the following grounds:1. excessively high and inappropriate pole and camera2. invasion of privacy of neighbouring properties and community members using the area forleisure and recreation

This is an astonishing invasion of privacy in the local community. The camera will focusstraight on to front windows and gardens of houses opposite, and many others when the leavesare off the trees in the winter.

The only insured property they can be worried about must be the machinery in the old shed, at theother end of the field, which is already under CCTV camera "protection". If the school compliedwith the terms of its lease, there would be no problem at all over community access, and peoplewould respond accordingly.

The community are a responsible and appreciative group of people who want nothing more thantheir right to enjoy their parkland when not in use by the school. Such a simple thing to arrange,particularly now lock down travel restrictions are no longer in place for staff, and also in view of theoffer to provide local key holders. We greatly resent the idea of introducing yet another camera -so close to the play area and also unsightly in proximity to the Listed Buildings of Stoke LodgeAdult education centre.

It displays a complete lack of understanding of what the school's behaviour should be within thecommunity. We used to welcome the sight of the youngsters playing on the field (and still do) andalways kept at a respectful distance if using the area for a walk ourselves without being filmedwithout any personal consent.

During WW2, Polish fighter pilots told me and my father of the surveillance of villages by theGestapo in Poland. If approved, this will give our parkland a feeling of being in a Police State -there is absolutely no reason for Cotham School to keep any of this area under surveillance, it

must be costing them a lot of money, and they are contravening the terms of their Lease. Thecommunity find it difficult to understand why they refuse the simple request to use the field duringthe time the school is not using it. It seems totally unreasonable and quite stupid.

Thank you.R. K. Davey(R.I.C.S. Retired)

1. The Applicant refers to this site as "school premises" which is wrong and referencesto the need for security are misleading, and should be ignored.2. The applicant has not justified a "pressing need" for this additional camera, having confirmed inprevious applications( for 3 cameras) that no more applications would follow.3. The camera proposed is potentially a substantial structure up to 12 m high and totally unsuitableto place in the environs of a Grade 2 listed building.4. The camera proposed is motorized and able to view far beyond the area proposed in thedocumentation. The control and monitoring of this camera and the competency, training, andsecurity applied to the data, must be questioned. This proposed camera is totally inappropriate forthis application and setting.5. The site in question is currently under an application for Village Green Status and whilst thelegality of Cotham Schools tenure is in doubt I think this application should be set aside.6. For the above reasons I wish to object to the application

The camera equipment will be an invasion of privacy to all non-school users in the area, includinglocal neighbours and children.

The proposed CCTV camera and pole is not in keeping with the character and setting of a listedbuilding and parkland.

Objection to Camera

I object to installation of the proposed camera because:

1) The field does not belong to Cotham School and it is not part of the School's premises.

First of all, I would like to point out that the land is not owned by Nathen Allen or Cotham School.The field belongs to the Bristol City Council. Cotham School only have a lease allowing them touse the field for sports activities "Subject to all existing rights and uses of the property includinguse by the Community".

Please note that Stoke Lodge Field is not part of the premises of Cotham School. Stoke Lodge is a'shared facility that the school makes use of alongside others', not school premises. The field is 3miles away from the school and children have to be brought there by bus.

2) The school claims that the camera is needed to tackle vandalism. This is probably due to issuesassociated with the Corona Virus crisis. Instead of seeking to install surveillance cameras theschool should comply with its lease and unlock the gates. The application fails to demonstrate theneed for this surveillance of a public space and private residential properties in one of the lowestcrime areas in Bristol.

According to the lease, the field should be accessible by the public at any time. Public access is alegal requirement under the lease. Council enforces it in line with its fiduciary duty to act in thepublic interest. At the moment the Council is failing lamentably in this duty.

3) The proposed pole appears to be sited directly on a public right of way and Bristol City Council'sown published information suggests that an application to register a public right of way should beprioritised if it is affected by a planning application or development proposal. The Council, aslandowner, has the right and duty (acting in the public interest) to exercise meaningful control overthe level of surveillance of a public space.

4) The school's Data Privacy Impact Assessment (DPIA) confirms that the CCTV would be in use24/7. Although the DPIA states that it is not monitored 'live' unless there is an ongoing incident. Itis known that the school's facilities manager is able to log on from home and access the CCTVfeed.The school has specifically confirmed that it does not follow the Surveillance Camera Code ofPractice even though this is standard practice in most other schools. There is also evidence of theschool breaching its own policy in its use of, and sharing of, CCTV images. The community doesnot have confidence in the school's proper handling of data.This gives great concern in that the school can observed the public when on the field whenexercising their rights as per section 2.1 of the lease.The application states that it will be positioned to cover the lower field behind Stoke Paddock Roadand the area around the base of the pole, but not areas outside of the school's leased area.However, to do this there will be a telephoto lens on the camera as the fence is several hundredmetres from the proposed location. Furthermore, there is a considerable slope down from thecamera to the fence. Hence the camera will also have a view into the houses and gardens onShirehampton Road, Stoke Paddock Road and the cottages off Ebenezer Lane. In addition, thecamera will have access to the children's play area which is disturbing.5) I would also like to object to the size and location of the pole and camera and its proximity toStoke Lodge, a Grade II listed property. I know of problems associated with trying to put a bicyclerack next to Stoke Lodge because of the listing, this is a far greater intrusion.

I object totally to the camera. Why is it needed? The school only use a small fraction of the field. Iwould also like to object to the other CCTV cameras, particularly the one sited on the old changingrooms which were installed without planning scrutiny.

The field is subject to two Town / village Green applications and a public right of way application.

I object to this Application on the following grounds:

The Application should not have been registered as valid for the following reasons:- The applicant's address is incorrectly stated as being the site address;- There is insufficient information given on the data sheet regarding the CCTV pole andequipment. It simply states the pole will be between 4m and 12m high. Clarification is needed onthis for the Application to be considered;- Under the heading "Description" the applicant states "... the camera will not cover areas outsideof the school premises". This is incorrect, as the camera will cover the Children's Play Area andadjoining residential properties.- The Application land is subject to two validly registered TVG Applications, and Public Rights ofWay Applications.- The Application should be rejected pending the outcome of these Applications.

My objections are that the pole and camera will be detrimental to the visual amenity close to aGrade II listed building and its setting.

The installation and use of the camera will be an invasion of privacy of the users of the Children'sPlay Area and occupiers of adjoining residential properties.

Please refuse this Application.

Sharon Parsons

I write regarding the application of yet another camera this time a huge mast very closethe the historic Stoke Lodge house.I understand Cotham school already have cameras on the derelict pavilion and the white buildingnear Parry's Lane.I certainly think they are totally unnecessary and a total invasion of our privacy. These camerascould pick up anyone in the lanes and very narrow paths near but also can see the houses nearand their bedrooms. These cameras I'm told are monitored by the caretaker Nate in his home byhis own admission. To me that is horrific. Children playing can be observed too.The same would apply to a new mast near Stoke Lodge with the children's playground undersurveillance plus the open space and paths around.Apart from that the mast would be very ugly on or near the lovely Stoke Lodge.My objections are1. The school only use the top part of parkland and that is rarely so why a camera on the lowerarea needed2. In the lease signed by you and Cotham there is a right of use for the public when they are noton site. The general public do not need to be watched by members of Cotham.3. The ugly nature of a camera on high mast near our heritage Stoke Lodge House and parkland.4. Total waste of school funds to pay for this mast camera etc which indirectly I am paying forthrough my rates.I STRONGLY OBJECT to the request by Cotham for this or any other camera at Stoke Lodge. It istime the Councillors took note of all the rule breaking of Cotham and used their authority toenforce the public rights in their lease.Gill Cleverdon

I object to the installation of a CCTV camera for the following reasons:1) Appearance of the field2) Invasion of privacy both for people using the field and in some people's gardens (not mine, butstill the intention is the same)

It's an illegal fence and an illegal camera. I think these Cotham guys have a mentaldisorder and should be tested. Councillors should be ashamed - I can only assumed that they areassuming to build on the site and get some cash? Corrupt or what?

This is really unnecessary. Local people should not be spied upon. This land should befor common use and for the school too. A camera makes criminals where there aren't any.

I object to the Planning Application because of inaccuracies within the applicationdocument itself, and because of my wish to record my total opposition to the installation of yetanother CCTV.

Section 2 - Applicant Details: Nathan Allen states he is the applicant and his company or employeris Cotham School, yet in Section 25 he states that he is 'a person with a freehold interest orleasehold interest' as the applicant. Cotham School is the owner of the relevant certificates soNathan Allen appears to be stating he IS Cotham School and NOT an employee of the school.

Section 5 - Description of the Proposal: 'The works are to install a CCTV pole and camera" but inSection 20 'This application is for CCTV only'. Which statement is true? Section 5 also states thatwork or change of use started on 20/04/2020 yet there has been no sign of any such work beingcarried out.

The lease the school signed included the clause "subject to all existing rights and use of theproperty including use by the community". Recent legal advice on the actual meaning of thisspecific clause was confirmed to Bristol City Council that the lease protects the rights of thecommunity to use the land. Previous applications, granted by Bristol City Council, contravened thenow legally upheld meaning of this clause. If this new application is granted then Bristol CityCouncil will not be protecting the rights of the community, but protecting the interest of their non-rental-paying tenants in degrading what was once an Important Open Space into a Closed Spaceinaccessible to the community.

The visual amenity that was Stoke Lodge was spoiled by the installation of a 1400+ metre, non-

structural fence and 3 unplanned by approved CCTVs. The installation of a further CCTV at thetop of a pole between 4 and 12 metres high with give the field the appearance of a prison camp,reminiscent of a stalag. It will be totally out of character with the adjacent Grade II listed StokeLodge and will detract from the already compromised views. If the pole and CCTV can be seen bythe surrounding community in their houses and gardens, what will the CCTV be able to focus onand record? From its planned position this CCTV will also have visual access to the children's playpark and other areas that lie outside the lease-line but which are enjoyed by the public.

What rights or protection will the public and community have from intrusive and objectionablesurveillance, and what redress will they have against the School which has stated, since theexisting CCTV units were installed, that the field is 'private property' and therefore 'not covered bySection 29 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 or its guiding principles because they are notapplicable to the school'.

The school has consistently ignored all reasonable approaches and is intent on securing the field,for whatever devious reason, so that it is unavailable for the local community to use and thisdirectly contravenes the terms and clauses of the leas it signed.

This planning application must be rejected, and the applicant severely censured or fined formaking a false declaration or providing false information.

I support the application for the extra CCTV camera which Cotham School wishes toinstall at its playing fields at Stoke Lodge. As an ex-teacher in Bristol for over 20 years, I am all toowell aware of the need for proper security during all aspects of school activity, none more so thanwhen the students are taken to another school site for sport. As someone who began teachingwhen there was no security in schools whatsoever, and who saw colleagues assaulted byincomers, as well as students threatened and targeted by undesirables who for obvious reasonswere and are drawn to school premises, I believe that objectors tend not to understand thedifficulties schools face in protecting their students and downplay the level of risk and the rightlyvery high expectations that parents and carers nowadays have of the level of security that shouldbe provided as a matter of course.A walk around the school's playing fields at Stoke Lodge reveals that every school sign has beendamaged and there is the obvious eyesore of a previously burnt-out pavilion which confirms that itwas not a safe space in the past either. The protective fence around the fields has been opened inseveral places and bent and damaged. It appears from the barrage of complaints on social mediaabout what are perceived to be the school's misdemeanours that since the fence was put up therehas been avid and constant surveillance of the school's activities on the fields by certain membersof the public. However, even such enthusiastic monitors have never seen any of this vandalismtaking place and say that they do not who the perpetrator(s) are. There is obviously therefore anongoing and pressing security problem which needs addressing urgently. The multiple camerasaround Stoke Lodge ALC bear witness to this also. The proposed new CCTV camera which needsto be elevated because of previous tampering with an existing CCTV camera will cover blind spotsexploited by vandals and has obvious benefits for all as surely no one except those responsiblecan be happy about the daily costly damage which is occurring.

To: Development Management, Bristol City CouncilFrom: Jenny and David Baker, 29 Woodland Grove, BRISTOL, BS9 2BD,Tel: 0117 9683227,e-mail: djmbaker374@btinternet.com

Re: Application No. 20/01826/F

Thank you for sending details of the above application to install a CCTV pole and camera adjacentto the gate behind the neighbouring Stoke Lodge Adult Learning Centre in Stoke Lodge PlayingFields. (There is no reference to which organisation is filing the application but we understand thatit will be Cotham School.) We wish to object to this application for the following reasons:

1) The proposed pole and CCTV camera will have a detrimental Impact on the amenity of a listedenvironmentThe pole and CCTV camera is of a type that can be seen installed around prisons, trading estates,warehouses and factory sites and is totally alien to the amenity value and pleasant environment ofthe buildings making up Stoke Lodge Adult Learning Centre. Historic England says: 'amenity isgenerally considered to be visual appearance and the pleasance of the environment generally,including the general characteristics of the locality and any feature of historic, architectural, culturalor similar interest there'. Additionally, the buildings have a Grade II listed status and so theinstallation of such a pole, which we understand will be a minimum 4 metres high and a camera,would be totally in defiance of Grade II Listing regulations.2) The use of the CCTV camera will seriously undermine the rights of privacy of people in theneighbourhood who are within range of the camera

The land is designated as Important Open Space in the Local Plan and has been enjoyed by thecommunity for over 70 years. The proposed camera will have the capability of overseeing thewhole area of the lower end of Stoke Lodge Playing Fields, the Children's Playground, EbenezerLane, the pathway beyond the fence which is used for recreational purposes by many localresidents and people from further afield, over the hedgerow bordering the houses in StokePaddock Road and the rear of houses in Woodland Grove. It raises significant, serious privacyissues.

3) The reasons for the application to erect the pole and CCTV camera are not justifiedCotham has already erected four CCTV cameras without any formal process, to watch over StokeLodge which already seems excessive. We cannot see the need to install the pole and camera asdescribed or the justification of spending even more money on the tenuous grounds of protectingthe students while they use Stoke Lodge for sports lessons in their curriculum. The students comein small numbers, in daylight, for limited amounts of time and are supervised by members of staff.Monitoring this activity doesn't call for 24/7 surveillance using expensive, ugly, high poweredequipment.4) The Council's rights and dutiesWe understand that the school requires consent under the lease from BCC as landowner - both tothe CCTV and to the pole on which it would be mounted. The Council, as landowner, has the rightand duty (acting in the public interest) to exercise meaningful control over the level of surveillanceof a public space.In clause 2.1 of the lease from Bristol City Council (BCC) it states that the school's rights under thelease are 'subject also to all existing rights and use of the property including use by thecommunity'. The Council has recently taken legal advice on the meaning of the lease whichconfirms that this clause means what it says: the lease protects the public's rights to use the land.This means that in giving landlord consent and/or planning permission, the Council would beconsenting to increased surveillance of an important open space that is designated for publicrecreation, leisure and community use.As the fields are available for public access, the school should adopt this code in line with bestpractice. The relevance is that the code emphasises that surveillance may interfere with thequalified right to respect for private and family life provided under Article 8 of the European Charterof Human Rights and states that 'Use of a surveillance camera system must always be for aspecified purpose which is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identifiedpressing need'. What is the specified purpose and identified pressing need when there are alreadyfour cameras in operation?There is a further ground for objection in that the proposed location of the pole appears to besquarely on a claimed public right of way for which an application for registration is currently inprocess. It is inappropriate for BCC to consider an application for development that wouldpotentially obstruct that right of way. BCC's published information states that where 'Applications[to register a public right of way] are investigated in date order of receipt, unless the claimed routeis given priority because it is affected by a planning application or development proposal' - in otherwords, if this application is to be considered, the Public Right of Way application should be brought

forward and considered first to ensure that it is not prejudiced by a later application. It appears asif Cotham considers it has no need to take these matters into account.

5) Concerns for the future

- What will the management of Cotham School do next?- Will they increase the number of towers and cameras?- Will they continue to ignore or conveniently forget assurances as set out in its Data PrivacyImpact Assessment, signed off in December 2019, stating that it had no plans to increase CCTVcoverage?- It seems that Cotham is adopting a purely selfish plan of action without any respect for the publicliving in the Stoke Lodge neighbourhood.

We therefore wish to object to Application No. 20/01826/F

On reading the comments by supporters of the planning application for CCTV I amastonished that they have not bothered to find out the indisputable facts that cannot be deniedexcept by those peddling lies to them. They have not understood the glaring inadequacies of theapplication nor its implications.The main deficiency in the application remains that it does not describe any need that exists forthe installation of extra CCTV. Vandalism has not occurred despite what the supporters have beentold. A few bolts removed do not constitute thousands of pounds of cost to replace. Crime levelsare low in the area.The supporters must realise that the School cannot say that they are installing a necessary CCTVon school premises with an exclusive lease. The School lied to the Dept for Education when theysaid they had exclusive use of Stoke Lodge field (the Dept said later that this was incorrect afterthey had carefully looked at the lease), so it cannot be argued as a basis for putting up intrusiveCCTV on 'school premises' (which it isn't).Privacy - the School has no right to monitor the public who are under the terms of the leaselawfully using the space.Supporters should realise that no consideration has been shown of the heritage implications of thesetting and its House. They seem not to care and as by and large they do not live anywhere nearStoke Lodge they have no concept of the beauty of the place that they have been shockinglypersuaded is 'theirs'. No consultation has taken place, nor any description made of the handling ofCCTV data. The range of a camera of this type could not be confined to the bounds of the edge ofthe field and will be able to survey houses, an existing right of way (and others still to be decided)and a children's playground.Last but not least, OFSTED did not say that the field even required a secured perimeter fence (sothe School has told another lie here) let alone a whole series of CCTV cameras.

I object to this application because..

1-Low Crime AreaSupporters of the application are relying on claims of vandalism to the fence. Crime statistics showthat there were just two reported incidents at Stoke Lodge in March 2020. There have been noantisocial incidents reported. Incidents highlighted by the school are minor and reversible. When aparent supporter refers to another application, (CCTV for car parks) crime data showed 138reported crimes in one academic year. Here the area that didn't have CCTV is where cars werebeing broken into, evidence that where there was CCTV it was an effective deterrent. At StokeLodge, not only did the school state they would not be putting up CCTV, they already have 4cameras up which don't appear to serve as a deterrent. In any case, these comments have norelevance from a planning perspective!

2-Breach of Council LeaseClaims about a small number of recent incidents clearly refer to the school's action in locking thegates, unlawfully excluded the community from using the land, in breach of its lease. Additionallythis has been during a global pandemic where the local key workers and NHS members especiallyhave needed their rightful access to an open green space. The school's rights under the lease aresubject to community use; it has no automatic right to monitor me or the rest of the public lawfullyusing Stoke Lodge.

3-Slipshod applicationIf only the school had been as thorough in their application and included documents such as aHeritage Statement or considerations for amenity and the need for/appropriateness of CCTV

surveillance. The school's application also doesn't provide any necessary detail about theproposed pole or camera. Bristol City Council's Surveillance Camera Strategy states that all CCTVproposals must involve consultation with people most regularly affected by the scheme (ie thepublic in this case as the pupils are hardly on this part of Stoke Lodge) to address concernsaround privacy. No such consultation has taken place. The installation of the pole is for the solepurpose of installing CCTV so these two elements of the application cannot be consideredseparately.

4-Public Right Of Way priorityThe proposed pole seems to be sited directly on a public right of way (applied for) and BCC's ownpublished information suggests that an application to register a PROW should jump the queue if itis affected by a planning application. Are we going to see the PROW (submitted May 2016application) addressed first?

5-CCTV Policy BreachThe school has confirmed that it does not follow the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice andthere is also evidence of the school breaching its own policy in its use of CCTV images. I amparticularly concerned about excessive intrusion into the surveillance of me and my children whenwe use Stoke Lodge.

This will be very out of keeping with the lovely old building it will be near and will infringeon the privacy of those whose property backs on to these fields in my view. I live one road awayfrom the field at walk round it, keeping out side the fence which I also object to in the way it coversall the open area.

I write to object in full to the proposed CCTV system by Cotham School.

There are many valid reasons for BCC to reject this planning application, as you'll have seendetailed in the many objections already logged against this planning application. My mainobjections are as follows:

- Cotham School lease this land from BCC and under their use of this land is "subject to allexisting rights and use of the property including use by the community". This means they will beable to film members of the community who are lawfully using a public space. Bearing in mind arecent FOI request saw Cotham confirming that they do not follow best practice under theSurveillance Camera Code of Practice (section 29 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) meansthey cannot be trusted with this data, particularly as the camera is likely to have visibility intopeople's gardens and the children's play park bordering the playing field - areas which do not fallwithin their lease.

- Stoke Lodge playing fields has two ongoing Town/Village Green applications currently underconsideration. For this reason alone planning should not be granted. What a huge waste of fundsthis would be, as surely the camera and pole must be removed if TVG status is granted. Moneythat, frankly, should be better spent.

- There is insufficient detail within the application. A 4-12m high pole is a huge variance andwhere, precisely, do they wish to place the pole? At 12m high it's practically a drone and it'scoverage would certainly encompass people's private gardens. As for the placement of the pole, itappears to be within the line of a claimed public right of way, for which an application is

outstanding.

- The school themselves state this CCTV system is similar to what is used in prisons, detentioncentres and car parks - and yet they are proposing that it be placed next to a Grade II listedbuilding in order to monitor a park land, where the community is entitled to access, in a low crimearea. It would be an offensive eye-sore - surely this cannot be permissible?

- What is the school's justification for this CCTV? I don't think anyone in the community have everseen the school use the lower half of the site, where the proposed CCTV will cover, so it cannot befor monitoring pupils.

In terms of justification, if the school's reasoning is that it feels the CCTV is necessary becausesome of the fence panels have been unbolted and set to one side over the past couple of months(the claimed 'vandalism' of bolt heads was carried out a year ago by the planning application'sapplicant), can I suggest a simple, cost effective, solution? Unlock the gates. If someone isunbolting the panels to give people access to the field - access which is the right of the community- then if the gates were unlocked it's quite clear the panels wouldn't be unbolted. (As to thequestion why BCC is not forcing Cotham to uphold the terms of their lease is clearly a question foranother forum.)

I am writing to object fully to the application to place a 'pan and tilt' camera on a polebetween 4 metres and 12 metres tall next to Stoke Lodge Adult Learning Centre, ShirehamptonRoad, Bristol.

I have been resident in this area for nearly 30 years and enjoyed this precious open spacethroughout that time. That Cotham School is in breach of its lease is beyond doubt, the land is"subject to all existing rights and use of the property including use by the community".

Stoke Lodge is a Grade II listed building, its land is designated as an Important Open Space inThe Local Plan. The proposed location is not only close to the grade II listed building which wouldimpact severely on the amenity of the building and area, it also appears to be within a Public Rightof way. Bristol City Council's own information suggests that an application to register a PROWshould be prioritised over a planning application or proposal if that PROW is affected.

The application implies that Stoke Lodge is "school premises". Cotham School has stated that ithas an "exclusive lease". This is not the case as detailed above; the land is "subject to all existingrights and use of the property including use by the community". The Department of Education andOFSTED have NOT issued any guidance relating to security matters for detached playing fields.OFSTED has also stated on more than one occasion that it does not require a fence at StokeLodge or other detached playing fields.

The application does not identify any need or a legitimate aim for the need for further CCTV. Theschool already has 3 CCTV cameras monitoring the site. All of which were erected without anyformal process. Further intrusive surveillance is not necessary. There have been allegations and

unsubstantiated claims about "incidents". These claims, unfortunately, appear to be based onfalse claims and rumours. Avon and Somerset Police confirm there have been no reports of anti-social behaviour or other behaviour at Stoke Lodge. Statements by Cotham School and thosesupporting the school which contain these false allegations should be disregarded in the planningprocess.

Stoke Lodge and its environs are part of one of the lowest crime areas of Bristol. There were twoincidents reported in March 2020, which I believe were due to a few fence panels being removed.This occurred during the Covid-19 "lockdown" period which was set out by the government.Cotham School locked down this precious area of green space, unlawfully excluding the localcommunity. Cotham School were approached to consider mediation, local key holders and othersolutions. Cotham School has consistently refused to engage with the community to find a wayforward. The application clearly does not demonstrate a need for surveillance of a public spaceand private properties.

Cotham School has confirmed it does not follow The Surveillance Camera Code of Practice.Evidence also exists of Cotham School failing to follow its own policy around the use of, andsharing of, CCTV images. As a local resident and member of the community, I have no confidencein Cotham School's correct and proper handling of data. I am especially concerned about potentialsurveillance of a children's play park area and private residential properties. All of which would bewithin the range of this tilt and pan camera.

The impact the camera would have on the setting of Stoke Lodge House, grounds and veryimportant local space cannot be underestimated. The school's lease states that the area is subjectto community use. The school has no right to monitor members of the public lawfully using thesespaces. There are no guarantees to the limit and range of the proposed camera. The school hasnot consulted the community with regard to privacy. This could mean that Article 8 of TheEuropean Charter of Human Rights would be breached. The article clearly states "thatsurveillance may interfere with the qualified right to a private and family life". The school is statingit has exclusive use of the site, this is clearly not the case. It is a "shared facility that the schoolmakes use of alongside others" quote from The Department of Education.

Bristol City Council's Surveillance Camera Strategy states that any and all CCTV proposals mustinvolve consultation with those most regularly affected by the scheme to address matters such asprivacy. No consultation has taken place.

Cotham School says the camera is to monitor the lower part of the field. Cotham School hardly ifever uses this part of the field. All their activities are at the top end of the field near the road.

What is the pressing need that justifies a potential loss of private and family life ?

The school in December 2019 stated it had no plans to increase CCTV coverage. Yet less than 6

months later there is an application for a tilt and pan camera on a pole at least 4 metres high.

I urge the planning officers, planning department and councillors to consider the matters laid out inthis communication and refuse this planning application.

Susan Elstob26 Elmea AvenueBS9 3UU

20th May, 2020

I have no idea what is going on with this Application and the Comments/Documentssection. I submitted a comment about a week ago and it has disappeared. It was well before lastweekend when the Documents section crashed. I submit it again:

I am both appalled and dismayed by this Application. I wonder how the Applicant can begin tothink that it is tolerable in any way for such a proposal to be appropriate in this setting and to beacceptable by the Community.

I would point out that the Applicant does not own the land despite his signed declaration that hedoes. He is an employee of a Business which leases the land from the true landowner, which isBristol City Council.

The order in which I make my points does not represent any order of importance.

The setting:

It is not clear from the two plans submitted exactly where it is proposed that this tall pole with apan and tilt camera should be erected.One site plan suggests that it will be close to the listed wall of a small rear car park which was inturn a former garden of the Grade II Listed Stoke Lodge (House), and is indeed very close to thehouse.Very close to the (likely) proposed site of the steel pole is a gazebo/belvedere built in to thegarden wall and renovated in recent years.A photograph of that delightful building can be found here:

https://www.bristolcourses.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Stoke-Lodge-History-PDF.pdfJust imagine what a Stalag Luft III surveillance camera would look like close to the amenity of thatbuilding!

An industrial surveillance camera, which is described in the accompanying literature as beingsuitable for prison premises, is not suitable for such a setting as this. I object most strongly to a tallnasty pole and camera being sited anywhere on the land surrounding Stoke Lodge. It is not inkeeping with the atmosphere and environs of such a place. I object to any surveillance camera, tallor short, pole or wall mounted, pan and tilt or static, being located anywhere to facilitate theobservation and recording of the playing field. I accept reluctantly the need for cameras to protectthe security and fabric of the House. The cameras used for that purpose are discreet. Thisproposal is exactly the opposite.

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states: "Inconsidering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a Listed Buildingor its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State, shall havespecial regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of specialarchitectural or historic interest which it possesses".This principle is expanded in the NPPF to cover a range of heritage assets: "Significance can beharmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within itssetting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincingjustification". (my italics and emphasis).

The camera, on its steel industrial pole, would be in a sylvan setting surrounded by TPO trees in aParkland close to a Listed Building. In fact, one wonders, should planning permission be granted,whether the Secretary of State should become involved subsequently.

Plotting the eastings and Northings supplied by the Applicant in the Application usinghttps://gridreferencefinder.com suggests that the pole is to be erected in an entirely different placein the Field from that marked on the plans accompanying the Application, about half way betweenthe derelict pavilion and the "arboretum". So, which is the true site for the pole in the Application?Neither site is acceptable. Each detracts from the ambience and amenity of the Parkland.

The need for the camera, and the privacy of the citizens using the "spaces" in the domain of view

There is a code of practice associated with surveillance camera installation and its ongoing use.How can the Community know and accept that the policies to be followed are robust, and thatthere will be adherence to them? The Community has no reason to accept that the School willadhere to correct procedures.

The Council has a duty to make sure that any use of the camera proposed would comply with itsown code. Who at the Council is going to make sure that the School has any Policy, and that

he/she will comply? The Community's experience with compliance with TPO regulation by theschool, and with the efforts, or even the inclination, of Planning Enforcement at the Council toadminister TPO regulations on the site, have so far not been encouraging. How could we thus beconfident that the management of anything as invasive and nosey as a surveillance camera wouldbe properly managed? Would there be compliance with any regulation, required by law, imposed?

I quote the Council's policy with regard to camera surveillance of public places:

Bristol City Council , The Use of Surveillance Cameras in Bristol: 2014 :

Guiding Principle:

The guiding principles of this strategy will be to ensure that individuals and wider communitieshave confidence that surveillance cameras are deployed to protect and support them, rather thanspy on them.

The government considers that wherever overt surveillance in public places is in pursuit of alegitimate aim and meets a pressing need, any such surveillance should be characterised assurveillance by consent, and such consent on the part of the community must be informed consentand not assumed by a system operator.

Surveillance by consent should be regarded as analogous to policing by consent. In the Britishmodel of policing, police officers are citizens in uniform. They exercise their powers to police theirfellow citizens with the implicit consent of their fellow citizens. Policing by consent is the phraseused to describe this. It denotes that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is basedupon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers,demonstrating integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so.

In order to achieve this, the strategy sets out guiding principles that should apply to all surveillancecamera systems in public places. These guiding principles are designed to provide a frameworkfor operators and users of surveillance camera systems so that there is proportionality andtransparency in their use of surveillance, and systems are capable of providing good qualityimages and other information which are fit for purpose.

Surveillance Camera Strategy:

1. Use of a surveillance camera system must always be for a specified purpose which is in pursuitof a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identified pressing need.2. The use of a surveillance camera system must take into account its effect on individuals andtheir privacy, with regular reviews to ensure its use remains justified.3. There must be as much transparency in the use of a surveillance camera system as possible,including a published contact point for access to information and complaints.

4. There must be clear responsibility and accountability for all surveillance camera systemactivities including images and information collected, held and used.5. Clear rules, policies and procedures must be in place before a surveillance camera system isused, and these must be communicated to all who need to comply with them.6. No more images and information should be stored than that which is strictly required for thestated purpose of a surveillance camera system, and such images and information should bedeleted once their purposes have been discharged.7. Access to retained images and information should be restricted and there must be clearlydefined rules on who can gain access and for what purpose such access is granted; the disclosureof images and information should only take place when it is necessary for such a purpose or forlaw enforcement purposes.8. Surveillance camera system operators should consider any approved operational, technical andcompetency standards relevant to a system and its purpose and work to meet and maintain thosestandards.9. Surveillance camera system images and information should be subject to appropriate securitymeasures to safeguard against unauthorised access and use.10. There should be effective review and audit mechanisms to ensure legal requirements, policiesand standards are complied with in practice, and regular reports should be published.11. When the use of a surveillance camera system is in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and there is apressing need for its use, it should then be used in the most effective way to support public safetyand law enforcement with the aim of processing images and information of evidential value.12. Any information used to support a surveillance camera system which compares against areference database for matching purposes should be accurate and kept up to date.

No doubt the first part of BCC's own policy is an attempt to enshrine Article 8 of the EuropeanCharter of Human Rights. I quote:Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life1. Everyone has the right of respect for his private and family life, his home and hiscorrespondence.2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such asis in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of nationalsecurity, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder orcrime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms ofothers.

The Applicant does not state why the surveillance of the lower field is required.If it is for the supervision of the pupils of the school whilst participating in sport, then one has toask why that is required, when surely the pupils are then under the direct supervision of membersof the school staff.

If it is for the supervision of the residents of Bristol whilst using the land, then that is an invasion ofprivacy. Who is viewing the images? Where will the images be stored? Where is the consent?

Because the Applicant has not specified the purpose for making this Application, surely this is nota valid Application? Where is the evidence for:breaches of national security?risks to public safety?risks to the economic well-being of Stoke Bishop or Greater Bristol?the need for the prevention of disorder or crime?a deterioration in the health or morals of the local residents of the area or the users of the AdultLearning Centre?and the loss of protection of the rights and freedoms of others?that would be required to justify, under Article 8, the camera surveillance of the lower field of StokeLodge Playing Field.

To my mind placing a surveillance camera in this site can only be for spying, because the Schoolpupils are supervised during their presence on the Field by adult members of staff. There can beno legitimate requirement for further surveillance.

The School, in its own Data Protection Impact Assessment, dated 2nd December 2019, stated"There are no plans to extend the scope of the current CCTV system. A new Data ProtectionImpact Assessment would be carried out prior to commissioning any changes." Yet here we are, 5months later, with an Application to extend the surveillance on the site. It is worthy of note that noearlier Applications were made to install the existing CCTV cameras at the Playing Field.

In that same DPIA is given the information that the images are "Monitored in real time to detectand respond to unlawful activities. Monitored in real time to track suspicious persons/activity."That sounds "live" to me, and is not safeguarding of pupils (not that any reasons for the proposedsurveillance are given in the Application).

There has been no consent given by the Community. Consent has not been sought, and judgingby the response from the Community to this Application, consent would not be given were it to besought. Neighbours of the property (a very long list) were notified today, 12th May. Is thatconsultation prior to the Application - or merely a (delayed) notification?

The scope of the surveillance will not, and cannot, be limited to the boundary of the Field. It mustextend in to the private gardens of properties, and the rooms within the houses, abutting theperimeter of the land in Stoke Paddock Road, Shirehampton Road, Woodland Grove, CheyneRoad etc., and, more alarmingly, it must "cover" the children's playground, where the potentialscope of image recording and real time monitoring could only be described as questionable, andeven more requires the Applicant and the Council to obtain the consent of all of the users of theplayground.

Please reject this Application on the grounds ofDespoiling the setting and amenity of a Listed BuildingandInvasion of privacy contrary to the European Charter of Human Rights where the siting of asurveillance camera flouts the principles for the siting of same.

We feel it is an intrusion of privacy into everyday life of local people. Why would acamera of this nature be needed when pupils are in the presence of school staff. Also the lowerhalf of the field is not used despite football despite football nets being erected for show. Thecamera would also be able to see into gardens in Shirehampton Road, Stoke Paddock Road, thechildrens play area and parts of West Dene. This field is an area for Local People to be able toenjoy without big brother watching. We hope this application is regarded as unacceptable and notgranted.

My children are pupils at Cotham. Generally I oppose additional CCTV on principle.

During the Coronavirus lockdown we have seen St Paul's adventure playground vandalised,attacks and vandalism in Southmead, and damage to Cotham Schools property, legally leasedfrom the council at Stoke Lodge Playing Fields. The residents of Stoke Lodge appear to haveshown that they have contempt for legal process. their actions, in damaging the fence arevandalism. the school must be able to deter this vandalism as the cost of repairs on a state schoolis unacceptable. if the camera can deter this continued, focused vandalism it will pay for itself. Iurge the planning committee to allow this application, to deter the current level of vandalism

I don't think that the school have really thought about the Impact of the proposed poleand CCTV on the amenity of a listed environment ie Stoke Lodge when making this planningapplication. The size, height and appearance of the pole and camera and its proximity to StokeLodge House are completely out of keeping for this listed property. The data sheet submitted aspart of the application specifically states that this type of pole is typically used in prisons anddetention facilities, car parks, railway stations, etc. The data sheet also suggests that the polewould be a minimum of 4m high.

The application states that the pole will be 'adjacent to the gate' below the ALC but the locationmap suggests that it will be positioned parallel with the corner of the walled car park i.e. a littledistance into the field. The application states that it will be positioned to cover the lower fieldbehind Stoke Paddock Road and the area around the base of the pole, but not areas outside ofthe school's leased area (not the school premises as indicated by the application). This is in anyevent not a relevant planning consideration for this application. How is this even possible. Theschool are proposing ia pan/tilt camera - so it can be operated to look in different directions and atdifferent angles. The school's application claims that 'CCTV will cover the lower end of the playingfield (behind Stoke Paddock) and the immediate area around the base of the pole, it will not coverareas outside of the school premises'. However, logically this is not possible - the camera mustalso be looking through the fence onto the rear land of the houses along Stoke Paddock Road andShirehampton Road and create privacy issues for them. If it has the range to reach the lower fieldthen it must also have visibility of children in the play park - this is another important privacyconcern.

Neither the DfE nor Ofsted has issued any guidance relating to security requirements for detached

playing fields. School supporters have pointed to selective quotes from guidance for main schoolsites referring to 'secure perimeters', but Ofsted has specifically confirmed on many times that itdoes not require a fence at Stoke Lodge or on other detached playing fields. This conclusivelydemonstrates that the guidance being quoted does not apply to Stoke Lodge. This planningapplication rests solely on the documents provided by the school.

The school has specifically confirmed that it does not follow the Surveillance Camera Code ofPractice even though this is standard practice in most other schools. There is also evidence of theschool breaching its own policy in its use of, and sharing of, CCTV images. I do not haveconfidence in the school's proper handling of data and am particularly concerned about excessiveintrusion into private residential property and the surveillance of a children's play park, as well asthe impact on the amenity of the setting and the public's use of this important open space. It isimportant to bear in mind that the school's rights under the lease are subject to community use; ithas no automatic right to monitor the public lawfully using that space. As previously mentionedthere is no possibility that the camera's range can or would be limited to the boundaries of theschool's leased area.

Will the school shortly be asking for more cameras and greater intrusion? Its Data Privacy ImpactAssessment, signed off in December 2019, states that it had no plans to increase CCTV coverage,and yet here we are 5 months later.

I have to ask myself is the timing of the proposal appropriate given the ongoing progress of twoTown or Village Green applications and a public rights of way application? Is this not just anotherway for the school to try and bully local people into not using the field under the terms of thelease?

Please do not pass this application, this planning application must be rejected.

I am very disappointed to see another planning application from Cotham School which,to my mind, will have a negative impact on the Grade 2 listed buildings and the beautifulsurrounding site. The proposed camera and associated mast/mount would be more in keepingwith a prison than in an attractive low crime area of Bristol. The school already have securitycameras to protect their buildings and can see no reason to have another camera to protect anempty field, which under their terms of their lease, they should share with the public.In these difficult times Cotham School have breached the terms of their lease and locked the thegate on the field and tried to prevent to public from enjoying this beautiful space. Although theschool would say that someone has cause damage to their fence, their actions and appallingbehaviour have provoked someone into carefully unclipping a few fence panels to allow people theaccess which the school denied and it is now nice to see children safely enjoying the open spaceagain.I would like to urge the planning committee to reject this application, which I think is unsightly andtotally unnecessary, and for the council to enforce the terms of the lease so that the public canenjoy the space at any time it is not being used by the school. For much of the time it is not beingused by the school.Perhaps this school should stop wasting money and use it help schools which don't have enoughfunds.

The land is designated as Important Open Space in the Local Plan and has been enjoyed by the community for over 70 years. The proposed camera will have the capability of overseeing the whole area of the lower end of Stoke Lodge Playing Fields, the Children's Playground, Ebenezer Lane, the pathway beyond the fence which is used for recreational purposes by many local residents and people from further afield, over the hedgerow bordering the houses in Stoke Paddock Road and the rear of houses in Woodland Grove. It raises significant, serious privacy issues.

3) The reasons for the application to erect the pole and CCTV camera are not justified

Cotham has already erected four CCTV cameras without any formal process, to watch over Stoke Lodge which already seems excessive. We cannot see the need to install the pole and camera as described or the justification of spending even more money on the tenuous grounds of protecting the students while they use Stoke Lodge for sports lessons in their curriculum. The students come in small numbers, in daylight, for limited amounts of time and are supervised by members of staff. Monitoring this activity doesn't call for 24/7 surveillance using expensive, ugly, high powered equipment.

4) The Council's rights and duties

We understand that the school requires consent under the lease from BCC as landowner - both to the CCTV and to the pole on which it would be mounted. The Council, as landowner, has the right and duty (acting in the public interest) to exercise meaningful control over the level of surveillance of a public space.

In clause 2.1 of the lease from Bristol City Council (BCC) it states that the school's rights under the lease are 'subject also to all existing rights and use of the property including use by the community'. The Council has recently taken legal advice on the meaning of the lease which confirms that this clause means what it says: the lease protects the public's rights to use the land. This means that in giving landlord consent and/or planning permission, the Council would be consenting to increased surveillance of an important open space that is designated for public recreation, leisure and community use.

As the fields are available for public access, the school should adopt this code in line with best practice. The relevance is that the code emphasises that surveillance may interfere with the qualified right to respect for private and family life provided under Article 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights and states that 'Use of a surveillance camera system must always be for a specified purpose which is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identified pressing need'. What is the specified purpose and identified pressing need when there are already four cameras in operation?

There is a further ground for objection in that the proposed location of the pole appears to be squarely on a claimed public right of way for which an application for registration is currently in process. It is inappropriate for BCC to consider an application for development that would potentially obstruct that right of way. BCC's published information states that where 'Applications [to register a public right of way] are

investigated in date order of receipt, unless the claimed route is given priority because it is affected by a planning application or development proposal' - in other words, if this application is to be considered, the Public Right of Way application should be brought forward and considered first to ensure that it is not prejudiced by a later application. It appears as if Cotham considers it has no need to take these matters into account.

5) Concerns for the future - What will the management of Cotham School do next? - Will they increase the number of towers and cameras?- Will they continue to ignore or conveniently forget assurances as set out in its Data Privacy Impact Assessment, signed off in December 2019, stating that it had no plans to increase CCTV coverage?- It seems that Cotham is adopting a purely selfish plan of action without any respect for the public living in the Stoke Lodge neighbourhood.

We therefore wish to object to Application No. 20/01826/F

I object to the planning application for the following reasons:

1. The application fails to demonstrate why CCTV camera surveillance would be necessary for afield that Cotham school is not physically linked to. There was no requirement from Ofsted for afence, there is no requirement for CCTV. Safety cannot be the foundation for more cameras whenStoke Lodge is located in an area of the city with a particularly low crime rate and Avon &Somerset Police have confirmed that there have been no reports of antisocial or similar behaviourat Stoke Lodge. There is no justifiable reason for the CCTV.

2. The proposed CCTV camera would be placed in the amenity of a listed building. How can avery substantial pole, between 4 and 12 metres, not damage the visual appearance of StokeLodge and amenity? The attached data sheet from the school shows that the camera and poleplanned would be the type used in prisons, how can this be appropriate in any part of a Grade IIlisted amenity?

3. There is a playpark in Stoke Lodge as well as public space and many of the surroundinghomes, including ours, are family homes with primary aged children. A CCTV camera wouldcreate significant privacy issues for anyone using the field or its edges as well as a constantintrusion for those living nearby. 24/7 surveillance of public space, with unknown range and facility,clearly interferes with our qualified right to respect for private and family life provided under Article8 of the European Charter of Human Rights.

4. The application states that the positioning of the cameras at the bottom of the field is for theprotection of students. However, Cotham students, who are hardly at Stoke Lodge, almost never

use the bottom section under discussion, so this reason holds no water. Why is the applicant reallyapplying for more cameras?

Bristol City Council has a duty (acting in the public interest) to exercise meaningful control over thelevel of surveillance of a public space. Please refuse this application, it interferes with right toprivacy, attempts to further damage the visual amenity, is against the spirit of the lease and inshort, is without any substantiated justification.

I object to this application.

Yours sincerelyDella Hooper

I object to this application.

1. The proposed camera and supporting structure is immediately adjacent to the outbuildings andgarden of a Grade II listed house. The camera installation is entirely inappropriate to this setting.The imposition of a high specification camera installation of any kind in this location is bothdisproportionate and unjustified.

2. The proposed height of the camera plus supporting structure is not stated in the application; theinformation supplied gives a range of heights from 4 up to 12 metres - there is no information tosuggest that the applicant will not seek to utilise the maximum height. As such, this will place thecamera above much of its surroundings and prominent in the landscape.

3. Despite the applicant's protestations, cameras of their very nature will see whatever they arepointed at, irrespective of considerations of privacy. The proposed CCTV is clearly intended toprovide intrusive surveillance across a wide area upon members of the public going about theirlawful pursuits.

4. The proposed location clearly places the camera in a position to see the children's play parkand visitors of all ages to the Adult Learning Centre, as well as private gardens. No evidence ispresented by the applicant to indicate what controls will be in place over who will be able to direct,zoom and record images taken by the camera.

5. The justification for high level surveillance of the area to be covered by what appears to be ahigh security, pan/zoom/infra red capable camera is entirely unclear:

- Vandalism, confined from my own inspection to the displacement (not removal or damage) offence panels, has not been deterred by the existing three CCTV cameras installed by CothamSchool.- The proposed additional camera is arranged so as to scan an area of the field a) seldom used byCotham School pupils and b) unsuitable for much sport anyway due to its slope and propensity tobecome waterlogged.- Apart from a very contentious fence, the only asset in the proposed CCTV camera's field of viewof interest to Cotham School as tenant, is grass, and a couple of trees.

6. Existing, and duly made, applications for Town or Village Green status (two) and Public rights ofWay applications are in progress. All these applications concern the land on which the CCTVcamera and supporting structure are a) sited and b) expected to survey. While these applicationsare current, additional planning applications for development should be rejected.

7. Although outside the scope of this application, it seems to me that if displacement of the fenceis Cotham School's main concern, this could be addressed fully and permanently by engagementwith the local community to provide reasonable access to the field as provided in Cotham School'slease of the land and pending resolution of the applications above. No need then, for any camera.

The part of the field this camera will protect is rarely used by the school. The vandalismhas been overstated. A panel in the fence has been removed to allow people access (as is theirright) during this time when exercise locally is vitally important. The school will not be using thegrounds until September. It is therefore a temporary problem (and far less expensive to put backone panel than install expensive cameras).The camera ruins the aspect of a listed building and its grounds. In an area of very low crime,when much of the damage suggested has actually been commited by the school, it seems atravesty that this would be allowed.

I strongly object to this application by Cotham Academy on several grounds.I have lived in the environs of Stoke Lodge Playing Field for over 40 years and value the amenity itprovides, therefore any application that might have an adverse effect on it is of much concern.There are many inaccuracies and errors in the submission of the application by Cotham Academymaking it totally inadequate because it submits false information and, on this basis alone, it shouldbe dismissed. The applicant is applying for permission over grounds that he neither owns nor hasthe right to control. This application in containing falsehoods is inadmissible.

The school's application fails to state that its proposal is 'for a specified purpose which is in pursuitof a legitimate aim', and that it is 'necessary to meet an identified pressing need'. CothamAcademy makes very little use of Stoke Lodge Playing Field, on average approximately just 10hours per week. The school spends these 10 hours almost exclusively at the opposite end towhere they propose to site the pole with CCTV attached. For this reason, this CCTV cannot beintended for the protection of its students. Therefore, 'identified pressing need' has not beenestablished in this application. There is nothing else in that area worthy of such extrememeasures. The location of Stoke Lodge Playing Field has one of the very lowest crime rates in thewhole of the city of Bristol, and the use of the field by school pupils playing sport does not seem towarrant the need for CCTV, as pupils must be supervised by an adequate number of school staffat all times. There have been no incidents of incursions into the field whilst PE takes place. Sothere is no pressing need for yet another CCTV and installing another camera would be regardedas an excessive measure.The proposed pole, fitted with a pan and tilt camera, is unsuitable for use adjacent to a fine Gradell listed building and its curtilage, being designed to fit environments like prisons, industrial sites,car parks or railway stations. It would adversely affect the setting of a nationally important listed

building and its mellow surrounds. Section 66 of the Listed Building and Conservation Act statesthat the Local Authority must have 'special,regard to the desirability of preserving and conservinga listed building and its setting.' The camera will be sited in the setting of Stoke Lodge as the fieldforms part of the backdrop for the house and it is on land designated as Important Open Space inthe local plan. Policy DM17 states at page 36: "Development on part, or all, of an Important OpenSpace as designated on the Policies Map will not be permitted unless the development is ancillaryto the open space use." On this basis alone, this application cannot not be granted. Theapplication contravenes a number of national and local planning policies and strategies. Theapplication for planning permission does not show that it has taken account of the highly sensitiveheritage locality and would be visual vandalism of this historical parkland. The proposed mast(between 4m and 12m in height) and camera will be completely out of character with the Grade lllisted Stoke Lodge buildings.The application is vague as to the precise height of the mast and the precise location intended forits installation. It is unacceptable to leave this so vague as this will impact on the range it canphotograph/record. For these reasons the application must be dismissed.As the field is available for public access, constant surveillance of this nature interferes with thequalified right of respect for private and family life provided under Article 8 of the European Charterof Human Rights. The siting of the proposed surveillance camera means that its field of view willinclude public access areas as well as private house premises which are not within the legitimateinterest of Cotham School and this proposal represents an intrusion into our right to privacy. Assurveillance camera technology advances so does the potential to intrude further into the privacyof individuals. The proposed camera is capable of wide-area surveillance with tracking, monitoringand zooming in for close-ups of the unsuspecting innocent people enjoying this important amenity.This is designed to intimidate people lawfully using the field for exercise. There is no possibility ofregulating and monitoring how and by whom this CCTV camera would be used. There is a delicatebalance between need for surveillance and civil liberty. This camera can scan (it is a pan-tiltmoving system, identical to that used in prisons) and thereby record data of the children'splayground, the area below the playground, Stoke Lodge carpark, the sensory garden, houses(Shirehampton Road, Stoke Paddock Road, Cheyne Road, Ebenezer Lane and Stoke Lodgeitself), gardens and the walkers forced into the perimeter walkway. A camera recording such datais a total invasion of personal privacy for the play area users, as well as the local residents. Ifurther object to excessive surveillance of land that the applicant doesnot have exclusive accessto.I further object to the installation of this pole and CCTV camera because the live and recordedfootage can be accessed by individuals from their private home outside working hours via a VNPfacility. Cotham Academy has already allowed the applicant of this planning permission to viewfootage from home in and out of business hours. It is not possible to ensure the viewing and/orpublication of footage is carried out appropriately. Whilst software privacy blocks might be set,planning officers will agree that these are not enforceable. I am appalled at the thought of the staffat Cotham School filming my family and I, as well as viewing the footage from their home address,totally at will. Does the applicant, Mr Nathan Allen, or any other potential operator of theequipment, hold an official government Security Industry Authority licence to "monitor the activities

of a member of the public in a public or private place"? This issue should be of great concern forall of us and undermines confidence in this particular education facility.The proposed development is on land which is the subject of two ongoing Town and Village Greenapplications, and is directly on the line of a claimed public right of way for which an application forregistration is outstanding. On these grounds alone, it should be withdrawn or dismissed withoutfurther consideration.

This proposal does nothing to ensure that the historic environment of Stoke Lodge Playing Fieldwill be safeguarded for the future or enhanced both for their own heritage merits and as part ofwider heritage regeneration proposals, rather it will be detrimental to it.

For all the above reasons I appeal to the planners to deny approval.

I strongly object to this application by Cotham Academy on several grounds.I have lived in the environs of Stoke Lodge Playing Field for over 40 years and value the amenity itprovides, therefore any application that might have an adverse effect on it is of much concern.There are many inaccuracies and errors in the submission of the application by Cotham Academymaking it totally inadequate because it submits false information and, on this basis alone, it shouldbe dismissed. The applicant is applying for permission over grounds that he neither owns nor hasthe right to control. This application in containing falsehoods is inadmissible.

The school's application fails to state that its proposal is 'for a specified purpose which is in pursuitof a legitimate aim', and that it is 'necessary to meet an identified pressing need'. CothamAcademy makes very little use of Stoke Lodge Playing Field, on average approximately just 10hours per week. The school spends these 10 hours almost exclusively at the opposite end towhere they propose to site the pole with CCTV attached. For this reason, this CCTV cannot beintended for the protection of its students. Therefore, 'identified pressing need' has not beenestablished in this application. There is nothing else in that area worthy of such extrememeasures. The location of Stoke Lodge Playing Field has one of the very lowest crime rates in thewhole of the city of Bristol, and the use of the field by school pupils playing sport does not seem towarrant the need for CCTV, as pupils must be supervised by an adequate number of school staffat all times. There have been no incidents of incursions into the field whilst PE takes place. Sothere is no pressing need for yet another CCTV and installing another camera would be regardedas an excessive measure.The proposed pole, fitted with a pan and tilt camera, is unsuitable for use adjacent to a fine Gradell listed building and its curtilage, being designed to fit environments like prisons, industrial sites,car parks or railway stations. It would adversely affect the setting of a nationally important listed

building and its mellow surrounds. Section 66 of the Listed Building and Conservation Act statesthat the Local Authority must have 'special,regard to the desirability of preserving and conservinga listed building and its setting.' The camera will be sited in the setting of Stoke Lodge as the fieldforms part of the backdrop for the house and it is on land designated as Important Open Space inthe local plan. Policy DM17 states at page 36: "Development on part, or all, of an Important OpenSpace as designated on the Policies Map will not be permitted unless the development is ancillaryto the open space use." On this basis alone, this application cannot not be granted. Theapplication contravenes a number of national and local planning policies and strategies. Theapplication for planning permission does not show that it has taken account of the highly sensitiveheritage locality and would be visual vandalism of this historical parkland. The proposed mast(between 4m and 12m in height) and camera will be completely out of character with the Grade lllisted Stoke Lodge buildings.The application is vague as to the precise height of the mast and the precise location intended forits installation. It is unacceptable to leave this so vague as this will impact on the range it canphotograph/record. For these reasons the application must be dismissed.As the field is available for public access, constant surveillance of this nature interferes with thequalified right of respect for private and family life provided under Article 8 of the European Charterof Human Rights. The siting of the proposed surveillance camera means that its field of view willinclude public access areas as well as private house premises which are not within the legitimateinterest of Cotham School and this proposal represents an intrusion into our right to privacy. Assurveillance camera technology advances so does the potential to intrude further into the privacyof individuals. The proposed camera is capable of wide-area surveillance with tracking, monitoringand zooming in for close-ups of the unsuspecting innocent people enjoying this important amenity.This is designed to intimidate people lawfully using the field for exercise. There is no possibility ofregulating and monitoring how and by whom this CCTV camera would be used. There is a delicatebalance between need for surveillance and civil liberty. This camera can scan (it is a pan-tiltmoving system, identical to that used in prisons) and thereby record data of the children'splayground, the area below the playground, Stoke Lodge carpark, the sensory garden, houses(Shirehampton Road, Stoke Paddock Road, Cheyne Road, Ebenezer Lane and Stoke Lodgeitself), gardens and the walkers forced into the perimeter walkway. A camera recording such datais a total invasion of personal privacy for the play area users, as well as the local residents. Ifurther object to excessive surveillance of land that the applicant doesnot have exclusive accessto.I further object to the installation of this pole and CCTV camera because the live and recordedfootage can be accessed by individuals from their private home outside working hours via a VNPfacility. Cotham Academy has already allowed the applicant of this planning permission to viewfootage from home in and out of business hours. It is not possible to ensure the viewing and/orpublication of footage is carried out appropriately. Whilst software privacy blocks might be set,planning officers will agree that these are not enforceable. I am appalled at the thought of the staffat Cotham School filming my family and I, as well as viewing the footage from their home address,totally at will. Does the applicant, Mr Nathan Allen, or any other potential operator of theequipment, hold an official government Security Industry Authority licence to "monitor the activities

of a member of the public in a public or private place"? This issue should be of great concern forall of us and undermines confidence in this particular education facility.The proposed development is on land which is the subject of two ongoing Town and Village Greenapplications, and is directly on the line of a claimed public right of way for which an application forregistration is outstanding. On these grounds alone, it should be withdrawn or dismissed withoutfurther consideration.

This proposal does nothing to ensure that the historic environment of Stoke Lodge Playing Fieldwill be safeguarded for the future or enhanced both for their own heritage merits and as part ofwider heritage regeneration proposals, rather it will be detrimental to it.

For all the above reasons I appeal to the planners to deny approval.

I strongly object to this application by Cotham Academy on several grounds.I have lived in the environs of Stoke Lodge Playing Field for over 40 years and value the amenity itprovides, therefore any application that might have an adverse effect on it is of much concern.There are many inaccuracies and errors in the submission of the application by Cotham Academymaking it totally inadequate because it submits false information and, on this basis alone, it shouldbe dismissed. The applicant is applying for permission over grounds that he neither owns nor hasthe right to control. This application in containing falsehoods is inadmissible.

The school's application fails to state that its proposal is 'for a specified purpose which is in pursuitof a legitimate aim', and that it is 'necessary to meet an identified pressing need'. CothamAcademy makes very little use of Stoke Lodge Playing Field, on average approximately just 10hours per week. The school spends these 10 hours almost exclusively at the opposite end towhere they propose to site the pole with CCTV attached. For this reason, this CCTV cannot beintended for the protection of its students. Therefore, 'identified pressing need' has not beenestablished in this application. There is nothing else in that area worthy of such extrememeasures. The location of Stoke Lodge Playing Field has one of the very lowest crime rates in thewhole of the city of Bristol, and the use of the field by school pupils playing sport does not seem towarrant the need for CCTV, as pupils must be supervised by an adequate number of school staffat all times. There have been no incidents of incursions into the field whilst PE takes place. Sothere is no pressing need for yet another CCTV and installing another camera would be regardedas an excessive measure.The proposed pole, fitted with a pan and tilt camera, is unsuitable for use adjacent to a fine Gradell listed building and its curtilage, being designed to fit environments like prisons, industrial sites,car parks or railway stations. It would adversely affect the setting of a nationally important listed

building and its mellow surrounds. Section 66 of the Listed Building and Conservation Act statesthat the Local Authority must have 'special,regard to the desirability of preserving and conservinga listed building and its setting.' The camera will be sited in the setting of Stoke Lodge as the fieldforms part of the backdrop for the house and it is on land designated as Important Open Space inthe local plan. Policy DM17 states at page 36: "Development on part, or all, of an Important OpenSpace as designated on the Policies Map will not be permitted unless the development is ancillaryto the open space use." On this basis alone, this application cannot not be granted. Theapplication contravenes a number of national and local planning policies and strategies. Theapplication for planning permission does not show that it has taken account of the highly sensitiveheritage locality and would be visual vandalism of this historical parkland. The proposed mast(between 4m and 12m in height) and camera will be completely out of character with the Grade lllisted Stoke Lodge buildings.The application is vague as to the precise height of the mast and the precise location intended forits installation. It is unacceptable to leave this so vague as this will impact on the range it canphotograph/record. For these reasons the application must be dismissed.As the field is available for public access, constant surveillance of this nature interferes with thequalified right of respect for private and family life provided under Article 8 of the European Charterof Human Rights. The siting of the proposed surveillance camera means that its field of view willinclude public access areas as well as private house premises which are not within the legitimateinterest of Cotham School and this proposal represents an intrusion into our right to privacy. Assurveillance camera technology advances so does the potential to intrude further into the privacyof individuals. The proposed camera is capable of wide-area surveillance with tracking, monitoringand zooming in for close-ups of the unsuspecting innocent people enjoying this important amenity.This is designed to intimidate people lawfully using the field for exercise. There is no possibility ofregulating and monitoring how and by whom this CCTV camera would be used. There is a delicatebalance between need for surveillance and civil liberty. This camera can scan (it is a pan-tiltmoving system, identical to that used in prisons) and thereby record data of the children'splayground, the area below the playground, Stoke Lodge carpark, the sensory garden, houses(Shirehampton Road, Stoke Paddock Road, Cheyne Road, Ebenezer Lane and Stoke Lodgeitself), gardens and the walkers forced into the perimeter walkway. A camera recording such datais a total invasion of personal privacy for the play area users, as well as the local residents. Ifurther object to excessive surveillance of land that the applicant doesnot have exclusive accessto.I further object to the installation of this pole and CCTV camera because the live and recordedfootage can be accessed by individuals from their private home outside working hours via a VNPfacility. Cotham Academy has already allowed the applicant of this planning permission to viewfootage from home in and out of business hours. It is not possible to ensure the viewing and/orpublication of footage is carried out appropriately. Whilst software privacy blocks might be set,planning officers will agree that these are not enforceable. I am appalled at the thought of the staffat Cotham School filming my family and I, as well as viewing the footage from their home address,totally at will. Does the applicant, Mr Nathan Allen, or any other potential operator of theequipment, hold an official government Security Industry Authority licence to "monitor the activities

of a member of the public in a public or private place"? This issue should be of great concern forall of us and undermines confidence in this particular education facility.The proposed development is on land which is the subject of two ongoing Town and Village Greenapplications, and is directly on the line of a claimed public right of way for which an application forregistration is outstanding. On these grounds alone, it should be withdrawn or dismissed withoutfurther consideration.

This proposal does nothing to ensure that the historic environment of Stoke Lodge Playing Fieldwill be safeguarded for the future or enhanced both for their own heritage merits and as part ofwider heritage regeneration proposals, rather it will be detrimental to it.

For all the above reasons I appeal to the planners to deny approval.

I write to object to this application by Cotham Academy.

The applicant's declared status as owner is false. He does not own, nor does he control. Theapplication must be inadmissible on these grounds.

The application should be on the grounds that the pole and pan and tilt camera is required for aspecific purpose and that it is necessary to fulfil a pressing need. The proposed position is faraway from the area used by Cotham Academy's students who use the facility of the fieldapproximately ten hours weekly and at a position remote from that of the proposed site. Thus thecamera cannot be intended for the security and protection of its students. Thus there appears tobe no pressing need. Yet another camera would clearly be excessive.Why the need for it? Cotham Academy are vague as to intended use. The field of view includespublic access areas and will have an intimidatory effect on people legitimately using the perimeterwalkway and indeed allow for surveillance by persons unknown monitoring via a VNP facility fromtheir home. This they can do at will in and out of business hours. This is not a high crime area andit is difficult to see what the Academy intend to use the equipment for.

The Academy have been economical where a description of height of mast and precise locationare concerned, though it would appear that the intention is to site it near to Stoke Lodge, a Grade11 listed building. A mast here will be inappropriate in this setting, even if it had met a pressingneed, which it does not.

In short, there is no good reason for it and the application should be denied.Local people enjoying the space should not be filmed while using it, particularly when it has not

been made clear even whether the operator and monitor of the camera holds an officialgovernment Security Authority Licence.

I would, for the above reasons object to granting approval for this unsightly, unwanted andunnecessary structure.

I write to object to this application by Cotham Academy.

The applicant's declared status as owner is false. He does not own, nor does he control. Theapplication must be inadmissible on these grounds.

The application should be on the grounds that the pole and pan and tilt camera is required for aspecific purpose and that it is necessary to fulfil a pressing need. The proposed position is faraway from the area used by Cotham Academy's students who use the facility of the fieldapproximately ten hours weekly and at a position remote from that of the proposed site. Thus thecamera cannot be intended for the security and protection of its students. Thus there appears tobe no pressing need. Yet another camera would clearly be excessive.Why the need for it? Cotham Academy are vague as to intended use. The field of view includespublic access areas and will have an intimidatory effect on people legitimately using the perimeterwalkway and indeed allow for surveillance by persons unknown monitoring via a VNP facility fromtheir home. This they can do at will in and out of business hours. This is not a high crime area andit is difficult to see what the Academy intend to use the equipment for.

The Academy have been economical where a description of height of mast and precise locationare concerned, though it would appear that the intention is to site it near to Stoke Lodge, a Grade11 listed building. A mast here will be inappropriate in this setting, even if it had met a pressingneed, which it does not.

In short, there is no good reason for it and the application should be denied.Local people enjoying the space should not be filmed while using it, particularly when it has not

been made clear even whether the operator and monitor of the camera holds an officialgovernment Security Authority Licence.

I would, for the above reasons object to granting approval for this unsightly, unwanted andunnecessary structure.

I write to object to this application by Cotham Academy.

The applicant's declared status as owner is false. He does not own, nor does he control. Theapplication must be inadmissible on these grounds.

The application should be on the grounds that the pole and pan and tilt camera is required for aspecific purpose and that it is necessary to fulfil a pressing need. The proposed position is faraway from the area used by Cotham Academy's students who use the facility of the fieldapproximately ten hours weekly and at a position remote from that of the proposed site. Thus thecamera cannot be intended for the security and protection of its students. Thus there appears tobe no pressing need. Yet another camera would clearly be excessive.Why the need for it? Cotham Academy are vague as to intended use. The field of view includespublic access areas and will have an intimidatory effect on people legitimately using the perimeterwalkway and indeed allow for surveillance by persons unknown monitoring via a VNP facility fromtheir home. This they can do at will in and out of business hours. This is not a high crime area andit is difficult to see what the Academy intend to use the equipment for.

The Academy have been economical where a description of height of mast and precise locationare concerned, though it would appear that the intention is to site it near to Stoke Lodge, a Grade11 listed building. A mast here will be inappropriate in this setting, even if it had met a pressingneed, which it does not.

In short, there is no good reason for it and the application should be denied.Local people enjoying the space should not be filmed while using it, particularly when it has not

been made clear even whether the operator and monitor of the camera holds an officialgovernment Security Authority Licence.

I would, for the above reasons object to granting approval for this unsightly, unwanted andunnecessary structure.

I write to object to this application by Cotham Academy.

The applicant's declared status as owner is false. He does not own, nor does he control. Theapplication must be inadmissible on these grounds.

The application should be on the grounds that the pole and pan and tilt camera is required for aspecific purpose and that it is necessary to fulfil a pressing need. The proposed position is faraway from the area used by Cotham Academy's students who use the facility of the fieldapproximately ten hours weekly and at a position remote from that of the proposed site. Thus thecamera cannot be intended for the security and protection of its students. Thus there appears tobe no pressing need. Yet another camera would clearly be excessive.Why the need for it? Cotham Academy are vague as to intended use. The field of view includespublic access areas and will have an intimidatory effect on people legitimately using the perimeterwalkway and indeed allow for surveillance by persons unknown monitoring via a VNP facility fromtheir home. This they can do at will in and out of business hours. This is not a high crime area andit is difficult to see what the Academy intend to use the equipment for.

The Academy have been economical where a description of height of mast and precise locationare concerned, though it would appear that the intention is to site it near to Stoke Lodge, a Grade11 listed building. A mast here will be inappropriate in this setting, even if it had met a pressingneed, which it does not.

In short, there is no good reason for it and the application should be denied.Local people enjoying the space should not be filmed while using it, particularly when it has not

been made clear even whether the operator and monitor of the camera holds an officialgovernment Security Authority Licence.

I would, for the above reasons object to granting approval for this unsightly, unwanted andunnecessary structure.

dated 30 April 2020, however this serves a different purpose and cannot be regarded as the substitute plan. All planning applications must be accompanied by a site location plan and a site layout plan, as advised by Section 5 of the above guidance document; at present there is no valid site layout plan.

Neither the site location plan or superseded site plan indicate the precise location of the CCTV pole and this must be clarified to ensure any decision is precise and enforceable. In addition, the plans do not indicate the height, direction, angle or coverage of the camera, all of which are fundamental to gaining a full appreciation of the impact of the proposals. The submitted datasheet is not sufficient in this regard; it allows for a pole height of between 4 and 12 metres, the impacts of which could be vastly different.

A revised set of plans should be submitted and the public consulted prior to determination of the application.

Home Office’s Surveillance Camera Code of Practice (June 2013)

The Government’s Code of Practice for the use of Surveillance Cameras should inform the consideration of the application proposals. Paragraph 1.4 states:

“The government is fully supportive of the use of overt surveillance cameras in a public place whenever that use is:

• in pursuit of a legitimate aim;

• necessary to meet a pressing need;

• proportionate;

• effective; and

• compliant with any relevant legal obligations.”

A system operator who is not a public authority, such as Cotham School, should satisfy themselves that any surveillance is necessary and proportionate (footnote 2, page 5).

Whilst the Code acknowledges that individuals can expect to be the subject of surveillance in a public place, they can, rightly expect surveillance in public places to be both necessary and proportionate, with appropriate safeguards in place (paragraph 2.3).

A legitimate aim and pressing need for any CCTV proposal must be articulated clearly and documented as the stated purpose for any deployment (Paragraph 2.4).

In respect of the proposals at Stoke Lodge playing fields the Applicant has not submitted any evidence to demonstrate a legitimate aim or a pressing need which would warrant the installation of CCTV.

Further details must be submitted by the Applicant and the local planning authority (LPA) must be satisfied that the proposals are required in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identified need if planning permission is granted.

The Home Office Code of Practice establishes a set of guiding principles that are applicable to all surveillance camera systems in public places. These principles include a requirement for as much transparency in the use of surveillance as possible, including a published contact point for access to information and complaints. It is important that the public are aware of the presence of the CCTV camera, its operator and purpose. Should the Council grant planning permission, a planning condition should be imposed to require the installation of signs to inform the public of the presence of the

cameras, with a map of its position, a point of contact for access to information and complaints, in accordance with the Home Office’s Code of Practice. Signs should be subject to prior agreement with the LPA and should be retained in situ for the duration of the camera’s use.

Bristol City Council Surveillance Camera Strategy (05.01.2015)

The Council’s Surveillance Camera Strategy is a material consideration for the application proposals. The strategy complies with the Home Office Code of Practice and provides some further guidance specific to the locality.

Section 2.2 advises that the Council, with Avon and Somerset Police and the Safer Bristol Partnership view surveillance cameras as one tool in their strategy to reduce crime in Bristol. Cameras should not be installed as an isolated measure, rather they should form part of a crime reduction programme in the coverage area.

Surveillance cameras must always be used as part of a package of measures in an area to tackle various types of crime, in consultation with local police. In this regard, the Council and Safer Bristol Partnership will support the use of surveillance cameras in line with Bristol’s crime reduction strategy, namely in recognised high crime areas1 and where there are other crime reduction measures taking place (Section 4). The Crime and Policing Data 2018-2019 indicates that the Ward of Stoke Bishop has the third lowest incidence of crime in the Bristol. In addition, there is no evidence that the Applicant is utilising CCTV as part of a package of measures to address any perceived safety issue. In these circumstances the Council’s strategy states that surveillance cameras should not be put up “as a matter of course” but only after careful consideration (Section 4).

In this instance, the Applicant has provided no details in support of the application to explain the reasoning, to demonstrate a need (despite the low incidents of crime in the area) or to show that CCTV would form part of a package of measures to address crime in the area.

Finally, the Council’s Surveillance Camera Strategy establishes parameters for consideration of new CCTV schemes. In all cases new proposals should be supported by a business case giving careful consideration to:

1. Whether CCTV is the right solution for the problem;

2. The design considerations of the scheme;

3. What consultation is required. All schemes must involve consultation with people most regularly affected by the scheme to address concerns around privacy;

4. Whether the main stakeholders support the aims of the scheme;

5. The sustainability of the scheme.

No business case has been submitted in support of the application and no consultation has been undertaken with local residents to understand their concerns prior to submission of the planning application. This is reflected in the high level of objections to this planning application.

1 As identified through Bristol’s Crime and Disorder and Drugs Reduction Strategy, Safer Bristol’s Strategic Assessment and Police Crime figures.

Summary

In conclusion, the submitted application is insufficient to enable a full and proper consideration of the development proposals. Contrary to Bristol City Council’s Surveillance Camera Strategy, the proposal is not located within an area of high crime, is not part of a package of measures to tackle crime and is not justified through evidence of a legitimate aim or a pressing need. In the absence of refined plans and evidence to demonstrate that the use of CCTV is legitimate, necessary and a proportionate response, planning permission should be refused.

In considering the planning application the LPA should consider whether an appropriate balance is achieved between public protection and individual privacy. To achieve overt surveillance by consent the LPA must be satisfied that the proposals comply with the guiding principles established by the Home Office and Bristol City Council’s Surveillance Camera Strategy.

Notwithstanding residents’ objection to the proposals, in the event that the Applicant provides sufficient information to enable the Council to consider granting planning permission, a planning condition should be imposed to require the installation of signs to inform the public of the presence of the cameras, with a map of its position and a point of contact for access to information and complaints, in accordance with the Home Office’s Code of Practice. Signs should be subject to prior agreement with the LPA and should be retained in situ for the duration of the camera’s use.

In addition, to ensure the need for the camera is kept under regular review, in accordance with Bristol City Council’s guiding principles, the permission should be for a limited period only.

Yours sincerely,

Lucy White B.Sc. (Hons) DipTP MRTPI Director

I would like to lodge my objection to this planning application.

This CCTV camera will have a detrimental impact to the amenity of a Grade 2 listed building. Thesuggested height of minimum 4 metres as well as the type of pole proposed, which is typicallyused in prisons, car parks etc, is wholly inappropriate for use near a listed building.

The land around Stoke Lodge is designated as Important Open Space in the Local Plan and hasbeen enjoyed by the community for over 70 years for recreation, leisure etc. Giving permission fora camera will increase unnecessary surveillance in this public area and cause concerns for usersof the play park, families using the field and users crossing the field to access the Adult LearningCentre.

It is unclear what the need is for this camera and why it is being applied for now. The lower part ofthe field is hardly ever used by the school and the camera feed is not meant to be monitored liveanyway. The timing of the proposal is inappropriate given the ongoing progress of the TVG andpublic rights of way applications.

What possible advantage can it be to Cotham School to erect another expensive andpointless CCTV camera on such a sensitive site, so close to the listed buildings, and invasive ofthe community's privacy? They must have money to burn.

I, for one, would feel most uncomfortable having to face CCTV - though I have nothing to hide -but it smacks of a police state, and betrays a very unpleasant attitude on behalf of the school.I take my grand-children to the play area (in normal times).We long for the freedom to walk across the grass and play frisbee or ball without the restrictions ofthe fence and padlocked gates when the school are not using the field.

What possible damage can the community do that would need insurance - bend the grass bywalking on it? I imagine the only things they are worried about must be the machinery in the oldshed, but anyone wanting to break into that would have an easy job as it's hardly well armoured.

Now that restrictions on parks and groups have been relaxed, it would make much more sense toleave the gates unlocked.If the pupils of Cotham School need to be kept from running off, or from any kind of parentalinvasion of the property, by all means fence them in, but there is absolutely no need to fence usout when they are not there - we who have been responsibly using the field personally since 1973,and have acquired Prescriptive Rights which are now being infringed. Our Rights of Way areanother matter.

I do hope common sense will prevail!

All the best,Anthea (a.k.a. Anni) Davey

This application relates to development on land which is the subject of two ongoingTown or Village Green applications, and is directly on the line of a claimed public right of way forwhich an application for registration is outstanding. On these grounds alone, it should bewithdrawn or dismissed without further consideration: it is simply impossible to ensure that publicrights under those other pre-existing applications would not be prejudiced by the currentapplication.

It would be entirely inappropriate to grant permission for development that could in futurephysically block a public right of way and/or occupy and permit surveillance over aregistered village green.

I do not believe the application is properly made. Firstly, it omits critical details (the pole is statedto be anywhere between 4m and 12m in height and its precise location (e.g. inside or outside theschool's fence?) is not clear; no details are provided about the camera). Secondly, the statedapplicant is Nathan Allen, and he is not (as asserted in section 25) the owner of the land. He is nota director of Cotham School Limited nor a governor of the school but rather, an employee.

The application also contravenes national and local planning policies and strategies. For example,the application documents include a statement that the typical use of this type of pole is in prisonsand detention centres, railway stations, car parks, industrial and commercial premises etc. It ismanifestly detrimental to the setting of the Grade II listed building just a few feet away from theproposed location.

There is no justification in this application of (a) the need for CCTV in this location at all, given thatthis area has one of the lowest recorded crime rates in Bristol and that the school already hasthree CCTV cameras on site (which were installed without a planning application being required);or (b) the need for this dominating, ugly and entirely unacceptable pole in a historic parklandlandscape which is designated as Important Open Space for its visual amenity (among otherqualities).

Bristol's own Planning Policy BCS22 states that 'Development proposals will safeguard orenhance heritage assets and the character and setting of areas of acknowledged importanceincluding... historic buildings both nationally and locally listed'. This proposal would directly conflictwith that policy and should be rejected. It is inconceivable that a structure of this kind could beseen as 'safeguarding or enhancing' the character and setting of Stoke Lodge.

There has been no consultation with the community nor any attempt to demonstrate that thecameras are used to protect and support them, rather than spy on them.

Please reject this application either because of its defective nature and/or inappropriate timing inview of the TVG and PROW applications, or because (a) it is inappropriate within the setting of alisted building, (b) it has demonstrated no convincing and clear justification/legitimate aim andpressing need, and (c) it conflicts with multiple planning policies.

I support the installation of the CCTV pole at the Stoke Lodge Sports Ground. Therehas been ongoing and repeated trespass and criminal damage to the fence and grounds at StokeLodge and the installation of the CCTV will enable Cotham School to protect their property fromwhat looks very much like a targeted campaign. Thank you.

I wish to object at an attempt to turn what was a pleasant parkland into somethingresembling a prisoner-of-war camp.

Others have expressed their opposition to the application far better than I could ever do but Iwould reiterate that the application does not explain why such surveillance is necessary especiallyof an important open space where the lease allows use by the community. There can be noreason to install a camera capable of surveying families using the playpark activities or walking inthe surrounding area. If one were to be installed, presumably there would have to be notices allover the place telling people that they were under surveillance. In addition, it would seem that thecamera is quite capable of infringing the privacy of houses outside of the parkland itself and therecan surely be no need for these properties to be subjected to this interference.

A further objection, to which others have drawn attention, is the proximity of the camera to StokeLodge, an important listed building, which would have a deleterious effect on the curtilage of thehouse.

There has been vandalism to the fences on site and it is costing the school money thatit should spend elsewhere. It is also taking an inordinate amount of the school staff's time. Thesevandals need to be prevented and cctv seems the only way after countless pleas, posters etctrying to persuade them to stop.

This is malicious damage and a school should not have to suffer this sort of behaviour. They havemore important things to do like supporting their pupils during lockdown.

CCTV would also save police call out time.

I urge BCC to allow this planning application.

The camera is urgently needed to combat the persistent and costly vandalism that has escalatedat Stoke Lodge in recent months, as well as harassment of school staff, contractors and parentsvisiting the site.

To counter already submitted objections to this application, I would point out that there are alreadymany other CCTV cameras in the area, both on local houses and the Adult Eduction Centre, whichwere erected without local objection. Also, the intended camera here would only cover CothamSchool lease land and not look into private homes.

I also think it is wholly inappropriate for numerous objectors to ignore the extensive recentvandalism / damage to the fence / school signs and to include references to prison camps in theirsubmissions.

This new CCTV camera would be a much-needed help to Cotham School as it aims to ensure itsCouncil-appointed playing fields are fit for its own purpose, and don't suffer additional abuse.

I would hope that those locals who want a peaceful and respectful relationship with the Schoolwould agree.

On behalf of Justice for Cotham Group:

We fully support Cotham School's (CS) application to install a pole mounted CCTV camera atStoke Lodge Playing Field (SLPF) for the following reasons.

The playing field is school premises. This has been confirmed specifically for CS by David Shand,the Team Leader of Land Policy at the Department for Education. David Shand was provided witha copy of CS's lease before confirming this.

The Department for Education's Site Security Guidance 5th November 2019 includes the followingpoints for consideration:

Is your perimeter secure?Is your external environment secure?Are your buildings secure?The boundary of a site is the first round of defence and should be protected with a secure fence orrailings

We have photographed, noted and reported (to the school and to police) numerous examples oftrespass and criminal damage at SLPF, including people and dogs entering the field when itshould be shut, repeated criminal damage to the fence and signage, graffiti, fly-posting, evidenceof malicious damage to the grass. We believe there is a high likelihood of ongoing damage.Existing control measures to prevent this damage are clearly not effective. Therefore there is botha legitimate aim and pressing need for more comprehensive coverage of SLPF by CCTV to satisfy

the above Government guidelines.

Section 547 of the Education Act 1996 makes it a criminal offence for a person who is on schoolpremises to cause a nuisance or a disturbance. As well as physical damage and trespass, wehave evidence for or have witnessed:

- Threatening and/ or upsetting behaviour by members of the public towards children, staffcontractors and visitors. These include:-Demanding to know who visitors are and threats to harm them.- Unauthorised use of drones-Watching children with binoculars-Following children off coaches- Photographing children and posting images on social media. This is particularly concerning forfamilies with children with complex safeguarding requirements.

We believe additional CCTV, with unrestricted views and clear facial recognition is a vital tool toreduce safeguarding risks at SLPF, and to assist the police in identifying offenders.

CS has demonstrated integrity and accountability in its CCTV policy, which it has outlined in theSLPF FAQs document and in a Freedom of Information request. We are confident that its use ofCCTV is proportionate and that data will be handled correctly. Members of the public cannotexpect privacy on private school premises, especially where there is a history of criminal damageand nuisance. The cameras will only cover CS's leasehold land, not other people's premises.We also note there is existing CCTV in the area. As well as CS cameras, the Adult LearningCentre (ALC) is covered in numerous cameras and 2 Stoke Lodge Cottages has clear signagethat passersby are 'on CCTV'. It is hard to take objections on the grounds of privacy to CS's CCTVseriously, when the objectors are apparently not troubled by existing non-CS surveillance.

The pole will have very effect on the visual amenity of the site. It is not within the curtilage of theAdult Learning Centre (ALC) and is not in a conservation area. In addition:

Poles, posts and floodlights are structures expected on a sports fieldThe play park had no planning permission yet its appearance is hardly in keeping with the ALCbuilding either, nor is the car park and its fencingThe enormous 'Tree of Life' chainsaw carved totem pole in the arboretum is also not in characterwith the ALC architecture, and can hardly be classed as looking natural.The camera on the maintenance shed at SLPF was smeared with a substance that rendered ituseless. The height and position of the new camera will make it more resistant to damage.

For these reasons the objections to a single CCTV pole seem arbitrary and petty. We also notethat CCTV on poles were recently installed at UWE's Glenside Campus BS16 1DD followingplanning approval 2018 Ref 17/07 083/LA. Like SLPF, this was in response to an ongoing criminaldamage. Unlike SLPF, the property is actually associated with a listed building as well as indesignated conservation.

We see no merit nor legitimate planning concerns in any of the objections we have read so far tothis application. They seem to be based on a historic dislike of CS and a desire to frustrate ANYattempt to get the field secure for CS children. Indeed we have plenty of evidence from We LoveStoke Lodge social media that criminal damage on site has been dismissed as 'mischief',condoned and even encouraged by laughing at 'sign fairies' and fence fairies'. The spokespeoplefor WLSL have been complicit in this behaviour, and we have made reports to police about knownmembers of this group who have been overheard planning damage and boasting that they knowwho is doing the vandalism.

Some of the comments referring to WW2 prison camps are truly inappropriate, insensitive andhugely ill judged around VE day and when families have relatives affected by these issues. Wewould ask that BCC remove these offensive comments immediately.

For all the above reasons we request that BCC summarily approves this application, withoutfurther requirement to submit to committee.

I object to this planning application to erect a CCTV camera on Stoke Lodge for thefollowing reasons:Invasion of privacy of local residents and users of children's playparkThere are cameras already in position at Stoke Lodge and in December 2019 under CothamSchool's Data Privacy Impact Statement they refer to the fact that there would be no more CCTV. There is no guarantee that Cotham School will not ask for more cameras and greater intrusion inthe futureThe application states the location of the camera but no indication of the true extent of thesurveillance. The camera includes areas where families and local residents have a reasonableexpectation of privacy including towards properties on Shirehampton Road and the childrensplaypark. I have no assurance that the footage cannot be viewed by individuals unknown and ifthis was persons physically present by the childrens playpark, safeguarding concerns would berightly raised. The same must apply to a remotely accessed CCTV camera.This application fails to answer important questions and should therefore be rejected. Who willcontrol the recordings? Who will have access to the recordings? Are they permitted to hold suchdata? Will the camera operate 24 hours including at times when the public rather than the schoolis permitted to use the field.I also have concerns about how images from the camera will be accessed. There is noreassurance that this will be purely during the time when the school are using Stoke Lodge duringschool hours and from school premises or from elswhere, possibly outside of school hours. Theheadmistress of Cotham School has promised to open Stoke Lodge to local residents when theschool are not using it. I consider surveillance of my recreation time an invasion of privacy. Thisconstitutes an infringement of my right to family life which should be free of surveillance.

Discrepancies within the planning proposal The following are incorrect in the planning application and therefore undermines its validity1 The application states that Mr Nate Allen is the 'owner' of this property. This is not factuallycorrect as Mr Allen is the Facilities Manager for Cotham School and the owners are actually BristolCity Council who lease Stoke Lodge to the school.2 The address of the property for the planning application is incorrectly stated as Sea Mills and isnot known as Stoke Lodge sports ground in any official documentation3 The applicant's address is incorrect as there are no habital dwellings on the site nor is this theregistered address for Cotham School.4 The application states that the pole will be 'adjacent to the gate' below the ALC but the locationmap suggests that it will be positioned parallel with the corner of the walled car park i.e. a littledistance into the field. 5 The application states the camera pole will be 4-12m high. This is too vague to warrant approvalImpact of the proposed pole and CCTV on the amenity of a listed environment This proposal does not fit in with the historic and visual appearance of the locality as per guidancefrom Historic England. Stoke Lodge is a Grade II listed building and the land is designated asImportant Open Space in the Local Plan and has been enjoyed by the community for over 70years. This proposal is inappropriate in a Grade II setting. The data sheet submitted as part of theapplication specifically states that this type of pole is typically used in prisons and detentionfacilities, car parks, railway stations, etc. This application would turn green space into more urban jungle. It is imperative that Bristol CityCouncil maintains what green space remains

Cotham School have previously used the desire for safeguarding of pupils for erecting fences andCCTV. This is not valid for this camera as Cotham School have never used this area of purposesof school lessons. Therefore, CCTV in this location serves no purpose for the pupils of the school,surely the core business of the school.

Are there better (and cheaper) ways to ensure safety of Stoke Lodge?Cotham School do not state in the planning application why the CCTV is required. The school haschosen to lock out the community at the time of an international pandemic when people need to beable to exercise locally.Instead of allowing the community to use Stoke Lodge, who have and would police it e.g. askingdog owners not to all dogs on the area, the school have chosen to install further surveillance inaddition to a fence that restricts public access contrary to the terms of their lease. Ultimately thissurveillance is unnecessary and the cost of this system would be a saving for the school if onlythey would sincerely negotiate with the community. Instead they choose to waste educationalfunds at a time of reduced educational funding on surveillance cameras.

Is the camera necessary to safeguard the currently unused Stoke Lodge due to high crime rates?The police and crime figures show that there were 2 reported incidents of criminal damage

reported in West Dene in March 2020. This is equivalent to reporting rates for Combe Dingle carpark but there is no necessity for CCTV to be erected there. The application does not suggest thatit is being made 'on police advice' since the Safer Bristol Partnership supports use of CCTV in highcrime areas. This data suggests that the crime rate is no higher in Stoke Lodge than elsewhereand therefore does not uniquely require CCTV.

Can the applicants justify the costs?Cotham School already have cameras ( there is no mention of this in the current application) keeping the grass and derelict building under surveillance and this application does not explainwhy an additional camera is required. As a tax payer, I wish to see educational institutions makingthe best use of limited funds for their pupils. At a time when academy funding is reducing and theCovid pandemic will have an impact on the economy, I would wish a school to use the thousandsof pounds this will be costing for a greater benefit to their pupils. What possible motivation couldthe school have to divert funds away from the education of their pupils?

I object on the basis of the points raised by the "We love stoke lodge" group.

Overall this appears to be a further act of antagonism to the local community by the applicant.

I strongly object to the proposal to erect a CCTV mast on Stoke Lodge. It is a calculatedinsult to people who live near Stoke Lodge or walk on the perimeter route or nearby, or parentsbringing their children to the playground.However, my specific objections to the current application are as follows:1. The applicant is not the owner or leaseholder of the land but has declared that he is.2. There has been no fulfilment by Cotham School of any of BCC's own Guiding Principles on theuse of CCTV in Bristol which are too long to enumerate here but which are eminently applicable toStoke Lodge and are easily accessible online. Surely the Council will insist on its own code ofpractice being adhered to? I have no confidence that the School either understands or has evenread the BCC code of practice nor that they would, on recent form, adhere to the regulations. Forexample, we have the recent experience of many violations of rules with regard to trees with aTPO of which several were damaged in this regard when the School (with the present applicantpresent and also some members of the School's own governing body and the business manager)was 'supervising' the installation of the perimeter fence (in fact the relevant officers of BCC werenot bothered either!) and when the applicant for the present application was 'supervising' thecable-laying for a CCTV on the derelict pavilion. Damage incurred by the latter was denied untilphotographs were produced.3. Not long ago a sign that the School wished to erect near the house was disallowed by BCC asnot appropriate to the beautiful setting of Stoke Lodge and its historic house and the adjoiningland. How much more hideous and inappropriate would be the eyesore of a tall pole with a panand tilt camera on it that could rise to a height of 12 meters for surveying the field and itssurroundings as if it were a prison compound! The desirability of preserving the setting of historicimportance is quite clearly stated in Section 66 of the Planning Act 1990 (Listed Buildings andConservation Areas). In addition, two different locations for the pole have been stated in the

application. Which is the correct one? And why is the fence not marked on the map?4. This camera would not be 'surveillance by consent' as specified in the Guidelines, but merely aspying mechanism. Article 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights quotes respect for privatelife with no interference. There is a monumental invasion of privacy that would be incurred by thiscamera which in its field of view includes the bedroom and bathroom windows and gardens ofseveral houses near the perimeter, a view of Ebenezer Lane which is a public right of way and,worst of all, a clear view of the children's playground.5. There is also the fact that claims for four rights of way are pending that have been walked on fordecades and which are awaiting scrutiny, and two TVG applications that have yet to be decided.6. No reason has been given of the reason for the installation of a camera to survey a large part ofthe field which the School never uses either for athletics or for games. There is nothing thereexcept grass. So what could possibly be the real reason? One has to assume that teachers are incharge of all the children brought there and it is an insult to their integrity and expertise that theyshould have a camera trained on them if it comes to the point where that lower end of the field isactually used. There is a pronounced slope on that area and it is often waterlogged in the winterso regular games classes on school days would be difficult in any case. So I revert to my pointabove that the reason for the installation would be to spy on anybody who happens to be near thefield.7. Recently the School stated that 'There are no plans to extend the scope of the current CCTVsystem'. So they are lying yet again just as they did recently with their comments about vandalismwhich they peddled to a gullible reporter on the Bristol Post, and to the police when reporting'incidents' that never happened. The need for a camera in this location has not been stated orjustified. No public consultation has been carried out. The lease on the land clearly states that thecommunity should have access to it, so any CCTV installation can only be for further spying onusers, and not in any way for safeguarding pupils from the school.The application should be firmly refused.

It is really sad that the installation of a CCTV should be necessary, but the repeatedvandalism of the fence this year means that it is. My children's education is actively harmed by themoney taken up to redress this damage. That this criminal damage is being referred to as'mischief' suggests that there is a high likelihood that it will happen again, and therefore, thoselegally responsible for the upkeep of the playing field should be allowed to take the measuresneeded to protect it.

Firstly, I strongly object to the application as it will result in an intrusion of privacy ofanybody walking around the field and possibly in adjacent properties. I understand that inDecember 2019, in its Data Privacy Impact Assessment, it was stated that there were no plans toincrease CCTV coverage yet here is another creeping change.

Secondly, and more disappointingly, this whole saga of change at Stoke Lodge and the lack ofwillingness to share goes against the wish for the area to be for the benefit of all the residents ofBristol; when the grounds were given to the Council.

I object to the erection of a CCTV mast and system at Stoke Lodge by CothamAcademy (CA).It is clearly not in keeping with a Listed building and its surroundings.The proposed application will lead to a potential invasion of privacy at the children's play park, theAdult Learning Centre (ALC), the gardens surrounding the ALC, the private houses and gardenson Shirehampton Road, Stoke Paddock Road, Cheyne Road, Woodland Close, South Dene, WestDene and Ebenzer Lane.In addition, the land that is Stoke Lodge Playing Fields (SLPF) is under ongoing dispute and itcannot be right that one party is allowed to erect CCTV. Even if access to SLPF were not indispute, is it right that any person roaming the land should be monitored 24hrs / day?CA have stated that the purpose of the new camera tower is 'to cover the lower end of the playingfield' (behind Stoke Paddock Road). CA have never used the bottom area of this beautiful openspace. CA built a fence (under dispute) and now want to erect CCTV to monitor land they havenever used for sport. Their own records will show they are using just a tiny part at the top end ofthe field.Mr Nathan Allan has again submitted an incorrect application for land that he does not own. Youhave to reject this application on the basis that it is incorrect and ask the question of your tenant(CA) why they cannot (worryingly for a school) do the basics correctly.Bristol City Council have unbelievably granted CA a lease of over 100 years on SLPF: please befar more careful in what you now permit.With regards to SLPF, CA have proved that possession is 9/10th of the law; they have gone abouttheir stewardship of this historic land in, at best, a most cavalier fashion, and in reality, acontemptable manner, bordering on the illegal.

This application joins a litany of false statements and Health & Safety claims, byobdurate individuals, to justify abolition of public access to an important Local Green Space.- The school has falsely claimed that it was an Ofsted requirement that Stoke lodge Parkland befenced - debunked!- Stoke Lodge is a Nationally Important, Grade ii Country Estate that encompasses the entireParkland, including the boundary wall and cottages - FACT but was unilaterally downgraded byBCC, with no opportunity for public consultation on the sudden loss of Open Green Space?- Health and Safety ignored in 2018; a (Cotham) pupil suffered life changing injury (severed finger)on similar fencing to the type Cotham chose to install on Stoke Lodge Parkland and contra toofficial safety warnings, following this tragic accident.- Fencing, erected in 2019 but started without the requisite planning approval i.e. no workingmethod for root protection of TPO'd trees; this required a "stop notice" but only after robust localobjections. Regrettably, infringements to TPO'd tree roots occurred during installation and havebeen officially documented. Nevertheless; individuals must be aware that they cannot beindemnified, if there is evidence that damage to these trees was, wilfully negligent.- The introduction of yet another unnecessary CCTV camera has no justification allied to PupilHealth & safety; this area of the field is essentially unused although the school had previouslyclaimed (2010) that loss of any pitches here, to allow installation of a much needed "children's playarea", would be detrimental to their sports provision but that too has been debunked in recenttimes.- So, absolutely no compelling reason to further denigrate a once peaceful landscape - Just SayNo!

I wish to object to this application on several grounds, including the following:1. First of all, Nathan Allan is not the owner of Stoke Lodge, Bristol City Council ("BCC") is theultimate owner of Stoke Lodge which, under the terms of a lease dated 31 August 2011 ("theLease") BCC has leased part of Stoke Lodge to Cotham School of whom I understand Mr Allan ismerely an employee.2. The postal address of the property is incorrectly listed as Sea Mills whereas it is in StokeBishop, so the application is technically wrong.3. The land at Stoke Lodge has been designated as an Important Open Space which has beenenjoyed by the local community without any hindrance, prior to the Lease being granted to CothamSchool by BCC, for over 70 years. Clause 2-1 of the Lease states that Cotham School's rightsunder the lease are "subject also to all existing rights and the use of the property including use bythe community" If permission were granted to put up these intrusive CCTV cameras it would giveright to Cotham School to monitor the land that is designated for recreational leisure by thecommunity whilst use by Cotham School of this area of land is minimal to non-existent, due to thesloping terrain and its propensity to become boggy.4. There are 3 Cameras already in position at Stoke Lodge and in December 2019 under CothamSchool's Data Privacy Impact Statement they refer to the fact that there would be no more CCTV.5. The new camera is proposed to be on a pole more suited to prisons, detention centres, carparks and railway stations and its position adjacent to a Grade II listed building is detrimental tothis property. In addition to the historic buildings, close by is the Lucombe Oak a "Tree of theYear".6. The proposed CCTV camera would also overlook the playground used by small children atStoke Lodge which would be a serious concern to parents and will also have a detrimental impacton the appearance of this area.

7. The proposed position of the pole supporting the CCTV is subject to pending Public Rights ofWay ("PROW") applications and the trajectory of its lines of vision almost certainly overlook privategardens and into properties on Shirehampton Road, Stoke Paddock Road, Ebenezer Lane andpossibly Cheyne Road We are told the cameras are not monitored but we know that they can beand are accessed 24 hours a day from the home of a member of Cotham School's staff. This is acompletely disproportionate invasion of privacy in my opinion.8. With Stoke Lodge being subject to 2 outstanding Town & Village Green ("TVG") applicationsbeing current and the PROW applications I do not consider that this application for furthersurveillance, in addition to the 3 Cameras owned by Cotham School already in position at StokeLodge9. What is the guarantee that Cotham School will not ask for more cameras and greater intrusionin the future? In the School's Data Privacy Impact Assessment, signed off in December 2019, itstates that it had no plans to increase CCTV coverage, and yet here we are barely 5 months later,and they are applying for further surveillance. The whole thing feels like something out of GeorgeOrwell's 1984.

I wish to object to this application on several grounds, including the following:1. First of all, Nathan Allan is not the owner of Stoke Lodge, Bristol City Council ("BCC") is theultimate owner of Stoke Lodge which, under the terms of a lease dated 31 August 2011 ("theLease") BCC has leased part of Stoke Lodge to Cotham School of whom I understand Mr Allan ismerely an employee.2. The postal address of the property is incorrectly listed as Sea Mills whereas it is in StokeBishop, so the application is technically wrong.3. The land at Stoke Lodge has been designated as an Important Open Space which has beenenjoyed by the local community without any hindrance, prior to the Lease being granted to CothamSchool by BCC, for over 70 years. Clause 2-1 of the Lease states that Cotham School's rightsunder the lease are "subject also to all existing rights and the use of the property including use bythe community" If permission were granted to put up these intrusive CCTV cameras it would giveright to Cotham School to monitor the land that is designated for recreational leisure by thecommunity whilst use by Cotham School of this area of land is minimal to non-existent, due to thesloping terrain and its propensity to become boggy.4. There are 3 Cameras already in position at Stoke Lodge and in December 2019 under CothamSchool's Data Privacy Impact Statement they refer to the fact that there would be no more CCTV.5. The new camera is proposed to be on a pole more suited to prisons, detention centres, carparks and railway stations and its position adjacent to a Grade II listed building is detrimental tothis property. In addition to the historic buildings, close by is the Lucombe Oak a "Tree of theYear".6. The proposed CCTV camera would also overlook the playground used by small children atStoke Lodge which would be a serious concern to parents and will also have a detrimental impacton the appearance of this area.

7. The proposed position of the pole supporting the CCTV is subject to pending Public Rights ofWay ("PROW") applications and the trajectory of its lines of vision almost certainly overlook privategardens and into properties on Shirehampton Road, Stoke Paddock Road, Ebenezer Lane andpossibly Cheyne Road We are told the cameras are not monitored but we know that they can beand are accessed 24 hours a day from the home of a member of Cotham School's staff. This is acompletely disproportionate invasion of privacy in my opinion.8. With Stoke Lodge being subject to 2 outstanding Town & Village Green ("TVG") applicationsbeing current and the PROW applications I do not consider that this application for furthersurveillance, in addition to the 3 Cameras owned by Cotham School already in position at StokeLodge9. What is the guarantee that Cotham School will not ask for more cameras and greater intrusionin the future? In the School's Data Privacy Impact Assessment, signed off in December 2019, itstates that it had no plans to increase CCTV coverage, and yet here we are barely 5 months later,and they are applying for further surveillance. The whole thing feels like something out of GeorgeOrwell's 1984.

I object very strongly to the installation of a CCTV pole and camera close to StokeLodge House for the following reasons:-

The CCTV camera will record all the users of the field whilst they are on publicly owned land withshared use protected under the School's lease. This is an invasion of personal privacy. TheSchool has previously advised that they do Not follow the Surveillance Camera Code of Practiceunder Section 29 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

The impact to a listed building is not to be underestimated. Stoke Lodge House is Grade 2 listed.The CCTV pole and camera will be seriously detrimental to the visual appearance of the house.

The School has not attempted to justify or demonstrate the need for CCTV on what is effectively afield. When any children from the school are using the site they are supervised and therefore thereis no safeguarding risk.

Given the type of CCTV the school wish to install there is a danger of the camera being able tofilm people using Stoke Lodge House and car park, children in the play area and possibly privatehouses.

I would therefore ask Bristol City Council to refuse this application.

I object to the proposed CCTV camera adjacent to the Grade 2 listed building of StokeLodge. It would be visually intrusive and have the potential to film, unbeknown to families, childrenWho may be in the playground. It would also potentially video gardens/ people in Stoke Paddock,Woodland Grove and part of Bell Barn road; this would be a serious breach of privacy forresidents.Yours SincerelyGhyslaine Hobbs

I support the proposal for extra CCTV at Stoke Lodge, as the site has been plagued byvandalism for a long time now.The vandalism has been extremely costly for the school to deal with, and so extra security for theplaying fields is needed to prevent further vandelism, and to ensure that the school can hold PElessions in a safe clean secure environment

Having more of the site covered by CCTV will hopefully discourage the continued damage to thefence, by a persistent local criminal element

The CCTV It will also reduce the amount of dog walking on the site, which is a health hazard to allusers, but particularly children using the playing fields.

The proposed CCTV tower will not have a negative visual impact on the playing fields, and will notaffect the privacy of local residents, as it is solely to increase security for the playing fields that areleased, and maintained by Cotham School.

Please pass this planning application.

This will be the fourth CCTV camera in an area that has been used for 70 odd yearswithout any such excessive and unprecedented surveillance. There is no obvious "specifiedpurpose which is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identified pressing need"(Art 8, European Charter of Human Rights).

The setting of Stoke Lodge, a Grade 2 listed building surrounded by amenity land valued for itsvisual and environmental qualities is an Important Open Space for the local community. The spaceis designated thus to be used for recreation, leisure and community use as per existing users'rights as is stated in the lease. People should be allowed to carry out their rightful freedomswithout unfettered recorded surveillance. It is a huge invasion of privacy to have unknown,unmonitored observers accessing the movement and daily lives of local residents and otherparties going about their lawful private business. Cotham School's Data Privacy ImpactAssessment of December 2019 had stated that Cotham School had no intentions to increaseCCTV coverage; only 5 months later and further covert 24/7 surveillance is being sought.An obtrusive, invasive structure such as described is inappropriate to this amenity land that is alsoadjacent to private residences.This application is yet another unwarranted encroachment into the lives of Stoke Lodge users, andis particularly inappropriate whilst two TVG applications, and a Public Rights Of Way applicationsare in progress.

I wish to object to the proposed surveillance camera:

I moved to this area in 2010 in order to find a peaceful, quiet place to live so that my disableddaughter would thrive.

Stoke Lodge remains the centre of our Community. It is a publicly accessible ground enshrinedwithin the terms of the 2011 lease between Cotham Academy and Bristol City Council. This leaselegally confirms the community's right to access the field. It is classed as important open space.Many people exercise and walk on the field. Moreover, young children freely cycle around theperimeter, people find peace in the sensory garden, toddlers play in the playground, and familiespick blackberries at the back of the house, and children play games in the area adjacent to theplayground. Students at Stoke Lodge park in the rear carpark adjacent to the perimeter fence andenjoy the grounds surrounding the house.

Cotham Academy wishes to install a pole mounted CCTV camera on Stoke Lodge that can be anyheight between 4 and 12 metres and which can also pan and tilt. I am not sure what their objectiveis for none has been provided. In their application, there is no analysis or design statement. Inaddition, there is no privacy impact assessment for this camera. It is hard to see how thisproposed action can be construed as proportionate.

However, I am grateful for this application in that it is a vehicle to shine a spotlight on CA'ssurveillance actions and to establish whether their current CCTV policy is compliant with

legislation. I think that it is not and I believe that this is relevant to the application process.

Accordingly, I have looked at the school's very brief CCTV policy buried within the general DataProtection Policy. I was stuck by its inaccuracy in that it refers to one school site. It is very vagueabout where the cameras are sited on this one site. It says that CCTV is clearly visible and thereare signs: But there are no visible signs on Stoke Lodge at all access routes. I therefore querywhether the current surveillance system at Stoke Lodge is registered with the ICO under the termsof the Data Protection Act 2018. Does it comply with the ICO Code of Practice 2008 andSurveillance Code of Practice 2013? Moreover, I query whether the school has complied with alltheir CCTV duties e.g. to inform the ICO about the way in which the use of CCTV cameras haschanged ( they refer to use of CCTV only on one site not on Stoke Lodge.) I also query whetherthey have complied with all FOI requests to release data to the public as per legislation. This isimportant, as the public will need to use this FOI system should they wish to access any imagesheld of them by the academy.

As a member of the public, I have no idea how the general public will be able to control use of theirimages; who will access/ view these images? what use they will make of them? and how longthese images will be safely stored? how will the passwords be protected? where will the imagesbe viewed by the data handler? what is the complaint system? and how they will handle breachesof their code of practice etc? This is all highly unsatisfactory.

I am also worried about the choice of camera being a pan tilt camera as this suggests that therewill be an operative constantly operating the camera and moving it. This is quite unnerving. Mostschools have fixed cameras only and indeed, this is a legal requirement in Eire. I am not sure howthe Council will determine this camera's field of vision when this camera able to move and focuson detail.

I am also highly concerned, as there seem nothing to prevent the camera looking into areas thatdo not form part of Cotham Academy's sports grounds. Adjacent to the proposed site are theplayground, car park, sensory garden and perimeter that the public are permitted to access. Thecamera will be highly visible and create a hostile atmosphere. Moreover, it seems highly probablethat it will be able to move to look at people enjoying their day-to-day lives. In any event, the fieldis meant to also be for public recreation and is an important open space. All this seems contrary toArticle 8 of the Human Rights Act.

The pole-mounted camera will be within the grounds of Stoke Lodge, which is a beautiful listedbuilding of significance to Bristol and will have a negative impact on its setting. The camera will be

a dominating eyesore. A camera like this is more suited for a prison or perhaps a warehousecarpark.

According to the case of Steer, setting in construed widely and there is no doubt that (despite thefence constricted without planning permission around a listed building) the field is the setting forStoke Lodge. Therefore, the Council are duty bound to give considerable importance and weightto the desirability of preserving the setting of Stoke Lodge under Section 66 (1) of the PlanningListed Building and Conservation Act 1990.As the stark ugly planned pole and camera will clearlyharm the setting of Stoke Lodge there should be a strong presumption for refusal.

Moreover, Cotham Academy have offered neither justification nor analysis for this development toaid the planning officer in their balancing act process which they are required to do whenproposals impact a listed building.

Furthermore, I am not entirely sure that having such overt and intrusive CCTV will benefit themental state of the pupils who might feel that exercising at school become similar to exercising ina prison yard.

Chakrabati whilst at Liberty questioned how pupils would learn to respect themselves and others iftheir own privacy and liberty were taken away:

'It's a sad state indeed if children grow up to expect prison style monitoring. By over watchingpupils we my be overlooking our real duties to respect and protect them.'

I fully support the school's application to install CCTV equipment as described in theapplication. This is paramount to protect the welfare of Cotham School students and to ensure thatthe ongoing vandalism of the playing fields is stopped and the criminals causing the damage canbe apprehended, brought to justice and to ensure that compensation to repair the damage can beclaimed. I have two children at Cotham School who regularly use the playing fields for PE lessonsand the school needs to be able to protect not only the school's property, but very importantly thesafety of the children. It is absolutely appalling that over recent weeks, while school staff and thechildren of keyworkers attending Cotham School have been busy manufacturing thousands ofitems of lifesaving protective equipment for the NHS, that criminals have sunk so low as tovandalise the school property. While so many members of the British public have worked sotirelessly to assist others during recent events it is beyond belief that others have found nothingbetter to do than vandalise the school's property requiring school staff to spend precious time andmoney on dealing with this matter when they have more than enough to do in trying to deliver agood education to the children in the awful circumstances currently existing in throughout thecountry. If these criminals can act in this appalling way at such a time of crisis for the country letalone at any other time, then it is quite clear that additional CCTV equipment is vital and theschool has every right to protect it's property and do everything possible to provide a safeenvironment for it's students.

I support this planning application as Cotham school need the cctv to keep the site safeand useable for everyone.

This deeply flawed application on behalf of Cotham Academy graphically depicts theircomplete distain and single-minded intolerance for the Community in BS9.

The application is utterly disproportionate and is lacking any legitimate justification in fact; itignores the content of their lease which includes the principle to share the land with theCommunity: and fails to validate in planning terms why this proposal should not be dismissed outof hand by the Development Management Team.

I therefore request the Develop Management Team to take into account the following whenconsidering this application: -

1. The location of the proposed application is immediately adjacent to a Grade ii listed house andgardens including the Belvedere and listed barns which are sited on the perimeter of the oldkitchen garden i.e. on the shared boundary with the land leased by the applicant. The applicationfails to meet the requirements and obligations of Historic England together with the NationalPlanning Policy coupled with the Local Planning considerations notably Planning Policy BCS22.The proposed lighting pole and cctv camera is clearly incongruous and fails to enhance its setting.This is underlined by the data sheet provided as part of the application which describes theequipment as suitable for use in prisons, detention facilities, car parks and railway stations.Furthermore, the application fails to identify the exact height of the proposed installation which isavailable in a range of heights from 4m to 12m.

2. The proposed application presents an unavoidable serious risk of invasion of privacy,particularly in winter months, to children and parents using the play facilities, visitors to the Adult

learning centre together with private gardens and dwellings on Shirehampton Road, StokePaddock Road, Cheyne Road, Woodland Close, South Dene, Ebenezer Lane and the cottagesand houses at the end of West Dene.

3. Stoke Lodge Playing Field is the subject of two current (duly made) Town or Village GreenApplications which, if successful, will preclude any development of the land which will require theremoval of the fence and any CCTV fixed installations located on the land. It is recognised thatany application for planning permission for development on the land whilst a TVG Appln is underconsideration should be rejected or deferred until the TVG is decided.

4. Stoke Lodge Playing Field is subject to a current (duly made) Public Rights of Way Applicationconcerning four separate PROW which would be serious impacted by this proposed planningapplication.

5. A recent application by Cotham Academy to install a new sign on the roadway, adjacent to theGrade ii Listed House and gardens, in close proximity to this new application was rejected by theDevelopment Planning Committee as being inappropriate.

I object in full to this proposal on the following grounds

1- the proposed camera is in close vicinity to Stoke Lodge House, which is a grade 2 listedbuilding, and would detract from the natural beauty of both house and parkland

2- unacceptable invasion of privacy on those regularly using publicly available Stoke Lodgefacilities, such as the children playing field and the rest of the land not currently fenced.

Reference Planning Application20/01826/F

We wish to object fully to the above Planning Application submitted by Cotham Academy.

We object on the following points :

Stoke Lodge House is Grade II Listed Building - the proposed Pole and Security Camera is to beplaced close tho the House - therefor it would impact on the "Amenity of a listed Environment".

The proposed Pole and CCTV Camera is not in keeping with the property and surroundingParkland. It is prosed that the Pole with be a minimum of 4m. Furthermore, it does not comply toGuidance issued by Historic England.

It is proposed that the CCTV will be a pan/tilt camera - placed in the proposed position it would bepossible to view Properties and land in Cheyne Rd, Stoke Paddock Rd and Shirehampton Rd -therefore giving cause to privacy issues.It would also have the range to cover the Children's Play Park - a vitally important privacy concern.

It would also have range to cover the Car Park of Stoke Lodge and general public using it andfacilities at Stoke Lodge Adult Education Centre.

The Surveillance Camera Code of Practice and Section 29 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012has regard to "qualified right to respect for private and family life" - Stoke Lodge and surroundingparkland is used by the general public - not private School Property.

Stoke Lodge Parkland is designated as an 'Important Local Open Space' - a further CCTV camerais not essential and certainly not in keeping with the general characteristics of the environment.

Finally, is it appropriate to consider this Application, given the ongoing progress of two Town orVillage Green Applications and Public Rights of Way Application.

We ask that this Application be refused.

My wife and I wish to object strongly to this application. A surveillance camera thus sitedwill oversee not only a disputed area of land used by Cotham School as playing fields but alsomuch of the neightbourhood backing onto the parkland, the residual area which has been left forresidents to rightfully exercise and, above all, a designated childrens' play area. The applicationdoes not state who shall be observed, by whom, for what propose and under which legallyacceptable circumstances. We draw attention to the objection made by Mr David Mayer of 68ACoombe Lane and endorse his stated comments. We believe this application to be so outrageousas to be hardly credible.

:I object to this proposal to extend CCTV coverage by Cotham School at Stoke Lodge.1. The proposed mast (min 4m in height) and camera will be completely out of character with theStoke Lodge Buildings. It is also unclear exactly where the mast will be positioned. The proposalfurther degrades this historic site for spurious security concerns and on land that is the subject oftwo current Town and Village Green applications, and public right of way s too.

2. The need for the additional security is at best marginal. There is no property in the area to bemonitored and pupils are rarely on that part of the field and never without staff. Their activities takeplace behind (illegal) locked gates

.3. Those of us who for many years have exercised our right to walk in the field see no need to bemonitored while doing so.

4. The area to be covered by the CCTV is unclear - how can we be assured it does not cover theplayground, the nearby homes, the footpaths; contrary to the expected privacy rights ofsurrounding occupiers and the public using the field (as is their right) for leisure and exercise.

5.The application is not fully documented. The application is made for the support pole.The documentation for this pole states that it can support any type of camera.

6.The camera is contrary to the school's lease of the field. Does the applicant have the Council'slandlord approval?

7. According to Avon and Somerset crime statistics, there was only one report of anti

social behaviour on Stoke Lodge parkland as a whole in the last two years. There is nothing tosteal and almost nothing to damage - just grass and trees. Cotham School have used the bottomhalf of Stoke Lodge (the proposed area to be covered by the CCTV camera) for sports only ahandful of times in the last year because of the slope of the land, so this CCTV camera ispointless.

8. Does the applicant, Mr Nathan Allen - or any other potential operator of the equipment - hold anofficial government Security Industry Authority licence to "monitor the activities of a member of thepublic in a public or private place"? Following other comments it appears that the application itselfis probably illegal and should be withdrawn anyway; how did it get past scrutiny and put throughfor consideration?

The application should be refused

I object to the proposed installation of a CCTV pole and camera at Stoke Lodge AdultLearning Centre.

Firstly, I object to it on the grounds that it will significantly impose on the privacy of myself and myfamily, which includes a young child. The prospect of a camera being able to see into our gardenand bedrooms is a violation and completely unacceptable.

Secondly, I object to the proposal on the impact it will have on the appearance of both a listedbuilding and the surrounding natural environment.

Thirdly, I object due to the application allegedly being submitted by the owner of Stoke Lodge. Thisis incorrect as Bristol City Council owner the land, Cotham School the lease holders and I believe Iam right in my understanding that the person who submitted the application isn't a governor at theschool. I also believe it is a criminal offence under 65(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act1990 to issue a false certificate of ownership, either knowingly or recklessly, when making aplanning application.

There is a simple solution here that would save limitless amounts of public money, school fundsand time wasting processes such as these. It is deeply troubling that a school and a council arerefusing to acknowledge this.

I object to this appication for many reasons:

1. The proposed structure is hideously ugly, and not in keeping with the surrounding area andlisted building.

2. It is a serious intrusion on the privacy of the people in the area, both residents and users of thehouse and playing fields.

3. It is stupid and unecessary - there are already cameras installed around the field, and they havecompletely failed to prevent 'vandalism' to the fence. Also, the school rarely uses this part of thefield, and there is nothing to protect - just grass.

4. If erected, they would probably then find a need to cut down the nearby trees, which would beobscuring the view, as they did with the other cameras. This is unacceptable.

5. There are inaccuracies in the application, e.g. there is no Stoke Lodge Sports Ground, onlyPlaying Fields, and the site is in Stoke Bishop, not Sea Mills.

6. This is just another attempt by Cotham School to intimidate the local community. They are tryingto give the impression of ownership, power and control over the site, which does not belong tothem. It is also disgraceful waste of money.

The main concern for my family is the scope of the camera as the rear of our housebacks onto Ebenezer Lane which in turn is bordering onto the field.While the position of the pole isnot really the problem it is the camera which could infringe on our privacy.Has the applicant stating their reasons for a camera as the fencing is already upsetting and whatreason is there for a camera on a field which is empty the majority of the time.

It is totally inconsiderate, unnecessary and unacceptable of Cotham school to evenconsider making an application for surveillance with a pan and tilt camera positioned so high that itwill allow many members of the community to be spied upon, with intrusive views of, not only theenvirons of Stoke Lodge itself, but also a number of the private properties adjacent to the fieldwhere the residents, I suspect, will not be aware of the intrusion or, if they are, not even allowedaccess to the video data created by the Spymasters of Cotham School.

If it is intended to erect a Pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) camera then it is even more objectionable since thistype of camera is capable of wide-area surveillance with tracking, monitoring and zooming in forclose-ups of the unsuspecting innocent people as hitherto mentioned even though it might appealto BBC (Big Brother Cotham's) ambitions of spy control, let alone the existing CCTV, claimed byBBC to be sufficient.

It is incredible to think that during this unprecedented world-wide pandemic Cotham School isfocussing (excuse the pun) on selfishly spying on the general public rather than helping us allexercise properly in the Stoke Lodge playing field.

I implore Bristol City Council to totally reject this unwarranted Planning Application.

I would like to submit my support for the CCTV camera. There has been numerousexamples of vandalism at Stoke Lodge over at least the past two months. Several panelsremoved, fences bent. All of the school signs are consistently vandalised. All of this costs a stateschool money. Fierce opposition from the locals who seem to think it is their local parkland (whenit's private education land) can only mean that this disregard and childish behaviour will continue.The CCTV cameras that are there, I believe one of them was subject to damage - i.e. beingpainted over to allow for the planned and considered vandalism.Interestingly, with people objecting to how the camera will look, and the visual amenity of it - therewas signs there for years asking people not to trespass yet somehow or another people didn't'see' these signs. Seems to be some selective ability to spot things going on here.

I object to the proposed construction of a pole and a camera in the location specified,which is very close to the Grade II listed building that is Stoke Lodge House. I regularly attendadult education classes here and the large size of the pole will negatively affect the natural beautyof the house and surrounding area.I also walk to my class around the permitted perimeter of Stoke Lodge park and object to anprivate body (Cotham Academy) filming me as I enjoy an open space on the way to my classes orgo for a walk.This is a public space and the thought of a private body "spying" on me, and children in the playarea, makes me feel uncomfortable. BCC as landowner should be exercising control over the levelof surveillance onthis land in the public interest.The planning permission should be denied.

I wish to object to this application for a CCTV camera adjacent to a Grade II listedbuilding where members of the public regularly park their cars, and walk around the site. This is aninfringement of their privacy, and also it could view the playground which would be against theGDPR of children. The School has already erected three other cameras, without permission, andyet do not permit people to use the field when they should be working with the public and notagainst them, particularly at this time. This proposed camera would be highly visible, and beingone that pans and tilts it infringes on people's privacy.

I wish to object against this application. I like many others before me feel the erection ofthe surveillance camera suggested In the position outlined would be very disturbing. The vastmajority of local residents walking around the fields and the children playing in the playgrounddeserve to do so in privacy. The suggestion that we are vandals and need to be watched is totallyobjectionable.

Stoke Lodge is my nearest park, a few minutes walk from my house and I go thereoften.

S6 of the Planning Application, "Existing Use", says the current use of the site is as a "SchoolPlaying Field" but this is not the only use. Stoke Lodge is also used daily by many locals like mefor recreation and enjoyment of open green space.

I would like to share Stoke Lodge with Cotham School but I OBJECT to this application for 3reasons.

1. Residents' right to use the land without surveillanceCotham School uses Stoke Lodge as playing fields under a lease from Bristol City Council. Thelease says, in clause 2.1, that the school's rights under the lease are 'subject also to all existingrights and use of the property including use by the community'. That means that people like me,local people in the community, can share Stoke Lodge as our parkland for recreation.Article 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights grants to local residents the right to respect forprivate and family life and states that 'Use of a surveillance camera system must always be for aspecified purpose which is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identifiedpressing need'.The Council, as landowner, has the right and duty, acting in the public interest, to exercise controlover the amount of surveillance of a public space.At all times the Cotham students, when on Stoke Lodge, are closely supervised by School staffwho are always present when sport is being played. Outside times of School use there is simplyno need for CCTV surveillance of what is public parkland and an important open space designated

for use by the community. Why should users of the nearby children's play park, individuals andfamilies using the parkland or people just walking in the area be subject to surveillance? CothamSchool's application does not try to make a case for an identified pressing need for CCTVsurveillance. No purpose is given in the application.

2. Surveillance of properties outside Stoke LodgeA CCTV camera sited at the top of a pole that is at least 4m and extending potentially up to 12mabove ground (according to the Supporting Document "AW1859 AND AW4460 DATASHEETV4.2" submitted with the application) would have a surveillance range extending far beyond theboundary of Stoke Lodge. The nearest residential houses on the other side of Stoke Lodge at theSW end of West Dene would be in full view of such a high-mounted CCTV camera for example.There is no identified pressing need for those houses to be under unwarranted CCTV surveillance.

3. Impact of a proposed pole and CCTV on a listed environment

Stoke Lodge House nearby is a Grade II listed building. The land at Stoke Lodge is designated asImportant Open Space in the Local Plan and has been enjoyed as a park by the community forover 70 years.Planning rules with regard to listed buildings state that the presence of any feature of historic,architectural, cultural or similar interest should be considered when looking at a planningapplication. Historic England says: 'Amenity is generally considered to be visual appearance andthe pleasance of the environment generally ...'.Installing a CCTV camera mounted on top of a steel pole at least 4m, and possibly up to 12m high,of a type that is typically used in prisons and detention facilities on the grass in Stoke Lodge wouldquite simply be a desecration of a Grade II listed building and an Important Open Space.Also please note that the application states in S5 that the pole would be 'adjacent to the gate' butthe location map suggests that it would be 20 metres approx. further into the field, thus increasingthe visual impact and the loss of amenity. This is turning Stoke Lodge from playing fields and apublic park into a prison yard.

I urge planning officers and the planning committee to refuse this application.

The installation of a CCTV camera in this location of this type and size is out of allproportion to the situation .The Police have clearly stated that the matter of people entering the field In Stoke Lodge is NOT aPolice Matter.How will the matter be policed under the terms of the Cotham Lease, because Locals ArePermitted to use The Field for Recreational purposes ?Also I believe that a camera of this type will compromise the privacy of residents living inShirehampton Rd , Stoke Paddock Rd, & Woodland Grove.Certainly the gardens of these houses will be affected but possibly under certain conditions ,insidethe houses also.Also I do not believe that a structure of this nature should be permitted so close to a listed building.I therefore strongly oppose this application.

Dear Mr Boxwell,

Firstly thank you for presenting this application. If only the application for the perimeter fence atStoke Lodge in 2017 had been given the same opportunity then perhaps all this work and expensecould have been avoided.

I object to this application. There seems to be some selective ability by the school to spot relevantissues here.

PrivacyA previous Freedom of Information Act application shows that Cotham School does not follow theSurveillance Camera Code of Practice under section 29 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. (ref. Use of surveillance camera systems that operate in public places in England and Wales.) Inerror the school maintains that Stoke Lodge 'is private property leased by the school and thereforethe act or the guiding principles are not applicable to the school'. They ignore that use of asurveillance camera system must always be for a specified purpose. They omit what aim orpressing need their CCTV project is for in the application.

This raises two concerns. One - Stoke Lodge is a public place that I visit with family members,including my children, as is my right under the specifically added clause (2.1) agreed by Cotham intheir lease from the council.Two - Following Cotham's consistent and blatant disregard for proper process and law regardingto Stoke Lodge, I am concerned that 24hrs remote access CCTV will be used to film the publicand children. This intrusion into my right to family life will need no grounds or justification

according to this application.

ScopeThe application does not detail how tall the pole will be or how far the camera will film. It statesthat work started on the 20th April - it didn't. The design of the camera and pole shown ignores thelisted environment and amenity of Stoke Lodge (which is listed as an Important Open Space). Toavoid further council time and cost, please withdraw this slipshod application.

The cameras for use of surveillance is completely and utterly disgusting. Despitefeelings of our local cherished green space being invaded, dominated and practically stolen fromlocals by the un-abiding Cotham School, they continue to harass the land and the public areas byputting up fences, and NOW they are trying to put up yet another camera? Next to a Grade 2historic building?! This is just a pathetic attempt from bitter landlords trying to reign control overparts of Stoke Lodge they know they actually should have absolutely no control over whatsoever.This ruins the historic beauty and authenticity of stoke lodge and is barbaric.

Maybe this is just a new step into the next generation of human control and monitoring alongsidethe 5G. I'm not much of a conspiracist, but the way all of these new surveillance equipment keepbeing newly placed around the city makes me very sceptical of what the real intentions of thesurveillance are.

We say no to 24/7 monitoring, especially from a camera so large it could very much intrude ontoprivate property. We do not vandalise or abuse the public areas. The strip of land that you mustwalk down to get to the dog area is so narrow that you are usually within 2 meters of anyone elsewalking by. Do not try to make it even worse. It is people's right to stay safe, and the fences aloneare a risk to our safety. Additional safety limiting and monitoring such as the use of this camera ina time of national crisis is completely immoral, and downright disgraceful.

I heavily object this application and will continue to inform others to also object this monstrosity.

Stoke Lodge is designated as an Important Open Space. It has been enjoyed bygenerations of Bristolians over many years.

Bristol City Council as the landowner should not consent to an increase in surveillance over anarea of such importance.

Cotham Schools lease of the land states in clause 2.1 that it is "subject to all existing rights anduse of the property including use by the community." Community users who enjoy this land shouldnot be watched by CCTV whist they do so.

The proposed pole is very close to Stoke Lodge which is a Grade 2 listed building. Allowing anysize surveillance cameras to be erected within close proximity will affect the buildings visualappearance beyond a level which is acceptable.

The size and type of pole is very alarming.This is a type of camera used in prisons, car parks,detention facilities and railway stations. This makes it totally unacceptable for use in a beautiful,Important Open space, next to a Grade 2 listed building.

The camera will be able to view into neighbouring gardens, across the ALC and very importantlyright across the children's play park. This is not acceptable and is very intrusive to the lives of localpeople and families.

Cotham school pupils do not use the lower part of the field. They already have surveillancecameras working on the top half of the field. The schools Data Privacy Impact Assessment from

Dec 2019 stated that they had no plans to increase CCTV coverage, so they should not now beapplying to install a very large camera . What is the need and aim of this camera?

This application should not be granted whilst there are two ongoing Town and Village GreenApplications and also many Public Rights of Way Applications pending.

I object to the Planning Application because of inaccuracies within the applicationdocument itself, and because of my wish to record my total opposition to the installation of yetanother CCTV.

Section 2 - Applicant Details: Nathan Allen states he is the applicant and his company or employeris Cotham School, yet in Section 25 he states that he is 'a person with a freehold interest orleasehold interest' as the applicant. Cotham School is the owner of the relevant certificates soNathan Allen appears to be stating he IS Cotham School and NOT an employee of the school.

Section 5 - Description of the Proposal: 'The works are to install a CCTV pole and camera" but inSection 20 'This application is for CCTV only'. Which statement is true? Section 5 also states thatwork or change of use started on 20/04/2020 yet there has been no sign of any such work beingcarried out.

The lease the school signed included the clause "subject to all existing rights and use of theproperty including use by the community". Recent legal advice on the actual meaning of thisspecific clause was confirmed to Bristol City Council that the lease protects the rights of thecommunity to use the land. Previous applications, granted by Bristol City Council, contravened thenow legally upheld meaning of this clause. If this new application is granted then Bristol CityCouncil will not be protecting the rights of the community, but protecting the interest of their non-rental-paying tenants in degrading what was once an Important Open Space into a Closed Spaceinaccessible to the community.

The visual amenity that was Stoke Lodge was spoiled by the installation of a 1400+ metre, non-

structural fence and 3 unplanned by approved CCTVs. The installation of a further CCTV at thetop of a pole between 4 and 12 metres high with give the field the appearance of a prison camp,reminiscent of a stalag. It will be totally out of character with the adjacent Grade II listed StokeLodge and will detract from the already compromised views. If the pole and CCTV can be seen bythe surrounding community in their houses and gardens, what will the CCTV be able to focus onand record? From its planned position this CCTV will also have visual access to the children's playpark and other areas that lie outside the lease-line but which are enjoyed by the public.

What rights or protection will the public and community have from intrusive and objectionablesurveillance, and what redress will they have against the School which has stated, since theexisting CCTV units were installed, that the field is 'private property' and therefore 'not covered bySection 29 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 or its guiding principles because they are notapplicable to the school'.

The school has consistently ignored all reasonable approaches and is intent on securing the field,for whatever devious reason, so that it is unavailable for the local community to use and thisdirectly contravenes the terms and clauses of the leas it signed.

This planning application must be rejected, and the applicant severely censured or fined formaking a false declaration or providing false information.

I strongly object to the erection of a sizeable CCTV pole and camera near to a listedbuilding. Presumably the reason Cotham Academy want it erected is to see if they can discoverwho is tampering with the fence that they erected. When that was put up the gated were to be leftunlocked when the school was not using the field. However, the school has not used the fieldsince mid March but the gates have remained locked since then. I have no doubt that if thepadlocks had been undone no damage would have been done to the fence and therefore therewould have been no need for a CCTV pole and camera

A massive invasion of privacy! definitely object especially when the application is full ofinaccuracies and extremely vauge.

I am both appalled and dismayed by this Application. I wonder how the Applicant canbegin to think that it is tolerable in any way for such a proposal to be appropriate in this setting andto be acceptable by the Community.

I would point out that the Applicant does not own the land despite his signed declaration that hedoes. He is an employee of a Business which leases the land from the true landowner, which isBristol City Council.

The order in which I make my points does not represent any order of importance.

The setting:

It is not clear from the two plans submitted exactly where it is proposed that this tall pole with apan and tilt camera should be erected.One site plan suggests that it will be close to the listed wall of a small rear car park which was inturn a former garden of the Grade II Listed Stoke Lodge (House), and is indeed very close to thehouse.Very close to the (likely) proposed site of the steel pole is a gazebo/belvedere built in to thegarden wall and renovated in recent years.A photograph of that delightful building can be found here:https://www.bristolcourses.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Stoke-Lodge-History-PDF.pdfJust imagine what a Stalag Luft III surveillance camera would look like close to the amenity of thatbuilding!

An industrial surveillance camera, which is described in the accompanying literature as beingsuitable for prison premises, is not suitable for such a setting as this. I object most strongly to a tallnasty pole and camera being sited anywhere on the land surrounding Stoke Lodge. It is not inkeeping with the atmosphere and environs of such a place. I object to any surveillance camera, tallor short, pole or wall mounted, pan and tilt or static, being located anywhere to facilitate theobservation and recording of the playing field. I accept reluctantly the need for cameras to protectthe security and fabric of the House. The cameras used for that purpose are discreet and theirfield of view limited. This proposal is exactly the opposite.

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states: "Inconsidering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a Listed Buildingor its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State, shall havespecial regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of specialarchitectural or historic interest which it possesses".This principle is expanded in the NPPF to cover a range of heritage assets: "Significance can beharmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within itssetting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincingjustification". (my italics and emphasis).

The camera, on its steel industrial pole, would be in a sylvan setting surrounded by TPO trees in aParkland close to a Listed Building. In fact one wonders, should planning permission be granted,whether the Secretary of State should become involved subsequently.

Plotting the Eastings and Northings supplied by the Applicant in the Application usinghttps://gridreferencefinder.com suggests that the pole is to be erected in an entirely different placein the Field from that marked on the plans accompanying the Application, about half way betweenthe derelict pavilion and the "arboretum". So, which is the true site for the pole in the Application?Neither site is acceptable. Each detracts from the ambience and amenity of the Parkland.

The need for the camera, and the privacy of the citizens using the "spaces" in the domain of view

There is a code of practice associated with surveillance camera installation and its ongoing use.How can the Community know and accept that the policies to be followed are robust, and thatthere will be adherence to them? The Community has no reason to accept that the School willadhere to correct procedures.

The Council has a duty to make sure that any use of the camera proposed would comply with itsown code. Who at the Council is going to make sure that the School has any Policy, and that theywill comply? The Community's experience with compliance with TPO regulation by the school, andwith the efforts, or even the inclination, of Planning Enforcement at the Council to administer TPOregulations on the site, have so far not been encouraging. How could we thus be confident that themanagement of anything as invasive and nosey as a surveillance camera would be properly

managed? Would there be compliance with any regulation, required by the law, imposed?

I quote the Council's policy with regard to camera surveillance of public places:

Bristol City Council , The Use of Surveillance Cameras in Bristol: 2014 :

Guiding Principle:

The guiding principles of this strategy will be to ensure that individuals and wider communitieshave confidence that surveillance cameras are deployed to protect and support them, rather thanspy on them.

The government considers that wherever overt surveillance in public places is in pursuit of alegitimate aim and meets a pressing need, any such surveillance should be characterised assurveillance by consent, and such consent on the part of the community must be informed consentand not assumed by a system operator.

Surveillance by consent should be regarded as analogous to policing by consent. In the Britishmodel of policing, police officers are citizens in uniform. They exercise their powers to police theirfellow citizens with the implicit consent of their fellow citizens. Policing by consent is the phraseused to describe this. It denotes that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is basedupon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers,demonstrating integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so.

In order to achieve this, the strategy sets out guiding principles that should apply to all surveillancecamera systems in public places. These guiding principles are designed to provide a frameworkfor operators and users of surveillance camera systems so that there is proportionality andtransparency in their use of surveillance, and systems are capable of providing good qualityimages and other information which are fit for purpose.

Surveillance Camera Strategy:

1. Use of a surveillance camera system must always be for a specified purpose which is in pursuitof a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identified pressing need.2. The use of a surveillance camera system must take into account its effect on individuals andtheir privacy, with regular reviews to ensure its use remains justified.3. There must be as much transparency in the use of a surveillance camera system as possible,including a published contact point for access to information and complaints.4. There must be clear responsibility and accountability for all surveillance camera systemactivities including images and information collected, held and used.5. Clear rules, policies and procedures must be in place before a surveillance camera system isused, and these must be communicated to all who need to comply with them.

6. No more images and information should be stored than that which is strictly required for thestated purpose of a surveillance camera system, and such images and information should bedeleted once their purposes have been discharged.7. Access to retained images and information should be restricted and there must be clearlydefined rules on who can gain access and for what purpose such access is granted; the disclosureof images and information should only take place when it is necessary for such a purpose or forlaw enforcement purposes.8. Surveillance camera system operators should consider any approved operational, technical andcompetency standards relevant to a system and its purpose and work to meet and maintain thosestandards.9. Surveillance camera system images and information should be subject to appropriate securitymeasures to safeguard against unauthorised access and use.10. There should be effective review and audit mechanisms to ensure legal requirements, policiesand standards are complied with in practice, and regular reports should be published.11. When the use of a surveillance camera system is in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and there is apressing need for its use, it should then be used in the most effective way to support public safetyand law enforcement with the aim of processing images and information of evidential value.12. Any information used to support a surveillance camera system which compares against areference database for matching purposes should be accurate and kept up to date.

No doubt the first part of BCC's own policy is an attempt to enshrine Article 8 of the EuropeanCharter of Human Rights. I quote:Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life1. Everyone has the right of respect for his private and family life, his home and hiscorrespondence.2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such asis in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of nationalsecurity, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder orcrime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms ofothers.

The Applicant does not state why the surveillance of the lower field is required.If it is for the supervision of the pupils of the school whilst participating in sport, then one has toask why that is required, when surely the pupils are then under the direct supervision of membersof the school staff.

If it is for the supervision of the residents of Bristol whilst using the land, then that is an invasion ofprivacy. Who is viewing the images? Where will the images be stored? Where is the consent?

Because the Applicant has not specified the purpose for making this Application, surely this is nota valid Application? Where is the evidence for:

breaches of national security?risks to public safety?risks to the economic well-being of Stoke Bishop or Greater Bristol?the need for the prevention of disorder or crime?a deterioration in the health or morals of the local residents of the area or the users of the AdultLearning Centre?and the loss of protection of the rights and freedoms of others?that would be required to justify, under Article 8, the camera surveillance of the lower field of StokeLodge Playing Field.

To my mind placing a surveillance camera in this site can only be for spying, because the Schoolpupils are supervised during their presence on the Field by adult members of staff. There can beno legitimate requirement for further surveillance.

The School, in its own Data Protection Impact Assessment, dated 2nd December 2019, stated"There are no plans to extend the scope of the current CCTV system. A new Data ProtectionImpact Assessment would be carried out prior to commissioning any changes." Yet here we are, 5months later, with an Application to extend the surveillance on the site. It is worthy of note that noearlier Applications were made to install the existing CCTV cameras at the Playing Field.

In that same DPIA is given the information that the images are "Monitored in real time to detectand respond to unlawful activities. Monitored in real time to track suspicious persons/activity."That sounds "live" to me, and is not for the safeguarding of pupils (not that any reasons for theproposed surveillance are given in the Application).

There has been no consent given by the Community. Consent has not been sought, and judgingby the response from the Community to this Application, consent would not be given were it to besought. Neighbours of the property (a very long list) were notified today, 12th May. Is thatconsultation prior to the Application - or merely a (delayed) notification?

The scope of the surveillance will not, and cannot, be limited to the boundary of the Field. It mustextend in to the private gardens of properties, and the rooms within the houses, abutting theperimeter of the land in Stoke Paddock Road, Shirehampton Road, Woodland Grove, CheyneRoad etc., and, more alarmingly, it must "cover" the children's playground, where the potentialscope of image recording and real time monitoring could only be described as questionable, andeven more requires the Applicant and the Council to obtain the consent of all of the users of theplayground.

Please reject this Application on the grounds ofDespoiling the setting and amenity of a Listed BuildingandInvasion of privacy contrary to the European Charter of Human Rights where the siting of a

surveillance camera flouts the principles for the siting of same.

A frequent visitor to the stoke lodge site, and continue to use with my family, haveenjoyed for both recreational and educational purposes. The site has been maintainedempathetically with its ecological environment and grade 2 listed building. Currently there isalready a number of surveillance equipment insitu on site. The planned pole of 4 metres minimumwould foresee equipment to be used for a far wider circumstance, is not only able to be angledand positioned to zoom with detail to areas that are not exclusive for the leaseholder's right tosurvey, covets private and communal play areas without the necessary permission being sought.This pole as described is disproportionately high, metal modern and out of keeping with theaesthetic environmental, unempathetic with the listed building and surroundings.

As a regular user of Stoke lodge with my children I am horrified at this proposedinvasion of my privacy and the further damage to what was once a beautiful open space. The ideaof the camera being remotely controlled to follow, watch and intimidate me would stop me wantingto go there.

Also the presence of this huge tower and camera would have a huge negative impact on theappear of the house and grounds, spoiling it's beauty even further and creating an impression of aprison or high crime area rather than the beautiful peaceful open space it should be.

I'm also a scout leader and have very serious concerns about our ability to continue to take youngpeople there, as we have done for many years. Some of our scouts do not have parental consentfor photographs to be taken when in our charge, and as the school is not following the guidelinesfor CCTV in a public space there are serious concerns that we would be unable to continue to usethe space.

The application is not fully documented. The application is made for the support pole.The documentation for this pole states that it can support any type of camera. The applicationsays that "thecamera" will not intrude outside of the (illegally) fenced area. But how do you know, when you donot know what camera is to be installed. Equally, if the camera can view the fence, it can seethrough, over and beyond to the private rear of peoples' houses and the playground area. This isintrusive and contrary to the expected privacy rights of surrounding occupiers and the public usingthe field (as is their right) for leisure and exercise; and to the privacy of users of the playground.Why do the school want the camera? When the school are using the field, one would expectsurveillance from teachers. When they are not using the field, why do they want to survey it?The camera is contrary to the school's lease of the field. Does is have the Council's landlordapproval?Finally, it will be an awful eyesore. An isolated pole stuck within grassland (ignore the illegal fence)which is part and parcel of the Stoke Lodge listed building. It would again spoil the integrity of thelisted building and would be an isolated, incongruous feature (and overly tall at over 4m) in anotherwise unspoilt area of parkland).

I believe this proposal is entirely vexatious but lacking any legitimate merit whatsoeverand coming as it does, in the midst of a world wide pandemic, it is especially shocking.We have unprecedented restriction of movement to protect lives but the school chose to whip-uplocal animosity, stress and anxiety by an unwarranted lockdown of a local green space; contra tothe terms of their 2011 Lease from BCC.Now they wish to hold sway over public space that's currently outside their control, by introducingan unsightly "spy" camera under the guise of pupil safety; it has no additional security value forCotham pupils but its presence would create a menacing atmosphere for harmless park users.Therefore, I would ask that it be officially rejected without delay.Cotham School, transferred their sports provision from a modern, secure (fenced and gated)Grounds in Kellaway Ave circa 2003/4 and moved to Stoke Lodge Parkland, an arduous twentyminute bus ride away.The new site had very little to offer and was unfenced, with a semi derelict pavilion, no vehicleaccess or off street parking and with long standing shared public access; so not a realisticsubstitute, unless there was a unspoken stratagem.After years of apparent indifference to the Parkland and its environs Cotham managementabruptly heralded 'child safety' as justification for a new "coldiz style" fence. However, in anattempt to circumvent planning process, ground works started without necessary planningauthorisation in early 2019.The named applicant later supervised the installation of CCTV cabling that again presumedplanning consent; installation was hurriedly completed, unsupervised by BCC Tree Officers,resulting in a breach to the root area of a neighbouring TPO'd Tree.It now appears this same person plans to install a totally unnecessary and monstrously intrusiveCCTV post and camera that may well endanger an adjacent TPO'd Walnut Tree, as well as

undermine the ambiance of a (grade 2) Victorian Belvedere in the neighbouring wall.However, the overriding delinquency of this proposal is the invasive nature of the camera rangeand the voyeuristic implications of its function.This proposal cannot be morally acceptable on publicly owned land anywhere in Bristol,particularly when the land is devoid of viable structures or other assets, apart from grass.

1. According to Avon and Somerset crime statistics, there was only one report of antisocial behaviour on Stoke Lodge parkland as a whole in the last two years. There is nothing tosteal and almost nothing to damage - just grass and trees. Cotham School have used the bottomhalf of Stoke Lodge (the proposed area to be covered by the CCTV camera) for sports only ahandful of times in the last year because of the slope of the land, so this CCTV camera ispointless.

2. Does the applicant, Mr Nathan Allen - or any other potential operator of the equipment - hold anofficial government Security Industry Authority licence to "monitor the activities of a member of thepublic in a public or private place"?

3. The proposed site of the tower is on land subject to a claimed Public Right of Way application,and on land that is the subject of two current Town and Village Green applications.

4. The proposed tower will be erected on parkland within meters of a beautiful Grade 2 listedbuilding which is totally unacceptable.

5. The application fails to state the height of the CCTV tower. There's a big difference between 4and 12 meters as mentioned in the CCTV tower brochure.

3. The application fails to state the name and specifications of the actual camera and recordingequipment to be installed at the top of the tower. Will it have a powerful zoom lens and will it bepermanently monitored and controlled by someone from Cotham School? The thought of the staffat Cotham School filming me and my children is horrifying.

4. According to the terms of the lease between Bristol City Council and Cotham School thecommunity are entitled to use the land in question. So the public who are legally using StokeLodge will be subjected to surveillance at all times.

5. There are several mistakes in the application: Item 2 is not the applicant, Mr Nathan Allen'saddress - it's actually the address for Stoke Lodge itself. Item 25: Cotham School (or Mr Allen) arenot the owners of this property. Bristol City Council own the land and Cotham School have a leaseto use it for sports activities subject to the existing rights of the community.

For all the above reasons I urge you to reject this pointless application out of hand.

Stoke Lodge Parkland, not Stoke Lodge Sports Ground, is owned by Bristol City Councilnot Cotham School. Yet once again Mr Allen has made the outrageous claim in his application thathe is the owner of Stoke Lodge. Surely it is an offence to state such falsehoods in an officialdocument. The application states neither the exact location or the exact height of the pole. Thecamera is to cover the lower end of the field, which the School has rarely used. By default this willalso include the playground, car park and residential properties. As a daily user of the park I objectto being continuously filmed during my visit to the park. This is a total invasion of my privacy.Stoke Lodge is a valuable open space which the community has legal access to. There hasalready been enough harm done to to this beautiful parkland without adding to it.

I wish to object to this planning application for the reasons stated under the followingheading>

Applicant:The applicant is listed on the form as Nathan Allen who is the Facilities Manager of CothamSchool.He is not however the owner of the site in question - even though the answer given on section #25of the form explicitly certifies that he is claiming to be the owner. Stoke Lodge Field belongs to theBristol City Council. Cotham School only have a lease allowing them to use the field for sportsactivities "Subject to all existing rights and uses of the property including use by the Community"(section 2.1 of their lease).

I believe that it's actually an offence under section 65(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act(1990) to issue a false certificate of ownership either knowingly or recklessly when making aplanning application. What is more it's the second time this particular individual has done so. Onlylast September 2019, BCC planning department received another Application #19/04039/VP byNathan Allen asking permission to cut back branches on a TPO protected ash tree in order toimprove sightlines for yet another CCTV surveillance camera on the West Dene side of the site.On that application Mr Nathan Allen claimed to be the 'owner' of the tree in question

A written statement subsequently issued by BCC read -> "We write to advise you the aboveapplication has been cancelled for the following reason - The Local Planning Authority hasestablished that an incorrect ownership declaration has been made"

Given the history of specious claims of ownership at Stoke Lodge by Nathan Allen, may I requestthat you throw this application out immediately, and also consider prosecuting him for his repeatedabuse of planning procedure protocols ?

Premises:In his application, Mr Nathan Allen states that the camera "Will not cover areas outside the schoolpremises". Given that the premises of Cotham School are actually located almost three milesaway from Stoke Lodge in BS6, it is rather hard to understand how he plans to achieve thisremakable feat. It would require a camera with a truly exceptional telephoto lens to image theschool premises from Stoke Lodge !

The reality is that Stoke Lodge is *not* part of the premises of Cotham School. It never has beenand it never will be either. The factual authority for this rests on an answer to a writtenparliamentary question given by the Rt Hon Nick Gibb Minister for Schools in November 2018which answered a query from our own local MP Mr Darren Jones, by confirming that Stoke Lodgewas not deemed to be part of the premises of Cotham School because it was a detached site usedsolely for PE, and for less than 50% of the relevant time by the school (Cotham School actuallyuse the site for less than 10% of the relevant time).

Amenity:According to the application, the proposed location for this camera tower is in close proximity toStoke Lodge House which is a grade II listed building. From the information available to date, thestructure would involve a profoundly ugly 4 metre tall metal column with anti-climb spikes at thetop supporting a tilt and pan security CCTV. Unless you happen to believe that a Stalag Luft IIIprison camp aesthetic is somehow consistent with the arcadian vision of a planted arboretumoriginally enacted at Stoke Lodge back in the 19th century, then it is difficult to imagine how such aCCTV installation could add to or improve the visual amenity of the site. Most reasonable people Isubmit would conclude that it would do the exact opposite.

It is noteworthy that on the form the applicant has ticked NO to :- Section #8 which asks if there any new public rights of ways to be provided within and adjacentto the site (There are in fact multiple relevant TVG and PROW applications in progress).- Section #10 which explicitly asks if there are trees and hedges on land adjacent to the site thatmight be important as part of the local landscape character (The entire site is a historic plantedarboretum).- Section #12 which asks if there are any biodiversity conservation features that might need to betaken into account. (There are live badger setts, fox dens and Noctule bat roosts in close proximityto to the site).

Purpose:The stated purpose of the new camera tower in Section #5 of the form is "to cover the lower end ofthe playing field (behind Stoke Paddock) and the immediate area around the base of the pole"

In reality Cotham School simply do not use these areas of the field for any of their regular PEactivities. The pupils are only ever seen in those lower parts of SL when they are being sent off on'Treasure Hunts' looking for numbered question boards.

Several months ago Cotham School went to the expense of marking out new pitches and installingseveral new sets of football goalposts and nets in the lower Stoke Paddock end of the field. Butthey subsequently *never* used them ! Not once ! Not even when they actually had pupils on thefield playing games of football. They played those game using yellow plastic poles as goalposts onmakeshift pitches in the upper half of the field near the white mower shed.

The newly marked pitches in the lower field were left completely unused until they were takendown again in April. Local residents believe that the new pitches were erected purely for show,and that the entire basis of this latest CCTV planning application is completely specious, andwithout any factual basis at all.

Reiterating comments made by another neighbour:

Comment:1. According to Avon and Somerset crime statistics, there was only one report ofantisocial behaviour on Stoke Lodge parkland as a whole in the last two years. There is nothing tosteal and almost nothing to damage - just grass and trees. Cotham School have used the bottomhalf of Stoke Lodge (the proposed area to be covered by the CCTV camera) for sports only ahandful of times in the last year because of the slope of the land, so this CCTV camera ispointless.

2. Does the applicant, Mr Nathan Allen - or any other potential operator of the equipment - hold anofficial government Security Industry Authority licence to "monitor the activities of a member of thepublic in a public or private place"?

3. The proposed site of the tower is on land subject to a claimed Public Right of Way application,and on land that is the subject of two current Town and Village Green applications.

4. The proposed tower will be erected on parkland within meters of a beautiful Grade 2 listedbuilding which is totally unacceptable.

5. The application fails to state the height of the CCTV tower. There's a big difference between 4and 12 meters as mentioned in the CCTV tower brochure.

3. The application fails to state the name and specifications of the actual camera and recordingequipment to be installed at the top of the tower. Will it have a powerful zoom lens and will it be

permanently monitored and controlled by someone from Cotham School? The thought of the staffat Cotham School filming me and my family is horrifying.

4. According to the terms of the lease between Bristol City Council and Cotham School thecommunity are entitled to use the land in question. So the public who are legally using StokeLodge will be subjected to surveillance at all times.

5. There are several mistakes in the application: Item 2 is not the applicant, Mr Nathan Allen'saddress - it's actually the address for Stoke Lodge itself. Item 25: Cotham School (or Mr Allen) arenot the owners of this property. Bristol City Council own the land and Cotham School have a leaseto use it for sports activities subject to the existing rights of the community.

6. What is the purpose of recording CCTV footage? To monitor pupils whilst playing at StokeLodge? The school would have to provide enough teaching staff to monitor pupil safety so whatelse can CCTV be for...to monitor pupil behaviour? As a teacher myself I'm baffled by the need tofilm pupils on a sports field.

For all the above reasons I urge you to reject this pointless application out of hand.

Once again Cotham Academy have submitted a totally inadequate planning applicationthat should not have been accepted as a valid application due to errors and inaccuracies.It is not Stoke Lodge Sports Ground.It is not Cotham Academy's school premises.Both plans are out of date, as the play area, 26 West Dene and the fence are not shown.Nathan Allan is not the owner.So a false declaration (26) has been made.

There are no details of the planned height of the mounting pole or the camera to be mounted on it,only the vague statement that it will be able to see the lower end of the field.

Contrary to that stated, the camera would cover areas outside school premises as none of StokeLodge playing field is school premises. It would also not just cover the area inside the fence as thiswould be impossible given the range of the camera.

As the occupier of 26 West Dene the rear of my house overlooks the field and directly over towhere the camera is proposed, the distance being about half of the stated camera range. So youwill understand my concern that at any time a camera could be recording views of my garden, andinside the house including bedrooms with remote viewing by Cotham Academy employees. Surelythis must contravene privacy laws.

Cotham Academy seem determined to continue with their visual vandalism of this historicalparkland ruining it's enjoyment by all the community and indeed their own students, who wouldsurely enjoying playing on an open field without the constant surveillance of "big brother".

BCC should reject this application and make it clear that CCTV surveillance of community playingfields will not be allowed. Indeed as owners and landlord they should insist that the existingcameras are removed.

Please refuse this application.

I OBJECT to this application for the reasons stated below:

1. Issues contained within the application1.1 Use of the term "Sports Ground": The Important Open Space upon which this pole is to be putis part of the historic estate of Stoke Lodge. Even when it was privately owned members of thecommunity were encouraged to use it, this use has continued.It is Parkland, which is also used as playing fields. This use as playing fields is very much aminority use; one to two hours a day, up to five days a week during term time. Other than that, it is(or should be) open for community use as defined in the lease (clause 2.1, recognised by BristolCity council to refer to the continued use by the local community).To define the space as a Sports Ground implies that this is the sole or majority use, which ismisleading. As such, the pole is far less suitable for the parkland setting that it is than for a sportsground.1.2 Postcode: BS9 2BH is a residential address in West Dene on the opposite side of the parklandfrom the development. The address is given as Shirehampton Road, so the correct postcodeshould be BS9 1BN, which is the postcode of the house. The land is inextricably linked with theGrade II listed mansion house from which it takes its name, having been the estate of this housesince it was built and, looking back at historical planning applications, clearly has long beenconsidered to form the curtilage of this listed building. By adopting a different postcode, onedifferent from the house it has belonged with for nearly 200 years there is an attempt to annexethe land from the house. The only purpose this can possibly serve is to allow for the pushingthrough of questionable developments and, as such, needs to be urgently rejected.1.3 It is stated that work started on the 20/04/20, it did not.1.4 Item 10 Trees and Hedges on the application asks:

Are there trees or hedges on the proposed development site? To which the answer is correctlystated here as 'Yes'And/or: Are there trees or hedges on land adjacent to the proposed development site that couldinfluence the development or might be important as part of the local landscape character? Whichis answered incorrectly 'No'.Just meters away stands a rare, old and protected Lucombe Oak[https://bristoltreeforum.org/2018/12/02/the-stoke-lodge-lucombe-oak-wins-bristol-tree-of-the-year-2018/] it's incomprehensible to imagine that this utilitarian and unsympathetic pole, (described bythe manufacturers as suited to railway stations, prisons and detention centres,) not detractingfrom, or jarring with, this huge and beautiful tree, a legacy of the days when Stoke Lodge - thehouse and it's parkland - was home to various prominent Bristol families.The application form goes on to state: If Yes to either or both of the above, you may need toprovide a full tree survey, at the discretion of your local planning authority. If a tree survey isrequired, this and the accompanying plan should be submitted alongside your application. Yourlocal planning authority should make clear on its website what the survey should contain, inaccordance with the current 'BS5837: Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction -Recommendations'.This answer 'No' has been given to avoid the need for a tree survey, which Cotham school isalways very keen to do. There is nothing which indicates that this is to be done or is even beingconsidered, but no decision should be taken regarding this application until a tree survey, orpreferably a Landscape and Visual Amenity Impact Assessment has taken place.

2. Questions regarding information omitted from the application2.1 The height and colour/ finish of the pole and camera: this impacts on range and visualamenity. Having researched, I know that the pole is available in a galvanised finish or any B.S.colour and a height from 4 - 12 meters.2.2 Position of the pole: it is not clear whether the pole will be inside the fence or outside the fencewhich would block the narrow perimeter walkway, as the fence is not featured on the plan. Inaddition the position of the pole appears to me to vary slightly depending on which document youlook at. This needs to be more exactly stated before any decision should be taken; if it is to blockthe walkway, that would be an enormous inconvenience to locals who wish to use it at those timeswhen the school is using the space and there is no other way across.2.3 The specification of the camera: the range and clarity of picture which has the potential toinvade the privacy of those people lawfully using the space within the fence as well as those usingthe play park and areas outside the fence, additionally the privacy of houses surrounding that areaof the Lodge on Cheyne Road, Stoke Paddock Road and the cottages near the pavilion should beconsidered, all of whom could find themselves, their bedrooms and bathrooms, and possiblygardens and ground floor rooms caught on camera.2.4 The intended sight lines of the camera: how far would the camera pan in each direction? Is thisautomatic or manual? This also ties in to the next point.2.5 The use, aim or purpose for the installation of CCTV: this is not stated, nor is the intendedmethod of operation, the people who would have access to the footage, the intended use for the

footage, a statement for the comfort of local householders regarding the school's intention for orstorage of footage collected.

3. Other concerns3.1 There is an application for a public right of way outstanding, and two outstanding applicationsfor Town or Village Green status. Both of these, if granted would conflict with the addition of thispole and the CCTV to the site. If, after everything else is considered, this structure is still deemednecessary, the decision should wait until after the P.R.O.W. and T.V.G decisions have been taken.To shoehorn in these very questionable developments (and taking into account the attempts atcoerced changes to pattern of use) before these long-awaited decisions have been taken is surelybelow the standards of integrity of the Council.3.2 According to the Bristol City Council Surveillance Camera Strategy it must be shown that thereis a legitimate aim and a pressing need for the CCTV installation, additionally, surveillance shouldalso be by community consent. I would like to put on record here that I do not recognise any needfor the existing CCTV and certainly not for the increased surveillance that this new camera wouldimpose upon the community going about our lawful business.The school have cited in the past the need for the staff and pupils to be protected from locals butrecords indicate that- the calling in of the riot squad in Jan '19 was unnecessary and a waste of police time andresources,

- the reports made to police by the applicant on behalf of the school since that date regarding'incidents' at Stoke Lodge were also seen as such,- BS9 is a very low crime area- although claims that incidents of pupils and staff being 'harassed through the fence' werereported to the police; when this was checked, no such reports have been made, because, quiteobviously, filing a false report is not best thought of.The school have no need of the CCTV or the fence3.3 Currently, the school's handling of the personal data obtained through surveillance ofmembers of the public is based on Stoke Lodge being school premises.Stoke Lodge does not form part of Cotham School's premises. It is not an outside classroom. Aletter from the DfE stating that it could be part of the school's premises but advising that individuallegal advice should be sought for a definitive answer (it was not, to my knowledge) was basedupon misleading information sent by a parent on behalf of the school to the DfE stating the leasewas 'exclusive'. The lease has been confirmed by Bristol City Council to be anything but.Once the DfE was advised of this they revised their official opinion and we now know that StokeLodge is categorically not school premises.As such the school are already on shaky ground regarding their CCTV policy and should urgentlyrevise their position: currently, the school are not using the land due to the coronavirus pandemicyet the cameras are still operational.Until this is resolved, there can be no way that I can support the additional, or even current CCTVsurveillance.3.4 As stated in paragraph 1.4 the pole and CCTV cameras are entirely unsuited to the beautiful

visual amenity of Stoke Lodge Parkland. It would not sit well in close proximity to the tree stated, inaddition, the entire setting of the rolling grass and individual mature trees that make up thisstunning setting with the almost two centuries old house would be offended by such a structure.

CONCLUSIONI have to object to this application.- I can see neither aim nor need for this development and none has been stated by the school.- The ability to collect personal data, its collection, storage and use is unknown and deeplyconcerning.- The appearance and presence of the pole and camera are entirely unsuited to this location.- The PROW and TVG applications should be dealt with before a decision can be made regardingthis. Should they be successful this structure would need to come down and I cannot condonesuch a potential waste of taxpayers' money, nor should Bristol City Council.

So Cotham School wants to stick another massive aberration on something itsgoverning body has such a desperate and psychologically worrying need to control. It might thenpick up their own school staff vandalising, but it would be preferable if they simply shoved it wherethe sun doesn't shine.

This CCTV camera and mast is entirely out of keeping with the listed building it islocated beside and the parkland it is designed to cover with surveillance.The CCTV footage it will provide would appear to intrude into the privacy of homes and gardens ofWoodland Grove as well as homes on other roads and the children's playground.It is totally inappropriate and unnecessary.The application should be refused.

I strongly object to the application as follows, Nathan Allan is not the owner of StokeLodge, BCC is the ultimate owner on lease to Cotham School of which Mr Allan is an employee.The postal address of the property is also Stoke Bishop and not Sea Mills.The land at Stoke Lodge is designated as Important Open Space which has been enjoyed by thelocal community for 70 years.Under the lease to the school, Clause 2-1 states that the school's rights under the lease are"subject also to all existing rights and the use of the property including use by the community" Ifpermission were granted it would give right to Cotham School to monitor the land that isdesignated for recreation leisure by the community whilst use by Cotham School of this area ofland is minimal to non-existent, due to the sloping terrain and its propensity to become boggy.There are 3 Cameras already in position at Stoke Lodge and in December 2019 under CothamSchool's Data Privacy Impact Statement they refer to the fact that there would be no more CCTV.The new camera is proposed to be on a pole more suited to prisons, detention centres, car parksand railway stations and its position adjacent to a Grade II listed building is detrimental to thisproperty. In addition to the historic buildings, close by is the Lucombe Oak a "Tree of the Year".The camera would also overlook the playground used by small children which would be a seriousconcern to parents and will also have a detrimental impact on the appearance of this area. Theproposed positon of the pole is subject to possible PRW application. The trajectory of its lines ofvision appear to overlook private gardens on Shirehampton Road, Stoke Paddock Road,Ebenezer Lane and possibly Cheyne Road We are told the cameras are not monitored but weknow that they can be and are accessed 24 hours a day from the home of a member of staff.With the two TVG applications being current and the PRW applications is this an appropriate timeto apply for further surveillance

The installation of a security camera on a pole in this area is totally not in keeping withthe surrounding area or the amenity of a grade 2 listed building and area.I also worry about privacy when using the children's play park

I appeal to the council that they fully reject this application.

I strongly object to the planning application for this CCTV pole for the below reasons:

1. It will ruin the Grade II listed building and goes against the guidance for CCTV for thesebuildings

2. The cameras can look into neighbour's homes due to the tilt feature which is a huge invasion ofprivacy

3. The cameras can see into the children's playground

4. The CCTV is not necessary as teachers are required to see their children during PE lessons onsite and not rely on cameras therefore the CCTV cannot be for the purpose of PE lessons

5. The section of the field where the CCTV is proposed has been used less than 5 times by theschool in over a year therefore it is not necessary to put CCTV up on an used area.

6. There has been no mention of data privacy for the footage

7. There is an outstanding TGV application so it would be foolish to spend tax payers money onCCTV that may be required to be taken down afterwards

8. The school has alienated the local community and this will further worsen relations between the2 parties

9. No other school playing fields in Bristol have similar CCTV implying it is not necessary.

I Object to the CCTV camera being put at stoke lodge

The position for this additional CCTV is totally unacceptable

I strongly object with it is not necessary to have additional CCTV at Stoke Lodge.

The height of the post & the range of the camera is not appropriate for this property &location. The fact that the camera could film children in the play area or in their gardens adjoiningthe field is an unacceptable invasion of privacy. I therefore object to the grant of this permission

I strongly object to the unnecessary and unsightly CCTV pole and camera at StokeLodge proposed by Cotham School, primarily because of its proximity to the beautiful Grade 2listed property, located in land designated as Important Open Space in the Local Plan. This type ofpole, at a height of 4m minimum, is apparently typically used in prisons and detention facilities, carparks and railway stations thus making it completely out of keeping for this tree lined setting, whichis in concurrence with Historic England's view of the impact on the character of an amenity suchas a listed environment. It is pertinent to mention that it was for this reason that in December 2018Cotham School's application for permission for an additional sign (in a very similar position on theStoke Lodge site) was rejected (as inappropriate) by the Councillors present at the meeting. Itherefore suggest that the same decision should be made on this occasion.

In addition the timing of this application is wholly inappropriate whilst there are two TVGapplications and a Public Right of Way application and for exactly this location in progress.

I also wish to draw your attention to the fact that Nathan Allen is not the owner of Stoke Lodge'Sports Ground', as indicated in Section 25 (Bristol City Council leases the land to CothamSchool). He is the Facilities Manager at Cotham School, but not a governor or director. Iunderstand that it is a criminal offence to claim f ownership, either knowingly or recklessly, whenmaking a planning application. Please note that an application for Cotham School to carry out treeworks in September 2019 (reference 19/04039) was dismissed on exactly these grounds.

As a regular user of the space both inside and outside the fence, I am firmly opposed to theexcessive (24/7) use of surveillance of land that the applicant does not have exclusive access to.Their lease states that the school's rights to the land inside the fence are 'subject also to all

existing rights and use of the property including use by the community' and Jo Butler(Headteacher) has explicitly stated that the public can use the space when it is not in use by theschool.

Furthermore, whilst the application states that the camera will not overlook space outside theirleased area, if I was the parent of a child using the play park at Stoke Lodge (which is outside theleased area) I would be extremely concerned by the presence of a pan and tilt camera such as theone proposed. Also, logically, a camera of this sort in this location would also be able to lookthrough the fence into the gardens of the houses along Stoke Paddock Road and ShirehamptonRoad. The fact that the applicant states that the CCTV would not be monitored 'live' unless therewas an ongoing incident, provides little reassurance I'm afraid, being as how, in the same way asthe existing CCTV cameras on the site, the school's facilities manager would be able to log-onfrom his home and access the CCTV. It has already been established through a Freedom ofInformation request regarding existing CCTV footage at the site, that the school fails to follow theSurveillance Camera Code of Practice under section 29 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012which applies to 'any place to which at the material time the public or any section of the public hasaccess, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission'. This alladds upto potentially serious privacy issues for the local community.

Lastly, nowhere in the school's application has the aim or pressing need of CCTV for this area (thelower half of the playing field) been identified. The relevance of this is that Article 8 of theEuropean Charter of Human Rights, states that 'Use of a surveillance camera system must alwaysbe for a specified purpose which is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary to meet anidentified pressing need'. Please also note that the school's Data Privacy Impact Assessment(December 2019 ) indicated that there were no plans to increase CCTV coverage and there isdata to show that the school hardly ever used the part of the field in question.

It is for all the reasons above that I strongly object to the unnecessary and unsightly CCTV poleand camera at Stoke Lodge proposed by Cotham School in Application 20/01826/F.

I object to a tall unsightly pole and camera being sited immediately adjacent to abeautiful listed building. I further object to excessive surveillance of land that the applicant doesnot have exclusive access to. The applicant's lease allows public use and the applicant's fenceand existing cctv (which they claimed at time of installation was sufficient) already interferes withthe public rights of access. This pan and tilt camera positioned at height will allow intrusivesurveillance of members of the public. If the camera is capable, as stated, of monitoring the entirelower field then it will also be capable of monitoring the playground and the car park and users ofStoke Lodge itself as well as a number of private properties adjacent to the field. I also haveconcerns about the exact location (the plans indicate a large area, not a specific point). Further, Iam concerned about the root systems of the protected trees and the potential for them to bedamaged by the works or the pole itself, especially as the leaseholder has previously shown littleregard to its duties with respect to TPO trees

Comments for Planning Application 20/01826/FApplication SummaryApplication Number: 20/01826/FAddress: Stoke Lodge Sports Ground Shirehampton Road Sea Mills BristolProposal: The works are to install a CCTV pole and camera adjacent to the gate behind theneighbouring Stoke Lodge Adult Learning Centre.Case Officer: Patrick BoxwellCustomer DetailsName: Sharon LloydAddress: 1A Cheyne Road, Stoke Bishop Bristol BS9 2DHComment DetailsCommenter Type: NeighbourStance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:Once again Mr Nathan Allen has taken to applying for permission over grounds that he neitherowns nor has the right to control and has submitted false information for a second time!

RE: 24. Authority Employee/MemberWith respect to the Authority, is the applicant and/or agent one of the following:(a) a member of staff(b) an elected member(c) related to a member of staff(d) related to an elected member

It is an important principle of decision-making that the process is open and transparent.For the purposes of this question, "related to" means related, by birth or otherwise, closely enoughthat a fair-minded andinformed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was bias on the part ofthe decision-maker inthe Local Planning Authority.Do any of the above statements apply?Yes No

Mr Allen's response to the above is NO

25. Ownership Certificates and Agricultural Land DeclarationCERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP - CERTIFICATE A - Town and Country Planning (DevelopmentManagement Procedure) (England) Order 2015 Certificateunder Article 14I certify/The applicant certifies that on the day 21 days before the date of this application nobodyexcept myself/the applicant was the owner* of any part of the land or building to which theapplication relates, and that none of the land to which the application relates is, or is part of, anagricultural holding*** 'owner' is a person with a freehold interest or leasehold interest with at least 7 years left to run. **'agricultural holding' has the meaning given by reference to the definition of 'agricultural tenant' insection 65(8) of the Act.NOTE: You should sign Certificate B, C or D, as appropriate, if you are the sole owner of the landor building to which the application relates but the land is, or is part of, an agricultural holding.Person roleThe applicantThe agentPlanning Portal Reference: PP-0866829125. Ownership Certificates and Agricultural Land DeclarationTitle Please Select...First name CothamSurname SchoolDeclaration date(DD/MM/YYYY)22/04/2020Declaration made26. DeclarationI/we hereby apply for planning permission/consent as described in this form and theaccompanying plans/drawings and additional information. I/we confirm that, to the best of my/ourknowledge, any facts stated are true and accurate and any opinions given are the genuineopinions of the person(s) giving them.

Objections: Mr Allen also states the above.

This is the second time Mr Allen has simply entered false information and seems to have noqualms about doing so. This application in containing falsehoods is inadmissible.

It is wholly unacceptable that the community has to spend hours providing evidence to anapplication that is inadmissible, let alone giving the multiple reasons why the application isinappropriate, unacceptable and outright false in presentation of facts.

Comment: Objections to the camera1 The submitted plans fail to show with any accuracy the placement of the camera or the factualfeatures of the grounds. A very significant size tree in front of the house is omitted, as are some ofthe houses on Ebenezer Lane, which will be within reach of the camera lens.2 Failure to specify exact details of the camera and its' instillation: could be at a height anywherebetween 4 or 12 metres. It is unacceptable to leave this so vague as any installation should beclearly described with specific figures re: model, function, materials and how it is to beapplied/used if any objective evaluation of such an installation can be made.3 Similarly, where precisely the camera is to be positioned is required, as this will impact on theheight installation, as well as the range it can photograph/record.4 This camera can scan (it is a pan-tilt moving system, identical to that used in prisons) andthereby record data of the children's playground, the area below the playground, Stoke Lodge carpark, the sensory garden, houses (Shirehampton Road, Stoke Paddock Road, Cheyne Road,Ebenezer Lane and Stoke Lodge itself), gardens and the walkers forced into the perimeterwalkway. A camera recording such data is a total invasion of personal privacy for the play areausers, as well as the residents (more so as the trees lose their leaves) and there is no statementof management, use of or control (data protection) of what Mr Allen uses these recording for, orgives access to - I need say no more about recording private family residences and children inplaygrounds - just look at the research of the 'Dark Web', and any officer making decisions on thismatter should be fully informed of this.5 Whilst software privacy blocks might be set, planning officers will agree that these are notenforceable. Thus, such a camera is unacceptable and in breach of Article 8 of the Human RightsAct -and Article 1 of the first protocol. The community have a right to use the playground, car park,perimeter, their homes and gardens without being placed under Cotham Academy's surveillance.(If in any doubt ask yourself if you would like a surveillance camera pointing in to your own house).

6 There is no other school in Bristol that uses camera-intrusive installments to survey playingfields, neither are there any on the Downs or other public parks and spaces - Bristol University hastwice the size of secured space, but does not need cameras so why does Mr Allen feel in thisresidential setting comprising a significant number of retirees, that he needs this level of camerasurveillance over a portion of the playing area that is not even used because is has a 10 metredrop from top to bottom and so cannot be 'a level playing field' for the purpose of sport...as well asbeing waterlogged much of the winter.

7 There have been no incidents of incursions into the field whilst PE takes place. This playing fieldsite is not adjacent to the school and pupils do not use it for lunch break, recreation or informalplay. The teachers supervise the children into the field and lock the gates. Under legalrequirements when the children are on the field every child should be within the sight of asupervising adult in any event as they do sports - safety and safe guarding cannot be deferred tocamera surveillance8 Less the current reviewers of this application are not aware (and why the flagrant falsehoods ofthe applicant are all the more shocking) Stoke Lodge is classed as 'open space' and a recreationalspace. The public have a right to access the field as per the lease when the school is not using it.The field is meant to support local people to relax and exercise, not a surveillance program for CA.9 Stoke Lodge is a beautiful listed building with a lovely arboretum, It was stripped of its groundsby the process of CA being allowed to construct a fence by the landlord without any planningpermission being required. However, the grounds still form part of the amenity and are thecurtilage of Stoke Lodge a fine, grade two listed building, surrounded by 36 trees with preservationorders on them, and some of oldest trees in Bristol. It is not the place for a highly incongruous,glaring eyesore of a permanently scanning, threatening - perceived as intimidating, prison exerciseyard - camera.10 Section 66 of the Listed Building and Conservation Act states that the Local Authority musthave 'special, regard to the desirability of preserving and conserving a listed building and itssetting.' The camera will be sited in the setting of Stoke Lodge as the field forms part of thebackdrop for the house. ( See Steer v SSCLG where a wide definition of setting was given...theplanning officer is bound by this ).11 There has been no local consultation with local residents and in fact outright refusal to do so,but as with all of CA's other behaviours, this application combined with constant locked gates, isdesigned to intimidate the community by creating a hostile environment to stop them legitimatelyusing the field when not being used by the school.

This is disgusting. Why doesn't the school just interact with the community to worktowards creating a shared, safe space just like it was before they installed the fence that hascaused all of these problems.

I object to this CCTV being installed.

The mast is not in keeping with the listed building, it does not preserve the heritage of both thebuilding and the land.

The field is protected by a fence, there are no buildings within this area for the cctv to cover. Theschool very rarely uses this part of the field. Therefore the CCTV will be primarily recording thepublic walking around the perimeter of the fence. This is unnecessary and arguably against theirrights to privacy

Furthermore the CCTV range will cover the play park with small children inside. This is distressingfor parents.

How will the school manage the recording in a accordance with legislations for public CCTV!

I find it staggering that once beautiful listed land is fenced like a prison and is now beingconsidered for cameras that are similar to prison style too.

As the fields are available for public access surveillance of this nature interferes with thequalified right to respect for private and family life provided under Article 8 of the European Charterof Human Rights, which states that 'Use of a surveillance camera system must always be for aspecified purpose which is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identifiedpressing need'.Modern systems now have "phenomenal capabilities", which have created understandablemisgivings about the risk for privacy and potential abuse such capabilities create.The positioning and range of this proposed camera will intrude into the lives of ordinary people asthey go about their day to day business raising wider privacy concerns.Who is at the other end of the camera? Who really is watching us? Who ultimately views what thecamera lens observes? Who decides when a privately owned security surveillance camera ispoorly or maliciously aimed (when the camera is deliberately pointed into the windows of a privateresidence)? Will the camera be taking videos of children playing?Cameras should avoid or mask inappropriate views of private areas, such as gardens andwindows of bedrooms or houses and public play areas.The camera could legally do what a peeping tom could not do. They could peer inside of windowswith the full protection of the law on their side. If a person was standing watching outside a windowit could be a crime, yet the same person could place a surveillance camera then remotely view aperson within the privacy of their home. Most importantly, it is not against the law.The council has a responsibility to turn down this request for such a camera. If one is necessaryfor security reasons why can't it be a fixed, less obtrusive, camera above the gate. We shouldhave surveillance cameras in public places because they ensure public safety.Why film innocent people doing nothing criminal in public places?

It is a criminal offence to undertake the licensable activities of a public space surveillance CCTVoperative without an SIA licence. Has Cotham School been given an exemption under Section4(4) of the Private Security Industry Act 2001? - An exemption is applicable only where thecompany in question has been granted approved contractor status by the SIA and the otherconditions of Section 4(4) have also been met.Good surveillance is best delivered by equipment which is situated in locations where cameras arejustifiably most needed and most benefit members of the public. Bad surveillance is conductedwhen these standards are absent, where the public lacks confidence in their presence andoperation, and are confused why they are being used and who regulates that use.

The Information Commissioner's code of practice, compliance includes the following:

Clear information available to anyone who may be captured by the system about the identity andcontact details of the operator and the purpose of the CCTV surveillance;A process by which anyone captured on the system can access the data;Notification to the supervisory authority (the Information Commissioner's Office) before they areset up.Has this been done?

As surveillance camera technology advances so does the potential to intrude further in to theprivacy of individuals. As threats to our society evolves, so does the need to guide the standardsof decision making which addresses the delicate balance of security versus liberty in advancingthe effectiveness public space surveillance camera systems to keep people safe.THIS CAMERA IS NOT NECESSARY

I am writing to protest against Cotham School's latest assault against our community.We have a Grade 2 listed building which welcomes all comers to profit from its courses. Theschool's proposal will be a ridiculous eyesore not only to this listed building but to other buildingsaround. We are already prevented by a locked fence from the use of the field, adults and childrenalike, which had been granted to us as of right, These outrages should be resisted and overturned.

I wish to make strong objection to the current application to install a steerable highdefinition CCTV camera on a 4 to 12m mast adjacent to Stoke Lodge House, a Grade 2 listedAdult Learning Centre, which has already been defiled by a fence erected without planningpermission or consultation. My other specific grounds for objection are:1. There has been no public consultation with neighbours closely affected by this camera. Inparticular the residents of West Dene whose houses have been built up against the field boundary,and also the residents of Stoke Paddock Road whose rear gardens will be under direct view, andparticularly in the winter, will have direct view into the bedrooms. Also to a lesser extent WoodlandGrove houses rear aspects are well within the camera range.2. Because the site plan is inaccurate the fencing is not shown. Showing this would indicate thatthe exercise path that the school has grudgingly allowed to be retained is under directsurveillance, but more importantly so is Ebenezer lane which is a statutory Public Right of Wayand people using these routes will have no control over recorded video made of them.3. In the other direction, Stoke Lodge House, car-park, Sensory Garden, and most importantly thechildren's playpark, are in direct view.4. The application does not state the need or purpose for surveillance. Before and since theerection of the fence the school has not used any of the lower part of the field that now comesunder detailed view so why is it needed, if not to watch the public? It clearly includes major publicand private areas so constitutes a severe invasion of privacy. There are no buildings of schoolrelevance in the view, which was the excuse used by the school for the other three cameras onthis green "open" space.5. This application is supporting Cotham in its denial of its lease: Their insistence that "all existingrights for use by the community" has to be "interpreted" is intent to mislead, which is anotherdefinition of a lie.

6. The principles applying here do not match any of BCC guidelines for installation of cameras -there is certainly "no peace of mind and security for the public" involved ¬¬-and it breaches thefirst two principles of the BCC Policy of Camera use:1. Use of a surveillance camera system must always be for a specified purposewhich is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identifiedpressing need.2. The use of a surveillance camera system must take into account its effect onindividuals and their privacy, with regular reviews to ensure its use remainsjustified.

The installation of 'prison camp' style 12m high surveillance cameras is an intrusion ofprivacy to the public use of this 'Open Space'. There is an intrusion on the privacy of those usingthe perimeter pathway, the play area and the rear of the houses and gardens of residence ofStoke Paddock, Woodland Grove, Ebenezer Lane and South Dene. It is wholly unnecessary tomonitor the actions of a residential area with a majority of retirees and families.Pupils using the lower field for PE (if this ever happens) should be supervised by teaching staff, soCCTV cameras cannot be needed for this purpose.Does Cotham school staff have nothing better to do than watch grass grow?The area is well loved and cared for by the local community. Any infringements on security of thesite are caused entirely by Cothams Schools hostile actions towards the community.This beautiful Grade II listed site, historic parkland and important open space should not bespoiled any further by the paranoia of Cotham School staff.

I have always enjoyed Stoke Lodge as a place for a peaceful walk. We also use theplayground with our little boy. I do not feel comfortable with Cotham School putting up a pole forfuture cctv as I find it unnecessarily voyeuristic, especially with small children in a playing area.

This application relates to development on land which is the subject of two ongoingTown or Village Green applications, and is directly on the line of a claimed public right of way forwhich an application for registration is outstanding. On these grounds alone, it should bewithdrawn or dismissed without further consideration: it is simply impossible to ensure that publicrights under those other pre-existing applications would not be prejudiced by the currentapplication. It would be entirely inappropriate to grant permission for development that could infuture physically block a public right of way and/or occupy and permit surveillance over aregistered village green.

I do not believe the application is properly made. Firstly, it omits critical details (the pole is statedto be anywhere between 4m and 12m in height and its precise location (e.g. inside or outside theschool's fence?) is not clear; no details are provided about the camera). Secondly, the statedapplicant is Nathan Allen, and he is not (as asserted in section 25) the owner of the land. He is nota director of Cotham School Limited or a governor of the school but merely an employee.

The application also contravenes national and local planning policies and strategies. First, theapplication documents include a statement that the typical use of this type of pole is in prisons anddetention centres, railway stations, car parks, industrial and commercial premises etc. It ismanifestly detrimental to the setting of the Grade II listed building just a few feet away from theproposed location.

Historic England states that 'Amenity is generally considered to be visual appearance and thepleasance of the environment generally, including the general characteristics of the locality andany feature of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest there'. The National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF) states that 'Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritageasset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should requireclear and convincing justification'.

There is no justification in this application of (a) the need for CCTV in this location at all, given thatthis area has one of the lowest recorded crime rates in Bristol and that the school already hasthree CCTV cameras on site (which were installed without a planning application being required);or (b) the need for this dominating, ugly and entirely unacceptable pole in a historic parklandlandscape which is designated as Important Open Space for its visual amenity (among otherqualities).

We understand that the school previously intended to install a camera on the listed building itself,and retreated from this idea when it realised a planning application would be required; since theapplication suggests that work was intended to commence on 20 April 2020, it may have thoughtthat planning permission would not be required in this instance. It was wrong, and this applicationis even worse than its first idea. Visually, it is extremely detrimental to amenity. It compounds thisby detracting from the pleasance of the environment, in that it proposes the installation of anunnecessarily threatening and intrusive monitoring capability that is suggestive of risk and dangerthat simply does not exist. There is no 'clear and convincing justification' for this proposal.

Bristol's own Planning Policy BCS22 states that 'Development proposals will safeguard orenhance heritage assets and the character and setting of areas of acknowledged importanceincluding... historic buildings both nationally and locally listed'. This proposal would directly conflictwith that policy and should be rejected. It is inconceivable that a structure of this kind could beseen as 'safeguarding or enhancing' the character and setting of Stoke Lodge.

Policy DM17 also applies to this Important Open Space and states that 'Development on part, orall, of an Important Open Space as designated on the Policies Map will not be permitted unlessthe development is ancillary to the open space use'. The Council is in receipt of legal advice thatconfirms that public use of this land is protected under the school's lease. It is NOT schoolpremises (the correct test has been confirmed by the Minister for School Standards and the schooldoes not have the requisite exclusive or majority use of the land to meet that definition). Permittingintrusive CCTV surveillance of open space designated for recreation, leisure and community usewould conflict with policy DM17.

Although strikingly little detail is provided in the application, the applicant states that 'CCTV willcover the lower end of the playing field (behind Stoke Paddock [Road]) and the immediate areaaround the base of the pole, it will not cover areas outside of the school premises'. This simplycannot be true. The proposal is for a pan and tilt camera. If it can reach over 160m to the bottomof the field, it can clearly see areas outside the fence such as the children's playpark and the openarea below it; it can see users of the Adult Learning Centre arriving and leaving; and it can clearlysee a number of private properties on Shirehampton Road, Stoke Paddock Road and (much

closer) Ebenezer Lane/West Dene. In addition, of course, the CCTV will also record all the usersof the field - people who, whatever the school likes to say, are on publicly-owned shared land withtheir use protected under the school's lease, not on private land solely by kind permission of theschool. This has been confirmed by the Council's own legal advice. The proposal is unacceptablyintrusive and the incorrect statements and lack of detail provided mean that the application shouldbe dismissed.

In relation to privacy, Cotham School has confirmed in response to an FOI request that, unlikeother schools, it does not follow best practice under the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice(section 29 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012). This code applies to the use of surveillancecamera systems that operate in public places in England and Wales. 'Public place' has themeaning given by Section 16(b) of the Public Order Act 1986 and includes 'any place to which atthe material time the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, asof right or by virtue of express or implied permission'. Stoke Lodge Playing Fields are a publicplace for this purpose. The Code is widely regarded as best practice and we understand that it isusual for schools to maintain a CCTV policy, but the school business manager's response whenasked was that Stoke Lodge 'is private property leased by the school and therefore the act or theguiding principles are not applicable to the school'. This statement is untrue.

The relevance is that the code emphasises that surveillance may interfere with the qualified rightto respect for private and family life provided under Article 8 of the European Charter of HumanRights, and states that 'Use of a surveillance camera system must always be for a specifiedpurpose which is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identified pressing need'.

The application fails to identify either a legitimate aim or a pressing need for even more CCTVcoverage (in addition to the three cameras already installed). As recently as December 2019 theschool stated that it had no plans for further cameras. Nothing has changed since then.

There has been no consultation with the community nor any attempt to demonstrate that thecameras are used to protect and support them, rather than spy on them. Indeed, there is a distinctlack of trust about the school's use of CCTV capability, since we are aware that school employeesare able to access the camera feeds remotely whenever they choose to do so, and that theyappear to take a wide interpretation of the nature of incidents that trigger a review of footage(having already confirmed that they reviewed footage in early January to see whether a dog mighthave relieved itself on the field). There is distinct discomfort in the community about the idea thatschool employees who have at times been aggressively hostile towards multiple members of thecommunity, have the ability to monitor individuals including very young children undertakingentirely legal leisure activities in a shared space, which they are entitled to do both under theschool's lease and on land adjacent to that area.

Please reject this application either immediately due to its defective nature and/or inappropriatetiming in view of the TVG and PROW applications, or because (a) it is utterly inappropriate within

the setting of a listed building, (b) it has demonstrated no convincing and clearjustification/legitimate aim and pressing need, and (c) it conflicts with multiple planning policies.

Please can we first get the location correct. This application is for an installation atStoke Lodge Parkland. This is also known as" Stoke Lodge Playing Field" according to signsposted by Cotham School. It is not a Sports Ground and should not be referred to by this new titleof "Stoke Lodge Sports Ground".

How can this application be considered when the height of the proposed mast is not specified?There would be a major difference in visual impact between 4m and 12m. Irrespective of height, Ioppose the proposed mast on ground of visual impact in the context of proximity to the listedbuildings and within a green space environment.

Why has work already started, before any planning consent? This is breath-taking arrogance andshould count against the application and applicant for contempt of due process.

No information has been provided on the type of camera, whether dome type or steerable. Thelatter should never be allowed in such locations due to the trauma inflicted on people who see thecamera being steered to watch them. It is incredibly insensitive to publicly show datasheets whichboast this structure and camera is suitable for prisons and detention centres. Of course, there isno mention of use in parkland in low crime areas because no sane organisation would waste fundsinstalling such capability.

Surely the applicant should be required to provide a justification why surveillance of parkland useda few hours a week during term time for PE lessons is necessary. Where if the Dept. for Educationguidance that this is necessary? What other schools have such capability installed in off-siteplaying fields?

Whilst the planning process is not here to scrutinise the use of public funds by Cotham School, Iwould like to register concern at this structure being installed using funding improperly allocated,i.e. obtained for other purposes and being used for this.

Please also consider that since this new structure requires planning consent, it is nonsensical thatplanning consent is not also required for the recently installed fence

Objections to the camera

1 The application is too vague : The camera could be at a height of between 4 or 12 metres?That's quite a difference. What exact height will be used? Where exactly will the camera be?There is a sketch indicating a large square and a large circle that covers quite a bit of space.Asthe planning officer needs to know the camera's exact view how can any decision be made?

2 CA have already installed cameras and said they needed no moe.They don't seem to have aconsidered overall security plan but seem to be randomly installing cameras in an ad hoc fashion.

3 CA have not detailed in their application exactly why they need a camera.

4 This camera seems to be for the bottom of the field but the school,rarely use that area of thefield. The bottom of the field tends to be waterlogged in Winter due to the slope of the field.

5,There is a controversial fence around the playing field allegedly required by CA to stopincursions so the addition of a further camera mounted on a very high pole seems highlyexcessive. For instance, pupils from RGS do sports on the Downs every Wednesday as part ofEnrichment ( running back to school in small groups ) the Belgrave School also uses the Downswithout a fence and cameras.At the Cathedral School they walk across a public road to get from

one site to another. When I visited SMRT the post Year 7 kids were allowed to go in and out ofschool at lunchtime. National Youth Theatre allows pupils aged 14. upwards to walk in threesdown busy London roads from halls of residents to Goldsmith University. ( This included a childwith significant autism who was usually home schooled.) The children found it enhancing to betrusted and were exceptionally well behaved and safety conscious.

6 There have been no incidents of incursions into the field whilst PE takes place.What is thepurpose of the camera?

7. The only way that the school children access the field is by being transported by the school forspecific PE lessons. This playing field site is not adjacent to the school and pupils do not use it forlunch break recreation or informal play. The teachers supervise the children into the field and lockthe gates. Under legal requirements when the children are on the field every child should be withinthe sight of a supervising adult in any event as they do sports.

8 It's more likely that a child will be hurt by another child's misbehaviour or mis thrown javelin thenby anything this camera can detect. I cannot see how a retrospectively viewed cameras canprotect children doing sports. Moreover, If the presence of the camera means that the childrenhave less 'eyes on' supervision ( as people become complacent ) than it actually serves to placethe children at more risk by making the supervisors lax.

9 .I think. that these (predominantly) teenagers are more likely to be mentally harmed by theincreased paranoia of Cotham Academy who seem to want to keep their teens in some type ofmilitary style fortress with an army of surveillance cameras.

10. The camera is a pan tilt camera that can look in all directions including onto ground notforming part of Cotham Academy's demise. Seemingly, the operator could look onto the children'splayground, area around this, Stoke Lodge car park, the sensory garden and back gardens. Iwould imagine that the camera can be simply adjusted to look wherever the applicant wishes andthere is no means of ensuring that CA do not adjust it to look beyond the school grounds. Althoughsoftware privacy blocks might be set most planning. officers would agree that these are notenforceable. There would be harm to the privacy of all of us. This is unacceptable and a breach ofArticle 8 of the Human Rights Act -and Article 1 of the first protocol. Surely people have the right to

use the playground, car park, perimeter, their gardens without being placed under CA'surveillance.

11. Stoke Lodge is classed as 'open space' and a recreational space. The public have a right toaccess the field as per the lease when the school is not using it. The field is meant to support localpeople to relax and exercise. Instead there will be a camera which will significantly impact the wellbeing and health of the Community. It will impact both visually ( ugly mounted camera ) andmentally ( paranoia of being constantly surveyed. ) The field will become more akin to a prison.

12. I have a SEN child who suffers severely from high anxiety and I can easily imagine that acamera mounted on a high pole might jeopardise any chance that I have of a peaceful walk withhim in the perimeter area controlled by BCC . He will probably be constantly questioning me onwhether he is being spied upon and this will heighten his anxieties. That small area has beencrucial for my son's and my mental well being.I cannot over exaggerate this. Lockdown has beentorture had walking along pavements for any distance was impossible due to his high anxiety. Idon't drive.

13. Who will control the recordings? Who will have access to the recordings? Are they permitted tohold such data? What about the surveillance code? Will it be adhered to? Will the camera operate24 hours including at times when the public is permitted to relax and field ( as they have done fordecades.) How high will the pole be? There are too many unanswered questions.

14. Whatever the height the camera and pole will dominate the scene. The camera will be visiblebeyond their leasehold interest. It will be seen from in the playground, in the Stoke Lodge rearcarpark, possibly in the sensory garden and in the recreational land adjacent to the playground. Itmight be visible from people's gardens.

15. Stoke Lodge is a beautiful listed building with a lovely arboretum, It was denuded of itsgrounds by the process of CA being allowed to construct a fence by the landlord without anyplanning permission being required. However, the grounds still form part of the amenity andsetting for the building. On the site there are some of the most beautiful and oldest trees in Bristol.Stoke Lodge itself is a very handsome building and a fine example of late 19th century

architecture. The history of Stoke Lodge is wrapped into the history of Bristol including being thehome of the founder of the Red across.

16. Section 66 of the Listed Building and Conservation Act states that the Local Authority musthave 'special,regard to the desirability of preserving and conserving a listed building and itssetting.' The camera will be sited in the setting of Stoke Lodge as the field forms part of thebackdrop for the house. ( See Steer v SSCLG where a wide definition of setting was given...theplanning officer is bound by this )

17. Adjacent to the proposed site for the camera is a small children's playground that waspleasantly and sympathetically designed by BCC with a low wooden fence to be as unobtrusive inthe grounds of Stoke Lodge as possible, Any security on the site should equally be expected to besited as unobtrusively and sympathetically as possible so as not to deter from the handsomenessof Stoke Lodge and its environment. Security should not degrade the setting, the house and it'senvironment.

18. It's a suburban setting with a beautiful listed building and arboretum. It's not as if where thecamera is proposed to be sited there is lots of general urban paraphernalia eg advertisinghoardings/ signage / high buildings etc that will lessen the stark impact of the mounted camera. Itwill not be masked as part of the general, urban, grey hubris. Instead, It will be highly incongruous,glaring and an eyesore.

19. Where is the method statement for the works as I assume that wiring will be required. Whatabout the surrounding protected trees?

20 There has been no local consultation with local residents.The impression I have is that thisapplication combined with the constant locking of the gates of the field when not in use is designedto intimidate the community by creating a hostile environment to stop them legitimately using thefield out of school hours and the perimeter / playground at all times.

I object to the erection of a security camera adjacent to Stoke Lodge house for severalreasons. Firstly the house is a listed building and erecting a camera tower goes against planningregulations pertaining to listed structures. Secondly, it will cover public areas and be aninfringement of my right to privacy when going about my normal and legal business.Thirdly, the school is already in breach of its lease in erecting the fence when the lease is subjectto an existing rights of use clause. To allow another breach would be to condone their scandalousbehaviour towards local residents.

I object to a tall unsightly pole and camera being sited immediately adjacent to abeautiful listed building. I further object to excessive surveillance of land that the applicant doesnot have exclusive access to. The applicant's lease allows public use and the applicant's fenceand existing cctv (which they claimed at time of installation was sufficient) already interferes withthe public rights of access. This pan and tilt camera positioned at height will allow intrusivesurveillance of members of the public. If the camera is capable, as stated, of monitoring the entirelower field then it will also be capable of monitoring the playground and the car park and users ofStoke Lodge itself as well as a number of private properties adjacent to the field. I also haveconcerns about the exact location (the plans indicate a large area, not a specific point). Further, Iam concerned about the root systems of the protected trees and the potential for them to bedamaged by the works or the pole itself, especially as the leaseholder has previously shown littleregard to its duties with respect to TPO trees.

I object to this proposal on the grounds that it will adversely affecting the setting of anationally important listed building, and that it contravenes a number of national and local planningpolicies and strategies.

These are my reasons:

I live locally, and my family and I use Stoke Lodge and its facilities from time to time. We do notwish to see this important and lovely building or the setting in which it is located damaged anyfurther than has already happened.

Stoke Lodge is a Grade II listed building. The land around it (part of the integrated whole of theLodge) is designated as Important Open Space in the Local Plan. It has been enjoyed by thecommunity for over 70 years. It is one of Bristol's best local buildings and is also of nationalimportance. It is set within its original parkland, arboretum and gardens.

The proposed CCTV mast will be between 4m and 12m in height (The eventual height has notbeen specified) and so will dominate the immediate locality. Its presence will create an intrusioninto what is part of the curtilage of the Lodge.

Historic England advises:

"Amenity is generally considered to be visual appearance and the pleasance of the environmentgenerally, including the general characteristics of the locality and any feature of historic,architectural, cultural or similar interest there".

From a planning development perspective 'the general characteristics of the locality, including thepresence of any feature of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest' means that plannersmust consider all aspects of the proposal in relation to the setting in which the proposed CCTVmast will be erected. Its proposed location near the Lodge cannot be ignored.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Heritage Assets states:

"Proposals affecting heritage assets

189. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describethe significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting.The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets' importance and no more than is sufficientto understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevanthistoric environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed usingappropriate expertise where necessary".

and

"193. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration ordestruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincingjustification".

The applicant has provided no assessment of these factors or shown how it proposes to mitigateany harm or loss to the 'significance of [the] designated heritage asset':

Local Planning considerations

Planning Policy BCS22 of the existing Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy (at page127) states:

"Development proposals will safeguard or enhance heritage assets and the character and settingof areas of acknowledged importance including...Historic buildings both nationally and locallylisted, Historic parks and gardens both nationally and locally listed".

At para 4.22.5 it states:

"The historic environment is important not just for its own sake; it adds value to regeneration andhas been a major draw in attracting businesses to the city, acting as a stimulus for local economicgrowth. It is also a source of immense local pride, as well as being a valuable educationalresource. This policy seeks to ensure that sites and areas of particular heritage value aresafeguarded for the future or enhanced both for their own heritage merits and as part of wider

heritage regeneration proposals."

This proposal does nothing to ensure that this 'historic environment' will be 'safeguarded for thefuture or enhanced both for their own heritage merits and as part of wider heritage regenerationproposals', rather it will damage it.

Policy DM17: Development Involving Existing Green Infrastructure

The site is designated as an Important Open Space. Policy DM17 states at page 36:

"Development on part, or all, of an Important Open Space as designated on the Policies Map willnot be permitted unless the development is ancillary to the open space use."

On this basis alone, this application cannot not be granted.

On no reasonable interpretation can it be said that the erection of this CCTV pole and camera is'ancillary to the open space use', which, from the school's perspective is use as a sports facility(the site has other uses beyond that). On this basis it is not credible to suggest (should the schoolseek to do so) that CCTV is for safeguarding reasons as pupils only ever visit the site under adultsupervision.

Policy DM16: Open Space for Recreation at para 2.16.3 states at page 34:

"Open space for recreation can have multifunctional green infrastructure benefits and functions.These include enhancing visual amenity, landscape and townscape quality, improving mental andphysical wellbeing through facilitating exercise, outdoor activity and community interaction."

It is unlikely that the presence of a pole-mounted CCTV camera will either enhance the 'visualamenity, landscape and townscape quality' of the site, or that it will improve each visitor's'mental...wellbeing...' when they visit.

Bristol City Council Surveillance Camera Strategy

2 The Use of Surveillance Cameras in Bristol states:

"2.1 Guiding principle

The guiding principles of this strategy will be to ensure that individuals and wider communitieshave confidence that surveillance cameras are deployed to protect and support them, rather thanspy on them. The government considers that wherever overt surveillance in public places is inpursuit of a legitimate aim and meets a pressing need, any such surveillance should becharacterised as surveillance by consent, and such consent on the part of the community must be

informed consent and not assumed by a system operator."

Bristol City Council has adopted the following 12 guiding principles:

1. Use of a surveillance camera system must always be for a specified purpose which is in pursuitof a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identified pressing need.2. The use of a surveillance camera system must take into account its effect on individuals andtheir privacy, with regular reviews to ensure its use remains justified.3. There must be as much transparency in the use of a surveillance camera system as possible,including a published contact point for access to information and complaints.4. There must be clear responsibility and accountability for all surveillance camera systemactivities including images and information collected, held and used.5. Clear rules, policies and procedures must be in place before a surveillance camera system isused, and these must be communicated to all who need to comply with them.6. No more images and information should be stored than that which is strictly required for thestated purpose of a surveillance camera system, and such images and information should bedeleted once their purposes have been discharged.7. Access to retained images and information should be restricted and there must be clearlydefined rules on who can gain access and for what purpose such access is granted; the disclosureof images and information should only take place when it is necessary for such a purpose or forlaw enforcement purposes.8. Surveillance camera system operators should consider any approved operational, technical andcompetency standards relevant to a system and its purpose and work to meet and maintain thosestandards.9. Surveillance camera system images and information should be subject to appropriate securitymeasures to safeguard against unauthorised access and use.10. There should be effective review and audit mechanisms to ensure legal requirements, policiesand standards are complied with in practice, and regular reports should be published.11. When the use of a surveillance camera system is in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and there is apressing need for its use, it should then be used in the most effective way to support public safetyand law enforcement with the aim of processing images and information of evidential value.12. Any information used to support a surveillance camera system which compares against areference database for matching purposes should be accurate and kept up to date.

The school's application fails to state that its proposal is 'for a specified purpose which is in pursuitof a legitimate aim', and that it is 'necessary to meet an identified pressing need', nor how itintends to comply with these 12 Guiding Principles.

In addition to this, I also make the following observations:

- No reasons are set out in the application why a pole-mounted CCTV camera needs to beinstalled.

- The plans published bear no imprint, creation date, version number or author.- The plans' red boundary lines do not accord with the schools lease boundary. Why is this?- Does the red line shown define the 'school premises' as stated in the application?- If not, what does the school mean by the term 'school premises'?- The recently erected fence line should be marked on the plans. Why is this omitted?- It is unclear exactly where the camera will be placed - the two plans published do not accord witheach other.- The proposed sight lines of the camera need to be shown.- There is no specification given of the camera which it is proposed to mount on the pole.- What is proposed for the storage and use any video footage or other information generated bythis camera?- What measures will be taken and what guarantees will be given to ensure that the cameracannot be used to surveil the spaces outside the school's premises?- What measures will be taken and what guarantees will be given to ensure that the privacy oflawful visitors to the site is respected and protected?- No mitigation measures are shown to take account of the highly sensitive heritage locality.- No evidence is given as to whether this has been discussed and agreed with Stoke Lodge AdultEducation Centre, neighbourhood watch groups, other local amenity groups which access and usethe site, or whether residents or other users of these local public facilities want the CCTV or not.- Any decision about this application now is inappropriate given the two outstanding Town orVillage Green applications and the current Public Rights of Way application.- The school requires consent under its lease from BCC both to the CCTV and to the pole onwhich it would be mounted. Has this been granted?- The Council, as the owner of the land, has the right and duty (acting in the public interest) toexercise meaningful control over the level of surveillance of a public space. What plans does theCouncil have to do this?- Clause 2.1 of the lease states that the school's rights under the lease are 'subject also to allexisting rights and use of the property including use by the community'. No proposals are madeabout what will be done to safeguard these rights in the event that this application is granted?- I note that the school has not sought assistance or prior advice been sought from the localauthority about this application? Why is this, given the above?- The school's Data Privacy Impact Assessment (the DPIA) confirms that the CCTV would be inuse 24/7. Why is this necessary in this case, especially as the DPIA also states that the camera isnot monitored and pupils only ever visit the site during school hours?- The Surveillance Camera Code of Practice under section 29 of the Protection of Freedoms Act2012. This code applies to the use of surveillance camera systems that operate in public places inEngland and Wales. 'Public place' has the meaning given by Section 16(b) of the Public Order Act1986 and includes 'any place to which at the material time the public or any section of the publichas access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission'.Stoke Lodge Playing Fields is a public place for this purpose. What does the school propose inorder to comply with this code of practice?- The code emphasises that surveillance may interfere with the qualified right to respect for private

and family life provided under Article 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights, and states that'Use of a surveillance camera system must always be for a specified purpose which is in pursuit ofa legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identified pressing need'. The school has failed toidentify what the specified purpose of their proposal is. How will the school's proposal comply withthis qualified right?

I strongly object to this, as it will be an ugly addition next to a listed buiding in a greenarea of stoke bishop. No idea why it is needed as there is no major crime in the area. It will beblight on the landscape and totally unessassary!

1) I strongly object to the erection of an unsightly modern piece of technology (a CCTVcamera on a pole) adjacent to a beautiful Grade 2 listed building. Why would anyone want to spoila wonderful landscape of a house sitting in its own parkland?This land should be protected by BCC for the legitimate use by the community (as the leasestipulates). There is no reason for the community to be spied upon.

2) Has BCC asked the applicant for reasons, with supporting evidence, for the need of ClosedCircuit Television in this position?

3) Cotham School have already erected a number of cameras in this beautiful parkland and hadsaid there would be no more. Not only have they gone back on their word to allow the communityto use the land but they have now gone back on their word with regard to cameras.

4) Cotham School, in their planning application, say "CCTV will cover the lower end of the playingfield (behind Stoke Paddock)..... it will not cover areas outside of the school premises". Thiscannot be true because if the CCTV can cover the lower end of the playing field it will also becapable of covering the children's play area, the rear gardens of Stoke Paddock Road andpossibly Shirehampton Road.

5) I believe that CCTV cameras overlooking people going about their legitimate use of the land isan intrusion into their liberty and I, personally, do not give Cotham School permission to takephotographs of me, nor my children or grandchildren.

This is a hideous project. Cotham School is gradually turning very pleasant parklandinto a gulag with its fences and cameras and general ironmongery and this right next to a Grade 2listed building. It is doing this not on its own land but on land leased by Bristol City Council whogranted Cotham a lease subject to the existing rights of the community. The camera is also aninsult to that community since it suggests that children are not safe in the community although theyhave been playing there for 70 years without harm and unsupervised. Cotham children on theother hand will be supervised and also protected by team mates. When will the Council have somerespect for local democracy and amenity ? Will Cotham want fierce dogs next ?. .

I object to this proposal on the grounds of it adversely affecting the setting of anationally important listed building, and it contravening a number of national and local planningpolicies.

I live locally, and my family and I use Stoke Lodge and its facilities. We do not wish to see thisimportant, lovely building or its setting damaged.

Stoke Lodge is one of our best local buildings and is also nationally important. It is set within itsoriginal parkland, arboretum and gardens which mostly survive well, and within which this largeproposed CCTV mast would sit. The list entry can be found here:

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1202564

The mast will be between 4m and 12m in height (no other details are given) - even if "only" 4m,this would dominate the immediate locality, and present an adverse and urban intrusion into whatis the original green setting of the Listed Building.

NATIONAL POLICIES ABOUT THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

NPPF (Feb 2019) states:

"Proposals affecting heritage assets

189. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe

the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting.The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets' importance and no more than is sufficientto understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevanthistoric environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed usingappropriate expertise where necessary".

and

"193. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration ordestruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincingjustification".

I consider that these national planning policies are breached by this application, not least becausethe applicant has provided no assessment of the heritage significance of the site; no assessmentof the setting of the listed building; no assessment of the impact of the proposals on the listedbuilding and its setting; no justification for this proposed development within its setting (which asthe original and well-preserved Park for Stoke Lodge itself is an historic asset in its own right,although not designated); and has given no mitigation measures or consideration to the heritagesensitivities of this area.

LOCAL POLICIES ABOUT THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

Policy BCS22 of the existing Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy - Adopted June 2011- says:

"Development proposals will safeguard or enhance heritage assets and the character and settingof areas of acknowledged importance including:- Scheduled ancient monuments;- Historic buildings both nationally and locally listed;- Historic parks and gardens both nationally and locally listed;- Conservation areas;- Archaeological remains."

I consider this proposal also breaches local policies. This proposal will not safeguard or enhancethe setting of this nationally listed heritage asset - rather it will damage it.

Moreover, the emerging Local Plan (Bristol Local Plan Review: Draft Policies and DevelopmentAllocations - Consultation [March 2019]) retains this specific policy in order to protect the historicenvironment.

LOCAL POLICIES ABOUT GREEN SPACE

This land - the setting of the Listed Building - is classified in the Adopted Local Plan (July 2014)(Map 12) as "Important Open Space", and as such, Policy DM17 also applies:

"Important Open Spaces

2.17.3 Important open spaces with a role and value for recreation, leisure, community use,townscape, landscape or visual amenity quality are designated and shown on the Policies Mapand protected from development."

ADDITIONALLY:

- No reasons are set out in the application as to why this large and ugly pole-mounted CCTVcamera is needed, and no alternatives are given.

- The area has one of the very lowest crime rates in the whole of the relatively safe city of Bristol,and the use of the area by school pupils playing sport would not seem to warrant the need forCCTV, as pupils here must surely be accompanied by school staff?

- It is completely unclear why the pole needs to be at this point, next to the Listed Building.

- No mitigation measures (e.g. design modifications) are shown to take account of the highlysensitive heritage locality.

- It is unclear when the camera will be used, when, and how, and what rights of privacy and/orresidential amenity could or will be breached.

- No evidence is given showing what areas of Stoke Bishop the camera can view, nor in whatdetail, but this must surely include the public play park and public car park, the Adult EducationCentre, and may also include private houses and gardens.

- No evidence is given as to whether this has been discussed and agreed with Stoke Lodge AdultEducation Centre, neighbourhood watch groups, other local amenity groups, and whetherresidents and users of these local public facilities want the CCTV or not.

- This large mast will need footings and will presumably require an underground service trench toconnect it, about which no details are given. Given that there are numerous important andprotected trees within the area, whose roots could be damaged, this is also a concern.

I object to this proposal for all these aforementioned reasons.

The siting of the proposed surveillance camera means that its field of view will includepublic access areas which are not within the legitimate interest of Cotham School and I thereforeconsider this proposal to represent an intrusion into my right to privacy. The proposal should berejected by Council if it has any regard to the rights of the public to reasonable protection fromunwarranted surveillance. We do not live in a 1984 state just yet!

I object to this proposal to extend CCTV coverage by Cotham School at Stoke Lodge.1. The proposed mast (min 4m in height) and camera will be completely out of character with theStoke Lodge Buildings. It is also unclear exactly where the mast will be positioned.2. The need for the additional security is at best marginal. There is no property in the area to bemonitored and pupils are rarely on that part of the field and never without staff. Their activities takeplace behind locked gates.3. Those of us who for many years have exercised our right to walk in the field see no need to bemonitored while doing so.4. The area to be covered by the CCTV is unclear - how can we be assured it does not cover theplayground.In summary this proposal further degrades this historic site for spurious security concerns whichanyhow will in due course become a TVG.

I need to object to the installation of extra CCTV which is absolutely unnecessarysurveillance and another attempt by Cotham Academy to create an Orwellian state and assertcontrol where there is no need thereby creating an even greater divide between the communityand the school.I do not understand why there is so much disdain for a community that will actively support them ifthey were not making every attempt to destroy the fundamentals of our community throughexcessive antagonism, fear mongering and reputation tarnishing. The question remains as to whythey are making every attempt to destroy a community with petulant actions ignoring both the spiritand legal wording of their lease. I would wholeheartedly encourage the Bristol City Council tostand up to this bully with the disregard for the greater good who make promises and under deliveron every account.This is an attempt to assert control and instil fear in the community, a peaceful community whosimply want to go about their lives without intrusion. There is always the question as to why thereis such a disregard for the greater good and what will this actually achieve? My opinion is nothingapart from attempting to cement a blatant land grab in a community where green space is limitedand precious. They are continuing to alienate the community with their entitled approach, lack ofconsideration for the children, families and elderly who used Stoke Lodge peacefully and want tocoexist without concentration camp style fences dividing us apart.Tear down these walls, and lets build a better environment where we can teach all to share andrespect each other.CCTV as well as everything else is not the answer.

It is unnecessary to install a pole together with a CCTV camera so close to a listedbuilding which would be unsightly, In any event there are sufficient cameras in place at present. Iam against this application having walked in this area for 42 years as LOCAL resident.

I strongly appose the intrusion of yet another survelance camera. This time, in thegrounds of a Grade II listed building.

At a time of heightened awareness of control over our civil liberties, Britain is sliding into a state ofSurveillance, where it seems one cannot go for a walk on shared community land (See currentLease agreement), or even for our children to play in the play park, without the risk of them beingspied upon.

I object to the proposed construction of a pole and a camera in the location specified upclose to the Grade II listed building that is Stoke Lodge House.The amenity value of the listed building would be affected negatively in two ways i) the proposedpole is a huge 4 metres high and the large camera is a modern technological item that would notsit well with the appearance of the house and its natural surroundings. Apart from the height andsize problem the location normally envisaged for such a construction is a prison, or a car park or arailway station, not a mellowed and attractive house in trees and grassland.ii) the impact on local members of the public who use this land for leisure and exercise activitieswith their young families, or who are elderly or are runner/walkers ,often alone, is that surveillanceevery hour of the day is intrusive and unnecessary and is unlikely to meet with the stipulations ofthe European charter of human rights in being there for "pressing need "or a legitimate aim.It is a public space being spied on by staff of Cotham School and makes the public veryuncomfortable. BCC as landowner should be exercising control over the level of surveillance onthis land in the public interest, and thus turning down a 24/7 surveillance gizmo. The public needsprotection both of its rights as laid down in Cotham's lease and in particular its rights to practiceleisure activities unmolested by prying eyes.Onbly lasat December I seem to recall Cotham saying there were no future plans to extend theirexisting surveillance CCTV cameras. Changed their mind and broke their promise ?

I strongly object to this application.

The presence of further surveliance of open area where community access is required by leaseyet often frustrated by the leaseholder gives yet further offence to the local community that hashad free and unfettered access for many years.

Intrusiuve surveliance technology is inappropriate to the Grade 2 Listed building nearby.

Further infrastructure placed near TPO protected trees and in beutiful surroundings adds to theinjury of inappropriate fencing.

Please reject this further deterant to community use of this space as is required by the lease.