The replacement of the nine existing trees that appear to be native Betula pendula withnine none native Carpinus betulus Frans Fontaine does not follow the guidance given in thearboricultural assessment nor does replacement of existing mature trees with equal number of'Specimen Tree's follow replacement guidelines.

This scheme proposal does not follow the City Councils own guidance on environmental,ecological, sustainability or transport ambitions.

We have submitted this objection - 20-02647-FB -Little Paradise Public Car Park LittleParadise Bristol BS3 4DY - BTF Statement

Copy and paste this URL to your web browser -https://bristoltreeforum.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/20-02647-fb-little-paradise-public-car-park-little-paradise-bristol-bs3-4dy-btf-statement.pdf.

I don't believe that the pollution side has even been considered by the planners andBristol City council.

The design is ugly and would involve taking down trees.

I thought Bristol City Council were trying to make Little Paradise and Church lane a better place,noise pollution and pollution free.

The objections that have been put forward by the residients in church lane and little Paradise havenot been considered at all andI don't think the height of the car park as even been looked at as it still looks the same.

The open air car park works fine and I believe this proposal would make it a worse space bothvisually and from a security point of view.. I oppose the design as it would block light and views tothe houses in front.

It does not propose any planning gain like a homezone for Church Lane, which would have beenwelcome, or parking spaces.A better designed and landscaped, open air car park would be better

The Bedminster Green Framework states:

"Bristol is on a pathway to becoming a zero carbon city and is seeking to improve air quality. Aspart of this there is a need to reduce reliance on movement by private car."

It also states:

"Parking should be provided at a level significantly below the maximum car parking requirementset out in planning policy."

This proposal will almost double the number of car parking spaces available at Little Paradise CarPark. The justification for this appears to be that overall parking in the Bedminster Green area willactually be less because both of the existing car parks within the area covered by the BedminsterGreen Framework will be redeveloped.

However, if, as is claimed elsewhere, the future of East Street is reliant on nearby car parking whyare Bristol City Council supporting the closure of the existing car parks rather than their retention(with appropriate reduction in places) within the Bedminster Green Framework?

Of the currently existing car parks, two are accessible directly from Dalby Road (A38), a primaryroad route. In contrast, the third, Little Paradise Car Park, is accessed via a narrow residentialstreet. To close the car parks with easier, less obtrusive access seems perverse.

With this proposal, Bristol City Council seem to be expecting the residents of Little Paradise to pay

the cost of additional car journeys within their neighbourhood so that developers can maximise theyield from land that they have probably paid too much for.

We ask the committee to reject this application, rather than force the residents of Little Paradise topay the price in poorer air quality and additional traffic caused by the failure of any real policycommitment to Bristol becoming a zero carbon city.

Instead we suggest that Bristol City Council work with local residents on how too repurpose theexisting car park toward an usage more appropriate for a city committed to becoming zero carbon

Christine TownsendTony DyerGreen Party councillor candidates for Southville wardc/o Frayne Road, Ashton Gate, Bristol

The revised plans do not seem much different, and do not address the fundamentalquestion of why there is a need for this development in the first place? Does Bristol City Councilreally think the way forward is to build multi-storey car parks outside people's homes? I think thissets a dangerous precedent for the city.

As a resident of the street who will be directly impacted by this I do not feel we have beenconsidered in this proposal at all. If the council were not planning to sell off the Little ParadiseNorth car park to form a "more coherent development" then there would be no need for additionalspaces and tidying up the current open-air single level car park would be perfectly sufficient, so itis hard not to believe that profit is being put before any consideration of residents' wellbeing. Therealso seems to have been an unpleasant campaign of misinformation throughout this application,with Church Lane residents being told that St Catherine's Court residents support the proposaland vice-versa, when this is not the case.

I am devastated that if this proposal goes ahead I will lose any sense of privacy at the front of myhouse, how would you feel in this position? I am concerned that the established trees currentlythere may have to be taken down and that I do not believe we have a clear answer on this yet -something I feel should have been confirmed well in advance of this going to committee. And I amdeeply concerned that I have not seen any kind of action plan to address the likely increase inanti-social behaviour that this development would attract. These proposals seem rushed and ill-considered with the needs of the developer and profit being put before residents.

I am disappointed in the biased support I have seen from Bristol City Council and Councillor NicolaBeech for this application, and even more so in how the application has been handled. It has been

entirely in favour of the developer and from this unfortunately I find it very hard to believe that animpartial decision will be taken. Do you really want to send the message that big companies andprofit come before people? This is not wanted or needed, please reject this application.

The new plans have not addressed the concerns of the residents.

When we spoke to the Councillor and another council worker (Pete Webb) last week, the report toconfirm if the trees could be saved had not even been carried out.

I would also query the points around 80 cars currently use Little Paradise and the car park willhave 90 parking spaces for this is not an issue:1. the car parks have around 62 spaces currently. There is also onstreet parking. Not all theonstreet residents parking is being removed. The total cars using the street will be greater than 90.The entrance to the car park will be closer to the flats on East Street and houses on Church Lane.2. Perhaps this is an opportunity to remove a car park from near people's homes. Speaking toresidents of St Catherine's Court (a council run assisted living facility which will be right beside thecar park), there are multiple residents who have or have developed lung problems (to the point ofhospitalisation) due to the fumes from the existing car park. I know of two residents of ChurchLane who suffer from asthma.The issue in noise and pollution may not be deemed significant, but perhaps the current levels aretoo high as it is.

The reports into parking being used to justify this car park are from 2018. The world has changedconsiderably since this, in terms of the Climate Crisis and the current pandemic. The use of carsand the future of high streets, such as East Street, are a massive uncertainty and we won't get aclearer picture until the dust settles from the pandemic and any potential recession. It seemsreckless and hasty to forge ahead with plans for a multistorey car park which already seemarchaic.

With regards to increased anti-social behaviour due to multi-storey car parks. Many news articleshave been shared on a previous post of councils having issues with these structures. We havebeen told lights and CCTV will be used, but neither Pete Webb or Nicola Beech could expand onwhat exactly will be done to ensure this doesn't become a magnet for anti-social behaviour. This isof serious concern to the current residents. We were also told that the regeneration in the area willremove anti-social behaviour in 5 years. Whether this is true or not, something needs to done now(either not building something which attracts anti-social behaviour or working hard to actuallyensure it is safe).

Finally, a selfish point. I live outside the proposed car park. I stuff from debilitating migraines, oftentriggered by light and sound. The building work (especially while we are in our homes most of thetime as during the pandemic) will be unbearable. The light emitted into my windows (both from thecar park lights themselves and car lights in the car park) from a 3 storey car park opposite will alsobe a potential trigger.

A number of residents on the street will be hoping to start families in these homes. We love wherewe love and we love the community. Building a multi-storey car park opposite our homes will forceus to move as the fumes and safety issues of cars speeding around does not work for raisingfamilies.

Throughout this process the local residents have felt disregarded and spoken down to. Peoplehave lied about residents being on board, when we are yet to speak to anyone who is. There arealternative sites for the car park not near homes. Our input could even have been listened toregarding this proposal, but it has not. Overall the whole application has not considered localresidents at all. It feels like the only consideration is money. Perhaps a better way of involvingcitizens and ensuring redevelopment works for everyone is in order.

We've also learnt that the planning process is also very unfair for older people and thoseuncomfortable with technology. One resident of Church Lane and the St Catherine's Court buildingdo not have WiFi. These means they are unable to even look at the planning documents and othercomments. This is something which needs to be addressed.

I have reviewed the revised plans and feel like the changes that have been addressedhave only addressed the least pressing and easy to address concerns raised from all of thecomments. The fundamental issue of building a multi-storey car park in this location, the increasein anti-social behaviour it will bring, along with the environmental impact at a time we should bediscouraging people driving into the city.

Multi storey car parks are not usually found in residential areas. This is a residential area that alsohappens to overlook a Bristol City Council assisted living accommodation complex. The area isonly going to become more residential if other plans for adjacent plots are approved and a multistorey car park in the middle of all of this put's the area at risk of high levels of anti-socialbehaviour and in the long run degrading into an inner city ghetto.

The environmental impact is also huge. St Catherines Court residents are elderly and a number ofthem have severe health conditions including respiratory conditions. 2 residents are already in thehospital due to respiratory issues. There are also multiple members of Church Lane who sufferlong term health conditions that would be severely impacted by this. The build of such a significantstructure which involves excavating the current car park will create a huge dust problem in thearea that immediately overlooks their building. This will go in their windows and engulf their gardenmaking their home a health hazard for them to reside in (and this is just during the construction).

If the plans proceed and post construction the car park will lead to increased traffic in a confinedspace. The air pollution will once again be circulating through their windows and garden causingongoing health issues for this vulnerable group of individuals.

Noise pollution will also increase and the fact that the car park is proposed for 24 hour use willattract misuse of the structure at less busty parts of the day. Drug dealing, skateboarding, carsgathering and revving will be a huge issue for Church Lane and St Catherines Court residence.CCTV does nothing to discourage anti social behaviour considering there is already CCTV in thecurrent car park and there are already anti-social behaviour issues in the area introducing astructure that conceals this activity will only lead to it increasing.

These plans must be stopped. This is not what the area needs. Considering the ongoing pandemicany plans put forward before the emergence of covid 19 should be revised as they are no longer fitfor purpose for the new normal we live in.

Comment:This is really a throwback to the worst excesses of urban planning andarchitecture ofthe 60s/70s isn't it...? An ugly concrete lump of a structure planned right in front of a supportedhousing complex...! I mean you couldn't make it up.Aside from it's aesthetic affront, and the complete disregard for the tenants of the St Catherine'sCourt Retirement Home, cutting out their daylight and causing increased traffic and pollution levelsfor them, it's also a cynical ploy by the developers Dandara to free up the Hereford St site forfurther high-rise development no doubt. Why can't they be open and honest in their intentions foronce instead of playing these games...?Residents' own parking spaces will also be lost as they would have to compete with East Streetshoppers for space, and ultimately this just isn't the answer to East Street's problems which ismore to do with more and more people shopping online these days.This plan would also mean the loss of established trees.All in all a highly unneeded, ugly, and completely pointless plan...

I have lived in the area for 30 years and am dismayed by the plans, not just for this areaand car parking but for the wider area. This is a conservation area, with many of the buildings over100 years old. The community at large walk to the shops and since the charges have beenapplied, this car park is mostly empty.

Where is the analysis that a car park Is needed; that it will be used and indeed enrich the area?The impact on the residents is huge, with loss of light, beautiful mature trees being ripped out,pollution and fumes pouring into their bedrooms. There are two other much larger car parksnearby, rarely overflowing.

A missed opportunity, how about planting more trees, turning it back into a city garden, keeping afew car places? It is fine as it is. A small car park amidst a lot of greenery, serving shops aminute's walk away.

A multi-storey car park here is totally against all the principles of a healthy 'green' city.

My family live on Church Lane and the new car park will completely overshadow thefront of their house. This will cause a loss of light in the front room and a bedroom. It will alsoaffect privacy as the car park will overlook a bedroom and front room windows. Can you imagineyour own home having no-one overlooking your windows and suddenly they are all overlooked bypeople standing less than 30 metres away? I'd feel as badly about it as my family do. What aboutyou if it were yours?If there has to be an increase in the parking spaces there (despite evidence that the existingspaces are rarely all used) why does it have to be so high that it overlooks all the windows at thefront of the houses?I understand that it will overlook and overshadow the assisted living houses and their garden aswell. How can this be an improvement for these frail residents? We should be making things betterfor them, not worse.The increase in car parking spaces with the resultant increase in traffic will have a significantimpact on the highway safety for the users of Little Paradise and Church Lane. As well as makingit more dangerous for relatives and friends visiting residents on Church Lane, it will also make itmore dangerous for those visiting residents of the assisted housing block. This increased dangeris likely to result in fewer visits to those living in the assisted housing. The councillors approvingthis scheme will be responsible for this and the increasing sense of loneliness it will engender.Residents safety on the highways will be made worse by having to walk passes dark entrances tothis car park where undesirables may be hiding. Even if they aren't, just thinking that they are willmake the highway seem more dangerous.There will be an increase in the traffic on this cul-de-sac which will make it more dangerous forpedestrian users and residents. The existing residents parking areas will also disappear, making itmore difficult for the residents to park outside their homes when, for example, they want to unload

shopping from their vehicles.There will be a major noise impact when the car park is built. This will be caused by the increasein traffic on the roads, but also the noise of people going to and from their cars when they use thecar park. In the existing car park these noises are below the level of residents' windows so areless intrusive. In the new scheme these noises will be level with or above their windows so notonly increasing the level of noise, but the number of times these noises will occur.The existing car park has a number of mature trees dotted about it making the most of theamenity. I understand that any councillor who approves this scheme to be giving the all clear touprooting these mature trees, reducing the amenity of the space. How does this demonstrate the'green' credentials that the council attests for itself?By approving this scheme their actions will also have a detrimental effect on the existing wildlife.You cannot remove mature trees without disturbing the wildlife environment and I haven't seenany plans to replace them. Again Bristol, where are your green credentials?Across the existing car park people get a view of the historic terrace of houses on Church Lane.These will no longer be able to be seen as they will be completely obscured by an ugly new multi-storey car park. Any idea of conservation of these houses and will be overruled should thisdecision go ahead.The design of the car park is crude and ugly. Why have it so tall that it overlooks and obscureslocal living accommodation when it doesn't need to. You surely cannot be happy that the designhas such a detrimental effect, or is it something that the council feels it can't influence. If you can'tchange the design for the benefit or your constituents who can? They certainly haven't been ableto do it themselves. This is what local representatives are supposed to do for their constituents, tostop them being overrun by developers.And of course all of these things point to the appearance of the development. The current space isnot unpleasant as car parks go with it's open spaces and greenery. Instead, approval of thisdevelopment will leave an ugly brick structure blocking light and giving access to any undesirablewho wants a place where they can't be seen to undertake their nefarious activities.If this is how the council see the future for the people of Bristol, it should let it's residents knowhow little their opinion counts with councillors. To approve this scheme would be to give a clearmessage to everyone that Bristol Councillors pay lip service to their residents, and to aspirations,but let developers do whatever they want, no mater how badly it effects the people of Bristol.

The revised plans only highlight the fact that this is a completely unsuitable development for thisresidential area.There is nothing in the changes that give the residents any confidence that security andmaintenance of the car park are a priority. That can only mean that local people are way down onthe list of priorities.I cannot believe that anyone who may be involved in approving this application would be happy tohave a multi storey car park outside their front door! Please think about the residents who will bemost affected by this development. They would be living with the noise from increased traffic,constant opening and closing of car doors ( if as we are led to believe there is such a great needfor this car park), loss of light and feeling that their homes and personal safety are less secure.What a missed opportunity to create something much more in line with a 'Green City' in this spaceand use the car parks already in existence! I hope the plans will be rejected and all the residentswho live there, the people that matter most, are listened to.

I continue to support this development as part of the vital and ongoing effort to get theEast Street area out of the dreadful, depressing state that it is currently in. Parking andinfrastructure are a vital part of the regeneration of this area as the the current parking situation forboth residents and businesses is atrocious leading people to park on grass verges and in shops'loading bays. This holding Bedminster back and must be addressed immediately.

The further environmental revisions which are now proposed are a welcome addition to the theplans. Surely there can be no valid reason to withhold permission for this development now.

My comments from my previous objection still apply. I see very little changes to the revised plansthat address my previous concerns outlined below.

Negative impact on their wellbeing of the local residents, in particular those living in the assistedliving housing with some of them suffering lung problems.

Increased traffic, noise, and light pollution. It will overlook the residents on church lane which willbe invasive, blocking light into their living quarters as well reducing privacy.

Resident car parking is already very difficult and this is expected to increase, with residentscompeting with shoppers.

Increase in litter as a result, which is already an issue in the area.

Likely increase in anti-social behaviour (drug taking and dealing already present in the area). As asingle female I am concerned for my safety walking home at night. Proposed plans is to havebright lightening and CCTV camera's not something I would like to live next to which would againinvade my privacy.

The amount of pollution will be unbearable for local residents.

This car park has only one purpose - to deal with the large numbers of people arriving and leavingthe highrise 'built to rent' 1 & 2 Bedroom flats at Little Paradise, for which an application also sitsbefore this committee.

Since that application is completely unacceptable and will surely be refused by the committeebecause of the horrendous living conditions it will impose on its residents, then unless thecommittee wants to make the slogan 'city of hope' a phrase used only in sour mockery Iconfidently expect this car park application will also be refused.

I totally object to this application. The size of this multi-storey car park is not required inthis area. With the amount of retail space now empty in East Street I am wondering who will beusing this facility. There is already a very large car park near the bus stop in Dalby Avenue whichis never full, and on one level meaning accessible to all members of the public including parentswith children and disabled.

I am also very concerned about security with this proposal as there are a number of homelesspeople in the area - particularly since they have been removed from the temporary site which wasexcellent with the double decker bus and containers offering safe, clean dry places for thesepeople who need it. Will there be 24/7 security in this area?

So far as I can see from the application, it will only encourage more people from outside SouthBristol to park there, and will then take the local bus to the centre of the City or farther afield as itwill be cheaper than parking in town.

Too high for the surrounding buildings. Car fumes will pollute the windows of near byhouses . Air quality will suffer there are already car parks that can be used without destroying ourgreen areas .

The changes made do not change my previous comments. This car park will negativelyimpact the area and it is not needed.

These "renewed" plans completely disregard the concerns raised by residents about thelevels of pollution that this intended development will bring. The infrastructure of Little ParadiseStreet is not suited to the increased traffic that this, and the proposed block of flats, will bring. Theopportunity to lead the way on inner-city green living is being totally disregarded in favour ofprofiteering; the health and well-being of vulnerable neighbours is at the bottom of the list ofconcerns. Disappointing.

Parking is a major issue in the area East Street and its surroundings. Building this carpark may well resolve some of the issues but encroach badly on the lives of the local residentshaving their view, their light, amongst other things taken away. A redundant car park at the back ofWilkinsons has been an eyesore for many years. I suggest Bristol City Council and the developersreview this site and forget about Little Paradise.

I object to the size of the car park and the loss of wild life .The over development of high rise buildings. Keep your developments at a sustainable size so asnot to over power local facilities and be inkeeping with historical views

It seems totally counter intuitive under the current climate of Covid 19 to create anunhealthy and polluted atmosphere for the local residents and vulnerable people living in theassisted housing at little paradise. It appears the council have taken advantage of theirvulnerability and wrongly taken away their voice regarding the problems the new scheme wouldcreate for them. Their quality of life will be greatly effected by the increased car fumes restrictingtheir ability to open windows. The council will be exposing these already vulnerable people to andincreased level of poor health at a time when their health should be a priority.

The council should focus on spending money to make the city more accessible to walking andcycling and encourage a more health focused set up for the residents of bristol to maintain optimalhealth rather than encouraging car use while negatively impacting local residents. The councilshould look at creating opportunities for people to access cleaner air and travel around the citysafely rather than encourage the use of more cars encouraging people to be sedentary and add toair pollution reducing which will negatively impact the health of the residents of bristol. Thisscheme appears to be very regressive not progressive and seems to offer little benefit to localresidents and only will be of financial benefit to the decision makers. It is unclear how this schemewill benefit the community. It would be helpful to view other alternatives to make shopping in theare more accessible which involves greener and more cost effective options for locals and thecommunity as a whole. This is a very short sighted scheme and does nothing to encouragehealthy living and promote health at a time when health has never been more important. The closeproximity of parking spaces and increased traffic in a small space is of a huge concern while Covid19 is such an issue - the council should look for a more forward thinking sustainable alternative toensure that the local economy survives and residents health is prioritised should such an outbreakoccur again.

This proposal does not seem to have taken the residents' needs into consideration. Thedamaging effects of a much larger multi-story car park on the air quality would be particularlydetrimental considering the adjacent car home. This certainly does not seem to be in line with theClimate State of Emergency and current goal of carbon neutrality for 2030- surely there could be away to use this space to incorporate some green space and better cycle/ walking networks forlocal shopping facilities, rather than further encouragement for people to drive in the city.

After living on East Street for over two years - I moved away just three weeks ago - Ifully support this application. My car and that of my flat mate were both vandalised in LittleParadise, and there needs to be some sort of deterrant / safe space where people can feelcomfortable leaving their vehicles.

Additionally, Little Paradise car park is an eyesore at present and is always jam-packed at theweekend, quite simply, more spaces are needed.

The developers appear to have gone to great effort to make the new structure as appealing to theeye as possible for neighbours - as they will still be looking at a car park, at the end of the day -and I've seen that any light it impacts on the neighbouring St Catherine's Court are sharedhallways, not apartments.

I hope this gets built - and can help pave the way for the regeneration / refilling of shops in East St.

Having just taken a look at the proposal for the multi-storey car park in Little Paradise,my God, it is ugly isn't it?

If I lived there, I'd be furious, and it comes as no surprise to me to find - that to a large extent, thepeople who live there are.

I'd add that I attended an event in the local area on Friday 14th August, and found - when normallyyou'd expect to see 3 or 4 residents there - 20 or more - objecting in no uncertain terms. Itincluded residents of the council housing, and residents of the road to the side. As a politician, youcan usually reckon that for every person who turns up, there are another 10 who agree with them.So I'd suggest that there is a significant level of local unhappiness about the application.

So here are my comments.

The council has declared a climate emergency

This means it is committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2030. It is hard to understand why thesame council is proposing to build a car park which will goes in the opposite direction.

I haven't spent a vast amount of time looking at the plans - but can see no mention of its carbonfootprint. It - along with other developments - need to be carbon neutral or even carbon reducing ifthe city is to even pretend to meet this goal.

It does mention electric charging points. Is there evidence that electric charging points grouped

together in a multi-storey car park (ie where the owners cannot see the vehicle) will work? I havedoubts. I can see potential users being suspicious of leaving vehicles unattended for periods oftime?

The applicants proposal handily includes reference to the core strategy. It explicitly refers to

Policy BCS11 relates to infrastructure and developer contributions and states that infrastructurewill be coordinated to ensure appropriate growth and improve quality of life.

Is there an explanation of how this proposal will improve the quality of life of the people whoactually live there - or do they simply not count?

Similarly, the local plan review is referred to - a review which is not adopted so I assume is notpolicy. However, even if it were, the applicants report refers to the requirement to build newhomes. I'm not sure it refers to a requirement to build multi-storey car parks.

The developers report mentions

'The development will result in the loss of some trees, particularly at central and eastern parts ofthe site. '

Trees act as climate change mitigators - they help cool an area as well as having variousecological benefits, and are just nice to look at (and therefore good for peoples mental health).Cutting them down - in a climate crisis will have a negative impact on these benefits. And even acommitment to replacing them pushes off benefits to the longer term. (Its a climate crisis,remember?)

The transport plan attached to the application refers to:

National planning policy framework

c) opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use are identified and pursued;

Paragraph 110 states: 'Within this context, applications for development should: a) give priorityfirst to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas; andsecond - so far as possible - to facilitating access to high quality public transport, with layouts thatmaximise the catchment area for bus or other public transport services, and appropriate facilitiesthat encourage public transport use;

And to the Core strategy

Without prejudice to the implementation of the major transport schemes listed above, proposals

will be determined and schemes will be designed to reflect the following transport user priorities asset out in the Joint Local Transport Plan: a) The pedestrian; b) The cyclist; c) Public Transport; d)Access for commercial vehicles; e) Short Stay visitors by car; f) The private car

So I find myself asking - how does this application meet the principles of either the national policyframework (ie how does it give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements - when it clearly doesnot). Equally how does it meet the Core Strategy - which has the private car at the bottom, andcycling and walking at the top?

I'd also like to agree with some of the comments made by others about the application:

- Increased noise pollution in the immediate locality

- Where are the results of the consultation?

- Significant visual impact

- Potential for anti-social behaviour in multi-storey car parks

- Potential air pollution impact

- Over-shadowing of local residences

- Bedminster Green - generally - where are the doctors surgery, school and other amenities?

- Loss of the few trees that there are

- Concerns about impact on supported housing complex

- Doubts about the actual need for it - over the existing car park

In view of all of these reasons, I object to the application.

East Street needs desperately a renovation and a redevelopment. I own a business andI live on this street and I see year after year businesses closes and the street becoming a ghosttown. If my main clientele is mainly local, many of my customers come from all over the place(Swindon, Cardiff etc.) and participate to dynamize the area. Sadly they always struggle to find aparking. That's why I am supporting this project, and I hope there will be a "first hour is free"scheme offered.

I would like to lodge my objection to this 3 level multi-storey car park in Little Paradise.Increased pollution would particularly effect the residents opposite.increased noise pollution will effect the immediate localityAny loss of trees is a tragedy particularly in the inner city.What would be the point in having a major BCC consultation on car parking in Bedminster withcommunity feed back if the developers haven't taken our comments into account.As more people are working from home-which is the positive fall out from cover 19- do we need tobuild more car parks? what about more homes?

I object to this building plan as I believe it is completely inappropriate. This is becausethe structure will overshadow the local residents, some of whom are living in elderly people'shomes and as such are really vulnerable.

The vast majority of the local residents object to this development and they surely the people whocount the most in any consideration of a development here.

It seems to me that the proposed development of a carpark next to a residential area goes againstall common sense. Given the current levels of pollution in this area and Bristol in general it surelymakes more sense to encourage a development that would be more environmentally friendly.

This is such a terrible idea that I cannot believe that any local politician would goanywhere near voting for it! To site a multistorey carpark slap bang in the middle of a residentialarea that includes sheltered accommodation for the elderly is a truly awful idea.Not only that, it appears that the local residents are largely opposed and should surely be listenedto?Bristol has terrible air quality and allowing such a proposed development to go through would notonly be a betrayal of public health concerns but a slap in the face of all the environmentalevidence that is telling us that less cars and more green open spaces are required, movingforward, to help Bristol clean up it's act.

Little Paradise is a residential street, with 2 storey terraced houses and an AssistedLiving Home for Older People. It is a totally unsuitable place to build a 3 storey car park.

It will be horrid for other residents, with all the noise and polluted air that comes with car parks.Instead of the 1 level of cars that is there now, there will be much more coming and going withmore cars.

The current car park has a good number of mature trees in it, these will all be lost if a new car parkis built on the site.

Having several smaller car parks dotted around the area is better, as nobody has to put up with allthe noise and pollution.

If this car park in Little Paradise is to be developed it should be used for more housing, low levelhousing for people who need to live close to the shops on East St.

Whose mad idea is it to build a multi storey car park in Little Paradise? It is completely not the rightplace for one!

REASONS TO OPPOSE THE BID:

* Significant visual impact on the two storey houses adjacent.* Significant environmental impact, including the loss of mature trees in the existing car park.* The Assisted Living complex on Little Paradise St has not been considered; the multi-storey willoverlook bedroom windows and significantly increase pollution in the area.* Whilst residents support the need for better car parking in order to ensure the revival of East Stshops, the location for the proposed multi-storey car park is inappropriate. An existing car park ofa similar nature lies unused across the road (behind Wilko) - why not improve this structure?* It's location will increase traffic in an area with existing residences along Church Lane to one sideof it, an assisted living facility and the residences on East St, plus a further proposed 295dwellings on the other side of the Malago.* Increased pollution to the area in terms of traffic, light and noise.* At 3 storeys the car park will be of a similar height to the adjacent houses, removing much of thevisual amenity they currently have, reducing the depth of view from windows by placing a wall infront of them, (with the potential to look directly into upper floor bedrooms) and removing views ofgreen planting which has a beneficial effect on well-being.* This proposal is the subject of a formal consultation launched in February 2020 by BCC, in whichthe local people were asked to contribute their views on parking. Whilst this consultation has nowclosed, the results have yet to be published. It would seem to be crucial for the planning dept andthe community to know what the local attitudes are to the development before a decision isreached.

* Bristol prides itself as a Green Capital but the 'agenda' behind this development is to build asignificant number of student and single occupancy accommodation units which (particularly inlight of Covid, and the reduced number of students in the city) are unnecessary, environmentallyunfriendly and uneconomical.* Multi-storey car parks are known to attract anti-social behaviour to areas. We don't want this inEast Street which has enough problems of this nature; in the middle of an area planned for studentaccommodation, social housing, affordable housing and private accommodation seems like a surefire way to set the project up for failure and introduce a new inner city estate with high levels ofcrime and antisocial behaviour. It will detract from the wider re-development of the East Streetarea and significantly increase the issues already experienced in the area around anti-socialbehaviour.* Access for existing residents has not been considered: the removal of on-street parking baysalong Little Paradise Street will mean there is significantly more demand for the few bays availablealong Church Lane. These will be in even more greater demand by residents of Church Lane, St.Catherine's Terrace, St. Catherine's Court, Little Paradise Street, the back entrance to East St.flats and the already over-crowded Church Road - not to mention the residents of the proposedtower blocks.* The council already neglects the upkeep of this area; building an ugly car park is not likely tochange their attitude.

I do not want to have a multi story next to my neighbors. It was have a really terribleimpact on the look of the neighborhood. It will be unnessecary to build such a thing as I park thereregularly and never have I seen it full before. I also don't think that we need more cars to be in andaround the city. Perhaps something else could be done

I am certainly opposed to the multistorey car park at Little Paradise - it reminds me of asong...

I regularly visit the area as I helped create one of the residents' gardens. The proposed car parkwill be an eyesore for the people living on the street and locally, I'm shocked that when we shouldbe looking to green our city and encourage people to take alternative forms of transport than cars,this would even be considered. It would be so sad to remove the existing established trees whichcurrently give the houses at Little Paradise privacy and help to conceal the existing car park. Theyof course also help to counter the effects of pollution, reduce the temperature around them andprovide a habitat for birds and wildlife.

Many thanks, Daisy

Should not be encouraging increased car useage on air pollution and climate grounds.The Council has declared a climate emergency. Building a carpark with a few electric chargingpoints is entirely inconsistent with this declaration.

Should not be cutting down trees for this project. Pe-planting trees is not a substiture for maturetrees already in place.

I am concerned about the plans to build a new multi-story car park in Bedminster for anumber of reasons that can be broken down into the effect on the community and theenvironmental impact.

Here are a snapshot of my main concerns -- proximity to houses and a council-run assisted living facility- environmental issues - i.e. we should be encouraging better public transport and cyclinginfrastructure, not encouraging more use of private vehicles.- Bristol is pedestrianising other streets and we'd rather not encourage people to drive into townover cycling or public transport.- noise issues on a quiet residential street- The area could be better put to use to make more green open space for the community to use.Especially in the new normal of covid restrictions shared communal outdoor space is more vitalthan ever in our cities.- the size of the building, blocking light to gardens- From my understanding there is another site which has a disused car park on it that could befixed and used instead without as many of the problems above (though I would still argue this isnot the best long term approach for the environment).

Given the council's drive towards a carbon free city it seems odd that this car park hasfewer electric car charging points than it does conventional vehicle spaces.

We are objecting to this proposal on the grounds that it is against published policy and will bringmore vehicles into the area rather than increasing provision for pedestrians and cycles.

The nearby development on Bedminster Green will already increase traffic into and around thearea and this car park can only exacerbate the situation

This project could potentially impose environmental issues Bristol is pedestrianisingother streets and we'd rather not encourage people to drive into town over cycling or publictransport. In addition adding certain electrical charging points could be done in existing car parksinstead of adding them in existent ones!

The location of this proposed car park is not appropriate. It is too close to existing houses and willhave a detrimental affect on residents living in those - they will be overlooked, and have to dealwith increased traffic and pollution.

The removal of trees for this development is also unacceptable. We need to be protecting thegreen elements of this city and being much more forward-thinking in terms of sustainability andenvironment in our development of this area.

I strongly object to the proposal.

- This is a terrible place to build a multi-storey car park. It is right in front of a row of 2storey terraced houses, and adjoining a supported living complex for vulnerable older adults. Thelevels of fumes, air pollution, light pollution and noise will be horrific for all these local residents. Itseems incredible that a developer should suggest such a location, and proves that they have nottaken the time to get to know the locality or the local community.- With our knowledge of climate change we should not be building multi-storey car parks toencourage car driving as a way to access East St shops. We should be encouraging walking,cycling and public transport instead. All the cars coming and going from a 3 storey car park willmake Little Paradise (how ironic) a very unpleasant place to walk and cycle through.- The current ground level car park on the site has a good number of mature trees growing in it.Most of these would be lost. If this ground level car park is to go, the ideal plan would be to havethis as a pocket park, for residents and shoppers to relax in, beneath the Silver Birch trees.- This multi storey car park would not be the answer to East St's problems. The area in and aroundEast St needs to be made more attractive for pedestrians, a place that people want to spend time,not a place full of car noise and fumes.- Part of this plan suggests that this multi storey car park would free up 2 other local car parks fordevelopment. It is not certain that the development of other car parks would be a good idea ... wedon't yet know what is being suggested.- Bristol City Council did a Public Consultation on traffic and car parking around BedminsterGreen. We need to see the results of this before any plans are put forward for new car parks.

As a Mill Lane resident we strongly Object this planing Application. We dont rememberhow many times we reject this application.Please see our points below to reject this application.1-It will overshadow our houses which is two-story houses and reduce our light and solar panel willbe pointless to have it. Which Mill lane resident has solar panel.2- We already have loads of parking issue this parking place is not enough. It will packed andparking will be issue.3- There will be increase the traffic, noise and air pollution with this Little Paradise high risebuilding. The air quality is already very bad in here and noise, so it will be worst.4- Not enough green place or hospital or school for this new residents. No planing with the eaststreet or bin area.5- We hardly have any trees in this area, established trees will be lost.6- There is loads of building work in Mill Lane. This noise upset Mill Lane and Bristol council is notlooking after this area. How the people will able to live with this 5 years building work ?7- I would like to invite Bristol council this area and spend whole day and measure the noise. Wealready have loads of issue with commercial bins, street problem, noise, anti-sosical behaves, airpollution currently. This current issue will get worsts with new 600 residents.I think you are creating huge problem for us and someone will be responsible for this big mistake.Thanks

I object to this development .It is detrimental to the properties on Church Lane and round Little Paradise St. Visually it detractsfrom the quality of openness they enjoy, with the present quiet ca- park, with its trees and openaspect.It will be detrimental because of pollution with the increased number of vehicles, their engine-noise, exhausts, klaxons, alarms, door slamming and headlights.Access to Little Paradise St. and Church Lane is problematic because of poor access, with onstreet parking and the congestion on the busy Malago Rd.Multi- story car parks are very often insalubrious places: They attract drug-dealers and userslooking for a quiet, unpoliced area: there is already significant anti-social behaviour in that area ofBedminster. Multi-story car- parks often stink of urine and vomit, which brings increased healthand social risks to residents, particularly those in assisted housing.Bristol City Council have not apparently published the results of the consultation about parking inthis area which closed in February 2020.There are alternative parking sites nearby, which would cause less disruption, for example, behindthe local Wilco which could well be developed.Residents in the area already have problems finding parking outside their property. If it is knownas a parking area In general, the residents will be further inconvenienced.The Council does not make enough of an effort at present to maintain the adjacent area; a big carpark is unlikely to change their attitude , to the greater detriment of residents and their families.

I am a frequent visitor to this area to see my daughter. For an inner city residential area it cannotsupport this sort of development without diminishing the quality of life of everyone who livesnearby.

I hope you will refuse consent to this development.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Berry.

Multi story car parks are generally magnets for anti social behaviour. Building one in anexisting residential street where sheltered accommodation is provided for vulnerable and elderlyresidents is unwarranted.

The general state of bedminster (particularly the area around and including East St)including it's parking is lamentably poor and badly in need of development. Despite purchasing aresident's parking permit for bedminster, I am continually having to park in Windmill Hill (who havestrangely escaped any parking permit scheme) due to the competition for spaces.

I am fully in favour of the proposed development and will continue to support developmentproposals in bedminster.

I am shocked at the amount of people who do not actually live in bedminster who are objecting tothis and all other development proposals for bedminster. I have to live here and it's becoming areal dump. I pay the same taxes as everyone else and deserve to live in a decent area where Ican park my car just like everyone else.

If this area of bedminster is not developed it will become a ghetto which it almost already is.

There are many problems with this applicationwhich make it unsuitable:1. It will overshadow the adjacent two-storey houses and reduce their light2. Those using the upper part of the car park will be able to look straight into the upperwindows of the adjacent houses.3. There will be increased traffic, noise and pollution in Little Paradise 24 hours a day.4. The car park will overlook St Catherine's Court retirement home, with exhaust fumesreleased over it at rooftop level5. There will be light pollution for adjacent houses6. Established trees will be lost8. Residents parking zones will cease so they will compete with shoppers for parkingspaces.9. A multi-storey car park will not reverse the fortunes of East Street which are due topeople shopping more online and not lack of parking spaces

I wish to object to this planning application for a multi storey car park. For numerousreasons. It will be located directly in front of a row of houses & also close to a Supported Housingcomplex. Thus blocking day light due to its height. Also the site has a narrow access road to thecar park which not be helped with any increase in traffic. The current RPZ will cease to exist soresidents will be competing with shoppers, It will not be of any help to disabled people as they willlose the use of Little Paradise North car park. The developer has not taken into account anycommunity feedback from the major BCC consultation on car parking in the Bedminster Greenarea. I urge you to reject this application.

Some points of consideration for resident sof the area:

- Loss of privacy- Loss of light- Environment pollution- Noise- Safety for children with increased traffic- increased Congestion- High risk of confrontations with non residents due to parking- Issues with non residents parking spaces outside our homes- No consideration for access for emergency services- increased anti social behavior

This is really a throwback to the worst excesses of urban planning and architecture ofthe 60s/70s isn't it...? An ugly concrete lump of a structure planned right in front of a supportedhousing complex...! I mean you couldn't make it up.

Aside from it's aesthetic affront, and the complete disregard for the tenants of the St Catherine'sCourt Retirement Home, cutting out their daylight and causing increased traffic and pollution levelsfor them, it's also a cynical ploy by the developers Dandara to free up the Hereford St site forfurther high-rise development no doubt. Why can't they be open and honest in their intentions foronce instead of playing these games...?

Residents' own parking spaces will also be lost as they would have to compete with East Streetshoppers for space, and ultimately this just isn't the answer to East Street's problems which ismore to do with more and more people shopping online these days.

This plan would also mean the loss of established trees.

All in all a highly unneeded, ugly, and completely pointless plan...

Think this is a very unsightly plan which isn't really needed in this area, and is really to do withfreeing up the existing Hereford Street car park for further development by Dandara.

This building if it went ahead would severely restrict the natural light for the elderly residents of theadjacent retirement home and also cause pollution and noise as well as cut out residents' ownparking spaces.

The loss of old trees in the vicinity would also be a huge shame.

As a long standing resident of Church Lane I object to the multi-storey card park plans.

It blocks all light to the street and would be very imposing on both Church Lane properties and theassisted living accommodation St Catherines Court.

I am also concerned around the increased traffic to the area, along with other general concernsaround anti social behaviour that can be attracted by sucg developments,

I don't think the plans are suitable for the area considering it is a conservation area.

*submitted on behalf of Paul by a neighbour due to not being online.

I don't think I would feel safe in a multi storey car park. It works perfectly well as it is. Ithink residents will feel overlooked and overshadowed by this proposed building.

I am writing to object against the planned proposal for a multi story car park on theexisting Little Paradise car park site (Planning application 20/02647/FB).

My objections are as follows:

The planned development would mean that residents will be exposed to increased traffic, noiseand pollution. I am particularly concerned about how this will affect residents in the Bristol Councilmanaged supported housing complex directly bordering the proposed development.

The development would mean that the current residents' parking zone will cease to exist; this willmean that current residents will be competing with shoppers for spaces.

I am concerned that the new development will lead to the loss of established trees already in thecarpark. This appears to go directly against the Bristol One City Plan proposed last year.

An additional concern is that the application has been submitted before publication of results of amajor Bristol City Council consultation on car parking in Bedminster Green, so communityfeedback has not been taken into account by the developer.

I am also concerned by the effect the carpark will have on increased antisocial behaviour in thearea; most significantly increased drug taking and dealing. This will make the area less safe forresidents to walk in especially at night.

I have been made aware of alternatives to the proposed development; most notably thesuggestion that the development could be built on the Hereford St car park site. I would ask thatyou consider this option as it would allow for the development of the area and East Street to takeplace; however wouldn't negatively affect residents and the community in the ways outlined above.

Thank you for your consideration.

Seems an inappropriate place to build a multi-storey carpark - next to a quiet terraceand a supported housing unit. Feel sorry for the local residents who will have to deal with the extratraffic, noise and pollution right infront of their homes. I feel that as part of the wider developmentof East Street emphasis should be put on better transport links and access for pedestrians andcyclists, and less on getting there by car.

I am writing to object against the planned proposal for a multi story car park on theexisting Little Paradise car park site (Planning application 20/02647/FB).

My objections are as follows:

The planned development would mean that residents will be exposed to increased traffic, noiseand pollution. I am particularly concerned about how this will affect residents in the Bristol Councilmanaged supported housing complex directly bordering the proposed development.

The development would mean that the current residents' parking zone will cease to exist; this willmean that current residents will be competing with shoppers for spaces.

I am concerned that the new development will lead to the loss of established trees already in thecarpark. This appears to go directly against the Bristol One City Plan proposed last year.

An additional concern is that the application has been submitted before publication of results of amajor Bristol City Council consultation on car parking in Bedminster Green, so communityfeedback has not been taken into account by the developer.

I am also concerned by the effect the carpark will have on increased antisocial behaviour in thearea; most significantly increased drug taking and dealing. This will make the area less safe forresidents to walk in especially at night.

I have been made aware of alternatives to the proposed development; most notably thesuggestion that the development could be built on the Hereford St car park site. I would ask thatyou consider this option as it would allow for the development of the area and East Street to takeplace; however wouldn't negatively affect residents and the community in the ways outlined above.

Thank you for your consideration.

Completely inappropriate for the locality. Will rise above nearby residential buildings,blocking their light and polluting them with car fumes. The established trees and atmosphere willbe ruined. Better to leave the car park as it is or transform to a green space for local people.East st developments need to be low rise and benefit the community.

We don't need extra parking facilities. It should be used for homes to reduce theridiculous height of the tower blocks proposed in the area.

Bristol is a progressive city and should be leading the way in environmentally soundinitiatives. There is much evidence to show that dissuading drivers by reducing lanes and parkingspaces helps reduce the numbers of cars on the roads. Why not spend the money instead onimproved cycle lanes, bike racks and pedestrian crossings, rather than squeezing a multi-story carpark into a tiny residential area?

As a regular visitor to the area I object to this.

I believe it will increase traffic in an area and cause a disturbance to existing residences. IncludingIncreased pollution to the area in terms of traffic, light and noise.

Bristol prides itself as a green capital and I feel very strongly that this completely goes against thisbelieve.

I have lived on Church Lane for 17 years and think the whole concept of the plannedmulti-storey car park is wrong. What makes it worse is that the plans will result in a well run councilcar park (which is free at weekends) being sold of to a development company who will replace itwith an eyesore that blocks all morning light to church lane and imposes and overlooks all of theneighbouring properties. I'd also imagine once privately run there would be no free parking offeredat any times. In Georgian times this site used to be an orchard, what could be better!? Theseplans could not be further from that time which give the area its name.

I am all for electric car charging points being added to the current site but don't see the need forthe multi story car park that is planned. The current car parks in the area are ample.

I also have concerns in line with other comments that have been made regarding anti socialbehaviour, increasing traffic to the area, poor access, environmental impact and all of this plannedin a conservation area.

Multi-story car parks are notorious as areas for anti-social activity and such adevelopment would be extremely detrimental to the quiet residential area, as well as being an eye-sore directly in front of the assisted-housing building and the row of charming Victorian cottages. Iam strongly against such a development to an area I frequently visit as a relative of a nearbyresident.

This proposal is entirely inappropriate for the area as a solution to changing the existingparking arrangements in Bedminster. Historically multi storey car pars do not age well andparticularly cladded versions like this can become an eyesore. This particularly impacts on thelocal residents in Church Road who will lose their on street parking and will find themselves incompetition with residents from the new developments for very limited parking. Not sure if thismaintains or increases available parking for incoming shoppers. As East Street is mostly lowvolume shopping as is North Street in the main this could be served by good public transport. Bulkshopping is well served by Asda and its substantial car park. I also have some concerns that thiscould be the green light for similar high rise development on the Hereford Street car par leading toa further ghettoisation of Bedminster Green. Seems like a cynical proposal to placate thedevelopers. Not a good idea.

This proposed development will affect the neighbourhood greatly without proven benefitto the shopping area.I am concerned about the pollution increased traffic will cause as well as the potential noise in thearea. As it stands, the council car park which is there is hardly ever full (even back when it wasfree) so I don't think having more spaces is that much of a priority. In addition, we will lose ourresidents' parking spaces on Little Paradise and we're already having to look for a space mostdays.I do not believe the development will be beneficial and removal of trees will add again to theincrease in pollution and noise.I feel like our comments from previous consultation have not been listened to, with only somepositives taken out and without addressing concerns.

Building an ugly metal eyesaw in infront of this beautiful historic terrace of houses , willcompletely destroy the green and leafy area outside which at the moment is an oasis for wildlifeand a peaceful place to live , which is be coming increasingly rare in this concrete clad pollutedcity ! The mental wellbeing of all local residents would be destroyed by this unnecessary violation!!

At a time where Bristol is supposedly aiming to promote environmentally friendly travelamid horrific levels of traffic and air pollution, this seems incredibly counter intuitive. That's not tomention the extra noise pollution and the cutting down of trees and plants that will be necessary.This is not a good trade off for making driving everywhere even easier, rather than encouragecycling, walking, public transport etc.

This area already has too much traffic and is often overly congested. The proposedmulti story car park will increase traffic, increase noise and pollution and is too close toneighbouring homes. This area is not suitable for high rise buildings and I am fed up with thefrequency of applications being made - we need environmentally friendly, affordable family home,not high rise buildings that will bring too much traffic and add to the congestion issues alreadyfaced.

This will have a detrimental effect on residents, especially the people of Church Lane,whose houses will be overshadowed. I am also concerned that it will overlook St Catherine'sCourt, a council run This car park is lightly used at the moment and so I see no need for a multi-storey car park. I am shocked that this is supported by Bristol City Council who were the first cityto declare a climate emergency. Bedminster Bid say the that the car park is needed to revive EastStreet, but we all know this is nonsense. All high streets are suffering because of online shopping.A car park here would increase traffic and pollution in a residential area, and would mean the lossof mature trees. We all know the only reason for this is to close Hereford Street car park so that atower block can be built there. It is dishonest of both the council and Dandara not to admit this. Itherefore object strongly to this application

I object to this application.

As a city, Bristol promotes greener travel and this is entirely at odds with that. Residents would beexposed to increased traffic, noise and pollution if this went through.

If Hereford Street car park is closed, there is a risk of high-rise development on that site.

I object to the loss of established trees.

Seriously?

You want to pave Paradise and put up a parking lot?

What about all the elderly people who live in the OAP home over-looking this site - would you wantto see out your days staring at a multi-storey car park, breathing in all the extra fumes if you openyour window for some air?

What about all the people living in the Victorian Terrace opposite - do you think this will enhancetheir view / air quality / lifestyle?

We have a chance to show that we DO know what we've got before it's gone - please save thisopen space - maybe even enhance it by re-planting the trees that were taken down (or are they ina tree museum ;-)

Please re-think plans for the Bedminster Green development, involving high-rise blocks / car-parks/ dense student flats, and show more care and consideration for people's well-being and theenvironment.

I object to this proposal on the grounds that it will be detrimental to the wellbeingresidents in the surrounding housing, by increasing traffic noise and pollution and removingmature trees.The new parking spaces created would not equal the number which developers propose toreplace with dense housing elsewhere.Please look for an adequate alternative site away from existing housing.

Over a number of years, I have had the pleasure of visiting and staying in Bristol withmy family who are residents here.I can only add my objection to the many comments submitted by the local residents opposing amulti storey car park in Little Paradise.Currently many local residents will be and will continue to work from home. Can you imaginehaving to do this alongside continual building noise and traffic should this proposal go ahead?Alongside this my objections include:This is a residential area; the planned car park is wholly inappropriate situated so closely topeople's homes and exactly where is the evidence that it will be used?If the multi storey car park were to be built (and used) the residents will be subjected to continualnoise and light pollution. I cannot think that constant fumes from cars and noise from car doorsbeing opened and closed would enhance anyone's quality of life.There are obviously safety issues, who will maintain and monitor the car park? Will it be mannedto ensure that local residents coming home from work or an evening out will be able to walk safelyto their door? Can you guarantee that it will be a safe place for people to use, particularly if theyare returning to their vehicle by themselves.I would ask that you consider properly some wonderful suggestions by your current residentswhich have been voiced on your comments. These include making the current car park a pleasantgreen space for local people and their visitors to enjoy, making the area a designated place for aregular market where local people can meet up and support Bristol businesses.I understand there is already a local car park behind Wilko's on East Street (currently not used)which could be considered instead of taking away a space with so many more pleasantpossibilities for everyone.I note with interest on the news section of the Bristol.gov.uk website a comment from a councillor

which is related to Public Space Protection Orders but surely is relevant here; "Making the city asafer more pleasant place to live and work for everyone is a top priority for both residents and thecouncil". https://news.bristol.gov.uk/news/review-of-public-space-protection-ordersI can see nothing in this proposal which would achieve this.

I fundamentally disagree with this proposal for a multistorey car park. Bristol should bemoving to discourage parking within the city centre to help solve ongoing issues with congestionand pollution.

Not what the area needs and encourages people to drive to an area when we should befocussing on trying to reduce carbon emissions

I have recently moved from near this area and feel that if a three storey car park was tobe built, Bedminster would become more congested and polluted than it already is. I believe thecar parks situated there currently are enough for the area.

My family lives on Church Lane, directly opposite the 3 storey car park that you proposesqueezing into this tiny residential area. I object to the proposal and my reasons are:

Taking away the residents parking spaces will have a detrimental effect for all the residents of theChurch Lane terraces who are currently able to park near their homes. This will make thingsespecially difficult for the elderly residents and those with young families.

Noise levels will increase for residents, both through increased traffic levels and the constantopening and closing of car doors, at all times of the day and night.

Air Pollution will increase significantly in two ways, first from increased traffic in a small space and,second from increased cold-starting of engines in the cars using the car park (a higher percentageof particulates is generated when a car is started from cold, due to the increased richness of thefuel mix). Both of these will affect the residents of the 100+ year old terraced houses which rely onopening their windows for fresh air.

Safety and security will be badly affected for the residents as they currently reach their houses bywalking along a well lit street, past the current, well lit, open plan car park. If the development goesahead, the council will condemn these residents to gaining access via a dark walkway past a highwalled, shadowy area providing areas of concealment where none currently exist. As well as thoseup to mischief, these areas could harbour those with criminal intent which will make all theresidents fear for their safety when leaving and approaching their homes. They will even be fearfulwhen no-one is lurking there, because they won't know as they can't see (a particularly vile effectBristol Council will have forced on to the residents). These effects will also apply to visitors to the

Sheltered Housing located at the top of LittleParadise, probably resulting in a decrease in thenumber of people going to see them.

The size of the car park. The houses are raised, two story terraces whose living rooms and frontbedrooms look out over the existing car park. As a three storey development the proposed carpark will overshadow these rooms, reducing their current views and light dramatically. Instead ofthe current screen of trees there will be a three story brick wall, with gaps allowing those using thecar park to look directly into the residents homes. I'm sure any councillors, male or female, wouldfind this abhorrent. It also poses yet another risk to residents safety and security.

Increase in crime. Every city in the UK is trying hard to eliminate environments which give rise tocrime. As someone working on the frontline for the NHS I have attended crimes committed inmulti-storey car parks and their environs. This increase in crime is what Bristol council will inflict onthe residents of Church Lane and Little Paradise if they go ahead with this terrible development.

I understand from reading other comments that there are alternatives for parking near East Street.The best suggestion I've seen is to make LittleParadise exactly that, by turning it into a greenspace that could be enjoyed by residents and visitors alike.

So come on Bristol Councillors, turn down this horrific proposal and come up with somethingimaginative and beneficial to the people of Bedminster.

The construction of a multi storey car park is another bad decision for this area.Firstly it contradicts the plan to make surrounding developments car free. These car park spaceswill become heavily over subscribed and force other resident and visitor parking onto surroundingstreets.The surrounding residents will also find the car park to be an eyesore, remove light and privacy totheir properties and increase fumes and congestion in a small area.A proper consultation with the community is required to identify appropriate uses for this site.

It seems crazy to be building a multistory car park in a central area at a time whenBristol City Council has rightly declared a climate emergency. In addition, when the future of thewhole Bedminster Green area is still up for discussion would be strange to authorise the building acar park when we don't yet know how many houses/flats are going to be built. It would make muchmore sense to agree a coherent plan for the whole area and then build transportation facilitiestailored to that plan, with an emphasis on cycling and public transport, not encouraging the defaultuse of private cars. Please reject this application.

Building something we don't need to help the developers build something we don't want.

It will have a hugely detrimental impact on the lives of the peolpe who currently live close by. Thisincludes significant health risks caused by air pollution and noise pollution. This will affect theresidents of the houses and the Supported Living complex, which houses vulnerable older adults.It is always the most vulnerable who are impacted by poor air quality, community severance androad traffic accidents.

Car travel and parking is not the answer for increasing trade on East St. Numerous studies showthat when people walk or cycle they spend more in local businesses. Investment in place-makingand cycling infrastructure would make a far greater difference.

The developers want to build a new carpark so they can then build more tower blocks on theHereford St carpark. This is not what the community wants.

I do not believe this car park is necessary. It does not add anything to the environment.

Hugely inappropriate proposal given current environmental priorities, Desire for liveablecities. Significant visual impact on two storey houses adjacent, including loss of mature trees.Increase in traffic would be substantial and presents a danger to residents of supported housingcomplex.

Application is timed to preempt BSCC parking consultation, disingenuous, ahead of communityfeedback on this issue. Profit before people.

WHaM response to Little Paradise Car Park application ref: 20/02647/FB

The group recognises that this is an application submitted by the Developer Dandara Limited andBristol City Council on land currently in use as an open air car park. The purpose of thisapplication is to consolidate the car parking around Bedminster High Street and East Street topermit this other land to be used for future residential developments submitted separately.

The group understands that vehicle parking is deemed to be vital to the economic survival of EastSt, and consolidating this into a single space may be more secure, than distributed over severalopen air locations. However we are not convinced that this location is the best choice for thisfacility, or that a new carpark will provide the upsurge in shoppers. Its location will increase trafficin an area with existing residences along Church Lane to one side of it and a further proposed 295dwellings on the other side. Given that the city council owns the adjacent car parking site onHereford St might other locations have been found further away from existing residences? We areconcerned that this application will cause a local increase in traffic fumes in a location within an airquality management area with existing houses that are not air-tight by virtue of their age and thereare no proposals to upgrade this stock. These residences are 2 storey houses raised up from theground and as such are family housing which is in short supply in many of the recently proposeddevelopments and will place the health of families and children at risk because of the increasedlevels of pollution. Attention is drawn to Bristol City Councils own document on the effects of airpollution entitled "Health impacts of Air Pollution in Bristol" dated February 2017.

Green infrastructure is vital to reduce air pollution locally, not only for removing CO2 from the airbut also in reducing particulate pollution. Promotion of electric cars may also go some-way to

reducing the carbon dioxide levels locally but particulates caused during the action of driving arecreated by all cars and will to be mitigated by such a move.

There was concern that so many of the trees on the site have been removed from the site with notrees as replacement. It is felt that a replacement of a similar number of trees on the site would beadvantageous this does not appear to have been considered.

At 3 storeys the car park will be of a similar height to the adjacent houses, removing much of thevisual amenity they currently have, reducing the depth of view from windows by placing a wall infront of them, (with the potential to look directly into upper floor bedrooms) and removing views ofgreen planting which has a beneficial effect on peoples' sense of well-being.

It is also noted that this proposal is the subject of a formal consultation launched in February 2020by BCC, in which the local people were asked to contribute their views on parking. Whilst thisconsultation has now closed, the results have yet to be published. It would seem to be crucial forthe planning dept and the community to know what the local attitudes are to the developmentbefore a decision is reached.

WHaM objects to this development, the principal reason being the insensitivity to the existingresidents in the immediate area of the car park and the likely detrimental impact it will have ontheir quality of life. They will be adversely affected by increased traffic, pollution, noise, overlookingand crime

Unnecessary. We should not be encouraging people to drive into the city; this does notfit in with the city's emissions targets.

It is a mystery to me why Bristol City Council bothered to do a public consultation on thiscar park when the developers have been allowed to put in a planning application before the resultsof the consultation are out. What a waste of money and people's time and energy.

I would recommend this planning application is put on hold until the consultation results are outand it should be altered accordingly.

However, assuming that the consultation was just a tick box exercise, my comments on thisparticular application are as follows:

I am thoroughly against this proposal for many reasons. Firstly, and most importantly, I think it isan appalling idea to put a three story car park within metres of a row of small terraced houses.How upsetting for the people who live there. They will suffer a loss of daylight and privacy, hugelyincreased pollution, noise, and, crucially, a likely increase in crime due to dark areas by the carpark being prime spots for drug use and antisocial behaviour. They will likely feel unsafe walkingback to their homes at night. (I know I would, if I lived there). As if that wasn't enough, the pricethat they can sell their house for will drop hugely. I should imagine it would drop by at least£20,000 per house, if not more. Who is going to give them this money back? The developers?

Secondly, I don't see that this car park will be of benefit to East Street. I think multi-storey carparks often put off shoppers. Driving into them feels stressful, when compared to a normal open-air car park. People don't like the dark, the tight spaces, and the low ceilings, and they feel unsafeat night. Walking past it at night would also feel more unsafe than the current open air car park.The Hereford Street car park is currently free, which encourages shoppers to park there. It would

be a shame to lose that resource. Personally, if I do ever drive to East Street, I never drive to theLittle Paradise car park, I always park in Hereford Street car park and walk, because it's free, andnever busy. Personally, I wouldn't use a multi-storey car park at Little Paradise. I would walk whenpossible, but not being able to stop in my car in an open-air free car park would mean that myvisits are slightly fewer.

I think that the issues of shops closing in East Street will not be necessarily improved by a multi-storey car park. Some shops on East Street are very successful and are always very busy (Atleast they were, before coronavirus). The footfall through East Street, at least before coronavirus,was always very high, with a lot of people walking to and fro to the docks and town. Banks areclosing everywhere, not just on East Street, and so are some of the chain shops such as Boots. Itis not something that is just happening to East Street. But at the same time, local independentshops all over Bristol were thriving before coronavirus. If some shops on East Street feel that theyhave been struggling over the last few years, then I feel that may be more related to the fact thatthe demographics around Bedminster has changed hugely over the last 10 years. Perhaps thechange in demographic means that different types of products are wanted? So shops that arestruggling could maybe look at how they could expand or alter the range of goods they offer? Ialso feel that the public realm on the street could be improved with some larger outdoor seatingcafe areas which are a little more distanced from the bus exhausts. The fact that the busesthunder through every minute or two, choking out fumes just a couple of metres away, doesn'timprove the outdoor coffee experience! Nevertheless, I very much like the fact it is pedestrianisedapart from buses. And that makes me shop there as much as I can.

I would love to see something built that would improve East Street, but sadly I feel that a multi-storey car park will have no positive effect on East Street, and will have many negative effects tothe immediate residents.

I therefore object to this proposal.

What a vile idea for those actually living in the houses and neighbouring accomodation.Bedminster has plenty of parking, unfortunately developers wish to build on them withdevelopments that so far do not include enough parking spaces for the proposed numbers ofresidents...who are likely to park in this scheme! East Street needs a helping hand but this ideawill cost existing residents a much reduced quality of living environment.

Demolition of established trees is a terrible idea for the planet, we need to makesustainable decisions that respect the benefits of trees and green spaces. Bristol also needs toencourage alternative transport to individual cars so building more car spaces is detrimental to thecity's mission

This space would be brilliant as a square. Grass, trees, a cycle path through to EastStreet and on Saturdays a market. Then Bedminster would start to live. There is a car park behindWilkinsons which is a much better space, tucked away yet close to East Street. Do this one up andmake it new and safe.

The present idea is extremely poor.

This is all very puzzling.Was there not a recent survey of parking and transport in the area? Does that suggest that extracar parking is actually necessary and sensible near East Street? If it does, there is a two storeycar park behind Wilkinson's, unused because it is unsafe. Why not make that safe and use it? Oradd a storey to Hereford Street, a car park alongside a main road, not one tucked away in aresidential street. The current ground level car park in Little Paradise is a not unpleasant openspace with several mature trees. Replacing it with a multi-storey is likely to have a negative impacton the lives of the neighbours.The truth is that this application has very little to do with car parking for shoppers and much moreto do with land being made available for the applicant to put up massive residential buildings. TheDay Light report with this application shows (Section 5.2 page 8) Dandara's maximum densitydevelopment on the other side of Little Paradise as already existing, which is cheeky to put itmildly, since that application is yet to go to committee. And should we not be looking at proposalsfor Hereford Street development first before agreeing to close its car park?And what is the position of Bristol City Council in all this? It has already made the Paradise Northdisabled car park available to Dandara. It owns the car parks at Little Paradise and HerefordStreet. If there is a deal being done, should we not be told?The reason that so little housing has been built recently around Bedminster Green is becausedevelopers persist in putting forward ludicrously inappropriate proposals. It should be within theircompetence to design human scale, mixed developments to serve the public need while stillmaking a reasonable profit. But they continue to show no desire to demonstrate such competence,clearly still aiming at maximum profit, regardless of suitability.This proposal is admitted by the applicant to be part of a wider development strategy. We should

be wary of legitimising a kind of reverse logic whereby consent for a three storey car park can beconstrued as a first step in the inevitable climb of the high-rises. That would be the thin end of avery thick wedge.

This application to build a multistory car park in a residential square, is a cynical moveto free up the Hereford St parking so that another high rise building can be developed.It is a travesty of all that the Mayor and Council have been supporting, including the One CityClimate strategy, increasing public transport, and addressing pollution.It seems strange that the BID, who are leading a design consortium to regenerate East St havenot taken a broader view, and looked at the context and overall design of Bedminster Green takinginto account current trends. https://eaststreetvision.com/index.php?contentid=57

The design will obscure light, remove the current residents views and the benefits of a parkingzone, and will be an ugly lump that residents will look onto increasing pollution, noise and rubbishThis is a lost opportunity to develop the square into an attractive public space, providingopportunities for street markets and events. We recommend if there needs to be a multistory carpark, the space behind Wilkos would be far more appropriate.

Bristol is changing fast, and particularly the wards of Southville and Windmill Hill.The demi graphic for windmill Hill is under 40 with young families, many buying their first familyhome and working in the city.As we've seen since the Covid pandemic, the country has moved swiftly to home working, andshopping online. They have bikes and possibly a car and use public transport they believe inequality and community many appear to work in the creative industries and related design areasso they want a strong aesthetic in their surroundings.

This is lazy and sloppy urban planning, at best and out of step with current trends.Bristol Planners should turn it down on aesthetics alone.

My father is 89 and lives in one of the Victorian houses adjacent to these plans. We arenot against development but we do object to:

- the height of the building is quite out of character and out of proportion to the rest of the area,including the shops.- it will block nearly all the light that is currently enjoyed by the residents in Church Lane- in this area there are a lot of elderly people and there needs to be more consideration for peopleease of pick up and drop-off.- More trees please.

My father is 89 years old, and lives in one of the Victorian buildings adjacent to theseplans.

We are not against development but the proposals are too high and out of character with the restof the area. The plans will cause further congestion with no pick up or drop-off points for residents.

The plans block out too much light, for the residents of this area and the loss of the establishedtrees is against all the 'green' initiatives in place for Bristol.

The design is totally out of character, Bedminster has many turn of the century buildings, thisdesign is quite out of keeping.

- More car parking will not save or improve business for East Street. It has failed to keepup with the changing population of the area and suffers from the effects of on line shopping. If thecouncil allows this multi-storey car park they would be solving a problem that doesn't exist. What itwill do is to free up the Hereford Street site and allow the developer to build more (potentially veryhigh) blocks there, further degrading the area instead of improving it.- Surely the council should be planning for climate change and not building more infrastructure forcars. Established trees will also be lost.- This is a residential area. The block will be directly in front of two-storey houses who will lose theresidents parking zone and have compete with shoppers. They, and the supported housingcomplex nearby will have to put up with noise, traffic and pollution besides looking straight outonto a multi-storey car park.- I believe that community feedback has not been taken into account by the developer as theapplication was made before the results of the major BCC consultation have been published.- I think the majority of people living in this area would like to see it redeveloped. With properplanning, consultation and imagination it could be a wonderful area and a jewel in the crown of thecouncil. Instead it is being turned into a developers' Wild West. "Build'em high" and make as muchas possible caring nothing for what people in South Bristol actually need and what would improveour city.

I live directly opposite this proposed development and object on the following grounds:

Safety and security - mainly if walking to my house at night from Malago road, I'm not sure I willfeel safe walking past/through the proposed car park whereas at the moment there is goodvisibility of the surroundings.

Noise and pollution - there will be more cars much closer to my house and at higher levels, now atthe level of both storeys of my house. I'm not sure I will feel able to leave the front windows of myhouse open for any length of time.

Lighting - if it is too bright it may impact my bedroom at night, however if it is not well-lit at nightthen I won't feel safe walking past/through.

Privacy - although there are proposed trees between the car park and the houses I am veryconcerned that people will still be able to see directly into my bedroom from the upper floors of thecar park as the trees will not fully block this.

Residents parking provision - the number of residents parking spaces is significantly reducingwhich will make parking a much bigger challenge in the area than it already is.

House value - I own my home and am very concerned at the impact on house price from having amulti-storey car park built opposite, as well as the loss of residents parking provision which was abig attraction for buying the house in the first place. When the council had an initial meeting withresidents before the application was submitted I raised this point and was told by a councillor that I

should just consider myself lucky for having bought the house in the first place because of houseprice increases in the area; I don't find this an appropriate response.

I do not understand the need for a multi-storey car park here or why the council is planning to selloff the existing disabled parking spaces on the street.

I wish to object to the proposal for the following reasons.

The physical position of the car park requires the removal of 8 trees and does not make anysuggestion of replacing them, the site is in an area of poor air quality as it is and so any builtproposal should have more not less planting.

I do not think that the choice of site for this car park is appropriate, it is very close to existinghouses and increased levels of pollution in the area caused by an increase in vehicle traffic will beharmful to them. These houses are part of a late Victorian terrace and As such will not be airtightand will rely on opening windows for ventilation. The supported living accommodation for theelderly which is nearby will also see its residents suffer from this.

The city council also owns a plot of land adjacent to Hereford St which is further away fromexisting residences and already used by people shopping on East St it is also convenient for thetrain station, would this not be a better choice of site for such a development?

The height of the car park at 3 storeys will also place the top level of the car park at an equivalentlevel to upper floor bedrooms in the aforementioned terrace surely this loss of Privacy isunacceptable.

I do not think that the provision of parking on this site is vital for the revitalisation of the shoppingstreet. The local shops already have a nearby population which must exceed the threshold neededfor them to operate. East St needs to find a way of becoming more attractive as a shoppingdestination but at the current time is losing out to larger national stores (including the

supermarkets that are positioned at both ends) that have longer opening hours suiting thetimetables of office workers. More parking and increased pollution are not the answer to this.

I object to the planning proposal mainly because on environmental grounds I think weshould be minimising car usage and increasing bicycle and public transport usage. If parking isdifficult it encourages car users (like myself) to use greener ways to get about. In addition thisscheme would involve felling some old trees, which environmentally I would be opposed to as weneed to improve air quality not worsen it.Finally, I am concerned about the location of the Car Park, in front of a 2 storey building and closeto a supported housing complex. Whose needs are being considered here?

There has been evidence put forward about why this should be built. The two car parksare more than adequate at the moment. If Dandara have plans for Hereford Street, they shouldpresent them now. There are numerous other problems with this application which make itunsuitable:1. It will overshadow the adjacent two-storey houses and reduce their light2. Those using the upper part of the car park will be able to look straight into the upper windows ofthe adjacent houses.3. There will be increased traffic, noise and pollution in Little Paradise 24 hours a day.4. The car park will overlook St Catherine's Court retirement home, with exhaust fumes releasedover it at rooftop level5. There will be light pollution for adjacent houses6. A very expensive parking survey was conducted by the council some months ago, but no onehas seen it. Any new car park arrangements must surely wait for the results of this survey7. Established trees will be lost8. Residents parking zones will cease so they will compete with shoppers for parking spaces.9. A multi-storey car park will not reverse the fortunes of East Street which are due to peopleshopping more online and not lack of parking spaces.

The BID represents 350 businesses. With the Town Team it has spent eight years tryingto reinvigorate East Street, once the thriving retail heart of South Bristol. We have had wonderfulsupport and involvement from the local community - and enjoyed some successes. However, itremains a huge challenge, with a much worsening retail outlook given the current crisis - sadlyreflected in dozens of empty shops, and a proliferation of charity shops, pawnbrokers, vapeshopsetc.

Given the impact of austerity over the past ten years and now Covid the prospect of significant andmuch needed investment by the public sector continues to be bleak. We believe therefore the it isessential this multi storey car park is created to encourage car borne shoppers to visit regularlyand free up surface level car parks for residential development and substantially increase localwalkable demand.

Urgency is called for given the latest closures of Boots, Poundstretcher, and 3 banks being addedto the long list of large stores leaving in the past twelve months including Bon Marche and Argos.

East Street greatly needs increased parking. It has suffered hugely to the developmentof Imperial Park, Asda & Sainsburys.I feel businesses on East St will benefit if shoppers out and about in their cars, can easily visit thestreet from further afield.

As a member of the local business community, the introduction of a well maintainedmultistory car park is a much needed asset to this area and would hope to be the start of therequired regeneration to East street and surrounding areas.

With electric vehicle being the future this is also a great opportunity to give more people a reasonto continue the transition to electric vehicles.

I am objecting to this application as it will have a negative impact on the lives of thepeolpe who currently live close to the carpark. They will have to tolerate increased traffic andassociated pollution, extra noise, loss of residents parking spaces, loss of privacy, increase lightpollution, loss of trees and potential increased crime. This will affect the residents of the housesand the Supported Living complex, which houses vulnerable older adults.

The car park is not going to be the sollution to the problems of the lack of trade along East Street.BID need to deal with the problems themselves by creating a pleasant area to shop in. Claimingthe new car park is going to save East St demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issues.There are enough people living within walking distance to more than fill the shops.

BCC conducted a mayor consultation on parking etc. The results have not been published, so weknow the findings have not been used in the preparation of these plans. The developers need totake on board the feedback.

The main reason the developers want to build a new carpark is so they can then build morehighrise on the Hereford St carpark.I dont see any mention of this in the planning application. It isa case of buliding something we dont need so developers can build something we dont want.

This development seems to be a waste of money given the amount of use the currentcar park gets. 90 spaces seems unnecessary given the number of people that drive to East streetcurrently. It also means that an unattractive 3 storey block will be constructed directly in front ofthe existing housing and supported housing greatly reducing the attractiveness of an area with anumber of trees which i believe are to be removed as is the residents parking as if to add insult toinjury.Yet another case of build high and hang the consequences.

Dear David,I am a business owner on East St. When parking lots are lacking in the area it directly impacts ourbusiness. I am not supportive to make the parking charge high and limited to half hour but I am forthe buidling of a high rise parking since it increases more people to drive in.So I am in support of the high rise car park.

I run a salon on East Street and fully support this development

I disagree with the proposal of this car park so close to current residents of church lane,it will have negative impact on their well being for the below reasons.

Increased traffic, noise, and light pollution. The car park will be overlooking residents on churchlane which will be invasive, blocking light into their living quarters as well reducing privacy. I amaware of the multiple high-rise buildings going up around the area which this street will be on theedge of; therefore the area will be overly built up. I also do not believe this is in the best interest forthe existing residents living close by; in particular those living in the assisted living housing.

Resident car parking is already very difficult and this is expected to increase, with residentscompeting with shoppers. It will also see an increase in litter as a result, which is already an issuein the area. I believe it will increase anti-social behaviour (drug taking and dealing) which isalready present in the area. As a single female I would be concerned for my safety walking homeat night.

One of the suggested arguments for this car park will be the 16 electric car charging pointsavailable. I am aware you need to plan for the future and as society we should be moving toelectric vehicles. However, I do not believe this proposal matches the needs of the individuals thatcurrently visit East Street and this aspect will not be utilised for some time to come. Increaseddisabled parking is proposed despite the current spaces not being fully utilised.

The other suggested area for this car park is Hereford street car park; however this has beendiscounted due to the expense. Hereford street car park is not currently an area which hashousing and I believe should be reconsidered for this proposal. Multi-story high rise buildings are

planned in the area; I expect that residents purchasing those properties would be more amenableto further high rise buildings in the area; as well as having prior knowledge of these beforepurchase.

Vital to East St shoppers and the only way we will save this high street for the traders!

This proposal is ridiculous. Building a multi-story car park when the world is movingtowards using cars less is beyond tone deaf. Streets in Bristol (eg King Street) are becomingpedestrianised, this is the correct way to go. Improving cycle paths and public transport is needed,not multi-storey car parks.

There is currently an unused multi-storey car park above Wilko on East Street. The Little Paradisecar park is NEVER full. The three disability parking spaces are never used at the same time. Moreparking is not needed. This proposed car park would be opposite houses and right beside acouncil run living facility. Multi-storey car parks are known to attract anti-social behaviour to areas.We don't want this in East Street. It will also block light to front gardens and mean trees and plantsin the current car park will be destroyed.

The only need for this car park is to make the developer money. We are a community and thecouncil needs to consider this, especially given how important community has been during thepandemic. Church Lane is currently a quiet peaceful street. A multi-storey car park (or high risebuilding) would destroy this.

Is this area not a conservation area? Should that not be considered against this application.

Redevelopment of East Street is welcome, but not like this. I sincerely hope this application will notbe approved. Residents of the area will oppose this whatever way we can.

I'd like to start by making it clear that my objection is very specific to the proposed plan for a multi-story car park. I fully support plans for development of the East street area but introduction of a multi-story car park in a part residential area should not be part of those plans.

For starters the 3 car parks in the area (Little Paradise, Hereford Street and the unused car park on the roof of Wilko (entrance of Dean Lane)) are currently under utilised. Even throughout the day on Saturdays (the busiest shopping days) there are parking spaces available. If parking in the area was an issue then why not re-open the parking on the roof of Wilko?

Of all of the areas subject to part of the wider redevelopment plan adding a multi-story car park to the proposed little paradise location seems to be the least appropriate location for this type of development. Multi-story car parks are an eye sore and are also known to attract a whole host of anti-social behaviour issues (drug dealing, drug taking, youth spitting on people, rough sleepers, people having sex) are just a few of the issues that a multi-story car park attract. A simple google search of "multi story car park anti social behaviour" returns a whole host of articles (https://www.google.com/search?q=multi+story+car+park+anti+social+behaviour&oq=multi+story+car+park+anti+soca&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j33l2.10962j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) throughout the UK of recent issues experienced by local authorities and residents in multi-story car parks and the surrounding areas. Introducing something that attracts such behaviour to an already residential area (Church Lane, Stratford Street, St Catherines Court) will have a massive negative social impact on the residents in the existing area. Not only will it cause these issues for existing residents but the plans but will also encourage anti-social behaviour in an area currently planned for significant redevelopment for residential usage as part of the Bedminster Green development.

Introduction of a known magnet for anti-social behaviour in the middle of an area planned for student accommodation, social housing, affordable housing and private accommodation seems like a sure fire way to set the project up for failure and introduce a new inner city estate with high levels of crime and antisocial behaviour. It will detract from the wider re-development of the East Street area and significantly increase the issues already experienced in the area around anti-social behaviour.

Access is also an issue. Access to the car park will be via a residential street once the bedminster green project is complete. This will introduce high levels of traffic with access only available on a non main road. Whilst I oppose any multi-story car park as part of the development plans for Bedminster Green would it not make more sense to build it on an area not surrounded by residential properties and where access would be less of an issue. The current Hereford street car park site on the waste area next to the trainline to the side of Malago Road would make much more sense for the location of a multi-story car park. Access to both of these locations would be from a main road and locating a multistory car park at either of these sites would not mean developing it right in the middle of a residential area. At a time when parts of Central Bristol are being pedestrianised to make shopping easier in line with social distancing, should the council not be focusing more attention around reducing traffic driving into the city and not encouraging it?

The environmental impact is also of concern. At a time where we should be targeting lower emissions and reduce the number of people driving into shopping locations, this proposal baffles me. It will significantly increase traffic in the area and with that increase noise and air pollution in what will be a densely populated residential area. This is what baffles me the most about the proposal. One of the attractions for me of moving to Bristol was the consideration given to the environment in the area. Plans for the new development of a multi-story car park completely conflict with any green and pro-environment message that should be being delivered. Instead of proposals like this should the local authority not be focusing attention on improving public transport in the area not only for visitors but for the 100s of new residents that are about to descend once the bedminster green development is complete?

The final point that i would like to make is that when moving to the area (Church Lane) I was under the impression that this was a conservation area. It was certainly made clear to me on purchase that I would be limited in how enhancements were made to my property to ensure that it didn't change the aesthetics of property and block view for any of the surrounding property.

Based on this I'd love to know how building a multi-storey car park in this area (designs of which look like a giant metal shoe box) falls in line with its status as a conservation area. As you'll see from the number of detracting factors i've been able to list here it seems like the plans for this have been given little to no consideration as to the impact it would have on the local area. The only benefactors here are the developers and the only way I can fathom such plans would be approved were if the developer of this eye sore had paid off those voting through the planning application or employed them... Whilst I doubt that is the case due to the serious legal implication of such behaviour I

seriously cannot understand how such plans have even been given the light of day let alone got this far in the process. I know that I and all other residents in the area would seriously appreciate that these ridiculous plans are re-considered and objected.

Yours faithfully,

James Jackson

I think the provision of more car parking is a good idea, especially with the electric charging points. However I do not think Hereford St car park should be closed. Hereford st car park is very close to Bedminster train station and will be an important place for commuters to park.

HiI have the following concerns regarding this application. Firstly this will close two car parks for East Street, East Street is already in need of help to regenerate it and this will leave another hole in the access for people to shop there. As a nearby resident yet again we will be exposed to yet more traffic, noise and pollution from the residents in these flats and the residential home next door to this will be directly affected.The current residents parking zone in that area will cease to exist so not only will shoppers be competing with residents to park but as a nearby resident those shoppers and residents that cannot park in Hereford Street/Little Paradise will then move into the surrounding area to park thus increasing pollution and noise for those around them.I am extremely concerned about the loss of the established trees there, with climate change becoming an ever increasing forefront pressure we should be looking to keep trees that reduce pollution not destroy them.Lastly the application for this site was submitted before the release of the BCC consultation on parking that has taken place so the developer has not even tried to take into account those concerns.

There has been evidence put forward about why this should be built. The two car parks are more than adequate at the moment. If Dandara have plans for Hereford Street, they should present them now. There are numerous other problems with this application which make it unsuitable:1. It will overshadow the adjacent two-storey houses and reduce their light2. Those using the upper part of the car park will be able to look straight into the upper windows of the adjacent houses.3. There will be increased traffic, noise and pollution in Little Paradise 24 hours a day.4. The car park will overlook St Catherine's Court retirement home, with exhaust fumes released over it at rooftop level5. There will be light pollution for adjacent houses6. A very expensive parking survey was conducted by the council some months ago, but no one has seen it. Any new car park arrangements must surely wait for the results of this survey7. Established trees will be lost8. Residents parking zones will cease so they will compete with shoppers for parking spaces.9. A multi-storey car park will not reverse the fortunes of East Street which are due to people shopping more online and not lack of parking spaces.

There is not one positive to be taken from this proposal. There is the potential toencourage more traffic and pollution in a city that was supposed to be a green capital. The loss ofgreen spaces, the lack of consideration for the needs of the residents in the immediate area, theovershadowing of social and care housing, all reveal how shockingly misplaced the council'spriorities are. You are here for the people who live here and who elected you, not the businessesthat stand to profit from development like this. This will not benefit the area at all. It will be a socialand physical blight on Bedminster, and a moral blight on the BCC's reputation.

I object to the proposal of a multi-storey car park on the existing Little Paradise Streetsite.I have the following concerns:* Increased noise pollution in an already noisy area* Increased vehicle pollution in a congested area* Increased light pollution in front bedrooms of Church Lane terrace.* No consideration for residential parking; increased competition for residential spaces resulting inresidents having to park further away from their properties (competition from Church Lane, LittleParadise Street, Church Road, St. Catherine's Terrace, St. Catherine's Place - for a limitednumber of spaces on Church Lane after the removal of Little Paradise street parking). Thereneeds to be some sort of guarantee of car parking for residents that doesn't incur additional costs).*Removal of established trees with a litany of concerns from the horticultural advisors.*Proposed before the results are published from a major BCC consultation on car parking inBedminster Green. This consultation includes vital community feedback.

I object to the proposal of a multi-storey car park on the existing Little Paradise Streetsite.I have the following concerns:* Increased noise pollution in an already noisy area* Increased vehicle pollution in a congested area* Increased light pollution in front bedrooms of Church Lane terrace.* No consideration for residential parking; increased competition for residential spaces resulting inresidents having to park further away from their properties (competition from Church Lane, LittleParadise Street, Church Road, St. Catherine's Terrace, St. Catherine's Place - for a limitednumber of spaces on Church Lane after the removal of Little Paradise street parking). Thereneeds to be some sort of guarantee of car parking for residents that doesn't incur additional costs).*Removal of established trees with a litany of concerns from the horticultural advisors.*Proposed before the results are published from a major BCC consultation on car parking inBedminster Green. This consultation includes vital community feedback.*An open air, well landscaped alternative car park is preferred.

It's not fair on the existing houses to have a 2 storey car park put up in front of them.Would you consider doing this in houses in a square formation in Clifton? The answer is no.

With it leading to the closure of Hereford St carpark, a multi storey building will then get put in it'splace resulting with less green space and removal of trees in an area which is lacking greenspace.

More traffic will be brought to the area and it's already bad enough as it is. How is the areasupposed to cope with the extra traffic?

This proposal is an insult to the residents of Bedminster, presented with only profit in thedeveloper's mind.The multi level car park is by way of compensation to the failing of provision for cars in theproposed multi story developments, not as an asset to regenrate the area for shoppers.There should be car park provision provided in new developments, adequate for all occupants andguests. This area - Little Paradise - should be returned to housing and family community, 3 storeyhouses max.If there needs to be apartments, any block should be no higher than 5 storey and with variety ofbedrooms and a high percentage of socially affordable homes.The smaller car parks scattered about Bedminster are better suited as at ground level forshoppers to the area, and the land allocated for car parking currently should not be used for thedevelopment of tower blocks of apartments.The area needs regeneration, not saturation and demoralising holed to live in. Build streets andhomes, and generate a safe and welcoming community with added social services... clinics andcommunity services, not gyms and cinemas. Build with people in mind, not profit and destructionof this ancient area. Have some respect.

Sufficient public parking is already available in the local area, in particular on DalbyAvenue.

Car parks at Little Paradise and Hereford Street are adequate and underused as is.

Loss of residents parking areas, which will push parking to neighbouring streets which alreadyunder severe pressure.

Direct impact on the amenity of immediate residents.

Loss of established trees.

Loss of established trees , some of which planted by local residents over 25 yrs ago.Car Park on site and at Little Paradise adequate/ underused as it is.Proposal is ugly and artless and clearly little consideration has been given to immediate residentsby developers.

I object that a large car park is proposed before the results are published from a majorBCC consultation on car parking in Bedminster Green.This consultation includes vital communityfeedback.I do not think this car park will help the residents nearby, and those who lose their present spaces.This car park will create more noise and air pollution in the area.

I wish to object to this planning application for the following reasons,

- Loss of privacy- Loss of light- Treat to our children's health, Environment pollution- Noise- Safety of our children- Design issues- Congestion- High risk of confrontations with non residents due to parking- Issues with non residents parking spaces outside our homes- No consideration for access for emergency services

This shows lack of consideration for residents of church lane and little paradise by Bristol cityCouncil.

The residents of church lane and little paradise have had the Benefit of privacy and day light formany years and now Bristol city council want to take that away from the surrounding residents.

Due to my valid objections, I urge you to reject this inappropriate planning application.

Earl

I object to the construction of a car park building in this area. Pollution levels are alreadyquite high as they are. Why not doing it in areas like opposite the Redcliffe Church or off DalbyAvenue where there is currently a car park and no houses around?Bristol City Council should try to find ways to encourage clean transport like cycling or evenelectric cars.This building will be built right in front of my house and so it affects me greatly.

Allowing for this structure to built would be a complete let down for the community. For acity that considers itself to be green and a fighter againt climate change this is the polar opposite.Cutting down natural life in order to make way for something as brutal as car park is unforgivable,people can make do without a car park. It's unfair that the residents in the area are now exposedto more potential traffic, which is a safety hazard for the younger people in the area. Also the noisewould be unfair on parents within the area and the pollution does absolutley no one any good,especially the world we live in. Shoppers should not have the chance to take residents parkingspace and for single parents to be competing for parking spaces is a slap in their face. Thisapplication brings nothing but further danger, stress and safety concerns to those who live in thearea. You have to ask yourself, how would you feel if looked out of your property to see a carpark? It's ghastly and should not stand. Not only is this an eye sore and a burden on thecommunity this will undoubtly increase crime within the area with opportunist looking for a way tocommit their petty crimes. Permit parking has been pushed by mayors to work in this city and thisapplication goes against what the council have strided for. For once don't be money grabbing andjust think about the community and the city you live in. This is a foul and disgusting plan thatshould never of been thought of the first place. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

I am writing with deep concern as a resident of Church Lane BS3 4NE, regarding theproposed planning application 20/02647/FB for the development of a new public car park on theexisting Little Paradise site. My flat is on the ground floor level directly opposite and thisdevelopment with all the noise pollution in its build and subsequent increase in number of cars andpollution, when serving as a multi storey car park will be horrendous, even with electric vehicleprovision, this will still present an additional hazard in such a small contained area. I amconcerned whereas now we have an open space, anti social behaviour will also increase andgroups will gravitate to this area if there is a multi storey car park. This will present an additionalthreat for residents. I will be deprived of light in my bedroom and this will have a significant impacton my health and well being, as I already suffer from Aspergers and extreme anxiety. I am veryworried about this potential development. There is already adequate parking, so why should ourarea suffer an influx of vehicles. As a less affluent area in Bristol why should we residents sufferthis imposition? Why does a new car park need to be sited here, rather than over the other side ofthe main road, where there is a far bigger space and less impact for local residents as well asmuch better access. Another very important consideration is the current Covid pandemic we findourselves in and whether this is really going to be money well spent. Numerous shops are alreadyclosing and even with regeneration, why aren't we encouraging more pedestrians, cyclists andpublic transport links. We would rather our area was enhanced with better managed green spaces,which has proven benefits for the wellbeing of the local community. We have a number of trees inthe current car park which will have to be removed to accommodate the new development, sothese will be taken away from us as well, although I understand some token trees will be planted.It feels like our street is being sacrificed to meet the needs of avarice developers. I also see thatfull details are not made available on one of the planning documents, due to Covid consequences,so we can only speculate on what is missing. I would therefore for all the reasons outlined,

strongly urge this planning application to be halted, or at least deferred and to also take intoaccount the full impact of Covid, as well as the concerns of residents and the catastrophic effecton our day to day environment. Put yourself in our position of your daily life being blighted by thisproposed development and what it would be like for you coming of 'your' front door, or lookingoutside 'your' front window to be confronted by this monstrosity. Totally depressing...... Please dothe right thing and reject this planning application.

I believe this is being proposed as it is part of a deal with the developers.The design is ugly and would involve taking down trees. The open air car park works fine and Ibelieve this proposal would make it a worse space both visually and from a security point of view..I oppose the design as it would block light and views to the houses in front. It does not proposeany planning gain like a homezone for Church Lane, which would have been welcome, or parkingspaces.A better designed and landscaped, open air car park would be better.

The car parks in the area are never full. We do not need more parking spaces! Thenegative consequences are obvious : pollution and aesthetically unappealing. The air pollutionlevels in Bristol are illegal so to then build a multi storey car park in 2020 is criminal!If you're trying to bring an area back to life, look at what has worked in other central areas ofBristol. The young families, professionals and independent businesses you're trying to attract don'twant to be next to thundering roads and multi storey car parks. Those things are already in placeslike cribbs causeway. If you want people to live and shop in the area you need to make itpedestrian and cycle friendly. Of course developers know this and don't care. By building this sortof cheap but quick £££return thing, they are condemning East Street to more years of neglect. Ifthey were interested in the area, we would not be living with an underpass that has been full ofwaste and standing water for so many years. This is why the developers need to be kept in checkand this needs to be refused. There are many more developers out there who care about thefuture of this area.

Hi,

I am happy to support this application only if the developers can provide suitable parking facilities for the people that work close by.

We need to park our cars and it would be good to have a safe and secure premise to park in for 8 hours without being charged extortionate parking fee's

If there isn't such a proposal then I wish to reject this proposal and am happy with the current parking facilities.

Sohail OsmanTSB Bedminster, Bristol | Mortgage Advisor