Why would let this land be developed when there is a covenant stipulating against thistype of development. Shame on the council if this us aloud through.

There is far too much development currently happening in the surrounding area whichthe infrustructure for has not been properly considered. Doctors surgeries cannot cope, there arefar fewer pharmacies due to closures from government cuts, there is not enough parking oreffective public transport.

There are also many trees in the area, removing them will result in greater seasonal deviations tosoil water content. This can result in a higher flood risk and pose a risk of frost heave to thefoundations of surrounding houses.

Dear / Madam

I am writing to you to formally object again to the proposed development applicationnumber 21/00843/F. 149/149A.

I have written before with a number of reasons why this should not be allowed toproceed, primarily damage to local wild life, the fact that this would increase the floodrisk for which we already pay extra insurance, the quality of life to the local residentsduring the construction and after as we would all be over looked and in an already verybusy traffic area more cars would be a big problem. As a home owner this would alsodecrease the value of my home. I understand there is a shortage of affordable housingbut is it also not important to try and keep green space as well.

Kind regards

Dear Bristol City Council,

While this will benefit the developer, I object to the build as it will negatively impact all theresidents in the area and those families who travel to nearby schools, both once constructed andduring the construction:- It will reduce the amount of green space,- Given the amount of additional residents on an already busy street with significant traffic due tolocal schools and a bus route, this will increase congestion,- There does not appear to be adequate consideration given to the additional parking requirements- again, the street is very busy already, especially during school drop-off/ pick-up times and thebus route- The development sits directly on the bus stop - has this impact been considered?- Introducing flats would significantly change the character of the area and surroundings

I hope you'll consider my concerns, which are shared by many of my neighbours.

Kind regards,Ben Wilkins

This project is ill-considered and will significantly disrupt and reduce quality of life forthose living and travelling through this area.

- It will remove important green space which at the moment improves the quality of the area andbenefits residents- The space is currently a haven for wildlife. By developing this land, it will harm biodiversity, whichgoes against the terms of the Bristol City Council Ecological Emergency Action Plan.- The area has a history of significant flood risk with waterlogging in the vicinity of thedevelopment. Further development will reduce the current level of drainage and increase floodrisk.- The road has heavy traffic during school drop off times with a bus route, limited parking andassociated air pollution. Adding more residents will increase these challenges and the harm tolocal residents and school children who walk along this route every day.- The character of the surrounding area is long-standing and would be changed by thedevelopment of flats.

No development here please. The covenents on this site should be respected. Continuethe city's Green credentials.This area is already densely populated.

The covenant should be respected and the land should not be built on.

I object to this development on environmental grounds and flood prevention risk.This space was recognised as a green space and wildlife corridor.It will reflect very badly on BCC planning department if you allow demolition of a decent house tofacilitate a small act of ecoside.

This is a green space and must be treated as such.

If Bristol Council has any intent on actually backing up its climate pledges, spaces like this need tobe preserved for wildlife not destroyed and built over.

I object to this development on environmental grounds and flood prevention risk.This space was recognised as a green space and wildlife corridor let's keep it that way.

Flood risk: flood zone and gardens that back onto the wasteland flood in heavy rain.The drain on Marksbury Rd already blocks and flood regularly. Building on this land will increaseour flood risk

Trees: The building work will damage roots of existing trees and may kill them. These treesprovide homes and food for birds and shelter our gardens from the sun.

Air quality: Local air quality particulate monitor is already reading high and more buildings and carswill make it worse https://aqicn.org/station/@191824#/z/15

Wildlife: The owner has bulldozed the land but there is still evidence of hedgehogs, squirrels,foxes, badgers, bats, slow worms and more.

Parking: There is not enough space on the main streets for new residents to park and the plansshow access roads only.

Security: Opening up the space behind existing homes would leave our back gardens vulnerableto intruders. Extra security will need to be paid for.

Privacy: New neighbours close to us will impact upon our privacy in our gardens and in ourhomes, and the social amenity that the open space offers, creating a sense of community..

Light pollution: This will impact upon our quality of life and will disrupt the wildlife corridor,particularly night flying bats and the occasional barn owl.

Noise: The noise from demolition and building work will go on for a long time, followed by thenoise of people driving in and out of the land and living so close to gardens.

House value: Houses that are near green spaces are worth more money. This build will devaluehomes.

Misleading sale: We have been misled into thinking the land was safe from development. If wehad known it was possible to remove the protective covenant we could have formed a group andbought it.

The application is for 5 bungalows that are too small to bring up a family in, this will mean shortterm lets which means an increase in fly tipping. The owner has an arrangement with BCC toprovide halfway houses so this could quickly become an area for ex offenders and drug abusers.

Main objection is that the proposed development is illegal there is a covenant that protects thisland from development. Crazy that it is even reached this stage of application.

The land was sold with a agreement stating:-"The land is to be sold with a restrictive covenant placed on it against any development except anybuilding in connection with a garden or amenity use such as sheds etc." (this was sent out on 5thJuly 2017 by Ceri Thomas, BCC property manager)This looks as though it will be overturned with the proposal to build 5 bungalows on it.

Here are some of the reasons this is a bad place to build:

Flood risk: We pay extra insurance because we are in a flood zone and gardens that back onto thewasteland flood in heavy rain. The drain on Marksbury Rd already blocks and flood regularly.Building on this land will increase our flood risk

Trees: The building work will damage roots of existing trees and may kill them. These treesprovide homes and food for birds and shelter our gardens from the sun.

Air quality: Our local air quality particulate monitor is already reading high and more buildings andcars will make it worse https://aqicn.org/station/@191824#/z/15

Wildlife: The owner has bulldozed the land but there is still evidence of hedgehogs, squirrels,foxes, badgers, bats, slow worms and more.

Parking: There is not enough space on the main streets for new residents to park and the plansshow access roads only.

Security: Opening up the space behind our homes would leave our back gardens vulnerable tointruders. We shouldn't have to pay more for extra security.

Privacy: New neighbours close to us will impact upon our privacy in our gardens and in ourhomes.

Light pollution: This will impact upon our quality of life and will disrupt the wildlife corridor.

Noise: The noise from demolition and building work will go on for a long time, followed by thenoise of people driving in and out of the land and living so close to our gardens.

House value: Houses that are near green spaces are worth more money. This build will devalueour homes.

Misleading sale: We have been misled into thinking the land was safe from development. If wehad known it was possible to remove the protective covenant we could have formed a group andbought it.

The application is for 5 bungalows that are too small to bring up a family in, this will mean shortterm lets which means an increase in fly tipping. The owner has an arrangement with BCC toprovide halfway houses so this could quickly become an area for ex offenders and drug abusers.

Dear Sir / Madam and whomever else this concerns,

This land was sold for agricultural use only with a covenant on it saying so!

So why on earth was this developer even able to apply for planning?

The locals who's gardens back onto the land have been totally mislead, if they'd had any inklingthat the land was not protected and that the protective covenant could be in any way lifted and thehuge stress impact on their mental health in fighting for the land, then they would most certainlyhave got together and applied to buy the land between themselves for its safe keeping.

Why was this land sold to this notoriously unscrupulous developer?If this build was to get the go ahead, I feel that there must be something very suspect going onthat really does needs investigating?I've seen other builds in the area by this developer not go according to plan, so how do they getaway with it?

This land and the tree's living on and around it have been a wildlife sanctuary for (red-listed)Badgers, Fox's, Hedgehogs, Squirrels, Hedgehogs, Bats, Slow Worms, Insects, Etc, and manydifferent varieties of Birds including Owls, Red Spotted Woodpeckers, Song Thrushes, Sparrow's& Sparrow Hawks, Etc for a very long time.

I have spoken with a couple who's garden backs onto the land, and they have had many sightingsof badgers and fox's over the last 40 years, their garden backs onto the land and the badgers and

fox's come into their garden from there, last year they saw both a family of badgers, and a familyof fox's too living on there, they have had more recent sightings of them too.

But disgustingly and extremely sadly, the new land owner, before any ecology report, or planning,without any thought to the wildlife, birds and people already living there, or the trees etc, they wentahead and bulldozed the land, destroying their habitat, so whether or not the huge pile of clearedrubbish that they left in the middle of the land is now blocking up a badger set and or a fox's den, Idread to think :/

Obviously this unscrupulous developer is just out to make money and cares nothing for wildlife,the environment or the people already living there :/

What this precious land so desperately needs is to be allowed to return to and stay the treasuredwildlife sanctuary / corridor that it is, with more tree's planted to replace the ones that werebulldozed and for it to be in the hands of our caring community and the deserving families who'sgardens back onto it :)

There have been so many / far too many builds in this area over the last few years, which meansthat these treasured pieces of wildlife sanctuary / corridor land are now sadly very fast depletingand extremely scarce, the cities badgers, fox's and other wildlife are all really struggling to survive:/

This land is definitely waterlogged, it is prone to flooding, any build there would put the houses thatare already there in jeopardy of flood and subsidence!There is plenty of proof in the reports and pictures of the flooding in this area in the past, the watertable is already very high.

There are already so many houses / homes packed into this very small area, this build would leadto more poor air quality in an already polluted area, more noise pollution, more parking issues, andmore destruction of green land :/

The bollards put in for safety at the entrance to Marksbury Open Space and opposite on theBrixham Road side, they have mostly been knocked down, this is a huge indication that there arealready far too many vehicles trying to both park and negotiate the exact area of this ridiculousproposed demolition and therefore entrance to this proposed build onto this extremely preciousland.

Even one house / dwelling built there let alone five, would negatively impact in a massive way bothphysically and mentally on hundred's of people and their families that already live backing onto theland and in the local vicinity to it too, the houses would be devalued, the build demolition, dustpollution and noise would go on for a long time, let alone the upset and possible deaths of thewildlife that rely on the space to live in/on too :/

To demolish two family homes to build these 5 small dwellings for single occupancy, with suchhuge negative impact's this would bring in multiple ways to hundred's of people, it would bebeyond lunacy :/

So please please I hope with all my heart that you will do the right thing and say no, and let thisfarcical planning application go no further, returning the land to the local residents and its wildlife,setting a precedence for future planning application's by unscrupulous developers trying to destroyour cities precious green spaces.

There are nearly 500 signature's and still rising, on a petition to ask the council to protect thecovenant on this land!

I thank you for your time in reading this and taking it all into consideration, its very muchappreciated!

Your sincerely,

One very concerned local resident...

Jessica McLean

I would like to object to the following on environmental grounds.

Flood risk: In a flood zone and gardens that back onto the wasteland flood in heavy rain.The drain on Marksbury Rd already blocks and flood regularly. Building on this land will increaseflood risk

Trees: The building work will damage roots of existing trees and may kill them. These treesprovide homes and food for birds and shelter gardens from the sun.

Air quality: The local air quality particulate monitor is already reading high and more buildings andcars will make it worse https://aqicn.org/station/@191824#/z/15

Wildlife: The owner has bulldozed the land but there is still evidence of hedgehogs, squirrels,foxes, badgers, bats, slow worms and more.

Parking: There is not enough space on the main streets for new residents to park and the plansshow access roads only

I object to houses or such being built on I own plot A behind Lynton Road/Brixham/Lydford walk, I certainly have no intention of building anything against the covenant laiddown so should Plot B be of the same it's waste ground for wildlife to enjoy turn it into a nicenature reserve garden etc, no not accommodation please no.

I strongly object to this planning applications for the following reasons:There is a wide selection of wildlife that lives in the area even though it has been bulldozed,hedgehogs, foxes,squirrels, bats and many more speciesThere is hardly enough parking for the residents of the surrounding roads as it is and it would onlyget worse if more houses are builtSecurity of our homes would be more vulnerable if the area was openOur privacy would be impacted upon in our gardens and homesHouse values would be decreased in the area if more homes were builtThe land has a covenant on it

Yet again I object to the planning application.

The land was sold with an agreement stating "The land is to be sold with a restrictive covenantplaced on it against development except any building in connection with a garden or amenity usesuch as sheds etc.) 5th July 2017, Ceri Thomas, BCC property manager.

If the neighbours new this piece of land was going to be sold and built houses on we would havecome together to purchase the land together. Please can the council consult the neighbourssurrounding the piece of land if they are changing what the land is to be used for.

This is the covenant on the site which would be breached if this application went ahead.

- The site is within a flood risk zone. There is concern that the development would not only bevulnerable to flooding but would increase the risks to the surrounding houses. The bottom of mygarden regularly floods and the excess pools in the proposed site.

-There will be a huge impact on the ecology of the site. I see foxes, badgers and bats in the areathat is the proposed site. Given the council's One City Ecological Emergency Strategy this seemslike an important consideration. Small pockets of green space within developed residential areaslike this are invaluable for the health and well-being of residents and also wildlife.

I, Miss Jennifer Collins, have lived backing onto the land behind Marksbury Road,Bedminster since 2001.I hereby lodge objection to the proposed development for the following reasons:

Environmental Impacts:WildlifeFloraFlood prone areaFire risk of a development to surrounding residencesEmergency services access complicationsNoise pollution

Residential impact:Parking of vehicles, traffic increase, noise pollution, emergency services access complications,etc.

Property value decrease - green corridor bordering my property VS a development The proposeddevelopment will decrease the value of my property VS a green corridor.Flora:I over the years have planted over 10 (ten) trees (Silver Birch, Willows, Buddliegh etc) andconstructed 2 (two) ponds.Wildlife:During this time numerous newts, slow worms, hedgehogs, some foxes and plentiful bird lifeincluding the endangered Sparrow Hawks.

No ecological tests \ assessments were conducted prior to the proposed development.The land has been burnt.Despite this, there are still newts and slow worm living on the land. Kindly contact me to arrange aviewing at the property.

Sale of the land:The said property where development is proposed was sold approximately 5 years ago.The council has previously stated the land has a covenant for agricultural use only.How is it, that now the submitted proposal is for development of the land other than agriculturaluse?

I have a few photos of the area at the back of my property available. Kindly contact me at earliestconvenience for copies of these.

I trust that the above mentions objections will duly be considered individually and with merit.

Kindest regards,Jennifer Collins

I am co-chair of BS3 Planning Group and wish to make a written statement in relation tothis planning application on the group's behalf. There are a number of concerns with thisapplication.- There is a covenant on the site which would be breached if this application went ahead. Thiswould potentially create a dangerous precedent for other plots of land with apparent protectivecovenants, meaning valuable green spaces could be developed. If residents had been aware ofthis, they could have bought the site to protect it.- The site is within a flood risk zone. There is concern that the development would not only bevulnerable to flooding but would increase the risks to the surrounding houses.- There will be a huge impact on the ecology of the site. Local residents report seeing foxes,badgers and bats as well as several other wildlife species. Given the council's One City EcologicalEmergency Strategy, and our Ecological Emergency Action Plan, this seems like an importantconsideration. Small pockets of green space within developed residential areas like this areinvaluable for the health and well-being of residents and also wildlife.- The process of developing the site will also have a massive impact on the residents in thesurrounding houses- There is not sufficient access for emergency vehicles.

This site could be a valuable community and ecological asset. Developing it in this way will notallow for that in the future.

Not in accordance with covenant. Protect remaining wildlife. Planners should make aholistic review, taking into account covenants to avoid people using loop holes.

Not in accordance with covenant. Protect remaining wildlife. Planners should make aholistic review, taking into account covenants to avoid people using loop holes.

I am objecting strongly to the proposed development on the rear of my property, for the following reasons

the land was sold with a restrictive covenant with limitation of development to garden sheds and agricultural use only

the site in question is a wildlife haven for many Red-Listed animals and birds, a lovely green space in a built-up area

Marksbury Road is a very busy road, with already limited parking, having a new road constructed off of it can only add to the congestion, safety and parking issues that already exist here

there will be an intrusion of our privacy, an increase in noise levels, light and air pollution, which is a worry mental health issue

emergency services will have limited access as there is not sufficient turning space, which is an obvious safety concern

the land is in a flood risk area, and the proposal appears to be inadequate which contradicts the BCC Development Plan

Taking these points into consideration, and all of those that have been raised by my concerned and very frustrated neighbours, I am confident that the right decision will be reached in declining this proposal of developmment..........again

21/00843/F | Demolition of 149A Marksbury Road and erection of 5no. single storeydwellings on land to the rear. | 149/149A & Land To Rear Of Marksbury Road Bristol BS3 5LD

Cllr Lisa Stone - Objection1) New building should comply to the Bristol City council Pas Haus 35, this application does not.Due to installing `A` rated condensing combination boiler. Heating and hot water is therefore to beprovided by an efficient gas boiler. According to the 2020 SPD BCS 14 Energy strategy theseneed to be removed and a sustainable model employed. (Operation of Bristol Local Plan PoliciesPractice Note - Updated March 2021)The adaption to the energy statement - states the use of PV which have not been identified in theplanning document to be changed to the use of air source heat pumps, however the energystatement does not mention the use of PV, but solar thermal. It continues to mention theinstallations of gas condensing boilers - this is a material consideration for refusing the application2) FRA - flood zone 2 - water table levels are high in the area, building on this important piece ofland will remove a valuable natural soak away, especially knowing that the River Malago is proneto flooding and in past Marksbury Road has become quite badly flooded. For this reason, theCouncil's Flood Officer's approval is necessary to allow development, but as you will see, the floodofficer is objecting to this.Flood Risk: Objection: "We would object to this application as not enough information has beenprovided, the applicant needs to show that one of the two proposed drainage strategies are viableeither by undertaking infiltration testing to BRE365 (or equivalent) standard or getting approvalfrom Wessex Water that flows into their system are acceptable. We would also require detaileddesign drawings of the proposed SuDS features as well as management and maintenance detailsfor the proposed SuDS features. We would be happy for these two elements to be provided to us

either with the above confirmation or separately via condition. If the case officer is minded to applya condition to this application we would recommend that B35 SuDS is applied".

3) Councillors on the Development Control Committee also need to keep in mind that there is acovenant on the land that means it's not allowed to be developed. This is a legal agreement.

4) The close proximity of the proposed public footpath, on the planned drawing, where it passesthe 3-bedroom windows of house type A is a concern, the distance from the path to the windowswhich look into the bedrooms range from 1M to 1.5 M, this will impact on the privacy of theoccupants in unit A. To the north, unit A looks directly onto a hedge which is approximately 1.5meters away, this will impact on the light for unit A. This is a material consideration.

5) The proposed public path on the applicant's design plan is only 1 meter wide, this does notconsider accessibility for wheelchairs etc. Especially with the slope and undulating land, probablycaused by badgers. This is a material consideration - The application of access standards to olderpersons' housing is covered by policy DM2: Residential Sub-divisions, Shared and SpecialistHousing (Older Persons' Housing - Criteria) set out in the Site Allocations and DevelopmentManagement Policies Local Plan. This includes requirements that all units are built to the LifetimeHomes standard and 20% of units are designed to be wheelchair accessible, in accordance withthe Wheelchair Housing Design Guide, or easily adaptable to wheelchair users.

This mean that the all units will need to be accessible to wheel chair user, and that the slope of theland will be a material consideration as well as the width of the path.

6) There are also a multitude of planning considerations to be considered - Planning conditionslikely to be required, but dependant on further surveys/assessment are as follows:

A. Protection measures for badgers during construction - standard wording applies.B. Scrub and tree removal must be carried out outside the breeding season for birds (i.e., notduring the period March to August) OR suitable habitat/features should be checked by anecologist - standard wording applies.C. A reptile mitigation strategy must be submitted to BCC and approved prior to commencement ofworks.D. An overarching Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to be submitted andapproved prior to commencement. This should include provision for an Ecological Clerk of Works(ECoW) to oversee sensitive operations.E. Enhancements to be conditioned (see below). Regarding enhancement, it is noted that bird andinsect boxes 'could' be provided. However, this needs to be more specific (about types, numbers,locations). Also, due to the site having been cleared prior to application, there is a reasonableexpectation that further enhancements should be provided in order than the development results

in a biodiversity net gain. Enhancements that benefit priority species in the Bristol BiodiversityAction Plan (BBAP), such as hedgehog and house sparrow, would have most value. Finally, theproposal for green roofs is noted and welcomed. However, more details should be provided. It isimportant that these are not a Sedum monoculture, as this would have little benefit for nativewildlife - standard wording applies.

Only when these planning conditions are fulfilled will the developer have the right to develop thesite.

I strongly object to the above application.I understand that the site was advertised for sale for private amenity use only, and was sold understrict and absolutely clear terms that it was not to be developed.I understand that the applicant has a track record of breaching planning law and that enforcementaction has been required, due to his irresponsibility.While there is a need for housing in the city this site has not been developed before and wasnever intended to be.I understand that the Council misled the neighbourhood when they stated that there was aconvenant and the land could only ever be used for agricultural purposes.

These issues alone give serious cause for concern.

I wish to express some of my concerns for wildlife:A thorough ecology assessment should have been submitted in advance of the damage to thesite, and should not be left for some time in the futureIt seems that the way that this developer bulldozed the land before any ecology assessment couldbe undertaked tells us a great deal about the way they operate. They have shown that they cannotbe trusted to take any care or consideration of the land, it's wildlife or nearby residents.This area is a valuable part of the green corridor, and is much needed in this already crowdedarea of housing.

There is some dispute about the reliability of the claim that the flood risk is low. I understand thatin 1968 the area experienced serious floods and that the reached the top of the upper storey, andthat some residents were trapped upstairs and were unable to leave their homes.

There is no parking planned. You will know that the parking situation locally is also already difficult,with a number of large work vans and trucks as well as cars.

Ideally the site should be bought by the Council by compulsory purchase for the amount thedeveloper paid and it should given back to the community for safeguarding of the naturalenvironment and wildlife and with potential for allotments and/or children's safe place space.

OBJECTION TO:21/00843/F 149/149A & Land to Rear of Marksbury Road

I strongly object to the above application.

The land was sold under strict and absolutely clear terms that it was not to be developed.

My main concern is for the wildlife. This is a very built-up area and the park opposite is regularlyused and grass cut. There aren't many places for the wildlife to exist undisturbed and this spot ofland is the only one in this area where this can occur. The lives of badgers, hedgehogs, slowworms, frogs, birds, foxes and insects should be more highly valued in this instance than the profitfrom a development in an already highly-developed area. In particular, slow worms are a protectedspecies and their habitat needs to be protected.

The way that this developer bulldozed the land before any ecology report could be done, tells us agreat deal about the way they operate and they have clearly proved that they cannot be trusted totake any care or consideration of the land, it's wildlife or nearby residents. The proposedenvironmental plan is not going to save the situation in any way. You cannot simply 'replace' trees- and install bird and insect boxes to rectify stripping away an entire natural environment which hasbeen existing and growing its own ecosystem for centuries.

This green corridor is much needed in this already crowded area of housing. Shame on thedeveloper for stripping the land in this way and shame on the Planning Officer for supporting it! We

want an ecology report to be completed and the Council must stop that man from bulldozing itagain.

Without any doubt whatsoever, the flood risk for the neighbouring properties will be much worse ifdevelopment takes place. The flood report was incorrect and the flood officer, Dan Fry hasconfirmed that this area is in a high risk flood zone. In a letter to a resident he says, "in terms ofsurface water and river/tidal flooding, the land to the rear of 149 Marksbury Road is also at highrisk and in flood zone 2."

At present this scrubland holds much of the moisture for the area. We don't need 'work arounds'so that this individual can get away with making a profit at the cost of the environment andresidents, we need the grass and soil that is present to remain and soak up the water. Anybuilding on this land will have a major effect.

This developer has already demonstrated unscrupulous behaviour with no regard for ourcommunity. He paid Council tenants cash to access their gardens with his diggers, which chewedup council gardens and knocked down council fences in order to get access to this land andbulldoze the important green space before an ecology report could be carried out. According toprevious applications which were passed, he has illegally erected buildings elsewhere that onlyhad plans for a shed and instead he built living accommodation. While the Planning Officer(preposterously!) supports to the scheme due to its current reduced size, I have no doubtwhatsover that this individual will, either come back with a bigger scheme once he turns thecovenant or simply follow what he's done before and simply go ahead and build it bigger withoutpermission.

There is no parking planned. The parking situation around here is also terrible already with a lot oflarge work vans and trucks as well as cars. The homes will have their own cars plus visitors andextra family cars. It's already difficult to come out of the end of our street as views are restrictedboth ways due to cars parking right up on the corners of the streets and all the way down them.Too many people living in an area which is very built up and many of the houses around here havenow been made into flats. You've got 3 and 4 cars for just one house around here because ofthat..

The Council completely misled the neighbourhood when they stated that there was a convenantand the land could only ever be used for agricultural purposes. They owe it to the neighbourhoodto protect the land from this individual. Given his previous actions re development and planning,they should never have sold it to him, and given the current situation and his behaviour thus far,they should certainly not be supporting his actions.

I understand that the Council are desperate to build homes but this green space is needed moreby the wildlife here and the job it does to mitigate flooding. Look for other spaces that have beenpreviously built upon and please protect this space.

This land should be bought back off this man by the Council by compulsory purchase for theamount he paid and it should given back to the community for safeguarding of the naturalenvironment and wildlife and with potential for allotments and/or children's safe place space.Between the residents, we will work to arrange access for each other.

I write to object to this application based on grounds of loss of amenity, damage toecology, flood risk, poor design quality, requirement of BCC to stand by the restriction ondevelopment and risk of any approval opening the door to a larger scheme being resubmitted orsimply built.

If this scheme is approved the applicant will either apply for a revised scheme for larger or moreunits or simply build larger or more units and wait for enforcement action. The applicant has atrack record of breaching planning law and enforcement action being required. An argument foreconomic viability may be used to justify larger or more units, partly no doubt due to the cost ofexcavation and providing a SUDS attenuation tank because of the poorly draining clay soil. This isa standard play by developers: first come in with an unfeasibly dense scheme, whittle it down tobe just acceptable and when permission is received use the economic viability argument to justifyincreasing density again.

The site is in a flood risk zone, the applicant should provide evidence that the scheme can bedrained properly in advance and that Wessex Water are happy with any proposal rather than beleft as a condition.

A thorough ecology assessment should be submitted in advance and not be left as a condition.

Bristol City Council have a duty to stand by the restriction on development of the site. The site wasadvertised for sale for private amenity use only, this obviously gave the impression thatdevelopment would not be possible and so even people who were not interested in buying it butwould have been concerned about possible development saw no need to worry. If it was made

clear at the time that development would in fact be considered then other residents would havebeen able to bid to buy the land to see this risk off.

Despite being flat roof single storey the proposed scheme it is still overly dense given thesurrounding context and will still have a negative impact and overbearing impact on adjoiningproperties due to the density and potential for noise from the development. The buildings will beabout 3m high, still about 1.2m higher than a typical garden fence and will be clearly visible. Thegreen space provides a buffer between houses that is consistent across the area. The quality ofthe proposed housing will be poor, due to the attempt to squeeze as many units as possible intothe site

The proposed site access is narrow and cannot be relied upon to provide access in emergencies.Residents will either park on neighbouring streets and cause issues there or park in the siteaccess itself. Deliveries will also cause issues.

While there is a need for housing in the city this site has not been developed before and wasnever intended to be. This should not be an opportunity for people to make money by providingsub standard housing on unsuitable sites.by providing sub standard housing on unsuitable sites.

We can only echo the comments of our neighbours that we object to this developmentdue to the potential flood risk, impacts on local wildlife, light pollution, and the lack of suitableparking that will further congest the roads.

My understanding is that there is a covenant on the land stating that it cannot be used for abuilding development, therefore why is this being considered? On the lastplanning application submitted for the site there was also an objection from a councillor citing theCovenant on the land.

Just looking at the overall site plan it does not seem logical to put 5 dwellings backing ontoexisting /properties gardens and to knock down a perfectly good family sized house to enableaccess.

We would ask that the council does not lift the covenant on this land and to reject any futureplanning applications.

I wish to object to this planning application as it was sold with a covenant that preventsbuilding on the land, the land itself is in a zone at risk of flooding and any building on the site willincrease the risk.The land has been home to a wide range of wildlife for many years and should remain as such.The current owner should be forced to tidy up the mess he has made if it.Also my neighbours would be greatly impacted by any construction on this site including loss ofprivacy and loss of light.

I wish to object to this planning application as it was sold with a covenant that preventsbuilding on the land, the land itself is in a zone at risk of flooding and any building on the site willincrease the risk.The land has been home to a wide range of wildlife for many years and should remain as such.The current owner should be forced to tidy up the mess he has made if it.Also my neighbours would be greatly impacted by any construction on this site including loss ofprivacy and loss of light.

Dear Sir / Madam and whomever else this concerns,

This land was sold for agricultural use only with a covenant on it saying so!

So why on earth is this person even able to apply for planning?!

The resident's who's gardens back onto the land have been totally mislead, if they'd had anyinkling that the land was not protected and that the protective covenant could be in any way lifted,then they would most certainly have got together and applied to buy the land between themselvesfor its safe keeping :/

If this build goes through, I feel there must be something very suspect going on that really doesneed investigating?!

This land and the tree's living on and around it have been a wildlife sanctuary for (red-listed)Badgers, Fox's, Hedgehogs, Squirrels and many different varieties of Birds, some also (red-listed)for a very long time now!

I have spoken with a couple who have had many sightings of badgers and fox's living on the landover the last 40 years, their house backs onto the land, last year they saw both a family ofbadgers, and a family of fox's too, all living on there, they have had more recent sightings of themtoo!

But disgustingly and extremely sadly, the new land owner, before any ecology report, or planning,without any thought to the animals and birds living there, or the trees etc, went ahead andbulldozed the land, destroying their habitat, so whether or not the huge pile of cleared rubbish thathe has left in the middle of the land is now blocking up a badger set and or a fox's den, I dread tothink :/

Obviously this person is just out to make money and cares nothing for wildlife and the environment:/

What this precious land so desperately needs is to be allowed to return to and stay the treasuredwildlife sanctuary / green corridor that it is, with more tree's planted and for it to be in the hands ofour caring community and the deserving families who's gardens back onto it :)

There have been so many / far too many builds in this area over the last few years, which meansthat these treasured pieces of wildlife sanctuary / corridor land are now sadly very fast depletingand extremely scarce, the badgers, fox's and other wildlife are all really struggling to survive :/

This land is definitely waterlogged, I've seen it, it is prone to flooding, any build there would put thehouses that are already there in jeopardy of flood and subsidence!A flood risk assessment says the land is not at risk of flooding, this is total nonsense, if all theroads around the area are at risk which they are, then so is the land, there is plenty of proof in thereports and pictures of the flooding in this area in the past!

There are already so many houses / homes packed into this very small area, this build would leadto more poor air quality in an already polluted area, more noise pollution, more parking issues, andmore destruction of green land :/

Even one house / dwelling built there let alone five, would negatively impact in a massive way bothphysically and mentally on over a hundred people and their families that already live there, theirhouses would be devalued, the build demolition, dust pollution and noise would go on for a longtime, let alone the upset and possible deaths of the wildlife that rely on the space to live in / on too:/

So please please please I beg of you to do the right thing and say no, and let this farcical planningapplication go no further!

I thank you for your time in reading this and taking it all into consideration, its very muchappreciated!

Your sincerely,

One very concerned local resident.

I want to fully object to this planning application on the following grounds:*The area proposed for development is subject to a restrictive covenant which we were givenassurances of in 2017 not building could take place. On that basis we didn't make a bid topurchase.* The flood risk remains a concern and I find the drainage strategy report unsatisfactory as it relieson a number of unsubstantiated things to be in place and the back up plan has not even soughtconsent from Wessex Water.Our household insurance premiums reflect the flood risk as this area has badly flooded in the pastand was one of the reasons the council themselves ruled out this land for anything other thanagricultural plans.*The land has always had a variety of wildlife despite being bull dozed on a few occasions by thedeveloper who then just left the overgrowth in piles. However we have seen a resurgence of somewildlife and insects coming back.* if access to this development is as proposed via a narrow point where the current dwelling isdemolished it will bring concentrated and regular pollution via fumes to a small area the the backof our homes, where we currently have enjoyment in our gardens. There are already parkingissues on Marksbury Road which spill into the adjacent roads and anyone who is familiar will knowMarksbury Road already has a problem with cars speeding and parking illegally -this wouldworsen!We are aware Bristol are keen to build new houses but this small number being proposed wouldbe hugely to the detriment to the dozens already living here.

I strongly object to this planning application once again,for the following reasons:We were told that the area could not be built on as it was a convenient area.

We have a selection of wildlife using the area, foxes, hedgehogs,birds,bats, squirrels etc whichwould be effected massively if the area were to be built on.

There is not enough parking as it is in our area so more houses would mean busier streets.

Our houses and gardens would be overlooked so effecting our privacy.

Our homes and gardens would be vulnerable and security would be made worse.

There would be a lot of noise and disruption if planning permission was granted.

Here we go again.ehy are the council even considering yet another application. Thisland was sold to Mr fry with a covenant placed on it with the understanding it is not to be built on.The council need to tell mr fry he can not keep putting plans in for any build at all as he bought iton these conditions and with the covenant. I feel the council have mislead us by placing acovenant on it letting us think it is safe from development yet keep letting mr fry attempt to put infor planning. The council need to point out to him the conditions he bought this land with.I strongly object to any development on this site as it was sold with this covenant in place. With noallocated parking for these 5 builds they will be parking on nearby streets which are already full.The entrance to this site will be on the corner of an already busy marksbury Road and oppositethe entrance to a playing field where children cross the road.On this busy corner there are posts in the ground and 1 of these posts has already been knockedout showing it is a busy and dangerous corner to have the entrance to this build.As for it saying there is no flood risk this is not true. In 1968 we had floods which came to the topof the upstairs landing and residence were trapped up stairs and not able to get out.Please can the council put a stop to this planning application and any future ones once and for all.

Dear Sir / Madam and whomever else this concerns,

This land was sold for agricultural use only with a covenant on it saying so!

So why on earth is this person even able to apply for planning?!

The locals who's gardens back onto the land have been totally mislead, if they'd had any inkling that the land was not protected and that the protective covenant could be in any way lifted, then they would most certainly have got together and applied to buy the land between themselves for its safe keeping!

If this build gets the go ahead,I feel there must be something very suspect going on that really does needs investigating?!

This land and the tree's living on and around it have been a wildlife sanctuary for (red-listed) Badgers, Fox's, Hedgehogs, Squirrels and many different varieties of Birds, some also (red-listed) for a very long time now!

I have spoken with a couple who have had many sightings of badgers and fox's living on the land over the last 40 years, their house backs onto the land, last year they saw both a family of badgers, and a family of fox's too, all living on there, they have had more recent sightings of them too!

But disgustingly and extremely sadly, the new land owner, before any ecology report, or planning, without any thought to the animals and birds living there, or the trees etc, went ahead and bulldozed the land, destroying their habitat, so whether or not the huge pile

of cleared rubbish that he left in the middle of the land is now blocking up a badger set and or a fox's den, I dread to think :/

Obviously this person is just out to make money and cares nothing for wildlife and the environment :/

What this precious land so desperately needs is to be allowed to return to and stay the treasured wildlife sanctuary / corridor that it is, with more tree's planted and for it to be in the hands of our caring community and the deserving families who's gardens back onto it :)

There have been so many / far too many builds in this area over the last few years, which means that these treasured pieces of wildlife sanctuary / corridor land are now sadly very fast depleting and extremely scarce, the badgers, fox's and other wildlife are all really struggling to survive :/

This land is definitely waterlogged, it is prone to flooding, any build there would put the houses that are already there in jeopardy of flood and subsidence!A flood risk assessment says the land is not at risk of flooding, this is total nonsense, if all the roads around the area are at risk which they are, then so is the land, there is plenty of proof in the reports and pictures of the flooding in this area in the past! There are already so many houses / homes packed into this very small area, this build would lead to more poor air quality in an already polluted area, more noise pollution, more parking issues, and more destruction of green land :/ Even one house / dwelling built there let alone five, would negatively impact in a massive way both physically and mentally on over a hundred people and their families that already live there, their houses would be devalued, the build demolition, dust pollution and noise would go on for a long time, let alone the upset and possible deaths of the wildlife that rely on the space to live in / on too :/

So please please please I beg of you to do the right thing and say no and let this farcical planning application go no further!

I thank you for your time in reading this and taking it all into consideration, its very much appreciated!

Your sincerely,

One very concerned local resident…

Jessica McLean

The revised aboricultural report dated 2/3/22 is still incorrect. It shows one cherry tree inmy garden that has since been removed but it does not show the large cherry right next to thefence that has a stem diameter of 31.5 cm with a calculated radius of the root protection area is 12x this = 3.8 m. This cherry tree is next to the fence and directly opposite the planned entrances tothe buildings.

Those roots extend into the land and the tree protection strategies do not take them intoconsideration. Building an access road on top of the roots will damage the tree.

Once again why are applications for this land even being accepted?I object in full to any development of this site as it is clearly against the agreed covenant. Werecently received an inflated offer for the house from Mr Fry through my brother, they werechildhood friends. Why not make such an offer directly unless it's another of Mr Fry's sly tactics forevading planning regulations of which there is a history.The land has become a wildlife haven for a variety of species including a badger which I myselfhave seen. Our cities need lungs and every bit of land such as this contributes to our ability to liveand breath in a city.

I fully object to the amended plans put in by Mr Fry as they are trying to mislead theplanning committee into thinking they are planting new trees in the site. They are actually existingtrees on our land.Yet again Mr Fry has tried to manipulate the planning process as he was aware of the number ofobjections to the proposed buildings.As yet none of the points made previously have been addressed to our satisfaction and this ismaking us nervous that our objections won't be listened to.Mr Fry called my brother in law to try to buy #1 at a much escalated price, which was turned downimmediately. However, if this kind of offer is being made on the sly, it is having a severelydetrimental effect on a nearly 80 year old woman.The amount of noise and disruption will have a bad effect on my health as I have mental healthissues and need to rest up on days off to be fit to go to work.Also our quality of life, especially in the summer will be spoiled by any kind of pollution/noise andthe use of our garden will be massively spoiled.I have no doubt that a further offer will be made on our property but feel the panel needs to knowthe lengths this man will go to to get what he wants. We are traumatised by this.

I OBJECT to this yet again!I don't understand as to why we have to keep going through this, a letter sent to us residents byBCC property manager Ceri Thomas on 5th July 2017 states:"The land is to be sold with a restrictive covenant placed on it against any development except anybuilding in connection with a garden or amenity use such as sheds etc." Which clearly this is not.

PARKING is an absolute nightmare on Marksbury Rd and the surrounding roads, family, nursesregularly can't park nearby. I'm disabled and need to be able to have a car parked near as I cannotwalk. It's a lovely idea to think that these 5 properties will not own cars but in reality I can't seethat. So with no allocated parking where will these new residents park.

Comment: Again we are having to make clear our objection to this development despiterepeated assurances in 2017 that the covenant would ensure this land could not be built upon.Like my fellow neighbours i remain unconvinced that this development would not represent a floodrisk - indeed my house insurance premiums already reflect that given the history flood are apotential concern. I am very sceptical that if permission is granted this developer would plantanything - he has demonstrated his "green credentials" by bulldozing everything in sight andleaving it there as an eye sore for us all to look at on a daily basis!There are increasingly fewer green spaces for wildlife to habitat and destroying this one isridiculous to build five properties to make a huge profit for a developer making very little differenceto Bristol's overall housing shortage.The development will have a huge impact on an already overcrowded parking issue on MarksburyRd and spilling into adjoining roads (Brixham and Dawlish).At present our homes feel safer and i fear this will not be the case if that land is unlocked anddeveloped!The value of our homes will be impacted and our quality of life diminished. Noise and pollution ona daily basis for a project we were assured could not happen and for which there is strength offeeling to object to this development as the only one to benefit from this is the developer himself!

I notice that the owner of the land has put in a revision. That revision shows two newtrees planted on the land and 3 trees that are already existing in neighbours land. Two of whichare no longer standing and one major cherry tree has been missed out totally. The plans arewrong.

The revision is misleading people into thinking that the owner will increase planting by more thanis intended.

The revised drainage strategy shows green roofs which I applaud but it also says "should groundconditions be found to not be suitable we proposed to use an attenuation tank to collect the waterand restrict the flow rate into the storm water drain in Marksbury Road, subject to Wessex waterconsent". This will put a huge strain onto the already worrying flood defences and put all ourproperties at risk.

This land was sold for agricultural use only and should be used as such, not for an intensive andgreedy plan to make money for a developer. Over 120 people live in houses that back onto thespace, their lives will be negatively affected to benefit the developer and the 5 new residents of theplanned buildings. Is that fair?

Parking:The planned development has wider implications to residents on both sides of Marksbury Roadwhen it comes to parking. There is no parking planned so the 5 dwellings will need to find parkingon Marksbury Road. It is already packed and cars park on the corners of the street making itdangerous for drivers and pedestrians. If we have residents parking permits in the future there will

be no space. The plans show an access road through the site and a bollard to be removed only foremergency vehicles. Without this bollard in place the new residents could park outside theirbungalows, this would increase the noise and air pollution to the rear of our houses.

Security:At the moment it is very difficult for any of our homes to be broken into from the back. Opening thespace up with an access road that backs up to our fences leaves us vulnerable and we will allhave to spend money on extra security measures. This should not have to come out of ourpockets.

Flooding:We are in a flood zone but the Flood Risk Assessment for the application denies that there is ahistorical record of flooding. If this is the case we no longer need to pay extra on our insurances.Both sides of Marksbury Road will be in the flood zone, we are all close to the Malago and at riskof surface flooding.

This is what the FRA from Stokes Morgan says"1.8 The historic maps in the SFRA show that there is no history of the site flooding. As far as theapplicant is aware there have been no incidences of on-site flooding or flooding caused by surfacewater drainage from the site since his purchase of the site. The EA data shows that the onlyrecorded historic flooding in the area occurred in October 1882, and only affected a section of theMalago 800 metres to the north."

This is nonsense. My garden floods to 4inches in heavy rain. My garden is higher than thewasteland.

This link shows pictures of Marksbury Road flooded,https://www.flickr.com/photos/mykg/8224576982Police boats had to bring people home. In my street neighbours had to move upstairs and in myhouse I'm told the resident of my home was taking tiles off the roof in case they had to escapefrom the rising water. If Lydford Walk flooded to the height of one storey, and Marksbury Roadflooded to the extent that cars and fridges were floating, there is no way the land between us wasleft unflooded.

If there is proof that the land doesn't flood, we will no longer need to pay expensive specialistinsurance premiums.

If there is proof that the land does flood that makes the Flood Risk Assessment invalid.

Misleading sale:The original letters sent out by BCC property manager Ceri Thomas on 5th July 2017 made nomention that the covenant could be removed. Residents have been misled that the wasteland was

protected. This is the wording of the letter:"The land is to be sold with a restrictive covenant placed on it against any development except anybuilding in connection with a garden or amenity use such as sheds etc."

The residents have been misled into thinking the land was safe from development. Had theyknown it was possible to remove the covenant they would have formed a community group andbought it to protect it.

Wildlife:The owner bulldozed the land before an ecology report was done but there is still evidence ofhedgehogs, squirrels, foxes, badgers, bats, slow worms and more. Five small dwellings at the costof the diverse and threatened local wildlife and tree cover is not a reasonable trade. Bristol isillegally polluted and we need the tree cover, this space would be an ideal place for Replant Bristol(who want to plant 250000 trees by 2030) instead of building more houses.https://bristolgreencapital.org/bristol-aims-plant-250000-trees-2030-biggest-ever-campaign/#:~:text=Bristol%20aims%20to%20plant%20250%2C000%20trees%20by%202030%20in%20biggest%20ever%20campaign,-25th%20November%202019&text=An%20ambitious%20new%20campaign%20launched,in%20the%20city%20by%202030.

Trees:Although tree protection strategies have been mentioned, these are for during the build and do notmention how an access road built on top of the roots of the large, mature cherry tree will notdamage it. Call it a path all you like but it has to be big enough for emergency vehicles so it is aroad. These trees provide homes and food for birds and shelter our gardens from the sun.Unprotected from the sun, heavy and wet clay soil turns into baked clay and is difficult to growanything in.

My garden backs onto this land. My established cherry tree is a pollinator for a smaller tree andprovides food and shelter for sparrows and blackbirds. The house sparrow is now red-listed as aspecies of high conservation concern and this tree is vital to their wellbeing. The roots of the largecherry tree would be damaged by the access road and it is likely to die. I also have a hedgehoghighway from the land into my garden, that would go with this development.

Air quality:Our local air quality particulate monitor is already reading high and more buildings and cars willmake it worse. Our city is illegally polluted already, these little green lungs make a big difference inthe health and wellbeing of residents. I am worried about the dust created during the planneddemolition and build, how will that be mitigated? https://aqicn.org/station/@191824#/z/15

House value:Houses that are near green spaces are worth more money. This build will devalue our homes.

Privacy:New neighbours close to us will impact upon our privacy in our gardens and in our homes. Fromour upstairs windows we will be looking down on them so it won't be good for either side.

Light pollution:This will impact upon our quality of life and will disrupt the wildlife corridor. I notice the bollards areplanned to be low but we will still have light from roof windows, doors and vertical windows. Toblock that out will require higher fences and each roof window will require shading at night.

Noise:The noise from demolition and building work will go on for a long time, followed by the noise ofpeople driving in and out of the land and living so close to our gardens. I have PTSD and need aquiet living environment, if this build goes ahead it will be very difficult for me to live here.

I object to this application on the grounds that it is overly dense, shoddy housing that will increaseair pollution and destroy a peaceful environment. The planned dwellings are not large enough tosettle down and bring up a family in so there will be a quick turnover of tenants. Short lets bringissues with littering.

The plot of land has a covenant on it that restricts buildings to agricultural only and that covenantshould not be reversible. These 'homes' are in no way agricultural. The road at the back of theproperties on Lydford Walk will affect residents quality of life. Those homes were bought as quietresidences and traffic to the rear of them will seriously impact upon the people who live there.Many gardens have established planting with root systems that go under the proposed accessroad. That planting will be affected and current trees will be damaged.

This is an irresponsible and greedy planning application that should not be approved.

The planning applications to build on this land are WRONG on many accounts, it goesagainst law, the local community and common sense. As Ceri Mathews said in the land agreement'The land is to be sold with a restrictive covenant placed on it against any development except anybuilding in connection with a garden or amenity such as sheds etc.' 05/07/2017

Green spaces are the most valuable spaces of hope for a future for the generations that comenext, I believe it is one of the most powerful things we can do to save them now! We haveforgotten how to value spaces that aren't just for human use and this narrow-mindedness will bringretribution in the form of flooding and air pollution that will damage the health of the localcommunity.

PLANNING APPLICATION 21/00843/F | Demolition of 149A Marksbury Road anderection of 5no. single storey dwellings on land to the rear. | 149/149A & Land To Rear OfMarksbury Road Bristol BS3 5LDI wish to fully object to this planning application on the following grounds:- The area proposed for development is subject to a restrictive covenant which limits sitedevelopment to garden sheds and was put in place by BCC on the sale of the land to thedeveloper. There have been no changes to the land or surrounding area which would justify theremoval of this covenant.- The land is wildlife rich in and area which is already heavily developed and so is ecologicallyimportant. It should be noted that it is not subject to fly tipping as claimed. Building on this landcontradicts BCC's One City Ecological Emergency Strategy and Development Plan:'Bristol has declared an ecological emergency and the city has set out its response in a One CityEcological Emergency Strategy that sets out four areas in which action is needed to confront andreverse ecological decline. New development will have a part to play in each of these areas,particularly in relation to making space for nature and stopping pollution. Development is expectedto comply with all relevant planning policies for nature conservation and meet those requirementsas a minimum. A high level of performance in securing net gains for biodiversity can be consideredfavourably in planning decisions for appropriate developments. New legislation is expected tomake a level of net gains mandatory for new developments 16.'- The land is in a flood risk area and the proposals for managing water are inadequate whichcontradicts BCC's Development Plan regarding flood risk:'By defending locations currently at risk of flooding, we can ensure Bristol is a resilient city wherepeople and business can thrive.'- Proposed access is via a private road which will require lighting, and presumably the housing will

too, which will increase light pollution issues.- Highway safety. There is a school, park, shop and station in close proximity to the proposeddevelopment and any increase in parking and traffic will worsen the situation for the already busyand clogged up local roads. The site is also on a bus route. Residents already park partially on thepavements to try and alleviate this. The addition of further permanently parked vehicles will makethe situation worse. Pavements are already obstructed and crossing the busy Marksbury Roadbetween parked cars endangers pedestrian safety.- Emergency services may be able to access the buildings but there is not sufficient turning spacefor these vehicles.- The neighbourhood impact on residents in this mainly residential area from noise pollution bothduring construction and after.- It is also worth noting that the Fire Strategy shown on the plan is copyright protected by the BSIpublications and should not be screenshotted and used in this way. WB13077_BSI_ 1pp LeafletCopyright law_v2.indd (bsigroup.com)

For these reasons I do not believe that there is sufficient justification to allow development on landwhich BCC recently deemed only suitable for domestic use/gardens.

How many times do we have to go through this?The land was sold with a restrictive covenant placed on it and therefore not to be built on.Wildlife: there are a lot of wildlife that lives in that area including foxes,hedgehogs, bats,all sorts ofbirds.Trees: provide homes and food for our birds.Privacy: having homes behind our houses will impact on our privacy.Parking: parking in our area is already restricted and having extra houses would make it evenworse.

Noise: having building work so close to our homes would be deafening.House value: this would devalue home prices in the area.

We are residents at 135 Marksbury Road having moved into the property in March2021.

We were told in good faith by the sellers that the land to the rear could not, and would not, bedeveloped on.

We have since learnt that this was a condition of the sale of the land. We would not havepurchased the property had we known that the land would be developed into properties, and forthis reason it is clear that any such development would devalue our home, and the homes around.

We are concerned about privacy issues, noise pollution (building work and then additionalresidents), in an area where houses are already packed in and overlook each other. We canalready see into the windows of our neighbours.

We are also converted about the

We are the residents at 135 Marksbury Road and have additional comments to make.

The development would cause massive parking issues, as there is no parking facility planned oravailable for this new development.

We don't see the development as being to the benefit of the community or even taking thecommunity's needs into consideration. Instead, it is an insult to even apply for this type ofdevelopment knowing the purchase conditions.

The council should not allow this to happen. The only person this benefits is the greedy andimmoral developer.

Other ideas for this space could include: allotments, community garden, natural green space.

I object strongly to this application on the grounds that the land was sold with the clearunderstanding that it was not to be used for development. There is also the fact that the land hasbecome a wildlife haven for a variety of species. The increased flood risk as witnessed by ourinsurance policies. Insufficient parking in the surrounding streets already. Finally why hasn't theapplicant been told that no further applications will be accepted due to the no developmentclause?

I object strongly to this application on the grounds that the land was sold with the clearunderstanding that it was not to be used for development. There is also the fact that the land hasbecome a wildlife haven for a variety of species. The increased flood risk as witnessed by ourinsurance policies. Insufficient parking in the surrounding streets already. The inaccurate flood riskassessment. The following link shows number 149 and number 151 Marksbury Road in theaftermath of the 1968 floods. https://www.flickr.com/photos/mykg/8224576600/in/photostream/ atwo minute search will find many, many more. Finally why hasn't the applicant been told that nofurther applications will be accepted due to the no development clause?

I wish to object to the building plans for the field at the back of our property.The landwas sold with a non habital covenant attached to it ,we cannot get flood cover on our insurancebecause the land was flooded in 1968.it is detrimental to the wild life there and our privacy

This is an on-going application that contradicts the terms the land affected was soldinitially. There is and has always been a covenant to not do any kind of construction on the land.The application mentions about no flood risks - in 1968 the floods were so high that residents hadto take furniture up to the first floor of their houses to prevent it from being ruined.The environmental effect of any kind of building would be significant. From the pollution of theconstructions being built etc to the removal of the green belt area. I have myself seen badgersheading from the land down our driveway. Let me please just remind you that badgers are aprotected species.If the work takes place it will affect our lifestyle and ability to have a relaxed homelife, especiallyduring the summer time.Please consider that this is yet ANOTHER objection to the plans and how many times it has beenturned down already.Green-belt needs to saved and not built on!!

I notice that this application has the flood risk assessment now.It says

"1.8 The historic maps in the SFRA show that there is no history of the site flooding. As far as theapplicant is aware there have been no incidences of on-site flooding or flooding caused by surfacewater drainage from the site since his purchase of the site. The EA data shows that the onlyrecorded historic flooding in the area occurred in October 1882, and only affected a section of theMalago 800 metres to the north."

This is nonsense. My garden floods to 4inches in heavy rain.

We have had enough of houses being built around this area and there is already othermajor housing sites around here that is shortly commencing! Traffic and parking is a major issuetoo, there is plenty of wildlife in this little area including foxes,

I live behind ex allotments that have a planning application to build dwellings and an access road. If this goes ahead the road will be right next to my mature cherry tree and the works are likely to kill it.

Is there any way I can protect my tree from damage?Also, could we please see the ecology report, from living here I know we have bats, foxes, squirrels and I've seen traces of badgers.And will this application go to committee? There are over 20 full objections on it.

Dear Sir/Madam,

This land and the tree's living on and around it have been a wildlife sanctuary for hedgehogs,fox's, squirrels, many birds and other wildlife etc for a very long time now!

There have been so many house builds in this area over the last few years, which has meant thatthese treasured pieces of land are now very sadly fast depleting and extremely scarce!

Recently the new land owner, without any thought to the animals and birds living there, bulldozedthe land, destroying their habitat, this person is out to make money and cares nothing for theenvironment :/The land needs to have a preservation order put on it, and be allowed to return to and stay as thetreasured wildlife sanctuary that it is!

This land is waterlogged, it is prone to flooding, any build there would put the houses that arealready there in jeopardy of subsiding!

Also the fact that there are already so many houses / homes packed into such a small area wouldlead to more poor air quality in an already polluted area, more noise pollution in a already noisyarea and more destruction of land in an area thats already been hard hit!Even one house built on this land, let alone five would negatively impact in a massive way on a lotof people and families that already live there, let alone the wildlife that rely on it too!

So please please please I ask / beg you to do everything in your power to say no and let this

farcical planning application go no further!

Your sincerely,

One very concerned local resident

Dear whomever this concerns,

This land used to be allotments, it was sold for agricultural use only, so why is this person evenable to apply for planning? There is something very suspect going on here surely?!

This land and the tree's living on and around it have been a wildlife sanctuary for hedgehogs,fox's, squirrels, many birds and other wildlife etc for a very long time now!There have been so many house builds in this area over the last few years, which has meant thatthese treasured pieces of land are now very sadly fast depleting and extremely scarce!Recently the new land owner, without any thought to the animals and birds living there, bulldozedthe land, destroying their habitat, this person is out to make money and cares nothing for theenvironment :/The land needs to have a preservation order put on it, and be allowed to return to and stay as thetreasured wildlife sanctuary that it is!This land is waterlogged, it is prone to flooding, any build there would put the houses that arealready there in jeopardy of subsiding!Also the fact that there are already so many houses / homes packed into such a small area wouldlead to more poor air quality in an already polluted area, more noise pollution in a already noisyarea and more destruction of land in an area thats already been hard hit!Even one house built on this land, let alone five would negatively impact in a massive way on a lotof people and families that already live there, let alone the wildlife that rely on it too!So please please please I ask / beg you to do everything in your power to say no and let this

farcical planning application go no further!

Your sincerely,One very concerned local resident

My garden backs onto this land.

I have an established cherry tree that is a pollinator for a smaller tree and provides food andshelter for sparrows and blackbirds. The house sparrow is now red-listed as a species of highconservation concern and this tree is vital to their wellbeing.

The roots of the large cherry tree would be damaged by the access road and it is likely to die.

I also have a hedgehog highway from the ex allotments into my garden, that would go with thisdevelopment.

Currently there is minimal light pollution from the back, but with this development that wouldradically change making living here unpleasant and stressful.

5 houses with multiple occupants at the rear of my property would be noisy and polluting. Cars tothe rear of my garden would be noisy and polluting.

This land was sold for agricultural use only and should be used as such, not for an intensive andgreedy plan to make money from a developer.

My garden is higher than the ex allotments and it floods to 4 inches. I pay extra insurance to coverthis risk. Building on flood land would put all the surrounding houses at extreme risk of subsidencewhich was marked as high risk on the searches when I bought this house.

The owner recently bulldozed the land which must have damaged existing wildlife habitats. Heclearly does not care for the land but for the money he could make from it.

My garden backs onto this land.

I have an established cherry tree that is a pollinator for a smaller tree and provides food andshelter for sparrows and blackbirds. The house sparrow is now red-listed as a species of highconservation concern and this tree is vital to their wellbeing.

The roots of the large cherry tree would be damaged by the access road and it is likely to die. Thistree needs protection from development.

I also have a hedgehog highway from the ex allotments into my garden, that would go with thisdevelopment.

Currently there is minimal light pollution from the back, but with this development that wouldradically change making living here unpleasant and stressful.

5 houses with multiple occupants at the rear of my property would be noisy and polluting. Cars tothe rear of my garden would be noisy and polluting.

This land was sold for agricultural use only and should be used as such, not for an intensive andgreedy plan to make money from a developer.

My garden is higher than the ex allotments and it floods to 4 inches. I pay extra insurance to coverthis risk. Building on flood land would put all the surrounding houses at extreme risk of subsidencewhich was marked as high risk on the searches when I bought this house.

The owner recently bulldozed the land leaving a fly tip in the centre of it. Bulldozing would havehave damaged existing wildlife habitats. The owner clearly does not care for the land or thesurrounding community but for the money he could make from it.

Having just read the letter from Luke Phillips of the Transport DevelopmentManagement dated the 13/09/2021, I would like to know when he visited the surrounding area tofind sufficient off site parking for the proposed site. Most visitors who visit us either have to park insurrounding Brixham Road and Dawlish Road or do not visit us due to the lack of parking thatalready exists. If each house on the proposed site has a minimum of one vehicle the already lackof parking on the surrounding streets would not only become impossible to live with but alsodangerous!.With regards to the recent ecology report, section 3 mentions that page 11 of the planningapplication advises a lack of badgers on the site. If anyone would like evidence of the presence ofsuch need only visit the area at night, or my garden.

This development would have a major detrimental affect on the neighbourhood which isalready densely inhabited with parking issues and too much traffic pollution- particularly opposite apark which makes it dangerous for people accessing and leaving.

This area is also on previously flooded land and no further building should take place on greenspace. We need drainage.

Wildlife has been badly affected -slow worms, frogs, badgers, foxes - and would be irreparable ifthis development went ahead.

This land was sold under a covenant stipulating no building should take place. The wildlife habitatshould be restored and the land bought back by compulsory purchase by Bristol Council (whoshould never have sold it off). It should be made into allotments for the community.

I object to this application on the grounds that it is overly dense, shoddy housing thatwill increase air pollution and destroy a peaceful environment.

I understand the plot of land has a covenant on it that restricts buildings to agricultural only. These'homes' are in no way agricultural.

The road at the back of the properties on Lydford Walk will affect residents quality of life. Thosehomes were bought as quiet residencies and traffic to the rear of them will seriously impact uponthe people who live there. Many gardens have established planting with root systems that gounder the proposed access road. That planting will be affected and current trees will be damaged.

Removing the property on Marksbury Road will break up the flow of houses and the neighbouringhouses will be considerably devalued.

This is an irresponsible and greedy planning application that should not be approved.

I am objecting strongly to the proposed development on the land to the rear of ourproperty.

Having recently purchased the property, I feel that it would considerably reduce its value, which aconcern to me and I am sure to my neighbours

it was of my understanding when the land was sold by the council that it was under thecondition/clause that it could not be built on, which was highlighted in my recent survey/localsearch when i brought the property in October

intrusion of our privacy, increase in noise levels and pollution

Marksbury Road is a very busy road with limited parking, having a new road constructed off of itcan only add to the congestion, safety and parking issues that already exist

We cannot believe this has been submitted again and up for discussion. This land wassold on the pretense that it will never be developed. This is very clear in your correspondence toresidence on the 5th July 2017. This should never even be considered for planning. " The landshould be sold with a restrictive covenant on it against ANY development except any building inconnection with a garden or amenity - i.e SHEDS"

In addition to this, a secondary road entrance in an already congested Marksbury Road whereresidence are struggling to cross everyday, including children, is diabolical.

We object to any development.

With reference to Bristol City Council letter to local residents date 5th July 2017 the landat rear of Lynton Road, Brixham Road, Lydford Walk was offered for sale under specificconditions."The land will be sold with a restrictive covenant placed on it against any development exceptbuilding in connection with a garden or amenity use such as sheds etc."This application should not have even been validated as there is a clear covenant restricting suchdevelopment placed upon the land. The council nor the developer has made any application tofirst remove such covenant and thus we can only accept such covenant is still valid.I am therefore objecting on grounds of this covenant.

I object to this yet again, for the same reasons as all the other times.I do not see that anything has changed, the land was still sold with restrictions on it not to bedeveloped.The parking remains a real issue on Marksbury Rd, where family members and friends who takeme to appointments and shopping struggle to park near my home. These new properties have noallocated parking, so that will only make them park out on Marksbury Rd making the parking evenworse for residents that already live here.The land has always been a green haven for wildlife, that was until it was purchased by thedeveloper now it's an eyesore.Safety concerns by there being access to all the rear of our homes that surround the land is aconcern for us all.

I am a resident of Lydford Walk and object as follows.

Although the site is within a residential area, it is unsuited for residential development, as hasbeen demonstrated by the previously refused applications. As this was land owned by Bristol CityCouncil, if it were suitable for residential development surely it would have been sold as such at asuitable value and not for minimal cost. I am a practicing architect and have experience ofreviewing sites for potential development. The main issues to overcome for developing this siteare access and impact upon neighbouring properties. The applications have sought to maximisecapacity at the expense of both access and impact on neighbours. The proposals haveincrementally become less dense and physically overbearing each time but still fall far short ofwhat should be acceptable.

OverdevelopmentBearing in mind the previous refusals, the proposed scheme is still overly dense given thesurrounding context and will still have a negative impact and an overbearing impact will still beexperienced by adjoining properties from the density and collective massing of the development.

As before, the cramped and contrived nature of the proposed would be harmful to the residentialamenity of the locality. The flat roof bungalows are a contrived attempt to make the scheme lookless impactful on a drawing. The issue is not just with direct overshadowing but having a largenumber of residents who will cause noise and potential nuisance to neighbouring properties. Thehouse that the applicant currently owns uses this land as a dumping ground, if this is how thecurrent tenants behave we can only imagine what we will have to put up with if the development isallowed to go ahead.

Poor accessThe proposed site access is narrow and cannot be relied upon to provide access in emergencies.Residents will either park on neighbouring streets and cause issues there or park in the siteaccess itself. Deliveries will also cause issues. The poor access is primarily due to the applicantnot wanting to knock down a whole house to provide this.

EcologyIt looks like an ecology assessment has not been provided. The applicant has recently cut downgreenery within the site and piled this in a heap, perhaps as a cynical measure to limit ecology onthe site prior to the application. There appears to be minimal mitigation on the site for the damagethat will be done with a couple of fruit trees per garden

To summarise, the application should be rejected due to overdevelopment, negative impact uponneighbouring properties, poor access & damage to ecology. While there is a need for housing inthe city this this site has not been developed before and was never intended to be. This should notbe an opportunity for people to make money by providing sub standard housing on unsuitablesites.

I am not sure why we are having to go through this yet again! The land was sold with acovenant in place stating that it could only have garden sheds on it and not to be used fordevelopment.

The parking on Marksbury Rd, Brixham Rd and surrounding roads are already over filled withvehicles, it is sometimes impossible to park outside or anywhere near my home. If this were to goahead this will only make parking worse for those that already live here, as these 5 proposedproperties do not have any parking. It's good to think that all these owners will cycle or usingpublic transport but not reality and the owners and visiting vehicles will only be parking onMarksbury Rd and the surrounding roads.

By having these property at the back will open up unwanted access to all our properties whichback onto it. Making many of us feel unsafe.

As for it being used as a fly tip you will see that on the document submitted by SilverbackArboricultural Consultancy Ltd it has an aerial view of the land as it previously was before beingpurchased by the developer. It shows that it was not a Fly Tip as suggested but a green home toomany wildlife. It does not look like that no more, when the land starts to get cleared by thedeveloper it then gets abandoned leaving it all in heaps then starts back up again.

Why is this up for discussion again? This land was sold under the pretences that youwere not allowed to build on it.Wildlife: we have wildlife living in the area i.e foxes and hedgehogs and we are taking awaynatural habitatPrivacySecurity

I can only echo the comments of my neighbours and state that I object fully to theproposed development. I agree with comments in relation to flood risk, parking and access.

I was also interested to read in the Stokes Morgan report that "The principle of housingdevelopment on the site has previously been accepted by the Council". My understanding is thatthere is a covenant on the land stating that it is not for a building development. On the lastplanning application submitted for the site there was also an objection from a councillor citing theCovenant on the land. Just looking at the overall site plan it does not look a logical site to put 5dwellings backing onto existing gardens and knocking down a family sized house to enable accessto the development.

I also note that the Stokes Morgan report states that an ecology has been completed stated thatthe site is a 'wasteland'. I am an ecologist (full member of MCIEEM). I noticed that the site waslevelled recently by a bulldozer. Was this action undertaken prior to 'ecology survey'. The site didand still does contain suitable habitat for slow worms. There are slow worms in the surroundingarea. Was a reptile survey undertaken as part of the ecology survey?

Can the council do more to prevent continual planning applications on this land? There areobviously significant objections from those around the site.

I object to any kind of development on this land. The current owner should be forced toclean up the mess he has made of it and return it to the wildlife sanctuary it once was. To evenconsider building on this site is a compete waste of everyone's time, and causes unnecessarystress to those affected. There have already been several refusals to build on this land and itdoesn't make any sense to knock down an existing home. There are also issues with health andsafety, parking, privacy, and right to light.

I strongly object to the attached proposal.

It is my understanding that the land in question was initially sold, by the council to privateownership, under the basis that it could not be built upon. It does not seem at all right that, as Ihave recently learned, this seems to be at least the 4th time that planning permission has beenconsidered. Why is this?

The fact that this land was sold under this basis was a contributing factor in deciding to buy aproperty at 151 Marksbury Road, because if the land behind were to have been able to be builtupon, the privacy of the property would be severely jeopardised.

Not only is the privacy at the rear of the property in question, but the only means of access to thesite within this proposal would be on the other side of our garden fence meaning multipleresidencies and their visitors would be using this as a road/walkway and with it being centimetresfrom our private garden, privacy and noise are a concern. Safety is also a concern as this wouldmake unwanted access to the rear of the property a possibility, particularly for 151 and 151A, butalso to all other properties surrounding the site.

My office, at the end of the garden of 151, would be touching the perimeter of both the walkwayand rear development which is of great concern to me. Within the plan, there also seems to besomething attached to the side my office is on (perhaps a mail delivery point or bins - it's unclearon the plot). As I work with audio all of the above would render my working space completelyunusable. This was the deciding factor in buying and living in 151. With my work suffering as aresult of this development (it would suffer at every stage, from knocking down 141, building the

development and people living at the rear of the property) I know that I would face financialhardship from not being able to work and this would subsequently take a toll on my mental health,my hard earned career and jeopardise being able to keep up payments of 151.

Parking is already a concern for residents of Marksbury Road and the surrounding area. It appearsthat the proposal does not include any solution for parking meaning multiple residents and theirvisitors will naturally use the local area to park. I can't see any viable access for emergencyservices.

The documents only mention the river Malego as a potential flood risk (with incorrect dates, theMalego flooded Marksbury Road in 1968 not just in the 1800s) but as all local residents know fromthe price of building insurance, we are within a high risk area for surface water flooding. Building 9new properties within this area, especially when there doesn't seem to be any access foremergency services, doesn't seem logical.

I strongly object to the proposed plans. Building a development for 5 new homes is onlygoing to add to the current issues with limited parking on the street and add further congestion toan already extremely busy road. I also believe building a block of flats behind my property willcreate an eye sore impacting the view with reduced sun light as well as reducing privacy. Alongwith my neighbors, I agree this is not a good idea and hope the proposals do not go ahead as itwill negatively impact the community.

We strongly object to the planning application of 5 single story dwellings on the landbehind Lydford Walk.

The land was offered for sale with a restriction in place which stated that the land could not be builton, only garden sheds put up in the space that there could not be development on the land, that itshould be used for the community.As surrounding residents we haven't been notified or consulted on the use of this land changing.So we were surprised of the planning application that we were sent the last time round. The lastapplication was refused.Had there not been this assurance from the council that the land could not have been built on,then I believe that the local residents would have come together to purchase the land, orpotentially acommunity veg patch etc could have been created.

The area that has been sold used to be full of wildlife, foxes, hedgehogs and so many birds, weeven saw a badger. Since theland has been sold it was meant to be maintained, the area has been stripped. Since the land hasbeen sold it has been used for fires, loud dirt track bikes in summer and more rubbish dumped.There is already significant anti social behaviour in the area, we believe that this would increase ifmore houses were built and crammed into small spaces.The proposed plans affect a total of 44 properties surrounding the land, 44 families and their dailylives and our own will be affected by less light, noise and disruption and the loss of nature andwildlife.

I hope the council respects the views of the surrounding properties as we will be the ones thathave to live with the proposed changes. Not the land owner.

I would like to object to this proposal. Taking into consideration how busy the roadalready is, this will add further un-needed or wanted congestion. Living off a main road, I stronglyobject to having another road added to my house. furthermore reducing the already strugglingparking on the street. As well as this, a block of flights behind my house would be an absolute eyesore that will not only ruin my view but take away my privacy not to mention potentially blockingsunlight which was a factor into purchasing my home. I have given this some thought and reallycannot think of any benefits that this proposal will provide to the community within this area.

As before i strongly object to this proposed construction. i feel that it will seriouslylesson the resale possibility of my property and of any other home owners whose home backsonto this land. It will also create a major issue with traffic around the area which is already verybusy with limited parking, no doubt parking bays have been incorporated within the build but therewont be enough, having managed a number of new build projects i know there is only a minimumrequirement on parking bays. There is also the issue with diminished privacy for all the property`saround the area and the wildlife will disappear completely. When the original letter from the councilwas sent out telling everyone about the proposed sale of the land it said that the land was not forredevolopment and still there are applications going in. I know i am not the only disgruntledresident and i hope this does not go ahead.

Further to my previous objection, I wish to add the following.Stokes Morgan Planning have stated in their letter dated the 12/02/2021, that the proposed areahas been used as a fly tipping area and this proposal would improve the area. The reason the siteappears to be a fly tipping area is due to Mr Fry who previously cleared the site and left it in a poorstate along with a large pile of debris that has never been cleared. This was clearly done to allowStokes Morgan Planning the opportunity to show the land to be in its current state. Furthermore,the reason there appears to be no current wildlife evident on the land is again due to Mr Fryclearing the site and leaving it in its current state. Again, he is doing everything possible to get thepermission he craves to make a nice profit on land purchased on the cheap from Bristol CityCouncil.

I yet again object to this latest application as I have done on the previous occasions forthe same reasons. This piece of land was purchased for a minimal amount of money withrestrictions that would not allow any development. The applicant obviously thought he could makea large profit by gaining planning permission with constant submissions that change each timeuntil he finds the one that you are happy with. What he fails to understand is that now matter whatplan he submits, it should be rejected for the same reasons each time. The restricted parkingissues on Marksbury Road and all surrounding roads and the dangerous speeds that regularlyoccur Evan after the traffic calming measures were introduced. The intrusions of privacy for allsurrounding houses during and after the build has taken place. The destruction of all long standingwildlife that has already been severely affected by the applicants clearing of the land and leaving itin a terrible state including a large pile of debris that has been left to rot. The original problems ofwaste collection and emergency vehicle access has not been resolved and cannot be unless theaccess road to the proposed can be made bigger, which it can't. I therefore fully object to thislatest application and will continue to do so until such time as the applicant realises he cannot getaway with a quick profit at the expense of local residents.

Once again I would like to fully object to the application for the demolition of 149aMarksbury Rd and the application to build on the piece of land behind Marksbury Rd and LydfordWalk. As stated in all of my previous objections to Mr Fry's applications, the land was sold to himby BCC with a condition that it could only ever have garden sheds built on it and nothing else. Asconstantly brought to our attentions by our insurance companies, the land is a high flood risk andtherefore should not be built on.Marksbury Rd is a very busy road with a tremendous amount of over parking and speed issues.Bringing more homes into the area, with more vehicles will only make this worse.Building homes on the land between the two roads will be an intrusion of our privacy. The area istoo small and the properties too close together and too close to our boundary walls. The noise willbe unbearable and access between the properties is limited.The land behind Marksbury Road and Lydford Walk has been a wildlife haven for badgers, foxes,butterflies, hedgehogs and birds. Unfortunately, Mr Fry has once again allowed the land to be tornapart and piled up with rubbish, which has not only once again destroyed the wildlife's naturalhabitat, but is a complete eyesore. It gives the impression that this is done on purpose so thatpeople will get fed up and give in to his underhand tactics.

Why do we have to keep on emphasising the same points over and over again? Bristol CityCouncil sold this land with the caviat that it must not be built on and now they should stand bywhat they said and tell Mr Fry that this application must be turned down and not to tender anyfurther applications regarding this piece of land in the future.

Muriel Ponting

Marksbury Road has a primary school each end and a children's park in the middle.. wehave had new huge block of flats built at end of the road (no parking) the traffiic and parking isabsolutely terrible very dangerous with all the children that use this area. Please we do not needany more building houses or flats here. Bristol City Council need to stop this now.

I can not see why this is being considered again. There is absolutely no more room formore cars to be parked on marksbury Road or the roads leading off it. Brixham dawlish ormartock. There has been houses turned into flats houses in gardens and huge block of flats at thebottom of the road. The traffic is horrendous and parking ridiculous.. This can not possibly be safewith primary schools each end of the road. Please stop this as this can not be lawfull after beingdenied on land that should never be built on .

I am objecting to the development of this land for the very same reasons I objectedpreviously and for the same reasons planning permission has been refused on several occasions.It may not be deemed relevant to this planning application, but I must again reiterate that this landwas sold for a small amount with the proviso it would not be built upon. I remain concerned aboutthe flood risk and plans to address this remain unconvincing - we all pay higher house insurancedue to increase of flood risks because historically this land in general and our properties inparticular were hugely affected. To build on this land would mean a decrease in our privacy, anincrease in noise levels, pollution as cars linked to the property would be driving in and out. Thehousing would see an overdevelopment of the area that would not blend in with the character andappearance of the area. The surrounding area has seen a huge increase in parked cars as it isand this would only add to the problem. The proposed development site, when left to beovergrown saw wildlife such as hedgehogs and butterflies, which have now been decimated by acrude bulldozing recently, it is likely if allowed to grow back the return of these species wouldhappen, however if the land is developed they will disappear for good

Yet again the owner of the land at the back of our property has put in planningapplications for 5 dwellings on land with a covenant on.

The noise levels, disruption and complete disregard to other people's feelings will have adetrimental effect on my health.

The wildlife seen on this land will be destroyed and the protected badger sets will be completelyillegal to disrupt.

Yet again, the land does not have any permissions granted to be developed, so how, Yet again, isthis plan being considered.

Should this objection be ignored I will have no option but to go higher.

Jane Tolhurst

Here we go again.

Why is this even being considered when as stated in previous objections to planning on this site,the land was sold with a covenant stating:-

The land is to be sold with a restrictive covenant placed on it against any developement exceptany building in connection with a garden or amenity use such as sheds etc.

This is word for word what was sent to residents that have properties that back on to the proposeddevelopement area on 5th July 2017, Sent out by miss Ceri Thomas. Does Bristol city councilhave double standards that allow them to put this in a letter to local residents and then not gettaken into concideration when planning is put forward?

Mr Fry has already had planning turned down on this land 4x for similar developements but hecontinues to keep changing the applications knowing that this covenant is in place.

As stated in previous objections, it states that the area is not in a flood risk area...

See flood risk assessment ref. Land to rear of 149 Marksbury road, Bristol, Flood RiskAssessment.

Section 1.8 reads:-

The historic maps in the SFRA show that there is no history of the site flooding. As far as the

applicant is aware there have been no incidences of on-site flooding or flooding caused by surfacewater drainage from the site since his purchase of the site. The EA data shows that the onlyrecorded historic flooding in the area occured in October 1882, and only affected a section of theMalago 800 meters to the north.

In 1968 the whole of Lydford Walk and Marksbury road, including the area that the planningapplication is for, was under several feet of flood water. It seems that this incident has either beenignored or convieniently left out.Houses in this area still has to pay high insurance premiums for home insurance as the area is stillclassed as a high risk flood area.If this area is not seen as a flood risk then its time that someone on the council notified theinsurance companies and thus reducing our insurance renewal premiums.

Emergency access to the propossed dwellings will be very restricted as it only appears to be afootpath linking the dwellings to the main road. Ambulance's along with fire and rescue vehicleswould not be able to get close to the dwellings in case of an emergency, thus causing extremedistress to the casualty and family unlucky enough to be caught in such a situation that they mayneed help from the fore mentioned services.

Can someone please explain why there has been no notifications to residents of Lydford Walkinforming them of an application being presented to the council? People that will be affected by theplanning are supposed to be informed of the application, by the council, of any proposeddevelopment.

Where will proposed residents of the new builds park their vehicles? Parking on Marksbury roadand Brixham road is already at a premium due to the number of vehicles parked out side existingresidents homes, and there is no capacity for any extra parking.

Marksbury road already has a problem with speeding vehicles and putting the entrance in theposition shown on the plans will not help the area as directly opposite is the entrance to a localpark where young children are playing.

These plans have still not fully addressed the reasons why the original plans were refused.

This is an opposition to the building of any properties on this space and previous objectons andletters should be taken into account.

If this application is sucessful then it will prove yet again that bulging brown envelopes can workwonders..... thus proving that corruption is alive and well within local authority

I repeat that this land should not be built on due to the existing covenant stating that the land couldonly have sheds etc. Mr Fry knew this was in place when he purchased the land and planning

applications should not even be considered and he should be told that due to the covenant, futureapplications would not be allowed