Regarding the proposal for application number above; Plot 3 Dalby Avenue and Whitehouse Lane, Bedminster, I question the appropriateness of more student accommodation in this area. So much student accommodation has been built around the city in the last few years, surely the priority should be for affordable housing/apartments, especially in such a run down city area?

As a local resident and homeowner I am broadly in support of the regeneration andbuilding works, however the designs need to consider the local environment and not be tooimposing. Specifically I am concerned by the overall size and height of this block of student flats.

The proposed design should be scaled back and the height reduced, in order to increase light andair into the surrounding roads. Where there is high density housing, the quality of the localenvironment becomes even more important, so the building should be shrunk back in order toreduce its imposing outline.

Additionally we've all seen in this pandemic how important it is to have our own patch of garden oroutside space, so in my opinion its vitally important that the developers consider adding balconiesor roof gardens into their design. Gardening and being in nature has a proven positive effect onmental health and students in particular are vulnerable, so by adding such outdoor enviromentsinto the block design, the quality of life of the residents can be improved.

I would also welcome balconies and roof gardens in the block design as a way of breaking up theoverrall stark building profile and helping it blend more seemlessly with its surroundings.

Thank you.

Hello, I dont think the structure has a positive visual or environmental contribution to thearea.

I am work in sustainable engineering and I strongly feel more efforts should be made to integrategreenery and sustainable technologies for the design.

We and you have a responsibility to do everything you can to promopt green developments in ourarea - and that is what we would like to seem. Vertical gardens on the wall, solar panels and greenspaces should be prioritized over scale.

The design is big and pretty uninspiring. I would like to see it scaled down slightly and morethought put into the positive visual and environmental impacts it could spearhead as a newdevelopment in the area.

Best Regards,Fraser Pearson MEng MIET

I ask you to refuse this application.

There could be a real opportunity here to rejuvenate this area, but it is widely felt that thisopportunity is being tragically ignored with these plans.

The COVID pandemic has changed the way people want and need to live, which also applies tostudents. This offering of dense, isolated living conditions, with restricted light and little to noimmediate green space, surrounded by an overshadowing cast by the tall buildings, will notpositively impact the mental health of the students who occupy the buildings.

The tall and high density student accommodation blocks will result in obstructed sunlight in thearea, late night noise and light pollution. In a largely residential area, this will be damaging to thewellbeing of other residents and families who already live here.

The blocks will also obstruct sunlight to the city farm, a popular space for families in the area. Thegreens paces and rich conservation areas these blocks would replace, would be a tragedy for thechildren growing up in the area. I ask how this residential area could ever be considered suitablefor a large student accommodation complex, when Bristol is in such need of more family homes?

I have not seen any evidence in these plans for consideration, assessment or evaluation of impacton mental health and wellbeing for those occupying the buildings, or those who live in thesurrounding area. Nor have I seen any evidence of any re-evaluation of the plans in response to

learnings from the pandemic, and changes in how people want and need to live.

Bristol keeps and attracts people to live here because it is a city of vibrancy, diversity, andcommunity, known for its quirkiness and that iconic city skyline of colourful houses and the greensof treetops. The colourful houses of Windmill Hill can be seen from all across the city, fromBrandon Hill and as far as the Clifton Suspension Bridge. These iconic views bring millions oftourists to the city every year. Filling that landscape with block after block of tall buildings whichobstruct its character and charm, is taking away from Bristol, exactly what makes it Bristol.

Please refuse this application. Let's really get this development right, and keep Bristol a greatplace to live, for everyone.

There is a real opportunity to rejuvenate and develop this area and it's community, andintroduce some high quality urban design. These plans ignore that opportunity.

Bristol is in need of more family homes. The area in general would benefit from a higher proportionof these (e.g. 3+ bedrooms), to encourage people to stay and invest in the area as their familygrow, rather than encouraging a transient population who are less likely to invest time, energy andmoney in their local community. How is this residential area suitable for a large studentaccommodation complex when there are already so many in bristol?

Why can't we introduce better urban design that incorporates more greenspaces and homes thatpeople wish to live in for more than a few years - long term family homes, not stepping stones onthe way to moving somewhere 'better'?

The COVID pandemic has changed the way people want and need to live, and also study. Thisoffering of dense, isolated living conditions, with restricted light surrounded by an overshadowingcast by the tall buildings, will not positively impact the mental health of the students who occupythe buildings or people living in the surrounding area.

The tall and high density blocks will result in obstructed sunlight in the area. In a largely residentialarea, this will be damaging to the wellbeing of other residents and families who already live here.The blocks will also obstruct sunlight to the city farm, a popular space for people in the area.

I have not seen any evidence of any re-evaluation of the plans in response to learnings from thepandemic, and changes in how people want and need to live.

Please refuse this application in its current design. Let's really get this development right, andkeep Bristol a great place to live, for everyone.

Many thanks, Anthony Mace

I have concerns over the height that will have a negative impact on the local area ingeneral. With concern that height of buildings would stop sunlight reaching open spaces, boththose within the proposed development and those within the city farm, and overshadow thesurround houses.

The City farm is a wonderful assest and could be ruined with overly tall developement nextblocking the sunlight.

Bristol in gerneral not a high rise city and this does not feel in keeping, why can't you buildsomething tasteful like Wapping wharf rather than a new raft of high rise that will be the tragicplanning decisions that will blight the area.

The number of students proposed is high and has increased over the time the scheme has beenpresented to WHaM. The affordable housing element originally mooted at consultation has beenwithdrawn.

Plans to make use of an as-yet non-existent heat network will not make the scheme sustainablewhilts tall buildings typically use more energy than lower rise structures.

Whapping wharf has been carefully planned out and fits with clear visual planning to fit into thelocal area, after the call on Zoom with the developers its clear they dont have much interest in thevisuals or impact but profit.

With just 22 spaces the developer suggesting use of parking on Windmill hill as a solution.

MAKE IT LOWER & WITH BETTER DESIGN THAT HAS SOME REAL STYLE AND WILL BE ADEVELOPMENT TO BE PROUD OF. DONT RUIN THE AREA FOR A GENERATION WHENTHIS COULD BE A FANTASTIC REGENERATION. WE ARE AN ART AND DESIGN RICHCITY....LETS DO BETTER

I am writing to raise my concerns regarding the proposed development Application No20/05811/F

Whilst I welcome the regeneration of this part of Southville, I am saddened by the dominant scale,massing and lack of originality in the design. This application is yet again another missedopportunity for creating a development that provides opportunities for SME's work place, and amodel of sustainable housing fit for intergenerational communities.

My objections are listed below:

This is significant development, which will have considerable impact on the area, includingschools, health facilities and parking, increasing noise and pollution. It is therefore essential thatPlanning Control consider the need for increasing external facilities, without which our currentservices will be severely effected and impact on the existing residents as well as the students whochoose to live here.

I am objecting in full to this application as it fails on the same design flaws as the other BedminsterGreen developments, it that it doesn't meet planning criteria DM26 on local character anddistinctiveness, and DM28 specifically requires the development to contribute to an "attractivepublic realm that contributes positively to local character and identity".

My concerns centre on the height and massing of the proposed development, used as reasons for

the refusal to Plot 1 (Pring St Hill).That it will have a detrimental impact on Windmill Hill City Farm, one of the most importantfacilities in this area enjoyed by families from all over Bristol. With the potential impact of reducingvisitors, impacting on the local economy, employment and survival of the organisation. Effectinglight levels, increasing noise and harming the level of bio-diversity.

Tessa FitzjohnResident Windmill Hill

I understanding housing is high on your agenda, and you plan to increase the density ofhousing in central bristol. I would like to draw your attention to 2 aspects that I believe are vital tosupporting sustainable growth:1. Mental Health and Access to Green Spaces. Mark Rowland CEO of The Mental HealthFoundation has said: "As interest in mental health grows, we need to understand how the greatsocial issues of our times are linked. The evidence is clear that access to nature is crucial for ourmental health and millions of people re-discovered that during lockdowns this year. However, thiswas not the same for all of us. We want to explore why nature is so vital for our mental health andthe barriers that currently exist to enjoying those benefits."Your development proposal include high density housing which will put enormous pressure onlocal green spaces, defying the objective of nature. Wildlife cannot flourish in dense urbandevelopments. Bristol is a green city, do not undervalue this.

2. Building Green High Rises - Have you seen this incredible benchmark - Bosco Verticale(Vertical Forest) is a pair of residential towers in the Porta Nuova district of Milan, Italy, betweenVia Gaetano de Castillia and Via Federico Confalonieri near Milano Porta Garibaldi railway station.https://www.stefanoboeriarchitetti.net/en/project/vertical-forest/ Please be a trail blazer and makeBristol the Green Capital that was promised in 2015, you have the opportunity to make housingdevelopments that lift our spirits, not just the skyline.

There is a real opportunity to rejuvenate and develop this area and it's community, and introducesome high quality urban design. These plans ignore that opportunity.

Furthermore, Bristol is in need of more family homes. The area in general would benefit from ahigher proportion of these (e.g. 3+ bedrooms), to encourage people to stay and invest in the areaas their family grow, rather than encouraging a transient population who are less likely to investtime, energy and money in their local community. How is this residential area suitable for a largestudent accommodation complex when there are already so many in bristol?

I work at a university and am witnessing the change in the way people learn. Blended learning withmore virtual teaching is the future and I strongly believe that dense student accommodation is notthe kind of development we need as students will be able to work from anywhere.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you further. Many Thanks Anneliese Paul

This development is too tall, and dense, with no design quality. It will tower over thelocal area.

Bedminster and its residents, both current and future, deserve a well designed scheme that will sitwell in the area and not overwhelm it.

Something more along the scale of the Wapping Wharf development or even the proposal for theBaltic Wharf Caravan Park would be more appropriate.

I wrote on 11 Feb in objection to the previous scheme. The revisions do not seem toremedy the basic problems. None of the proposals around Bedminster Green really consider &improve the state of East St., with its delapidated/empty shops & flats above. if this wasconsidered as a whole & more housing put in E.St., the densities applied to the BG sites could bereduced & the new schemes integrated, to benefit of all. We do need housing & greater densities,everyone accepts.Especially Affordable Housing. There is too great a concentration of students onthis site & no sign of benefit of any facilities to the local community, e.g sports.In principle the opening of the Malago could be good. However the handling is questionable. 6/7storeys beside the railway(?) overshadow the Green, blocking the sunlight for long periods &throwing what should be the best part of the revealed Malago into shade.Views from Victoria Park will be blocked substantially by these dull blocks. It's not inspiringarchitecture.The built environment is important. Surely we can plan & build better than this?There are many objections to this scheme from a range of different bodies with different interests. Iadd mine. Sorry, I'd love to see some good architecture here.

With regards to this application I am surprised this is even being considered. SouthBristol needs permanent homes for families which will be used 24/7/365, not students for half theyear. We do not have a UNI in Bedminster. These 'blocks' are ugly and would not give any addedcharacter to the conservation area, or any advantages to local businesses. In fact we will be losingsome businesses which are generally small services in this area, and therefore jobs lost. I note onthe application form that the area for 'loss or gain' of residential this states no, is this normal if it isonly for students? There are plans for six parking spaces, but in my experience most studentshave access to vehicles so where will these go?

The size of this application will create a great deal of shadowing and loss of natural light to the CityFarm, and therefore where children play and visit. The window designs are not suitable as theycan easily create overlooking with the closeness of the buildings and therefore lack of privacy.

So much student work is now completed outside of the UNI buildings e.g. on line and therefore notso much student accommodation is required.

We need real good quality homes for local people who will in turn support the local area and beinvolved with the community. These buildings are definitely not desirable, useful or needed. Theproblem with most purpose built student accommodation is it cannot be changed to a differentpurpose if it is no longer required.

Objecting against student flats. The local area is in desperate need of family housing.There is a housing crisis and student flats built to profit developers only is not what Bristol needs.Students - as a bulk demographic, not individuals - add little value to local areas. Their spendingpower is limited and shared and bulk housing (like these flats proposed) detrimentally increasepressure on local services and amenities, parking and green space. Students are often transientand co not always add value to the local community. In some cases local residents experience aride in noise pollution and anti-social behaviour.

In addition, the plans for not factor in enough green space and grassy parkland who h us essentialto well-being, nature, climate change and flood defences. The building proposed is ugly and willquickly become an eyesore against the backdrop of traditional Victorian properties.

The buildings are simply way too high for this area which is surrounded by low risedevelopments. It will block the light completely to the neighbouring buildings and also will affectWindmill Hill City Farm badly in that respect. Unfortunately it's yet another proposal for developersto maximise their income on the expense of local residents and their mental and social health.Also don't see the necessity of building student accommodation since there're no universitybuildings in the area. Instead more affordable housing could be built to allow for people topurchase their homes.

We are a family run business who have been here at this site for the last 7 years. Weare a vehicle servicing and MOT Testing Station. We have invested thousands of pounds toestablish our business with 4 full time and potentially another full time employee about to start. Weserve a lot of the local people should this go ahead this would not only be a loss of 4 full time jobsbut personally this would as director have a financial impact on myself to the point of bankruptcyThere is no other units in the local area available to rent or lease.

The Panel maintains its previous objections to this proposal, which are not diminishedby the most recent changes.The application site is not in a Conservation Area but would affect the setting of the ConservationArea.

The Panel commends the content of the archaeological desk top study. However, this is anextremely poor application. It is over intensive development that significantly harms the setting ofthe Bedminster Conservation Area. The monstrous scale, mass and design of this scheme doesnot relate to the character and context of the immediate area: it serves only to dominate andoverwhelm it. The Panel supports the objection submitted by Historic England. The views fromVictoria Park into the Bedminster Conservation Area will be significantly compromised. TheBedminster Framework appears to have been ignored in relation to this site. Consequently it doesnot meet the relevant heritage policy tests contained within the Local Plan and the NPPF. Theproposal does not generate sufficient public benefits that outweigh the significant harm that it willcause and therefore this application cannot be supported.

Additionally the Panel draws attention to the comments on the impact of height and massing in therecent planning appeal decision on the proposals for Plot 1 and the detailed analysis of this in the16.4.2021 objection to this application by Windmill Hill and Malago Community Planning Group.

The height of the building will harm the light and overlook the park.

Multi storey blocks of flats are not appropriate housing. They are more expensiveeconomically and ecologically. They are not conducive to mental health and sense of community.There is not adequate provision of car parking space.

Our previous objections included issues of massing and this revised proposal does notaddress this issue - merely appears to change the look of the building.

The local requirement is for family homes not student accommodation as this is - also given thedelay in the developments proposed by the university there will be no need for thisaccommodation in this form for a number of years in any case.

Student accommodation provisions are already noted in other parts of the city not too distant fromthis application further adding to our objections in the grounds that this is not what is required andnot necessary here.

It would be helpful to know the overall council policy for local student provision as this is not readilyavailable it seems.

One final point is relating to access to East Street and beyond - is there access across this site fornon-residents?

Please don't build high rise buildings and fill Bristol with 'student accommodation'. Thecity needs long-term, reasonably priced accommodation for young people with jobs.

I continue to object to the creation and development as outlined in this proposal. Itfurther isolates newer members of our community in antisocial, unaffordable spaces and does notprove to be a sustainable or beneficial style of development to the existing community and ourlocal business and spaces. Development is a great idea but at the expense of our mental andsocial health.

Having grown up in south Bristol, and particularly having been part of the Windmill hillcity farm community, and still having many ties with the city, I am writing to object to thisdevelopment, which is absolutely out of keeping with the immediate area, particularly with regardto the materials, height and number of units contained. It would diminish the quality of family-friendly spaces, including the city farm, and the park, as well as inevitably have a detrimentaleffect on the already busy traffic/parking of the immediate area. Please rethink this.

This site was once home to a smelting works. Frankly, I'd sooner have the smeltingworks back than this badly thought out application. The developers are trying to put a quart into apint pot, resulting in buildings that are far too high and close together. The buildings, which arebulky and without any architectural merit, will seriously overshadow the City Farm and VictoriaPark, two precious assets of this area.

Post-COVID, student accommodation surely needs to be rethought. The new campus at TempleMeads has been substantially delayed, and so should this application too. I am shocked at the tinycubicles the students will be forced to occupy. Working with neuorodiverse students at BristolUniversity and UWE, I am well aware of the level of mental illness amongst students, and I'mafraid that putting them in this kind of accommodation will make matters worse. Furthermore, thisapplication does not address local housing needs and includes no affordable housing. Thisapplication must be rejected.

The buildings in this proposal are too high and will block out too much light. It will have aengulfing feeling when you are on the station platforms, park and the city farm.

The proposed buildings are not im anyway in keeping with the existing stock. The heightof the buildings will obscure light to the dam and neighbouring areas.The road infrastructure cannot cope with the large amount of additional traffic nor will there beadequate parking.There isn't sufficient capacity in schools, doctors surgeries and so forth to cope with the excessivenumber of additional inhabitants.

Appalling plans. How is this helping to improve the area? It could do with enhancing butthis isn't it. I spent time in Eastern Europe in the early 90s not long after the end of the IronCurtain, and the architecture reminds me of that. Is this really the best you can do?

I feel that aside from the obvious visual impact, the area doesn't have the infrastructureand resources (roads, parking, schools, doctors) to support so many more people, cars, children. Iagree with using the area as a residential site but low rise and much less capacity.

This is another awful proposal for this small area of bristol. The size, height, density ofthis student accommodation should be completely unacceptable. The buildings will cast the areaand city farm into shade, they are an ugly block of tiny student boxes, packing young people into adepressing patch of land. The impact on the existing community will be extreme, this is not thehousing proposal we need in this area and I cannot imagine it being passed. Please please pleaseconsider this alongside the other 5 applications in the area - many local people are genuinelyworried, they have not realised all these applications are different and feel they have objected,when their objections were for another high rise block 100m away. Please refuse, the area, thepeople, the students deserve better.

These blocks are still too high and now with less amenity space like a cinema. With thenew developments around Whitehouse street too the precious space of the farm and the park willfeel oppressed by all the surrounding blocks which do little for the well-being of those living inthem or around them. South Bristol yet again is decimated by poor planning where the existingcommunity is not given any real voice or consideration. The community is not opposed to the rightdevelopment, this is just not it.

Whilst it is essential to find suitable places to build new homes, it does not make senseto destroy a local farm and community centre in the process. The height of these builds will blocklight to Windmill Hill City farm, depriving the space used by the local community. The plants willnot grow. The animals will no longer be in sunny fields and it will be shaded for all visitors anddecrease opportunities for sustainable solar energy. Over time, this could close the place downcompletely.

Too tall, too dense, poor design, too little green space/public realm/public infrastructure,completely inappropriate scale of development and design for this sensitive area

Please do not build these ugly tower blocks. Windmill hill city farm is a sanctuary ofpeace within the city and an important gesture towards bringing nature into the city, helping theenvironment and wildlife as well as the mental health of adults and children. The ghastly view oftow blocks will ruin this atmosphere and block the light to the plants and animals living at the farm.

This is a really ugly development, which will damage the area. The planned buildingsare so tall and unremittingly bleak in appearance that the view of and light of nearby areas will beimpacted very negatively. I understand that we need to create more housing but these blocks aretoo tall and too close together to provide accommodation in keeping with a healthyenvironment...This would not get passed in more affluent areas of Bristol

I am very concerned (as with all the developments planned for this area) about theheight of the buildings planned. The park and farm are such precious outdoor areas for thecommunity and blocking of light would be so detrimental to so many people.

I am also concerned about corridor affects of pollution with so many high rises.

I also note that there are no social housing/ affordable houses planned.

Bristol City Center is full of high rise empty office blocks. Surely it would be better to repurposethese buildings for those able and willing to live in high rises leaving other sites in Bedminster tobe developed for lower height developments of family housing which is what the area needs.

I don't think that high tower blocks In this area are suitable. They will overlook the farmand other buildings, blocking light in an important area that local residents use for leisure andcould potentially affect mental health

Complete eyesore, would block the sun for the farm and ruin the lovely view from thepark!

I wholeheartedly object to this application. Not only is high rise living poor for creating,sustaining and contributing to communities, Hugh rises buildings are much poorer quality of lifethan mid rise or lower. Additionally and just as important if not more right now is the embodiedcarbon produced for high rise buildings and the lack of sufficient sustainable lifetime attributes tothis development. Acquiring minimal sustainable credits is not enough, even BREAAMOutstanding can do better which this development will not achieve. Lastly, this development notonly is hideously ugly and brings a huge eyesore from the park but it also will be blocking sunlightto Windmill Hill City Farm which is a highly valuable resource to South bristol, to the city centre, toresidents, the community and all of the volunteers that serve it. You cannot possibly think thatrestricting a vast amount of sunlight every day to the farm is acceptable. I strongly oppose this asa neighbour, who uses all areas around this development.

WHaM response to application no. 20/05811/FDespite the recent revisions, WHaM remains opposed to this application.The group does not consider that the revisions make any material difference to our reasons foropposing the application, all of which still stand.Furthermore, we would like our objections to the height and massing to be considered in the lightof the April 2021 report from Planning Inspector, Jonathon Parsons, in his refusal of planningpermission for the Plot 1 site (Pring & St. Hill; Appeal Ref 3249159): His comments about the harmwhich would be caused to the area by such a development can be applied to Plot 3 equally asmuch as Plot 1, if not more so:The Inspector said, in paragraph 49: "There would be harm to the character and appearance ofthe area, in conflict with the CS and SADMP policies". The harm which would be bestowed on thesurrounding area is, in fact, one of the two key reasons cited as grounds for refusing the planningpermission of Plot 1 - not only harm to the Conservation Area, but also other parts of thesurrounding area which he specifically mentions, including: Malago Road flats, Church Road, andWindmill Hill (see paragraph 19 and 21). He talks about the harm which would be bestowed insome depth: "The blocks appear as one substantial building" and, "Such intensity of developmentwould adversely affect the important low rise qualities of the surrounding area". He goes on to saythat "The developments would not function well, add to the overall quality of the area, besympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment . . . Consequently, theadverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweighthe benefits." (paragraph 45). Furthermore, he says in paragraph 46 that: "There would be harm tothe character and appearance of the area in general, which the Conservation Area would be part

of. There are historic and architectural qualities to the Conservation Area, notably its low-lyingresidential character and appearance, that contribute positively to it. ".All this equally applies to this Plot 3 development as much as it does to Plot 1.Furthermore, despite the recent urban design revisions, we concur with the Inspector in histhoughts on Plot 1, and consider that the same is true of Plot 3: "[This] proposal would not be highquality urban design due to the abrupt and dominating adverse impact of the blocks which wouldharm the character and appearance of the area". (Paragraph 33).The fact that this application meets the floor parameters of the Bedminster Green Framework doesnot mean that permission should be given. The Inspector says: "These parameters [in theBedminster Green Framework] are indicative only and have not been subject to testing throughproposal led design process. Assessing high quality design involves the assessment ofconsiderations other than floor levels only. Therefore the parameter guidance of is of limitedrelevance to the assessment of the appeal proposals." (Paragraph 30).Furthermore, the WHaM 'Malago Green Community Planning Brief' for Bedminster Green is of asimilar material consideration to that of the Bedminster Green Framework, and yet planners andcouncillors consistently ignore it. This document, developed through many hours of consultationwith the local community (unlike the Bedminster Green Framework, in which community opinionswere sought, but ignored) states that: "Buildings should reflect the existing context in terms offootprints and heights . . . The peripheries of the site should match the adjacent context, this istypically 2-3 storey blocks. The centre of the site can rise to 5 storeys with no detraction of visualamenity from Victoria Park or Windmill Hill. Keeping heights of blocks low is essential to allowdaylight into open spaces to create an inviting urban environment. Daylight provision should beconsidered as an essential part of new developments. Efforts should be made to avoid deprivingany neighbouring developments of light". This is still as relevant now as when it was written, andwe ask planners and councillors to consider this document when making their decision.WHaM also has some additional concerns about sunlight reaching Windmill Hill City Farm, asfollows:BRE guidance, Paragraph 3.3.3 states that: "the availability of sunlight should be checked for allopen spaces where it will be required. This would normally include: children's playgrounds,gardens......"The Daylight and Sunlight Amenity (Neighbouring) Study only investigates the impact on theindoor buildings of Windmill Hill City Farm, and not of the outdoor space; whilst the Design andAccess Statement (Part Eight), provides a visualisation of the shadows but only on the SummerSolstice, when shadows are at a minimum.WHaM's initial investigation leads us to the conclusion that Windmill Hill City Farm will besignificantly overshadowed, and sunlight blocked, in the afternoons of the Spring, Winter, andAutumn.We would therefore like to request a professional assessment of the overshadowing caused by thedevelopment on the Winter Solstice and both Equinoxes. This should be presented in a pictorialmanner so that it can be understood by a lay person.In many ways, the ability for families to find areas to play in the sunshine during the Winter, Springand Autumn is in fact more important than that of the Summer, because sunshine is more difficult

to find during these months.On those clear sunny days of Winter, Spring and Autumn, it is important for the mental andphysical health of children and families (many of whom live in the small, dark terraced houses andflats of this area) to be able to find some outdoor sunshine. We therefore consider anyovershadowing to the outdoor areas of Windmill Hill City Farm to be an unacceptable detriment topublic amenity.Finally, the following list is intended to summarise our objections to the scheme: Please see ourprevious comment, as well as this one, for further details.- Height and Massing unacceptable- Sunlight blocked to Windmill Hill City Farm - unacceptable negative effect on public amenityspace used by families and children- Number of Students- Sustainability concerns (tall buildings use more energy;heat network does not exist)- Tall thin window concerns- No affordable or social housing included- Internal daylighting concerns- Public Realm: the canyon effect of high buildings on either side will consign the riverbank toshade, and possibly wind; plus the clash in use between delivery trucks and pedestrian/cyclist useon Clarke Street will be problematic given the increased use of home delivery, and may result inthe riverbank being a rather unpleasant and polluted place to be.

I have seen the revisions but I still object for all the same reasons as before.

WHaM response to application no. 20/05811/F

Despite the recent revisions, WHaM remains opposed to this application.

The group does not consider that the revisions make any material difference to our reasons foropposing the application, all of which still stand.

Furthermore, we would like our objections to the height and massing to be considered in the lightof the April 2021 report from Planning Inspector, Jonathon Parsons, in his refusal of planningpermission for the Plot 1 site (Pring & St. Hill; Appeal Ref 3249159): His comments about the harmwhich would be caused to the area by such a development can be applied to Plot 3 equally asmuch as Plot 1, if not more so:

The Inspector said, in paragraph 49: "There would be harm to the character and appearance ofthe area, in conflict with the CS and SADMP policies". The harm which would be bestowed on thesurrounding area is, in fact, one of the two key reasons cited as grounds for refusing the planningpermission of Plot 1 - not only harm to the Conservation Area, but also other parts of thesurrounding area which he specifically mentions, including: Malago Road flats, Church Road, andWindmill Hill (see paragraph 19 and 21). He talks about the harm which would be bestowed insome depth: "The blocks appear as one substantial building" and, "Such intensity of developmentwould adversely affect the important low rise qualities of the surrounding area". He goes on to saythat "The developments would not function well, add to the overall quality of the area, be

sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment . . . Consequently, theadverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweighthe benefits." (paragraph 45). Furthermore, he says in paragraph 46 that: "There would be harm tothe character and appearance of the area in general, which the Conservation Area would be partof. There are historic and architectural qualities to the Conservation Area, notably its low-lyingresidential character and appearance, that contribute positively to it. ".

All this equally applies to this Plot 3 development as much as it does to Plot 1.

Furthermore, despite the recent urban design revisions, we concur with the Inspector in histhoughts on Plot 1, and consider that the same is true of Plot 3: "[This] proposal would not be highquality urban design due to the abrupt and dominating adverse impact of the blocks which wouldharm the character and appearance of the area". (Paragraph 33).

The fact that this application meets the floor parameters of the Bedminster Green Framework doesnot mean that permission should be given. The Inspector says: "These parameters [in theBedminster Green Framework] are indicative only and have not been subject to testing throughproposal led design process. Assessing high quality design involves the assessment ofconsiderations other than floor levels only. Therefore the parameter guidance of is of limitedrelevance to the assessment of the appeal proposals." (Paragraph 30).

Furthermore, the WHaM 'Malago Green Community Planning Brief' for Bedminster Green is of asimilar material consideration to that of the Bedminster Green Framework, and yet planners andcouncillors consistently ignore it. This document, developed through many hours of consultationwith the local community (unlike the Bedminster Green Framework, in which community opinionswere sought, but ignored) states that: "Buildings should reflect the existing context in terms offootprints and heights . . . The peripheries of the site should match the adjacent context, this istypically 2-3 storey blocks. The centre of the site can rise to 5 storeys with no detraction of visualamenity from Victoria Park or Windmill Hill. Keeping heights of blocks low is essential to allowdaylight into open spaces to create an inviting urban environment. Daylight provision should beconsidered as an essential part of new developments. Efforts should be made to avoid deprivingany neighbouring developments of light". This is still as relevant now as when it was written, andwe ask planners and councillors to consider this document when making their decision.

WHaM also has some additional concerns about sunlight reaching Windmill Hill City Farm, asfollows:

BRE guidance, Paragraph 3.3.3 states that: "the availability of sunlight should be checked for allopen spaces where it will be required. This would normally include: children's playgrounds,gardens......"

The Daylight and Sunlight Amenity (Neighbouring) Study only investigates the impact on the

indoor buildings of Windmill Hill City Farm, and not of the outdoor space; whilst the Design andAccess Statement (Part Eight), provides a visualisation of the shadows but only on the SummerSolstice, when shadows are at a minimum.

WHaM's initial investigation leads us to the conclusion that Windmill Hill City Farm will besignificantly overshadowed, and sunlight blocked, in the afternoons of the Spring, Winter, andAutumn.

We would therefore like to request a professional assessment of the overshadowing caused by thedevelopment on the Winter Solstice and both Equinoxes. This should be presented in a pictorialmanner so that it can be understood by a lay person.

In many ways, the ability for families to find areas to play in the sunshine during the Winter, Springand Autumn is in fact more important than that of the Summer, because sunshine is more difficultto find during these months.

On those clear sunny days of Winter, Spring and Autumn, how important it is for the mental andphysical health of children and families (many of whom live in the small, dark terraced houses andflats of this area) to be able to find some outdoor sunshine. We therefore consider anyovershadowing to the outdoor areas of Windmill Hill City Farm to be an unacceptable detriment topublic amenity.

Finally, the following list is intended to summarise our objections to the scheme. Please see ourprevious comment, as well as this one, for further details.

- Height and Massing unacceptable- Sunlight blocked to Windmill Hill City Farm - unacceptable negative effect on public amenityspace used by families and children- Number of Students- Sustainability concerns (tall buildings use more energy;heat network does not exist)- Tall thin window concerns- No affordable or social housing included- Internal daylighting concerns- Public Realm: the canyon effect of high buildings on either side will consign the riverbank toshade, and possibly wind; plus the clash in use between delivery trucks and pedestrian/cyclist useon Clarke Street will be problematic given the increased use of home delivery, and may result inthe riverbank being a rather unpleasant and polluted place to be.

I am very disappointed that the revised plans do not show any significant changes,instead we see a series of minor tweaks.

If anyone is in any doubt of the dreadful impact that this development will have on anyone wholives in or comes to visit the area take a look at the visual montages of views from Victoria Park,the station platform or the City Farm, to name but a few. The new blocks will cut out the light andappear as a solid wall of development - in fact they will produce the same negative effects thatwere responsible for the Pring site application being rejected by the Planning inspectorate.

Tackle the issues and reject this application.

This is a hideous building development and is very upsetting and unacceptable toWindmill Hill and Bedminster residents. The proposed buildings are an unacceptable height andterrible design. This is a neighbourhood for families and working professionals and is not an areato be inundated with students who will only be here 8 months of the year. The buildings will beempty during the student holidays and it will feel alienating. The tower blocks are far too high anddense and there will be light issues inside and out creating depressing dark interiors and shaded,cold streets. The design of the buildings are out of keeping with the characterful Victorian 2-3storey houses. New architecture should reflect and harmonise with the surrounding landscape andarchitecture not stand out like giant sore thumbs ! The many pretty views giving a sense of spacewill be ruined particularly in Victoria Park and the overbearing buildings overlooking Windmill HillCity Farm will overshadow a much needed and loved public, green space ! I don't thinkBedminster needs these pockets of uninspiring dense buildings. It's a really stupid buildingproposal and I see no benefits in this design and it will ruin a unique residential area of Bristol.

This is too tall for the area and not in keeping with local buildings and architecture. Alsodon't need more student housing. Keep Bedminster from becoming a high rise area, its aresidential area!

Buildings of such density without any aesthetic consideration should not be allowed tobe built anywhere, least of all here. Architects and developers should have a legal responsibility todesign buildings which enhance and cohesively exist within an area. Such buildings would have alonger life span and could be more easily changed to accommodate other uses.Bristol is a unique city with its coloured houses and hills juxtaposed with historic buildings. This iswhat makes its skyline unique, particularly from Victoria Park. People travel from all over to seethe views from here, and once these ugly monstrosities are built, the view will be gone forever. Nodoubt the area needs development but it needs to be considered. I cite again Wapping Wharf as agood example of how it could be. Approving this development will be regretted as soon as it's up.Don't do it.

These proposals do not allow for public green spaces for the local community human,bird, bat, wildflowers, insects, teenage in and with, that are compatible with the eco friendly cityBristol is aiming towards. Also, the height and density of the buildings will afford mental issues andisolation for the residents. Further, whilst affordable housing is welcome, these proposals lacksuitable amounts of such, to help address the growing lack of affordable housing targets Bristolwishes to address. Additionally, the increase in traffic from all these residences and commercialoutlets will add to Bristol's already too high air pollution. For all these reasons these proposalsshould not be allowed/ granted.

The Planning Inspectorate dismissal of the appeal against the original refusal ofplanning talked about 'the adverse effects of granting planning permission which wouldsignificantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits' and stated that 'the blocks appear as onesubstantial building which would adversely effect the important low rise qualities of the area'.

This resubmission appears to merely to be a token effort to make changes to address theconcerns, without actually changing any of the fundamental problems.

This development would overshadow the city farm - an important amenity giving pleasure andeducation to every generation in the locality - and Victoria Park, which is an an invaluable opengreen space for recreation and has particularly shone in the last year when outdoor spaces havebecome even more valuable.

It makes no attempt to integrate into the existing area and should be refused. A quality,sympathetic redevelopment of the area would be welcomed, unfortunately this most certainly isnot it.

The revised plans appear to make little difference to the overall objections to thescheme that have been well articulated by the WHaM group. I agree that such height and intensityof development would adversely affect the important low rise qualities of the surrounding area.Keeping heights of blocks low is indeed essential to allow daylight into open spaces to create aninviting urban environment. Daylight provision should be therefore considered as an essential partof any new development. Given that the new blocks will cut out the light and appear as a solid wallof development, this remains an unacceptable proposal.

This development is far too big for the space. High rise towers have been proved overmany years not to work and I can't believe you will even consider this development. It will destroyan area of the city which is loved by so many.

It will ruin views for so many and the infrastructure is just not in place.

Don't destroy Bedminster, it's really starting to improve. A low rise, well thought out development iswhat is really needed. Don't let greedy developers destroy an area

This is an ugly, overly tall building which will restrict light to the area. The area deserveslow level buildings which will enhance the local community, not dominant it

This cannot be allowed, it will not add to any form of regeneration in Bedminster, weneed affordable homes, included. to protect the green space and the skyline.

The scale of the propsed buildings is out of keeping with the area. It will cast shadowsover the surrounding areas. It will permanently destroy public views oner the ciyt for public spaces.It will ruin the 1st impression of the city from people arriving from Bristol airport. South Bristolappears to have been singled out . Lessons should have been learnt from the 60s and Grenfelltower. The long term cost of maintenance of these buildings is high. High rise buildings are notgood for mental health.

I object to the new building being proposed.

They have been poorly thought through.

Where will people park their cars?What impact will there be on views over Bristol due to the size of these developments?Are they in-keeping with local architecture (no).

There is absolutely no way these buildings would be built in Clifton or Bath and there is absolutelyno way they should be built here.

These buildings will be here for a long time. I genuinely do not believe that they will stand the testof time. We should be building something spectacular that will be looked on fondly for years tocome. Not a cheap build to house students which will become unloved in a few short years andwhich will have a lasting negative impact on the local area.

I object to the height of the buildings and the density. It'll be like walking through acanyon of tower blocks, blocking out most of the light. Not at all sympathetically designed to fit intothe current landscape and neighbourhood. I'd like to see the area redeveloped, but not like this;with a complete disregard for the existing community.

This is an eyesore that will block natural light to the city farm. A place enjoyed by thelocal community. Beneficial for people's mental health.

There has been no thought of the community or the area. The architecture and the colour/designis not in keeping with the surrounding area.

My grandfather grew up willway st before it was bombed in ww2, as did his father and his fatherbefore that he lived just off east st 1841 census. Bedminster was once so full with people it was aslum. Is this what you are trying to recreate?

It is well known and documented that nobody wants to live in high rise blocks. It is cause ofdepression, social problems. I have a degree in housing and development. We were trained thatthis was not good housing for people to live in. The city does have a housing crisis. But this isn'thelped by ever more students. In the 90s we had 32,000 students today it is 60,000.

I strongly object to this. It is ugly. It is not in keeping with the local area, neither in buildingmaterials or design. It is very high rise which will lead to poor air quality for the community and willcreate the new bedminster slums.

You work for us. I hope that you take this into consideration.

Not attractive or sympathetic to the surrounding area. Looms over and blocks light tothe farm, which is a beloved and essential space for children and young people.

Despite revisions the proposed development is still completely inappropriate for thearea, raising the population density without adding significant infrastructure or services, andblocking light and views. The development should be rejected.

The proposed blocks loom above the surrounding areas like foreboding grey barracks.They are too high , out of character with the surrounding Victorian terraces and will make the areatoo densely populated for the space and facilities. We know from the 60's that no one particularlythrives from living in tower blocks and the design of these is particularly drab and uninspiring fromthe outset. The development casts a shadow both metaphorically and literally on the surroundingarea and is just too much and too many crammed in to a tiny space . Very depressing all round .

Councillors, officers: please reject this application. The entirety of the Bedminster Greenframework needs to go back to the drawing board as a coherent plan, rather than the scattergunapproach of pile-em-high applications, reviews and appeals, which make it close to impossible tofollow the process.

I'd echo all of the feedback from WHAM in their objection, but in particular the concerns over light;scale and massing; and the effects on existing neighbourhoods.

I do also agree that such a large amount of student housing in this location is not good for eitherthe new residents (the students and others) nor the development, nor existing communities. It willnot create any sense of community. It will mean regular commutes right across town for many ormost of them. And it is not fulfilling the promise of 'homes', which has been the rallying cry for thiswhole oversized behemoth of a development project. These aren't homes, they are profit-makingunits that will bought this whole area for decades to come.

I'd also like to support Historic England's objections to the scale and incongruity of the scheme.Further good reason to refuse it. The historic nature of bedminster should not be consideredsecondary to that of (for example) Clifton or other parts of the city, where such a plan would neverget off the drawing board.

One final point is that the BID and others continually point out the need for new residents torevitalise East street. East street actually appears to be doing pretty well in many ways. Aside from

the big landmark stores that have closed, none of the normal-sized shops along here stand vacantfor long. Leases are picked up very quickly and shopfitters are at work in several at any one time.And needing to find new uses for large stores is hardly a problem unique to Bedminster. I justdon't think that 'saving the high street' should be a good enough reason to agree to buildingdozens of enormous, unattractive, disjointed, dark, noisy and unappealing 'units'.

Please take these plans back to square one. They are simply not fit for any purpose other thanprofit making for a handful of developers.

This development surely is a joke. It's going to ruin the landscape, ruin peoplesrecreation time and fresh space, which leads to positive wellbeing. Are you going to take this awaywhen that's what's needed right now? This Mayor is the worst and I'm a labour voter. Would nevervote for him again.

It will be a totalBloody eyesore. It looks repulsive and will destroy the aesthetic of the area. It's too tall. Totallylacks character. It's absolutely ghastly! Not enough parking either.

I object to both the height and density of this development which is unsympathetic indesign to the surrounding landscape and will permanently change the character of the area,cutting out light and causing an increase in traffic pollution which is already high in Bedminster. Iam also concerned about the lack of public green spaces and the impact it will have on thosehaving to live both inside and in its shadow.

The development totally dominates the landscape, obscuring light from the area. Itwould also increase traffic in an already polluted area.

The proposed design is not in keeping with the area. The height of the buildings willobstruct light and views to the residents in and around the park. The area does need developingbut with architectural integrity in keeping with the area. The proposal of this development for astudent population is unlikely to enhance the area. Little consideration appears to have been takento parking and how this will affect residents. In addition, this proposal will likely have a negativeaffect on the city farm, restricting light and bringing a negative atmosphere to the area. Overall, thebuildings in the proposal are far too high and the design is awful.

The buildings proposed are simply too big - too tall to fit into the area and bringing toomany new residents to an area that is already one of the most densely populated in bristol. Youare not providing any car parking for residents and building over an existing car park. How are youproposing to deal with the problems this will cause? The fact you don't provide parking for yourresidents does not mean they won't own cars. They will simply use the surroundingneighbourhood to park and especially windmill hill, an area where parking is already a completenightmare for residents. The area needs regenerating but your proposals are based on maximisingprofit, with little interest in the community or the people who will live in your properties

Much too big- completely blocks sunlight from the City Farm. Also what infrastructureunderpins this development- residents need doctors, dentists etc, which are already difficult toaccess in the area.

It's too bigLooks like more student accommodation - might be wrong - but causing potential tensions andlocal frustrations.What community development planned?What about the city farm - possible light obstruction ?What about the development of local infrastructure- GP's, dentists, schools etc?What about local community space?

I would like my objections to the height and massing to be considered in the light of theApril 2021 report from Planning Inspector, Jonathon Parsons, in his refusal of planning permissionfor the Plot 1 site (Pring & St. Hill; Appeal Ref 3249159): His comments about the harm whichwould be caused to the area by such a development can be applied to Plot 3 equally as much asPlot 1, if not more so:The Inspector said, in paragraph 49: "There would be harm to the character and appearance ofthe area, in conflict with the CS and SADMP policies". The harm which would be bestowed on thesurrounding area is, in fact, one of the two key reasons cited as grounds for refusing the planningpermission of Plot 1 - not only harm to the Conservation Area, but also other parts of thesurrounding area which he specifically mentions, including: Malago Road flats, Church Road, andWindmill Hill (see paragraph 19 and 21). He talks about the harm which would be bestowed insome depth: "The blocks appear as one substantial building" and, "Such intensity of developmentwould adversely affect the important low rise qualities of the surrounding area". He goes on to saythat "The developments would not function well, add to the overall quality of the area, besympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment . . . Consequently, theadverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweighthe benefits." (paragraph 45). Furthermore, he says in paragraph 46 that: "There would be harm tothe character and appearance of the area in general, which the Conservation Area would be partof. There are historic and architectural qualities to the Conservation Area, notably its low-lyingresidential character and appearance, that contribute positively to it. ".All this equally applies to this Plot 3 development as much as it does to Plot 1.Furthermore, despite the recent urban design revisions, we concur with the Inspector in his

thoughts on Plot 1, and consider that the same is true of Plot 3: "[This] proposal would not be highquality urban design due to the abrupt and dominating adverse impact of the blocks which wouldharm the character and appearance of the area". (Paragraph 33).

In addition this is a soulless development incorporating any objections raised in general abouttower blocks. Why would you want to overshadow the neighbours? Why do you want to create aprison atmosphere? Why destroy the character of an area? Bristol is known for its interestingcharacterful streets, but the current plans, of which I have seen many are depressingly similar withdreary architecture.

I grew up in Totterdown in the practice house on Knowle Road which had been used by the localdoctor for years. That house and many of my father's patients' houses were knocked down. Don'ttell me that Totterdown looks better for this distruction. At least there were no high-rise flats builtthere. Perhaps for the simple reason that everyone knows that tower blocks are unhealthy and wenow know that other types of buildings are much better for the environment.

This planned development takes no account of the existing neighbourhood. It iscompletely at odds with it, totally out of scale and will do nothing to enhance the environment.Bedminster will become a slum in a few years with these shoddy buildings, not fit for humanhabitation. It is fuelled by insane greed with no consideration of the people who will live in thearea. Its a disgrace and the developers should be ashamed of themselves. Homes aredesperately needed - "homes" are places where people want to live and can thrive. This is astudent ghetto and cages for the unfortunates who will end up there. There is no vision to improveBristol, just a lust for money. I'm incredulous that this is being allowed to happen to a oncebeautiful forward-thinking city.

Inappropriate plans for the area. The tower blocks are far too high and very unappealingto the eye. The design does nothing to reflect the heritage of the area.The view from Victoria Park will be dominated in places by these ugly blocks. A park which is usedby many as a sanctuary to escape the stresses of city living.Please reject and consider a lower density development, ideally maximum of 6 stories high.

Utterly ridiculous development, so high rise and in an old style that is so lacking inforethought and without character for the area. Just awful.

Would be an eye sore, would block the natural light which helps the local farm grow itsplants. There are a city farm that uses the space to give back to the community, uses its owngrown crops in the cafe. The light reduction would dramatically change this.

This is a really ugly and imposing development. It will overlook windmill hill city farmwhich is a lovely green space in our city where I spend a lot of time with my son. Also the view ofthe tower blocks will ruin the skyline and cause additional and unnecessary pollution. It also lookscramped and a dark and dreary place to live and definitely not a long term residential area, peoplewill.mobe in and out of the area quickly. Building on this site will also create additional.strain onour services and be over populated, the development will take away green/wild space and ruinanimal habitats and destroy the wildlife haven.

This is an inappropriate deveopment that is singular in its vision and has no relation tothe neighbourhood. The student community is by nature transitory and will not serve thecommunity of s. Bristol. A terrible plan. And typical of Bristol local government lack ofunderstanding and vision.

My objection is the same as before as all the points still stand. The visual impact of thisdevelopment would be unacceptable. An important and defining characteristic of Bristol is itstopography. The application site is low lying, at the base of windmill hill and Victoria Park that riseto the south. Developing so high at the foot of this hill will harmfully erode the sense of topography,to the detriment of local character. The site is also outside but within the setting of the BedminsterConservation Area. The scale and massing of the proposal fails to respond to the existing urbangrain and established development pattern of the conservation area and would harm its setting.There is unacceptable high density/ over-development of the site. The design is ugly, it is over-bearing, out-of-scale and out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existingdevelopment in the vicinity. The recent pandemic has only emphasised how important our outsideenvironment is. Victoria park and Windmill Hill City Farm proved to be such important, valuablecommunity assets for maintaining mental and physical health, not to mention the services the farmprovides (including a nursery). The farm will literally be overshadowed and blighted by thisdevelopment. You can currently see the suspension bridge from the skatepark in Victoria Park,which is pleasant, necessary and important for all users (not to mention visitors coming in via train,what better welcome to the city than seeing Brunel's bridge). If this development was to go aheadyou would only see what can be described as what looks like a communist prison block, that wouldbe depressing to say the very least.Whilst I am aware that in strictly legal terms "there is no right to a view", it does not mean that theloss of an existing view is necessarily irrelevant, especially when it is a public viewpoint and wouldhave a wider impact, concerning everyone who accesses and uses Victoria Park. The enjoymentof the view of the city as far as the suspension bridge and beyond, from the park is an important

part of the residential amenity of the neighbourhood and its loss would have an adverse impact onmany people's mental health. It would be a travesty if this development was approved.The visual impact of this development would be unacceptable. There is unacceptable high density/over-development of the site as it ruins the topography of the city and the open aspect of theneighbourhood. The design is ugly, it is over-bearing, out-of-scale and out of character in terms ofits appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity. The recent pandemic has onlyemphasised how important our outside environment is. Victoria park and Windmill Hill City Farmproved to be such important, valuable community assets for maintaining mental and physicalhealth, not to mention the services the farm provides (including a nursery). The farm will literally beovershadowed and blighted by this development. You can currently see the suspension bridgefrom the skatepark in Victoria Park, which is pleasant, necessary and important for all users (not tomention visitors coming in via train, what better welcome to the city than seeing Brunel's bridge). Ifthis development was to go ahead you would only see what can be described as what looks like acommunist prison block, that would be depressing to say the very least.Whilst I am aware that in strictly legal terms "there is no right to a view", it does not mean that theloss of an existing view is necessarily irrelevant, especially when it is a public viewpoint and wouldhave a wider impact, concerning everyone who accesses and uses Victoria Park. The enjoymentof the view of the city as far as the suspension bridge and beyond, from the park is an importantpart of the residential amenity of the neighbourhood and its loss would have an adverse impact onmany people's mental health. It would be a travesty if this development was approved.

The revised proposals are still too block-like, tall & dense & will block out too much light.It is not in keeping with the area.

Although a few small changes have been made to this Planning Application since welast made our comments, not enough has changed to make any difference at all to my objection toit.

Heights have been changed marginally, but this proposal is still for a huge and out of scaledevelopment which shows no respect for the local area. You need to read the Planning Inspector'srecent comments about the Pring and St Hill site. He recommended that the Appeal should beturned down basically because the development on that site was too high and the massing toogreat and the visual effect as of one huge wall, all to the detriment of the local area. He pointed outthat it was completely out of keeping with the existing local area. All this can be said exactly thesame for this proposal - the blocks overlap each other from most angles so that all light and viewsare lost, from Victoria Park, Windmill Hill City Farm, Bedminster Station and from East St. Theblocks will loom over the surrounding area, to the benefit of nobody but the Developer. For boththe new residents and the existing local residents, lower rise buildings would be more suitable - asproven by countless studies about mental wellbeing and the urban environment. High density andlow rise is what is needed here, with lots of green spaces and well designed public realm, with thewhole development designed to fit in and complement the existing urban fabric. The effect of thisbuilding on the adjoining Community Farm would be completely unacceptable, casting shade formuch of the day and year over animal and growing areas. The photo-montages show how thebuildings will totally change the feeling on the farm, which at the moment is green and open andrelaxing, paramount for the local community.

This proposal is also designed to cater for a huge number of students. We were originally told thata much smaller number of students would have housing as part of Bedminster Green. Thisdevelopment has pushed the numbers up and up over the months of developing the plans, so thatthese final figures are way beyond a manageable number in this community. If the buildings werereduced in height and the student numbers reduced accordingly, we would perhaps get backcloser to the original proposals for student numbers. During the last year of the pandemic, wehave all experienced and become aware of what we value and need for both our physical andmental wellbeing. We need green spaces and growing spaces, space for wildlife and places towalk and sit outdoors, as well as enough space inside our homes. It is imperative that we designand build homes that will keep us resilient, sustainable and healthy into the future. This proposaldoes not meet any of these criteria.

On April 1, the Planning Inspectorate dismissed the appeal of A2Dominion againstBristol City Councils refusal of planning consent. The explanation focused on 'the adverse effectsof granting planning permission which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits'.

The Inspectorate mentioned 'the blocks appear as one substantial building which would adverselyeffect the important low rise qualities of the area'.

I hope that Deeley Freed, will take note of the situation A2 Dominion find themselves in, andreview their designs taking the Planning Inspectorates assessment to heart. To recognise that wehave all made changes to our way of life, and the impact of the climate emergency will be affectingevery aspect of our cities and our lives. I urge you to consider carefully if the extreme density,scale and mass of your design is suitable for our new world.

I appreciate the fact that you have consulted residents and made changes in the light of thosecomments, such as improvements to the brick and cladding enhancing local distinctiveness.Improved the ground floor arrangement for cycle storage, and considered security.Also a reduction in beds from 837 to 819 is to welcome.

However, it is time that Deeley Freed and the other developers recognise the fact that thisdevelopment has been flawed from the very start by the extreme scale of the planningapplications, with little regard for the existing Victorian terraces ruining the oldest part of Bristol bycallous over development. This area received the worse of the WW2 bombs, and should be valued

for the part it has played over centuries in making Bristol the successful place we all love.

My comment on the unrevised application simply said that it was too big, because I had begun tofeel that detailed comments, criticising Bedminster Green projects for their excessive size anddensity, were falling on deaf ears. However, the recent decision by the Planning Inspectorate todismiss the appeal on Plot 1, and thereby support the council's entirely reasonable refusal ofplanning permission, has persuaded me that development at any cost has not become policy.

There are many similarities between this scheme and the rejected Plot 1 proposal. Let me pick upon just one: the claim that gaps between the blocks somehow mitigate the overall monolithicimpression.

Take a look at the Visually Verified Montages Part 3, dated 02 Dec 2020

Page 9 shows the current view northwards from the platform of Bedminster Station. Among thelandmarks is the Wills Memorial Building visible above and beyond the former Tobacco Factory onBedminster Parade.The applicant clearly thinks that this view is important because an image on page 10 shows thatthe Wills Building will still be visible through a narrow gap between new buildings.However, it is immediately apparent that, were the viewer to take a few steps to the left or theright, the gap would no longer be seen.If the new buildings were no taller than the old Tobacco Factory not only would the Wills Buildingbe always in sight but so would the suspension bridge, Royal York Terrace, Cabot Tower, the

Royal Fort and the whole expanse of the city.

The proposed buildings, despite the recent minor revision, are angular monstrosities out of allproportion to their surroundings.

Revisions to the original plans are barely noticeable and do not address the key issues,namely that it is:

Far too high and far too denseTotally out of keeping with the look and feel of the wider areaDevoid of any design originality - in effect destroying the existing views and skyline for generationsto comeAn attempt to impose a new kind of high-rise city-centre living in an area that embraces thecomplete opposite.

We should be moving away from these sorts of lazy and profit margin-seeking developments andtrying to leave behind a more considered legacy.

STATEMENT OF OBJECTION AGAINST APP 20/05811/F

I'm sick to death of having to write to object about these plans for all of these high-rise blocks but Iwill continue to do so until applications which are much more sympathetic to the area they aresituated in are proposed.

The growth of housing should not be shoe-horned into one or two wards in Bristol but spreadevenly across it. We should not need to spell out the benefits to the city of the approach whichfosters change and growth to all parts of the city to the members of the planning committee, aboveall others; rather than over-populating what are already the two densely populated wards in thecity which do not have the infrastructure to meet the needs of such exponential growth.

My specific concerns with the proposed development of Plot 3 Dalby Avenue are:

Using this space for student accommodation which is only occupied for 8 months in any one yearis a monumentally wasted opportunity for land use, when there are hundreds of families andhomeless people in Bristol who desperately need a safe and affordable accommodation.

Loss of light or privacy - Despite the revisions to the original plans there is still a significant issuewith the loss of light which will be experienced by many of the flats within the blocks planned andthe communal areas outside - these public spaces will not be pleasant and the lack of light/lightlosses may well exceed the acceptable legal limits.

Overshadowing on homes - as the sun sets in the West from mid-afternoon onwards in Spring,Summer and Autumn the development will cast long shadows over the back of some of thehouses in Fraser Street and will cut out some light from all the houses in Fraser St which back onto the railway line. We don't get a great deal of sunlight on the railway side of the street as thegardens are North facing - so not we are happy to lose more!

Highway safety - adding over 800 students to this small area on the site as pedestrians, cyclistsand car drivers, especially in conjunction with the other high-density developments planned (afurther 1500 homes at least) on three sites adjacent to it will dramatically increase problems withhighway safety, especially as this development is sited adjacent to a main arterial road to theSouth West of Bristol. That's even without considering highway safety during the construction ofthese tower blocks and the three even higher ones proposed for adjacent sites.

Traffic and parking issues - although car driving students are discouraged it is not realistic toexpect that a significant number of students will not bring cars - even if they don't their visitingrelations almost certainly would. Not to mention arriving and departing at the beginning and end ofthe academic year - I can't see over 800 students arriving with all their possessions by train, busor bicycle.

Making Whitehouse Lane one-way and closing Windmill Hill to cars as proposed in the transportplan to support this development, is a massive disbenefit to existing residents and I stronglyoppose this plan.

The suggestion of making Windmill Hill a CPZ would not solve the problem as these operatebetween 8 and 5pm Monday to Friday - when many car drivers on the Hill will be using theirvehicles to get to work - finding that there is nowhere to park on their return at the end of theworking day or at weekends. The situation is difficult enough at present as CPZs have beenintroduced in areas surrounding Windmill Hill, so commuters pushed out from these areas are nowusing Windmill Hill making parking difficult for residents already.

The traffic problems during construction will be horrendous as it will go on for years as there arethree adjacent sites all planning high-rise development with applications agreed or about to go in.

Noise - It is not possible to add over 800 people (just on this one development) and for the pre-existing noise level to remain the same. One of the unique characteristics of this area, and one wevalue most highly, is how quiet the area can be especially at the week-ends - students are notrenowned for being quiet!

Amenity - Primary care services are stretched to beyond capacity in this area - GP practices maystill be registering patients - but that doesn't mean that they are able to offer a decent service - Isay this as someone who works in the NHS, lived in the area for over 20 years and has been a

patient of Malago Surgery all of this time. I have first-hand experience of how badly primary careservices have deteriorated in this area. It is nigh on impossible to get an appointment with a GPwithin a reasonable time for a non-emergency health issue at present - especially if you areworking.

This development is pretty much a mono-culture of 18-22 year olds - so the impact on the localprimary school capacity will not be affected however adding over 800 people in this age bracket toan existing community which has a very wide age range is going to badly skew the pre-existingcommunity mix.

Bristol University by and large admits students from more affluent backgrounds - I can't see any ofthem popping into Poundland on East Street! They will more likely be drawn out of this area toCabot Circus to shop, or if really staying local(ish) - to North Street. This development inconjunction with the others planned, which, as a whole, provides so little social housing, will be thedeath knell for the many retailers in East St who have remained loyal to the local community inBedminster by serving the less affluent of us in this community - where will those people go toshop once all the affordable retailers in East Street are pushed out?

There is no vibrant nightlife in this part of the city - this is a family orientated area - as in peoplewith children, grandparents, extended families, students and young single people - and mostpeople really value this - we would much prefer to see many more socially affordable homes in allof the plans for Bedminster Green with the majority being for homeless families who have beenstuck in Bed and Breakfast accommodation for extended periods - years in some cases and alsohomes for people in older life - preserving the wide age range of the community.

There is a massive piece of land right next to the Temple Meads Campus, which was going to bethe 'Bristol Arena' - this would be perfect for all necessary student accommodation as it's so closeto the campus and Temple Meads station.

Wildlife and conservation - currently we have a huge diversity of birds locally, sometimes we evenget a pair of Jays (very shy birds) in the trees between Fraser St and the railway. We also have 8different bat species, some of them rare, in and around Windmill Hill and Victoria Park area - youcan see them at dusk in all the trees and backs of houses on Fraser St. This recognised'commuter route' for the bats, including roosting sites, goes from the park and follows the railwayall the way along past Cotswold Rd and beyond. The massive scale of the developments willmean prolonged disruption, dust, constant heavy traffic and noise - this will have a significant anddeleterious impact on the wild life - including the bats. There are legal consequences to destroyingbat roosting and habitat.

Historic buildings - The Green House near the Plot 3 site is of historic interest being uniquebuilding in Bristol and of a rare construction in the UK - it will be dwarfed by this development -that's if it survives at all.

Design Looking at the artists drawings they look incongruous with the surroundings - over bearingand imposing. These revised plans with the cladding (let's hope it meets fire regulations), areslightly better than the previous plans which looked like the architect could only find the grey Legoblocks when pulling the previous abysmal design together but overall the massing still presents asa super-high and forbidding wall which cuts Windmill Hill off from Bedminster which it has a naturalgeographical connection to presently.

To be more congruous with the geography the buildings should be no more than 6 floors - 5 if thebottom floor is double the height.

Appearance of the development - It is over-bearing, oppressive, light-blocking, forbidding,imposing and incongruous with the existing area but slightly less like a child's grey Lego building ina 1000:1 scale!

Please go back to the drawing board and propose buildings which are meaningfully co-designedwith the people who have to live with their presence on a daily basis!

Using this space for student accommodation which is only occupied for 8 months in anyone year is a monumentally wasted opportunity for land use, when there are hundreds of familiesand homeless people in Bristol who desperately need a safe and affordable accommodation.

There is an abysmal lack of affordabable housing in this plan.

Loss of light or privacy - There is still a significant issue with the loss of light which will beexperienced by many of the flats within the blocks planned and the communal areas outside.

Highway safety - adding over 800 students to this small area on the site as pedestrians, cyclistsand car drivers, especially in conjunction with the other high-density developments planned (afurther 1500 homes at least) on three sites adjacent to it will dramatically increase problems withhighway safety, especially as this development is sited adjacent to a main arterial road to theSouth West of Bristol. That's even without considering highway safety during the construction ofthese tower blocks and the three even higher ones proposed for adjacent sites.

Traffic and parking issues - it is not realistic to expect that a significant number of students will notbring cars - even if they don't their visiting relations almost certainly would. Over 800 students willnot arrive with all their possessions by train, bus or bicycle, it is delusional to believe that theywould.

Making Whitehouse Lane one-way and closing Windmill Hill to cars as proposed in the transport

plan to support this development, is a massive disbenefit to existing residents and I stronglyoppose this plan.

The suggestion of making Windmill Hill a CPZ won't solve the problem as these operate between8 and 5pm Monday to Friday.The introduction of CPZs in surrounding areas to Windmill Hill, have pushed commuters ontoparking on Windmill Hill making parking difficult for residents already.

The traffic problems during construction will be a nightmare - construction will take years as thereare three adjacent sites all planning high-rise development with applications agreed or about to goin.

Noise - students aren't known for being quiet.

Amenity - Primary care services are stretched to beyond capacity in this area.

This development is a mono-culture of 18-22 year olds - adding over 800 people in this age groupto a community which has a very wide age range is going to completely change the atmosphere ofthe area - not necessarily for the better.

Bristol University takes students from affluent backgrounds - Poundland on East St will not be theirshopping destination of choice. This development along conjunction with the others planned,which provide little or no social housing, will be the end many retailers in East St who haveremained loyal to the local community in Bedminster by serving the less affluent.

This is a family orientated area - as in people with children, grandparents, extended families,students and young single people - and most people really value this - I would much prefer to seemany more socially affordable homes in all of the plans for Bedminster Green with the majoritybeing for homeless families.

The land right next to the Temple Meads Campus, which was going to be the 'Bristol Arena' -would better to house all students - right next to the campus and main station.

Wildlife and conservation - 8 different bat species, some of them rare, in and around Windmill Hilland Victoria Park area. This recognised 'commuter route' for the bats, including roosting sites,goes from the park and follows the railway all the way along past Cotswold Rd and beyond. Themassive scale of the developments will mean prolonged disruption, dust, constant heavy trafficand noise - this will have a significant and deleterious impact on the wild life - including the bats.There are legal consequences to destroying bat roosting and habitat.

Design Looking at the artists drawings they look incongruous with the surroundings - over bearingand imposing. These revised plans with the cladding (fire retardent, one hopes?) are a tad better

than the previous plans which for all the world looked like a very basic Lego build in grey and morelike something you'd find in a 'Russion block' country - hideous. Overall the massing still presentsa forbidding wall cuting local Windmill Hill residents off from Bedminster which they have a naturalgeographical connection to presently.

To be more in keeping with the geography the buildings should be no more than 6 floors.

Appearance of the development - It is oppressive, light-blocking, imposing and incongruous withthe existing area but slightly less like a super-scaled grey Lego building.

Why can't the developers stop making all these terrible plans without engaging properly with thepeople who will have to live with them - would that really be so hard?

Bristol Civic Society continues to object to these proposals The Society'srepresentations (dated 18th January 2021) are still valid despite the largely cosmetic revisions tothe designs.

I look forward to the opening up of the river.

The view from the Bristol south skyline walk in Victoria Park will be totally blocked by thedevelopment. It is not sympathetic to the landscape. It goes against development of the area bydesign and density.

I don't see the attempt at "design", they are simply ugly blocks and far too dense. They are greythemselves and block our sun.

Hello

My biggest objection is to the massive disruption a construction of this size will do to the currentresidents of Mill Lane, Stafford street and Dalby avenue.

Dalby Avenue which leads into Stafford is a two lane road, which the rapid transit metrobus runsalong. If this building is allowed to commence there is no way this will not cause traffic chaos in thearea. I like many others rely on the bus to commute, as we are encouraged to do. This project willmake the commute for 1000's of people who use the many buses on this line either a lot longer ornot viable.

I would also like to object on the basis that Stafford street which leads to my street is a 1 laneroad, this will most likely be used for all construction traffic, this would cause disruption to theresidents living in this small area (myself included)

Environmentally the building work would ruin the street for the duration of the build, indeed wehave a small building being constructed at the moment and the street has been filthy as a result. Ipersonally would be phoning the council daily to come clean up the street when the constructionstaff inevitably don't.The building would also shadow my apartment, it gets the sun in the evening and would not if thisbuilding was constructed, negatively affecting mine and my neighbours mental health.

One last note, why are we building high density student accommodation in an area which has zerouniversity or higher education campuses? This is not in keeping with the area and is just a crassattempt for a developer to maximise income from a minimum amount of space and investment.Can the council provide an explanation as to the student housing shortage in Bedminster whichnecessitates the need for a high rise block of student flats?

If this application is successful I will appeal.

RegardsMarjana

Hello

My biggest objection is to the massive disruption a construction of this size will do to the currentresidents of Mill Lane, Stafford street and Dalby avenue.

Dalby Avenue which leads into Stafford is a two lane road, which the rapid transit metrobus runsalong. If this building is allowed to commence there is no way this will not cause traffic chaos in thearea. I like many others rely on the bus to commute, as we are encouraged to do. This project willmake the commute for 1000's of people who use the many buses on this line either a lot longer ornot viable.

I would also like to object on the basis that Stafford street which leads to my street is a 1 laneroad, this will most likely be used for all construction traffic, this would cause disruption to theresidents living in this small area (myself included)

Environmentally the building work would ruin the street for the duration of the build, indeed wehave a small building being constructed at the moment and the street has been filthy as a result. Ipersonally would be phoning the council daily to come clean up the street when the constructionstaff inevitably don't.The building would also shadow my apartment, it gets the sun in the evening and would not if thisbuilding was constructed, negatively affecting mine and my neighbours mental health.

One last note, why are we building high density student accommodation in an area which has zerouniversity or higher education campuses? This is not in keeping with the area and is just a crassattempt for a developer to maximise income from a minimum amount of space and investment.Can the council provide an explanation as to the student housing shortage in Bedminster whichnecessitates the need for a high rise block of student flats?

If this application is successful I will appeal.

RegardsMarjana

The revised redevelopment plans are merely tweaked. The odd storey removed and abit of cladding does not make this proposal acceptable. I can only reiterate the comments I madeto the original plans:1. Still too many stories. It is still far too high, blocking views, dominating the skyline and creatingan eyesore from Windmill Hill and Victoria Park (one of Central Bristol's most beautiful parkscurrently with views to rival Ashton Court). It also spoils the views from outside the area lookingsouth from, for example, Ashton Court, Cabot Tower or Bristol suspension bridge. Building heightshould be in keeping with the local area and so no more than 3 or at most 4 stories.2. Still too dense. The local area is already very densely populated and necessities such asaccess to GPs and the ability to park are already under a very great deal of pressure. There arealready problems with air quality which will be exacerbated.3. Still an unattractive design. The modern boxy design is out of keeping with the area. Thecladding will do little to help with this. Most local houses are Edwardian/Victorian, and many of thelarger buildings in the area are also attractive period properties.4. Still not for Bristol residents. Providing high quality, long term housing for the local Bristolresidents should be a priority for the Council. This proposal is for poor quality accommodation forstudents.5. Still overshadows and cuts out natural light from Windmill Hill farm. The city farm offers avaluable opportunity to 'escape' from the city through a magical experience of a natural andnurturing world within a world. It promotes mental wellbeing and a glimpse of the countryside toinner city children (and adults) who may rarely, or even never, see a real farm. It gives a feeling ofbeing able to breathe. The destructive looming of vast boxy inner city tower blocks will be seriously

damaging to this experience of escape. The plants will not thrive with the reduced light - I can't seeit being great for the animals either.

Personally, I think the Council should publicly refute the damaging suggestion that it favours theidea of ugly cramped and monolithic tower blocks and declare a (very Bristolian) interest in highquality ecologically sound homes. Failing that, at least make it clear to developers that 3, or atmost 4, stories of high-quality residential accommodation with good outdoor space would be betterfavoured by the planning department. Perhaps then the residents of Bristol can support the nextlot of plans and get the area developed.

The area needs affordable housing for locals, rather than housing for students, fromwhich the area and those living in it will not profit. Green spaces are becoming fewer and furtherbetween, and this is not a good way for us to take another one away.

Changes to this plan are minimal. Reduction in height/massing in in sufficient to make abig different. Changes to the design/colour of the property appear messy and unpleasant. Theproperty still creates a wall of structures cutting Windmill hill off from Bedminster and the city ofBristol - a city known for its characterful, colourful views. Which, here, are being obliterated. I noteyou can see through gaps in this 'wall' but only from specific viewpoints so the overall truncatingeffect will be powerful. At a time when we should focus on uniting people, this will have the effectof separating, and cutting off communities in the city.

In addition the building will continue to cast shadow over the surrounding areas including the farm- a rare and vital place of education and recreation in nature. Dalby avenue is already a windtunnel. I believe this will be made considerably worse by addition or more high structures forcingthe wind speed up in the roads.

As for AsDominion's rejected plans, this plan will cause harm to the character and appearance ofthe area. While there is value to developing some student accommodation, the costs of grantingplanning to this high-massing, and ugly scheme would significantly outway the benefits.

Please scale it down, make something culturally and literally colourful that add's to the dynamiccity Bristol is, rather than generic blocky structures.

This Development will block daylight coming into my building.I run an Arts Studio. The natural light entering the building from the large skylights was a principlereason for selecting this location to run my business from.

This development if allowed to its current proposed height will damage my business, potentiallyrendering the open art space useless for it's intended purpose.

I believe I have some rights to protect the daylight that currently reaches my building

Hideous and depressing architecture, badly designed. Unnecessary studentsaccommodation for the area.These are minuscule amendments especially to the heights of each building.There is no mention of the Green House in Bedminster Green.Referring to light / sunlight computer generated diagrams are unreliable. No.26 Cotswold RiadNorth was built using this method & we have lost 50% of our sunlight.

The architectural design of the buildings doesn't integrate well with the rest of thebuildings in its proximity. One one hand, the buildings are too high. On the other hand, they don'treally look that nice since they just look like massive blocks in the middle of a nice residential areawith lots of houses and where the majority of the buildings have only one or two floors. Also, Istrongly believe that they will have a very negative effect on the amount of sunlight that the nearbybuildings receive throughout the year and I am worried as well about the Windmill Hill Farm. Isupport a thoughtful development of the area with a lot smaller buildings in height, which wouldharmoniously integrate with its surroundings. Also, I am not sure this is a good area for studentaccommodation since there aren't really lots of university buildings nearby.

I have no problem with brownfield development but I object primarily to the height of thisproposal. this and the other developments nearby are going permanently damage the character ofthe Windmill Hill neighbourhood. It's going to look like 'central business district' sticking out againstwhat is actually a Victorian terraced neighbourhood with a strong identity. The view from Victoriapark will be forever altered, negatively. Beggars belief that planners think this height is OK.Second, I've been unable to find anything explaining how social infrastructure is to be improved toaccommodation thousand of are residents across the wider scheme. for example medical anddoctors surgeries, dentists, schools.

The design is terrible, so ugly. And after ten years it will be even worse.

We need houses. Not these type of flats.

Hideous and depressing architecture, badly designed. Unnecessary studentsaccommodation in the area.

I am not against redeveloping the area at all- these buildings though fail to match any ofthe proposed architecture of other developments, are far too tall for the landscape surroundingthem, and will provide the area with a huge number of cars to create additional traffic which theroads are not designed to support. These need to be better styled with fewer floors and withparking planned to rectify these obvious concerns

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

Impact on visual amenity - the height and scale of the proposed buildings would have an impacton views both from local residential properties, but also from Victoria Park - both the lower skatepark and upper parts of the park. There would also be an impact in other local areas, for exampleRedcatch Road, Perretts Park, Northern Slopes and Knowle. The view of the historic Bristollandscape would be effectively blocked by this developmentImpact on local services and transport - the number of proposed residences would massivelyimpact on local services such as GP surgeries, public transport (buses and rail) and road network.Covid-19 impacts - although this is outside of the general remit of planning applications, I feel thisis a completely irresponsible development to encourage even more communal living with littlerestriction on group numbers and contacts

I object fully to the planning application. There is too much massing and height of thebuildings in this large development are not in line with or sympathetic to their surroundings. I'mconcerned about the impact on light for neighbouring areas, particularly Windmill Hill City Farm, aswell as the visual effect of having a block of big buildings to look at from many areas of WindmillHill. This will be detrimental to our local areas and community. I fully agree with all commentsmade by my local planning group WHAM as well.

RE: DETRIMENT TO AFTERNOON SUNLIGHT REACHING OUTDOOR SPACES OFWINDMILL HILL CITY FARM

Further to my comment made on 13 February 2021 I would like to add some additional detailsregarding sunlight reaching the outdoor spaces of Windmill Hill City Farm.

The Daylight and Sunlight Amenity (Neighbouring) Study goes into detail about the policiesrelevant to this application. One of these policies mentioned is the following:

BRE guidance: Paragraph 3.3.3 states that: "the availability of sunlight should be checked for allopen spaces where it will be required. This would normally include: children's playgrounds,gardens......"

However, to my untrained eye, the Daylight and Sunlight Amenity (Neighbouring) Study does notappear to cover the sunlight reaching the OUTDOOR space in Windmill Hill City Farm - usedcommonly by children and families. The Daylight and Sunlight Amenity (Neighbouring) Studyappears only to investigate the impact on buildings (within the farm and other neighbouringproperties).

The only other document that relates to daylight and sunlight appears to be the Design andAccess Statement Part Eight, which provides a visualisation of the shadows caused by thedevelopment on 21 June, the Summer Solstice. Unsurprisingly, on the Summer Solstice, the

shadows are minimal.

Why is the visualisation restricted to the Summer Solstice only? I believe it is important to look atthe rest of the year. In many ways, the ability for families to find areas to play in the sunshineduring the Winter, Spring and Autumn is in fact more important, not less important, than that of thesummer; after all, sunshine is so much easier to find during the summertime. On those clear sunnydays of winter, spring and autumn, how important it is for children and families (many of whom livein the small, dark terraced houses and flats of this area) to be able to find some outdoor sunshine.

I believe that the strange omission of any visualisation relating to the other times of the year mustbe an attempt at a cover-up of the reality.

With this aim, I have been creating a 3-D model on 'Sketch Up' to investigate the shadows that willfall on Windmill Hill City Farm during the rest of the year: I realise this is not a substitution for aprofessional approach. But I hope my findings may help to urge the planning officer andcouncillors to request a professional visualisation of shadows falling on the farm during the SpringEquinox, the Autumn Equinox, and the Winter Solstice.

These are my findings:

WINTER EQUINOX (DECEMBER 21), (AND A SIMILAR PATTERN OBSERVED DURING THETHREE DARKEST MONTHS OF NOVEMBER, DECEMBER AND JANUARY): the shade starts at12:15 PM at the back gate of the farm; by 2 PM all the fields and public space nearest thedevelopment are in the shade; by 3:15 PM the entire farm is in the shade (note that this is after-school time, when many families choose to bring their children for a quick run round the farmbefore going home).

SPRING EQUINOX AND AUTUMN EQUINOX (MARCH 20 AND SEPTEMBER 22) (AND ASIMILAR PATTERN OBSERVED DURING THE MONTHS OF FEBRUARY, MARCH,SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER) : the shade starts at 2 PM at the back gate of the farm; by 3:15PM the fields and public space nearest the development are in the shade; by 4:30 PM half of thefarm (amounting I think to the majority of outdoor space) is in the shade.

Personally, I consider this to be an unacceptable detriment to public amenity on Windmill Hill CityFarm; and all the more a loss because this farm provides a unique and irreplaceable opportunityfor children's play and education; in an area where most people live in very dark, cramped 2 bedterraced houses, and flats.

It remains for councillors to decide ultimately whether they think this is acceptable, but I feel that aprofessional visualisation of the shading throughout the year should be available in the documentson the planning portal, in order that a decision can be based on the facts.

I object to this planning application.

Whilst I agree that this is a great site for residential development, and I like some aspects of thescheme, including the way in which the River Malago has been opened up with walkways eitherside, and the provision for cycling and pedestrians; there are unfortunately significant negativeissues with the plans which mean that I object to the scheme in its current guise.

I have a problem with the following issues:

NEGATIVE IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY:

- Shading will cause an unacceptable negative impact to the current residents' amenity byimpacting on Windmill Hill City Farm in the afternoons, particularly in the winter, but also in thespring and autumn. As many parents take their children to Windmill Hill city farm after school, andmany people work on their allotments during this time, I feel this is a huge loss to amenity,especially in the way it will impact on children and this very important public space. This needs tobe properly investigated. The current sunlight and daylight report only provides a visualrepresentation in the summer. Why is this? Windmill Hill City Farm is used all year round.- It also causes a loss to residential amenity in the way it blocks the view from Bedminster stationand Victoria Park (see the viewpoints given from the station and the skatepark). This will have ahuge negative impact on this part of Victoria Park.

NOT ENOUGH STEPPING DOWN TOWARDS THE FARM:- Despite the fact that the Bedminster Green Framework requires the development to step downtowards the farm, this has not really been achieved. Although they do have five storeys by thefarm, this steps up too rapidly, such that the required "stepping down" will have little or no effect.The feeling of over towering and effect of shade will be huge. I feel the developers have attemptedto fit in with the framework without any consideration to the reason for the requirement.

THE USE OF CLARK STREET FOR DELIVERIES WILL NOT WORK- the use of Clark Street for deliveries will not work in conjunction with the idea that it is supposedto be a pedestrian and cycling thoroughfare. A block consisting of over 800 students, (who have atendency to order everything in by delivery) will mean that the Amazon Prime trucks and the likewill be nothing short of continuous. Hardly a nice place to walk and cycle by the river if deliverytrucks are continuously thundering past.- I would like to see Clark Street kept for pedestrians and cyclists, in order that the river walkwaycan provide maximum positive amenity for the area. Alternatively, or additionally, is there a way ofincorporating another cycle/pedestrian path by the farm border?

THIS PLANNING APPLICATION GOES AGAINST THE BEDMINSTER CONSERVATION AREAAPPRAISAL:- Notably, the Bedminster Conservation Area Appraisal , Section 2.3, when describing thenegative features of Bedminster has included the "1960s tower blocks around East Street andDalby Avenue" in its list of negative features, (Page 12) due to the fact that they cause "loss ofviews and a loss of the local topography as a result of the over-scaled buildings". Later, on page33, it talks of more negative features and says again "views spoiled by 1960s tower blocks" Sowhy would we want to agree to more over-scaled buildings? Can we not please learn from ourmistakes?- On page 50 of the Bedminster conservation area appraisal it says the following "encourage theappropriate re-development that better responds to local character, and resist the development ofover-sized buildings that affect the context of heritage assets".- This document also mentions key city views, looking towards Windmill Hill from Brandon Hill andRoyal York Crescent, which will be destroyed by this, amongst other, developments.

THE BUILDINGS ARE TOO DENSE AND THE EFFECT OF THE MASSING IS HORRENDOUS:- The gaps between the buildings have little effect because of the bend in the buildings. The gapsare also too small in comparison to the size of the buildings, such that, unless you're standingexactly opposite the gaps then the overall effect will be of one huge wall.

I DON'T AGREE WITH THE HEIGHT:- It is too high for the area and the majority of people don't want high-rise blocks. This is just beingignored by planning officers and councillors alike. I would like to see apartment blocks around theheight of Wapping Wharf, which has been incredibly economically successful. People don't wanthigh-rise blocks for very good reasons. My reasons for being against high rise are multiple:

1. Mental health of inhabitants: We know from history that tower blocks don't work well for theinhabitants. They are being taken down in all quarters of the country. Why we are attempting toput them back up I do not know.3. Mental health of surrounding community: It is important for good mental health to see the wideexpanse of sky, to have sunshine on the streets, to see long vistas. Tall buildings cause shadeand wind tunnels; small snippets of sky. They are not nice places to be around. No-one chooses tovoluntarily hang around at the base of a tower block, gangs of teenagers and criminals excepted.5. Taller buildings are known to be less sustainable in the long run, using considerably moreenergy per unit.6. Everyone would like a thriving East Street. Whilst an increasing population will theoreticallyimprove footfall, sometimes tower blocks can cause an area to go into decline and have theopposite effect. No-one wants this for East Street or Bedminster. Let's build something that willimprove not diminish.

COMMENT ON BEDMINSTER GREEN FRAMEWORK:For the record, I would like to say that the Bedminster Green Framework may have been endorsedby Cabinet, but it is not, and was never, endorsed by the community. There was a communityconsultation at the very end of the production of the framework. None of the community commentswere taken into account, and the Framework remained exactly as it was before the communityconsultation. The community did not endorse the framework, and the endorsement of theframework was not done democratically. It was agreed solely by the Mayor. I do not thereforeconsider that the Framework, or the heights that it seemingly endorses, should be taken intoaccount in this planning decision.

WHAT ABOUT THE INCREASE IN LOCAL SERVICES WHICH WILL BE NEEDED?With this many students and other increased residents in the Bedminster Green area we will needmore doctors, dentists, schools, nurseries, and other essential services. I don't see much beingdiscussed about this in the overall plan. Stupidity.

NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING: so far in the entire Bedminster Green development, with over 1300students planned for this and the Pring site, along with hundreds of new residents at Dandara'ssite and St. Cats, we only have one small affordable housing block of 21 units.

Here are my comments re Sydney Freed Proposal. Below are my reasons for objection.I would like to preface this with some background.

1. Background & Consultation: There are major empty sites around Bedminster Green. NashPartnership did the Framework document for the consortium of Developers. This is a charter toallow the different sites to build to heights around 16 storeys in an area of 2-4 storeys. Everyoneaccepts there is a need for a lot more housing, particularly affordable units. The problem with theFramework is that it pays little attention to the local context of East St & Bedminster Parade, whichare in terminal decline & decay. But why should they? Because if they did this & actually consultedeffectively with local people & groups (not easy, I accept) they might get support for their planningapplications!.

2. Plot 3 Sydney Freed. I have attempted to consider this fairly & have studied quantities of theirproposal. They claim to have consulted with significant groups e.g Bristol Civic Society, WHam &Bristol Cycling Campaign. The first two are quoted as being supportive, but all three have now putin letters of Objection. The vast majority of Public comment is negative. Perhaps Developersshould consult & listen & act according to people's suggestions?

3. The Users. Proposed 837 student places arranged in pods around some ancillaryaccomodation. Is such a concentration of students a good idea? One questions the numbers, theother accomodation/activities proposed & how would they interact with local community? Forexample there could be, but do not appear to be, any facitlies e.g sports, that could be shared with

local people? The Report suggests a student would have £6300/year to spend. But where? Asda?Bars, takeaways probably in Bristol City centre. How much would this benefit East St &Bedminster Parade? I suggest not much.

4. Opening up the River Malago. A positive part of the design. But is it handled well? See later.

5. Cars & Cycle use. Car use is limited & this is welcomed. It also avoids traffic based objectionsother schemes have suffered. I was not so convinced by the idea that parents bringing theiroffspring could order parking slots to avoid congestion. Increased cycle provision & use is to bewelcomed, but one should note Bristol Cycling Campaign's letter of objection. I also noted asection on "Flexibility" to convert student pods into residential units, even bolting on balconies. Iwonder, is this a 2 Stage application, aimed really to end up as residential, possibly avoiding the"Affordable Housing" content?. Other proposals seem keen to do this. Is this too sceptical?

6. Massing/heights/layout of Site. The proposal has 4 slabs of mostly 9 storeys height. I.e followinga precedent of St. Catherine's House. The bigger slab is along Dalby Av. & parallel with theopened Malago. The 3 others are at right angles to railway line & Whitehouse Lane & aim to allowviews through the site- from the train, I suppose & from one or two points in Victoria Park. Doesthis show confidence in the aesthetics of the scheme? It is difficult to make such uncompromisingbuilding masses anything but predominant here. The surface treatments make no attempt atlightness. The Bedminster skyline/views/prospects would change utterly. I don't see any beautybeing born here. This is one of the lower proposed developments, so if the eye gets through thisone, it will encounter (possibly) St Catherine's (under appeal) 16 storeys, Little Paradise up to 17storeys (approved!?). And around the Green itself, what will happen? This is a lovely space, but isincluded in the Framework mooted to have considerable building heights. There is megalomaniaaloose here. I accept that this Sydney Freed proposal cannot be held responsible for otherschemes, but if precedent is used, all schemes must be considered together for their collectiveimpact.The basic question must be asked: why is Bedminster being lined up to be this highrise area thatother parts of Bristol have avoided?. E.g the recent Redcliffe Quarter is max 8 storeys.

7. Spaces around opened-up Malago. The term "high quality design" is sprinkled liberallythroughout the text of the application. But is it justified in the design? The design's major feature isopening the river up & helping nature restore itself. How well does the design use this? I am notconvinced. One side of the "street" to the north west is 9 storeys high, the other has a jagged edgeas a result of the attempt to get views through these tall slabs. The Executive Summary makesclaims for "pocket parks" & "rain gardens"! Rather overblown!

I sympathise with the designers when presented with a brief from the Developer that tries to put fartoo much on the site. Developers & their political supporters are fond of blaming everything onPlanning processes. Planning is difficult in densely populated situations such as these. It isespecially difficult if the resources to do it are limited & scope of what they are allowed to do is cut

back. A proper plan for the development of Bedminster should be done by an impartial body,funded by government.This is more or less acknowledged by requests sent out to comment- yes even at this late stage!-on the Bedminster Green Framework. That document should be chucked away & properconsultation & planning done.

Regretfully- for I'd like to see some good design- this application should be refused. This is not"high quality design".

Michael Henderson

The application site is not in a Conservation Area but would affect the setting of theConservation Area.

The Panel commends the content of the archaeological desk top study. However, this is anextremely poor application. It is over intensive development that significantly harms the setting ofthe Bedminster Conservation Area. The monstrous scale, mass and design of this scheme doesnot relate to the character and context of the immediate area: it serves only to dominate andoverwhelm it. The Panel supports the objection submitted by Historic England. The views fromVictoria Park into the Bedminster Conservation Area will be significantly compromised. TheBedminster Framework appears to have been ignored in relation to this site. Consequently it doesnot meet the relevant heritage policy tests contained within the Local Plan and the NPPF. Theproposal does not generate sufficient public benefits that outweigh the significant harm that it willcause and therefore this application cannot be supported.

The Bedminster BID and Town Team has spent nearly a decade trying to reinvigorateEast Street, once the thriving retail heart of South Bristol. We have had wonderful support andinvolvement from the local community - and enjoyed some successes. However, it remains a hugechallenge, with a much worsening retail outlook given the current crisis - sadly reflected in dozensof empty shops, and a proliferation of charity shops, pawnbrokers, vapeshops etc.

Given the impact of austerity over the past ten years and now Covid, the prospect of significantand much needed investment by the public sector continues to be bleak. We believe therefore thebest prospect for East Street and the many small business owners and their employees is to turnthe area around via significant new local demand. An ongoing challenge for the businesses here isthe low level of immediate catchment - for several years this has been our number one priority toaddress hence our firm support for developers whose buildings collectively will bring severalthousand new regular shoppers.

The proposed development of this largely unused NCP carpark is critical to the future of EastStreet given. The various developments outlined in the Bedminster Green Framework, of whichthe student housing is a crucial part, will create up to an estimated £5m worth of additionaleconomic demand and transform the prospects for existing businesses and their employees andcreate the incentive for others to open here and finally turn the tide. The continued growth andimpact of the internet on retailing, the impact and consequences of Covid, plus the recent closureof four of the five largest retailers on East Street means the time to act on East Street isindisputably now - because if not then soon when you do go there... there will be no there there!

However with all of that said we do have reservations over aesthetics, the massing and sympathywith residents on Windmill Hill concerning loss of views and wonder if the development may berevised in terms of its height/massing and the treatment of the front elevation in particular and howit meets Dalby Avenue. With this in mind the BID wishes to support the principle of thedevelopment but with revisions to meet the above concerns and as such on balance hold a neutralstance. We do hope the council and developers can find a way to move forward quickly with ascheme that delivers for East Street and the wider area whilst not unduly offending thepreferences of some local residents in terms of scale, massing, aesthetics etc

It is rather disappointing to see that the detail provided in this application, althoughexpanding on the limited information in the preapplication, does not seem to follow the spirit of thatapplication. The current plans seem taller and denser.

The building now proposed appears monochrome and monolithic and in that way, ugly. It addnothing positive to the views or skyline nearby and in many cases block views over Bristol thatcurrently exit due to it's height. As well as the lack of visual appeal of the plans there is little in theway of soft landscaping to be seen in the visuals provided, adding to the comments relating to it's'ugliness'.

Given that the apartments are designated for student living locals are concerned about 'out ofterm' times turning this development into a ghost town, further damaging the local appeal andindeed issues with businesses nearby. Who will be harmed out of term time due to lack ofcustomers - this does not help to create a sustainable business in the local area and we needthese greatly as many schemes have noted.

There are further apartment block schemes also proposed for this area, this is just anotheramongst a set of small, hard, grey properties in this location.

Whilst I welcome development and the improvement that comes with it, such as moretrees, river improvements and commercial space, we have to consider the cost of it all.

There will be nearly 900 students arriving, none of whom pay council tax, and most of whom willneed to see a GP or a dentist. The system can't cope atm, how will it meet the needs of thecommunity when so stretched?

The original number of students for this site was 600, its increased twice so is now 837. Added tothose planned for Plot 1 tha area will be student heavy.

The buildings are so big they will overshadow the Farm. Please do consider the montage showingthe view of the farm which willl be overshadowed. The buildings should, according to theBedminster Green Framework be scaled down as they approach the Farm, instead they form adense solid wall. The gaps between the buildings are not letting any light through due to theirscale and positioning.

Please reject this application.

The Society has consistently supported the development of student housing on this site. However, the number of students has increased very considerably over the past year from an initial 500, to 700 at the consultation stage to now 837. The Local Plan (in draft format) suggested 1000 student bed-spaces were appropriate for the area. Taken in conjunction with another plot within the Framework offering 574 bed-spaces, this application would push the area well over that limit. It seems this increase has contributed significantly to the unacceptable massing the current scheme proposes. We support the creation at the same time of flexible employment space in a part of Bristol where there are many small businesses. There is demand for business space and for local jobs.

The Society expects student development to be adaptable to other uses should there be a change in the market. The spacing of the structural walls and windows should be made to enable purpose-built student housing such as this to be converted into residential apartments in a manner that minimises modification to the external envelope.

Mass height and design

We recognise that the building heights are within those set by the Framework, but on now seeing he visuals, we can see that the sheer mass of all the buildings is overwhelming. The Framework is a material consideration in terms of planning law, but no more than that. The planning decision does not need to be constrained by it.

Fronting Dalby Avenue, a terrace of 7-9 storeys is proposed broadly following the concave curve of the road. This would be tiered down towards the road, and towards the Green.

At pre-app stage we commented that 9 storeys was too high. On seeing the visuals submitted with the application, for instance the view from the bottom of East Street, our reactions have strengthened considerably. The result of such a high, massive block is oppressive. Block B appears as a wall of development which is of excessive height and of monotonous elevational design. The step-downs are barely noticeable.

The buildings on Whitehouse Lane are also up to 9 storeys high. They have been stepped back so that they do not oppress from street level, but from the hill to the east they appear just as much a wall of development as the building on Dalby Avenue. The manner in which it blocks views of the city centre and Clifton from the lower slopes of Victoria Park is particularly disappointing.

As seen from the Alfred Road viewpoint, the combination of all the buildings cuts across the grain of the topography and in visual terms flattens the slope. It foreshortens views from this part of Bristol and undermines the cascade of buildings mirroring the slope. In doing so, it significantly erodes one of the defining characteristics of Bristol’s Victorian suburbs. Views from these important locations are severely damaged and the sense of the city’s topography negatively impacted, which as Urban Living stresses, is an important and valued city feature.

The building close to Windmill City Farm rises to 7 storeys and dominates the view from the Farm.

It is not just the height of the various buildings across the site that offends the eye. The multiple steps in height create the appearance of a random arrangement of blocks, with little coherence.

Materials and elevations A further source of disappointment is the choice of materials, which are dull and unattractive. The Society would like to see bold attractive elevations on both proposed buildings, especially the conspicuous elevations facing both sides of Clarke St and onto Dalby Avenue. At pre-app we urged the architects to seek inspiration from the examples of attractive elevations shown to us in the presentation consultation slides. Our views have been largely ignored. We believe the area deserves better than this unambitious and uninteresting design. Much of old Bedminster is built in red brick which could be employed here to good effect. Subject to meeting the Council’s sustainability requirements, we like the large-scale glass elevations in the curved building on Dalby Avenue and the idea of making a feature of the proposed cycle storage facility on Whitehouse Lane.

Access, streetscape and public realm We welcome the emphasis on trees and new public spaces and the linear park along Clarke St. This together with the planned opening-up and improvements to the Malago River will help improve the user’s experience at street level, despite the damage to the landscape. We welcome the fact that the developers have discussed with Bristol City Council’s Highways on plans to link this development with desired improvements to Dalby Avenue and Whitehouse Lane, but regret that the negatives outweigh the positives.

It's too big.

WHaM response to application no. 20/05811/F

The building presents as a series of blocks in brick and metal cladding. The proposal is dividedinto two buildings on either side of the newly opened Malago river bordering the local City Farm tothe north. Building A sits between Dalby Avenue and Clarke Street, with Building B sitting betweenClarke St and Whitehouse Lane. Most of the development is concentrated in Building B.

Height and massingWhilst remaining within the framework parameters, the group felt that 9 storeys is still significantlytaller than anything in the local area and stands out as a dark lump within the urban environment.

WHaM has been to a number of consultations on the scheme before now and has consistentlyseen hand sketches that illustrate the mass broken down into smaller buildings arranged with gapsbetween them. The computer rendered elevations show a mass that has gaps but, because of thearrangement of the blocks into bent fingers, does not allow a view through with the exception of afew narrow viewpoints that are otherwise meaningless unless one stands in a specific spot.

The group noted that the visual impact study does suggest that the proposal will ultimately causeharm to the local area because the massing is so high and out of character with its surroundings.

The relationship that the tall mass will have to the green spaces around it has caused us a greatdeal of concern. In particular Bedminster Green and the City Farm have a significant number of

trees and provide a green view across the neighbourhood. The massing of this cluster of towerswill block that impression as you enter Bedminster from the bridge over the new cut.

Although the scheme steps down towards the north of the site, adjacent to the City Farm, there isa sense that this side has been overdeveloped. Repeatedly forcing a narrow plan form into thegeometry of the site has created a building which does not acknowledge the City Farm but insteadlooms over it as a wall, creating a sense of enclosure to the south which has never been presentthere before.

The views presented from Bedminster Station and the skateboard park in Victoria Park alsopresent the combined mass of the building as a large monolith which feels impenetrable. It isdifficult to see how this development will contribute positively to the character of the area if itconsistently obscures the older and more characterful buildings within the area. By obscuring thetopography of Windmill Hill it also goes against the provisions of the Supplementary PlanningDocument on Urban Living.

The taller windows at the upper levels present a further series of problems:Low level glazing of windows present a privacy issue with the views into such rooms being takenadvantage of for the distasteful practice of 'up-skirting' and other invasions of privacy.Tall windows frequently have furniture placed in front of them creating an unsightly appearance tothe street and negating the benefit of the window.Tall windows are difficult to shade leading to large amounts of solar gain and high temperatures onthe inner faces of the glazing.

Internal DaylightingTypically at street level the glazing is arranged in large panes, at upper levels the studentaccommodation is lit by tall floor to ceiling windows. The group found the material palette to bebland and uninviting due to the grey tones throughout, and the over emphasis on the panelledmaterial. The attempt to relieve this by having one of the buildings in a different colour of panelwas, in the group's view, unsuccessful.

The entrance onto Dalby Avenue seemed tacked on and not well integrated with the rest of thedevelopment.

Despite the tall floor to ceiling windows the group felt that the narrow gaps between the blockswould result in dark rooms for the students. This is a particular problem for student residenceswho are not entitled to their own outdoor space and, because of studying requirements, can spendlonger in their bedrooms than people living in conventional residences do.

Where the rooms back onto gaps between the blocks the view from the student bedrooms will dolittle to enhance the experience of living in them when the principle view out of the room is a shortdistance towards an identical window into an identical room on the other side of the gap with no

ready view of anything else.

New cycle and pedestrian routesClearly a lot of time and effort has gone in to considering the public realm and the schemecontains a number of positive elements:- The opening up of the river and improvement of its disposition with new planting.- The improvement of flood mitigation measures- The improved supervision of Clarke Street and enhancement of the entrance to Windmill Hill CityFarm.- The provision of dedicated pedestrian and cycle routes

We are concerned that the cross programming of some of the public spaces with such a broadrange of activities will limit their effectiveness and functionality. For example the public spaceleading from Dalby Avenue is narrow and expected to be used by pedestrians, cyclists, deliveryvehicles and refuse trucks as well as having stalls for occasional markets. It is not clear how thesewill function together. Clarke Street also appears to have refuse and delivery vehicles operatingalongside the pedestrian and cycle routes so there is concern that the rear entrance of the farmand the increase in traffic might be dangerous for people coming and going from the farm.

Number of studentsIn earlier consultation on the forthcoming Local Plan from Bristol City Council, Bedminster wasidentified as a suitable location for approximately 1000 students for an area that includedBedminster Green, but also reached as far as Parson Street. If the current proposal is to beconsidered alongside the other student housing on Bedminster Green (plot 1) the area covered bythe framework includes well over that number (1300+). There is a risk of an over intensification ofstudent residences, which was something the forthcoming Local Plan considered undesirable.Given the central nature of the site, (and as mentioned above) the group is concerned that thesesites might be better suited for social housing that has so far not been included in any of theBedminster sites in the quantities required by Bristol City Council policy.

WHaM has been involved in several consultations with the developer and has seen the numberscontinually increase in each consultation. This began with an initial number of 600 studentstogether with 40-50 social housing units and has evolved to the current number of 837 studentswith the social housing element having vanished. WHaM is disappointed to see another schemethat does not have any form of affordable or social housing in an area that sorely needs it.

The transient nature of the students (who remain in the local area for only a short time beforemoving on) is a concern as it may mean that the building never truly integrates into the communityby having long term residents. Longer term residents on site are more likely to care about theenvironment that has been created and becoming emotionally invested in it.

Car ownership

It is generally applauded that the occupants will be encouraged not to bring cars when they attenduniversity, and to use public transport, however there was general concern that this policy wouldbe difficult to enforce and the already congested streets of Windmill Hill would be used for onstreet parking by the students. It must be remembered that Bedminster Green sits within an AirQuality Management Area and the use of cars must be reduced.

Energy useWithin the sustainability statement the intention is made clear that the buildings heating needs areto be satisfied by joining the Bedminster heat network, at the current time no such heat network isin place and it is unclear when such a network will be in operation around Bedminster. Theproposal documents are not clear what the interim solution is, or how their energy and carbonreduction targets will be met.

As the student bedrooms have no solar shading on the windows, and with global temperaturessteadily increasing, it is difficult to see how they will not overheat.

Despite the attempts at reducing energy use and the carbon footprint a more ambitioussustainable or regenerative target could have been sought.

WHaM cannot support this application.

Although I am in support of developing the area that this development is proposed on, Ido however fully object to this proposal as it starts.

The main objection I have with this proposal is the height. I feel this is out of character with thearea, and very much changes the aesthetic of the whole area of Windmill Hill, feeling like there is abarrier between the area and the city. It would vastly overlook and potentially block the setting sunlight from the Windmill Hill City farm, which is a hugely important resource for the local community,including for myself as I play football there (when I can obviously). It would change the view fromVictoria park, changing the northside view by the skate park from a loverly vista of the city to anextremely urban and overlooked perspective. I would suggest that if this was more like maximum 5stories high it would be in keeping with the area, and not cause the problems as described above.

This also changes the skyline significantly, blocking out an iconic view of colourful victorianhousing that Bristol has become so synonymous with. You have to ask yourself would this type ofdevelopment be built in Cliftonwood that significantly changed the view of the buildings, the simpleanswer is no, in my opinion.

My other major concern is about infrastructure, and I'm not sure that the plans satisfy the need foradditional parking requirements, especially since there is no residents parking currently in WindmillHill, making it even more congested. Additionally what new amenities will be provided? Will therebe new GP surgeries? Dentists? Expansion of the library? More frequent busses? I haven't as yetfound any sufficient plans for these.

I am disappointed in Bristol City Council for not coordinating better around this and the otherproposals for the nearby area. It feels like more could be done to work with developers to create asingle coherent plan, that doesn't include high rise buildings. I feel there are other brown field siteselsewhere in the City that could be developed into houses. I am concerned that theshortsightedness and lack of joined up thinking will result in an area that has a very high rise urbanand catastrophic aesthetic, and ultimately changing the area to the degree that local residents (likemyself) no longer want to live here anymore. Just because the existing tower blocks exist onWindmill Hill, does not mean these were a good idea, and in my opinion are a mistake, and I amconcerned that similar mistakes will be made again here if these proposals go through.

I fully object to this proposal. The height, massing and density is out of character for thisarea. The visuals of the proposal show that it will create a 'wall' of buildings between VictoriaPark/Windmill Hill and the rest of the city. This will lead to residents being cut off from the rest ofthe city and also blocking the Windmill Hill topography from the city. In addition, the height of theproposed buildings will block parts of the view of the city from Victoria Park, where members of thepublic can enjoy the iconic views. The design of the buildings is unattractive and is not in keepingwith the area. This will completely ruin the character of this area.

The density of the proposed accommodation does not seem suitable for the area. Where are theproposals for improved services and infrastructure? In addition, it is naive to think that students willnot bring cars, as they will. This will put increased pressure on parking in the area where there isalready no residents parking scheme on Windmill Hill. The proposal would be far better suited to amix of housing. There should be provision for families too, rather than a transient studentpopulation.

I'm also concerned about the impact of the mass and height of the buildings on the Windmill HillCity Farm. This will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the wildlife and farm animals, which inturn will have a detrimental economic impact to the area. Having 9 story buildings so close to a cityfarm will completely ruin the rural oasis that the farm has managed to create.

Although the area is clearly in need of development and regeneration, this does not have to be beat the detriment of the current residents and the character of the area. More thoughtful design,

less density of accommodation and reduced massing of building would be appreciated.

1. Too many stories. It is far too high, blocking views, dominating the skyline andcreating an eyesore from Windmill Hill and Victoria Park (one of Central Bristol's most beautifulparks currently with views to rival Ashton Court). It also spoils the views from outside the arealooking south from, for example, Ashton Court, Cabot Tower or Bristol suspension bridge. Buildingheight should be in keeping with the local area and so no more than 3 or at most 4 stories.2. Too dense. The local area is already very densely populated and necessities such as access toGPs and the ability to park are already under a very great deal of pressure. There are alreadyproblems with air quality which will be exacerbated.3. Unattractive design. The modern boxy design is out of keeping with the area. Most local housesare Edwardian/Victorian, and many of the larger buildings in the area are also attractive periodproperties.4. Not for Bristol residents. Providing high quality, long term housing for the local Bristol residentsshould be a priority for the Council. This proposal is for poor quality accommodation for students.5. Overshadows and cuts out natural light from Windmill Hill farm. The city farm offers a valuableopportunity to 'escape' from the city through a magical experience of a natural and nurturing worldwithin a world. It promotes mental wellbeing and a glimpse of the countryside to inner city children(and adults) who may rarely, or even never, see a real farm. It gives a feeling of being able tobreathe. The destructive looming of vast boxy inner city tower blocks will be seriously damaging tothis experience of escape. The plants will not thrive with the reduced light - I can't see it beinggreat for the animals either.

Personally, I think the Council should publicly refute the damaging suggestion that it favours the

idea of ugly cramped and monolithic tower blocks and declare a (very Bristolian) interest in highquality ecologically sound homes. Failing that, at least make it clear to developers that 3, or atmost 4, stories of high-quality residential accommodation with good outdoor space would be betterfavoured by the planning department. Perhaps then the residents of Bristol can support the nextlot of plans and get the area developed.

This development is not suitable for the area. Too many dwellings, too high and veryunattractive.

It would block sun light to our well loved and popular windmill hill city farm which has been theresince the 1970s. The farm is an oasis for the current residents of south Bristol. Not only does itprovide a happy home for animals and volunteering opportunities for disabled and vulnerablepeople it also has two early years settings on the site. Our daughter attends this nursery. We arevery unhappy about the disruption this development will cause the animals on the farm as well asthe children on the site. This development will have a detrimental affect on both the animals andchildren.

This site clearly needs development but not on this scale. The local in infrastructure will not beable to support such a large development - Dentist, doctors etc. Some students will defy the rulesand bring cars them and try parking in neighbouring roads (windmill hill) I know this from first handexperience from a similar situation at UWE Frenchay campus.

This development is not welcome in our neighbourhood.

Thank you.

I warmly welcome the redevelopment of this site: for the creation of more, and diverse,housing; for opening new roads and paths to the community through currently underused spaces;and for the restoration and maintenance of our local waterway. However, I find this enormousproposal, ugly, inconsiderate, overpowering and segregating. The generic, blocky design creates ahuge massing of buildings that feels like a wall being erected between Windmill Hill and centralBristol - overpowering the city's natural topography so our small, enclosed community is visuallytruncated from our home city. The planned gaps between the angular towers are only visible fromspecific angles creating the sense of one giant mass from most perspectives. While the CGIrenders make the space appear attractive - you cannot see the tops of the buildings in any ofthese. The height and massing in the visually verifiable images, however, is shocking & scary. Theimpact assessment acknowledges several times that this structure will have 'adverse effects dueto scale and massing'. Of course we don't want that! It is my strong feeling that this structure mustbe integrated into the view, landscape and architecture of this residential community, rather thandominate & divide it. I feel it needs fewer storeys OR more space between the structures. I'drather see this restricted to 4-5 storeys throughout; something similar to Wapping Wharf.My 2 year old daughter attends Windmill Hill City Farm. I see in the quite minimal shadow analysisthat this structure will cast shadow on the farm from 3pm in mid summer. In winter the loss of lightwill be considerably worse. Though there is reduced massing closer to the farm, the images feellike it completely overshadows the entrance. The farm is at the heart of the community, and a rareand unique place for local children's education & recreation. It must be protected, as a green andopen space for the wellbeing of future generations in an already busy and polluted city. I would liketo see the new development adding green and open spaces to the community instead

overshadowing what already exists.Initial plans for this structure discussed c. 500 occupants. The number here has crept up to 800+.With other student housing in the area this makes around 1300 total. I welcome some studentaccommodation but - in this time of covid and lockdown and divisions in our society - we needdiversity more than ever: a mix of families, social housing and young people. For change tohappen, this must be picked up by the developers rather than left to someone else.In terms of local services: I'm aware some GPs are having to close their lists. What are thedeveloper's & council's plans to ensure the local services can support this many more people? Isee there is minimal parking too. How will you ensure the residents do not park their cars onalready-crowded local streets? Some of them will bring vehicles and there is no more space.I applaud the strong motivation to regenerate this part of Bristol - but let's make sure it comes fromthe right place. It is essential for everyone's long-term wellbeing that this enhances the communityhere, as well as supporting the accommodation needs of the university and city. Please ensure itdoes both.

1. Too many stories. It is far too high, blocking views, dominating the skyline andcreating an eyesore from Windmill Hill and Victoria Park (one of Central Bristol's most beautifulparks currently with views to rival Ashton Court). It also spoils the views from outside the arealooking south from, for example, Ashton Court, Cabot Tower or Bristol suspension bridge. Buildingheight should be in keeping with the local area and so no more than 3 or at most 4 stories.

2. Too dense. The local area is already very densely populated and necessities such as access toGPs and the ability to park are already under a very great deal of pressure.

3. Unattractive design. The modern boxy design is out of keeping with the area. Most local housesare Edwardian/Victorian, and many of the larger buildings in the area are also attractive periodproperties.

4. Not for Bristol residents. Providing high quality, long term housing for the local Bristol residentsshould be a priority for the Council. This proposal is for poor quality accommodation for students.

5. Overshadows and cuts out natural light from Windmill Hill farm. The city farm offers a valuableopportunity to 'escape' from the city through a magical experience of a natural and nurturing worldwithin a world. It promotes mental wellbeing and a glimpse of the countryside to inner city children(and adults) who may rarely, or even never, see a real farm. It gives a feeling of being able tobreathe. The destructive looming of vast boxy inner city tower blocks will be seriously damaging tothis experience of escape. The plants will not thrive with the reduced light - I can't see it being

great for the animals either.

Personally, I think the Council should publicly refute the damaging suggestion that it favours theidea of ugly cramped and monolithic tower blocks and declare a (very Bristolian) interest in highquality ecologically sound homes. Failing that, at least make it clear to developers that 3, or atmost 4, stories of high-quality residential accommodation with good outdoor space would be betterfavoured by the planning department. Perhaps then the residents of Bristol can support the nextlot of plans and get the area developed.

I congratulate Deeley Freed on the care they have taken to listen to the community andof meeting the Bedminster Green Framework.Unfortunately this document was in fact drawn up by the council and developers, but neverapproved by WHaM or the wider community who continue to oppose the building heights asoutlined in the framework.

As a member of WHaM and long standing resident, I am pleased to see what is now calledBedminster Green being developed, and that you have taken the opportunity to integrate theMalago River into your design. However I'm sad that the public will only have access to one sideof the river and this could be improved to offer full access particularly since this part of thedevelopment will be paid out public funds by the Council.

I am objecting in full to this application as it fails on the same design flaws as the other BedminsterGreen developments , it that it doesn't meet planning criteria DM26 on local character anddistinctiveness, and DM28 specifically requires the development to contribute to an "attractivepublic realm that contributes positively to local character and identity".

The scale and massing of the buildings adjacent to the Windmill City Farm will have a detrimentalimpact on the 'rural experience' so enjoyed by families from all over Bristol. With the potentialimpact of reducing visitors, impacting on the local economy, employment and survival of theorganisation.This design is too dominant, there is no space between the buildings and its likely to create wind

tunnels and reduce light to the surrounding area.Rather than integrating with the existing community, it will create a blockade cutting residents offfrom the area.I note that Historic England has similar concerns, I quote here 'Central to our consultation adviceis the requirement of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in Section66(1) for the local authority to "have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building orits setting or any features of architectural or historic interest which it possesses"

The application has so far not met the flood risk, and this should be addressed before approval.

I object to the current plans mainly on the grounds of the huge mass of the building andthe lack of adequate parking provision.

The bulk of the buildings will be extremely detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood andthe adjacent properties in particular. The provision of the so-called visual canyons will only beapparent along a path a few yards wide running from orthwest to Southeast. From any otherdirection the view will simply be a mass of glass and concrete.The Northeast section of building adjacent to Windmill Hill City Farm at 3 stories is too narrow andtoo close to the boundary to avoid presenting an oppressive aspect towards the farm severelydegrading the amenities for visitors, children and animals. Furthermore the blocking of sunlight willbe very significant especially in the afternoons at any time of year except mid-summer and willadversely affect plant growth and insect activity in that part of the farm near the boundary.

The provision of 8 parking spaces for 837 students and the ground floor businesses borders onlaughable. Visitor parking is virtually non-existent. Even if the University insists on a signedobligation, on threat of expulsion, not to bring a car to Bristol there will be several hundredstudents who either own or have access to a vehicle out of which a large proportion will have theintelligence and guile to find a way around the regulations.Parking locally will become even worse than now especially as the Dalby Avenue car park will nolonger be available.

My understanding of the BCS 18 guideline is that we need to provide mix of housingtypes respond to local needs and there versus eight of housing none of these are shown in thisplanning application. Guideline BCS21 states that planning application should have highqualityUrban design, positively contribute to an area character I should be attractive.This plan will overshadow and tower over the city farm a key and essential hub for thecommunity.inBristol student houses are popping up like mushrooms and in the Bs1 BSW area 4new buildingsopened in last w years alone. This is especially puzzling in a time where Unis might well headtowards more remote classes.It is simply an eye sore, built for cramming in people in a small place with no urban input into thelong term effects it will have on the area.Windmill hill is already in a band E on access to green spaces according to the latest green of theearth report and simply cannot take the number of people that will be added to the areahttps://friendsoftheearth.uk/nature/access-green-space-england-are-you-missing-out

1. Too many stories. It is far too high, blocking views, dominating the skyline andcreating an eyesore from Windmill Hill and Victoria Park (one of Central Bristol's most beautifulparks currently with views to rival Ashton Court). It also spoils the views from outside the arealooking south from, for example, Ashton Court, Cabot Tower or Bristol suspension bridge. Buildingheight should be in keeping with the local area and so no more than 3 or at most 4 stories.

2. Too dense. The local area is already very densely populated and necessities such as access toGPs and the ability to park are already under a very great deal of pressure.

3. Unattractive design. The modern boxy design is out of keeping with the area. Most local housesare Edwardian/Victorian, and many of the larger buildings in the area are also attractive periodproperties.

4. Not for Bristol residents. Providing high quality, long term housing for the local Bristol residentsshould be a priority for the Council. This proposal is for poor quality accommodation for students.

5. Overshadows and cuts out natural light from Windmill Hill farm. The city farm offers a valuableopportunity to 'escape' from the city through a magical experience of a natural and nurturing worldwithin a world. It promotes mental wellbeing and a glimpse of the countryside to inner city children(and adults) who may rarely, or even never, see a real farm. It gives a feeling of being able tobreathe. The destructive looming of vast boxy inner city tower blocks will be seriously damaging tothis experience of escape. The plants will not thrive with the reduced light - I can't see it being

great for the animals either.

Personally, I think the Council should publicly refute the damaging suggestion that it favours theidea of ugly cramped and monolithic tower blocks and declare a (very Bristolian) interest in highquality ecologically sound homes. Failing that, at least make it clear to developers that 3, or atmost 4, stories of high-quality residential accommodation with good outdoor space would be betterfavoured by the planning department. Perhaps then the residents of Bristol can support the nextlot of plans and get the area developed.

Many local residents recognise and welcome the provision of new and much neededhousing in the area but the size, scale and massing of this proposed development is absurdlyoverbearing on the local area. The lazy, poor design, lack of imagination and the bleakness of thedevelopment is pretty insulting to the City and it's resident and will set a dangerous precedent. Isincerely hope that the planning officers and councillors stand strong and reject this application onbehalf of the City they represent.

1. Too many stories. It is far too high, blocking views, dominating the skyline andcreating an eyesore from Windmill Hill and Victoria Park (one of Central Bristol's most beautifulparks currently with views to rival Ashton Court). It also spoils the views from outside the arealooking south from, for example, Ashton Court, Cabot Tower or Bristol suspension bridge. Buildingheight should be in keeping with the local area and so no more than 3 or at most 4 stories.

2. Too dense. The local area is already very densely populated and necessities such as access toGPs and the ability to park are already under a very great deal of pressure.

3. Unattractive design. The modern boxy design is out of keeping with the area. Most local housesare Edwardian/Victorian, and many of the larger buildings in the area are also attractive periodproperties.

4. Not for Bristol residents. Providing high quality, long term housing for the local Bristol residentsshould be a priority for the Council. This proposal is for poor quality accommodation for students.

5. Overshadows and cuts out natural light from Windmill Hill farm. The city farm offers a valuableopportunity to 'escape' from the city through a magical experience of a natural and nurturing worldwithin a world. It promotes mental wellbeing and a glimpse of the countryside to inner city children(and adults) who may rarely, or even never, see a real farm. It gives a feeling of being able tobreathe. The destructive looming of vast boxy inner city tower blocks will be seriously damaging tothis experience of escape. The plants will not thrive with the reduced light - I can't see it being

great for the animals either.

Personally, I think the Council should publicly refute the damaging suggestion that it favours theidea of ugly cramped and monolithic tower blocks and declare a (very Bristolian) interest in highquality ecologically sound homes. Failing that, at least make it clear to developers that 3, or atmost 4, stories of high-quality residential accommodation with good outdoor space would be betterfavoured by the planning department. Perhaps then the residents of Bristol can support the nextlot of plans and get the area developed.

I wish to object to this planning application. The density of apartments and heights ofthe buildings are too high, as the planned changes to the local infrastructure are inadequate todeal with the proposal. Such buildings would clearly be wholly out of character with theneighbourhood.

A key failure in the proposal is the lack of parking spaces. Bristol students are amongst the mostaffluent in the country, and they will bring vehicles, as they do in all other parts of the city. Whilstthese apartments are proposed for student accommodation, they can be "converted to residentialuse, [comprising] a mix of one, two & three bed flat but could be tailored further to suit demand".However, no parking has been planned for any conversion. Parking spaces are not going to beprofitable for the developer especially compared to apartments, but they must be forced to ensurethat there are enough for the entire complex, should it all become residential - a possibility theythemselves have suggested. Furthermore there will undoubtedly be a rise in noise and antisocialbehaviour in view of the number of students, renowned for their drinking and partying culture,residing in the area if this proposal were to go ahead.

The light impact assessment appears inaccurate. The documentation uploaded by the developerhas modelling of shadows performed on the 21st June, i.e. the day when the sun is at its highest.These models should be independently created, and show at least the shadowing of an equinoxday, and ideally what the worst-case scenario would be, of a large, dark grey tower in the middleof winter. We find it difficult to believe that the height of the proposed buildings would not result inloss of light and overshadow our home and those of others on windmill hill which are directly

facing the proposed buildings.

We agree with concerns raised by other residents relating to the concern on the impact on localwildlife, in particular to that of the neighbouring city farm.

This is a very sad proposal for a lovely part of Bristol, and I strongly object to it.

My first objection is that it will block light from the city farm, especially in winter. This is particularlyinsensitive and I hope that in itself is grounds for refusal. It certainly should be.

The design is lazy and completely out of touch with the local area. It would be a great shame toput big blocky towers in a neighborhood with victorian architecture, and I think ruining the Bristolskyline for some poor quality student towers would be something the city will regret.

This is also out of touch with what this area needs - why on earth can we not have somethoughtfully designed affordable, sustainable housing? Student accommodation is particularlyunsustainable because it can't easily be converted to other uses. I'm particularly concerned thatwith the double hit of Brexit and covid, in-person student numbers may fall and then we will bestuck with an awful block of housing to convert.

Finally, massing tall buildings down a road with poor air quality has been shown to exacerbate airpollution. This is therefore a terrible place to build over 3-4 storeys, and building these highbuildings will have a lasting impact on the health of everyone in the area. We're only justscratching the surface of the health impacts of air pollution, and aside from lung andcardiovascular function we now know pollutants alter the way DNA is regulated (such as changesin DNA methylation).

this is clearly a bad idea for the area and needs re thinking, I could go into more detailbut i seem to see the same thing wrong with all the proposals for the area. They are massivetower blocks which are not what we need for people to live in and have healthier lives.

I'm very concerned by the scale of the project and the impact the large number ofstudents will have on the fabric of a family based tight knit community. I'm concerned about theimpact of increased demand in local amenities and the increase of cars (parking is already atbreaking point) . I'm concerned about the scale of the build the impact of that on the feel of thearea , east street has been developing organically into local feeling neighbourhood connected tonorth st . I would support a smaller build on keeping with the scale of building that are in the area .High rise will really change the lovely local neighbourhood feel if the area , it would also haveterrible impact on the city farmLoved by so many across the city.

Very concerned the scale of the residents will have on the feel of the local community,and the impact of high rise will have on the feel of the neighbourhood

Please reject this proposal as inappropriate for the area, of insufficient quality in designand detrimental to the current community.

I am very pro development in this area. And there are some redeeming features to this application- particularly the provision of dedicated pedestrian and cycle routes. However, overall it is hugelydisappointing. The generic, uninspiring blocks will create a massing of buildings that cut offWindmill Hill from central Bristol. For the topography and the present style of buildings, thedevelopment is too large and will dominate and overshadow (literally) the surroundings. There arenot enough gaps and the buildings are too high for the context. The visual impact study suggeststhat the proposal will ultimately cause harm to the local area because the massing is so high andout of character with its surroundings. The views presented from Bedminster Station and theskateboard park in Victoria Park show a monolithic, impenetrable, overbearing block (franklydepressing and ugly) that won't contribute anything to the character of the area. By obscuring thetopography of Windmill hill it also goes against the provisions of the Supplementary PlanningDocument on Urban Living.

The number of new residents will also overwhelm local services. A few weeks ago, I had to callBedminster Family Practice, the nearest GP surgery, 23 times before I even got through to be putinto the holding queue. Unless there is significant investment planned, then an increasing numberof residents will overwhelm the area.

I'd welcome some student housing in Bedminster - but in the context of provision for a mix of

families, social housing, older people and young people. The current plans for the area - fromother developers - do not provide a mix of housing types. This only adds to that problem.

Please reject this application. It is not what local residents want and it is not what the area, orindeed Bristol, needs. The city will regret this development if it is allowed to go ahead.

I am worried about the future residents who would live in this development. It doesn'tlook like it will provide them with enough daylight in their rooms.

I'm also worried about the environmental impact of this development. Whilst some steps havebeen taken towards sustainability, we can and should do better. Bristol could be leading the wayand setting an example.

As all the other local residents will be repeating, clearly the massing is totally inappropriate.

The City Farm is at the centre of our community and a greatly valued local asset. I am highlyconcerned about the overshadowing implications for the Farm, which includes a nursery.

This sort of architecture will not adapt for differing needs as time passes. It will come to beregretted as an unambitious, regretted compromise.

This development is not suitable for the area. Too many dwellings, too high and veryunattractive.

It would block sun light to our well loved and popular windmill hill city farm which has been theresince the 1970s. The farm is an oasis for the current residents of south Bristol. Not only does itprovide a happy home for animals and volunteering opportunities for disabled and vulnerablepeople it also has two early years settings on the site. Our daughter attends this nursery. We arevery unhappy about the disruption this development will cause the wildlife on the farm as well asthe children on the site. This development will have a detrimental affect on both the animals andchildren.

This site clearly needs development but not on this scale. The local in infrastructure will not beable to support such a large development - Dentist, doctors etc. Students will defy the rules andbring cars them and try parking in neighbouring roads (windmill hill).

This development is not welcome in our neighbourhood.

Thank you.

There is a lot that is good about this application - namely, the public realm, landscaping,transport plans and sustainability plans. All of these show care and appreciation of the local area,and, although not perfect, are to be commended.

However, the massing and height of this collection of buildings are totally out of scale with theirsurroundings and show no respect for the neighbourhood. The heights and massing of theproposals are completely insensitive to the character of the nearby open spaces of Victoria Park,Windmill Hill City Farm and Bedminster Green.

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) says it all. Photograph after photographshows the open views across the city which we enjoy at the moment, including the variedBedminster roofs, the distant hills, and the landmark city buildings between, the views that makeliving in this part of the city so special. And then the contrast of what it will be like if these buildingswere to go ahead.The assessment concludes that there will be an overall benefit due to the regeneration of the site,and an overall adverse effect due to the large scale of the development, the height and the mass.Which makes me ask, why can't we have the benefit of the regeneration (which everybody wants)but with a sensitive and realistic height and massing which doesn't ruin the local character ofBedminster?

The Farm will be completely changed. It may well cast shadow over some of the animal and plantgrowing spaces for much of the day and much of the year. (shadow pictures only shown for

midsummer) The Farm is an important place for a wide diversity of people, and its open, greenspaces are an important feature in making it a happy place to spend time. Boxing it in with thesehuge 9 storey blocks would change the whole feel of the place. The planning application claimsthat as the Farm is not considered to be a Heritage Asset, that there can be no impact on theheritage here. Although the LVIA states 'substantial adverse effects relate to the increase in scaleand mass of development resulting in a sense of enclosure to the view'. The application claimsthat the building size and height have been reduced specifically to respect the use and scale ofadjacent sites. I feel that a genuine respect will bring down the heights a lot further to helpmaintain the character and benefits of the neighbouring sites.

Views from the lower reaches of Victoria Park will be totally changed. This is a place that manypeople spend time, a children's playground and a skate park are 2 of the main features, and theview is a constant joy. The very character will be changed. As the Heritage Statement puts it 'thedevelopment will appear as a more or less continuous block of tall development, the effect ofwhich will be to remove around two thirds of the middle-distance views of the BedminsterConservation Area, including landmark buildings. Long distance views across to the Clifton andDowns Conservation Areas, and distant views of a number of highly graded listed buildings withinit, including the suspension bridge, will be removed, as will the large part of this panoramic view,which provides a valuable sense of the city'

Another key view is from the Bedminster Conservation Area. The junction of East St andBedminster Parade currently enjoys a view of Windmill Hill and Victoria Park. The HeritageStatement says 'the scale and massing in this view will remove any sense of distant openness tothe current view. This will be an adverse effect on this key view'.

I'm pleased to see that the Developer is working closely with BCC to allow the River Malago to beopened up and improved for wildlife and for flood risk. I like all the planting and opening up someof the space for the public realm. Good to see green roofs and photovoltaics on other roofs. Gladto see lots of cycle parking, and a commitment to ensure students don't bring extra cars to thearea. Happy to have a student hall of residence in the area, but concerned that if both thisdevelopment and another student development at Pring & St Hill go ahead, there will be too greata density of students for this area. Pleased to see workshop units included on Whitehouse Lane.

So, there are many good elements included. But PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not allow thisscale of development to go ahead and totally change the character of our neighbourhood for theworse. We can have all the benefits of regeneration, including social housing (of which thisapplication offers none), but we don't have to destroy the real assets of our community at thesame time. The University and the Developer should be working together to invest the bestpossible design for this site. It is no more than we deserve in Bedminster.

I totally agree that Bedminster and its surrounding area needs up dating with new homes, withmixed community and modernisation which is more appealing to the eye, to the community and togive Bedminster an opportunity to build an environment which will be a great place to live.

The plans illustrate a positive development of the Malago river, user friendly access to Clark Streetand the cycle routes in the area. The extra population in Bedminster may support the localeconomy especially on East Street. However many of the shops are empty on East Street.Nevertheless there are plans to renovation of East Street.

The proposal of the blocks of flats of 9, 5 and 4 storeys is definitely not the right type of homes toenhance the area. I am not sure if the developers have worked within the Urban Living SPD theframework suggested buildings and those recommended in the WHaM's Community PlanningBrief.

The lack of light and sun light will have an adverse effect on the surrounding area. Likewise thelack of light will effect people who work at the farm, the children in the Nursery, the wildlife, thefarm animals, the plants and the conservation at the Windmill Hill City Farm. In fact the photo's inthe plans, illustrating the farm, show the flats are a huge solid block overwhelming and overshadowing the farm which is not pleasing to the eye or the area.

It is difficult to understand the rational behind the high rise flats, there is plenty of research to saythat living in this type of housing is not good for quality of life. Likewise with us in 2021 living in thepandemic of of covid-19 the difficulties of being isolated in flats and high rise living must be takinginto consideration when planning buildings.

These blocks of flats will negatively dominate the skyline and will also negatively changetopography in this area. Bedminster, and Windmill Hill areas has historical, pretty, brightly colouredterraced Bristol houses, which are charming and give this area an unique feel and look, with mixedliving. In fact if the flats are build and you stand on on Dalby Avenue in front of the flats you will notbe able to see the pretty houses in Windmill hill. The design of these blocks of flats do not lookand fit in with the rest area.

There is a lack of family living and affordable homes included in any of the proposed flats inBedminster Green area is very disappointing to say the least.

The parking in this area is already limited without the extra people who will be living in theseblocks of flats, although I am lead to believe that the students sign a contact to say they will notuse a car for regular transport. Nevertheless the students which I believe could be as many as 837will I am sure be dropped off and collected by parents each semester which may be up to 6 timesa year. Which equates to 5,022 extra car visits to our area.

Normally when people move into a block of flats their journeys are disparate. Normally in oneblock of flats people will be walking or traveling in varies directions, however with the student willall be walking in the same direction. This adds to my concerns, with a huge increase in the foot fallin this area. With the other proposed flats there could be as many as 1,500 students all walkingtowards Templemeads and back again. This must have an adverse affect on the environment, tothe local people due to the large scale of massing of the population in this area.

The proposed new Portishead train line which would support transport for the students fromBedminster station to Templemeads has now been delayed due to Covid-19.

Likewise the density of the population created in these blocks of flats will have a negative demandon public services and amenities which are already very well stretch, Doctors, dentist, are veryvery limited already. We moved into the area 5 years ago and both my husband and I had to wait12 months for a local Doctors. I believe at this present time all local GP surgeries are shut to newpatients.

In my opinion the blocks of flats and the extra number students will have a catastrophic negativeeffect our local community. Please consider my objections.

- Creating 'spaces' between buildings hasn't worked. Still feels like a mass of concreteblocks.- We're very frequent users of city farm and our toddler is at nursery there. Will block sunlight fromfarm gardens - this is a beloved oasis in the city, growing veg, supplying produce and greenplayground for young kids and haven for wildlife that thrives there. Sunlight illustrations only showshadows in height of June, what about winter sun projections? Seems the diagrams are intendedto conceal the real impact on farm and surrounding buildings...- Visually the blocks dominate city farm. Completely change the character of this green space. 4-5storeys adjacent to farm does nothing to relieve the feel of height as it's only one layer deep - afew metres back it jumps to 9 storeys. It's paying lip service to the need to respect the farm - thiselement of the design feels like a box ticking exercise.- Multiple 9 storey blocks is imposing. Catherine place works cos it stands alone as a single block.- Insufficient parking. How can we guarantee students won't bring cars?- Insufficient services - 1000s of extra residents putting pressure on already squeezed services eg.Doctors and dentists.- Stipulation that design shouldn't mask topography of city- but it does. Masking of distant hills andmasking of windmill hill/ totterdown's distinctive skyline is tragedy and it's happening all over thecity. It's what makes Bristol feel distinct from other cities. Destroying Bristol's character

Bristol Cycling Campaign objects to this application on the grounds that the development does not adequately accommodate cyclists. Our response is split into three sections:

Dalby Avenue Corridor

The hard works plan suggests the footway will be shared use. This is an urban area, and therefore as per LTN 1/20 this is a very poor level of provision for both pedestrians and cyclists. If this is intended as a through route then a segregated two way cycle track should be provided, if this is a short section to link the development to East Street this should be made clear through appropriate signage. Where the development meets Dalby Avenue a continuous footway crossing should be installed.

Whitehouse Lane

We strongly welcome the construction of a two way segregated cycle track, but this needs to be integrated into wider plans for Whitehouse Lane to create a continuous route rather than an isolated section. Given the likely pressures on motor vehicle parking in this area, bollards or other features should be used to ensure the proposed cycle track does not get used for or blocked by parking.

Clarke Street

For the avoidance of doubt, whilst this will be exit only to motor vehicles at the south end, this should be two way for cycles. On one way sections the width needs to be sufficient (taking likely parking into account) to ensure a cycle can pass a motor vehicle coming in the other direction. At the north end the section of Clarke Street which currently forms a footpath should be upgraded, with at the absolute minimum a dropped kerb provided in a direct location which allows it to be used by all types of cycles.

Bristol Cycling Campaign

There is nothing about this proposed development that shows any sensitivity to theexisting community. The proposed height and density are completely out of step with everythingthat surrounds it and, if it were to go ahead, would feel oppressive to the area rather thanregenerative.

Aesthetically there appears to be no creative thought given to this design, and it would ruin theviews to the city from the park and into Windmill Hill/Victoria Park area. Bristol is one of the mostculturally appealing cities in the UK for a reason - the legacy of this building, and others beingproposed nearby, will be to dilute that forever. We should be pursuing ambitious architecture andregeneration projects that illustrate Bristol's leadership and ambition in the UK of the future. Suchan application would never be considered in parts of North Bristol - this same standard shouldapply to South/Central Bristol as well.

Finally, this area has a strong community feel and mindset. This proposal, and others beingconsidered nearby, will effectively build a wall around this area, cutting it off completely from therest of the city. The influx of thousands of students to the area will also have long term implicationsand will not necessarily bring the long-term economic revival we are aiming for.

The application site on low-lying ground at the base of Windmill Hill/Victoria Park, andfrom the public spaces of Victoria park the city's topography and distinctive townscape thatstretches to the Clifton Suspension Bridge can be appreciated and is a key part of the character ofthis area. Views adds to the local sense of place and local distinctiveness, and even acommunity's sense of belonging and collective identity. Victoria Park is one of Bristol's best greenspaces and the views from the space contribute to the quality of the space - year round butparticularly during the balloon fiesta, a cultural event which is linked to Bristol's identity.

The views of proposal as shown in the design and access statement present something of a stark,monolithic wall that jars with character and appearance of the local area, rather than being apositive addition. Viewed from the south, the development would completely obliterate viewsacross the city which includes key landmarks, building types and topography that are distinctly'Bristol'.

The development of this site is necessary and is welcomed as a way to improve and enhance ourlocality, however we have concerns about the high numbers of units, and the overall massing ofthe development not contributing positively to the creation of a quality place, that enhances thelocal distinctive character or its designated heritage assets.

The landscape proposals which places improvements to the Malago stream at the heart of thisdevelopment are exciting to see as improvements to the local environment, but we aredisappointed that is not paired with locally responsive and sensitive levels of built development.

The redevelopment of this site as proposed does not represent a positive addition to Bristol andthe communities of Bedminster - present and future.

We welcome the development of this site which is currently run-down and offers no realvalue to the community. The proposals on the ground (landscaping etc) are a very positiveaddition to the environment and the improvements to the Malago stream and public realm are verywelcome.We have some concern that the number of units has increased from initial consultation andwonder if the increased efficiency in internal organisation could allow for a reduction in massing.The introduction of so many students will bring challenges as well as opportunities in terms of thelevel of activity in the area.The views from the city farm indicate a very solid 'wall'. If it were possible to mitigate that byarranging buildings to allow a view of the sky between them or with more features (eg verticalgardens) or greenery that would be of benefit.We welcome the inclusion of ground floor space that has potential for commercial or communityuse.

We are sensitive to the impact of the construction phase of the development and welcomecontinued discussions with the developer as to how to mitigate those impacts.

The visual impact of this development would be unacceptable. An important anddefining characteristic of Bristol is its topography. The application site is low lying, at the base ofwindmill hill and Victoria Park that rise to the south. Developing so high at the foot of this hill willharmfully erode the sense of topography, to the detriment of local character. The site is alsooutside but within the setting of the Bedminster Conservation Area. The scale and massing of theproposal fails to respond to the existing urban grain and established development pattern of theconservation area and would harm its setting. There is unacceptable high density/ over-development of the site. The design is ugly, it is over-bearing, out-of-scale and out of character interms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity. The recent pandemichas only emphasised how important our outside environment is. Victoria park and Windmill HillCity Farm proved to be such important, valuable community assets for maintaining mental andphysical health, not to mention the services the farm provides (including a nursery). The farm willliterally be overshadowed and blighted by this development. You can currently see the suspensionbridge from the skatepark in Victoria Park, which is pleasant, necessary and important for all users(not to mention visitors coming in via train, what better welcome to the city than seeing Brunel'sbridge). If this development was to go ahead you would only see what can be described as whatlooks like a communist prison block, that would be depressing to say the very least.Whilst I am aware that in strictly legal terms "there is no right to a view", it does not mean that theloss of an existing view is necessarily irrelevant, especially when it is a public viewpoint and wouldhave a wider impact, concerning everyone who accesses and uses Victoria Park. The enjoymentof the view of the city as far as the suspension bridge and beyond, from the park is an importantpart of the residential amenity of the neighbourhood and its loss would have an adverse impact on

many people's mental health. It would be a travesty if this development was approved, it'snegative impact would be far reaching across the city and affect many, many residents, not justthose in the immediate vicinity.

The application site is proximate to the boundaries of the Bedminster Conservation Areaand numerous listed buildings, preserving the settings of these designated heritage assets is astatutory duty.

The application site on low-lying ground at the base of Windmill Hill/Victoria Park. Whilst theexisting industrial development may be architecturally unremarkable, it consistently low-risethereby allowing the sense of the city's topography and distinctive townscape that stretches to theClifton Suspension Bridge to be appreciated from the public spaces of Victoria Park.

The proposal is monolithic, stark, unrelenting and totally out of keeping with the character andappearance of the local area. Viewed from the south, the development would completely obliterateviews across the city and to the distinctive roofline of the Wills Tobacco Factory, the Cliftonterraces, Suspension Bridge and the topography of the city more generally. Any benefits ofredeveloping the site or housing numbers should not come at the cost of creating quality places,safeguarding the city's distinctive character or its designated heritage assets.

That my comments are focused on character and appearance and heritage does not imply that theproposal would safeguard the living conditions of its future occupiers or the vitality of exitingcommunities. It would not.

I urge the Council's officers to resist yet another patently aggressive and speculative developmentin Bedminster that would fly in the face of local and national planning policies as well as statutory

duties and cause generations-long harm to local character and existing south Bristol communities.

Although I welcome redevelopment of this site and am happy for it to comprise ofstudent accommodation and business space etc., I think that the current design in this planningapplication is completely inappropriate for the area. The current design is not aestheticallypleasing at all and completely compromises the whole character of the Bedminster ConservationArea. Moreover, this current design would detriment the views from Victoria Park, which is a spaceused for health and wellbeing. The current design has obviously not given adequate considerationto the adverse landscape and visual impact it will have on locals and visitors to the area. Thedevelopment should be redesigned with these aspects as a priority.

The planned blocks are too high, too dense, and the design is ugly. The developmentwould have an adverse impact on the local area, character and would damage standards of livingfor residents. The area is predominantly families and excessive rental properties would damagethe community. The design damages the South Bristol skyline and character of the city. Althoughinvestment in Bedminster is encourage it should not be for the benefit of developers and to thedetriment of locals.

This development is going to have a major impact on views from Windmill Hill, VictoriaPark and the Windmill Hill City Farm - why then does it have to look quite so hideous? Can't thebuildings be reshaped e.g. terraced to give a more interesting shape, perhaps using a mix of someinteresting materials rather than the brown/grey homogenous vertical sides that seem more fittingfor a high security prison rather than student accommodation? You would struggle to designsomething much uglier than what is on offer here. I can't see how on earth this proposal fits withplanning policies (as quoted in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment report) such asDM26 on local character and distinctiveness (unless we ae trying to distinguish Bedminster as thearea with the most uninspiring and out of character architecture) or DM28 on public realm whichrequires the development to contribute to an "attractive public realm that contributes positively tolocal character and identity"

This development feels incredibly large and imposing over the rest of the predominantlylow rise buildings such as the city farm. I don't object to redeveloping this area as Universityaccommodation but there appears to be little thought put into making this aesthetically pleasing. Itlooks like cheap high rise densely populated buildings and it would be nice to see something thatisn't an eyesore for the surrounding area. The prospect of 1000 extra students in this small spacefeels unreasonable for residents and students, I can't believe this is a good quality of living forstudents.

Unsightly, over populated, lack of consideration to the green spaces and vital viewsfrom the park, city farm and nursery that make children feel as if they have some space and freshair.Lack of local facilities, bins, recycling, parking .Over looking the farm and nursery where children, and vulnerable children and families attend.Flats and any resisidental building is not fulfilling the needs of the local area

I am generally supportive of developing derelict space and providing additional housinghowever:1. This would be a huge eyesore and out of keeping for the BS3 skyline - the building looks far toobig and is too tall2. There is already a problem with insufficient parking in the area and this proposal offers noassurances at all that it wouldn't make this much worse. This part of the city isn't close to any ofthe university buildings making it much more likely that students will bring cars which will end upbeing parked on local residential streets and driven around the city increasing the air pollution3. There isn't currently a large student population in this area of the city. By introducing a largenumber of students this will completely change the dynamic of our local neighbourhood, bringing alot of noise and anti-social behaviour as experienced in other areas of the city where there arelarge student accommodation buildings.

Whilst I welcome development of the area, development needs to meet the needs oflocal residents and be sympathetic to the locale.

The proposed plans introduce an out of keeping eyesore into an otherwise residential area. Iconicbristol skylines will be obliterated and one of Bristol's thriving family areas will be significantlyaffected by the introduction of the high rise building, which will overlook much of windmill hill,dominate the city farm and introduce yet more congestion onto under developed routes around thesouth of the city. Any suggestion that adequate parking will be provided is recognised by mostresidents to be laughable and no project like this should be considered until there are residentparking zones covering at least a 15 minute walking radius of the development.

The development Should be reconsidered to be lower impact on the skyline, have fewer unitsoverall, provide more dedicated parking within its footprint and be redesigned to be a Jewell ofsouth bristol rather than an upsetting and poorly conceived 70s concrete council block dominatingthe area. Better conceived architecture could radically alter its impact on the area.

I strongly object to these new student accommodation buildings. Extremely ugly and fartoo high, they would severely affect my local Bedminster area. If they were built at a much lowerheight I wouldn't object, but this area of Bristol is not a high rise area and nor do we want it to be! Iam not against the building of new accommodation or student accommodation however designsneed to be in fitting with the local area and this is far from it. We don't want any buildings higherthan there already are; it causes light obstruction and overshadows the lovely green space and thecity Farm area; which many local families enjoy. I urge the developers to rethink their design and ifthey must build something so tall and ugly then to do it on the student campus itself rather thanhere in Bedminster.

This is an ugly monolith of a building totally out of keeping with the height and characterof the surrounding area. It will negatively impact views and the experience of some of southBristol's best outdoor spaces. We all know bedminster needs investment and improvements andnew accommodation will need to be part of this but this building is not how to achieve it. I have noobjection to student accommodation here as i think this can bring life and money to an area. Itmust be considerably lower height though if it is to go ahead and at least try to be an attractivebuilding. I object to this application in the strongest possible terms.

Another eyesore being dumped on the residential area of south bristol.It will totally change the skyline around here, bring more people to an overcrowded area thatsuffers poor infrastructure.

I strongly object to the plans for this development on Dalby Avenue on the grounds thatthe high rise buildings will have a hugely detrimental impact on the views from so many valuedlocal public spaces - including Victoria Park and Windmill Hill City Farm. These local outsidespaces are valued by thousands from across Bristol for giving city dwellers a taste of open air,open sky and open space. To detract from that with high-rise student accommodation would becriminal.

I am writing to object to the plans proposed in this application. Having reviewed therecent application and seen the pictures of the proposed development I am extremely concernedabout the impact it will have on the community and the surrounding area. The proposed building isnot in keeping at all with the local area and will impose on many other buildings and homes in thecommunity. The disproportionate size and height of the building means that it will be seen fromvarious areas around the community as can be viewed in the pictures. It will obstruct light to thesurrounding areas and impact on the lovely open view that we know and love from windmill hill. Iam also concerned about the impact the development will have on the windmill hill city farm as itcan be seen that a lot of the farm will be overlooked and light will be blocked out from the gardensand distrust the growth and nature in that area. I know these feelings are shared among thecommunity and there is a great amount of concern regarding the plans for this development. Onceagain it doesn't seem that the local community or those who live here have been taken in toconsideration when developing these plans.

I am a user of the local parks and a regular donators to Windmill Hill City Farm. I feelthis would have a greatly adverse effect on the farm and most importantly the community gardensand childcare facilities. They are seen as a safe space to many and currently thrive.

The planned accomodation not only shadows the farm but actually will impact any privacy andsecurity. It also concerns me that a large number of students in the area as such would causeovercrowding in an already intensely populated area.

Bedminster is a local area that needs massive investment, for the local people, not thestudents, this will drive the cost of housing p for the local people, which will ultimately lead to themhaving to move out of the area they have grown up in.

Are BCC trying to ruin the city of Bristol? They seem intent on increasing student numbers whileproviding very little for the local residents already living in an area.This will ruin the local area bringing in students that already swamp the city centre andsurrounding areas which are forcing people to move further away.

If it HAS to be approved it needs to be smaller, without such high buildings, 839 students living inan area they dont pay council tax in..... when you could have 839 flats for locals that will bring inore revenue to the local area and BCC.....

Having seen the visual impact this will have to south Bristol I object to the height andscale of these buildings. The design is oppressive and looms over south Bristol, making openspaces feel penned in and oppressive. I appreciate that students need somewhere to live, but theimpact that this will have on the spaces of south Bristol is too high a price to pay. Especially whenspace is a huge factor in mental health and wellbeing. Having huge ugly buildings looming over uswill have a negative impact to wellbeing which should be taken more seriously.

This block of student accommodation will be an eyesore on the landscape ofBedminster. It is too tall and very ugly. This isn't a suitable area for student accommodation- theyare very much out of the way from their college and university communities. There is no benefit tothe community in having these awful accommodation blocks built. Instead, rather, build housing fora residential community that desperately needs it. Affordable housing at that.

An uninspiring monolith of a development that will dominate the views from VictoriaPark. Fewer floors would be better suited to the location.

If you have to make an enormous building that is overbearing and imposes on thesurrounding area then at least make it half way attractive. There are plenty of architects with anappreciation of beauty that you could use. The ugly concrete buildings of the 1960s and 1970s arenow considered eyesores, so why on God's good earth would you want to build more of them?

Architects should be designing to make people's lives better. That eyesore will not only notencourage a better standard of living among the students but it will detract from all of the currentresidents for about 4 miles in all directions. It's a design that sucks all the joy out of life.Particularly at a time of global pandemics when people are confined to their houses, to buildsomething as ugly and soul destroying as this building is criminal. The detrimental impact it willhave on people's mental health is immense. And that's before we even get to the impact on thelocality of half a million students.

It is possible to building attractive appartments that don't fill the hearts of the surrounding peoplewith despair. There is no acceptable reason for this monstrosity to be build. Make it less high andmake it more attractive. It should have greenery and beauty to reflect Bristol's character as adynamic, vibrant and ecological city. The current plans are in direct opposition to the council's aimto make Bristol and caring, diverse city. This building shows bristol as a money grabbing, elitist,ugly city with no care for anything beyond pure, cold cash. I don't believe that's what anyone inBristol wants for our amazing city.

I am objecting to this proposal due to the character of the buildings suggested. They areextremely ugly and in an area that has a history of poor building and landscaping are an eye sore.There has been no effort to make them blend in with the surrounding area or view. They are toodense and too high. There seems to be no effort to make them sustainable in terms of buildingmaterial or use of solar panels which is at odds with the councils commitment to climate changemeasures. I would like to know if there are plans for another GP practice to accommodate thismany people as my GP could not give appointments for 4weeks recently. Where will the newcapacity come from? I think there will be a lot of resentment towards students if these flats arebuilt in this current form. My main objection is overstretched public services in this area and thepoor design in relation to the natural environment. In many areas brutalist architecture is beingdismantled yet in Bedminster we are being asked to accept grey ugly boxes with no redeemingfeatures. Would the council accept a proposal like this on in Clifton or the downs I think not.

Whilst I appreciate the need for student housing, the proposed plans are appalling.Below are some of my thoughts:

1. With no gaps between blocks to allow light through, the building would completely overshadowthe surrounding area (which is mainly made up of 2-3 storey properties), blocking light and theview.

2. Unless proper parking is supplied, the area, which is already short on parking, will becompletely overrun.

3. The ugly grey design and sheer density of the proposed building is reminiscent of the hideousblocks built in the 1960s and 70s, which would completely destroy the view and appearance of thearea, likely having an adverse effect on property prices.

4. With all the extra properties going up in the area and without investing in proper infrastructure,traffic is likely to increase dramatically causing a rise in traffic jams and pollution.

I support the construction of additional student accommodation in the city and also theopportunity this brings for regeneration in Bedminster. By increasing purpose-built studentaccommodation, there is the chance that this will increase housing stock available for others in thecity, particularly for those seeking larger homes. Although at the moment travel from south Bristolto the centre can be problematic, I expect this would have minimal impact on that traffic due to thedemographics of students and their reduced car ownership/dependency on active and publictransport. This project offers a great opportunity for the economic development of south Bristol andI am excited to see its development in the future.

Whilst I don't have an issue with the plot being redeveloped, I do have an issue with thesize and particularly the height of the buildings being proposed. They are a severe eyesore to thelocal area and the views enjoyed from BS3 which enrich it. I heavily object to this plan in its currentstate.

I support this development. The site is currently hugely underused for the fantasticlocation. As the universities expand, more student accommodation is needed and in the long run,purpose built units will lead to fewer large family homes being converted into student HMOs orflats. Students bring life (and money) and I think this development will go a way towards revivingEast Street and bringing more businesses to the area.

The plans and drawings showing the proposed public realm look lovely and will make a hugedifference. I currently don't feel safe walking around there in the dark however with the increasednatural surveillance and increased foot fall I'm sure it will be a better place to walk at night.

I like the modern design of the blocks, and think they would be improved with bit more colour aswe see in Windmill Hill and in Cliftonwood. The design and access statement shows a mix ofcolours on the blocks, which I think works well and I like the use of the light brown/greyish colourfor the majority of the brick work. The 3D plans of how the blocks will affect the views do make thedevelopment look very grey/monolithic, so I would urge people to have a look at the design andaccess statement to get a proper look of the materials proposed.

The residents of the accommodation will have brilliant views - I know as a student I would haveloved to look out the window and see the farm.

Overall looks like a lovely scheme which will bring many great improvements the area.

I used to live in Windmill Hill but for priced out by hipster gentrifiers. I've been seeing allthe comments about this project destroying communities by the same gentrifiers without anysense of what they have done to us. Could you consider making the tower taller and include someaffordable accommodation for non-students? Then me and my friends can move back and lookdown on the people who live on the hill now. Oh and steal out view back from them. Ta!

This is a ridiculous development which will blot out the light to the neighbouring WindmillHill City farm. It's soulless and lacks any character or consideration for local residents or thehistory of the area. It is another example of quick high density building, to tick off targets forhousing.

Please don't build this it's too high for the surrounding area and overpowers everything.It's an ugly development and the view over the windmill city farm awful it over looks it all as well asst Mary Radcliffe primary school which the residents will clearly have view into, making it far lessprivate. It offers no housing for locals rather student housing, no cure for the housing problem andstudents in a quiet area will cause disruption and drive the house prices down.The height will also so set a precedent for future developments in the area.

I object on the grounds of the effect on the skyline. The new buildings are too tall. Thedevelopment should be changed to reduce the height of buildings so that they don't block the viewof neighbouring properties.

Also with the banning of the sale of internal combustion engine based cars in 2030, all providedparking spaces should have electric charging points as a matter of course. This should be aprerequisite of any new developments.

This is too high and too dense to be in keeping with the neighbouring residences, aswell as being very ugly. It will cut out light and will overshadow the farm. It does not provideaccommodation for people who work locally but for students, which is not needed in this area. Itwill also mean that people will move in with cars and these will be parked on nearby residentialstreets, causing congestion, pollution and unacceptable conditions for existing residents.I suspect it has been proposed as a "suitable" alternative to other very high rise buildingsuggested for nearby which is all about developer greed - and you hope to squeak it in as it's not25 stories high. It's still not OK though - 3 - 4 stories high at the most, create parking, create moregreen space in between blocks, and please make it more attractive. Does it have to be soappallingly rectangular ? Please use some imagination, courtesy to local residents and createsomething that is beautiful and sympathetic to the local surroundings.

This looks and sounds horrendous. The landscape will filled with skyscrapers and thewindmill hill city farm which is enjoyed by kids will become a claustrophobic place surrounded bytowers. As a mum of two young kids I find the farm a place where I can take my kids to connectwith nature and animals. Such an important skill for them to have so that they grow up beingrespectful of their environment. This sense of nature and open air will be lost forever with talltowers surrounding the area.

I am completely horrified by the height and look of the proposed development.

The development is completely out of character with the surrounding colourful terraced Victorianstreets. I cannot understand how it is proposed that this development will add to the visual amenityof the area.

The development will also cause a loss of light to properties opposite on the Hill, overshadowingthe gardens and completely blocking the views.

I am also really concerned about the lack of adequate parking provision, particularly in light of thehigh density housing which is proposed.

There is a need for more housing, but a development of the type proposed is entirely out ofkeeping with the surrounding area and would have a hugely detrimental impact upon the localarea.

1. It's too close to Windmill Hill which STILL doesn't have residents permit parking. Morepeople will park on our streets and there already is NOT ENOUGH SPACE.

2. Too high as it blocks the view across Bristol from the paths through Victoria Park across toClifton etc due to the position of the plot. A couple stories shorter would be good, providinghousing without spoiling the landscape.

I fully support this application. I live just next to where the student building is supposedto be built and at the moment it's just a desolate piece of concrete. The East Street area is in adesperate need of regeneration and having students around would be a great addition and a nicechange of demography.We need more young educated open minded people in the area, people who will be happy to go inplaces to socialize and make the area vibrant.

Irrelevant positioning of accommodation for students in the area lacking residentialhousing.No campuses around meaning students unsustainably traveling long distances and occupyingalready full peak time buses.Students not contributing to residential area's wellbeing and are considered noisy.

Policy BCS21 - VSC not been undertaken for habitable rooms. ADSF failed in a numberof rooms, doesn't meet BRE guidance. No understanding of shadowing to adjacent farm, wheresunlight is a key amenity. No wind tunnel testing undertaken under Bristol Urban Living Policy.Facing distances do not allow enough privacy.Policy DM27The proposal doesn't not make a key contribution towards creating quality urban design. Massingis overbearing, 9 storeys is completely out of context with the existing massing, St Cats houseshould not be used as precedent.

Policy DM29

This policy implements the requirements of policy BCS21 of the Core Strategy to deliver highquality, adaptable buildings that make a positive contribution to an area's character and identity.The policy also seeks active building frontages that will enable a safe and secure builtenvironment.

Adaptability study not present. Buildings do not make a positive contribution to the local area, nounderstanding of existing amenities and how they will cope with the additional pressure, GPS,local parking. Form is highly generic lacks depth and articulation, provides no way finding, andseems a gross overdevelopment of this land. Buildings too close to boundaries.

Policy BCS21 - VSC not been undertaken for habitable rooms. ADSF failed in a numberof rooms, doesn't meet BRE guidance. No understanding of shadowing to adjacent farm, wheresunlight is a key amenity. No wind tunnel testing undertaken under Bristol Urban Living Policy.Facing distances do not allow enough privacy.Policy DM27The proposal doesn't not make a key contribution towards creating quality urban design. Massingis overbearing, 9 storeys is completely out of context with the existing massing, St Cats houseshould not be used as precedent.

Policy DM29

This policy implements the requirements of policy BCS21 of the Core Strategy to deliver highquality, adaptable buildings that make a positive contribution to an area's character and identity.The policy also seeks active building frontages that will enable a safe and secure builtenvironment.

Adaptability study not present. Buildings do not make a positive contribution to the local area, nounderstanding of existing amenities and how they will cope with the additional pressure, GPS,local parking. Form is highly generic lacks depth and articulation, provides no way finding, andseems a gross overdevelopment of this land. Buildings too close to boundaries.

Another development for Student accommodation in a residential area. We were toldthat the building of high rise on Little Paradise was a one off for high rise, yet here we are AGAINbeing subjected to this kind of boring ugly buildings.We do need development of these brown field sites, but not at any cost.Has this pandemic not made even these money grabbing developers that we need sensitivebuildings not rabbit hutches, actually rabbit hutches are more spacious.Of course Bristol Universities are wanting more housing especially if they dont have to fund them.Its said they are for the students at Temple Yard, why is that not where the student housing isbeing placed? then they can use public transport already available. walk to the departments etc.High rise will impact on the surrounding neighbourhood and computer generated drawings do notgive a good model for people to really realise what its going to look like. a model on display forpeople to view would be preferable. Infrastructure of GP's, How you stop new residents parking inneighbouring streets, already over crowded with commuters. I object strongly to these proposalsas inappropriate for the neighbourhood, which is full of young families, single people, grown upfamilies, and older residents.