If anything the revised planning application with its increased elevation is even moreoffensive than the previous one made only a few months ago.Please do not allow this exceptionally selfish application to go through which is completelyinappropriate for all the reasons stated by residents and experts alike.As the owner of the basement flat in no 3 Clyde Park I do not think it fair that the access andownership rights to the bin store and rear lane currently enjoyed by the residents of our buildingshould be compromised for the profit of this one individual who clearly has no consideration for theimpact his scheme with have on others.

I regret to have to object again to an application on this site. After the first applicationwas withdrawn I thought the applicant might put forward an acceptable scheme which wouldrespect the site.This has proved not to be the case. This is because:

1. This scheme is an overdevelopment of the site. The building has little or no amenity space. Itdominates the neighbours' gardens and badly affects their amenities.2. It is part of the Conservation Area. It ignores the CA assessment; the height and bulk of thebuilding harm the Elliston Road terrace (a valued feature of the CA) and also harm the viewsacross the gardens to St. Saviours church - an important locally listed building.3. Many have written in about the effect on the nearby London plane (and at least one other tree ina neighbour's garden) and, looking at the applicant's assessment, it is difficult to see how harmcan be avoided to this important tree.4. As the CA panel perceptively observed the bulk and size of the building are worrying (my word)and emphasize that this is the wrong building in the wrong place.5. It is contrary to a number of Local Plan policies (see the objection from David Glasson Planningon these) and there are no material considerations which would indicate that this applicationshould be decided otherwise than in accordance with the DP. The Council has a 5 year housingland supply and the minimal advantage of another (small) unit of residential accommodation isinsufficient to outweigh the serious DP objections.

I ask that this application is refused.

2

Summary S1 The Cotham and Redland Conservation Area is a high quality Victorian townscape dominated by individually developed urban streets interspersed with a verdant tapestry of trees, gardens and green spaces. With its charm as a quiet backwater, Clyde Lane and its built environs is an exemplar of Victorian architecture and recognised as such in statute in its conservation area status. It is prized by its residents and adds considerably to their quality of life, health and wellbeing. While not strictly a garden, the site is nonetheless situated amongst gardens and the continued or increased loss of gaps between houses through development in side plots and gardens preventing views and reducing verdant character is a threat identified in the Conservation Area 18 Cotham and Redland Character Appraisal and Management Proposals. S2 The site occupies a sensitive historic setting which is devoid of any intensive development bar inconsequential garages and garden buildings which are entirely consistent with the end of urban gardens and which on account of their limited scale do not impinge on either the street-scene or in any detrimental sense on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposed dwelling will detract from the setting of Elliston Terrace and its scale and massing will obscure the historic St. Saviour’s Church which is a locally listed building of merit in the Conservation Appraisal and clearly a non-designated heritage asset. The loss of wider vistas and oblique views from this proposed development will cause harm to the quality of the Conservation Area. S3 The dearth of any supporting ecological information in support of the proposed scheme or indeed any measures to enhance biodiversity is lamentable and paragraph 177 of the NPPF advises that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should not apply unless an appropriate assessment has concluded a project will not adversely affect the integrity of a habitat. The value of urban green space is not limited to biodiversity as its connection to enhancing human wellbeing is equally deserving of weight. S4 The proposed dwelling will lie immediately adjacent a large mature London Plane and a semi-mature Eucalyptus. One corner of the dwelling will be within the canopy of the Plane and the canopy of the Eucalyptus oversails the proposed courtyard garden. This intimate relationship between the trees and the proposed dwelling is such that pressure from future occupiers will result in the removal of the trees, possibly in the short term. No assurance has been given about possible root damage to either tree and the combined effect of excavation is potentially very harmful. S5 The London Plane tree is a magnificent example, which is enjoyed and valued by residents and visitors alike and which is worthy of a Tree Preservation Order. In a rousing article in The Times (23.11.19) Ben Macintyre described the London Plane tree as “the unsung arboreal hero of Victorian town planning”. The character appraisal highlights the quality of both garden trees and street trees within the vicinity of Clyde Park/Clyde Road so giving the area a ‘particularly verdant character’.

3

S6 The intensity of layout and form will be a regrettable and retrograde step for the character of the streetscape. The overlooking and loss of privacy resulting from the proposed dwelling will impinge on the residential amenities of existing residents and the displacement of car parking will lead to greater demand for on-street parking. Notwithstanding, the accessibility of the site to services and amenities no provision exists for electric vehicles. The proposed scheme and its heritage impacts represents an inexplicable and irrational departure from the Victorian backcloth which envelops it. There will be substantial harm caused to the special character of this part of Clyde Lane which forms part of the Cotham and Redland Conservation Area and less than substantial harm to the special character and significance of the Clyde Park development for which there are no public benefits to be weighed against. S7 There is a grave risk here of an undesirable precedent being created which would transform the immediate street-scene and have harmful ramifications for the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposed dwelling falls well short of the sensitivity and high quality expected in a Conservation Area. While the existing garage is a nondescript utilitarian design, its visual impact is ameliorated by its small-scale and set-back from the frontage. The shortcomings of the proposed scheme and in particular its height, scale and form means it will compete with neighbouring development and adopt a much greater profile so neither preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. S8 The adverse visual impact resulting from the design and materials is so alien in this streetscape and so prejudicial to its charm and heritage value there is no neutral impact in this case as the scheme will unquestionably have a profoundly greater impact than the existing building. The design flies in the face of the CA and its explicit highlighting of unsympathetic infill and new development. In the South Lakeland1 case, the House of Lords ruled that the “statutorily desirable object of preserving the character of appearance of an area is achieved either by a positive contribution to preservation or by development which leaves character or appearance unharmed, that is to say preserved.” S9 While the legal test could be satisfied by a development that merely maintains the status quo the NPPF demands more than this and paragraphs 185 and 192 require that local planning authorities should take into account “the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness”. The NPPF seeks positive improvement in conservation areas and paragraph 130 adds that "Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area...”. The proposed development and its increased massing, form and scale does not maintain the status quo so neither satisfies the statutory test and nor does its design, appearance and materials represent the positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness required by the NPPF.

1 South Lakeland District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and another [1992] 1 PLR 143

4

S10 For the reasons set out above, the Council is urged in exercising its statutory duty to refuse the planning application in being in conflict with national planning policy, the Development Plan, the National Design Guide and the Cotham and Redland Character Appraisal. No material considerations have been advanced to outweigh the presumption in favour of the Development Plan. The following planning policy documents will be referred to in these representations:

• National Planning Policy Framework (2019) (“NPPF”) • National Design Code (2019) (“NDC”) • Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted 2011) (“CS”) • Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Local Plan (adopted

2014) (“LP”) • Conservation Area 18 Cotham and Redland Character Appraisal and

Management Proposals (2011) (“CA”) • Planning Application Requirements Local List (1.12.17) (“LL”)

1. Technical Objections 1.1 Two strips of land have been included in the application site (to the south side of

the existing garage which we understand has formed part of the neighbour’s garden at 4 Clyde Park for 40 years, as well as a strip to the west of the existing garage, which is enclosed in the adjoining garden of 3 Clyde Park). Building works are also proposed to our client’s ‘lean-to’ for which no notice has been served.

1.2 We would respectfully alert you to the absence of any ecological assessment of

the site, including any possible presence of bats in the building to be demolished. There is no evidence in the submitted documents of any ecological scrutiny which has informed the design process. Urban green infrastructure and the ecosystems it supports have recognised environmental, air quality, pollutant/surface water flow attenuation and public health benefits. It is now widely recognised that green space in dense urban areas is not limited to parks and amenity areas but those found throughout the streetscape and public domain, ie. Council trees on pavements throughout Redland and Cotham and beyond to the matrix of much smaller green areas such as private space and gardens which collectively create the green feel for the benefit of everyone.

1.3 The value of urban green space is not limited to biodiversity as its connection to enhancing human wellbeing is equally deserving of weight. According to an article in The Lancet in 2019, trees in towns substantially increase life expectancy, reducing stress and lowering the risk of death from heart disease, cancer and dementia. With trees absorbing and storing the carbon dioxide emissions driving global heating they must also be seen in the challenge of climate change – given local expression by the Mayor of Bristol’s endorsement of the One City Climate Strategy on 3rd March 2020 and its addressing of the emissions responsible for climate change, the carbon footprints of residents and businesses and adapting to climate change.

5

1.4 The need for development impacts to be informed by appropriate surveys and to take account of habitats, species or features is supported in The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012, BCS9 and BCS15 in the CS, DM19 in the LP and LL. There is potential conflict with legislation, policy and the LL without a biodiversity survey.

2. Planning Policy 2.1 Under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 decisions on

planning applications must be in accordance with the development plan read as a whole unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Supreme Court in the Suffolk Coastal Case (Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes and Richborough Estates v Cheshire East Borough Council [2017] UKSC 37) has confirmed the primacy of the development plan in weighing up the planning balance. In this case the Development Plan comprises the following:

• Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy • Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Local Plan

2.2 We respectfully submit the proposed development is in conflict with the Development

Plan and that the only material consideration here that might indicate otherwise is the creation of 1 dwelling unit but that this small quantum against the backdrop of a demonstrable 5 year supply of housing sites in Bristol for the period 1 April 2017 – 31 March 2022 (Source: Bristol City Council – Five Year Housing Land Supply; January 2018) is of insufficient weight to justify a departure from adopted planning policy. We also submit the proposed development is in conflict with national policy in the NPPF.

2.3 There is a statutory duty on decision-makers when considering whether to grant

planning permission which affects a conservation area to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area (Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990). This duty is considered further in the heritage report annexed to this letter.

2.4 While it is recognised the site is within the built-up area, its constricted size and

woefully limited external amenity space, is manifestly at odds with the surrounding Victorian townscape and the established pattern of development. The layout also clashes with the replacement terrace on the site of the former mews houses at the lower end of Clyde Lane. The building up to boundaries and negligible amount of external private amenity space is indicative of the site’s physical constraints which gives the entire development a pinched and gawky feel. The necessity to maximise the plot has resulted in an intensity of layout and form which is not quality urban design and which will be a regrettable and retrograde step for the character of the streetscape.

2.5 The total failure to respect the immediate context, site constraints and the character of

adjoining streets and spaces as well as the heritage setting is in conflict with Policies DM26, DM27 and DM29 of the LP. The lack of sympathy to local character and history is contrary to paragraph 127 of the NPPF and National Design Code (2019) (“NDC”).

6

3. Heritage

3.1 An assessment of heritage impacts is annexed to this letter by JME Conservation Ltd.

3.2 It will be seen that David Haigh, a specialist heritage architect and former conservation officer, finds that the submitted Heritage Assessment fails to properly assess the special character of the affected part of the Conservation Area. As a consequence there is a failure to recognise the substantial harm the development will cause to the special character of Clyde Lane and the settings of properties on the east side of Clyde Park and at the west end of Elliston Road and the less than substantial harm to the wider Conservation Area. He does not find any public benefits that would outweigh the identified harm.

4. Arboriculture

4.1 A tree assessment is annexed to this letter by Tim Pursey, Chartered Arboriculturalist.

4.2 Tim Pursey, a chartered arboriculturalist, finds no obvious sign of defect nor disfunction with the Plane and the Eucalyptus in a normal condition. British Standard 5837:2012 states that the default position should be that structures are located outside the Root Protection Areas of trees to be retained. It is not certain that the construction of the dwelling can be achieved without root damage to either tree. The combined effect of excavation over the site is potentially very harmful to the trees and nothing within the submitted documents appears to properly address the concerns. The London Plane is undoubtedly a significant tree in the local landscape and although size-managed will continue to grow for many years. The arboricultural impact assessment within the Hillside report does not properly address the concerns outlined and the design of the proposed new dwelling does not offer a solution which allows the retention of adjacent trees. Both contribute positively to the conservation area and their local environment. The risk to the trees is unquantified and potentially considerable so the appropriate course of action is for the Council to refuse planning permission.

5. Residential Amenity

5.1 Notwithstanding the limited fenestration, the rear first floor bedroom will enjoy elevated

and commanding views to the side and will unquestionably compromise the residential amenities of our clients, in particular those at 4 Clyde Park. The front gardens to Clyde Park are firmly and unmistakably in the public realm hence residents cannot use them for any meaningful private use such as dining, sunbathing or indeed recreation on account of their size. In consequence, our clients place a high premium on their rear gardens and the privacy they provide. Indeed, residents have every expectation of a quiet amenity space in their rear gardens where they can have privacy and experience a sense of tranquility and respite away from the public exposure. The proposed dwelling will impinge on this quietude and greatly diminish the quality of this garden space for our clients.

7

5.2 In reaching up to the third storey of 3 Clyde Park the proposed dwelling will compete with Clyde Park Villas so giving it a height and prominence which is in direct contradiction to the extreme limited size of the plot. The combined effect of a four storey villa at one end and a tall dwelling at the other end in an all already shortened garden will feel overbearing and constricting. The south elevation of the proposed dwelling will have an overbearing and oppressive effect on 4 Clyde Park in taking up about a third of the boundary and will overshadow an area of garden cherished by its owners for its peace and feeling of space. The proposed first floor bedroom will directly overlook about a third of the rear garden of 4 Clyde Park allowing a commanding view, of not only the garden but its patio and outdoor seating area, so interfering with its expectation of privacy.

5.3 The failure to safeguard the amenity of existing development is in clear conflict with

Policy BCS21 of the CS and in exhibiting similar characteristics to backland development the proposed scheme will also not respect the prevailing character and quality of the surrounding townscape contrary to Policies DM26, DM27 and DM29 of the LP.

6. Design 6.1 The proposed design will patently draw attention and depart from the prevailing

Victorian architecture which is well established and loved. The scale, height and form of the proposed dwelling is completely at odds with the elegantly proportioned 4 storey villas on Clyde Park. The clash in style with the terraces on Elliston Road will similarly detract from views of its setting especially the northern terrace which is designated a grouped buildings of merit in the CA (buildings that form an attractive group and are collectively of significance and particularly sensitive to change that could undermine their group value). Harm will also be caused to views of the former St. Saviour’s Church which is a locally listed building of merit in the Conservation Appraisal and a non-designated heritage asset

6.2 We see nothing in the Design, Access and Heritage Statement (DAHS) which articulates the design rationale such that is possible to reconcile the design approach with this historic context and how it responds to vernacular forms. The abrupt and suburban style of the front elevation presents an uninspired and lacklustre appearance to Clyde Lane which is out of context and out of odds with the surrounding streetscape.

6.3 The use of rubble stone on all elevations might be a tacit nod to the surroundings but materials, however well specified and executed, cannot by themselves respond to the grain, patina and richness of long established local building traditions and will result here simply in camouflaging an unremarkable design. To borrow from the expression manners maketh man, this building is sadly lacking in the architectural etiquette and deference to its context to give it any empathy with its neighbours other than a commonality of stonework.

8

6.4 The forward position of the proposed dwelling imposing on the frontage, its strong sense of verticality and disproportionate scale with neighbouring garages will unquestionably strike a jarring note in the rhythm of the street-scene. We note this concern over the height of the building being over obtrusive is shared by the Conservation Advisory Panel. Furthermore, the dominance of solid over void is at odds with the single over-sized ground floor window on the public front elevation creating a visual interplay which neither works for the building design or its setting in being a stand-alone development.

6.5 The inappropriateness of the design runs contrary to Policy BCS21 of the CS in failing

to contribute positively to an area’s character and identity and not creating or reinforcing local distinctiveness. It further conflicts with the general principles in Policy DM26 of the LP in failing to respect the local pattern and grain of development, not responding appropriately to the height, scale, massing, shape, form and proportion of existing buildings, building lines and set-backs from the street, not reflecting locally characteristic architectural styles, rhythms, patterns, features and themes taking account of their scale and proportion in the area.

6.6 The NDC sets out how well-designed places that are beautiful, enduring and successful

can be achieved in practice and how they can be influenced positively by the history and heritage of the site, the significance and setting of heritage assets and the local vernacular. The proposed scheme does not connect with the historical identity of the townscape and the move way away from indigenous building styles and traditional methods of construction merely reinforces this disconnect. The NDC strives to achieve well-designed places making sure there is a relationship between the built environment and quality of life with communities involved in the design process. Regrettably that has not happened here.

6.7 The CA at paragraph 9.9 highlights the serious harm from unsympathetic infill and new

development that fails to respect the character of an area or ignores the predominant building lines, scale, proportions, details or materials etc. A case in point is the intended black standing seamed zinc roof which will clash with the predominance of red/brown clay roof tiles in the area despite the proposed views in the DAHS suggestive of the zinc being brown!

7. Loss of Parking 7.1 The proposed scheme will displace 2 parking spaces (4 spaces if the area to the front

of the existing garage is also taken into account). In an area where off-street parking is often at a premium and there are parking restrictions Monday to Friday between 9am and 5pm by way of a Residents’ Parking Scheme the loss of an existing parking facility and new demands from the proposed dwelling will inevitably place further pressure on the available on-street parking.

9

7.2 In spite of the good accessibility of the site for non-car modes, a dwelling of the type proposed could well appeal to a small family and be expected to have/need a private car or cars for bulkier purchases and for longer destinations.

7.3 With a clean air zone needing to be in place in Bristol by October 2021 to comply with

rules over nitrogen dioxide limits and the Mayor championing a transition to zero or low emission vehicles there is going to be a growing reliance on electric vehicles (EV). However, a dearth of on-street charge point connections is a recognised limitation at present and a research project in 2019 (Source: www.alfen.com 14.6.19 press release) where existing and prospective EV owners were asked how the current charging point network should be run, found EV owners wanted more charge points (including rapid charge points) in enforceable spaces with better reliability. Home charging has a key role to play in the roll-out of EV but without any off-street parking provision to facilitate this, residents will not be encouraged to embrace EV technology.

7.4 There is no recognition of EV use in the proposed scheme whatsoever as a sustainable

transport option. 8. Precedent

8.1 In the event this proposed dwelling is approved, it will undoubtedly set an undesirable

precedent for further applications elsewhere along Clyde Lane, whether in piecemeal fashion or as a more comprehensive development. While this is not in any sense wanted or intended by our clients, the same cannot necessarily be said of future owners and is alluded to on page of 12 of the DAHS.

8.2 The site layout established by the proposed development could be replicated on

adjacent plots and quite probably, with greater ease, where there are no mature trees likely to be affected. Such development would create a wholly new development pattern to the rear of Clyde Park, diminishing the urban green space quality and eroding the character of the lane so creating a wholly unacceptable conglomeration of residential growth which would cumulatively detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the quietude of Clyde Lane and the setting of Clyde Park.

Yours sincerely

DAVID GLASSON BA(Hons) MRTPI Director

Encls: Assessment of Heritage Impacts by JME Conservation Ltd Tree Assessment by Tim Pursey, Chartered Arboriculturalist

1

ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT OF LAND TO THE REAR OF 3 CLYDE

LANE BRISTOL PLANNING APPLICATION 20/06226/F

JME CONSERVATION LTD.

FEBRUARY 2021

2

BacNJURXQd: JME Conservation Ltd has been commissioned b\ residents in Cl\de Park to under-take a further assessment of the impacts of this resubmitted development proposal upon the special character of the Redland and Cotham Conservation Area in order to assist the Council in undertaking its own assessment as required under para-graph 190 of the NPPF. This Assessment has been undertaken b\ David Haigh who has over 30 \ears experience as a local authorit\ Conservation Officer and it accords with current Historic England Guidance as set out in 7KH 6HWWLQJ RI HHULW-DJH AVVHWV HLVWRULF EQYLURQPHQW GRRG PUDFWLFH AGYLFH LQ PODQQLQJ NRWH 3 (6HFRQG EGLWLRQ), Paragraph 189 of the NPPF and Government guidance within the Historic Environment section of the Planning Practice Guidance of 2019. SXPPaU\ It is acknowledged that the scale of the development has been reduced slightl\ however as with the previousl\ withdrawn application the supporting HHULWDJH DH-VLJQ DQG AFFHVV 6WDWHPHQW fails to properl\ assess the special character of the af-fected part of the Redland and Cotham Conservation Area and as a consequence fails to recogni]e the substantial harm that the amended development proposal still causes to the special character of Cl\de Lane and the settings of the properties on the east side of Cl\de Park and at the west end of Elliston Road. As with the previ-ous supporting statement, the submitted photomontages based on wide angle views are particularl\ misleading. N.B AOO SKRWRJUaSKV e[ceSW FLJ 3 LQ WKLV aVVeVVPeQW Rf LPSacWV aUe WaNeQ XV-LQJ a fXOO fUaPe caPeUa (NLNRQ Z7) ZLWK a 50PP OeQV WR cRPSO\ ZLWK UecRJ-QL]ed SURfeVVLRQaO VWaQdaUdV Rf YLVXaOLVaWLRQ. (Fig 3 uses a 24mm wide angle lens). ‹ 7KH LOOXVWUDWLRQV DQG LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQWDLQHG ZLWKLQ WKLV UHSRUW UHPDLQ WKH FRS\ULJKW RI JME CRQVHUYDWLRQ LWG DQG PD\ QRW EH UHSURGXFHG ZLWKRXW ZULWWHQ SHUPLVVLRQ.

JME CONSERVATION LTD

JME Conservation Limited Registered Company No 7480523 Registered office No 21, St. Thomas Street, Bristol BS1 6JS Directors: JM Enticknap BA Hons TP, MA Conservation Studies, IHBC;

D Haigh BA Hons Arch & Ancient Hist, MA English Local History, AA Grad Dip Cons, IHBC, FSA Scot,

3

AVVeVVPeQW Rf HeULWaJe IPSacWV Rf WKe SURSRVed deYeORSPeQW Rf LaQd WR UeaU Rf 3 CO\de LaQe BULVWRO ASSOLcaWLRQ Uef 20/06226/F.

IQWURdXcWLRQ: The current application for development to the rear of No 3 Cl\de Park (20/06226/F)is supported b\ a HHULWDJH, DHVLJQ DQG AFFHVV 6WDWHPHQW. This argues (pages 6-8) that the character of Woolcott Park has changed from the rural landscape shown on the tithe map of F.1840, and that the subsequent Ordnance Surve\ mapping shows a historical precedent for single store\ garden end of garden developments fronting onto Cl\de Lane. Extracts of historic mapping are used to support this statement (page 6). Other examples of recent development are shown on page 7 and it is explained (page 8) that the mews complex at the south end of the lane was more densel\ developed and uses as a precedent the 1989 rebuild of these mews buildings as a two store\ terrace. However this assessment fails to appreciate the importance of the character of this 19th centur\ development and careful anal\sis of this part of the Conservation Area and the historic mapping shows that both its inadequate anal\sis and the conclusions are flawed. Far from being appropriate within this location, the proposed development of rear gardens within this part of the Conservation Area would be both alien in form and scale harmful to the special character of the Conservation Area. TKe VSecLaO cKaUacWeU Rf WKLV SaUW Rf WKe RedOaQd aQd CRWKaP CRQVeUYaWLRQ AUea. This part of the Conservation Area is characterised b\ the verdant and spacious la\out of the properties round Cl\de Park and Napier Road in contrast to the more densel\ developed terraces in the surrounding parts of the Conservation Area. This element of its special character is enhanced b\ the glimpsed views between the detached and semi-detached substantial town houses across their spacious rear gardens to the adjacent streets. The explanation for this is given in the Council ¶s comprehensive and thorough CRQVHUYDWLRQ AUHD 18 CRWKDP & 5HGODQG CKDUDFWHU ASSUDLVDO & MDQDJHPHQW PURSRVDOV adopted in 2011 which explains that: 7.1.6M 6RXWK RI LRZHU 5HGODQG 5RDG DQG ZHVW RI :RROFRWW 6WUHHW, WKH NDSLHU 5RDG / CO\GH 5RDG / CO\GH PDUN HRXVHV ZHUH GHYHORSHG E\ D VLQJOH ODQG RZQHU. PORWV DUH PRUH JHQHURXV, ZLWK D QXPEHU RI GHWDFKHG GZHOOLQJV VHW EDFN IURP WKH URDG E\ ODUJH IURQW JDUGHQV. BXLOGLQJ PDWHULDOV WHQG WR EH UHG DQG RFKUH UDJVWRQH, ZLWK OLPHVWRQH GHWDLOV. 7KH JHQHURXV IURQW JDUGHQV, PDWXUH VKUXEV DQG WUHHV JLYH WKLV DUHD D SDUWLFXODUO\ YHUGDQW FKDUDFWHU. CO\GH PDUN GDUGHQV LV WKH RQO\ IRUPDOO\ SODQQHG FRPPXQLW\ JDUGHQ LQ WKH CRQVHUYDWLRQ AUHD, ZKLFK LV D GLVWLQFWLYH ODQGVFDSH IHDWXUH. (S47) 7.1.6W LDQGVFDSH & 7UHHV. 7KLV FKDUDFWHU DUHD LV SDUWLFXODUO\ ULFK LQ WUHHV, ZKLFK DGG WR WKH VSHFLDO LQWHUHVW RI WKH DUHD. 7KH QRUWKHUQ SRUWLRQ LV PDUNHG RXW E\ VRPH ILQH VWUHHW WUHHV DQG PDMRU JDUGHQ WUHHV. GDUGHQ WUHHV DUH PRUH VLJQLILFDQW LQ WKH VRXWK,

4

Fig 1. The 1880 large scale town plan showing in great detail the la\out and gardens round Cl\de Park, Napier Road and Elgin Park. When first laid out c.1875 the substantial semi-detached town houses sat within spacious gardens with a complete absence of mews buildings except grouped at the end of Cl\de Lane.

5

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he large scale (1:500) Ordnance Surve\ Town Plan surve\ed in 1880 (published in 1884) shows the development within this area a few \ears after construction in the earl\ 1870¶s. As a consequence it is particularl\ important because it shows the original form and character of the development in great detail prior to an\ subsequent changes. What this map clearl\ shows in that a ke\ characteristic of this particular phase of development was the carefull\ planned la\out of substantial Victorian semi-detached villas set within formal gardens that extended to the plot boundaries. These large gardens enhanced both the feeling of spaciousness and formalit\ of the la\out but the verdant garden settings contribute to the significance of the villas and and gives this particular phase of development and this part of the Conservation Area its special qualit\, which is still clearl\ evident toda\. Careful examination of this large scale town plan (Fig 1) shows that with the exception of glasshouses the presence of an\ mews buildings is limited to ver\ small scale buildings to the rear of the grander detached properties on the west side of Cl\de Park and the group of mews buildings set round a court\ard at the south end of Cl\de Lane. The formal la\out of Cl\de Park with its enclosed central park showed how important the spacious, carefull\ planned and verdant character of the development was in contrast to the more densel\ occupied meaner terraces elsewhere. What clearl\ comes across, and is still evident toda\ was that the spacious open verdant nature of this part of the Conservation Area was a deliberatel\ planned and carefull\ considered element of the overall design. The absence of individual mews buildings in this (and subsequent) phases of development is also important because it demonstrates the changing nature of urban public transport in the 1870¶s within town centres, which rendered unnecessar\ the individual stable and coach houses of the earlier 19th centur\. Instead, as is the case here, a group of purel\ functional stable buildings would have served the wider development, and this arrangement, clearl\ shown in 1880 results in an entirel\ different urban character to this group of utilitarian buildings set round their own court\ard and with no separate curtilage.

6

The Conservation Area appraisal recogni]es this change in character between the formal design of the wider development in contrast to the mews buildings, tucked awa\ at the end of an informal back lane. 6.1.9 OFFDVLRQDOO\ LQWLPDWH VWUHHWV RI PHZV RU FXO-GH-VDFV DUH VHW EHKLQG WKH SULQFLSDO 9LFWRULDQ VWUHHWV. E[DPSOHV LQFOXGH «. CO\GH LDQH DQG EOOLVWRQ LDQH (:HVW

Fig 2. The deep garden plots without mews buildings characterise this phase of development within the Conser-vation Area. This view across Napier Road towards Cl\de Road shows the resultant open verdant settings.

Fig 3. Even along the more intimate and informal Cl\de Lane, the open verdant nature of the deliberatel\ spa-cious garden settings of the substantial semi-detached town houses remains evident. This deliberatel\ spa-cious la\out with views across their mature garden settings enhances the setting and significance of these properties and contributes to the special character of the Conservation Area. The proposed development will obscure the gardens and houses to the right of the black garage door. (Note photograph taken with 24mm lens)

7

5HGODQG AUHD). 7KHVH DUH FKDUDFWHULVHG E\ WKHLU VPDOOHU VFDOH RI GHYHORSPHQW, ZLWK SURSHUWLHV DFFHVVHG YLD QDUURZ URXWHV DQG GLUHFWO\ DGGUHVVLQJ WKH VWUHHW, QHYHU KLJKHU WKDQ WZR VWRUH\V. (S16)

TKe IPSacW Rf WKe SURSRVed deYeORSPeQW XSRQ WKe VSecLaO cKaUacWeU Rf WKe CRQVeUYaWLRQ AUea. The Cotham and Redland Conservation Area appraisal not onl\ describes the special character of the Conservation Area, it also sets out clearl\ threats to that special character. These include both weaknesses as well as threats arising from future development. WeaNQeVVeV include LRVV RI YLHZV WKURXJK JDSV EHWZHHQ KRXVHV DQG JDUGHQV EHLQJ GHYHORSHG TKUeaWV x DHYHORSPHQW RU RYHUOD\LQJ RI JDUGHQV UHVXOWLQJ LQ ORVV RI WUHHV, RU ODFN RI

VXLWDEOH UHSODFHPHQW DV PDWXUH VSHFLPHQV GHFOLQH, UHVXOWLQJ LQ SRWHQWLDO GHJUDGDWLRQ RI FDQRS\ FRYHU.

Fig 4. The glimpsed views (seen here looking across the rear gardens of Cl\de Park from Woodfield Road) contribute towards the openness and verdant character of the Conservation Area. The alien uniform hori]ontal form of the proposed development would be an intrusive element clearl\ visible above the wall and diminishing the openness and verdant character of the area. The red line shows the approximate height of new building.

8

x LRVV RI YLHZV WKURXJK JDSV EHWZHHQ KRXVHV DQG JDUGHQV EHLQJ GHYHORSHG. x CRQWLQXHG RU LQFUHDVHG ORVV RI JDSV EHWZHHQ KRXVHV WKURXJK GHYHORSPHQW LQ

VLGH SORWV DQG JDUGHQV SUHYHQWLQJ YLHZV DQG UHGXFLQJ YHUGDQW FKDUDFWHU. x CRQWLQXHG RU LQFUHDVHG UHGXFWLRQ LQ WUHHV FDXVLQJ DQ RYHUDOO UHGXFWLRQ LQ

FDQRS\ FRYHU DQG YHUGDQW FKDUDFWHU. (S49) UQV\mSaWheWic IQfill & NeZ DeYelRSmeQW

9.9 NHZ GHYHORSPHQW RU LQILOO WKDW IDLOV WR UHVSHFW WKH FKDUDFWHU RI DQ DUHD, RU LJQRUHV WKH SUHGRPLQDQW EXLOGLQJ OLQHV, VFDOH, SURSRUWLRQV, GHWDLOV RU PDWHULDOV HWF. FDQ FDXVH VHULRXV KDUP WR WKH VSHFLDO LQWHUHVW RI WKH CRQVHUYDWLRQ AUHD. 6LGH H[WHQVLRQV DUH SDUWLFXODUO\ GDPDJLQJ ZKHUH D JOLPSVHG YLHZ EHWZHHQ KRXVHV LV ORVW. (S78)

LRVV Rf TUeeV

9.17 7UHHV DUH D YLWDO SDUW RI WKH FKDUDFWHU RI WKH CRQVHUYDWLRQ AUHD. AOWKRXJK PXFK ZRUN WR WUHHV UHTXLUHV FRQVHQW, DQ\ ORVV RI WUHHV ZLWKRXW VXLWDEOH UHSODFHPHQW ZLOO LPSDFW QHJDWLYHO\ RQ WKH YHUGDQW FKDUDFWHU. 6WUHHW WUHHV DUH PDQDJHG WKURXJK SROODUGLQJ; ZKHUH WKLV LV GRQH VHYHUHO\ LW FDQ FDXVH HSLFRUPLF JURZWK DQG FRQVHTXHQW ORVV RI YLVXDO DPHQLW\.

Fig 5. The replacement terrace on the site of the former mews buildings reflects the entirel\ different urban character of this end of Cl\de Lane. The erection of an inappropriatel\ detailed (and named) modern building on the former garden closing this view demonstrates how damaging the loss of these garden views are.

9

Currentl\, Cl\de Lane, the narrow informal back lane serving the rear gardens of the Cl\de Park properties to the west, as well as the more tightl\ planned but good qualit\ Ellison Road properties to the east, shares the same verdant character and glimpsed views that characterise the rest of the adjacent development. Whilst a number of modest garages have been introduced into the rear of the gardens the\ do not, when seen in the context of the garden boundar\ walls cause harm to the special character of this part of the Conservation Area.

Whilst the developers argue in their Heritage Design and Access statement that paragraph 6.1.9. of the Conservation Area Character Appraisal allows development along Cl\de Lane of up to two store\s, this does not automaticall\ mean that an\ two store\ development must be acceptable. Particularl\ where the character of the lane clearl\ changes along its length. In this case, set between verdant and

Fig 6. View west along Cl\de Lane towards the development site. The new building (height shown b\ red line) will be a dominant and oppressive intrusion into the verdant if slightl\ scruff\ informalit\ of the street scene. Within this view from the corner of Cl\de Lane all the gardens and houses to the left of the tree will be hidden.

10

Fig 7 (above) montage copied from page 14 of the Heritage & D & A statement. The wide angle lens reduces the apparent scale of the new building within the street scene.

Fig 8 The same view without the distortion of the wide angle lens. The building (height in red) will be far more dominant within the street scene and although lower, it still obscures all but the north end of the church be\ond.

11

obviousl\ cherished rear gardens, the proposed development designed as a pair of substantial rectangular blocks of uniform detailing substantiall\ taller than the nearb\ garaging and rising (photomontage on p14 of the Heritage & D & A) almost to the full height of the side extension to No 23 Elliston Road opposite. Whilst photomontages have been provided (Heritage and D & A Statement pp14-15), these are prepared using wide-angle photographs that have diminished and distorted the scale and proportions of the view so that scale and consequent visual impacts of the development appear far less than in realit\. A full frame camera and 50mm lens is recogni]ed as essential for producing accurate representations of what will actuall\ seen on the ground, (e.g. 7KH LDQGVFDSH IQVWLWXWH 7HFKQLFDO GXLGDQFH NRWH 06/19). Seen in photographs taken in this wa\ it is obvious that whilst the impact of the development shown in the submitted photomontages is considerable, in realit\, (Figs 6 and 8) the visual impacts will be far greater in real views along Cl\de Lane and from Elliston Road. The proposed development will, b\ virtue of its scale and massing obscure the more distant glimpsed views of the surrounding streets that the appraisal has recogni]ed are so important. Looking down Cl\de Lane views across the rear gardens currentl\ include the roofs of the good qualit\ Victorian villa in Woodfield Road, whose hipped slated roof is seen against the locall\ important and architecturall\ significant former St Saviours Church be\ond. These distant views of the church are important not onl\ to the character of the Conservation Area but the\ contribute to the significance of St Saviours Church as a locall\ important building recogni]ed as such within the Conservation Area Appraisal (7.1.6 & 7.5.3) and clearl\ a non-designated heritage asset. Churches like this were designed to be seen within the urban landscape and make a statement about the importance of religion during the Victorian period within the cit\, and the casual loss of these wider views through poorl\ considered and over large development clearl\ causes harm. Similarl\ the oblique views from the Elliston Road terraces towards Cl\de Park will be harmed b\ this prominent and dominant development. Historic England have provided clear and detailed guidance on the assessment of development impacts affecting heritage assets. This guidance revised a number of times since its initial publication in 2011 is currentl\ contained within 7KH 6HWWLQJ RI HHULWDJH AVVHWV HLVWRULF EQYLURQPHQW GRRG PUDFWLFH AGYLFH LQ PODQQLQJ NRWH 3 (Second Edition) 2017. A checklist set out in tabular form on page 13 lists the potential development impacts affecting the settings of heritage assets. In this instance the impacts are upon the special character of this part of the Cotham and Redland Conservation Area. Appl\ing this checklist man\ of the potential impacts identified for assessment clearl\ appl\ and will when taken together result in considerable and locall\ substantial harm:

12

From the checklist, the following appl\: Foƌm and appeaƌance of deǀelopmenƚ x Prominence͕ dominance͕ or conspicƵoƵsness x Competition ǁith or distraction from the asset x Dimensions͕ scale and massing x Proportions x VisƵal permeabilitLJ ;edžtent to ǁhich it can be seen throƵghͿ͕ reflectiǀitLJ x Materials ;tedžtƵre͕ coloƵr͕ reflectiǀeness͕ etcͿ x ArchitectƵral and landscape stLJle andͬor design Wideƌ effecƚƐ of ƚhe deǀelopmenƚ x Change to bƵilt sƵrroƵndings and spaces x Change to skLJline͕ silhoƵeƩe x Noise͕ odoƵr͕ ǀibration͕ dƵst͕ etc x Lighting effects and ‘light spill͛ x Change to general character ;eg Ƶrbanising or indƵstrialisingͿ x Changes to land Ƶse͕ land coǀer͕ tree coǀer x Changes to commƵnicationsͬaccessibilitLJͬ permeabilitLJ͕ inclƵding traffic͕ road jƵnctions and

car-parking͕ etc

Whilst it is recogni]ed that some of these impacts (noise odour dust etc) are temporar\ and related to the period of construction, and others, (traffic and parking) are less tangible, the remaining identified impacts will result in obvious and long term harm to the special character of the Cotham and Redland Conservation Area. The proposed development clearl\ represents precisel\ the t\pe of development identified as a threat to the special character of the Conservation Area within the Adopted Conservation Area Appraisal and because of the scale of proposed development within this ver\ constrained site it will not be possible to address the adverse impacts that arise through changes to detailing or design. The Council has a statutor\ dut\ under Section 72.(1) of the 1990 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act, to preserve or enhance the Special character of Conservation Areas, a dut\ which the Courts and paragraph 193 of the NPPF have held should be given great weight. The current proposals clearl\ fail to either preserve or enhance the special character of the Cotham and Redland Conservation Area. In addition the development also fails to compl\ with Core Strateg\ Policies BCS21 and BCS22, and Allocations and Development Management Policies DM21 and DM 31. Whilst the level of harm to the special character and significance of the wider Conservation Area would be less than substantial, the harm to the character and significance of Cl\de Lane would be substantial and to the setting and significance

13

of the particularl\ good qualit\ terracing at the west end of Elliston Road would be considerable and the application should be refused. OWKeU IPSacWV: Whilst I do not consider the specific impacts of the proposals upon the substantial London Plane at the entrance to the site, the application drawings do not appear to accuratel\ depict either its scale or location. As shown on the drawings it appears to be smaller and set at some distance from the wall - perhaps indicating that it has been measured at some height above ground rather than at ground level. As the photograph below shows, it protrudes further into the application site than is currentl\ indicated.

Fig 9 Detail of the tree showing its relationship to the application site. The drawings suggest the trunk is smaller and further awa\ from the wall than is the case.

14

CRQcOXVLRQ The revised proposals, whilst slightl\ reduced in scale, fail to address the fundamental issue of harm to the special character of this part of the Conservation area resulting from the introduction of wholl\ out of scale two store\ building into a Victorian housing development which had been carefull\ laid out with spacious gardens that provided a verdant setting to the well detailed town houses in contrast to the meaner neighbouring developments. It is not enough to argue that there are other examples of two store\ development in the neighbourhood, nor that the impacts of the current proposals are slightl\ reduced. The proposals b\ virtue of their scale massing, design and use of materials will cause harm to the special character of the Conservation Area and remain clearl\ contrar\ to Section 72.(1) of the 1990 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act, Core Strateg\ Policies BCS21 and BCS22, and Allocations and Development Management Policies DM21 and DM 31. The level of harm has been carefull\ considered as required under Section 16 of the NPPF and it has been shown that the proposed development will cause substantial harm to the special character of Cl\de Lane and less than substantial harm to the wider Cotham and Redland Conservation Area. There are however no public benefits that would outweigh the identified harm even if it is considered that the harm caused b\ the current proposals is slightl\ reduced. Given the great weight that has to be given to the preservation or enhancement of the special character of the Conservation Area the application should be refused. David Haigh B.A.; M.A.; A.A. Grad. Dipl. Cons.; F.S.A. Scot.; I.H.B.C. JME Conservation Ltd. Februar\ 2021

Assessment of Planning Application Reference 20/06226/F

at

Garages at Clyde Lane, Redland

Bristol

Prepared by Tim Pursey

MICFor, M.Arbor.A., Dip.Arb.(RFS), Tech.Cert.(Arbor.A.) Arboricultural Consultant

Tel. 0117 951 1375 1 Stanley Park, Lower Easton

Bristol BS5 6DT Email info@tree-expert.com

www.timpursey.co.uk

20th February 2021

Garages at Clyde Lane, Redland, Bristol

Page 1 of 14 ©2021 Tim Pursey

1.0 Date of Site Assessment

1.1 9th February 2021

2.0 Surveyor

2.1 Tim Pursey

3.0 Instructions

3.1 I am instructed by a number of local residents following a planning application to build a new dwelling on land currently occupied by two garages on Clyde Lane, Redland, Bristol.

3.2 A previous application (planning reference 20/02852/F) for a similar scheme was withdrawn. I was instructed to comment on the previous application and the majority of my original comments similarly apply to the present application.

3.3 The local residents have expressed concerns regarding the effect of the proposed new development on a mature London Plane tree growing at the street frontage and other trees growing in an adjacent rear garden.

3.4 I have not been provided with any additional documents but rely on information available on Bristol City Council’s planning website.

4.0 Report limitations

4.1 All inspections were made from ground level, using binoculars where necessary. Should a more detailed inspection, by climbing or by elevated platform, be required then this will be highlighted within the survey recommendations.

4.2 The site lies within Cotham and Redland Conservation Area so all trees greater than 75mm stem diameter are automatically subject to legal protection. I am not aware of any Tree Preservation Order which affects the property.

5.0 Background

5.1 Planning application 20/06226/F proposes construction of a detached two storey, two-bedroom dwelling at the site.

Garages at Clyde Lane, Redland, Bristol

Page 2 of 14 ©2021 Tim Pursey

5.2 The application includes an arboricultural report issued by Hillside Trees Limited which includes an arboricultural impact assessment, method statement and tree protection plan.

6.0 Observations During Site Visits

6.1 I attended the site on 21st February 2020 and was given access to neighbouring gardens by local residents. I further attended on 9th February 2021 where the London Plane was assessed from the roadside.

6.2 A mature London Plane (Platanus x hispanica) continues to grow at the front of the site; the tree is actually growing within the highway.

View of the tree from Clyde Lane. Note Eucalyptus tree growing behind garages

6.3 The tree has been reduced or pollarded in the fairly recent past and no obvious sign of defect nor disfunction was noted. Its roots were obviously growing beneath the tarmac surface in front of the two garages. This is evidenced by lifting of the tarmac surface.

6.4 The tree is apparently the property of and under control of Bristol City Council (BCC). It is a mature tree and is pollarded every few years by BCC in order to manage canopy size. It is unclear at present the exact frequency of those works but it is evident that this management regime has been in place for some years.

6.5 A semi-mature Cider Gum (Eucalyptus gunnii) grows in the rear garden of 3 Clyde Park and is close to the rear wall of the existing two garages. The tree is clearly visible from Clyde Lane and contributes towards the verdant character of the immediate area.

Garages at Clyde Lane, Redland, Bristol

Page 3 of 14 ©2021 Tim Pursey

View of the tarmac surface in front of the two garages. Note the proximity of the tree. Large roots, obviously from the Plane grow beneath the tarmac. Note again the Eucalyptus

behind the garages

6.6 The Cider Gum has a stem lean typical of the species and appears in a normal condition. Its canopy partly oversails the subject garages.

7.0 Arboricultural Report Submitted

7.1 The arboricultural report submitted by the applicants was prepared by Hillside Trees Limited (Hillside report) and is dated December 2020.

7.2 The report categorises the quality of trees around the proposed development. This categorisation was carried out in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction (BS5837). The assessment is intended to determine the relative quality of trees to inform design of any new scheme and to allow retention of better quality trees within the landscape.

7.3 The Hillside report assesses the London Plane as A1, A2 ie high quality, with remaining trees assessed as category C1 or C2 ie low quality. The assessment is a fair one and I do not seek to challenge the results.

7.4 The report identifies the root protection area of the London Plane, as defined within BS5837, and this extends over the entire subject site. This means that any works whatsoever within the subject site will need to be carried out with an appropriate level of care due to the likely presence of tree roots.

Garages at Clyde Lane, Redland, Bristol

Page 4 of 14 ©2021 Tim Pursey

7.5 The Hillside report acknowledges potential for root growth on the site and consequently some trial excavation was undertaken in August 2019 to determine the extent of root growth.

7.6 A trench was excavated along the southern edge of the apron in front of the two garages. The trench was dug to around 500mm in depth and a number of roots were located. A second trench was dug on the western side of the apron, immediately in front of the garages. The second trench is only 200mm in depth and it is difficult to understand why only limited excavation was completed.

7.7 However, roots were located within both trenches confirming that roots from the London Plane grow across the entire apron. This accords with clear visual evidence of larger tree roots lifting the tarmac surface nearer to the tree’s stem.

7.8 The trial excavation along the western edge should ideally have been deeper. This would have confirmed whether root growth extended beyond the tarmac apron and beneath the garages themselves. Digging to 200mm in depth will not confirm one way or the other.

7.9 The Hillside report states that ‘findings of this investigation have informed the design of foundations of the new dwelling’. I assume this is why the new structure will be constructed on helical piles.

7.10 The Hillside report does not appear to properly address the issue of new services. The arboricultural report for the previous withdrawn application was silent on the subject of services. A new dwelling will inevitably need water, power, drainage etc. This will involve excavation into the road and to some extent into the site.

7.11 The Hillside report suggests a watching brief by the project arboriculturist and includes detail provided by the National Joint Utilities Council (NJUG) which provides guidance for utility companies when excavating near to trees. The purpose of the document is to try and limit root damage when excavating. It suggests different methods with trenches excavated by hand as a last resort.

7.12 However, manual excavation is not a solution to all problems. British Standard 5837 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction – Recommendations states that limited manual excavation within the tree’s RPA might be acceptable, subject to justification. The proposed degree of excavation cannot be described as ‘limited’.

7.13 To fully satisfy the requirements of both NJUG and BS5837, a trenchless system (ie moling) should ideally be used. It is sometimes possible to use a moling technique to ‘burrow’ beneath root systems and install services but this is more suitable for larger sites and not for

Garages at Clyde Lane, Redland, Bristol

Page 5 of 14 ©2021 Tim Pursey

smaller infill projects. Use of this technique in this instance is extremely unlikely to be practical nor successful.

7.14 Hand-digging service trenches across the RPA seems to be the only possible solution. I have serios doubts whether the trenches can be properly excavated by hand without inflicting root damage to the London Plane. With the best will in the world and a watching brief by the project arboriculturist, some root damage will inevitably result.

7.15 The Hillside report correctly identifies the future relationship between occupiers of the new dwelling and the Plane tree. It correctly mentions issues such as over-bearance, shading and seasonal nuisance as potential issues. The report seems to suggest these issues can be managed by continuing management of the tree. This comment is a little vague and really does not address the issues.

7.16 The arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan also do not address potential damage to the tree as a result of the proposals. It makes arboricultural supervision a common feature which is a definite positive point, however, little within the document addresses the real issue which is potential for damage to both the London Plane and Eucalyptus which may result in their premature loss.

8.0 Discussion

8.1 The Hillside report identifies root growth beneath the tarmac apron in front of the two garages. It does not identify any root growth beneath the garages themselves, nor does it exclude the possibility of root growth beneath the garages. The trial investigation was insufficiently deep to determine whether roots extend beyond the apron or not. I do not consider at this stage that the possibility of tree roots extending beneath the current garage floor slab has been positively excluded.

8.2 If roots from the Plane do in fact extend beneath the garages, then clearly removal of the existing concrete floor slab and construction of a new ground bearing slab has potential to impact the trees significantly, particularly the Plane tree.

8.3 I cannot identify any floor levels within the submission documents. The existing garages have a floor level of 61.51m but it seems that no information is provided on proposed levels. This means excavation into the site in order to achieve desired levels may be necessary. The submission documents suggest a suspended floor to the new dwelling but without some information regarding proposed levels, the amount of proposed excavation over the site cannot be quantified. Clearly more detail is required in respect of this.

8.4 The submission documents show a proposed new dwelling with a slightly different footprint from the previous application. There is a new

Garages at Clyde Lane, Redland, Bristol

Page 6 of 14 ©2021 Tim Pursey

small courtyard at the rear presumably to try and minimise impact upon Eucalyptus T4 and the section of building closest to London Plane T1 is even closer than in the previous application.

8.5 Although the new courtyard may reduce the amount of root damage to Eucalyptus T4, the tree and its canopy will oversail the courtyard which may well result in future pressure on the tree to improve light levels and reduce litter from the tree.

8.6 The submission documents state that helical piles will be used for the new dwelling with a galvanised steel subframe. Without more detailed information, it is not possible at this stage to determine exactly what degree of excavation will be necessary in order to achieve this.

8.7 Use of helical piles is often an acceptable solution when constructing within the RPA of retained trees. However, piles need to be carefully sited in order to avoid major roots and thereby avoid physical damage. This is particularly important when constructing very close to a mature tree where the likelihood of encountering large roots is the greatest.

8.8 Where larger roots are encountered, it is normally possible to relocate piles so they avoid roots. On a site of restricted size, scope to re-position piles is limited and may not be possible at all.

8.9 BS5837 offers the use of piles within RPAs of retained trees as a means of constructing a new structure whilst minimising root damage to those trees. However, it is not a comprehensive solution and cannot apply to all sites and all conditions. It is offered as a possible solution and is only a practical solution in specific circumstances.

8.10 A full and proper assessment needs to be carried out with careful design in order to fully determine potential for damage to the root system of any tree. This has not been carried out by the applicants.

8.11 The proposals suggest the use of a cellular confinement system to construct a new path to the front door and other external hard surfaced areas. Use of these systems often allows construction of pathways or driveways, parking spaces etc within RPAs without inflicting root damage. Given the levels on site and obvious large surface roots in the immediate area, it is difficult to see how this can be successfully employed in this instance.

8.12 Assuming the new dwelling is successfully constructed without damaging the root system of the Plane tree, and I am not convinced this is feasible, future occupants of the dwelling will need to live with a large mature tree extremely close to, and canopy overhanging, their home. In fact, the northeast corner of the proposed dwelling is within the canopy of the London Plane.

Garages at Clyde Lane, Redland, Bristol

Page 7 of 14 ©2021 Tim Pursey

8.13 BS5837 states that proper consideration should be given to the relationship between retained trees and occupants of new dwellings or other buildings. This aims to avoid potential future pressure from occupants to reduce or remove trees perceived to be problematic.

8.14 One issue is the dominating effect of a tree. Where a large mature tree grows close to a dwelling, there is often a fear from occupants that the tree is somehow going to damage their home or injure somebody by dropping branches etc. Sometimes these fears are well-founded, but often they are not.

8.15 There are often fears of roots undermining foundations, leaf litter blocking gutters and downpipes, branches swinging in the wind and physically contacting the roof or other parts of the house, leaf litter covering PV panels etc. In this instance, it is easy to predict future conflict.

8.16 Loss of light is a common issue. In this instance the Plane tree grows to the north east of the proposed new dwelling so direct shade is unlikely to be an issue although it is noted that roof-lights are beneath the tree’s canopy. Given the proximity of the tree, loss of skylight will be an issue. Loss of light can sometimes be overcome with good design, but it is difficult to see how that can be achieved in this case because the house is extremely close to the canopy of the Plane.

8.17 The Hillside report mentions tree pollen, but another issue specific to London Planes is irritant hairs growing on new leaves. These hairs are shed later in the year and are widely recognised as an irritant. It is theoretically possible of course to merely keep all windows closed in the new dwelling but given the proximity of new house and tree, it is difficult to see how irritant hairs will not be problematic.

8.18 The London Plane clearly is a prominent tree in the local landscape. It is managed by BCC to contain canopy size but remains a sizeable tree.

8.19 The two images overleaf give an accurate impression of the size of the tree prior to pollarding. This shows the potential size of the tree. The existing garages can be seen in both images and proximity of the tree and new dwelling can be judged.

8.20 If the new dwelling was to be constructed, future conflict may result in additional pressure upon the tree, possibly resulting ultimately in its removal. The prominence of the tree can be seen in these images and clearly its removal would impact the local green infrastructure as well as being detrimental to the conservation area.

Garages at Clyde Lane, Redland, Bristol

Page 8 of 14 ©2021 Tim Pursey

Image of the London Plane (image centre) from Google Earth®. Note existing garages to left of tree and size of tree within landscape. Image date is unclear but shows tree prior to

pollarding

Second image from Google Earth® showing the tree (below centre) in the slightly wider landscape. The tree is clearly a prominent specimen

8.21 The London Plane is a vigorous hybrid species. It appears to have occurred naturally and is a cross between an American Plane (Platanus occidentalis) and an Oriental Plane (Platanus orientalis). The

Garages at Clyde Lane, Redland, Bristol

Page 9 of 14 ©2021 Tim Pursey

resulting hybrid, which first occurred in London, is noted for its ability to grow in urban environments.

8.22 It was noted because of its ability to grow in areas with very poor air quality and tolerates particulate pollution extremely well. It also grows well in areas covered with tarmac, concrete etc. This why it has been planted within cities across the globe for more than a century.

8.23 The Eucalyptus growing within the rear gardens of 3 Clyde Park is close to the rear of existing garages and close to the rear wall of the proposed new dwelling. The tree has some landscape value and is currently semi-mature. As it continues to grow, its landscape value will inevitably increase.

8.24 Eucalyptus trees are a fast growing species and this particular tree has potential to reach some considerable size in relatively few years. There is currently little pressure on the tree; it is sufficiently distanced from the rear of the dwellings at 3 Clyde Park. The proposals include a small courtyard immediately adjacent the tree and below its canopy. This will inevitably result in future pressure to either significantly reduce or remove the tree.

Photo of the Eucalyptus taken from the rear garden of 4 Clyde Park. Its proximity to the rear of the existing garages, and hence proximity to the proposed new dwelling, can be

clearly seen. Note its canopy oversailing garages. This canopy will oversail the proposed new courtyard

Garages at Clyde Lane, Redland, Bristol

Page 10 of 14 ©2021 Tim Pursey

Photo taken from the rear of 2 Clyde Park showing the Eucalyptus (centre), pollarded London Plane (left) and rear of existing garages

8.25 The canopy of the Eucalyptus currently oversails the garages to some extent. Clearly this will need to be pruned to some extent in order to facilitate construction of the new dwelling as well as erecting scaffolding around it. These works are likely to require pruning of large limbs which consequently result in large pruning wounds. Large pruning wounds can be detrimental to any tree irrespective of species.

8.26 Other smaller trees growing in the rear gardens of 3 Clyde Park include an Apple, Cherry and Hazel. These are unlikely to significantly affected by excavations and will not conflict with occupants of a new dwelling. Some tree protection may be necessary during construction works but this is achievable.

8.27 Trees in general have more recently been identified as providing valuable contribution to our cities. Large trees, irrespective of species, offer shade, have a positive cooling effect, can absorb pollution, improve air quality, provide habitat for local wildlife as well as contribute towards the general amenity and character of any city location.

8.28 It is well known that large trees within cities positively contribute to good mental health as well as physical health which is partly why many cities around the country are planting great numbers of new trees to improve local green infrastructure.

8.29 A climate emergency has been declared by many which makes retention of trees, particularly within cites, even more important. Positive benefits of mature tree cover within an urban landscape cannot be overestimated. Potential removal of healthy mature trees should therefore be avoided where possible.

Garages at Clyde Lane, Redland, Bristol

Page 11 of 14 ©2021 Tim Pursey

9.0 Conclusion

9.1 British Standard 5837:2012 states the default position should be that structures are located outside the RPAs of trees to be retained. Although some trial excavation has taken place, a greater understanding of root morphology is necessary in this instance.

9.2 I am not convinced that construction of a new dwelling can be achieved without root damage to either the London Plane nor the Eucalyptus. A clearer picture of root growth is required as well as a more detailed analysis of proposed site levels, siting of helical piles, details of galvanised steel frame and floor slab proposed, exact nature of excavations proposed, siting and installation of new services etc.

9.3 The combined effect of excavation over the site is potentially very harmful to the trees and nothing within the submitted documents appears to properly address the concerns.

9.4 Paragraph 5.3.4 (d) of BS5837:2012 states ‘The relationship of buildings to large trees can cause apprehension to occupiers or users of nearby buildings or spaces, resulting in pressure for removal of the trees. Buildings and other structures should be sited allowing adequate space for a tree’s natural development, with due consideration given to its height and canopy spread’.

9.5 The proposed new dwelling will lie immediately adjacent a large mature London Plane and a semi-mature Eucalyptus. The northeast corner of the new dwelling will be within the canopy of the Plane and the canopy of the Eucalyptus oversails the proposed courtyard garden. Given this very intimate relationship between the trees and dwelling, my view is that pressure from future occupiers will result in removal of the trees, possibly in the short term.

9.6 BS5837:2012 has tree care at its heart and attempts to provide guidance to ensure that the more significant trees within the landscape are successfully retained within any new development. The proposals in this instance do not appear to satisfy concerns identified.

9.7 The London Plane is undoubtedly a significant tree in the local landscape and although size-managed will continue to grow for many years. The tree is currently subject to legal protection by virtue of its position within a Conservation Area but is easily worthy of a Tree Preservation Order.

9.8 The character appraisal for the Cotham and Redland Conservation Area specifically highlights the quality of both garden trees and street trees within the vicinity of Clyde Park / Clyde Road giving the area a ‘particularly verdant character’. Clearly loss of any mature tree erodes the character of the conservation area.

Garages at Clyde Lane, Redland, Bristol

Page 12 of 14 ©2021 Tim Pursey

9.9 The arboricultural impact assessment within the Hillside report does not properly address the concerns outlined and design of the proposed new dwelling certainly does not offer a solution which allows retention of adjacent trees.

9.10 Local authorities are legally obligated to protect trees and both trees highlighted within this document are additionally legally protected by virtue of their position within a conservation area. Both contribute positively to the conservation area as well as their local environment.

9.11 It is entirely proper for local authorities to use the planning system to protect trees. Where an application has potential to damage trees, whether growing on the subject site or not, and irrespective of ownership, the local authority can use appropriate planning conditions to minimise damage or to refuse planning permission altogether.

9.12 In this case, I would consider risk to the trees to be unquantified and potentially considerable. The appropriate course of action is for Bristol City Council to refuse planning permission for the new dwelling to be constructed.

20th February 2021 Tim Pursey Chartered Arboriculturist

Garages at Clyde Lane, Redland, Bristol

Page 13 of 14 ©2021 Tim Pursey

Bibliography

British Standard 3936-1:1992 Nursery Stock- Specification for Trees and Shrubs British Standard 3998:2010 Recommendations for Tree Work British Standard 4428:1989 Code of Practice for General Landscaping Operations British Standard 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and

Construction – Recommendations

Tree Preservation Orders: A Guide to The Law and Good Practice 2000

Subsidence of Low-Rise Buildings 2000 Institution of Structural Engineers Standards-Chapter 4.2 Building Near Trees 2003 National House Building Council

Guidelines for The Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility Services in Proximity to Trees 1995 National Joint Utilities Group

Controlling Water Use of Trees to Alleviate Subsidence Risk 2004 Horticulture Link Project 212

Inspection of Highway Trees Roads 52/75 1975 Department of the Environment Circular

Forestry Commission Information Notes Phytophthora Pathogens of Trees: Their Rising Profile in Europe FCIN030 1999 Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: the UK Contribution FCIN048 2003

Forestry Commission Bulletin Climate Change: Impact on UK Forests FCBU125 2002

Essential Soil Science 2003 Ashman, M.R. & Puri, G. Visual Amenity Valuation of Trees and Woodlands

2003 Helliwell, D.R. The Hillier Manual of Trees and Shrubs 2004 Hillier, J. & Coombes, A. The Arboriculturalist’s Companion 1990 James, N.D.G. Collins Tree Guide 2004 Johnson, O. & More, D. Habitat Management for Invertebrates 2001 Kirby, P. Dead Wood Matters: The Ecology and Conservation of Saproxylic Invertebrates in Britain

1992 Kirby, K.J. & Drake, C.M. Physiology of Woody Plants 1979 Kramer, P.J. & Kozlowski, T.T. Hazards from Trees: A General Guide 2000 Lonsdale, D. Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management 2001 Lonsdale, D. The Body Language of Trees 2003 Mattheck, C. & Breloer, H Trees of Britain and Northern Europe 1978 Mitchell, A. Fungal Strategies of Wood Decay in Trees 2004 Schwarze, F., Engels, J, Mattheck, C. Modern Arboriculture 2003 Shigo, A.L. Diagnosis of Ill-Health in Trees 2000 Strouts, R.G. & Winter, T.G. Soil Types: A Field Identification Guide 1989 Trudgill, S. Manual of Wood Decays in Trees 2003 Weber, K. & Mattheck, C. Reducing Infrastructure Damage by Tree Roots 2003 Costello L.R. & Jones K.S.

Garages at Clyde Lane, Redland, Bristol

Page 14 of 14 ©2021 Tim Pursey

Tree Roots in the Built Environment 2006 Roberts, Jackson, Smith Publications from Arboricultural Advisory and Information Service APN1 Driveways Close to Trees Patch, D. & Dobson, M. APN12 Through the Trees to Development Patch, D. ARIN 130/95/ARB Tree Root Systems Dobson, M.

The proposed structure is inappropriate for many reasons:

- It alters the views in the conservation area because it is too tall- It threatens the large London Plane tree: a vital 'lung' helping the carbon footprint.- It is also likely to damage the root system of our large apple tree.- There is no amenity space.- As a 4 person house it could mean 4 cars looking to park where no space is available.- We at number 3, have a right of way to Clyde Lane from our bin store. This is likely to becompromised.These points and many others are made in reports by experts appointed jointly by owners ofnumbers 2,3 and 4 Clyde park and submitted separately.When one buys a home one has certain criteria . If the choice is made in a conservation area onepays a premium for the assurance that there will be no radical changes to the area. Why, then, doI find myself for the second time within a few months, facing the threat of a new-build at the end ofthe garden? Why is much of the work I have done to create a productive garden now beingthreatened with being trampled by builders? Because a developer wants to shoe-horn a buildinginto a totally inappropriate space for financial gain. The city needs more houses, affordable familyhouses ,not second homes for those who can afford them.Please do not grant permission for this new building.

Vibeke Rowell (owner )Hall floor flat 3 Clyde Park

I can confirm being among the group of people who commissioned the report suppliedby David Glasson Planning Limited. This report and the objections contained, represent my views.In addition, I have particular concern about the possibility that the London Plane tree, situated onClyde Lane could be damaged. This is a large and significant tree with an extensive root systemwhich spreads throughout the proposed building plot.

Joan Wadsley, 2 Clyde Park, Redland. I am one of the group who commissioned theletter from David Glasson to Bristol City Council.

The proposal is to fit a two storey house into an inadequate space.

In order to squeeze the building in, the developer will have to intrude into and cause considerabledamage to the gardens of two of our neighbours (3 and 4 Clyde Park) which are long establishedand have been cared for during decades. There will be damage to fences and hard structures,which will need rebuilding, and also to mature trees, at least one of which (an apple tree) may wellhave formed part of the original orchard on which Clyde Park was built, more than a century ago.

As many other neighbours have mentioned, the proposed new house will be almost directly underthe splendid London Plane tree, which is such an important feature of the neighbourhood. There issimply no space for this to be done comfortably and without damage to the tree, even in the shortterm. The roots, both of the Plane and of the well-grown Eucalyptus in the garden of Number 3must grow under the present garage, and although the developer's arboriculturist indicates thatthe main structural and feeder roots of the tree run much deeper and closer to the base of thestem of the tree, it is impossible to believe that the roots under the garage are not sizable andimportant, given the large size and age of the tree and its very close proximity to the garage. Theimplication, unsupported by concrete evidence, that the roots will not be adversely affected by thepiles for the foundations is not credible.

Similarly, the reassuring statement by the arboriculturist that the "expected recurrence of thismanagement regime in the future" (that is, the re-pollarding) "will minimise the impact of these

issues on the quality of life of future occupants" seems very like fantasy. In our experience, re-pollarding is not very frequent, and the vigour of the tree means that the canopy grows fast and isextensive. Accordingly, the spread of the branches is likely to impact on the new building in a fairlyshort time. Equally, the leaves, which are large (plate size) drop in huge numbers over the wholearea of the garage - up to halfway up the side of our garden - even when the tree has beenpollarded, as in this year. In the garden they can be dealt with, although with a lot of work, but theywill cause a serious nuisance when they fall on the roof and windows of the proposed new house.They will pile up very quickly over the roof lights and obstruct the light. In fact, the leaves of theEucalyptus also fall over the garage, and this would add to the problem. It is entirely foreseeablethat the occupants of the house would find the conditions very difficult and exert a lot of pressureto remove both trees.

In my view, this is an over-ambitious attempt to exploit an inadequate site which will causedamage to nearby gardens and to important and cherished trees.

Response to planning application 20/06226/F, development of land at the rear of gardenof 3 Clyde Park

Drs Timothy and Joanna Chambers confirm their part in commissioning the following reports:

(1) Letter of objection from David Glasson Planning Ltd. to Mr B Royston dated February 23rd2021: Demolition of single storey double garage and construction of a two storey two bed house(Application Number 20/06226/F) Garage to rear of 3 Clyde Park, Bristol BS6 6RR.

(2) JME Conservation Ltd. February 2021Assessment of Heritage Impacts of proposed development of land to the rear of 3 Clyde ParkBristol. Application 20/06226/F

(3) Tim Pursey MICFor, M.Arbor.A., Dip.Arb.(RFS), Tech.Cert.(Arbor.A.) Arboricultural ConsultantAssessment of Planning Application Reference 20/06226/F at Garages at Clyde Lane, February2021

We confirm that these submissions represent our views and form our joint evidence with Numbers2 and 3 Clyde Park.

We object to this application for a wholly unsuitable development that would:

- impose a large, disproportionate dwelling, squashed in an inappropriate site for the local area,and which apparently conflicts with an 18th century covenant.

- risk significant damage or death of two mature trees,- destroy the planned vistas of the long back gardens of the east side of Clyde Park and those ofClyde Lane, Elliston Road and Clyde mews- reduce parking and cause road access problems for the houses in Clyde Mews and those inChandos Road whose garages back onto Clyde Lane.- encroach into the surrounding civic space, resulting in loss of neighbours' privacy and amenity.- pose a technical problem concerning the boundary between numbers 3 and 4 Clyde Park.

Technical Objection

The strip of land on the south side of the existing garages (marked with a red line on drawingnumber 060-P-001of proposed site plan) has been enclosed within the garden of 4 Clyde Park(our garden) for 40 years with no access to the applicant or his predecessors over that time. Nonotice has been served to the owners of 4 Clyde Park for work to their Lean To.

Risk to the Trees.

We endorse all the points made in Tim Pursey's report but wish to emphasise several of them.The roots of the mature London Plane (well known as one of the most important trees forreduction in pollution, an important issue for Bristol) on the front boundary of the property are atsignificant risk from:- damage during building of foundations,- access for utilities and- the ground heat pump.Furthermore, Tim Pursey states that hand digging is unlikely to be possible without damage.The National Joint Utilities Group GUIDELINES FOR THE PLANNING, INSTALLATION ANDMAINTENANCE OF UTILITY APPARATUS IN PROXIMITY TO TREES lists an extensivecatalogue of potential damage and how it can be mitigated. We note it states "The ProjectArboriculturalist will visit the site to inspect and assess the circumstances and make anyappropriate recommendations" but the degree and frequency of supervision is not specified.Therefore we cannot be sure this will be sufficiently meticulous to prevent incidental, accidentaldamage as described in Tim Pursey's report.The canopy of the London Plane and Eucalyptus both spread over the new building, with resultingloss of light, leaf drop, pollen and irritation from hairs on the leaves. Furthermore, there will beconcern that the roots may undermine the foundations. These two issues may lead to pressurefrom future owners to remove them.

Significant and necessary pre build pruning of the eucalyptus is indicated in the applicant'sArboricultural Method Statement; this risks both pruning wound and disfigurement of the tree (weestimate that one third of the tree will need to be removed). As the tree continues to grow, its

canopy will continue to be over the courtyard and there may be pressure from future occupants forfurther pruning, with risk both to its viability and shape.

Heritage Issues.

We wish to endorse and broaden the comments of JME Conservation Limited page 2, headed Thespecial character of this part of the Redland and Cotham Conservation Area. We respectfully referyou to the booklet Redland's Role in the Charge of the Light Brigade by Colin Sara. Page 10 refersto Redland Developments and makes it clear that Col Charles Walker intended theNapier/Elgin/Clyde development of his parcels of land to be of a unique character: an area ofspecial historic interest within a conservation area. The long back gardens of the east side ClydePark houses, with open views north and south, designed to allow space for peace and quiet awayfrom the public front gardens will be broken.

Furthermore, a covenant seems to have been established viz:"A Conveyance of freehold estate in the land in this title and other land dated 8 December 1869made between (1) Charles Pyndar Beauchamp Walker and (2) Samuel Jenkins Moulton containsthe following covenants: -The said Samuel Jenkins Moulton doth hereby for himself and his heirs executors administratorsand assigns covenant with the said Charles Pyndar Beauchamp Walker his heirs and assigns thatno other erection or Building shall at any time be erected upon any part of the said plot of groundexcept hothouses conservatories greenhouses boundary walls and entrance gateways And thatno hothouse conservatory or greenhouse which may at any time be erected on the said plot ofGround shall exceed eighteen feet in height or shall be erected in front of the Messuage to be builtthereon as foresaid."

We note that on Page 8 of the applicant's Design, Access & Heritage Statement it is said:The gardens of the Clyde Park houses are large and could take development at the end of thegardens. This would contribute to the housing stock in support of BCS5. The principal (sic) ofdevelopment was supported in the pre-app advice.

Comments:

1. the word large is not defined or quantified: large compared to what? It also negates the specialcharacter of the area and demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to this part of the conservation area.2. We wish to confirm that it is not our intention to develop the rear end of the garden of 4 ClydePark for building purposes.3. The application conflicts with the covenanted agreement (above).

Light and amenities of the house itself

The full canopy of the Plane Tree extends over the whole site, and will therefore take light from the

house, reduce sun exposure to the solar panels and its large leaves spread a considerabledistance when shed and will certainly reach the outside sitting area. This area is also adjacent tothe Eucalyptus which itself sheds leaves, seeds and bark all the year round and will shade thearea significantly.

Privacy and loss of amenity for neighbours

We are advised that the height of the roof ridge is 6.8 metres, which is 3 metres higher than theeaves. This is out of proportion to any other buildings at the rear of the gardens on the east side ofClyde Park. The true effect of the height can be seen in Figures 6 and 8 of the Assessment ofHeritage Impact report from JM Conservation Limited.The proposed building will adjoin one third of the garden boundary between numbers 3 and 4Clyde Park at its Clyde Lane end. In this area we have our patio and private space, with tree viewsto the north and, further away, the rear townscape of Clyde Road. The present garages cause onlyminor disruption of this amenity. However, a 6.8 metre high building will destroy these views.Furthermore, privacy of the patio will be compromised by the window on the south side of theupper storey that overlooks this area of the garden.

February 2021

The existing tree will be adversely affected by the proposed house. Mature trees suchas this are an important feature of the area and need to be protected.

The footprint of the proposed house is also significantly larger than the existing garage.

Comments: Jacqueline Fuller confirms her part in commissioning the letter from DavidGlasson Planning Limited to Mr B Royston, Bristol City Council. It represents my view and formsmy joint evidence with neighbours at numbers 2 and 4 Clyde Park.

General ObjectionsI wish to endorse the comments of JME Conservation Limited regarding the special character ofthis part of the Redland and Cotham Conservation Area.

Objections specific to number 3.

1. Heritage IssuesThe Victorian villa at number 3 Clyde Park was developed into 4 one-bedroom flats in the1970s/1980s. There are currently 6 adults living here. The land being developed was originallypart of the garden of number 3, but when the flats were refurbished in the 1980s the land at theend of the garden was retained by the developer and the garages built on the land. The proposeddevelopment provides accommodation for up to 4 adults.

2. Ownership of strip of land behind the garagesThe building, as proposed, includes a strip of land behind the garage, which has beencontinuously enclosed in our back garden (3 Clyde Park) for at least 16 years, but probably sincethe garages were built. Due to the restrictions of the site and the size of the building, the proposeddevelopment has been designed to go right up to the boundary, which will mean removing matureraspberry canes and strawberry beds. Note, as the applicant only has right of way along the path

of no. 3 from Clyde Park to Clyde Lane my understanding is that he does not have access to thisstrip of land to build from the garden of no. 3 Clyde Park.

3. Right of WayWhen the developer hived off the land at the end of the garden of no. 3, the managementcompany/ leaseholders maintained a Right of Way across the forecourt of the current garages toaccess Clyde Lane, in order to put the rubbish and green recycling bins out onto the Lane forcollection. There is a bin store (owned by No, 3) to the right of the garages, behind the Plane Tree.As the Plane Tree has disturbed the land and formed a mound of soil, space of around a metre isneeded around this mound in order to take the bins out of the bin store and put these in the Lane.From viewing the site plan, with the inclusion of a 1.8m fence plus gate, it is not clear that there issufficient room to allow our Right of Access to Clyde Lane.

4. TreesThere is a mature Eucalyptus tree which borders the land, and which we are told will have to bepruned to allow the building to be built, and continually cut back to keep the building free frominterference by the branches. In addition, the roots grow underneath the garage and forecourt andI am concerned these may be damaged when construction takes place, with the sinking of pilesand the ground heat pump plus mains sewage and water.In the garden of number 3 we have a very mature but healthy Bramley apple tree. We suspect thiswas in place when the villa was built in the 1880s. Each year we have a generous crop of apples.The tree is home to many forms of wildlife. It also provides privacy to the residents of number 3(whose bedrooms are at the back of the house) from being overlooked by residents in EllistonRoad, and provides amenity in the form of a green outlook from the back of the house andprovides shade and greenery in the garden. Our tree was crown reduced and lowered a few yearsago, prior to which the canopy grew over the roof of the garage, therefore at the moment it doesnot reflect its full size. I have been reliably informed that the roots of this tree will extend as far asClyde Lane, underneath the garages. Therefore, the building of the foundations and the sinking ofpiles is very likely to damage the root system and cause long term damage to the apple tree. Thisis of great concern to me and the other residents of no. 3 and would be a significant loss ofamenity.I am also extremely concerned at potential damage to the splendid London Plane tree in ClydeLane, alongside the garages. This tree towers over the area and provides not only a green aspectand can be seen from all the houses on this side of Clyde Park, from Elliston Road and ClydeLane but provides shelter for all kinds of wildlife.

5. Loss of AmenityThe residents at number 3 use the garden on a daily basis, for gardening and sitting/relaxing in(note: the garden is shared between the four flats).

The design of the building is completely out of keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood. Thebuilding is up to 3 times the height of the existing garages, although it is positioned as a two-storeyhouse. As well as the negative impact of the views from the street, it will negatively impact theview from the garden and from the back windows of the no.3. My flat is on the third storey of no. 3& the roof of the development will be as high as my bedroom window. I note that the proposeddevelopment has a black standing seam zinc roof, completely out of keeping with the surroundingarchitecture, where all of the houses have brown tile roofs.

In addition, the garden, which is shorter than its neighbours, has at one end the 4 storey Victorianvillas of Clyde Park. If the proposed development is successful, it will now have at the other endeffectively a 3 storey building and the garden will feel very different & dominated by these twostructures, whereas currently it has an open feel. This will have a detrimental effect on the benefitsto physical & mental health of use of our garden.

Charles and Jan Gregory16 Clyde Road Redland Bristol BS6 6RP.

We object to this application on many fronts which are summarised below:Trees:The proposed dwelling and its full cover of the site puts the safety and life of the mature adjacenttrees at great risk - the London Plane, a street tree, is a fine tree and its entire root system will bethreatened by the foundations, the proposed ground source heat pump bore hole and the housedrainage system.The London Plane tree is obviously at risk from this proposed development as are other trees inadjoining gardens, we will not dwell on this as many others have written in detail & with betterknowledge than us but suffice it to say this must be a major planning consideration for the site andthe area as the loss of such trees would very much harm the Conservation Area and the streetscene.

The canopy of the Plane will also overhang the entire house causing overshadowing of the solarPv panels and reducing light and sunlight to roof lights and the like.Other trees in the adjacent gardens of No.3 and 4 Clyde Park are also at risk.Design:We object to this application due to it being totally inappropriate for this location within the Redlandand Cotham Conservation area and it is very much over development of an exceedingly small site,it fails on all counts to enhance or conserve the area and it is totally out of character with thesurrounding Victorian buildings!This scheme is not infill and the scale and height of the proposals largely built right to theboundaries of the site [and in places seems from the red line boundaries shown to be intruding

into adjoining gardens] it is clear it will create overshadowing and overlooking of the neighbouringgardens and dwellings. In addition to this the proposed new house has no real private amenityspaces for the enjoyment of the residents.It is also evident from the design drawings that the Architects have struggled to get light andventilation into this proposed dwelling and in trying to overcome some of the overlooking ofadjacent houses the screens proposed will create poor quality and we would say unacceptably lowlight levels internally.We do accept that residential developments are required for the City, but this should not be at theexpense of reducing quality of life for neighbours or providing substandard accommodation for thehouse occupants or changing the street scene and views of green spaces and gardens that arevery precious in such a narrow street.Others too, have written in detail about narrowness of Clyde Lane, and the lack of parkingprovision, this proposed dwelling could generate a requirement for possibly 4 cars, and it isremoving spaces for at least two vehicles in the garage demolition proposed.Conclusion:In conclusion we would state this is not a suitable site for a new dwelling and especially one of thescale and heights proposed that fills the entire plot available.

As neighbours to this potential development we have several concerns.

We believe access to Clyde mews during building would be highly disruptive to everyone living onthe mews.

We have concerns around parking for a new two bed property with no plans for off road parking inan area where parking is already an issue.

We have concerns to exactly how the potential building would not disturb the large tree which isblocking some access to the current garages and would certainly sustain damage to its rootsshould the house be built.

Basically, we think shoehorning a two bedroom house into the space of a double garage on anarrow lane is unacceptable.

Further to the previous objection on behalf of the Trustees of the Clyde Park ResidentsAssociation, our views on this revised application for the development of a two storey house at therear of No 3 Clyde Park have not altered, as they do not address the concerns raised. Please readthis objection in conjunction with the previous one.The proposed development of a two storey, two bedroom house is entirely wrong on this crampedsite, with little or no amenity space, and no garden. A two storey house would overlook andovershadow nearby gardens, principally nos 3 and 4 Clyde Park and there is a serious loss ofamenity for those gardens.The design pays no attention to the Conservation Area and its qualities, and it interrupts views upand down the narrow street, and through gardens. It is an insensitive design for a ConservationArea.There are already parking issues within the area, and during any build, this site would be difficultto manage as there is no storage space as the proposed build comes close to the edge of theroad. Because of the tree location, access to the site is poor. The narrow road must not beblocked or closed as it is the only access to other properties and would need to be kept freerunning at all times for emergency vehicles, utility vehicles and residents.There is a magnificent London Plane tree on the edge of the site, which has been recentlypollarded and so gives a misleading idea of its size. When at its full extent, the branches stretchover the neighbouring gardens and over the existing garages. Any building development would bebound to require the tree to be pollarded more often and any build would damage the root system.This would cause additional stress to the health and preservation of the tree. It is ourunderstanding that London Plane trees are one of the most efficient trees for the removal ofpollutants.There is also a mature eucalyptus tree within the garden of no 3 Clyde Park, which would be

damaged by the removal of at least one large limb and possible root damage to enable this build.The proposed build could also affect the birds and wildlife habitat.This proposal is wholly inappropriate, as it does not preserve the special character of theConservation Area (see s.72 of the Listed Buildings Act). On the contrary it harms it substantiallyand the Trustees invite the Council to refuse it.

I don't support this proposal for many reasons:- Its position will be very much out of keeping with the area.- It will be built at the backs of houses from very different materials from its neighbours.- It is effectively being built in a back garden which is a dangerous precedent to set.- It will be very overlooked by the neighbouring houses and in turn, be very overlooked by them.- It has no provision for parking and is on a narrow lane.- It has no outside space- It will adversely affect the London plane tree- It is being built as an investment opportunity not for anyone else's benefit other than a quickbuck.

Summary (Full text submitted to Planning Dept.)

This proposal is for a two-storey house on a site that is completely unsuitable for a developmenton such a scale. The site itself is too small, directly adjoins a narrow highway with no pavementfrontage, and is almost completely overshadowed by tree canopies. These restrictions havedictated a design for an inferior dwelling that does not meet the relevant criterion of fitness forhabitation. The context is also inappropriate; the site is in the centre of an important open, greenspace that is an essential feature of this Conservation Area.Any proposed development must be assessed in terms of its overall costs and benefits. In thiscase, the potential benefit is the addition of one cramped, inferior and substandard dwelling to thelocal housing stock. This is a marginal gain that is surely far outweighed by the potential impact ofsuch a development on the essential character of this attractive and much-loved corner of theRedland and Cotham Conservation Area. This assessment is clearly supported by Bristol CityCouncil's declared policy for the management and planning of Conservation Areas within the city,as evidenced by the extracts cited here.If this development were to be permitted, it would create an ongoing, irreconcilable conflict ofinterest in relation to overlooking, tree management and access between residents of this propertyand those in the neighbourhood community. This proposal should not receive planning consent.

Further to my previous objection, my views have not altered with this revised applicationas it does not address the concerns already posted by previous objections.The illustrations given of other local infill developments in the area in no way compairs to thisproposed building in Clyde Lane.It is a development trying to squeeze a dwelling into a small area of land that will add no positvebenifit to what is essentially an open, unspoilt stetch of road.Further, it is sited in a position where traffic movement and parking is pinched at the worst pointdue to the narrowness of the street. The only way of parking in this stretch would be to park on thepavement and even then, still restrict the passing of some large goods delivery and recyclingvehicles.The building is incensitive to the conservation ethos of the areaand there are many further reasons which have already been listed by other objectors, so I do notwish to duplicate those views with which I agree.This is an application which I can not accept and strongly object to.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

See attached document

Comments on Planning Application 20/02852/F page 2

Comments for Planning Application 20/06226/F

Garage To Rear Of 3 Clyde Park Bristol BS6 6RR

Proposal: Demolition of single storey double garage to the rear Of 3 Clyde Park Bristol BS6 6RR, and construction of a two storey, two bedroom house.

Grounds for objection

I strongly object to this proposed development, which is entirely inconsistent with the management and planning policies for this Conservation Area, as set out in the 2011 Bristol City Council Planning document for Cotham and Redland (Character Appraisal & Management Proposals, Area 18). All paragraphs enclosed in shaded boxes in the following text are taken from that report, unless otherwise identified.

My specific objections are as follows:

The context of the site

This site is in the middle of the large, tree-filled space formed by the rear gardens of substantial Victorian villas in Clyde Park and Clyde Road. Such spaces are an essential component of the streetscape, rewarding pedestrians and local residents with a pleasing view of tree canopies, together with glimpses of more distant areas on the higher ground of Cotham. This is the kind of space recognised as a defining characteristic of the Redland and Cotham Conservation area, and as such must be preserved.

At present, the only buildings in this space are garden sheds and small-scale lock-up garages of uncertain date. The only new buildings in the immediate neighbourhood are those that border this space, at the lower end of Clyde Lane. These are the houses of Clyde Mews, for which planning permission was granted in 1988 to replace the existing warehouse and workshops of Stone’s the builders (Ref. 88/02294/F), and the Coach House, which replaced an existing two-storey workshop (Ref: 09/02605/F). Both developments thus removed unsightly industrial buildings that were negative features of the area, replacing them with well-designed housing on an appropriate scale. These new buildings now form a homogeneous group; rubble stone or painted render facings, Bath stone detailing and clay-tiled roofs were designed to harmonise with building styles in this area.

The positive contribution made by these developments is clearly apparent in the following period photographs, which show the buildings that have been replaced. The first shows the builders’ workshop/warehouse site that was redeveloped as Clyde Mews. The second was taken during the building of the Mews houses in 1988/89, with the yellow-painted two-storey workshop that was rebuilt as the Coach House clearly visible in the background.

Comments on Planning Application 20/02852/F page 3

Clyde Lane: Stone’s builders’ warehouse and workshop circa 1968. Now redeveloped as Clyde Mews

Clyde Mews construction1988/89, with workshop rebuilt as the Coach House at far end of the site

Comments on Planning Application 20/02852/F page 4

Recent building developments in the Clyde Lane area have thus eliminated a group of unsightly non-residential buildings, enhancing the neighbourhood environment while at the same time adding a significant quantity of good quality housing stock. In contrast, the current proposal is for a building that would be a massive intrusion into the open space adjacent to Clyde Lane. The existing lock-up garages are unattractive, but this proposal does not observe the scale or building lines of the structure it would replace. The plans are for a house that is far too large for the tiny plot of land available, and which does not engage with or sympathetically relate to the architectural context.

The Design, Access and Heritage statement in the current planning application describes Clyde Lane as “the back lane for the large houses on Clyde Park”. This is a misrepresentation, suggesting that this is not a residential thoroughfare. In fact, Clyde Lane is the only street access to my house (1 Clyde Lane), as well as to the Coach House and to all of the houses in Clyde Mews. It is essential that the lane is kept clear at all times of day and night for residents’ cars, delivery vans, recycling collection and emergency services.

The visual impact of a building on the proposed scale in this location would be completely inappropriate and unacceptable. This is precisely the kind of intrusion that runs counter to the principles laid out in Bristol City Council policy for management of Redland and Cotham Conservation Area.

Clyde Lane, looking towards the proposed development site, which is marked by the large London plane tree. 1 Clyde lane is the property on the left.

Comments on Planning Application 20/02852/F page 5

Elliston Road, looking towards the proposed development site. The London plane is the large tree to the left of centre.

6.1.1 The historic street layout and the relationship of built form to open space define the framework of an area. The traditional pattern of development, front and rear building lines, planned open spaces, enclosed open spaces, street layout, and plot sizes should be respected and used to dictate the scale and level of enclosure or openness appropriate to the Conservation Area.

(Extract from Section 10: Management proposals)

Negative Feature: Unsympathetic Infill & Over Intensive Developments

Potential Action

10.19 Resist unsympathetic applications which would harm the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. High quality design and materials will be encouraged through existing development management powers.

10.22 Ensure that predominant height, scale, massing, footprint, layout, materials, details, roofscape and front and rear and building lines are respected in line with the BLP/LDF policies and findings within the Conservation Area Character Appraisal.

Comments on Planning Application 20/02852/F page 6

Policy BCS22 - Conservation & The Historic Environment

Saved Adopted Local Plan Policies (1997) following adoption of Core Strategy (2011)

Policy B15 (extract):

(I) ‘Townscape and landscape features that contribute to the character or appearance of streets and open spaces within Conservation Areas should be preserved or enhanced.’

(II) Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm landscapes, open spaces and gardens that contribute to the character of the area.

Access and Parking

Clyde Lane is narrow along its entire length, and narrowest at the corner of the site, where the mature plane tree restricts the width to 3.7m – insufficient for two cars to pass. The only space for roadside parking in Clyde Lane is in the section that runs along my property boundary, and if a car were temporarily parked at the proposed development site (e.g. for deliveries), it would block access to and from Clyde Mews.

On-street parking in the surrounding area is already difficult. There are three recent proposed and agreed infill developments in Elliston Road, and all have included off-street parking space. Because of the high density of households, and absence of off-street parking, provision of on-site parking has become an essential requirement for infill developments in this area.

Boundary and access issues

The footprint of the original design, ref. 20/02852/F, coincided with that of the existing garages and hard standing. In the revised design, the south-east boundary has been extended into an area currently occupied by the neighbour’s lean-to shed, which it is proposed should be relocated. There is potential here for a boundary dispute; an issue that is not acknowledged in the proposal. It is not for me to say whether the neighbour would wish to make a claim in this regard, but it raises a more general issue of access to the site during the proposed construction work. Whatever the resolution of the boundary issue, it is apparent that the planned building extends right up to the garden boundaries of nos. 3 and 4 Clyde Park. I do not know who owns the pathway strip along the north west boundary, but I note that it is outside the red line boundary on the site plan. It is evident from responses to the previous planning application that all neighbouring residents are strongly opposed to this proposal, and it seems highly unlikely that permission would be granted for access of any kind, whether for scaffolding or for building workers. Access and storage space for equipment and materials to the Clyde Lane frontage would also be severely limited by the needs to keep the road clear, and to erect tree protection barriers as specified in BS 5837 (2012). Overhead access is severely limited by the tree canopy.

Comments on Planning Application 20/02852/F page 7

These issue are not addressed in the application. However, in view of these access issues and the sensitivity of the site, the applicants must surely first submit a detailed proposal of how construction works might proceed within these severe constraints.

Site plan of existing garages, and of the proposed new building (shaded grey)

Trees

The most obvious feature of the site is the very large, mature London Plane tree that stands at the northern corner. The arboricultural report confirms that this tree is in good condition, with a life expectancy of 40+ years. There is as yet no TPO for this tree, though a recent application has been made. However, it is evident that if it were to be built, the well-being of house and tree would be in direct conflict. The tree has recently been very severely pollarded (too severely, in my view and that of other local residents), and the street view of the proposed development shows the tree in this condition. This misrepresents the scale of the tree when it is in its natural, healthy and sustainable condition. This is apparent in the photographs below, the first taken from the planning application, the second from Google Streetview capture in July 2019:

Comments on Planning Application 20/02852/F page 8

Application 20/06226/F, Street view impression of the building, as shown in Heritage Design and Access statement

Actual street view of Clyde Lane in July 2019, showing true extent of London Plane tree canopy

Comments on Planning Application 20/02852/F page 9

The size of the canopies of the plane and three other trees appear to be shown differently on various drawings and representations within the proposal. However, the general picture is that more than 50% of the dwelling would be beneath a tree canopy. This has consequences both for the house occupants and for the use of solar panels to meet sustainable energy objectives.

The arboricultural report acknowledges “issues such as over-bearance and shading and potential for seasonal nuisance from plane tree pollen, a recognised irritant.” It goes on to suggest that “The recent re-pollarding of the tree and the expected recurrence of this management regime in the future will minimise the impact of these issues on the quality of life of future occupants and maintain them within the parameters of reasonable tolerance” (p.5). In other words, it appears that even excessive pollarding of the tree (which will ultimately cause irreversible damage) will not produce living conditions that could be described as good, only as an environment that is within the bounds of “reasonable tolerance”.

When it is in a healthy condition, as shown in the 2019 photograph, the lower branches of the tree occupy some of the space assigned to the building. Further tree reduction and continuous pruning would be required to manage this.

Finally, there is a proposal to place four photovoltaic panels on a roof that is partially shaded by the plane tree, and which is flat, so that it will collect fallen leaves, pollen and other debris. This is simply not feasible; PV panels are damaged by partial shading1, a fact that is acknowledged in the Energy and Sustainability statement in the comments that “Shading impacts generation of the system. Inverter lifespan only expected to be 10 years”, and that power output is “Limited on available space and sub optimal siting”.

Overall, it is clearly evident that the well-being of trees and building occupants would necessarily be in direct conflict. It seems highly unlikely that the tree(s) would survive if this house were to be built.

1 See e.g. http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.c.ep.201501.01.html

7.7.2 The environmental amenity benefits of trees largely depends on the extent of tree canopy cover. A high proportion of trees and a verdant character contributes positively towards physical and mental health, and mitigates pollution and climate change effects including flooding and temperature increase.

7.7.4 All trees in the Conservation Area are important, whether in public parks, communal gardens, the grounds of community buildings, private gardens, streets, or along the railway banks. As it is the sheer extent of trees that is such a vital aspect of the Conservation Area’s special interest, any reduction in canopy coverage, without appropriate replacement, will consequently have a negative impact. (p.70)

Comments on Planning Application 20/02852/F page 10

Potential tree root damage during construction works

It is proposed that piled foundations should be used to minimise root damage. However, there is no detailed information about the excavations that would be required for rainwater drainage and sewerage, and for mains services. The feasibility of these plans must be considered in relation to the standards set out in BS 5837 (2012). These standards include restrictions on piling works beneath a tree canopy, and a requirement for hand excavation within the root area. It is difficult ro see how these standards could be met and serious root damage avoided, given the constraints imposed by this site.

Quality of housing provision

The previous version of this planning application (20/02852/F) was for a “two storey, bedroom (4 bedspace) house”, with a gross internal area of 84 square metres. The proposed design thus met the minimum requirement of 79 sqm for such a dwelling, as specified by Nationally described space standards (ISBN: 978-1-4098-4567-6). Changes made in the current proposal have reduced the GIA to 74 sqm, which falls short of the previous standard. This is addressed by changing the designation to a 3 person dwelling (for which the minimum GIA is 70 sqm), despite the fact that the bedroom sizes are larger than those in the original design. This is disingenuous; such a property would be marketed as having two double bedrooms. The change in designation is purely a paper exercise, an attempt to support the spurious claim that the design meets national space standards.

Window and glazing designs are restricted by privacy concerns, limiting the extent and quality of natural lighting and external views. The amount of natural light would be further restricted by shading from the dense canopy of the London plane and eucalyptus trees (the idea of a skylight beneath the plane providing “outlook towards the tree’s canopy” is particularly disingenuous). In an attempt to address the issue of overlook, the ground floor sitting room window looks out on a six-foot high wooden fence, just two metres from the glass. The “courtyard garden” might be described as a light well, were it not completely shaded by the eucalyptus tree on the site boundary. Given that this is the only window for that living area, it is absurd to claim that “habitable rooms have access to healthy levels of natural light and outlook to external spaces” (Design, Access and Heritage statement, p.12).

Privacy for occupants in the bedroom above is achieved by half-covering the glass with oak slats. However, this does not address the issue of overlook from this room into the neighbours garden. Once again, it is disingenuous to claim that “There are no windows on the side or rear boundary elevations” (ibid.) This window is on the side elevation, set back just two metres from the boundary.

As noted above, air quality would be significantly compromised by tree pollen (and also bird droppings – this tree is much favoured by the local population of magpies and pigeons). This would not be a good house to live in.

Summary

This proposal is for a two-storey house on a site that is completely unsuitable for a development on such a scale. The site itself is too small, directly adjoins a narrow highway with no pavement frontage, and is

Comments on Planning Application 20/02852/F page 11

almost completely overshadowed by tree canopies. These restrictions have dictated a design for an inferior dwelling that does not meet the relevant criterion of fitness for habitation. The context is also inappropriate; the site is in the centre of an important open, green space that is an essential feature of this Conservation Area.

Any proposed development must be assessed in terms of its overall costs and benefits. In this case, the potential benefit is the addition of one cramped, inferior and substandard dwelling to the local housing stock. This is a marginal gain that is surely far outweighed by the potential impact of such a development on the essential character of this attractive and much-loved corner of the Redland and Cotham Conservation Area. This assessment is clearly supported by Bristol City Council’s declared policy for the management and planning of Conservation Areas within the city, as evidenced by the extracts cited here.

If this development were to be permitted, it would create an ongoing, irreconcilable conflict of interest in relation to overlooking, tree management and access between residents of this property and those in the neighbourhood community. This proposal should not receive planning consent.

After consideration I wish to object to this proposed build in the strongest terms.Ultimately it is a case of shoe-horning an unneeded house onto a tiny plot of land with no regardfor the neighbours, the amenities or the conservation of the area.

1. The proximity of the proposed house to our house is unacceptable.

2. The views from the first floor our flat provide a rather unique sense of space and greenery in acity, the new house will obliterate this.

3. Damage to Poplar tree: the proposed building will almost certainly damage the root system ofthe tree and as far as I can see there is no chance that it will survive the build - if this is not closelymonitored there is a fair chance that it could fall and damage our house.

4. Amenities & parking, it is incredible to me that a submission has been made for a 2 bedroomdwelling in a densely populated area with absolutely no provision for parking. The potential for four additional cars to the area is unreasonable and unrealistic. I should also add that I amconcerned about the residents that live further down the lane and the very real potential that thishouse and the associated cars will block access for emergency vehicles.

5. The building will over shadow our garden blocking our access to light for much of the day.

6. I can't see how the works are going to be undertaken without causing significant disturbance tothe local residents for a considerable period of time.

We strongly object to this proposal and agree with many of the points raised by ourneighbours. Although this updated application has attempted to address some of the issues raisedin the first application (June 2020), most of our concerns still remain and are summarised below:

- The proposed development feels out of keeping with the Cotham and Redland conservation areait would sit within. We feel it undermines the character and identity of this open and green spaceappreciated by numerous residents in the vicinity, and goes against Bristol Council's policy ofmaking/keeping Bristol a green city.

- The building design still does not architecturally fit or compliment the area and would ultimatelybe an eyesore. Additionally, as others have highlighted, the proposed site does not seemappropriate for a residential dwelling of this size.

- The development is too close to other houses and would significantly overshadow nearbygardens and the privacy of nearby houses (3 and 4 Clyde Park, and 23 Elliston Road in particular),putting into question policy DM29 of the Bristol Local Plan (Site Allocations and DevelopmentManagement Policies) on appropriate levels of privacy.

- If this building were to get the go ahead, it would set a precedent for further developments on thissmall lane.

- Clyde Lane is not wide enough to support further development or parking, and it would preventaccess for emergency and utility vehicles.

- The area is already recognised as being one of the most densely developed and populated areasin the city.

- As detailed by others, we have concerns about the health of the London Plane tree which is asignificant feature of the Cotham and Redland conservation area, as well as other trees insurrounding gardens. The trees are valuable and add character to the area, as well as providing ahabitat for wildlife which we value greatly. Like others, we feel the drawings of the London Planeshared in the current application do not appear accurate. Building a house with all its associatedfoundations/sewage system/heat source pump almost on top of the tree's root system will surelybe detrimental to its health, as well as the health of other surrounding trees including theeucalyptus and apple tree.

I would like to submit the following objections to the proposalThe real risk of damage to the London plane tree both during construction and subsequent yearsdue the potential impact of the building. Clearly the pictures show the tree in its pollarded conditionbut once this tree has grown back then clearly the owners of the new house will be puttingpressure on the council to remove the tree because it will have such a detrimental impact on theenjoyment of their home.The building will have a negative impact on a small open area which enhances the views in anotherwise densely populated area. Given that this is a conservation area is the gain achieved interms of expensive housing really worth the loss of this important open aspect.The applicants reference to parking being able to be supported through the network of adjoiningstreets is not supported by any study and as a resident I can confirm that parking generally is verytight in the area and the addition of a 2 bedroom house with potentially 2 more cars will createfurther problems. The narrow access to the Mews will be adversely impacted during the build andcongestion caused by poor parking will continue to be a problem once the building is erected.

Comments: I wish to object to this application for the following reasons:

1. The proposed building is totally unlike the surrounding residential housing in terms of its designand materials, and accordingly its appearance is completely at odds with the existing character ofthe neighbourhood.

2. The site itself is on a very narrow section of Clyde Lane, and has no provision for off streetparking (indeed it has no outside space at all). Accordingly it is likely that it will place further strainon already limited parking availability in the area.

3. This proposed building will overlook the neighbouring gardens and houses, and will significantlydetract from the view along Clyde Lane currently enjoyed by all the local residents.

4. The proposals will clearly impact on the viability of the adjacent London Plane tree, togetherwith a number of other trees in the vicinity.

5. The proposed development will not help to address the lack of affordable housing in Bristol. Itappears it is intended not as a primary residence for the owner, but to be built and then sold at aprofit. If this development is approved, therefore, it is likely to result in further such developmentswhich will fundamentally undermine the character of the neighbourhood.

There is, of course, nothing intrinsically wrong with building a house for sale for profit - but this isthe wrong house, in the wrong place, and one that would not only cause substantial detriment tothe amenity of its neighbours and to the viability of a number of local trees, but also open the

floodgates to similar projects which would totally change the character of the neighbourhood.

As an aside, I find it questionable that the previous previous planning application made in respectof this proposal was withdrawn ( following numerous objections from neighbours) and thenreissued just before Christmas. The effect is that many interested parties appear not to have beenmade aware of the new application (I did not receive a notification until late January). Whether thiswas done deliberately or not I am concerned that this has limited the opportunity for comment, andthat the time period for response should accordingly be extended.

I agree with the other objections noted. As per my previous objection, I remain opposedto the planning application for the same reasons:1. The proposed build is far too close to 23 Elliston Road. The only views this property would haveas far as I can determine will be of 23 Elliston Road and the gardens of Clyde Park residentsgardens - a true invasion of privacy.2. The close proximity to my property will cause sustained noise disturbance for severalmonths/years if this development goes ahead.3. It will overlook and overshadow the gardens belonging to the properties in Clyde Park, thushaving a negative impact on the trees and plants therein.4. Clyde Lane is very narrow, with no room for additional parking. A two bedroom house willpotentially mean a two-four car household. Parking in the streets around this area is already underhigh demand, and very much so on Elliston Road. I often have difficulty finding parking space formy one car. The narrowness of the lane leading to the cul-de-sac will undoubtedly cause continualaccess problems should the build go ahead.5. The proposed development is in a conservation area and the design and materials of the buildis in no way in keeping with the historic architecture that Redland is renowned for.6. I am concerned that should approval be granted for this development it will set a precedent thatwill open the flood gates for further development on this small lane.7. The plan does not reflect the true nature of the London Plane in its drawings. This tree is anoutstanding example of the Platanus genus. Recently severely pollarded, it has only just begun tocome back into leaf and will hopefully return to its full glory. One of the true beauties of living onthe top floor flat is the magnificent view when this tree is in full foliage. There is no way I canenvisage this tree surviving a building development in such close proximity to both is roots and itscanopy. It plays an imported ecological role and would be a great loss should it not survive.

Although I have spent some time revisiting new plans, my concerns remain the same.This small, property in reality will be a home to 2-3 people who will bring 1-2 cars to a street whereparking is already pushed to the limits. The building works will inevitable risk damage to a beautifulLondon Plane tree and add nothing to a strip that is and has been the bottom of people's gardenswith low key garages. A house crammed into this spot makes no sense for the neighbourhood andplays a minimal part in providing more housing and a huge negative affect on this junction of Clydemews and Elliston Road.

This seems to be a completely inappropriate site for a two-storey dwelling, and as suchundermines the nature of this conservation area by intruding into a significant area of open space.Even if the construction work does not harm the London plane tree, it will be quite out of keepingand scale with it.

The accommodation offered is quite frankly pokey, and the "courtyard garden" will hardly offer anylight. The proposal simply tries to profit by cramming in yet more people into an already denselypopulated area.

I agree with many of objections already made. This is not a site on which to build ahouse for all the reasons set out by other objectors. I am not in principle against residentialdevelopments in this conversation area on sites carved out of the gardens; there are many goodexamples. However this not one of them.

The Panel considered that the design of the house must ensure that it can bemaintained and repaired without future impact on the health and wellbeing of the tree ornecessitate its removal. There is a concern that the height of the building is over obtrusive in thisarea.

Having conducted a substantial amount of research into the previous planningapplication made for this site, my objections remain the same. Just to reiterate, I fully object to theconstruction of a house on the proposed site. My Neighbour at No 5 Clyde Mews reflects mythoughts exactly and mirrors my objections completely.

To add, there is simply no room for any more cars to be parked in this area, it is congestedenough already. A garage is exactly what is needed to reduce this problem, not more cars andless space. As many other objectors have pointed out, THIS IS A CONSERVATION AREA.

We object to the planning application for the following reasons:

Noting that this is a reapplication and that the exterior materials have been modified to be lessoffensive to the surrounding area, we feel that non of the other objections have been addressedespecially in relation to the protection of the London Plane tree and parking issues.

1. As residents of Clyde Mews, accessed only via Clyde Lane, we are extremely concerned aboutaccess for emergency vehicles and refuse collection vehicles to the seven properties here,particularly during the build and also afterwards if the owners choose to park outside the property.Furthermore, a number of residents in these seven properties are medical professionals who areoften on call and may require emergency access at a time when it is blocked during construction.

2. The proposal is in the Cotham North Residents' Parking Scheme (RPS) where parking isalready in high demand. A 4-person dwelling could well mean 2 or more cars, with no privategarage or off-street parking. If the garages were kept, they could be rented out to, or purchasedby, local residents, thus easing the burden of parking in the area rather than adding to it.

3. We are concerned that should approval be granted, it will set a precedent for furtherdevelopment on Clyde Lane, exacerbating the problems of parking and access and repeating theissues created during the build, most importantly that of emergency access.

4. The application poses a great threat to the London Plane tree which is a magnificent example ofits kind and an important part of the local landscape character. It provides essential habitat forwildlife, including a number of species on Bristol City Council's Biodiversity Action Plan Priority

Species List. Nothing in the proposal ensures that the health of the tree will not be compromised,or that its future will be safeguarded in the event of future residents finding it a "nuisance" andtherefore the application should be refused on these grounds alone, with a TPO placed on thetree.

5. The proposed property will overlook and overshadow the gardens belonging to the properties inClyde Park and could have negative impact on the trees therein which are also a key part of thearea's green landscape.

In addition , we would like it to be noted that the Coach House, which seems to be beingreferenced as a precedent, was rebuilt to the same footprint of the previous property. This may notbe obvious from the image used in page 02 of the DESIGN, ACCESS & HERITAGE STATEMENTwhich was taken whilst the building work was being and straight after the demolition of the originalbuilding.

In summary, we do not feel that this site is appropriate for residential development.

Inappropriate site for a 3 person dwelling: space too small, highly congested area,limited street parking, and loss of 2 places with the build.Already congested in drive especially for vans, lorries why sometimes come down Clyde Lane

We are in full agreement with the objections raised by other neighbours and believestrongly that this application should be rejected as entirely inappropriate. This is the secondapplication for construction of a house on this site, after the first application gathered numerousobjections and was rejected (20/02852/F, submitted in June 2020). Whilst the renewed applicationseeks to remediate some of the shortcomings of the original, it does not address the systemicissues which cause us to object to its progression. We feel that Bristol City Council shouldconsider the previous planning consultation feedback, in addition to new feedback, for this currentapplication.

1) Clyde Lane is the only access to Clyde Mews and is particularly narrow adjacent to theproposed development. The camera angles used in the photographs in the Design, Access andHeritage Statement give a misleading impression of this narrow lane. Should the proposal beimplemented, it would pose significant risk to the residents of Clyde Mews in the way of access foremergency and service vehicles. With the lack of on-street parking, the potential for congestion isincreased, thus inhibiting traffic reaching the properties of not only Clyde Mews, but those withrear access on Chandos Road and Elliston Road. These properties also have garages accessibleonly via Clyde Mews. All of the aforementioned concerns would be present throughout occupation,but also exacerbated during construction. As we have seen, the prolonged construction of thecited property at 22 Elliston Road shows the potential for disruption to the area for a considerablenumber of months, if not years. This would be worsened by the presence of tradespeople, buildersand architects with associated equipment and vehicles.

3) If allowed, this would be the first change of use of the rear gardens along Clyde Park, setting aprecedent that, if followed, would detract very seriously from the character of the area and lead to

substantial congestion.

4) The site is not a suitable location for a new house. It is clear from the plans that the proposalseeks to maximise the use of a small space, presumably for maximum financial gain, attempting tosqueeze a substantial building into a garage space.

5) The site is within the Cotham and Redland Conservation area; the proposed development failsto conserve or enhance the area, and would undermine the character of the area. There can be nodoubt that the application will impact on the London Plane and Eucalyptus trees and is likely tocause significant damage to them. These trees are important for the character of the area andrequire protection, in line with the green policies of the Bristol City Council.

6) Environmentally, the site is likely to be detrimental to biodiversity and cause a net negativecarbon impact. The only feasible 'Low Zero Carbon' options include Ground Source Heat Pump(GSHP) and Photovoltaics. The former "can only produce heat up to 45°C thus delivered hot watertemperatures can be low and result in an increase in electric immersion heating, increasingdependency on energy use from the national grid.", whilst the latter is "limited on available spaceand sub optimal siting".

Page 2 of 13

 The proposed building appears to be encroaching on neighbouring land on both sides and

unless rights to build can be proven by the applicant, BCC presumably cannot grant

permission to build on land owned, occupied and enjoyed for many years by neighbouring

properties

 The proposal seeks to create poor quality housing stock, which only just meets the minimum

space requirements and which will be in immediate and ongoing conflict with its location

and surroundings in a conservation area, especially the established trees under which it will

be sited

 Granting approval would set a very dangerous precedent allowing future development in

this non-residential street within a significant part of the conservation area and put further

unnecessary pressure on a very densely populated part of the city

Page 3 of 13

1) Overall location and nature of the proposed development

This is a wholly inappropriate location for any residential property and would appear to provide no

benefits or enhancement to anyone or anything living in the vicinity. It negates the policies of the

established conservation area and appears to propose an outcome which directly opposes many of

the ‘risks and threats’ highlighted in the Bristol City Councils (BCC) own conservation policy

document ‘Redland Cotham Character Appraisal Policy 2011’

The proposed development also conflicts with existing planning policies BCS 21, 22 and 23 of the

Bristol Development Framework

The application proposes to build an ‘infill’ property within an established conservation area,

however the proposed location at the rear of Clyde Park property gardens does not contain any

residential properties and forms part of a significant open area with views within an established

conservation area cited in the Character Appraisal Policy.

This application does not actually propose an ‘infill’, rather it is a proposal to create a residential

property when none exist today and openly encourages further development in the immediate

locality. Approving this application is likely lead to the establishment of a new street in an area

which is neither viable, nor suitable in this already highly densely populated area of the City.

Bristol City Council’s own document ‘Redland Cotham Character Appraisal Policy 2011’ states that

the conservation area is weakened by the use of inappropriate materials and the loss of historic

views through development over ‘planned gaps’. These policies are current and must serve to

protect the conservation area.

The proposed structure will remove a heritage view across the Redland area and does not in any way

enhance this important conservation area.

The proposed site is also sited under a mature Council owned London plane tree. Considering

building any structure of significance under such an established mature tree must be considered as

highly risky as the loss, damage or unnecessary management of the tree would be an appalling and

irreversible outcome. Allowing any risk to a publically owned tree of this stature could only be

considered as highly negligent.

2) Clyde Lane – population density, access and parking

Clyde Lane is a narrow road providing the only access for Clyde Mews and access to the rear of

properties on Elliston Road and Chandos Road

The proposed development does not contain provision for car parking. And with a proposed 2

bedroom property we could realistically expect 1-2 cars for residents plus visitors.

Local population density

Elliston Road and Clyde Lane is already a densely populated part of the City.

The immediate area of 13 – 39 Elliston Road comprises a total of 15 buildings which house approx.

45 dwellings. This total excludes 6 further properties in Clyde Mews and the fact that houses 1-11

Elliston Road are also houses and flats with access to Clyde Mews at the rear of the property. The

area is at full capacity with regard to housing and parking. There are already in the order of 80

residents living in this immediate area.

Clyde lane is heavily used, providing the only access for residents in Clyde Mews and vehicular access

the rear of Elliston Road and Chandos Road. I would estimate that this is regularly used by 30 or

Page 4 of 13

more residents simply to access their properties. It also provides the only access for service, utility

and emergency vehicles. Allowing any development which increases the existing high levels of

density should not be considered.

Access and parking

The planning review process for a property which encourages on street parking or vehicular access

directly outside, must consider the potential risks and demonstrate viable mitigation. Simply adding

more yellow lines doesn’t solve the problem as it disrupts existing residents and increases parking

density in an area which is already at capacity.

Clyde Lane is a narrow street. At the proposed site the road is 5m wide but the London plane tree

already obstructs the road by over 1.2m, reducing the width to 3.8m. Should even a small eco-

friendly electric vehicle be left to charge, or a vehicle parked for unloading, it would reduce the

passing width to significantly less than 3 meters.

If a future property owner has a physical disability, consideration should be given to how would a

designated parking space be made available close to their property? There is no room for provision

of a marked bay in Clyde lane or in the vicinity of the proposed property.

3) London Plane Tree, Location and Arboricultural Report

Size and location of the tree in relation to proposed site

The proposed development is sited directly under a BCC owned mature London plane tree. The tree

is situated in the public highway and due to its age (almost certainly well over 100 years old) has

established root structure which spreads directly and visibly under and across the frontage of the

proposed site.

The main root system at the base of the tree visibly spreads about 1.5m (from the left hand edge of

the main trunk) across the front of the site above the surface of the road. (see picture below)

The submitted architectural site drawings conveniently describe this as ‘soil’ – this is factually

incorrect and any attempt to excavate in this area (even to a depth of 2cm) would mean cutting

directly into the lower parts of the tree trunk and primary root structure.

Page 5 of 13

The architectural drawings appear to misrepresent the size, scale and location of the tree.

The lower tree trunk measure in excess of 1m diameter and spreads to approx. 2m+ at road level

where the main root systems spread from the base of the trunk.

The tree has also grown into the neighbouring boundary wall.

Under no circumstances should BCC use the submitted ‘architectural impressions’ relating to the

location, size and description of this tree, without full, first hand validation. To do so would be no

less than negligent.

I would strongly advise that BCC need to undertake its own detailed site survey as part of the

planning application assessment.

Prior to such a survey, BCC (and any other interested parties) might chose to create some context by

looking at the current Google Maps images which accurately show the size, location and spread of

the London plane tree in its natural and healthy state.

Street view 2019 (showing tree with natural canopy) and aerial view 2020 (showing pollarded but

significant spread of main tree branches)

Page 6 of 13

Image: Google maps July 2019

The submitted Design and Access and Heritage Statement also shows the London plane tree in a less

pollarded state albeit without leaves. The smaller branches visible following recent pollarding are

those upon which the leaf canopy grows. Removal of these would leave a ‘bald tree’, reducing the

tree’s natural health and significantly detracting from its ability to process carbon emissions and

provide a habitat for the local wildlife.

Image from: 20_06226_F-DESIGN_AND_ACCESS_AND_HERITAGE_STATEMENT-2825867.pdf Pg 03

Page 7 of 13

The image below (January 2021) clearly shows the size, extent and spread of the London plane tree

in relation to the proposed plot. Even in its currently pollarded state it is clear that a significant part

of the proposed dwelling would be built into the root system and under the canopy of this tree.

To the rear of the existing garages, the Eucalyptus tree is visible. This image again shows the location

and significance of this tree and clearly demonstrates that the rear of the proposed property would

be over the root system and under the canopy of this tree. The proposed ‘courtyard’ would sit

directly under this tree. In addition the trunk of the tree is immediately adjacent to the rear of the

proposed property.

Any attempt to build directly under this tree will present a high risk to the tree’s health during the

construction process.

This is noted by the information contained in the current arboricultural report:-

Page 8 of 13

‘PROHIBITED ZONE – 1m from trunk. Excavations of any kind must not be undertaken within this zone

unless full consultation with the local authority Tree Officer is undertaken. Materials, plant and spoil

must not be stored within this zone.’

This would place the responsibility and accountability with the BCC Tree Officer to ensure that no

harm came to the tree from any works undertaken at the front right hand of the site (for say ,

pathway, drainage, services and bin storage facilities etc)

‘PRECAUTIONARY ZONE - beneath canopy or branch spread. Where excavations must be undertaken

within this zone the use of mechanical excavation plant should be prohibited. Precautions should be

undertaken to protect any exposed roots. Materials, plant and spoil should not be stored within this

zone. Consult with the local authority Tree Officer if in any doubt.’

Again, this would place the responsibility and accountability with the BCC Tree Officer to ensure that

no harm came to the tree from any works undertaken on a significant proportion of the main

building construction.

In both cases, this would present an interesting challenge to the builder/developer to build on the

site where ‘Materials, plant and spoil’ cannot be stored in these areas and the option to block off an

adjacent area of Clyde lane is unviable due to the size of the road and access requirements.

I also direct the BCC planning team and Tree offices to Table 1 in the arboricultural report

‘Prevention of Damage to Trees below ground’ which clearly highlights the dangers and risks from of

undertaking significant building work on this site.

Environmental, legal and moral considerations

Regardless of any risk assessment and promised safeguards, the potential consequences from a

failure to protect the tree are catastrophic and must be considered very carefully. Supporting any

activities which present risk to mature trees which support significant amounts of local wildlife

(birds, bees, bats) and which play a significant role in helping manage pollution, must be given very

careful consideration in relation to the wider BCC and National environmental policies. Both legal

and moral issues must be considered and the potential wider risks very carefully assessed.

Bristol’s reputation as an environmentally friendly Green City can’t be ignored to suit a single

planning application.

It is not good enough to simply ‘trust that a tree of this size won’t be harmed’ – there are many

examples in the UK every year where such trees are signifantly damaged or killed and it is simply

fantastical to think they can be replaced or offset with a few conifers elsewhere in a city.

BCC must be very sure that no harm could come to this tree from the proposed development.

Arboricultural report accuracy and relevance

The planning application and associated documents and images are predominantly based around

images and representations of the very recently pollarded tree, showing it at its minimal size

Again, I would refer BCC and any other interested parties to view the tree on Google maps to see its

normal and natural size

Page 9 of 13

Excavation for root assessment

The applicant’s aboricultural report refers to two trenches which were dug on the site to establish

the potential impact on tree roots. Trenches of 200mm and 500mm were dug to assess impact to

tree roots.

These trenches (I believe dug in late autumn 2019) were dug along the left hand boundary and

across the front of the garages, at a distance of over 5m from the tree and where the ground (at the

mid-point at the centre of the garages) is 0.75- 1m higher than the base of the tree at road level.

This therefore provides no relevant location or depth data as it presumes that significant roots will

grow above the natural height of the base of the tree.

I would propose that similar trenches should be dug across the site at 1, 2, 3 and 4 meters from the

base of the trunk

Current visible root system

Visual inspection of the tarmacked area of the site clearly shows that the root system from the

London plane is disrupting the tarmac and in places breaking through, making the ‘data’ obtained

from digging the trenches even less relevant or credible.

BCC must carefully consider the contents of the full arboricultural report, which highlights important

points with regard to managing building sites and protecting trees during the construction process.

The report makes clear statements pertaining to the likelihood of damage to the tree by multiple

means. It also confirms that a ‘safe building process’ on a plot of this size (which does not harm the

London plane tree) is not viable.

I strongly suggest that a detailed site visit by the BCC Planner and Tree Officer is required to assess

the true nature of the overall site and in particular the significance of the London plane tree and its

root system.

Building and living under a tree

The previous Arboricultural report commented on the potential for future issues such as “over-

bearance”, shading and potential for seasonal nuisance from plane tree pollen” and recommends

regular pollarding “to minimise the impact of these issues on the quality of life of future occupants

and maintain them within the parameters of reasonable tolerance”.

The current report doesn’t appear to be as clear about such risks – so what has changed? The size

and location of the proposed building is very similar and the location of the property is still directly

under the canopy of two trees.

The current report does still maintain that that the tree will require regular pollarding at 2.5m to

ensure it does not impact the proposed structure.

Hard and regular pollarding to indulge the needs of a property, would not allow the tree to remain in

its natural state for its remaining lifespan of at least 40 years (as estimated in the report).

BCC should not accept any proposal which will set out to require a tree of this age, scale and

significance to require significant ongoing ‘management’.

Page 10 of 13

The ‘management’ of the tree to suit the needs of a residential property is likely to include;

 Reducing the canopy and lower branches to meet the properties need for light and to

manage interference with the property structure or need for light to power the solar panels

 The need to remove the tree as its roots start to damage drainage or other structural

elements of the property

 Risk of tree debris damaging the property – requiring further reduction in the tree’s natural

size

There is also another significant tree which will present similar issues – the Eucalyptus tree to the

rear of the property.

The Design, Heritage and Access Statement identifies ‘The courtyard garden is located at the back

corner to ensure it is clear of the London Plane’s canopy and falling leaves’. This provides a clear

acknowledgement of the implications of living under tree canopies. I have not noted any

descriptions of how the remaining parts of the property, roof, roof lights and solar panels etc will be

protected from the inevitable impact from the trees.

The proposed position of the courtyard doesn’t appear to negate the obvious impact from the

eucalyptus tree under which it would sit entirely.

Pg 60 of the arboricultural report confirms the property will sit under the canopies of the London

plane tree and the adjacent eucalyptus tree

London plane trees and even more so Eucalyptus are known to have aggressive root systems which

will seek out water even through sealed pipes.

Should the trees survive a construction process and be allowed to flourish in their natural state,

there will undoubtedly be issues for the property and its owners:

 Impact from root structures (both London Plane and Eucalyptus) on services, water, gas,

sewerage and grey water, heat source pump, electrical supply.

 Environmental, structural and safety impact from the tree canopy. Falling branches and

leaves, pollen and spores, bird and other wildlife defecation, light deprivation.

 Viability to obtain mortgages or insurances due to proximity to trees.

Granting planning permission to build under and into the root system of the London plane tree will

leave BCC with an ongoing liability to manage the tree to accommodate the demands of the dwelling

and it will leave BCC liable to future legal action and claims for damage to a property from a

publically owned tree.

It is not acceptable for BCC to support a scheme for private gain which will require the future and

ongoing use of public funds to heavily manage the tree, potentially remove the tree at a future date,

or compensate property owners for damage to the property and services, cause by a publically

owned tree.

4) Site access

As I hope BCC are aware, the reference property site on Lower Redland Road has required fencing

off the front of the site and a proportion of the highway. Evidence provided in the Design and Access

Report pg 07.

Page 11 of 13

Same for No 22 Elliston road – which has now been blocked for 8 months but thankfully here there is

a footpath and highway is in excess of 8m wide .

Again, I refer the BCC Planning Team to the arboricultural report which outlines restriction relating

to what can be undertaken ‘on site’ under a tree.

Owners of the proposed site do not own the adjacent land or garden behind the site, therefore any

access to the site and storage for equipment and facilities would need to be at the front of the site.

It is difficult to see how this could be managed given the size of the proposed property in relation to

the site. This would undoubtedly mean that skips, loos and materials would be placed on Clyde Lane

in the highway.

Unlike Lower Redland Road and Elliston Road Clyde lane would not be wide enough to

accommodate this without blocking access for residents, services and emergency vehicles.

Unless BCC can obtain a Traffic Order to close or legally restrict the width of Clyde Lane,(and make

the necessary legal provisions to ensure access), granting permission to build will sanction

unauthorised and unviable blocking of a public highway.

BCC must give rigorous consideration to the potential impact from the constraints on the site, on the

public highway and any legal implications from this.

5) Reference properties

A number of ‘reference cases’ have been cited in the application contained in the Heritage, Design

and Access Statement, I would request that the BCC planning process give careful consideration to

the relevance, or otherwise, of these.

 22 Elliston Road – this is on the site of old garages but is built in a gap between two existing

properties – therefore could be considered an ‘infill’. It is not built directly under trees.

Unfortunately the property is an eyesore and it should be noted that the building has not

been completed and remains an unoccupied, unsightly building site. It also has a detrimental

impact on the local parking capacity and continues to disrupt access on the pavement.

On a positive note, the property does however appear to offer a significantly larger living

accommodation, useable outside space and accommodation to park a car

 The Coach House - rear of 23 Elliston Road. An irrelevant case as the property was built on

exactly the same foot print as an existing building, with only minimal change in roof height.

It doesn’t appear to have any trees close by and was clearly a Brown Field or maybe even a

permitted development? I definitely can’t see or remember any trees being harmed in the

building of this property.

 85 Lower Redland Road. Built on the site of old bakery (originally retail/commercial or light

industrial rating I presume). The new properties are the same footprint with additional

height placed between two properties and are subservient to their surroundings. This is a

proper Brownfield development replacing light industrial buildings, again not an ‘infill’, but

again no trees present. It is hardly an example of good quality housing stock though.

In contrast, the proposed development is at the bottom of a long row of gardens containing now and

historically no residential properties, there are nothing more than garages or sheds belonging to the

houses on Clyde Park. This location is clearly not an ‘in fill’, moreover it forms part of an important

and planned open space in a conservation area

Page 12 of 13

Appendix - Technical references for BCC Planners:

It is vitally important that the BCC planning team ensure that they are able to make an informed

decision based on validated, accurate and materially significant information.

BCC should not rely on the relevance and accuracy of the depiction of the location, scale and

dimensions shown in a number of the submitted drawings and associated documents:

Design and access statement

Pg 02 – the aerial view image used to show the site location is approximately 10 years old (as

evidenced by the development of the Coach House plot) the size, shape and condition of the London

plane tree depicted is of significantly greater proportion than the representations of the tree in the

vast majority of the other submitted documents. Albeit showing the tree in its ‘full and natural state’

I do not believe that this shows the maximum size that the tree has achieved over the last 10 years

between pollarding. It is however a more realistic representation than in the majority of the

planning documents

Pg 03 – photos are more up to date but taken immediately after the London plane tree was heavily

pollarded (2019) and do not represent the natural state, size and shape of the tree. To my

knowledge the tree has been pollarded no more than 3 times in the last 11-12 years. For a more

reasonable view of the tree’s natural state refer to the current google maps street image from July

2019.

Pg 04 – the plan appears to show intrusion into neighbouring land – presumably planning cannot be

granted to build on someone else’s land without relevant process to prove ownership being

followed and subsequently evidenced as part of the planning validation – if so I’d be worried about

finding the footings for a house in my garden one morning.

Pg 17 – The shadow study, if images and data have been taken using real shadows from a real tree

(fascinating as it is), this would show the impact from a recently and heavily pollarded tree. These

bear no relevance to the level of shadow on the proposed or neighbouring properties from the Plane

tree in its natural state. Again I would refer the Planning Team to Google Maps Street View 2019.

Submitted planning documents

Drg Ref 060-P-031

Proposed section CC – The illustrated base of the proposed dwelling is not accurately represented in

relation to the level of Clyde Lane. The existing garage building, against which root surveys have

been completed is approx.. 0.75- 1.0m above the level of Clyde lane at the mid-point of the plot.

Base on the drawing, the foundation and base of the structure (even within the bounds of the

existing garage structure) would be deeper in relation to the tree and its root structure than inferred

here

CC Key Plan – The representation of the London plane tree is inaccurate in relation to both its

location and size. The tree is located with the main visible trunk partially within the within the

proposed site and with significant main root structures visible above ground and through the surface

of the tarmac of the proposed plot

The trunk of the London plane is also in approx of 1 -1.2 m diameter at 1 to 2m above ground level –

not the 30-40cm depicted

Drg Ref 060-E-021

Page 13 of 13

Proposed side elevations (south) – The London plane tree is again misrepresented in terms of

location and scale. Both inaccuracies would suppose the tree to be a less significant concern for the

proposed development than in reality.

If the depicted trunk of the tree is used as a datum/reference for scaling the drawings it would make

the width of the plot 11-12m wide and the proposed building approx.12m tall

Drg Ref 060-E-022

Proposed and existing street elevation – again misrepresentation of the location and size of the tree

and omission of significant lower branches which would conflict directly with the proposed structure

Drg Ref 060-P-001

Tree location and trunk size inaccurate. The plan also appears to suggest that the building would

encroach on land owned by a neighbouring property and would require the removal of an existing

structure. It also appears to suggest interference with an existing path and presumably established

‘right of way’ on the North side of the proposed building. I can only presume that consideration of

land ownership will be a major factor in any planning application to ensure that the basis of the

decision is lawful and does not foster trespass or land grab.

Drg Ref 060-P-020

Proposed side elevations (East and North) –perhaps the most blatant misrepresentation of the

location, size and shape of the London plane tree

Drg Ref 060-E-002

Perhaps a little repetitive now, but the tree is still misrepresented and in addition the description of

the ‘soil’ around the base of the tree is not correct. The base of the tree extends significantly at the

current ground level and a very significant root structure is visible at the base of the tree and

stretching at ground level (rising) across the current tarmacked existing garage forecourt. This is not

a pile of soil.

Drg Ref 060-P-030

Appears to omit measurements for the overall height of the proposed building, offering only a first

floor height measurement. Using drawing 060-P-023 the proposed height can be estimated or

inferred as 7m (23 feet). Surely this needs to be confirmed on a formal drawing as part of the

detailed structural or building section information to ensure a clear design is documented and

confirmed and therefore and a robust planning application and building regulations review process

can take place?

I would like to lodge my objection to this scheme.

There appears to be a planning trend to convert garages into small footprint houses which are notin keeping with the area.

Over development

Moreover this scheme is going to significantly impact upon the London Plane which needs /deserves / should be protected under TPO regulations

Other comments relating to parking, messy recycling and waste bins are also very valid

Objections to the planning application for a 3 person residential unit on the site of thegarage at the rear of 3 Clyde Park, BS6 6RR by Duncan R White, 21 Clyde Road, BS6 6RJ.

These objections are to be read in conjunction with my letter of 31st January and accompanyingplan.

The application refers to an infill on the site, which is not correct. Currently the west side of ClydeLane including the site is a frontage of various single storey garages and walls, none of whichexceed an approximate height of 2 metres. The application proposes a new multi-storey build on asection of open frontage, not infill. Any form of development that increases the height of thestructure will be to the detriment of these existing facilities and against adopted Bristol City Councilpolicy BCS21 of the Core Strategy (Conservation and the Historic Environment).

This area is all part of the original landscape design for the area, which is now a conservationarea.

This low level was purposely created to provide a natural corridor for all sorts of establishedwildlife and birds inhabiting the area and forming part of open facilities for the immediate area.It also provides an open vista for nearby residents of various parts of Bristol, and a necessaryopenness, providing light, air and views. The proposal for a modern 2 storey dwelling directlywithin open frontage which provides a well regarded area of openness and views in this longestablished conservation area would destroy the unique character of this prospect, currentlyenjoyed by all local residents.

These benefits to urban areas are supported by existing Bristol Council's policies to ensure quality

of life.

The proposed development of part of this valuable existing open frontage will result in greatlyincreased heights of any building and will destroy these valuable established features.This also will adversely affect the planned gap the Redland and Cotham character appraisalhighlights for this area.

The proposed building is described as a 2 bedroom multi-storey house on virtually the entirefootprint of the site. There is no provision for any onsite car parking needed by any residents of afamily house. This section of Clyde Lane is very narrow, approx. 3.8 meters wide, so any on streetparking in this part will result in congestion, with potential to obstruct and stop any vehicularaccess to other parts of Clyde Lane for residents, users of garages etc there, emergency andservice vehicles such as regular refuse collection. There is no space on site to make provisions forbuilding supplies and facilities, and no works should be allowed to either block the lane orencourage traffic to illegally drive on the pavement in order to access all types of properties on thelane.

There are mature trees immediately adjoining the site of the proposed development.Immediately adjacent to the proposed building is a long established London Plane tree that formspart of the established landscape for the Lane. This tree will be damaged as its roots spread underthe site, and the height of the house will conflict with the tree's canopy, interfering with the lowerbranches. This will inhibit natural growth and affect the health of this established and importanttree.

This tree has a root system that goes under the site; and the canopy of the tree also covers thewhole site. The site covers some 25 % of both the area for the roots and the canopy. Any form ofdevelopment will seriously affect the root system below the site at ground level. It will also breakinto the existing canopy area of the tree over the site.

It is obvious that any major development affecting 25% of an existing mature tree is more thanlikely to lead to damage and potential loss of this valuable asset to the community.

The tree on the applicant's plans is not shown correctly to scale and its position in relation to theproposed build site is captured incorrectly. The correct diameter of the tree is to 1.2m at it's widestpoint, with a visible surface root system expanding 1.5m into the surrounding soil.

If any building were to be erected there is the future further potential problems of root damage tothe building, maintenance and pollarding of the tree and annual autumnal leaf fall upon thebuilding causing blocked gutters etc and other problems to any building under it.

There are 3 further trees in surrounding gardens would be similarly affected by the proposals, withsimilar results which will impact on both Bristol Council and the property owners/occupiers, to the

detriment and cost of all. There is no reference as to how these trees will be protected from longterm damage that may negate their future.

I object to the application as it is an inappropriate development that affects a protected tree andothers.

On this point I would also comment that as a retired surveyor the potential of structural damagecaused by building over an existing tree root system is likely to lead to excessive maintenancecosts raised unnecessarily, and furthermore could lead to difficulties in obtaining propertyinsurance. Both issues could adversely affect the value and saleability of any residential propertyin this location.

Issues such as these and building cladding materials are highly relevant, and upper most in mindsnowadays.

I consider that the application conflicts with the existing Planning Policies BCS21, BCS22 andBCS23 adopted by the Authority in your Core Strategy for Planning:

- The proposal does not contribute positively to the area's character and identity or reinforce localdistinctiveness.- Loss of historic views and environmental openness and green space- Inappropriate development of part of a planned open gap which will be compounded by anyfurther development along this frontage - in conflict with the recommendations made by the BristolCity Council - Cotham and Redland Character Appraisal, Bristol Planning Policy 2011- The proposed dwelling is not designed in a way as to avoid adversely impacting uponenvironmental amenities or the biodiversity of the surrounding area- Environmental issues and pollution will be created adversely affecting the conservation area- Inappropriate increased vehicular traffic and congestion will be created- The adverse effect on the street scene and mature trees being affected, possibly so badly thatultimately they would be lost due to the effect of the development upon them.

The change of character and use will create adverse Environmental issues, including loss ofwildlife and facilities supporting same.

In conclusion I consider the application totally out of keeping for the area. A two storey buildinghere is over intensification of the site ; especially as it is described as a family residence and hasno parking facilities for residents or visitors ; nor any open garden area for recreation etc. I do notbelieve it will improve the area but only create unnecessary urban environmental issues andconflict that goes against the Council's established policy of making Bristol a green city. Thepolicies adopted by the Council in 2011 remain relevant and appropriate to maintaining the qualityand standard of this conservation area and the City with its green policies.

For the above reasons I object to the application.

Duncan R White 21 Clyde Road , Bristol BS6 6RJ.

I object to the development due to:1. Overdevelopment - Footprint of new building is significantly larger than the existing one, and sitsfurther forward damaging the existing street scene.2. Conservation - The development as it is further forward than the existing garage and willdamage the existing mature tree on the boundary.3. Road Safety - The sight lines from the front of the proposed property are obscured by theexisting tree, causing a significant danger to those entering and exiting the property. The narrowlane means there is no suitable place for delivery vehicles to stop outside without causing adanger to other users, or to ensure access at all times to emergency vehicles to Clyde Mews.4. Poor quality design - There is very little in the way of glazing to allow natural light into thebuilding. The glazing which does exist on the walls, permits overlooking into adjacent properties.The property is only fractionally larger than the minimum permitted.5. Lack of outdoor space - Outdoor amenity for the proposed development is too small for a 3person house.6. Precedent - There are no current properties on that part of Clyde lane. For the reasons set outabove it is unsuitable for new housing development, allowing one property would open thefloodgates to further applications.

We strongly object to this planning application. This is not a suitable site for a house.

Cramming a 2-storey building into this plot will certainly damage the large London plane tree thatsits at the entrance. The roots have a large base that can be seen even before goingunderground; the suggestion that the tree will be undamaged from foundation work and a firststory that cuts into the canopy is laughable. Not to mention the eucalyptus tree at the rear of theproperty.

Clyde Road is a single lane that forms the entrance to Clyde Mews, a cul-de-sac with residentsincluding the elderly, children, and NHS workers. It is vital that road access is maintained at alltimes for everyone's safety. Access would be compromised by building work, and by deliveryvehicles. It is difficult to see a safe solution to this problem.

Currently, residents already struggle for parking. Removing the off street parking afforded by adouble garage and replacing that with potentially two additional cars on this tiny street will lead tounacceptable congestion.

The site sits at the foot of the gardens of Clyde Park. The design is a poor compromise whichgrants the unfortunate potential residents little light, whilst still managing to violate the privacy ofthose in the gardens of Clyde Park, and flats in Elliston Road opposite. Regarding Elliston Road, itis difficult to believe the lack of impact illustrated in the "shadow report", which was presumablymodelled assuming a perennial summer solstice.

We trust Bristol Council will again make the correct decision in rejecting this quite frankly greedy

proposal which would compromise the character of this conservation area, and the quality of lifeand health of its residents.

These plans completely undermine the appearance of the conservation area being for a2 storey house in a row of taller houses.This development will threaten the roots (and existence) of the mature London plane tree in thegarden and also threaten trees in the gardens of 1 and 3 Clyde Park.

This site is surrounded by neighbouring properties which will sufferfrom being overlooked by residents of the proposed house. The new taller structure will alsoadversely affect the current views from the existing houses.

This is a 2nd application for planning on this site. The previous application, 20/02852/F,submitted in June 2020, was withdrawn after receiving in the region of 47 objections.

1. Unsuitable location for a residential houseThe proposed site is not appropriate for a residential dwelling. The design proposes to more thandouble the footprint of the current structure and change the character of this side of the lane,which currently has no residential buildings. The applicant's Design and Access and Heritagestatement document incorrectly describes the site as infill. It is in fact what is termed a 'plannedgap' in the conservation area.

In order to exceed the minimum space requirement of 70 sqm for a 3 person home, the planappears to require assumptive ownership of land which sits within the boundaries of two adjacentproperties (060-E-002). To approve planning for a property prior to full legal ownership of theproposed location would set a concerning precedent.

I believe the proposed design contravenes policy DM29 of the Bristol Local Plan - Site Allocationsand Development Management Policies (Adopted July 2014), which states new buildings mustensure the existing and proposed development achieves appropriate levels of privacy, outlook anddaylight. The proposed build infringes the privacy and outlook of 23 Elliston Road. The proposedbuild also has very poor levels of light, which would be further hindered by the canopies of theLondon Plane and the Eucalyptus trees.

060-P-031 captures the slope of Clyde Lane and the incline of the proposed building siteinaccurately. The proposed build would potentially be positioned 1.5m above level street level,

placing the roofline directly in the canopy of the London Plan and Eucalyptus trees, and allowingviews into bedrooms of 23 Elliston Road and 3 and 4 Clyde Park respectively. The currentdiagram does not show this intrusion correctly, nor does it clearly confirm the final height of theproposed build.

Contravention of planning policies BCS21 and BCS22 of the Bristol Development Framework corestrategy (Adopted 2011) and policy DM26 of the Bristol Local Plan - Site Allocations andDevelopment Management Policies (Adopted July 2014)- The design does not support or enhance the character of the immediate locality within aprominent area in the Redland and Cotham Conservation area.- The proposed design does not safeguard or enhance heritage assets and the character andsetting of the Cotham and Redland conservation area- The proposed design fails to conserve green assets and will impose a negative impact on thecharacter and quality of the area and the way it functions

The scale of the design will damage significant and established open views which are an integralfeature of the conservation area, as confirmed by Bristol City Council - Cotham and RedlandCharacter Appraisal, Bristol Planning Policy 2011. This document states the conservation area isweakened by the use of inappropriate materials and the loss of historic views throughdevelopment over 'planned gaps'. This viewpoint is of the historically significant Cabot Tower.Policy DM26 confirms that Landmarks form an important aspect of local character anddistinctiveness and the role and setting of existing landmarks should be respected.

2. OverpopulationThe 75 metre stretch of Elliston Road adjacent to the proposed property is comprised of 15buildings, including 1 Clyde Lane (excluding Clyde Mews). These buildings house in the region of45 dwellings, which currently accommodate over 70 residents. There is no requirement for furtheraccommodation in this small stretch of Bristol; Cotham is recognised to be the most denselypopulated area of Bristol.

No parking is provided, and the Council is not obliged to offer street parking provision to newbuilds, nor should they for this application. A new dwelling on this site will encourage morevehicles to park in a narrow lane not wide enough for 2 cars to pass. This will lead to obstruction topublic service vehicles such as waste collection and emergency services.

3. Significant risk to the long-term health and welfare of trees in a conservation areaThere will be no natural light to this property due to the canopies of the London Plan tree andEucalyptus trees. The overbearance of the London Plane above the property will conflict with theproposed roof lights and solar panels and is likely to lead to excessive pollarding to ensure naturallight and to remove annual irritation caused by pollen.

The drawings present an inaccurate and misleading representation of the scale of London Planetree which in fact encroaches into the proposed site rather than sitting alongside as the drawingssuggest. The application's drawings infer, but do not confirm, that the proposed build will be 7metres high which means that it will be built into the space required for the tree to naturallyachieve reasonable and full growth - see google maps for an image of the tree in full foliage. Amajor limb located at a height of approximately 3 metres would be removed to facilitate the build.This would impact the overall health of a tree currently classified in the arboricultural report as aprime example of its species.

Damage to a tree in a conservation area is a criminal offence, with fines of up to £20,000 (source:BCC website)

NJUG guidelines provided in the report confirm;- underground apparatus (in this case a heat source pump and sewer system) may be damagedby the tree root system and the drying effect of soil caused by the tree root system.- there is potential for blocked gulleys, gutters and drainage, leading to long-term friction regardingmaintenance.- There is potential for root incursion by the London Plane tree and the Eucalyptus tree.- The entire build site sits over the root structure and under the canopies of the London PlaneTree, Eucalyptus Tree and Apple Tree (diagram pg 60, arboricultural report). No heavy plant use,vehicle movement and material storage over a tree root system should take place to preventasphyxiation of the root system. This renders the build process unviable.- The proposed heat bore pump system will sit directly within the root system of the London Planetree and the Eucalyptus tree. The proposed sewer system will also sit directly within the rootsystem of the London Plane tree.

Damage to both the trees and the underground apparatus is likely to occur over time, leading toongoing management issues and cost for both the home owner and the Council. Occupants mayalso find themselves unable to mortgage or insure the property.

The proposed application will damage and potentially kill an important landmark tree for the area,contravening Bristol's Green city policy and planning policy BCS23. The City Council and the TheNatural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006 have jointly placed a duty on allpublic authorities to 'have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in exercising their functions'.

This property will be of minimum living space, with poor light to support wellbeing, and located ona site that places it in continuous friction with the key elements of urban design in harmony withnature that sit at the heart of the meaning of a conservation area. This would be a very poorexample of a modern home.

The footprint to the proposed house is significantly larger than the existing garage - andextends closer to the existing mature London plane on the street boundary.The impact of the proposed house on the existing tree will be detrimental. The collection of maturetrees within the Redland and Cotham Conservation Area are a significant amenity feature whichwe need to nurture rather than endanger.

I object to this application as it is yet another proposed development that will furtherincrease housing density in an already densely populated area. As such it will increase existingproblems of noise, parking and bins/recycling boxes littering the area, not to mention threaten themature trees that many other people are also concerned about.

I see that there was an earlier Application in September 2020, which was withdrawn.

I am extremely concerned about this Application. I do not live locally so will not comment on theaesthetics of this development. But I am commenting on behalf of the tree issues.The existence of two large mature trees - both with 40years+ of life yet before them - arethreatened by this development. One of them - the London Plane on the edge of the pavement - ispublicly owned. The other, the Eucalyptus, is threatened with "judicious pruning" at the very least.Examination of the Plans and the Root Areas of these trees shows that the retention of the trees,either immediately or in the near future, and allowing this build to go ahead, is incompatible.Apart from the fact that the development itself is likely to be fatal for the trees (the London Plane inparticular) one has to consider the future occupation of this dwelling. Both trees are so close to theintended property that there will very soon be enormous pressure from the occupiers to have thePlane tree removed. It is difficult for Tree Officers and Planners to resist such pressure once adwelling is occupied. "I told you so" does not seem to be acceptable.Images of the Plane tree on-line show it both pollarded (recent) but also in full leaf in the yearsfollowing pollarding. The arboricultural report discusses it in the pollarded condition and declares itnot to be a problem so there would be no pressure to remove. Frankly I do not believe that. Thereport talks of "reasonable tolerance" shown by future occupants. That cannot be relied upon inorder to permit this dwelling to be squeezed in between trees, threatening their existence.Trees are hugely important - each and every one - to permit our future existence on this planet.Please do not permit this development.

I object to this application.

The proposals are within the root and canopy zone of a publicly owned London Plane tree, whichis a valuable asset to the area. The tree survey shows the proposed building will occupy asignificant proportion of the root zone of this tree. Together with the proposed ground source heat-pump system, below ground drainage, below ground services and all the associated deliveries,equipment movement etc. during construction, almost the entire root system will be adverselyaffected.

The drawings also show the height of the proposed house will intrude significantly into the canopyzone of the London Plane, which again will seriously compromises the viability of this tree.

The development is also within the root and canopy zones of the garden Eucalyptus, seriouslyaffecting the viability of this tree. Furthermore, the tree survey clearly shows there is no location inthe garden of 3 Clyde Park that would allow for the building of a two storey house withoutcompromising several of the existing trees.

The tree survey notes that two trenches were dug to establish tree root zones. These were200mm and 300mm deep and immediately adjacent to walls of the existing garage. It's difficult tosee how such shallow trenches next to wall foundations could adequately show the true extentand health of the tree root zone.

It's worth noting that when the existing double garage was constructed the proximity of the LondonPlane tree was acknowledged, as it was located outside the root and canopy zones. I would

suggest those wishing to develop the site should exercise as much respect for this long-lived treeas the garage builders did.

Other objections:

The loss of the existing garage will reduce the amount of off-road parking provision in the area.This will increase the pressure for on-street parking space which is already at a premium.

The development is within the Chandos Road area, which is already the most densely populatedarea in Bristol. To preserve the amenity of the area for the wider community, it is important tomaintain the sense of space provided by the back gardens of the larger houses, and resistexcessive infilling.

Being the most densely populated area, the infrastructure is already under pressure. Newdevelopments such as this will increase the local population and increase these pressures to thedetriment of the community.

The proposed residence will pose significant risk to the long-term health and welfare ofmultiple trees in a conservation area.

Damage to a tree in a conservation area is a criminal offence, with fines of up to £20,000 (source:BCC website)

The London Plane tree which encroaches significantly onto the site is a magnificent and healthyexample of its species in a natural urban setting which at present causes no interference tosurrounding buildings and is a significant feature of the Cotham and Redland conservation area.The London Plane tree was first introduced to the UK in the 1660s, and to date none are recordedas having died of old age, which means the tree in question has the potential to be over 300 yearsold (source: treetree.co.uk).

All documents and diagrams in this application fail to capture the full scale of this tree in its prime.Local knowledge confirms the only photograph which shows the tree's full canopy in thisapplication dates from 2012. Factually accurate photos taken in 2019 showing the tree prior topollarding can be accessed easily via google maps.

"Trees play a crucial role in the fight against climate change. One mature tree can absorb in theregion of 1 tonne of carbon during its lifetime" (source: applicant's arboricultural report)

The London Plane tree supports a wide range of wildlife, many of which are listed on Bristol'sPriority Species list and are recognised as of national importance. It forms part of an importantlocal wildlife corridor which connects wildlife from the railway lines and local green spaces up

towards the Downs and Avon Gorge - a site recognised as being of international importance. Thiscorridor is widely recognised by residents. Bristol City Council won its Green City 2015 bid with atender that included the statement; "BCC is committed to the protection of wildlife in non-designated sites, reflecting our duties under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act,2006. The award of Green Capital was won against a criteria stating that the cityshould..."Demonstrate a well-established record of achieving high environmental standards.Commit to ongoing and ambitious goals for further environmental improvement and sustainabledevelopment."

The tree is key to the local pollinator habitat, with important bee hives situated less than 100metres from the tree. Construction near to or harm to this tree will contravene Defra's NationalPollinator strategy for England, 2014, of which 'Green Bristol' is a strategy partner. It is also hometo a wood pecker.

The proposed design demonstrates no awareness or understanding of the local natural interestand therefore I believe contravenes policy BCS9 of the Bristol Development Framework corestrategy (adopted 2011) and policy DCM19 of the Bristol Local Plan - Site Allocations andDevelopment Management Policies (Adopted July 2014)

Damage to this tree will impact important biodiversity, which scientific data confirms cannot bereplaced through new planting if the tree were to be damaged or killed as a result of buildingworks. Trees take decades to grow, but can be destroyed in minutes. The older the tree, thegreater its ability to support biodiversity support and absorb carbon.

The proposed build contravenes planning policies BCS21 and BCS22 of the Bristol DevelopmentFramework core strategy (Adopted 2011) and policy DM26 of the Bristol Local Plan - SiteAllocations and Development Management Policies (Adopted July 2014)- The proposed design fails to conserve green assets and will impose a negative impact on thecharacter and quality of the area and the way it functions

The overbearance of the London Plane tree over the property will conflict with the proposed rooflights and solar panels and may lead to excessive pollarding of the trees to allow adequate naturallight. Trees require their foliage for long-term health.

The NJUG guidelines provided in the arboricultural report confirm that there is potential for blockedgulleys, gutters and drainage, leading to long-term friction regarding maintenance. Long-term'judicious' pruning will damage and potentially kill an important landmark tree for the area,contravening Bristol's Green city policy and planning policy BCS23.

The investigation undertaken on 9th August 2019 to determine the extant distribution of roots fromthe mature London Plane tree outside the site boundary to the east involved 2 shallow trenchesbeing dug at a level of 1.5 metres above the main body and root structure of the tree. This finding

confirms that lateral roots important for stability, and the absorption of air and water will bedisrupted during the build and covered by the final structure. Once again this will impact the long-term health of the tree.

The NJUG guidelines provided also state that underground apparatus (in this case a heat sourcepump and sewer system) may be damaged by the tree root system and the drying effect of soilcaused by the tree root system. The heat bore pump system will sit directly within the root systemof the London Plane tree and the Eucalyptus tree. The sewer system will also sit directly within theroot system of the London Plane tree. Damage both to the trees and the apparatus will yet againlead to ongoing management issues for the home owner and the Council.

While information has been summarised in accordance with the requirements of BS 5837:2012,the application does not confirm that a survey under BS 5837 regulations has been completed. Ibelieve this survey is required in this case due to the potential for root incursion by the Londonplane tree and the Eucalyptus tree. I would urge the planning department to require this survey asthe London Plane tree is a council asset. Problems with trees on boundaries have resulted inlitigation on many occasion, and the results are well documented in law. If planning were granted,the Council may find itself subject to litigation. For example; the new occupants may choose totake action against the Council because the London Plane's root system or canopy are damagingthe underground apparatus or overhead solar panels respectively.

The NJUG guidelines provided in the arboricultural report also state in clause 6.3.1 that "a realisticassessment of the probable impact of the proposed development on the tree and vice versashould take into account the characteristics and condition of the tree, with due allowance for spacefor future growth and maintenance requirements." This does not appear to have been done.

The diagram on page 60 of the arboricultural report confirms that the entire build site sits over theroot structure and under the canopies of the London Plane Tree, Eucalyptus Tree and Apple Tree.The NJUG document contained in the arboricultural report advises that no heavy plant use,vehicle movement and material storage over a tree root system should take place to preventasphyxiation of the root system. This would render the actual build process unviable. The Lane isnarrow and overspill of machinery and materials into the Lane would block access for residents,service and emergency vehicles.

The drawings present an inaccurate and misleading representation of the scale of London Planetree which directly encroaches into the proposed site rather than sitting alongside as the drawingssuggest. The application's drawings infer that the proposed build will be approx. 7 metres high.This means it will be built into the space required for the tree to naturally achieve reasonable andfull growth and a major branch would be removed at a height of approximately 3 metres would beremoved to facilitate the build.- see google maps for confirmation.

Removal of branches will impact the number of leaves the tree has, which are vital to energy and

growth. This then would impact the overall health of a tree currently classified in the arboriculturalreport as a prime example of its species and damage its invaluable support to local wildlife.

Damage to a tree in a conservation area is a criminal offence, with fines of up to £20,000 (source:BCC website)

This is not a suitable site for a residential building.

This proposed development is a threat to the London Plane which must not becompriomised.

As Chairperson of the local residents' association (Chandos NeighbourhoodAssociation) I wish to object to this development.This is a conservation area and this development would impact negatively on the character of thearea. This 2 storey house would break the character of the street, being the only 2 storey house.The plans show the construction coming very close to a mature London Plane tree, which wouldalmost certainly threaten the survival of this tree. Also trees at Nos 1&3 Clyde Park.

The property would overlook the surrounding properties and gardens and take light from them.

This area is already densely populated and this development would add further to this density ofpopulation.

RCAS objects to this application.The site is within the Cotham and Redland Conservation area; the proposed development fails toconserve or enhance the area and would undermine the character of the area. This area isdensely developed and, although residential development is needed in the city, it is essential thatany new residential development is suitable for its surroundings. The proposed developmentwould change the character of the road which currently has no 2 storey buildings on this side ofthe road and so allows glimpsed views over the single storey garden walls and garage of greeninfrastructure in the back gardens of Clyde Park houses.The street tree (London Plane) on the front boundary is valuable for its contribution to thecharacter of the area. The proposed building comes significantly forward of the existing garagebuildings so will impact on both the root structure and the canopy of the tree. This construction willthreaten this tree and trees in the rear garden of 1 and 3 Clyde Park.The site is surrounded by neighbouring properties which will suffer from overlooking by residentsof the proposed house.The accommodation proposed will be of poor quality due to its low internal light levels, no outlookother than over neighbours' gardens and unacceptably small outdoor space. It is overdevelopmentof a small site.This is not a suitable site for a new house.