The size of the proposal appears very out of keeping with the immediate adjacentdwellings.We feel this would be visually very impactful particularly for the immediate neighbours and is out ofcharacter due to its location on this prominent corner plot.

1. The proposed house is out of character with the red-brick semi-detached housesadjacent.2. The proposed development will be set well forward of the other houses adjacent and forward ofa building line that joins properties 299 and 331 Canford Lane.3. This proposal is on land formerly in the ownership of Bristol City Council when it was used bythe public in general as an open recreation space, subsequently sold the former owner of 329Canford Lane and enclosed by an

1. The proposed house is out of character with the red-brick semi-detached housesadjacent.2. The proposed development will be set well forward of the other houses adjacent and forward ofa building line that joins properties 299 and 331 Canford Lane.3. This proposal is on land originally in the ownership of Bristol City Council when it was used bythe public in general as an open recreation space, subsequently sold to the former owner of 329Canford Lane and enclosed by an unsightly beech hedge. I am sure that it was never the intentionof BCC to permit redevelopment of the land for private gain.4. The size of the proposed house suggests that the purpose of development is for personal gainof the owner of 329 i.e. land speculation!I trust therefore that the application will be rejected as was the previous application for a singlestorey house on this land by the former owner of 329 Canford Lane.

In principle we do not object to a house being built on this plot, however what isproposed as shown in the 'proposed streetscenes' is entirely not keeping with the style of housingin the locality. On this side of Canford Lane from the junction with The Dingle to the other end ofthe private lane also called Canford Lane (to house no. 299), all the houses are consistent inappearance, all being the former police authority houses. The shape and size of the house is anoverdevelopment and will be an eye sore. The mix of housing styles that theDESIGN_AND_ACCESS_STATEMENT_REV_B-2853540 document refers to in sections 3.8 and3.9 are on the other side of Canford Lane, and beyond the other side of the private lane (from no.299 toward Westbury-on-Trym).

In section 5.1 of the DESIGN_AND_ACCESS_STATEMENT_REV_B-2853540 document, theprimary school referred to is probably the Westbury on Trym C of E Academy. A house at thelocation proposed is highly unlikely to be within the catchment of this popular school (our address,which is marginally closer to the school, has fallen within the school's catchment only once in thepast 7 years). A school substantially further away, such as St Ursula's E-ACT Academy (a 29minute walk away), would be far more realistic.

More generally, we object to any further housing developments on or within the immediate vicinityof Canford Lane until adequate pedestrian crossings are installed on Canford Lane. This has beencampaigned for before yet the Council have done nothing. Canford Lane is a busy road which iswide enough that cars often speed along, breaking the speed limit. The curves in the road makevisibility poor along a number of points, thus it is a difficult road to cross. More housing in this areaincreases the road and pedestrian traffic, both of which increase the need for adequate crossing

points; this is especially true for the family housing being proposed as crossing the road is a realsafety hazard for children. There is enough width for a pedestrian refuge islands along the road,as there is on Parry's Lane nearby which has a comparable traffic density.

CPRE South Gloucestershire/North Bristol District objects to this application on thegrounds of lack of consideration of wildlife and nature conservation and environmental interests. Ifthe questionable decision is made that this is an acceptable location for a very large detacheddwelling it will result in the loss of yet another large garden space in this area of Bristol. Wecommend the various sustainability proposals including those for alternative energy sources tosupply the needs of future residents, but lament the fact that such consideration has not gone intothe preservation and enhancement of the green infrastructure represented by the remaininggarden area, particularly in the light of its location bordering protected areas.

Given that the site is close to the boundary with the Conservation Area we consider that anecological survey should be undertaken to determine the level of wildlife that might be affected bydevelopment. This has been provided for other nearby applications such as 19/05047/F at 6Dingle Road. This requirement is highlighted in an earlier refused application where in the pre-application response to 11/02679/PREAPP the Principal Planning Officer of the time wrote "Thesite lies adjacent to designated open space and this fact is and is likely to remain important in anyappraisal of a full planning application both in terms of nature conservation interests and/oramenity value. In the absence of any further information from yourselves on the former I am notable to comment further."

The value of wildlife in urban areas is widely recognised and there are increasing numbers ofapplications which offer such provisions as bird or bat boxes, particularly where the removal oftrees is included in proposals, as well as sensitive security lighting in any external areas.

The proposed remaining garden area fronts the busy main A4162 and potentially offers anelement of protection against traffic pollution in addition to the other well recognised benefits ofurban gardens. We are pleased to note the intention to retain the boundary hedge, but would haveexpected to see a detailed landscape plan at this stage. The Kings Weston and Trym ValleyConservation Area document states 13) "Within the Coombe Dingle and Trym Valley Areadevelopment has often been of a character degrading and reducing the quality of the landscapedgardens..." It is clearly important that this tendency is not perpetuated and that the proposedlandscape is shown in detail. The question of replacement trees in mitigation for those whichwould be felled is therefore of considerable importance. The Arboricultural Impact Assessmentrecognises that the BTRS requires 14 trees to be planted in mitigation for the trees which are to beremoved. However the proposed location and species of those trees needs to be indicated,including how many will need to be resourced and planted off-site.

I do not object to a house being built on the land next to 329 Canford Lane however I do not feel the proposed plan for a 6 bedroom property is in keeping with the style and size of the houses on that side of Canford Lane and feel a smaller property would be more in keeping with the area.

Kathryn Taylor

In theory I am not against a house being built on this plot. However having livedopposite for 40 years I believe that a property this size is not in keeping with the landscaping andexisting housing of the area.

There was a previous application for a small, eco-friendly single storey dwelling with a living roofon this plot. This application was rejected. This size and type of dwelling would be a much moresuitable option that the one outlined in this application, and less impactful on this corner plot.

I object to this proposal as it looks like gross overdevelopment, the house is not inkeeping with neighbouring properties, all of the ex police houses in that area are much smaller.There are larger properties further along the road and opposite but nothing like this in the row orthe cul de sac behind so it will make the appearance of the area look odd to have one very largedominant house, especially on a corner plot. I do not live in the road but I am in Westbury and Iwalk along this road frequently on my way to Blaise. I can remember when these houses were allpolice houses and the police horses lived in the fields behind, the houses may not be aconservation area but they were all built in the same style in the 50's? and it does not seem rightthat developers are allowed to build the largest house that they can fit onto a site in order tomaximize the most profit.

From the attached plans, this looks like a very grand house. I wouldn't necessarily saythat the architecture is consistent with most of the surrounding 1950's style of properties (i.e. size,style, external ashlar stone finish etc), although I have no objections.

The Bristol One City Plan - January 2019, identifies "delivering sustainable andaffordable housing" city-wide. Bristol City Council has confirmed that in 2020-2021 Bristol will begetting nowhere near the 800 new affordable homes per year promised by the Mayor Marvin Reesin his 2016 election campaign.(citing the Growth and Regeneration Scrutiny Commission of Bristol City Council, 14 September2020.)

As a family we are supportive of local development of housing which provides for the shortfall inaffordable properties. When we apply this logic the 6 bedroom single home property isn't ajustified development.

I live next door to the proposed site and feel that the large build may obstruct the view Ihave had from my home, I feel the structure should be downsized, there are no trees at the site toworry about as a previous complainant has made mention of in regard to trees, therefore I have noobjections to this build apart from the size of the building and I feel a 3 to 4 bedroom bungalowwould suit the site better than a six-bedroom two-storey building.

This is a large house for this corner plot.When it is complete there will not be much land left remaining within the property boundary for theplanting of the 14 trees required for mitigation under the Bristol Tree Replacement StandardThere are no landscape plans submitted with this application. Sometimes these are left to a laterstage. Sometimes this is because the plan is to provide tiny trees not capable of growing toanything like what is required to compensate for the damage to the environment caused by fellingtrees, or even there is a wish to plant hedges and shrubs and count them as "trees".This comment is just to say that hedges and shrubs are not acceptable as mitigation for the loss oftrees.Also I ask the Tree Officer to ensure that trees being retained are not in such a position that theywill be felled in the immediate years following occupation because they have been retained tooclose to the building - something that occurs at times to avoid the expense of off-site mitigation fortree loss.Trees are shown in the proposed site plan, but these are trees that are already growing on theland.I ask the Tree and Planning Officers to ensure that the BTRS is honoured and that, if they agreethat 14 trees are required in mitigation, that these are real "trees" and nothing else, some or allplanted off-site on public land if that is what is required to fulfil the Planning Obligation.