Application Details

Reference 21/01331/F
Address Caravan Club Cumberland Road Bristol BS1 6XG  
Street View
Proposal Erection of residential dwellings (166), commercial floorspace, integrated car and bicycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping and associated infrastructure and services.
Validated 09-04-21
Type Full Planning
Status Pending consideration
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 18-05-21
Standard Consultation Expiry 25-05-21
Determination Deadline 09-07-21
BCC Planning Portal BCC Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 4 Objectors: 277  Unstated: 4  Total: 285
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

BTF response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 01-05-21

 

We have submitted our objections to this application - https://bristoltreeforum.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/btf-comments-baltic-wharf-caravan-site.pdf

We have also submitted further comments on 23 July 2023- https://bristoltreeforum.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/further-btf-comments-baltic-wharf-caravan-site.pdf.

Public Comments

  OBJECT

2

sustainable environmental development is no less important than the economic and social

development objectives.

Trees are an integral part of this because of their importance to the management of air, soil

and water quality, along with other associated ecosystem services, climate change adaptions

and beneficial health effects. The NPPF also seeks to protect and enhance landscapes and

achieve Net Gain in biodiversity.

The Biodiversity Metric2 provides a way of measuring and accounting for biodiversity losses and

gains resulting from development or land management change. It defines Net Gain as an:

…approach to development that aims to leave the natural environment in a measurably

better state than beforehand. This means protecting existing habitats and ensuring that

lost or degraded environmental features are compensated for by restoring or creating

environmental features that are of greater value to wildlife and people. It does not

change the fact that losses should be avoided where possible, a key part of adhering to

a core environmental planning principle called the mitigation hierarchy.

The Mitigation Hierarchy

Trees should not be removed merely to facilitate the developer’s vision. Ideally, development

should always be planned around existing trees. This is because, in all cases, a tree retained

offers far more benefits and ecoservices than newly planted trees, no matter how many, whose

potential will take decades to be realised, if indeed it ever is.

The mitigation hierarchy provides a cascading decision process: only if the preceding choice is

unavailable is the next one considered.

▪ Avoid - Where possible, habitat damage should be avoided.

▪ Minimise - Where possible, habitat damage and loss should be minimised.

▪ Remediate - Where possible, any damage or lost habitat should be restored.

▪ Compensate - As a last resort, damaged or lost habitat should be compensated for.

Local Planning Authorities in the UK have a statutory duty to consider both the protection and

planting of trees when considering planning applications. The potential impact of development

on all trees is therefore a material consideration.

BCS9 – Green Infrastructure

BCS9 of Bristol’s Core Strategy3 states that ‘Individual green assets should be retained wherever

possible and integrated into new development’. BCS9 is one of the Key Policies for the

development of the Harbourside in the Bristol Centre Area Plan4.

BTRS and the Biodiversity Metric are two tools which the planning authority can use to ensure

2 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5850908674228224. 3 https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/34540/Core+Strategy+WEB+PDF+(low+res+with+links)_0.pdf 4 9.7 Harbourside (including Hotwells) - page 72

3

that:

▪ the integrity and connectivity of the strategic green infrastructure network will be

maintained, protected and enhanced

▪ opportunities to extend the coverage and connectivity of the existing strategic green

infrastructure network are taken

▪ individual green assets are retained wherever possible and integrated into new development

▪ appropriate mitigation of the lost green infrastructure assets is required

▪ development should incorporate new and/or enhanced green infrastructure of an

appropriate type, standard and size

▪ where on-site provision of green infrastructure is not possible, contributions will be sought

to make appropriate provision for green infrastructure off site.

DM15: Green Infrastructure Provision

Trees

The provision of additional and/or improved management of existing trees will be expected as

part of the landscape treatment of new development. The design, size, species and placement

of trees provided as part of the landscape treatment will be expected to take practicable

opportunities to:

▪ Connect the development site to the Strategic Green Infrastructure Network, and/or Bristol

Wildlife Network; and

▪ Assist in reducing or mitigating run-off and flood risk on the development site; and

▪ Assist in providing shade and shelter to address urban cooling; and

▪ Create a strong framework of street trees to enclose or mitigate the visual impact of a

development.

We have set out Bristol’s planning policies as they relate to trees in more detail here - Planning

obligations in relation to trees in Bristol.

Caravan Club - tree survey analysis

This analysis is based on the applicant’s Arboricultural Method Statement dated 4 December

2020, which is in turn based on the tree survey undertaken by AECOM on 20 June 2019. The

survey was undertaken in compliance with BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition

and construction – Recommendations. It is assumed that the survey data provided for grouped

trees are based on the averaged measurements of the trees in each group. The key data used

in this analysis are set out in Appendix 1.

The survey identifies 48 tree features, of which 28 are individual trees and 20 are tree groups.

4

Whilst the numbers of trees in each group are not given (even though essential for a BTRS5

calculation), we have been able to identify and count 71 trees for the tree groups shown in the

tree constraints plan in Appendix 2 of the tree survey and by using Google Earth images. On

this basis, 99 trees were surveyed, of which 91 are growing onsite.

The plan is to remove 16 individual trees and 11 tree groups containing 52 trees. The trees in

groups G19/G20 & G26 will be partially removed. The number of trees to be removed in these

groups is not stated, but examination of Drawing D8074.003 – Ecological Enhancement Plan

(Appendix 3) annexed to the applicant’s Biodiversity Enhancement and Mitigation Scheme6

shows that only one tree will be retained from groups G19/G20 and two from G26. On this basis,

74 trees will be removed.

The application of BTRS

The application of the BTRS calculation means that 210 new trees would need to be planted

to replace these lost trees. The applicant plans to plant 31 trees on site.7 This means that the

balance of 179 replacement trees would need to be planted elsewhere under BTRS. Whilst the

application of BTRS is discussed, no BTRS calculation has been provided by the applicant.

Biodiversity Net Gain analysis

The applicant’s survey gives the four cardinal point tree crown radii of the trees surveyed. The

averages of these have been used to calculate the tree canopy cover for each tree (TCC). Using

this information, we calculate that the total TCC on this 0.85-hectare site8 is 0.42 hectares. If

the applicant’s plans are approved 0.37 hectares of TCC will be removed leaving just 0.05

hectares of the original TCC, which the trees on the site currently provide.

We have also undertaken four desktop surveys of the site using a modified version of i-Tree

Canopy9 which we have developed.10 Each survey uses 200 or 400 points (a total of 1,200 points)

randomly distributed within the boundary of the site. These are then examined using images

made in April 2020 and published on Google Earth. If a point falls within the canopy of a tree

it is recorded as a tree. If it does not, then no tree is recorded.

Taken together, these show that the site has a TCC of 30.42% with a 95% confidence Interval

between 27.8% to 33.0%. This method only analyses points within the site boundary. Canopy

extending beyond the boundary is ignored, even though this canopy is being provided by trees

growing within the site. This difference accounts for the apparent disparity between the TCC

results of the tree survey and the random points surveyed above. We have applied the tree

survey baseline value of 0.41 hectares of TCC as this best reflects the true habitat provided by

the trees growing on this site.

5 Bristol Core Strategies BCS9 & BCS11 – known as the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS). 6 21_01331_F-BIODIVERSITY_ENHANCEMENT_AND_MITIGATION_SCHEME-2896065.pdf. 7 Paragraph 3.6 of the Biodiversity Enhancement and Mitigation Scheme. 8 The applicant gives the area as 0.88 hectares. 9 https://canopy.itreetools.org/. 10 https://bristoltrees.space/trees/i-Tree/canopy.xq?

5

Using the Biodiversity Metric, we have categorised the trees growing on the site as Urban –

Woodland with medium habitat distinctiveness, moderate habitat condition and medium

ecological connectivity. The site is within an area formally identified in the local strategy and

is adjacent to the SNCI along the River Avon New Cut to the south. On this basis, the trees

provide 4.25 Habitat Units.

We note that the applicant has dismissed the habitat provided by the trees growing on the site

altogether. This is even though the trees comprise a diverse mix of 19 early-mature to mature

mostly native species, most of which are reported by AECOM to be in fair to good condition,

and are well-connected with the housing estate to the east and the River Avon New Cut to the

south. This is our analysis of the species mix:

Tree Species Count %

Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) 1 2%

Aspen (Populus tremula) 2 3%

Cherry Plum (Prunus cerasifera) 2 3%

Common Alder (Alnus glutinosa) 6 10%

Elder (Sambucus nigra) 1 2%

Grey Poplar (Populus canescens) 1 2%

Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) 4 7%

Hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) 2 3%

Italian Alder (Alnus cordata) 1 2%

London plane (Platanus x acerifolia) 1 2%

Norway Maple (Acer platanoides) 9 15%

Red Maple (Acer rubrum) 1 2%

Rowan (Sorbus aucuparia) 1 2%

Silver Birch (Betula pendula) 1 2%

Swedish Whitebeam (Sorbus intermedia) 6 10%

Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) 2 3%

Whitebeam (Sorbus aria) 3 5%

Whitebeam species (Sorbus sp.) 2 3%

Wild Cherry (Prunus avium) 15 25%

The applicant’s Biodiversity Enhancement and Mitigation Scheme states that ‘a total of 0.69ha

of the site is covered by a mixture of bare ground and hardstanding which equates to 80.60% of

the site. These areas of bare ground and hardstanding offer no features suitable to support

local wildlife’. Under the Biodiversity Metric, this habitat is called Urban - Developed land;

sealed surface and has zero habitat value. The applicant has ignored the fact that much of this

feature has tree canopy growing above it. We have therefore reduced this valueless habitat

feature to 0.29 hectares to allow for the habitat provided by the trees growing above.

6

The applicant has also identified two other canopy features but gives no habitat parameters or

Habitat Units for these:

‘Amenity grassland covers 0.13ha (15.4%) of the site…

Introduced shrub accounts for 0.01 ha (1%) of the site.’

We have included both these habitats in our Biodiversity Metric baseline calculations, giving

them the same parameter values as we have to the tree habitat: medium habitat

distinctiveness, moderate habitat condition and medium ecological connectivity and within an

area formally identified in the local strategy.

The applicant has also ignored the well-established and healthy native Hawthorn hedge11

growing all along the boundary between the site and the floating harbour. On the basis that

this can be categorised under the Biodiversity Metric as a 0.08-kilometre linear Native

Hedgerow with low habitat distinctiveness, good habitat condition and medium ecological

connectivity within an area formally identified in the local strategy, we calculate that it

provides 0.61 Hedgerow Units.

On this basis, the baseline Habitat Units for the site are 4.96 and 0.61 Hedgerow Units.

In the absence of a Biodiversity Metric calculation, it has not been possible to ascertain whether

the applicant’s proposal will provide any Biodiversity Net Gain, let alone the 10% net gain

proposed in the Environment Bill 2020. We have asked for a copy of the Biodiversity Metric

calculation, assuming one has been made.

We submit that this 10% target is the minimum Net Gain percentage that the planning authority

should require. Whether or not the Environment Bill has been enacted by the time this

application comes to be decided, the planning policies the city has adopted already permit this.

As currently proposed, this development fails to do this and so should be refused.

Bristol Tree Forum

01 May 2021

11 The hedge is composed of Hawthorn with some ivy growing on it towards the western end. It is approx. 1.9 m tall x 1.6m deep x about 80 metres long. Foliage extends to ground level.

7

Appendix 1 – Trees Surveyed in the AECOM tree survey undertaken on 20th June 2019

Tree ID

BS 5837 Category

Tree Count

Trees to

Remove

Stem Diameter

(cm)

Average Crown Radius

(m)

T1 C1,2 1 0 24 2.75

T2 C1,2 1 0 32 2.75

G3 B2 2 2 30 4.00

G4 C1,2 3 3 20 2.50

T5 C1,2 1 1 26 2.75

T6 B1,2 1 1 40 4.50

G7 B2 3 3 43 4.50

G8 C1,2 6 6 36 4.00

T9 C1 1 1 17 2.63

T10 C1 1 1 17 2.50

T11 C1 1 1 17 2.50

T12 B1 1 1 23 3.50

T13 C1,2 1 1 28 2.88

G14 B2 4 4 39 5.00

T15 C1,2 1 0 24 2.63

T16 C1 1 0 22 2.50

T17 C1 1 1 8 1.00

T18 C1,2 1 0 22 2.50

G19* B2 1 0 35 4.00

G20 C2 4 4 8 1.00

G21 C2 1 0 8 1.00

G22 C1,2 1 0 42 3.88

T23 C1,2 1 0 35 3.50

G24 C1,2 1 0 32 3.38

G25* B2 1 0 45 3.38

G26 C1,2 3 1 30 2.88

T27 C1,2 1 1 47 3.50

T28 B1,2 1 0 28 3.50

T29 B1,2 1 1 35 5.00

G30 B2 6 6 35 4.00

G31 C2 1 1 19 3.50

T32* C1 1 0 15 2.50

T33* C1 1 0 22 3.50

8

Tree ID

BS 5837 Category

Tree Count

Trees to

Remove

Stem Diameter

(cm)

Average Crown Radius

(m)

G34* C2 1 0 10 2.50

T35* C1,2 1 0 34 3.00

T36* C1,2 1 0 25 3.00

G37 B2 12 12 40 4.00

G38 B2 13 13 35 5.00

T39* C1,2 1 1 30 2.50

T40 C1 1 1 26 2.25

G41 B2 2 2 71 5.00

T42* C1,2 1 0 15 2.50

T43* U1 1 1 30 3.00

G44* B2 1 0 20 2.50

G45 B2 2 0 35 4.00

T46 C1 1 0 29 2.50

T47 C1,2 1 0 28 2.63

T46 C1 1 0 29 2.50

9

Appendix 2 – Planned tree removals – taken from the Arboricultural Method Statement

10

11

Appendix 3 – Drawing D8074.003 – Ecological Enhancement Plan

Ms Karen Bailey  40 PICTON LANE MONTPELIER BRISTOL  on 2021-09-17   OBJECT

As a caravan owner , I see this site as hugely important, we need more not less siteslike this, we need the trees and space. Building here would be a tragey for the environment.

Mr JUSTIN ANDERSON  13 HENGASTON STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-09-17   OBJECT

Please reconsider this proposal to protect the existing mature trees on the site andalong the boundary. They provide vital shade for the waterfront, roosting sites for urban birds ( thebird song there in the mornings is incredible) and help clean the city of the desperate pollutionfrom traffic. They also do a cracking job absorbing carbon dioxide, something BCC should reallybe prioritising. Building on brownfield sites is a must - but not at the expense of existing urbangreen spaces.

Mrs Avril Milton  7 GARNET ROAD BORDON  on 2021-09-17   OBJECT

Myself and husband are very regular visitors to the Caravan and Motorhome club siteon this land which to my knowledge has been leased from the council since 1986. So for 35 yearsit has been open all year and the 55+ pitches are always full due to the popularity of the location.Most pitches will have a couple staying so generally 110 visitors are in occupancy every nighthere. I am aware that when eventually the CAMC is thrown out there are plans to build a new siteat Clanage Road but that is still awaiting planning permission and aside from that, it will not bebuilt overnight so much income into the local community will be lost. Reading so many objectionsfrom neighbours and the local community to these plans says it all.Leave the trees and let it stay as it is. Embrace your tourists.

Miss Melanie Houghton  29 HOLLY CLOSE SPEEDWELL BRISTOL  on 2021-09-16   OBJECT

I object to the building of yet more flats in this area and the destruction of mature trees.

The people of Bristol don't want expensive flats and concrete. Leave our caravan park alone! Formany this is the only affordable way to visit Bristol.

We want the caravan park and trees to stay!

Shame on you.

Mx Natalie Chow  15 ELMCROFT CRESCENT BRISTOL  on 2021-09-10   OBJECT

If destroying these trees supports economic growth then the social and cultural benefitsof this development, to any living thing are negative, if not fatal.

Economic growth is part of an outdated economic system which is leading to suffering andextinction. Both of these outcomes are non conducive to any economic, social or cultural benefits.

"Kate Raworth's book Doughnut Economics takes aim at an idea that's long obsessed both byeconomists and policymakers: endless growth. But her mission isn't just theoretical. She arguesthat if we don't kick our addiction to growth, we'll end up destroying our planet. The neverendingeconomic expansion isn't just a defunct idea - it's dangerous."

There are no benefits to this development, not even short term. If we're losing species theneconomic growth is suicide,https://m.independent.ie/regionals/droghedaindependent/lifestyle/planet-is-losing-animal-species-every-hour-and-we-are-causing-it-37494596.html

As Dr Vandana Shiva rightly says "It's not an investment if it is destroying the planet".

The social and cultural costs of losing species including our own are devastatingly high. Grave infact.

People's unnecessary comforts are not worth the loss of even one species. They are not worthbad air quality.

Mature trees cannot be replaced by saplings which probably won't survive.

Mr Rayner Hobbs   66 CUMBERLAND RD BRISTOL  on 2021-09-08   OBJECT

As land by the City of Bristol, and the only green area in the harbourside, at the veryleast the mature trees should be retained, but ideally the land should be used for the public, eitheras a park or as a park with some low rise low cost housing.

Ms Wendy Tobiassen  32 GRATITUDE ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-09-05   OBJECT

It is my opinion that the trees on this site make a valuable contribution the the area andany development should incorporate them into plan.

Also any housing development should allocate at least half of its half home to social housing.There is a social housing crisis in our city.

Otherwise the caravan site is a beautiful option

Dr Siobhan Shilton  72, DEANERY SQUARE DEANERY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-09-05   OBJECT

I strongly object to the plans to remove these trees. They are some of the last old treesin this urban environment. They are essential to the wellbeing of local residents and everyone whowalks here. Please preserve this beautiful part of the Harbourside.

Mr dan delor  10 MELITA ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-09-05   OBJECT

This development if allowed will require the destruction of many of the 76 mature treeson this site, trees which provide a massive sanctuary for local wildlife, especially the many birdswhich live hunt and reproduce around the immediate waterways.There are so few mature trees around in this largely post-industrial area.Without trees we cannot breathe. Bristol has a dire pollution problem as it is. The trees are moreimportant than another luxury housing development.Furthermore, the campsite is a popular spot for tourists who bring money into the city - my parentsstayed there when visiting and loved it.There are already so many recent flats and houses that have been built in this area in the last fewyears - the area is starting to feel over-crowded.Many thanks for your considerationDan Delor

Dr Susan Newman  7 CHURCHWAYS AVENUE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-24   OBJECT

I frequently visit Baltic Wharf with my family. We very much enjoy being close to thewater and the Caravan site is a rare green space on our way to the dry dock.

I understand that the 74 mature trees currently living on the site are not only beautiful to look at butalso provide valuable flood protection as well as reducing urban air pollution. It would beimpossible to offset the impact of cutting down these trees with landscaping and replanting giventheir age.

Ms S Mundy  CLIFFORD GDNS BRISTOL  on 2021-08-23   OBJECT

This is the harboursides only green space. To allow this to go ahead totally negates andundermines any idea of Bristol net zero by 2030 and Clean Air for Bristol - less trees and a lotmore traffic in the long run. 'Each year trees in Bristol provide environmental services wortharound £1.6 million, removing about 100 tonnes of air pollution and reducing flood risk by soakingup some 90,000 cubic metres of water thereby preventing this from running into drains and savingus about £140,000 annually.' (https://bristoltreeforum.org/2019/04/09/bristols-i-tree-eco-survey-is-published/) On top of this those living near and around this area have not been taken in toconsideration. This will be an oppressive building dominating the skyline that will impinge onpeoples views and will ultimately take away neighbours privacy by being overlooked. I object.

Mrs Anne Metters  20 DENTWOOD GROVE COOMBE DINGLE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-23   OBJECT

The camping and caravan park lends so much character to the end of the floating dock,it is unique in its location and there are so many other areas in Bristol in need of redevelopment,why do we need yet more commercial space in what is essentially bristol's main tourist attraction,the Harbourside. Strongly object to this proposal.

Ms Paula Richardson  ISLAND TERRACE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-22   OBJECT

Please leave our green open spaces & Treesalone for our planet and our children'sability to breathe clean air. Also please stop contracting weed killer spraying as it kills much wildlife, including bees & other pollinators . Many animals & pets eat weeds and die due to spraying . Aswell as it being cancerous . Genes why Monsanto & other companies have been sued for millions .Consider the world you want your children to live in

Mr Martin Hooper  6 ALGIERS STREET WINDMILL HILL BRISTOL  on 2021-08-22   OBJECT

Planning high density housing on this plot is a terrible idea. Unaffordable housingshould not be a priority for a labour authority. Some low density affordable housing yes. For a citythat has such a huge divide between the rich and the poor it amazes me that our council still seeksto give the well off the prime locations to live in. The possibility of flooding in the future due toclimate change should also secure this location with it's mature trees as an essential asset for thefuture of Bristol City Center.

Ms Philippa Harding  41 CHELSEA ROAD EASTON BRISTOL  on 2021-08-17   OBJECT

Hello there. I can't quite believe that the council's own development company ischoosing to cut down 74 trees for this development, Yet claiming that we are a "green" city. Whata farce. Please reconsider a way to do this without the felling of these trees

Mx Phillippa Haynes  63 WASHINGTON AVENUE, EASTON EASTON BRISTOL  on 2021-08-17   OBJECT

In a time of climate emergency and devastating loss of habitat and tbe fact that Bristolset's its stall as a green city, the cutting diwn of mature trees is a criminal act. Pkease do nit do it.Pkedging to plant new trees us not an option, it takes over 25 years for a tree to absorb carbon, soyou will be in defecit for over 30 years. In a city with some of the worst air pollution in Europe thinkagain. Dont do it.

Michael And Linda Palmer  23 WOOLLEY STREET   on 2021-07-30   OBJECT

Good afternoon,

I feel compelled to say something about this new development. I'm not sure why Bristol City Council cannot see past the money and realise what an eyesore this development will be.At the moment there is a lovely, quiet, small, tree filled caravan site here. I can imagine that is good for local business with many people visiting local pubs, restaurants and shops. It seems as if these new flats are aiming at younger couples (1 and 2 bed flats) who will be more likely to head into town rather than visit local places like the Cottage Inn next to the site.The area will become more noisy for existing residents and there is a lack of parking.But my main objection is the way it will completely ruin the look of the wharf area. It's such a beautiful area. What's next, Underfell Yard? There will be nothing left of the real Bristol in a few years. Shame on you.

Mr Peter Roberts  33 ASH WAY STOKE  on 2021-07-21   OBJECT

What would Councillor Bosdet say.Opened in 1986Closed in ???? All because of money.You dont realise how much revenue it brings into your city.

Mr Steve Bullock  CHAIR FOR THE LABOUR PARTY WARDS OF HOTWELLS AND HARBOURSIDE AND CLIFTON   on 2021-07-09  

Sir/madamI must object to the current application plans for this site.On behalf of the majority of people who live on Spike Island I would like to point out the following

1) We do not have any community facilities anywhere on the island. No where for mums and babies to meet, no where for toddlers playgroups to meet, no where for older people to meet. The island is completely devoid of any such facilities despite its rapidly growing population. As we currently understand it the Developers have no plans to build any such facilities.

2) We don't have a doctors surgery on the island. Everyone including people with mobility issues has to cross the waters to visit a GP's practice.We are in desperate need of of such yet the suggested plans have not included any space for a medical practice. We even have a medical practice interested in having surgery here. No such plans for this is included in their overall development plans.

3) Despite numerous attempts to get the Developers and a representative of Goram homes to listen to our suggestions they have refused to attend a Zoom meeting at a date of their choice So that they can listen and maybe take on board some of our suggestions.

Steve BullockChair for the Labour Party wards of Hotwells and Harbourside and Clifton

Mr DAVID WRIGHT  2 ROWNHAM MEAD BRISTOL  on 2021-06-02   OBJECT

It is very disappointing that the plan submitted is the same that the builder submitted forinitial review on it's website. I along with many neighbours pointed out that the height of the newbuildings are way above anything else on the eastern waterfront of the Harbourside.To reiterate the comments that I made to the builder:-The building is far too high compared to other buildings on the waterfront at this end off theharbour.-The building will stand out from all perspectives and is not sympathetic to the scale of surroundingbuildings.-The flats will not be sold as affordable houses, there is a history of developers promising then notdelivering.-The flats will add to congestion in the neighbouring roads-The area has been targeted as an area of air pollution and the new Traffic Control areas areaimed at reducing not increasing cars coming in to this area of Bristol

I object most strongly

Ms Yasmeen Ismail  POLYGON COTTAGE NORTH GREEN ST BRISTOL  on 2021-06-02   OBJECT

I object to this development. It will harm the character of the area, and set a precedentfor more inappropriate development. Not only that, but I fear it would also be detrimental to thehistoric character and cultural value of Underfall Yard. It would also place additional pressure onlocal schools and public transport links. In addition, this is certainly going to increase traffic in analready very busy traffic area. Finally, and most importantly, the designs do not account for eitherthe climate or ecological crises, both of which have been recognised by Bristol City Council andthe Mayor's office.

The Conservation Advisory Panel  CONSERVATION ADVISORY PANEL BRISTOL  on 2021-05-31   OBJECT

We support the position taken by Historic England and the comments they have made.The proposal is considered to be an inappropriate level of development on this site, with the tallerelements of the scheme standing taller than B Bond. The height, scale and massing of theproposed buildings must be addressed and reduced significantly, by at least two storeys.

The proposal as it currently stands will result in an adverse impact on the views into and out of theconservation area (CDCA) and does not show any applicable views from the south of the site,particularly P28 and P29 (publicly accessible panoramic view points to Clifton etc, listed in 6.2.5 ofthe character appraisal, page 18, opposite circa #200-205 Coronation Road). The Landscape andVisual Impact Assessment must be reviewed with a comprehensive assessment undertaken andresubmitted as part of the application. It is considered that the potential adverse impact of theproposal has been downplayed.

On balance the Panel considers that in its current form and as a result of an inadequateassessment of all views the proposal does not meet the relevant heritage policy tests containedwithin the Local Plan and the NPPF. It does not generate sufficient public benefits that outweighthe significant harm that it will cause and therefore this application cannot be supported

The BS3 PlanningGroup  BS3 PLANNING GROUP BRISTOL  on 2021-05-27   OBJECT

We have a number of objections to this development as it is currently proposed:

There does not appear not have been the consultation with the local residents that was said tohave been done - no evidence of this has been discovered on a search and consultation by a localresident who is one of the group. it is plausible that some locals have been contacted but not allthat may have an interest in this development.

Despite the group requesting another set of view of the development from the south side of theriver these have still not been provided. Being sceptical it may be because the height of thebuildings from this site clearly obscure the current view.

Following on from the last point, the overall height of the buildings is to great for the location, thiswill block view of and across the river, including, it appears the view from the viewing platforms(P28 and P29 City Docks) provided for this purpose. The high angles of the roofs planned simplyadd to the obscuring effect - is it possible that these are planned so as to add a further storey bystealth as well?

The overall visual impact of the planned housing does not seem to complement or add to thecurrent buildings in an around the location. It also appears that the affordable housing, hiddenaround the back, is even less attractive in construction.

The raising of the site to avoid flooding is also of concern - will this be enough given the high riskin this area?

What analysis has been done about the impact this number of houses will have on local amenitiessuch as parks, schools and GP surgeries? More provision may need to be made locally for this.

Overall we do agree that this is a very desirable site for a development but this is not the one itdeserves.

Miss Anita Bennett  97 RICHMOND RD MONTPELIER BRISTOL  on 2021-05-27   OBJECT

My objections, and that of Keep Baltic Wharf Green, is that Bristol wants to look to thefuture and lead the movement to turn around climate change. This high density, unimaginative,tree-destructive proposal serves only the voracious developer class, their planner and politicianpals-and certainly not desperate people on housing lists, let alone our inner city children sufferingfrom asthma. Legally, it flies in the face of every piece of guidance: Bristol Core Strategy BCS8 (toretain green infrastructure), Development Mgmt Policies DM17 & DM 19, Area Plan BAC 41,against the One City Plan, to double tree canopy, against the Tree Replacement Standard DM17.In short, everything that the Council has spent hundreds of thousands of our rates to fly the flag forthe Green Capital, hot air. There are 91 trees due to be chopped, replanting is impossible withinone mile-because the Mayor and developer allies have yet more high density buildings to furthercommercialise our country's Historic Harbourside. Build real social housing, 100%, no affordable-wash. Build around the existing trees, creatively, to make a feature of them for future generations.This hideous high density high rise will be seen as the equivalent of the statue of Colston,entrepreneur brother of modern developer cowboys. And maybe even torn down by futuregenerations who will see this Council Planning as the betrayers of their future health and well-being.

Mrs Linda Edwards  CLIFTON & HOTWELLS IMPROVEMENT SOCIETY BRISTOL  on 2021-05-27   OBJECT

The Society objects strongly to this scheme for the following reasons:

a. The proposed plans represent an overdevelopment of the site.

b. The design is acceptable but the scale and massing are unacceptable.

c. Important views will be lost, including those of the cathedral, the SS Great Britain and Clifton.

d. The conservation area will not be enhanced.

Mrs sue otty  6 THE POLYGON HOTWELLS BRISTOL  on 2021-05-26   OBJECT

I am not, in principle, against the redevelopment of this site, but any development mustrespect the special character of the former Docks. I hope that the Council's developers will bepersuaded to reduce the height of the buildings by one storey, to avoid dominating views of thearea.

I also hope that the proposed materials will be re-thought - the current proposals seem ratherbland and uninteresting.I would also like to see the retention of more of the trees on the site.As Goram Homes are the creation of the owners of the site, Bristol City Council, I would hope thatthe latter can persuade the developers to design a development of which the City can be proud.

Mr Edward Rose  8 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-25   OBJECT

The proposed development is not in keeping with the surrounding area. Thedevelopment dwarfs the surrounding buildings, such as the historic Underfall Yard, The CottageInn, the Baltic Wharf Estate, and the newer developments around the SS Great Britain. It is as tallas the Wapping Wharf development, despite being in an area where the average height of existingstructures is much lower.

The development also risks swamping local sailing centre, a charity that provides sailing activitiesfor people who would not normally be able to take part due to disability or socioeconomiccircumstances. The increased foot traffic around that area could obstruct their activities, and theactivities of others who use the area for watersports. This is without even considering the impacton wind over the harbour, and the knock-on effect this could have on watersports.

Getting onto and off-of spike island is already difficult. For the past year there has been no way ofdriving onto Spike Island from the western end due to landslips. The banks of New Cut haven'tbeen maintained properly for decades, as seen from multiple subsidence events in 2014, 2017,2019, 2020, and 2021. More structural issues have been identified and classed as riskingsignificant travel disruption. It's foreseeable that the current disruption to the roads will continue orreoccur into the foreseeable future and, with the increased traffic of construction vehicles and newresidents, has the potential to cause significant traffic along Cumberland Road.

I object to the height and overall size of the development, and I think much more considerationneeds to be made as to the impact on the surrounding area before the application is approved.

The N/A Baltic Wharf Sailing Club  CUMBERLAND ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-24   OBJECT

The Harbour is an extremely important place of relaxation and relief from city pressuresfor the residents of Bristol. It is a massive draw for tourists and a fantastic asset for the city. It is anopportunity for people to draw from the healing and soothing effects of a large water mass in theheart of a city. At the same time people can watch and enjoy sailing as well as many other boatactivities on the water.

The particular part of the harbour where this development is proposed sits between the iconicBristol Suspension Bridge and the SS Great Britain. It consists of many low level buildingssympathetic to one another and is set apart from the taller buildings on the Eastern end of theharbour. The workshops, museum and cafe in Underfall Yard, as well as sailing, rowing, andpaddle boarding clubs provide a much treasured sense of history with traditional sports and crafts.The height of this building is not remotely in harmony with those around it or any that end of theharbour, in fact it completely ignores any sense of proportion or design reference to the harbourwhere it would be placed. The view from the North bank makes it look particularly imposing. It willovershadow both All Aboard and The Cottage, where people love to sit and enjoy the water sports.It is a boring building which could be in any part of any city and would set a precedent for more tallbuildings to be built nearby which would ruin the character of the area. It should be of a scale anddesign appropriate to its setting.

That part of the harbour is frequently photographed in advertising Bristol as a beautiful city tocome to visit and live in. Sailing boats on the water are an important part of those images.There are several sailing clubs in that small area. All Aboard, creating opportunities for manypeople with disabilities, young and older people to learn how to sail each year. Baltic Wharf SailingClub, enabling people trained at All Aboard to continue and improve their sailing. Sea Cadets and

Sea Scouts, doing very similar important work.There has been no report for how this development will affect wind flow on the water and sailing inthat part of the harbour where all of these clubs exist. s 5.1.10 of the wind report 1 specificallyexcludes the impact on the waterway. The existing wind report is therefore incomplete andinadequate for the area. Wind bounces off surrounding buildings and the height of this proposedbuilding will affect wind direction and flow. It will create a wind shadow being so close to the waterand turbulence elsewhere.The sailing community should be consulted on the effects of a building like this as they are a veryimportant part of an iconic harbour.

We understand the need for housing, but filling the harbour with accommodation is not the bestuse for this incredible resource. It's there for everyone in the city to enjoy. What it lacks is greenspaces, which would be a much better use of the land. All watersports are becoming extremelypopular in the harbour. They have to use the same small area around the slipway into the water.All aboard has to work in a very confined space. The area this development will take up could beused to enhance the water sports that bring such a lot of interest, education and sport to theharbour. Emptying offices and retail in Bristol City centre will free up land for housing developmentwithout having to ruin a fantastic asset for the City.

Mrs Kath Morgans  15 ROWNHAM MEAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-20   OBJECT

Fine with development happening but it needs to fit. The height/size of the proposeddevelopment is excessive compared to what is around it. The height should fit with what's aroundnot stick out like a sore thumb.

Lockdown has shown how important the docks and harbourside are to the people of Bristol whichshould be taken into consideration.

Mr Tej Bhandal  MINA ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-19   OBJECT

The proposed development is obtrusive, too high, and too dense.Removing 70+ mature trees tantamount to vandalism, as well as counter to the city council'sclimate emergency declaration.The proposed scheme could jeopardise the potential to expand the watersport activities whichform an important part of the cultural mix within this area of the harbour. Such activities could notbe relocated elsewhere.

Mr Diccon GUY  68 PRIORY RD HETHERSETT NORWICH  on 2021-05-18   OBJECT

The building is way too big. It is out of all proportion.

A green space in the city is being destroyed

But worst of all I hear that the Chairman od th planning committee is also chairman of thedeveloper. How is that possible. How can he there no be a conflict of interest.

The country stinks of corruption from the top down

Mr Benedict Pagani  11 BRENDON ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-18   SUPPORT

I support this development - it will provide high quality, much needed homes and alsoprovides high quality public open space.

The fact that this prime land has been used for private, infrequent recreational use for so long is atravesty. The site is perfect for a higher density development.

My only worry is that, as we have seen in other developments, nearby pubs will be subject tonoise restrictions once the development is occupied. There needs to be a condition that noisecomplaints relating to the Cottage will be void as the Cottage was there before the development.

Mr peter burton  17 HOPE COURT BRISTOL  on 2021-05-18   OBJECT

Buildings are too high and will dominate the current surroundings. People at thecaravan park end of the Baltic Wharf will be overshadowed. Everything else at this end of theharbour is a maximum of 3 stories. Fit in with what is here already.

Mr W Underwood  SPIKE ISLAND BRISTOL  on 2021-05-18   SUPPORT

This application will provide the area with some much needed high quality public openspace in the area and introduces an increased biodiversity in the area. Furthermore as a mixeduse development it will ensure that this area of the waterfront has active frontage throughout theday and night, increasing the overall feeling of safety in the area. Continuing the overall aestheticintroduced at Whapping wharf connects it back in to its context and adds to the area.

The only concerns I have is that the scheme could go further to reduce traffic within the city,increasing spaces for EVs and removing all spaces for none electric cars. This would encouragemost people to walk round the city or use any of available public transport (boats, buses, trains) toget around and future proof the building for post 2030 when fossil fuel powered vehicles areoutlawed.

Mr W Underwood  SPIKE ISLAND BRISTOL  on 2021-05-18   SUPPORT

This application will provide the area with some much needed high quality public openspace in the area and introduces an increased biodiversity in the area. Furthermore as a mixeduse development it will ensure that this area of the waterfront has active frontage throughout theday and night, increasing the overall feeling of safety in the area. Continuing the overall aestheticintroduced at Whapping wharf connects it back in to its context and adds to the area.

The only concerns I have is that the scheme could go further to reduce traffic within the city,increasing spaces for EVs and removing all spaces for none electric cars. This would encouragemost people to walk round the city or use any of available public transport (boats, buses, trains) toget around and future proof the building for post 2030 when fossil fuel powered vehicles areoutlawed.

Mr David Roberts  15 JUSTICE ROAD FISHPONDS BRISTOL  on 2021-05-18   OBJECT

Reasons for objection:-

Main reason:- Unsightly, the buildings are far too high and are totally out of character with theimmediate surrounding buildings (especially those buildings with a long historical past).They seem to dwarf the neighbouring structures and look ugly in comparison.

Other:- The loss of the city center campsite is a great shame. I have always been proud of the factthat our city (unusual in the UK) has such a facility.The loss of 74 mature trees is shameful (especially given the climate we live in).

Mr adrian jones  10 AMBROSE ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-18   OBJECT

It is a shame to lose an valuable facility such as a city centre caravan park which willnever be replaced.

The proposal is way too large and will dominate the surrounding buildings completely destroyingthe riverside 'skyline' that is visible from large parts of bristol.

Mrs Rachel Sellers  46 ALPHA ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-18   OBJECT

The buildings proposed for the Harbourside (northern) end of the site are far too tall andout of keeping with other existing buildings in this sensitive and historic waterfront area. The 45degree roofs are very intrusive and add considerably to the overall height but without acorresponding increase to the overall number of dwellings. The design quality and proposal for thesouthern facing buildings (overlooking the New Cut) and the view as seen from South of it lookingnorth up to Clifton/Clifton Wood) is very poor and monotonous. The significant flood risk,particularly to the southern facing buildings , is acknowledged but the proposed mitigation isinsufficient. More trees needed!

Mr Peter Guttridge  16 WESTGATE CALEDONIAN ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-18   OBJECT

We agree with the general comments made by other neighbours and interested partiesthat this development as planned does not fit with the general environment of the Harbourside, it istoo large, too tall and will add to the existing problems of traffic congestion. . It would have anegative impact on the entire Harbourside community which should be protected. We are alsoconcerned that there was no consultation with local residence prior to the plan being submittedand it has been a complete surprise to many living in the neighbourhood. We kindly request thatthe city planning department does not approve this proposed development as it stands.

Mr D Mason  70 KINGSWAY PARK KINGSBRIDGE  on 2021-05-18   OBJECT

I strongly object to this planning application.

I am a regular visitor to the docks. The caravan park is a great asset to Bristol. Even if it isremoved, the area should remain an amenity area to be enjoyed by all.

The application would also mean a loss of trees and an increase in pollution, which is already highin Bristol and detrimental to well-being. The destruction of these mature trees should not beallowed in this day and age.

The proposal is much too high and overbearing and an unsuitable development for this historicpart of the harbour. It would look completely out of place in this setting.

The council may have a legal right to develop this land but it has no moral right.

Mrs Susan Jones  16 BEACH ROAD WEST PORTISHEAD  on 2021-05-18   OBJECT

The road access to Spike Island is inadequate even before the existing road collapsed.Much more needs to be done to improve road access. The small amount of planting is shockingfor a city that prides itself on its green credentials. Overall the buildings are too high andconcentrate on the provision of apartments rather than family homes with private or communaloutside space.

  CLLR ALEX HARTLEY   on 2021-05-18   OBJECT

Comment Reasons:Comment: After liaising with the previous local councillor, Mark Wright, and other members of the local community, I must put in an objection to the plans as they currently stand. While I support some level of housing on this site, there are a number of issues that must be addressed.1) Building Height - While I acknowledge that the height dropped from the initial 7 stories down to 6 following the initial consultation, I believe that 6 stories is still too high. It will tower over neighbouring properties, and is not in keeping with other developments in the area. I believe these plans directly violate Policy BCAP41: The Approach to Harbourside 9.7.5, which states that barring the redevelopment of Wapping Wharf & the Western Harbour development, any development should enhance the area around the Harbourside, and any development adjacent to the Floating Harbour will be expected to be of a scale and design appropriate to its setting. This development fails with regard to it's scale, and will loom over existing properties around the Harbourside.2) Loss of trees & hedgerow - The former Cllr for the area, Mark Wright, tried to work with Goram Homes, alongside the Bristol Tree Forum to save the 74 mature trees on the site, but to no avail. Some of the larger trees could have been incorporated into the design, and some of the mature trees could have been moved within the site. Unfortunately this is not being considered, and is likely to cause significant issues for this development as it progresses. Given the climate emergency we are in, and the Council's own 2030 carbon-neutral ambition, I am disappointed that Goram Homes seem unable to protect, or partially protect one of the largest areas of nature within the local area. It was also highlighted within the planning documents that efforts should be made to save the highly biodiverse hedgerow around the site, and this has also unfortunately not been incorporated into the plans 3) Affect on local residents - Aside from the height which will have a significant

effect on local residents in terms of loss of light, the creation of localized wind tunnels and a loss of privacy, there are other effects. A lack of parking in the development will likely result in residents using what little on-street parking is available in the local area (parking is already an issue on Spike Island), creating further issues for local residents. The height of the buildings (which will affect wind patterns) will significantly affect the neighbouring water sports facility, which is one of the only sites in Bristol that can do this.4) Affordability - While I am pleased that 40% of the units are affordable, the fact that 24% of those are 'shared ownership' means they are not truly affordable, as people are only buying 10-25% and have to pay rent on the rest. Given this development is being run by the council owned development company, on council owned land, I would have hoped for more ambition in attempting to reduce the 13,000 strong waiting list for social housing. I am also concerned that the social housing element is being tucked away in it's own blocks, increasing inequality between the social housing tenants and the residents of the private sale blocks.Overall, I do support development on the site, but cannot support this development as it stands. I am saddened at the way that Goram Homes has pursued this development, and has refused to listen to local residents. There was an opportunity to create a development on this site that was in keeping with the local aesthetic, protected local nature, and created more housing in an environmentally friendly, low density way. Unfortunately, that opportunity seems to have been squandered. Public engagement seems to have had little to no effect on these plans.

Mr Geoffrey Brown  485,BATH ROAD, SALTFORD BATH ROAD, SALTFORD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-17  

I note that the present boundary hedge is closer to the water than the existing buildings.I cannot work out from the plans where the front line of the new proposed buildings is, but wouldrequest that it is not forward of the existing buildings.I also note that it is taller than existing buildings in the area, although there are buildings of asimilar height elsewhere in the docks. I would request that the height of any new development is inline with existing nearby buildings.I also request that it is made clear to prospective purchasers, that it is a working water space &that there are sometimes harbour events which may disturb the peace, & that the public haveaccess to the docks at all times.Geoff Brown (Chairman, Avon & Wilts branch of Inland Waterways Association)

Mr David Bevan  33 WEARE COURT CANADA WAY BRISTOL  on 2021-05-17   OBJECT

I strongly object to the proposals for the following reasons:

1) The scale of the proposed development is not appropriate to its setting and the surroundingarea. Proposed buildings are far too high. I believe they will overshadow my property,compromising privacy, natural light flow and views.

The proposed scheme is therefore contrary to local planning policy.

2) I believe there is an increased risk of flooding due to the proposed land raising.

3) This site is not allocated for housing within the adopted local plan.

4) Parking availability is already an issue on Spike Island. I believe that appropriate alternatives tocar ownership are inadequate within the local area and therefore the low level of parking provisionproposed is wholly inappropriate and likely to cause further issues locally.

5) The arrangements for storage and collections of bins are insufficient.

6) Permission has recently been granted for a further 161 units locally, which are currently unbuilt.I do not feel due consideration has been given to the unknown impact of these developments bythe applicant.

7) There site management arrangements for the proposed development are vague and in myopinion inadequate. A poorly managed development could result in social issues within the local

area

8) The proposed scheme could jeopardise the potential to expand the watersport activities whichform an important part of the cultural mix within this area of the harbour. Such activities could notbe relocated elsewhere.

Mr Conor O'Neill  7 RAGLAN PLACE, BISHOPSTON, BRISTOL, BRISTOL BS7 8EQ  on 2021-05-17   OBJECT

I believe that the overall plan is obtrusive and over-developed. The buildings are toohigh.The housing density is too high. There should be more family-sized units.

Any flood defences to protect the underground layer (car parking and cycle parking, and utilitiessuch as generators and heating) will have to involve walls and ramps, and as such will beintrusive.

Very many trees will be removed; this is counter to the city council's climate emergencydeclaration

The proposed scheme could jeopardise the potential to expand the watersport activities whichform an important part of the cultural mix within this area of the harbour. Such activities couldnotbe relocated elsewhere

Miss Debbie Laming   44 EDWARD ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-17   OBJECT

Usual awful architecture, dull, ugly, high rise, high density, uninspiring plonked in thecentre of a beautiful, calm, historic part of a wonderfully unique area. No doubt BCC will go with itas they seem to be enjoying destroying all historic parts of the city with the high rise ghettoscontaining the worst architecture.

Mr John Harrison  14 OAKWOOD ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-17   OBJECT

Another ugly and overpowering development to wipe out one of the last green areas inthe Bristol Docks.Unimaginative and over crowded.Quite apart from anything else it was a great place for a campsite.I expect money will win out, but the Council should insist on better plans than this.

Mr C Montford  POOLES WHARF COURT BRISTOL  on 2021-05-17   OBJECT

I would like to object to this proposal because of the size and density of thedevelopment.The current proposal is overbearing and out of scale to the character and make up of existingdevelopments within this and the surrounding area. This is because there are only 2 or 3 storeybuildings on this part of the Floating Harbour.No other buildings are this tall on either side of the Floating Harbour, and so if this developmentwere to go ahead it would set a new precedent for further taller buildings in this area.This proposed development would dominate the skyline and erode the current low-rise appeal andcharacter the western end of Bristol's historic Floating Harbour.The proposed development will overshadow and overlook existing residents properties, causingloss of privacy and reducing their light whilst losing the open aspect of the neighbourhood.

166 new dwellings is developing this site too densely, and is not within keeping of the currentlevels of development in the western end of the Floating Harbour. This density of development willgenerate a significant increase in traffic in an area / Spike Island that has only 2 exit and entrypoints via a single arterial route. This will cause more traffic pressure not only on Spike Islandresidents but within the surrounding areas too .

Furthermore, my objection to the size of the development also relates to parking which is alreadyan issue within the nearby roads to this proposed development. The plans show less than 1parking space per residence, therefore parking will become a greater issue for residents of thedevelopment, existing nearby residents and any visitors. The developer has sighted that theybelieve that the majority of residents would use public transport, but that is a supposition andcannot be controlled once the development has been built. Parking will overspill into the

surrounding areas, and the impact of the development will be felt not only on Spike Island but inother nearby areas.

This development contradicts Bristol City's Council own policy "Bristol Central Area Plans" andvision up until 2026 because within the section on the Approach to The Harbourside, policyBCAP41 it states:- With regards to the development at Cumberland Basin reference 9.7.5: "it is not expected to bean area of major change". Development "will be expected to be of a scale and design appropriateto its setting", "reflecting the "character and setting of the surviving historic buildings and fabricand preserving and enhancing views to and from the Floating Harbour".

These proposed plans would go against the councils' own plan, as it would not be to scale orreflect the setting or character and will not enhance the views to and from the Floating Harbour -instead it would restrict them for many residence.

- Reference 9.7.4: "The area is significantly affected by the environmental and severance impactscaused by the large volumes of traffic that use the Cumberland Basin road system", "opportunitieswill be sought to reduce the impact of traffic on the area".

So why would so many dwellings be densely added to an area with one main road on SpikeIsland, because as mentioned this will cause further traffic and parking issues?

Existing properties within the Floating Harbour have covenants imposed on them to control what isdone to the properties to protect the Floating Harbour character and views e.g. no ariels or satellitedishes, never mind not being able to extend upwards. However accepting this application for a tallbuilding above 3 stories does not follow the councils only restrictions that we as existing residencehave to abide by.

I'm also concerned what will be included in the commercial ground floor, as this is another changein character to this area. There is already a large commercial hub at Goal Ferry Steps and thisadds little value to this area and will significantly increase the risk of unwelcome noise anddisturbance for residents at night, especially if it was anything like a bar such as the Left-handedGiant within Finzels Reach.

Finally the proposal means a loss of many mature trees that have taken decades to grow. Theseshould be preserved; particularly given this is a conservation area.

Whilst it is a shame to be losing the caravan park, I believe this decision has already been taken.So if this is the case I'm not opposed to building on the site however any building needs to be inkeeping with the existing character of a maximum of 2 or 3 storey high, therefore notoverdeveloping the site as the current proposal plans to do.

Mr Ben Palmer  18 GLOUCESTER ROAD STAPLE HILL BRISTOL  on 2021-05-17   OBJECT

I am writing to object to the proposal on two counts.

The size and scale of the development is uncharacteristic and unsympathetic to the surroundingarea.

I also object as technically the wind report submitted is incorrect. The report is prepared on theCalculation that the adjacent "Dutch Barn" is an enclosed structure. This building is partially openand allows south westerly wind to accelerate through the opening increasing the wind speed inthis area. This fault renders the subsequent calculation and recommendations inaccurate andinappropriate.

Mr Ian House  7 ISLINGTON ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-17   OBJECT

To whom it may concern

I would like to fully oppose the caravan park development proposal.

The caravan park is nestled at a quiet bend in the river. Historically, the Avon ran in from itscurrent location on the New Cut through a channel that is now sighted between All Aboard and theHarbourmaster's Office. It rounded the corner to join the route of the harbour navigating its historicpassage.

The caravan park is a site from which to watch history unfurl from a harbourside community ofantiquity that holds its unique story so dearly.

This gigantically overcrowded application seeks to upstage and dwarf the delicate profile and theliving story of Bristol's harbourside. Putting the low-slung elegance and industry of the UnderfallYard in the shadow of residential apartment blocks that are massively out of scale with the localarchitecture and humble community.

The density and massing of the residential units proposed is not in keeping with that of the localarea. The development appears to be absorbing the amenity of the harbour all for its own.

As a recreational user of the harbour, I am concerned for the affect of such a proposal on thenatural phenomena of the local area. Large buildings create undesirable behaviours in local windpatterns that will further disrupt and compromise water sports that rely on constant and

dependable wind energy.

As a proud resident of our city, I am concerned that a precedent will be set by this proposal. Thisapplication invites an oppressive blockade as a massive frontage for the ongoing development ofthe Western Harbour, which will see the delightful and unique character of our harbourside lost toout of scale and generic blockages. These self obsessed edifices will overshadow our bend in theriver - our unique and special place - until it becomes unrecognisable and lost.

As proud residents it is our priority to protect that which makes our city so special.

Please refuse this application.

Mr John Dempster  15 LIBERTY GARDENS CALEDONIAN ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-16   OBJECT

There are at least 50 trees which will be removed to enable this development. Given theadded number of Green councillors to the council one hopes that the removal of these trees will befully considered.

The entrance to this site is opposite to the work being undertaken to repair the land slip into TheCut on Cumberland Rd.It is clear to anyone who takes an interest,that this work will be ongoing for very much longer thanis being quoted by the council.It is also very obvious that the perilous condition of the walls of The Cut along the length ofCumberland Rd is a major issue.Further development on Spike Island including this application should be stopped until the safetyand access of current residents is fully addressed by an organisation that is more experiencedthan the Councils own officials who when the existing slippage occurred told us that the roadwould be closed for two weeks. Some 60 plus weeks ago!

Mr Roland Bruce  FLAT B 76 MINA RD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-16   OBJECT

The proposal contravenes the terms of the Harbourside Preservation area BCAP41. Ithas no architectural merit, and will blemish the views from Bristol / Clifton aspect; further reducingthe cultural and tourist attraction of Bristol. There is no adequate provision for the additionalservices required by the retail / hospitality aspects of the development, and no suggestion that themixed use requirement of BCAP41 might include innovative small scale business units similar toUnderfall Yard

Ms Margaret Mason  50 MANOR GARDENS WARMINSTER  on 2021-05-16   OBJECT

As a frequent visitor to the area a walk around the docks is one of the highlights of ourvisit. It is a relaxing, interesting, traffic-free, and safe experience and a wonderful asset to Bristol.The calm and peaceful atmosphere is created by the environment - a blend of low-rise residentialproperties, historical buildings, water activities and the presence of green surroundings, maturetrees and hedgerows. The siting of the caravan park adds to the ambience of the area ( how manyother town and cities have this unique feature in their midst !?) bringing visitors to the city.Why then disturb all this with a high-rise development totally out of keeping with the surroundingcharacter of the docks ? This will entirely alter the ambience of the area. The proposed buildingsare far too tall and imposing and will dwarf everything near them - not at all sympathetic to what isalready there. Traffic congestion will increase and with it air pollution in an already very pollutedcity. Loss of privacy, light, and the surrounding green environment will also occur.If this development goes ahead it will be a detrimental step for a town claiming to be one of theforemost green cities in the country. Who will gain from this ?Certainly not those who want to preserve this area of Bristol as the asset it now is. It can only bethe sellers of the land and the developers. Hopefully this proposed scheme with its no doubt highprofits, will be rejected and the word ' Conservation' will really mean just that.

Mr Edwin Paice  TOP FLOOR FLAT 4 TRELAWNEY ROAD, COTHAM BRISTOL  on 2021-05-16   OBJECT

Even though I do not live in the local vicinity of the proposed development (1 mile away)- it is an area I not only know well (for almost 40 years) but also socialise, exercise and spend a lotof time frequenting. It is an area that has always provided solace to both locals and visitors alike -it is one of Bristol's USP's.The environment (as part of the whole dockland area) provides a visual narrative for Bristol'smaritime history as well as providing a backdrop to the wider city itself. The local vistas providedare both unique and undiminished - why change this? This proposed development wouldcompletely and irretrievably alter this historical Bristol site forever with a 'block of flats' - nevermind the likely additional traffic! The area already suffers from peak time congestion and theproposed addition of new housing would make the situation much worse. As a city pursuing 'cleanair zones' this flies right in the face of environmental progress!Should this development go ahead it will be utterly detrimental to what is a 'great' city.

Ms Daniella Acker  5 CORNWALLIS HOUSE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-16   OBJECT

I oppose the proposed development because it will increase air pollution, noise pollutionand visual pollution.

Traffic levels will rise. A large number of mature trees will be felled. The buildings are too high andwill impact on nearby residences, reducing their access to natural daylight.

Mr Mike Nicholas  7 GREAT EASTERN HOUSE GAS FERRY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-15   OBJECT

Bristol Planners & Council must please recognise that any development of this scale onthis site is entirely inappropriate by any reasonable measure!!

When I saw the "neighbour handout" with the illustration of the proposed development, I genuinelyassumed it related to the Wapping Wharf development where its scale & design would be moreacceptable.

The development envisaged in the applicants' illustrations are more akin to the commercial end ofHarbourside but IMPOSED on the quieter, peaceful end which would completely change itscharacter for ever - there would be no going back from this BRINK!!

Harbourside is so precious and it "works" precisely because there are areas of "light & shade", of"buzziness & peace".

You only have to read between the lines of the applicants' so-called consultation feedback andresponse to see that nobody who actually cares about Harbourside wants this type ofdevelopment.

The sheer volume and content of objections posted on this application site bear witness to thehollow claims of the applicant.

The objection from the main neighbour, the Baltic Wharf Management Company Limited, 28.4.21sets out an irrefutable case for refusing this application outright and please do not acceptinsignificant amendments like reducing it from 7 to 6 storeys.

It should be much less dense and 3 storeys maximum, if there is no way that the caravan use canbe retained.

Just look at the applicants' photo montages of the pending nightmare that consent will deliver!!

And please just take a walk down to the Wapping Wharf end on any pleasant evening - it is"overflowing" with people sitting any where they kind find a perch, including all along the railwaylines. This other end of Harbourside must not just be another Wapping Wharf. It already has itsspecial character and wants this respected: 100%

Mr Richard Marks  4 GROVE DRIVE LISKEARD CORNWALL  on 2021-05-15   OBJECT

I am a regular visitor to Bristol and I am shocked and horrified at this proposal. Thecaravan site is valuable local amenity and the proposed felling of 74 mature trees is unacceptablegiven the current state of climate change.

The proposed new development is much too highand looks totally out of character with the surrounding area. It will dominate the area around thehistoric boatyard and ruin the ambience and visual appearance of this lovely part of Bristol.

Please refuse this ugly, misplaced and environmentally damaging development.

Ms G Mason  10 AMBROSE ROAD CLIFTONWOOD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-15   OBJECT

I strongly object to this proposed development. The intended flats are not at allsympathetic to this area of the docks, which will be completely spoilt if they were to be built. Theyare much too tall, oppressive, overbearing and out of scale and character with the surroundinghistoric dockyards. How can the applicants write the development 'responds sensitively to localcontext'???? Where? The proposal is much more urban in tone than the existing Baltic Wharfhousing immediately to the east and it is very different to the character of the Cottage Inn andUnderfall Yard to the west. It is detrimental and harmful to this important conservation area.

The development will cause overshadowing to several homes and gardens . It would bedetrimental to the enjoyment and current level of residential amenity awarded to at least twenty-five neighbouring properties by way of unacceptable levels of enclosure, overshadowing, loss ofdirect sunlight and overbearing impact.

There is already too much high-density housing around the harbour and this development will addto traffic congestion and pollution contributing to poorer air quality in what is meant to be a clean-air zone! As well as increase in traffic from the residents, and visitors, the site will generatesubstantial volumes of commercial vehicle traffic for deliveries, removals, maintenance andrefurbishment projects.

The area currently has open space & mature trees and rich hedgerows which would all be lost.There needs to be some 'breathing space' by the harbour. The trees alone are irreplaceable - nolandscaping can replace them. These trees provide an important contribution to the greening ofthis part of the Harbourside and the cutting down of over 70 mature trees would be terrible loss.There are no other similar spaces on Spike Island. The gap in the high-rise buildings is good for

air quality, wildlife corridor, wind, light and amenity and well-being value for locals and visitorsalike. The removal of these trees is particularly hypocritical when BCC has declared a ClimateEmergency!! Trees play a key role in locking up carbon and helping air pollution, which is high inBristol. Trees should have been incorporated into any design rather than destroyed.

Pledging to replant trees in place of those cut down should not be an acceptable justification bythe developer for this poor thoughtless development either. Replacement trees are, a lot of thetime, planted in a different area and at such high density to reduce costs to the developer that thisonly gives each replanted tree a 1 in 3 chance of maturing. Replacement trees do not come up tothe size of mature trees for around 20 years.

The caravan park itself is an asset to Bristol and amenities such as this in Bristol are what makesBristol stand out and brings visitors. How many other UK cities can boast a city central caravansite? It's always full. Bristol will become just like any other city. It also supports employment andtourism within Bristol. Visitors to the site contribute towards the local economy, providing customto the nearby tourist attractions, pubs and eateries.

The application form describes the site as brownfield land, when it is not. The site is still in activeuse as a leisure and tourism facility and therefore not vacant. It is not derelict and it does notfeature on the city council's Brownfield Land Register. The application site is not allocated forhousing within the adopted Local Plan and therefore is in discord with it. This areashould be used for facilities for socialising and sports and recreation, not housing.

Nothing other than a well-designed development should be acceptable in this location, and this asit stands is not. It is detrimental to and damages rather than enhances the area. There have beenno comments in favour of /supporting this application which says it all! It is contrary to the BristolCentral Area Plan, Policy BCAP41. History around the docks should be preserved and this ugly,over imposing development does not achieve that. It is about building high rise, high value,high profit, fancy apartments with little social housing, with inadequate infrastructure provision, andno regard to the environment or surrounding character of the docks. It is a lazy copy of WappingWharf. It would be a huge loss for Bristol if this were to go ahead.

Mr Brian Rowe  TORRE BRIDGE COTTAGE FORD ROAD YEALMPTON PLYMOUTH  on 2021-05-14   OBJECT

I am very fond of this particular place and although not local to Bristol have stayed closeby. I feel the proposed flats are not sympathetic to this lovely area being too high, out of scale andcharacter with the surrounding historic dockyards. The area has great open spaces & mature treeswhich would be lost.The proposed accommodation makes no provision for cheaper housing but the typical expensive'waterside' luxury flats.

Could not a more sensitive development more in scale & imaginative than the predictable onesproposed?

The Bristol Civic Society  53 ZETLAND ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-14   OBJECT

an independent force for a better Bristol

14 May 2021

21/01331/F - BRISTOL CIVIC SOCIETY'S COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT AT BALTIC WHARF.

Background.

The Society was grateful for the opportunity to consider the earlier pre-app proposals (June 2020and revisions in January 2021). We commented on the initial pre-app and although largelysupportive of the design intentions expressed concern about aspects of the proposal. Theseconcerns focussed on the height of the Harbour facing elevation and its appropriateness for theimmediate Harbourside context together with the impact of the proposed massing on the amenityof the central axis through the site.The January revision looked to address the elevational concerns but was not supported by the fulldocumentation that now accompanies the planning application. The Society welcomes theadditional material, not least the photomontages, as an aid to understanding the likely impact ofthe height and massing of the proposal on both the Harbourside but also views from the south.

There are, however, no verified views from the south.The site is within the City Docks Conservation Area, has an impact on the setting of listedbuildings and a scheduled monument and is likely to serve as a precedent for developmentproposals affecting western harbourside areas. It is important therefore to take time and care toensure the height, massing and density do in fact respect the sensitive context, would deliver adevelopment that would be a good neighbour and in itself provides a satisfactory livingenvironment.

Policy Context.

The policy context is drawn from the documents comprising the development plan and supportedby the council's Urban Living SPD. This context emphasises securing opportunities for sustainablehousing to meet the needs of Bristol residents but not at the expense of poor design. Theimportance of securing good design, and not just avoiding poor design is now being backed bynational planning policy to an extent not foreseeable when the local development planning policycontext was drawn up. A critical component of securing good design is to pay attention to thecontext. Here the site benefits from the analysis in the City Docks Conservation Area CharacterAppraisal. There are other policy considerations relating to public realm, efficient use of land andsecuring active frontages to the quayside walkways.

Land Use.

The application site is currently used as a caravan park. The Society appreciates the strongly heldviews of those arguing that the site should not be redeveloped. The caravan site does contributeopenness to an otherwise largely built frontage to the harbourside and this, together with the site'stree cover, is an important foil to the more bustling and intensively built-up eastern harbourside.For many, it provides an oasis of tranquillity. However, it is neither accessible nor permeable. Wealso recognise the pressing need for housing in Bristol not least affordable homes. We do nottherefore object to the principle of developing the site, but the loss of what is seen by many as avaluable contribution to the harbourside's character underlines the importance of delivering a well-designed development that can secure broad backing in the community as well as making moreefficient use of the site. The Society also supports the proposed harbourside commercial uses.

The Proposal.

The application is for the erection of residential dwellings (166) including affordable homes,commercial floorspace, integrated car and bicycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping andassociated infrastructure and services.As is often the case, there is a tension in this proposal between seeking:to maximise housing numbers including providing sufficient coverage to support affordable unitsand;delivering good design including through respecting local character and distinctiveness, building at

an appropriate scale, height and massing, protecting and enhancing views into and through thesite and ensuring permeability together with an attractive public realm.

Height and Massing.

The two buildings facing the floating harbour are 5 storeys. The central building is 6 storeys. Thereare three, four and five storey buildings extending towards Cumberland Road.The most sensitive elevation is the north or harbourside one but in saying this the Society isconcerned to avoid the southern elevations being treated as the development's 'back door'. It isimportant to get the frontage with Cumberland Road right, both in terms of immediate impact andon longer views into the site. On a similar note, established views across the site including ofheritage features are important too.It is acknowledged that there has been a reduction in height from the pre-app proposals seen lastsummer, but ground levels also appear to have been raised from extant possibly due to flood risk.The Society still feels, however, that the heights of these buildings have not been fully justified inthe light of their context and will in all likelihood deliver a disappointing outcome. An improvement,in the Society's view, would be the reduction by at least one storey of the eastern gable of buildingB and the western gable of building A and depending on east, west and south impacts as yetunverified, possibly building F also. This would help reduce the overall and currently unwelcomeimpact of the northern elevation when viewed from the north side of the floating harbour. Thestepping down would also relate better to the Baltic Wharf development to the immediate east andthe Cottage Inn and Underfall Yard to the west.The Society is concerned about the potential impact of the proposals on important views. Weconsider that the pre-ap submission has majored on several views from the north side southwardswith an absence of views from the south to the north towards Clifton. In addition, the Society wouldlike to see a view east from the Chocolate Path which includes enough sky to enable betterassessment of the impact of the height of buildings included.We urge the City to check the proposals on Vu-City and, in particular, its impact on the followingviews:SOURCE. City Docks Conservation area section 6.2.5 Panoramic viewsA verified view over the site to Clifton from P29, a Council designed viewing platform dating from a1991 planning permission.A verified view from P28 Formal viewpoint on Coronation Road (Upper) over the site to CliftonA verified view from P35 mid Vauxhall Bridge, To B-Bond over Underfall Yard (strictly this is a viewwestwards to Rownham Hill)A verified view from Sylvia Crowe's Wooded Hill (high ground adjacent GII listed Ashton AvenueRail [Metrobus] Bridge) in Cumberland Basin Character Area of CDCA, to the Cathedral (Grade 1landmark building Map4), over Avon Crescent.

Design and Materials.

The character and scale of the proposed development is very different from the residential

developments in this part of harbourside - both on the north and south banks of the floatingharbour. It is much more urban in tone than the existing Baltic Wharf housing immediately to theeast and although it bears similarities to the Wapping Wharf development it fails to secure thesame pleasing proportions. It is very different to the character of the Cottage Inn and UnderfallYard to the west. The suggested height reduction could help bring the height and footprint intobetter balance.

Public Realm.

There would be a new pedestrian route through the site which is presently impermeable to thepublic. This is welcome. The caravan site currently provides an important contribution to thegreening of this part of the Harbourside and the loss of trees is clearly a regret to many as thereare no other similar spaces on Spike Island. It is important that the proposed landscaping is of acharacter to in itself make a valuable contribution to both the proposed development and itsenvirons. The indications are that thought has gone into both hard and soft landscaping and it isimportant the stated intentions are carried through and not 'value engineered' out.

Transport and Parking.

The site is centrally located and served by the metro bus and harbour ferries. It is a short walkfrom the bus services on Hotwell Road. 78 parking places and 6 fully accessible spaces areproposed. The Society is content with this level of provision. Generous cycle storage is proposed.

Conclusion.

This is an important site in a sensitive part of the harbourside. It should contribute more to theCity's overall requirements, particularly for housing, than the existing use. However, nothing otherthan a well-designed development should be acceptable, notwithstanding the important planningbenefits arising from redevelopment. The Society for the reasons set out above has had toconclude that the proposal as it stands is not acceptable. We urge the Council to resolve thedesign issues we have raised, with particular reference to the height of the proposals and theirimpact on important views. This should balance much better the City's requirement for morehousing and the importance of preserving and enhancing the special qualities of this area.

Mr John Payne  53 ZETLAND ROAD, BRISTOL BS6 7AJ  on 2021-05-14   OBJECT

an independent force for a better Bristol

14 May 2021

21/01331/F - BRISTOL CIVIC SOCIETY'S COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT AT BALTIC WHARF.

Background.

The Society was grateful for the opportunity to consider the earlier pre-app proposals (June 2020and revisions in January 2021). We commented on the initial pre-app and although largelysupportive of the design intentions expressed concern about aspects of the proposal. Theseconcerns focussed on the height of the Harbour facing elevation and its appropriateness for theimmediate Harbourside context together with the impact of the proposed massing on the amenityof the central axis through the site.The January revision looked to address the elevational concerns but was not supported by the fulldocumentation that now accompanies the planning application. The Society welcomes theadditional material, not least the photomontages, as an aid to understanding the likely impact ofthe height and massing of the proposal on both the Harbourside but also views from the south.

There are, however, no verified views from the south.The site is within the City Docks Conservation Area, has an impact on the setting of listedbuildings and a scheduled monument and is likely to serve as a precedent for developmentproposals affecting western harbourside areas. It is important therefore to take time and care toensure the height, massing and density do in fact respect the sensitive context, would deliver adevelopment that would be a good neighbour and in itself provides a satisfactory livingenvironment.

Policy Context.

The policy context is drawn from the documents comprising the development plan and supportedby the council's Urban Living SPD. This context emphasises securing opportunities for sustainablehousing to meet the needs of Bristol residents but not at the expense of poor design. Theimportance of securing good design, and not just avoiding poor design is now being backed bynational planning policy to an extent not foreseeable when the local development planning policycontext was drawn up. A critical component of securing good design is to pay attention to thecontext. Here the site benefits from the analysis in the City Docks Conservation Area CharacterAppraisal. There are other policy considerations relating to public realm, efficient use of land andsecuring active frontages to the quayside walkways.

Land Use.

The application site is currently used as a caravan park. The Society appreciates the strongly heldviews of those arguing that the site should not be redeveloped. The caravan site does contributeopenness to an otherwise largely built frontage to the harbourside and this, together with the site'stree cover, is an important foil to the more bustling and intensively built-up eastern harbourside.For many, it provides an oasis of tranquillity. However, it is neither accessible nor permeable. Wealso recognise the pressing need for housing in Bristol not least affordable homes. We do nottherefore object to the principle of developing the site, but the loss of what is seen by many as avaluable contribution to the harbourside's character underlines the importance of delivering a well-designed development that can secure broad backing in the community as well as making moreefficient use of the site. The Society also supports the proposed harbourside commercial uses.

The Proposal.

The application is for the erection of residential dwellings (166) including affordable homes,commercial floorspace, integrated car and bicycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping andassociated infrastructure and services.As is often the case, there is a tension in this proposal between seeking:to maximise housing numbers including providing sufficient coverage to support affordable unitsand;delivering good design including through respecting local character and distinctiveness, building at

an appropriate scale, height and massing, protecting and enhancing views into and through thesite and ensuring permeability together with an attractive public realm.

Height and Massing.

The two buildings facing the floating harbour are 5 storeys. The central building is 6 storeys. Thereare three, four and five storey buildings extending towards Cumberland Road.The most sensitive elevation is the north or harbourside one but in saying this the Society isconcerned to avoid the southern elevations being treated as the development's 'back door'. It isimportant to get the frontage with Cumberland Road right, both in terms of immediate impact andon longer views into the site. On a similar note, established views across the site including ofheritage features are important too.It is acknowledged that there has been a reduction in height from the pre-app proposals seen lastsummer, but ground levels also appear to have been raised from extant possibly due to flood risk.The Society still feels, however, that the heights of these buildings have not been fully justified inthe light of their context and will in all likelihood deliver a disappointing outcome. An improvement,in the Society's view, would be the reduction by at least one storey of the eastern gable of buildingB and the western gable of building A and depending on east, west and south impacts as yetunverified, possibly building F also. This would help reduce the overall and currently unwelcomeimpact of the northern elevation when viewed from the north side of the floating harbour. Thestepping down would also relate better to the Baltic Wharf development to the immediate east andthe Cottage Inn and Underfall Yard to the west.The Society is concerned about the potential impact of the proposals on important views. Weconsider that the pre-ap submission has majored on several views from the north side southwardswith an absence of views from the south to the north towards Clifton. In addition, the Society wouldlike to see a view east from the Chocolate Path which includes enough sky to enable betterassessment of the impact of the height of buildings included.We urge the City to check the proposals on Vu-City and, in particular, its impact on the followingviews:SOURCE. City Docks Conservation area section 6.2.5 Panoramic viewsA verified view over the site to Clifton from P29, a Council designed viewing platform dating from a1991 planning permission.A verified view from P28 Formal viewpoint on Coronation Road (Upper) over the site to CliftonA verified view from P35 mid Vauxhall Bridge, To B-Bond over Underfall Yard (strictly this is a viewwestwards to Rownham Hill)A verified view from Sylvia Crowe's Wooded Hill (high ground adjacent GII listed Ashton AvenueRail [Metrobus] Bridge) in Cumberland Basin Character Area of CDCA, to the Cathedral (Grade 1landmark building Map4), over Avon Crescent.

Design and Materials.

The character and scale of the proposed development is very different from the residential

developments in this part of harbourside - both on the north and south banks of the floatingharbour. It is much more urban in tone than the existing Baltic Wharf housing immediately to theeast and although it bears similarities to the Wapping Wharf development it fails to secure thesame pleasing proportions. It is very different to the character of the Cottage Inn and UnderfallYard to the west. The suggested height reduction could help bring the height and footprint intobetter balance.

Public Realm.

There would be a new pedestrian route through the site which is presently impermeable to thepublic. This is welcome. The caravan site currently provides an important contribution to thegreening of this part of the Harbourside and the loss of trees is clearly a regret to many as thereare no other similar spaces on Spike Island. It is important that the proposed landscaping is of acharacter to in itself make a valuable contribution to both the proposed development and itsenvirons. The indications are that thought has gone into both hard and soft landscaping and it isimportant the stated intentions are carried through and not 'value engineered' out.

Transport and Parking.

The site is centrally located and served by the metro bus and harbour ferries. It is a short walkfrom the bus services on Hotwell Road. 78 parking places and 6 fully accessible spaces areproposed. The Society is content with this level of provision. Generous cycle storage is proposed.

Conclusion.

This is an important site in a sensitive part of the harbourside. It should contribute more to theCity's overall requirements, particularly for housing, than the existing use. However, nothing otherthan a well-designed development should be acceptable, notwithstanding the important planningbenefits arising from redevelopment. The Society for the reasons set out above has had toconclude that the proposal as it stands is not acceptable. We urge the Council to resolve thedesign issues we have raised, with particular reference to the height of the proposals and theirimpact on important views. This should balance much better the City's requirement for morehousing and the importance of preserving and enhancing the special qualities of this area.

Dr John Adrian Longstaffe  24 CLIFTON WOOD RD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-14   OBJECT

Dear Sir/Mdm

I have examined the proposals and I fully endorse the comments of the Bristol Civic Societyespecially the need for a reduction in height. This building is of a different character to theadjoining development and the South of the Harbourside in general. A reduction of the buildingsclosest to the harbour would help this building blend in.

Dr John Adrian Longstaffe

Ms Wendy Matthews  5, BECKFORD GARDENS BATH  on 2021-05-14   OBJECT

As a visitor to Bristol, my objection is that this development will be detrimental to theharbourside. It is too tall for this location and will overshadow the neighbouring residentialbuildings. It will necessitate the destruction of 74 mature trees and obliterate a piece of remaininggreen space amongst all the development in the area.

Ms Mary Dobbing  6 HATHERLEY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-13   OBJECT

I strongly object to this development. There needs to be some 'breathing space' by theharbour. The trees alone are irreplaceable - no landscaping can replace them.The gap in the high rise buildings is good for air quality, wildlife corridor, and amenity value forlocals and visitors alike.I welcome friends to Bristol who appreciate camping in such a central location.Central Bristol planning and building is killing the urban environment that residents and visitorsappreciate. There is already too much high density housing around the harbour.Please keep the camp site, its trees and view of the sky as a harbourside amenity.

Mr Colin Knowles  30 WARNER CLOSE CLEEVE, BRISTOL  on 2021-05-13   OBJECT

Yes of course we need more housing. But not at any price.

These designs are far too high and far to monolithic. They will dominate the western end of theharbour in a most unpleasant way. Yes, I used the word 'unpleasant' advisedly. It should be ourhistoric legacy buildings - the Bonds - which dominate our historic harbour skyline. So this designis actually a reckless assault on our historic legacy.

Secondly, I strongly object to the plan to remove so many mature trees. This removal isparticularly hypocritical when BCC has both declared a Climate Emergency - where trees play akey role in locking up carbon - and is trying to reduce air pollution - which mature trees play anadmirable role in.

Mr Evan Hall  74 COBOURG ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-13   OBJECT

My objection is primarily in relation to the felling of mature trees. Trees act to clean cityair, absorb carbon dioxide, provide a home for many other species and are a beautiful thing intheir own right - contributing to people's general well being.There is something called climate change happening to the world - this application totally ignoresthis - it's up to the representatives of this city to start addressing climate change - which they willhave failed to do if this planning is accepted.I am also really concerned that there is a total conflict of interest between the campsite owner andthe Head of the planning department... My understanding is that they are effectively the sameperson.

Mr Nick Carter  38 WESTGATE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-13   OBJECT

This development is TOO TALL and massive. The whole site is raised which means thatthe blocks are actually 6.5 and 7.5 storeys in relation to neighbouring buildings and on the skyline.It is disingenuous, at best, of the developer to claim they are 5 and 6. To then claim it 'respondssensitively to local context', and is an 'organic extension' when nothing anywhere close is morethan 4 is outrageous. They get nearer an accurate description when describing it as 'prominent','significant due to its height and massing' and 'particularly apparent from various key viewpoints'.Photomontages 3 and 4 show quite how massively out of scale it is.This is not the right development for such an important conservation area, so close to nationallyimportant sites like the Underfall Yard. Even their own downplayed assessment of a 'moderate'impact means 'changes to the setting of an historic building such that it is significantly modified'.Why introduce a development that damages rather than enhances the area? Visual Assessment 5shows how the view of the bonded warehouse from Hotwell road is obliterated by the scale ofthese buildings.Photomontage 4 shows how changed this end of the harbour would be from a low rise, open viewsenvironment and this is without taking into account the proposed Paynes shipyard developmentthat blocks off through views on the other side of the Cottage.This proposal should go back to the drawing board. It is a lazy cut and paste of Wapping Wharf,taking no account of the sensitivity of the site, wilfully destroying mature trees on the site thatcould have been incorporated

Mr Dave White  BEECHWOOD HIGHER CONTOUR RD KINGSWEAR  on 2021-05-13   OBJECT

Although not a local, I visit Bristol frequently and have had an ongoing connection withthe city since attending Uni there 40 yrs' ago. I am not opposed to thoughtful development but feelthe proposed flats are way to high, out of scale (& character) with the surrounding historicdockyards. The loss of the open space & mature trees would0 also be regrettable. It is clear thatthe proposed accommodation will not be for 'ordinary people' but the typical overly expensive'waterside' luxury flats. If the site must be developed could the council not be more thoughtfulabout creative use of the land , or, at the very least follow designs that are more in scale &imaginative than the predictable ones proposed?

Mr Mark Rogers   20 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-13   OBJECT

How many other UK cities have a city central caravan site? It's always full! Why loosethis? Pure greed! Build on derelict brown field eyesores like Payne's Shipyard yes, but not here.

The artist impression looks pleasant but the buildings proposed are FAR TOO HIGH. They dwarfeverything nearby and will block sunlight and over look neighbouring Baltic Wharf.

166 properties can only increase traffic on Cumberland Road; not good for air quality orcongestion.

Please no active frontage! This 'quiet' end of the harbour is anything but these days, residentsdon't need any more late evening noise from people spilling out of cafe/bars.

STRONGLY OBJECT

Ms Katherine Killick  21A ALBANY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-12   OBJECT

I am concerned that the plans for these buildings will mean the destruction of trees andgreen space in an area with very few trees. The removal of isolated green spaces has an impacton biodiversity as animals need them to stop in whilst moving across the city.

Miss Nicky LOWE  69 POOLES WHARF COURT HOTWELLS BRISTOL  on 2021-05-12   OBJECT

Loss of natural light and privacy to the residents of Baltic Wharf, due to buildings beingtoo tall, and dwarfing all surrounding buildings. The loss of many mature trees and hedgerow. Thisarea is used primarily for water activities which serves the whole community of Bristol. Rethink thisproposal and leave this unique area of Bristol alone!!! OBJECT

Elizabeth Morris  NO ADDRESS GIVEN   on 2021-05-12  

Good afternoon,I wish to comment on the planning application with the following points which I hope you will consider when making your decision.

The site is within the clean air zone and 166 dwellings will result in an increase in the number of vehicles entering and exiting this sensitive area. This does not appear to be sensible at a time when the council is trying to reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality to meet legal limits within this zone.

There has been considerable subsidence along Cumberland Road, which is resulting in major works to shore up the road and underlying ground along the river. These works must be costing a large sum to complete. How would contractors heavy vehicles impact the repairs, should the application be approved?

The caravan site currently has several mature trees within its boundaries. Would the application result in the destruction of these trees? Would the developer be required to retain any of them? Experience tells us that often trees are damaged if not destroyed during building works. The council should surely be seeking to maintain,if not increase the number of trees within the clean air zone, to help with the improvement in air quality. If the site is for sale, could not the council seek environmental projects to be responsible for developing sustainable environmentally enhancing community resource?

I sincerely hope you will consider my comments, and I wish you well in making your decision,

Kind regards,

Elizabeth Morris

Ms Ornella Saibene  GROUND FLOOR FLAT, 31 BRIGSTOCKE RD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

71 trees for the chop, unaffordable housing, because 80% of the asking price isunaffordable , and is not social or council housing, can Bristol City council stop aiding and abettingdevelopers who are providing,ugly, expensive,dangerous constructions in an area near the riverprone to subsidence....taking away sailing opportunities for local people and destroying a group oftrees that are an essential part of the wildlife corridor, at risk of flooding if trees removed, trees areour natural defenses against pollution and water.

Mr Richard Cooper  4 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

My objections are:

The provision for only 78 parking spaces for 166 planned dwellings is insufficient.

These dwellings are mostly planned to be 2 bedroom and on average will generate 1-2 cars each.

In addition, there will be commercial vehicles servicing waste and recycling and the retail units.

There is no provision, that I can see, for disabled nor visitor parking.

The knock on effect will be overflow parking on next door Baltic Wharf and Southville area.

The existing entrance/exit is inadequate for two way traffic onto/off the one way Cumberland Rd.

To avoid traffic jams a one way system on site with 2 entrances/exits will be needed.

The extra traffic generated can only contribute to the already poor air quality in the CumberlandBasin within the clean air zone.

Mrs Sue Cooper  4 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

I have lived on the adjoining Baltic Wharf estate for over 30 years and object to theapplication on the grounds that the proposed parking provision is woefully inadequate. To build166 dwellings with only 88 parking spaces is desperately shortsighted, the parking provision needsto be twice or even three times that. With the proposed inadequate level of parking provision newresidents and their visitors will seek to park in the existing access roads and allocated parking ofthe adjoining Baltic Wharf estate causing constant friction and disharmony with existing localresidents.

Why is this building going ahead when the whole Cumberland Basin road system is under review?The Plimsoll bridge needs repairing or replacing and the entire road system may be radicallyaltered. Surely all Western Harbour development should go on hold until the road infrastructurehas been completed?

Spike Island is exactly that, an island surrounded by water! Access is difficult at the best of timesand in the 30 years I have lived here the Cumberland Road has frequently been subject tocongestion and hold ups. Building 166 new dwellings here with inadequate parking at a time whenthe entire road network is due for redevelopment will cause chaos. Why can't the developers seethis? The simple truth is that they are blinded by profit!

Don't tell me this is about social housing provision, it isn't, it is about building high rise, high value,high profit, fancy apartments with inadequate infrastructure provision and then clearing off with theprofits and leaving long term residents like myself to suffer the resulting chaos.

Miss Jen Smith  6 WADE COURT WADE STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

The application for this site is inappropriate for so many reasons.

It's too large. It's too tall. It affects the neighbouring community in a detrimental way. It's a largedevelopment sited between the Harbour and the New Cut, which already has significant structuralissues of its own. It will cause a severe ecological issue with the loss of some 74 trees and it willaffect sailing activities and clubs in close proximity.

But the Bristol Central Area Plan makes it clear under Policy BCAP41, that this development is indirect opposition.

It states: 'Development will be expected to enhance Harbourside's role as an informal leisuredestination and a focus for maritime industries, creative industries and water-based recreation,preserving and enhancing the setting of the neighbourhood's major attractions including theFloating Harbour itself.'

'Development adjacent to the Floating Harbour will be expected to be of a scale and designappropriate to its setting, reflecting the special interest and visual prominence of quayside areasand character and setting of the surviving historic buildings and fabric and preserving andenhancing views to and from the Floating Harbour. Development adjacent to the Floating Harbourwill be expected to retain, restore and integrate existing docksidefurniture and fittings and make provision where possible for additional vessel moorings.'

Allowing this development to go ahead will detrimentally impact upon all the things the CentralArea Plan professes to protect.

Ms Katherine Sydney  517 ARMIDALE PLACE MONTPELIER BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

I understand that the caravan park site is a prime site for redevelopment - I'm notagainst that in principle; and I'm pleased to see that the FRA concludes that residentialdevelopment can be appropriate at the site, without loss of flood storage. However, the scale andmassing of the proposed development is inappropriate for the location, and I therefore object tothese proposals.

As the LVIA concludes, the development would have a significant (moderate adverse) effect ontownscape and visual amenity. The scale of development in the harbour currently reducesconsiderably from the town centre (Canon's Marsh / Wapping Wharf) towards Underfall Yard,allowing the historic boat yard to be the focus of attention but with taller landmarks (e.g. bondedwarehouses) and views to open countryside visible beyond the site. The proposed developmentseems to have taken its cue for massing from the bonded warehouses, and manages to makeeven the dumpy brick housing next to it look thoughtfully designed. A max. of three storeysfronting the harbour and max. four storeys fronting Cumberland Road would seem moreappropriate.

(I'm not a neighbour but I use the Baltic Wharf boat storage and know the area well.)

Miss caroline fox  FLAT 22 POOLES WHARF HOTWELL RD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

The Caravan park is perfect, it brings eco friendly tourists and visitors to the site, theestablished trees enable wildlife to thrive and the air to breathe. It allows wind and light into thedock which is essential for the recreation which has come life around this area which was once anindustrial area.

I object to yet another high rise and demolition. We also don't need anymore eating / drinkingplaces as the litter issue is already way out of control which Marvin has never addressed. We havethe cleanest water of the floating harbour, fish stocks have increased during the peace oflockdown and inactivity. We need to keep spaces left to be allowed to breathe. We are all awarethis is about money making not what's best for our area.Build on the other side. Where the industrial sites are, create yet another floating harbour there asit's got to built on eventually since its crumbling away. Then divert river thru east street..

We can have two waterfronts then.

Mr Rich Fisher  73 MEADOW LANE PORTHCAWL NEAR BRIDGEND  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

Although I no longer live in Bristol I was previously a resident for over 35 years andhave witnessed the steady decline of the City in regard to excessive building on green spaces. It isimperative that we preserve green spaces within the City and do not allow greedy developers todestroy nature. I wholly object to this proposal. The dockside in particular has suffered this fateand we must preserve what remains.

Miss Lucy Shearer  38 KINGSWAY AVENUE KINGSWOOD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

Do not destroy our green spaces for unaffordable and unsightly dwellings that are not inthe interests of our city inhabitants.

Ms Siobhan Kierans   318 FISHPONDS RD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

Its is unacceptable to cut down this large group of mature trees in order to build a denseblock of accomodation.Even if the developers are offeting to plant trees elsewhere it will be 20 years until the will be foingthe same job on CO2 as the current mature trees.BCC declared a climate emergency. All over the world people are planting trees to help counteractthe effects of climate change. Bristol needs it's mature urban trees and many more to be plantedas well.More flats means more traffic. The air quality in Bristol is appalling already.No to chopping down the trees necessary for our health.

Mr Peter Watson  230 MINA ROAD AT WERBURGHS BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

Destruction of too many trees in central Bristol.

Dr Susan Newman  15 WASHINGTON AVENUE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

I object to the proposed plans to destroy Harbourside's only green space, with 74 treesand rich hedgerows in order to build housing that will be out of reach for those most in need ofsecure affordable housing.

Mr Michael Lloyd-Jones  3 THE YARD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

I oppose and object to this development in its current form on the following grounds:

1. As identified in the LVIA, the development would have a significant adverse impact ontownscape and visual amenity. The scale and size of the development, in addition to the loss of 74trees, would be damaging to the local area.

2. Increase in traffic and worsening air pollution - the high density and scale of the scheme wouldresult in more cars and traffic coming in and out of the area - Bristol already has illegal levels of airpollution, which had detrimenal effects on everyone in our city, but especially older people,children and people who suffer structural health inequalities already, many of whom are fromBAME ethnic backgrounds.

3. Loss of trees. Bristol Council was the first local authority to declare a climate emergency, and bydestroying over 70 mature trees, this proposed development runs completely counter to thatcommittment. Mature trees provide multiple funcitons including capturing carbon emissions out ofthe air, reducing air pollution, providing habitats for wildlife, and improving the health and wellbeingof local people. Pledging to replant trees in place of those cut down is not an acceptablecompromise - it is well known that replacement trees are nearly always planted in a different areaand at such high density to reduce costs to the developer and gives each replanted tree a 1 in 3chance of maturing. In addition, replacement trees do not come up to the size of mature trees foraround 20 years, so the replacement of the lost benefits of mature trees are not realised for overtwo decades! We are in a climate emergency, we have less than ten years to radically change outway of life to avoid catastrophic runaway climate change, we simply can not afford to keep cuttingdown urban trees and ignoring the socioeconomic costs.

Mr Chris Thomas  20 TUDOR ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

I object strongly to this plan to destroy Harbourside's only green space, with 74 treesand mature hedgerows. We need to be cultivating our precious natural assets in this climateemergency.

This development is far from the "social housing" claimed on the package, 80% of the market rentaround here is not "affordable" for the 12,000 local people waiting for a council home.

Baltic Wharf needs protecting for Bristolians-not exploiting for private greed!

Mr PHILIP WHITE  1, OSBORNE WALLIS HOUSE POOLES WHARF COURT BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

I object to this development on the following grounds: -

1. It is too tall. Any new building on that site should not be higher than adjacent buildings. Asenvisaged, the development is completely out of scale with the rest of the community2. 166 homes on that site is far too many . Car parking is inadequate, as is the capacity of the onlyadjacent road. There will be queues of vehicles trying to get in and out.3. What evidence is there to suggest that additional commercial facilities are required in that area?

Mr Richard Hughes  14 HOPETOUN RD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

The only open space around the harbour with trees to be left needs to b kept for manyreasons; habitat, well-being sense of space.It seems that the argument of affordable housing is not a good reason in its support as there is solittle of it. Well being of many over profit for very few.

Mr garry shenton  39 WEARE COURT CANADA WAY BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

The "spike Island" side of the docks is something of an amenity area with lots ofheritage sites, the M shed, SS Great Britain, Underfall yard etc enhanced by its low residentialnature. people visit and walk the docks for this reason. To compromise that by putting adevelopment of this nature bang in the middle of this area is to lose a valued area of Bristolsheritage. It, along with the other proposed developments, McArthers yard the SS Great Britain carpark will bring a massive increase in residents to the area further compromising the plans forCumberland road.The application should be rejected

Mr Ian Hart  206 COMPTON ROAD WOLVERHAMPTON  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

As a former resident of Bristol City who returns for holiday breaks, I was very dismayedto hear about these plans for two reasons. Firstly, the development seems out of keeping with thecharacter and nature of the area and will despoil views. Secondly, it will inevitably lead to moretraffic and pollution and I understand there will be adverse environmental impact caused by theremoval of trees. Certainly at a time of climate emergency this development goes against thetenets of sound environmental planning.

Mr toby hammond  34 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

I strongly object to the application on the basis that I live adjacent to the area of theproposed development .Both my property and garden will face the side elevation of the development which will result in aloss of light + privacy .The proposed 5 storey development will completely overshadow all adjacent properties on bothsides.This is in complete contrast to the current low level elevation which includes Baltic Wharf, TheUnderfall Yard and The Cottage.If the development has to go ahead, it should be designed to ensure the current building heightsare not exceeded.

Ms Gemma Payne  4 WEEDON CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

Very disappointed to see the only central caravaning site and green space next to theharbour being destroyed for yet more flats. Given that many new developments do not go on to beaffordable, its sad that the harbour is so vulnerable to developers building luxury flats that localpeople cannot afford. Additionally, removing this green space impacts the diversity of the area.Please don't go ahead with this.A Bristol resident

The Jane Austin  1 COTTAGES BRUNSWICK STREET EAST HOVE  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

My husband has a flat which backs onto the Caravan Park. I visit regularly and havecome to know this area of Bristol over the last 7 years.

The direct effect on my husband's flat (where he lives) will be that this huge development withblock light into the garden and property. We will also be overshadowed by the flats and our privacywill be compromised.

This is a heritage site and is a jewel in the crown of Bristol's city. I think it is vitally important thatthis area remains in keeping with the underfall yard and boat building heritage of Bristol. Havinglooked at the design and size of the development, I strongly disapprove of the design. It is totallyout of keeping with the area.

Also, the sports clubs that use the water near the pub should be prioritised

Ms Noah Tomson  40 CALEDONIA PALCE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

This is going to destroy harbourside green space!

Mrs Jennifer Cook  26 BEVRE ROAD DONCASTER  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

You are missing a wonderful opportunity to go Green and be a leader among Councils.People in towns and cities need beautiful green spaces as well as retail and offices. Have you hada look at what Singapore is planing?

Miss fiona Crabtree  1 HAMPSTEAD RD, BRISLINGTON BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

A a long time user of All Aboad and the Cottage, this a really interesting area to visit,this development is too big and will only benefit wealthy buy to letters, these will never be familyhomes. And I'm sure it wont be long before these people will object to noise from the pub. thesailing club and the Boat yards. There is no benefit to anyone except the developer. And thecampsite is an asset to the city, its another business the council have been trying to get rid of formany years, for many years they said they wanted to move schools onto the site. It too big and itsreally ugly the blurb talks about good design, where is it.

Dr John Tarlton  34 ST OSWALDS ROAD REDLAND BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

I object to this application as it is inappropriate in scale, is contrary to Bristol CityCouncils commitment to doubling the tree canopy by 2046, is incompatible with the declaredClimate and Ecological emergencies, is contrary to planning policies of the Core Strategy,Development Management and National Planning Policies Framework, and does not comply withthe Bristol Central Area Plan. Members of the Development Committee should consider whetherthis application is in line with declarations made by Bristol City Council, and the priorities of thepeople of Bristol who have very clearly demonstrated their wish to see a Green and sustainableCity.

Inappropriate scale

The scale of the development is entirely out of keeping with the character of the area, and not "ofa scale and design appropriate to its setting" as required by the Bristol Central Area Plan. It willtower over surrounding houses and historic buildings, and will be detrimental to the view fromlarge areas of Bristol, including Hotwells, Southville, Ashton Gate, Clifton Wood and Clifton. Werethis application to come from a private developer, it would not even be considered as it is entirelyinappropriate. The role of Goram Homes in this application, and the administrative and financiallink to Bristol City Council make this application highly suspect. It would, of course, beinappropriate for anyone linked to Goram Homes to be involved in the planning process at anystage.

Loss of valuable trees

The actual loss will be 74 trees. At a conservative estimate, this is the equivalent biomass to

370,000 small saplings, and in order to be carbon neutral by Bristol City Councils target date of2030 would require approximately 7000 tree replacements. Based upon the BTRS replacementrate, it will be over 45 years before the ecological and climate value of these trees will berecovered. The BTRS calculation requires that 179 trees are replaced off site, a cash value of£134,250. There is no evidence of any such provision in the application.

The application is incompatible with the Climate Emergency

Bristol City Council has declared a Climate Emergency, and the city has committed to reducing itscarbon budget and to mitigate the effects of global warming. Trees reduce the heat island effect byas much as 5 degrees, and this will help reduce the number of deaths due to overheating inBristol. This is a serious future concern, as illustrated when 70,000, mostly elderly, people died inEurope as a result of a heat wave in 2003.

The application is incompatible with the Ecological Emergency

Bristol has also declared an Ecological Emergency with a target of doubling the numbers of wildlifeby 2050. Being the only substantial area of trees on Spike Island, this site is crucial as a stagingpost in the wildlife corridor into the centre of Bristol. The applicants Biodiversity Enhancement andMitigation Scheme is a nothing more than a gesture, as meadow areas and green roofs are notsustainable unless a long term commitment is made to maintain them in the long term. No suchcommitment is made.

The application is contrary to Local and National Planning Policies

The application does not comply with Bristol Core Strategy (BCS) and Development Management(DM) Policies and the NPPF.

- BCS9 which requires retention of green infrastructure, and is a "key policy" for the Bristol CentralArea Plan for Harbourside.- DM17 covers development involving existing Green infrastructure... "All new development shouldintegrate important existing trees" and "Development which would result in the loss of open spacewhich is locally important .... will not be permitted)- DM19 covers Nature Conservation... "Where loss of nature conservation value would arisedevelopment will be expected to provide mitigation on-site"- The NPPF has three overarching, interdependent objectives of equal weight - economic, social,and environmental. This development fails to comply with the NPPF environmental sustainabilityobjective.

The application is contrary to provisions detailed in the Bristol Central Area Plan (BCAP).

- BCAP41 states: "The approach to Harbourside reflects the fact that much of the area has already

been developed and it is not expected to be an area of major change within the plan period. Itsfocus is instead on working with and enhancing what the area already has to offer".Further,- BCAP41 states: "Development will be expected to enhance Harbourside's role as an informalleisure destination" and "Development adjacent to the Floating Harbour will be expected to be of ascale and design appropriate to its setting, reflecting the special interest and visual prominence ofquayside areas "- BCAP 6.13 states: "Opportunities for additional major green infrastructure assets are limited. It istherefore important to integrate green infrastructure within new development to enhance andreinforce the area's existing green infrastructure assets".

The application is contrary to Bristol City Councils declarations of Climate and EcologicalEmergencies and commitments made in the One City Plan to be Carbon Neutral by 2030 anddouble the tree canopy by 2046

The application does not make the required mitigation for the proposed loss of 74 trees inaccordance with the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard defined in DM17, or Biodiversity NetGain, the standard now adopted by BCC.

Ms Suzan Hackett  15 EARLS MEAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

I object to this proposal on a historically significant part of Bristol's heritage.It is an enormous development over three stories high, and will overshadow many of the dwellingsalready in that area. Surely that is inappropriate?It will have a substantial adverse affect on wildlife which, is the council not at least saying, needsto be focused on and preserved - before it is too late?I am told that over 70 mature trees will be felled. That is an astonishingly large number of essentialtrees in this time of climate emergency. The implications of doing this are vast and no amount ornumber of replanting saplings - which is invariably the reason given by the council to mitigate treefelling - could ever compensate such a huge loss. And at this urgently critical time the council mustendeavour to work with and not against the environment. It is possible to have both future housingand maintain our vital green spaces.The project would utterly dominate and overshadow the entire area and I would have a highlynegative effect on the harbourside's inimitable visual amenity and would likely seriously underminethe water sports that currently are a wonderful and unique feature of BristolIt is I believe adjacent to an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty? Surely then any building must below key and unobtrusive?Also i am told from various sources that a leading figure in Goram Developments also holds aninfluential position in the council. This is unethical in the extreme!I therefor implore the planning department to reconsider. There is so much at stake here.

Ms Katharine Hannah Jordan  2 ALBANY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

Please don't destroy the only green space on Baltic Wharf. I know there's a housingcrisis. Build on brownfield sites instead. Please.

Mr Julien Echalier   13 SATES WAY BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

We all know that we don't need to over build cities.We need green spaces and cities well thought!After a global pandemic it is obvious that we need to spread the people and maximise greenspace.Don't you think?!?

Ms Caroline Grazebrook  16 GRANBY HILL HOTWELLS BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

Whilst I welcome some kind of housing development I object to the proposal for anumber of reasons and Im concerned about the general lack of facilities being provided by thedevelopment.

1. The scale mass and height of the buildings is a concerning issue with the impact it will have onneighbouring properties with issues of overbearing and over shadowing

2. If this development is given permission then it will set a precedence for more intensive buildingswhich will contribute to over development of the area and overshadow the existing watersidedevelopments and change the character.

3. This part of the city and is already poorly equipped with community facilities and infrastructure.Any new developments should take into account the principles of Liveable Neighbourhoods andaccessibility to facilities. The Design and Access Statement states the proximity of certain facilitiesand walking distances, which does not give the full picture.

4. The residents in Spike Island and along the West end of the harbour are already poorly servedand now this vacuum will be experienced by yet more people living in this area. An additional 166properties could mean at least an additional 332 residents and how are they to be provided withcommunity buildings like schools, food shops, doctors surgeries, etc. ?

5. There is a small newsagent shop which sells basic provisions at the rear of the Baltic Wharfestate. But we need more food shops like green grocers, butchers, etc. The neighbourhood is alsoshort on outlets like treatment rooms, medical facilities, post office, child care, etc. Admittedly this

development alone cannot provide everything but perhaps some of the space allocated forcommercial use would be better used for essential use rather than cafes and restaurants?

6. The proposed commercial use in The Yards suggests a mixture of cafe, bar and restaurant tosupplement the Cottage Inn. However, this will both compete with the existing businesses aroundthe area and have an increased detrimental effect in terms of the noise and nuisance to thenearby residents. The stepped concourse will encourage yet more people to congregate veryclose to peoples homes and cause a potential noise nuisance to people living in flats above and inthe neighbouring development. This commercial space is not needed for additional food andbeverage and could be better used to provide community facilities to the neighbourhood. Bike hub,accommodation for the sailing and boat clubs or just essential community facilities are allimportant uses to be considered.

7. There is also mention about The Falls being used as an arts venue for Bristol with workshopsand flexible exhibition space being provided on the lower ground floor and then cafe and publicinterface above. However, this space could be better used by residents and locals. Theneighbourhood desperately needs venues where clubs can meet up. The various boating clubswho use the harbour and provide much life on the water are generally very short on facilities andthe space should be offered to them as a priority. Perhaps the lower ground floor could be put tobetter use in terms of storage and cloakrooms for boat users. Perhaps the upper rooms could alsoprovide community shared space and retail outlets?.

8. There is mention of public toilet facilities possibly being included to support Harboursideactivities which is very much welcomed.

9. The buildings are too high and too close to the water front. This popular end of the harbourcould be adversely affected by the overbearing nature of this development. This area is a verypopular place for people to walk, watch or engage in the various water based sports and otherleisure activities. The development will have a detrimentally impact to the life and well being ofresidents, new and existing, users of the harbour waters and visitors.

10. The land is owned by Bristol City Council and the housing provider has a connection with theCity Council. Therefore, would this unique situation not be an opportunity for the Council to set anexample to ensure that any new development actually provides some real community typefacilities, badly lacking in an area, which serve the residents but also the adjoining housingneeds?.

Mr Mark Brown  21 GRATITUDE ROAD, BRISTOL BS5 6EH  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

Please protect the trees and green space - thanks!

Mr Celestino Esteves  39 CO  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

6 storeys is way, way higher than anything else in the area. Not enough parking for allthe residents.

Mr joao gomes  1 WEARE COURT CANADA WAY BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

I object to the proposed development on the grounds of overlooking and loss of directlight - by the developer's own account, my home will be severely affected by the loss of light to theextent that overshadowing. If this development goes ahead my home and garden will sufferextremely from a loss of both sunlight and privacy.- Privacy is essential to be able to enjoy the use of a garden and the west facing windows of thehouses in Baltic Wharf .This proposed development will overlook directly from above into ourgardens with no possibility to avoid or mitigate it- Sunlight - the developer's own report states that the ground floor windows of our home will havea dramatic reduction ( 0.63 factor) on the VSC, thus failing the regulatory criteria . The ground flooris where the kitchen and dining room are and where we spend a significant proportion of our time .This lack of light will directly impact our quality of life and is unacceptable !- Winter - this reduction of light will be extreme during the winter months as the sun is lower on thehorizon, forcing us to keep the lights on even during daytime !- Garden sun exposure - sunlight hours will go from 7 to 3.3 , a >60% reduction. This will impactour ability to grow flowers and maintain the existing trees and bushes that make our life here somuch more pleasant

I object on the grounds of wind and airflow - the building of such a tall development in closeproximity to my house will undoubtedly create wind "tunnels" where the prevailing westerly wind isaccelerated .This is confirmed on the wind report section 4.1.16 where the conclusion is that thearea around my house will no longer be suitable for its use, thus having an impact on our ability tobe able to stay outdoors in the garden and potentially even damage property like flower pots etc.The effect of this wind acceleration on the roofs and exterior of the house is also a concern

I object on the grounds of noise and disturbance : the proposed development will have the overground car park and access roads literally adjacent to the boundary wall and a mere 2-3 metersfrom my garden. The inhabitants of the development will move their cars at anytime of day ornight, and with all the windows in my house facing directly to the site this will create disturbanceand impact on my ability to sleep.My job as an commercial airline pilot requires me to be fully rested and fit to perform my duties,this will undoubtedly affect my ability to do so

Air Pollution - Looking at the planned location of the car parks of this estate, especially against theeast boundary I am concerned that the exhaust fumes will, taken by the prevailing westerly windsflow directly towards all the existing Baltic wharf homes situated a only few meters away. As it iswidely know, its during the first minutes of operation that most engines emit the most pollutants ,hence increasing even more the impact on us. The air quality assessment fails to consider thisand therefore I would like to object to this development on the grounds of health impact of airpollution

Parking - Looking at the plans , the number of planned flats and the allocated number of parkingspaces, its clear that there will be a significant shortfall. With the existing Baltic wharf estate nextdoor, there is a high likelihood that residents will use our estate to park their cars overnight andduring the day, thus denying residents the ability to find a space when needed. The Transportassessment document clearly states that this is what is expected to happen during the day ( 4.14).I believe the developers should propose clear mitigation measures to stop this from happening,especially since the developers are owned by the city council

As a final note, this development's scale and height are totally at odds with the current andexpected developments in this part of town, and will be an eye sore that the council will regret foryears to come.I understand houses are needed, but make it in a sustainable, lower density and sensible way

Thank you

Mr Jack Barkell  11 WEARE COURT BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

I object to the proposals on the grounds of overlooking and overshadowing. If thisdevelopment goes ahead our home and garden will suffer extremely from a loss of both sunlightand privacy. The proposed height of the buildings are far too tall. There is the opportunity to makethem shorter and also locate the tallest buildings closer to Coronation Road instead of toweringover our housing estate.

I also object to the felling of 37 mature trees as these trees are essential to combat pollution in thecity centre area as they absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen.

I also object on the grounds of visual amenity. The development is in a Conservation area but isnot in sympathy with its surroundings being vastly taller than the surrounding buildings and beingvisually detrimental to the historic Underfall Yard area.

A recent plan in the area (the vacant Ashton Rail Yard, next to the Festival Way cycle path offClanage Road) has thankfully been revised twice with the buildings' height reduced significantly.The same needs to be done to this proposal.

The proposals seem to also contradict Bristol City Council's own policies, namely:

1. According to BCC's Design Policy DM27 the height, scale and massing of development shouldbe appropriate to the immediate context, site constraints, character of adjoining streets andspaces, the setting, public function and/or importance of the proposed development and thelocation within the townscape. Design solutions should optimise adaptability and energy efficiencyand promote health and wellbeing.

2. BCAP41 - Development adjacent to the Floating Harbour will be expected to be of a scale anddesign appropriate to its setting, reflecting the special interest and visual prominence of quaysideareas and character and setting of the surviving historic buildings and fabric and preserving andenhancing views to and from the Floating Harbour. Development adjacent to the Floating Harbourwill be expected to retain, restore and integrate existing dockside furniture and fittings and makeprovision where possible for additional vessel moorings.

3. DS4 - Place principlesDevelopment in Western Harbour will be expected to make efficient use of land and be of a scaleand design appropriate to Western Harbour's city centre location.Proposals will have regard to the area's important heritage assets and respond appropriately tokey views and landmarks set out in the City Docks Conservation Area Character Appraisal.Development proposals will be expected to demonstrate that opportunities have been sought toprogress more comprehensive or co-ordinated forms of development with other sites in thelocality.

Whilst I don't point blank oppose the development of the land that is currently used as a caravansite, the problems and contradictions described above mean that in its current design it must notbe approved.

Ms Diana Temple  3 WOLSELEY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

I Object to this application.on the grounds that it is an oversized development for the location, disproportionate in its housingand parking facilities, and doesnt attempt to blend in with the surrounding heritage harboursidearea.

I object to this application because Building 5 and 6 storey buildings close to the perimeters of theBaltic Wharf development will severely inhibit the natural light and privacy of adjoining gardensand properties.

Also the Western end of the harbourside houses light industry and has become a space of respitein an otherwise busy harbourside loop for local residents and all of Bristol residents and visitors.An interesting and enjoyable walk because of its variety ....the Cottage area is an asset to Bristolswaterfront, a place to relax and enjoy water based activities, both as participants and observers.The wind report on the Planning Application is disturbing as it suggests that with the prevailingSouthwesterly winds, the proposed buildings will create an area of turbulence in its lee, straight inthe water where the dinghies usually are, making an already tricky sailing area more difficult. Whata shame it would be to lose this colourful and recreational element to our harbourside in favour ofan oversized development.

I would ask that these plans are reviewed and downsized.

Ms Diana Temple  3 WOLSELEY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

I Object to this application.on the grounds that it is an oversized development for the location, disproportionate in its housingand parking facilities, and doesnt attempt to blend in with the surrounding heritage harboursidearea.

I object to this application because Building 5 and 6 storey buildings close to the perimeters of theBaltic Wharf development will severely inhibit the natural light and privacy of adjoining gardensand properties.

Also the Western end of the harbourside houses light industry and has become a space of respitein an otherwise busy harbourside loop for local residents and all of Bristol residents and visitors.An interesting and enjoyable walk because of its variety ....the Cottage area is an asset to Bristolswaterfront, a place to relax and enjoy water based activities, both as participants and observers.The wind report on the Planning Application is disturbing as it suggests that with the prevailingSouthwesterly winds, the proposed buildings will create an area of turbulence in its lee, straight inthe water where the dinghies usually are, making an already tricky sailing area more difficult. Whata shame it would be to lose this colourful and recreational element to our harbourside in favour ofan oversized development.

I would ask that these plans are reviewed and downsized.

Mrs Jill Tarlton  34 ST OSWALDS ROAD REDLAND BRISTOL  on 2021-05-11   OBJECT

I object to the felling of 74 mature trees in the current state of climate and ecologicalemergency. They would need to be replaced by approx. 700,000 saplings for immediatemitigation, or approx. 7,000 saplings for mitigation 10 years hence. Councillors making thesedecisions should all be aware of life saving benefits of trees in cities to help reduce pollution,reduce flooding risk, provide wildlife habitat, reduce heat island effect, good for health and well-being of local residents. It would be better to retain all the trees and build fewer units around them.

Mrs Burcu Kirmizigul  APARTMENT 84, THE CRESCENT BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

Is the river bed ready for such a load and movement?

How it will affect the foundations of Westbrooke Court and others?

What will happen to the trees there and their habitants birds?

What will happen to the air quality in that area?

What will happen to the already limited traffic?

In my opinion, that area needs to be turned into a park with a children's play ground and abreathing spot for visitors and residents. There could be a small veg and fruit food market onSaturdays, too.

There is no need of adding new problems on top of existing ones just for rent and profit.

Thanks for reading.

Kind regards,Burcu Kirmizigul

Mr charles bridgman  5 SOUTHSIDE CLOSE COOMBE DINGLE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

This lovely site is being destroyed and replaced with a tower block. This is all aboutmoney with no thought for the people of Bristol and this amenity for visitors to Bristol. This is anevil plan to turn all the historic harbourside into a 'canyon' of expensive flats. Next part iscumberland basin with more towers. How does all this improve the lives of normal (not well off flatowners) people , it will mean more cars and pollution.This must be refused or we will loose what's left of our lovely docks area bit by bit.

Mr Martin Dursley   64 LOWER CHAPEL LANE FRAMPTON COTTERELL BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

This development is not required. The addition of yet more residential accommodationwill further spoil the historic appeal of the Bristol docks area. Furthermore, it would entail thedestruction of a large number of mature trees.I am not a caravaner, but this also entails the loss of a well known and established facility fortourists.

Dr Stefan Cembrowicz  3 SION HILL CLIFTON BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

An over development of an attractive amenity area in an historic part of Bristol.

Mrs Claire Jaff  51 EGERTON RD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

There are a number of objections to this proposed planning application .1. Essentially this is an historical working dock and floating harbour now dedicated to leisurepursuits and recreation by the public. This proposal threatens to permanently change the uniquecharacter of this area and further limit public access.2. It is questionable whether the area can sustain such a large commercial and private housingdevelopment without impacting on the quality of life. I refer to increased traffic and poor air qualityas generated from both the housing and commercial aspect.3. The development would be unsightly, physically overshadowing existing historical buildings anddamaging the inherent historical nature of the area.4. Has the impact on wildlife been taken into consideration?

In short the impact on the quality of recreational life and tourism must be taken into account toprotect this unique area.

Mr Adrian Castillo  28 PORTLAND COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BALTIC WHARF BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

Application ref : 21/01331/F Baltic Wharf Caravan ParkI wish to object to the proposals for the construction of high density high rise buildings adjacent tothe existing dwellings of Baltic Wharf. I ask the the objections are taken into account whenconsidering the planning application for the development proposals.The existing residents of Baltic Wharf will be deprived of light / privacy have little or no afternoonsunlight being overshadowed, overwhelmed and disadvantaged by the current plans. Thebuildings are at least two stories too high and high density with little parking for either commercial,residential or visitors.The proposals totally disregard the surrounding buildings ignoring the maritime heritage is of poorarchitectural design, questionable style lacking imagination is more Eastern European detentioncentre and Leggo by default. Would they build this in Bath I think not!The proposals also include commercial outlets which which will bring more unwelcome bars to thisend of the harbour. I urge that review all objections before your final decision.

Miss Federica Pellegrini  1 CANADA WAY BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

I would like to object to the build of the proposed development. In my opinion thebuildings are disproportionately high and they don't integrate well within the docks area. Theywould spoil the harbourside landscape, which is a well known landmark and attractions for tourists.

Buildings of such size would drastically reduce the natural daylight for residential dwellings in theadjacent estates (approximately 50% of daylight reduction, according to studies provided by thedevelopers). Privacy would also be undermined, due to the new developments overlooking privategardens.

I am also concerned about the adequacy of parking for the new proposed development, whichseem to be not sufficient, and the increase of traffic jams that would follow. This would also resultin an unacceptable increase in pollution in an area that is soon to be within the Bristol clean airzone, noise and disturbance.

Furthermore, I believe the any new development plans would need to take into account theexisting trees, which positively contribute to the green look of the city and the air quality.

In summary, I believe the proposal needs to be reviewed in terms of layout, building density andsize.

Mr James Thomas  131A HOTWELL ROAD HOTWELLS BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

In reference to Planning Application: 21/01331/F - Erection of residential dwellings(166), commercial floorspace, integrated flood defences, landscaping and associatedinfrastructure. The Caravan Club, Cumberland Road. Bristol BS1 6XG

I strongly object to the proposed development. The design of the buildings are unattractive and outof character with the surrounding area.

The application site is located within the City Docks Conservation Area and close to UnderfallYard. The western end of the harbour is used for water sports, recreation, boat building and otherlight industrial activity. It has the peaceful ambiance of a traditional working harbour, an iconicmaritime industrial landscape of international importance.

My main objection to the proposal is the sheer size of the buildings. Looking at the plans and inparticular, the photo montages for this development I notice that they are carefully constructed soas not to show how imposing the development will be on the surroundings. I also notice that therequired flood prevention measures will also add to the finished height of the development.

The height of the development is going to dwarf the surrounding harbour buildings andinfrastructure (underfall yard, the cottage pub, Dutch barn, harbour office and the industrialharbour buildings) and distract from the feel of a working, historic and industrial harbour.

The size of the buildings will also distract from the bonded warehouses which at the moment are afitting full stop to this end of the harbour.

Mr Stephen Small  20 DOWNLEAZE SNEYD PARK BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

As a born and bred Bristolian I fully object to the application on the following grounds;1. Buildings are far to high and will ruin this area of Bristol docks.2. Buildings appear not to be in keeping with surrounding buildings.3. Removal of 80 trees when Bristol's Mayor is insisting trees are protected and more trees areplanted.4. The current caravan site is an asset to the city and should not be destroyed.5. The proposal will ruin the current boating atmosphere in this region, which is used by so manyfamilies.I trust my comments are taken into account and this application is fully declined.Kind regards,Stephen Small

Mrs Diane Stewart  PRIORY CLOSE MANOR ROAD ABBOTS LEIGH  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

My husband and I write as the owners of the top floor flat at 15 Weare Court, at thedevelopment project end of Canada Way in Baltic Wharf.We have a number of objections.

We are concerned about the scale of the project and its overbearing effect on Baltic Wharf, and inparticular on those properties, of which ours is one, closest to the development. There will be aloss of sun and light from the west as well as a loss of privacy in gardens adjoining the newdevelopment. The character of this part of the Floating Harbour will be changed.There are not also enough parking spaces which will lead to overspill into existing Baltic WharfDevelopment.

We consider that the development will create extra traffic along Cumberland Road, especiallywhen the site is being developed. Construction may well further weaken Cumberland Road, Thedigging the piles required for a building of this size may have unintended consequences.

We believe that the primary need for housing in Bristol is for family housing and we are concernedabout the large number of small dwellings being considered along Harbourside.

The removal of 80 mature trees when the city is trying to become a green city is disastrous in thelight of the city Climate Change policies,

Ms Caitriona Feirtear  5 BELGRAVE PLACE BATH  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

I oppose the proposed development for the following reasons:

Cutting down 80 mature trees given the current state of climate change is unforgivable. Thesetrees are an environmental essential in this city location as they absorb carbon and produceoxygen.

The proposed new buildings are much too high, this is very apparent from the developers ownphoto montage. The height scale and massing of the proposed development is inappropriate tothe immediate context. The building is out of character with the other building in the area in termsof height, style and visual appearance. It will totally dominate the existing built environment.

Buildings in this area should be limited to 2 or 3 storey in common with the Harbour Masters officeand adjoining boat yard buildings. New buildings should sympathetically complement the historicbuilding not stand out in stark contrast.

Mrs Julia Baker  39 MERRYWOOD ROAD SOUTHVILLE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

This is an historic area of the harbourside and should be protected. The caravan parkbrings well needed tourism to the cityand is in use all year round.The new development looks unsightly and the buildings are too high. It would overshadow theexisting buildings.I also have concerns about the impact on wildlife, as the mature trees and hedges will beremoved. We are supposed to be planting more trees, not chopping them down.I am also concerned that the construction may have an effect on Cumberland Road, as there wasa major collapse just outside the proposed site.

Mr Dave Strong  52 KINGS DRIVE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

1. The Proposed development is too high for area and not in keeping with thesurrounding area.2. The number of trees that would be required to be cut down, to make way for this development,would not appear to be aligned to published environmental policy.

Mrs Lynnette Rackley  39 ROWNHAM MEAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

I object to the planning application on the following grounds:Trees- the current site has 80 mature trees which should be preserved rather than felled to makeway for this development.Air quality - the development will result in increased traffic to and from the development and alsoan increase in congestion resulting in a reduction in air quality.Water sports and recreation - this end of the harbour is used for recreation and watersport. Theimpact of such high rise buildings is likely to have a negative impact on recreation when the areais overlooked by balconies and windows from the development. Children and adults learning newskills (paddle-boarding, rowing etc) are likely to be less confident when watched.Relocation of caravan site - The current site is a major attraction for tourists which brings revenueinto Bristol. The proposed new site is not so convenient or attractive and will result in a reductionin demand and revenue.Height and size of development - the height of the buildings is totally out of character for the areaand will dwarf the Baltic Wharf area, Underfall Yard and Cottage Pub which all add character tothis area. The buildings are far too tall and imposing and the number of units is too large. Theplanned development is not within the city centre and is within the City Docks Conservation Areaso buildings should be sympathetic to their setting.Pandemic - the recent crisis should prove that dwellings need to be spacious with communalareas large enough to mean that residents can feel confident moving around within buildings. Theapartment blocks are cramped with little regard for residents use.Alternative sites - since many businesses in the city centre have had to close, surely buildings inBroadmead could be converted from retail to residential use without having to develop this area inan iconic area of Bristol.Giving consent to this development will have a negative impact on this well-loved and well-used

area.

Mr Morris Williams  23 BURGHLEY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

The scale of this development is inappropriate to the historic harbour and it deservesmore careful thought when looking at one of the last spaces in the harbour that could bedeveloped.

In particular there is no positive amenity value related to the water. The opportunity could havebeen take to offer shed and boat storage facilities to organisations like All-Aboard; Young Bristol;Bristol Gig Club; Bristol Rowing Club; Baltic Wharf Sailing Club amongst others. They could allhave been offered a once in a life time ground level facilities accessible to the water. The scaleand height seem oppressive at the end of the harbour that does not have high rise building withthe exception of the bond warehouse. I can't tell from the photo-montages what plans are for thethe frontage to the water but there is no need for further bars and restaurants. This is anhistorically sensitive site and is poorly served by this application as are the people of Bristol whocould be given more widespread accessibility to water based activities with some foresight fromthe city council.

Mr wayne parfitt  40 HOPE COURT CANADA WAY BALTIC WHARF BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

I have been a resident at the Baltic Wharf for over 10 years and whilst I understand thatthe area is part of a conservation area (by complying to rules and regulations regarding cuttingtrees etc) I find it unbelievable that the proposed development does not comply with these rulesthat the neighbourhood adheres to. What is happening with the trees within the developmentarea?I strongly object to the proposed development, reasons to follow: The proposed development isout of proportion with the surrounding buildings and will dominate the area, blocking light fromsurrounding houses. One would have thought that the developers would have taken the local areainto consideration and aimed for a similar design as the Baltic Wharf.The waterfront amenities are currently unadequate ie bins, so therefore surely additionalproperties would put extra strain onto this causing more rubbish to be floating in the harbour.Also, do we need any more drinking establishments? ie bars and restaurants on the harbour?There is already an influx of bars resulting in drunken disorder, rubbish and urinating in the gardenareas within the Baltic wharf.What will be done about the additional strain on traffic? Residents currently are unable to accessfrom the West end of Cumberland Road and if rumours are to be believed, there will be a BusGate at the East end of Cumberland Road meaning that all traffic will have to exit via the West endof the road, thus creating more pollution and increasing not only mine, but all of the residents ofSpike Islands Carbon footprint - surely based on our local governments current proposal for CAZthis does not make any sense??Based on my comments above I strongly disagree with this proposal and believe that plans needto be reassessed.

Mr Rajesh Kashid  6 WEARE COURT CANADA WAY BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

As an immediate neighbour of the proposed dwelling we oppose the planningapplication. Following are the reasons for us opposing the proposed plan:

- Harbourside is a historic area and provides unique scenery of the Bristol docks to the localresidents and tourists alike. By having the propose buildings which are totally inappropriate in theirstructure (height, width) it will spoil the natural beauty of the harbourside

- The proposed buildings are too high compared to Baltic wharf.

- Being tall would cause loss of sunlight, overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbours with someof the garden flats being completely under the shadow of the giant/monstrous buildings.

- For the construction of the proposed dwelling existing trees would be removed which is a totalloss of natural resources. Bristol council is proposing clean air zone in Bristol city centre and theyplan to achieve it by cutting trees ?

- There is currently ongoing works to fix the collapsed section of Cumberland road, how will thisconstruction impact that ? and would it cause any future deterioration of the road due to increasedroad traffic, heavy foundations of the buildings ?

- Has there been any planning done for prevention of flood as this sits in a flood prone area ?How will Baltic Wharf be affected since the proposed dwelling will be built upon on raisedfoundations ?

- Having commercial space in the proposed dwelling would create nuisance for the neighbours asit is very evident from Wapping Wharf with so much crowd during evening and weekends.

- Commercial space will also increase the amount of garbage that is generated and is leftunattended during busy times.

- None of the mocked up public plans compare the proposed buildings to their neighbours i.e.Baltic wharf which would show how tall these buildings are in comparison and is totally out ofcharacter from the surroundings.

We kindly ask the planning officer(s) to carefully consider all the points as this affects Bristol'shistoric and unique harbourside. The decision will help in keeping Bristol's history intact.

Miss Corina Brocksopp  20 OLDFIELD ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

I am objecting against this development for many reasons.

The caravan park is an unusual facility for any city and brings a lot of visitors and money to the cityin a very central location.

The removal of all the trees in this area is also a major concern - I live across the river in a"conservation area" and we cant remove any trees without consent ,however the hundreds ofbeautiful, established trees in this area can be removed for this development no questions asked.

The pandemic has shown that people do not need to live in the city centre to work - this areashould be converted and used for facilities for socialising and sports and recreation, not to shove166 unnecessary homes into.

This land in unstable as it is, the "cut" across the road from this proposed development is stillbeing stabilised and this is taking months to "fix" but I fail to see how this development wont causefurther issues and cost the city many more millions to fix for the sake of the council taking morecouncil tax from these new residents.

The roads around this part of the city are already busy enough and this development doesnt haveenough parking on site - so this will push more cars into my part of town and no matter how muchpeople say they wont need a car, they will get one eventually.

This monstrosity will also put a lot of the dockside in the shade and the cold spots on the water willaffect the environment and as well as the water users, especially the Sailability disabled kids who

use this specific part of the docks for recreation every week. There are other sports and socialclubs that could also benefit from this space, rowing clubs, paddle boarders, kayakers, sailing etcand could help to improve the quality of life of all people in the city, not to pack in more people thatdo not need to be close to town anymore.

The height of this building will overshadow the Cottage pub and will be able to be seen from quitefar away and It doesnt suit the area.

The councils decision to pack as many properties into the docks area will impact the environment,the infrastructure and the feel of this historial and industrial part of the docks.

The rules for "affordable housing" need to be reviewed and need to ensure that buyers do notprofit from these opportunities.

Please reconsider this development and this land for other uses to benefit the city as a whole andnot just the council.

Miss Marion Baud  32 MEREDITH COURT CANADA WAY BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

We object to this application.

It will result in severe reduction of light for all the neighbouring properties. This is due to both theheight and the closeness of the buildings to the eastern edge of the site - if they were lower andfurther to the west of the site it would be much less impactful. Our property is a directlyneighbouring one, but was not included in the daylight impact analysis.

Removing existing trees will further decrease the air quality of BS1 and reduces the sense ofgreenery which is important for the mental health of urban dwellers.

It will increase the amount of heavy vehicles travelling along Cumberland road during theconstruction work. The path and riverbank by the road has already fallen into the river in severalplaces, and the road is known to have severe structural issues.

Mr Lewis Stewart  15 WEARE COURT CANADA WAY BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

I wish to object to the proposed development primarily for these reasons:

- The proposed buildings considerably higher than the adjacent housing in Baltic Wharf and willdominate, overshadow and block out light from all the properties closest to the new developmentas well as the Cottage Inn. Visually it will be out of keeping with the surrounds from all anglesincluding across the harbour.

- The development may be a risk following the current works to repair the river bank/Chocolatepath/Cumberland Road. Drilling and digging plus the use of heavy construction vehicles andequipment at the Caravan site will take place alongside or very soon after the current work. Thesafety and stability of the site, especially the entrance area, will not have been tested over timebefore the new work at the Caravan site starts. This does not seem to have been taken intoconsideration.

Mrs Diane Green  7 SPLATTS COTTAGES BUCKERELL HONITON  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

The caravan site is really lovely. I have visited Baltic Wharf on many occasions and Icannot believe that you are intending to turn this site into a high-rise housing estate. Very shortsighted!

I object to the loss of the trees, shrubs and hedgerows. I also object to the loss of the caravan siteas a valuable local amenity.

I object to the height of the proposed building which looks to be double the height of the adjoiningbuildings and the historic harbour. I think the new building looks completely out of place witheverything around it. The building should be lowered to half the current height.

I think any further building should be limited to the height of the Harbour Masters office and thehistoric harbour and boat yard buildings.

Better still, leave the whole area exactly as it is.

Mr joao gomes  1 WEARE COURT CANADA WAY BRISTOL  on 2021-05-10   OBJECT

I object to the proposed development on the grounds of overlooking and loss of directlight - by the developer's own account, my home will be severely affected by the loss of light to theextent that overshadowing. If this development goes ahead my home and garden will sufferextremely from a loss of both sunlight and privacy.- Privacy is essential to be able to enjoy the use of a garden and the west facing windows of thehouses in Baltic Wharf .This proposed development will overlook directly from above into ourgardens with no possibility to avoid or mitigate it- Sunlight - the developer's own report states that the ground floor windows of our home will havea dramatic reduction ( 0.63 factor) on the VSC, thus failing the regulatory criteria . The ground flooris where the kitchen and dining room are and where we spend a significant proportion of our time .This lack of light will directly impact our quality of life and is unacceptable !- Winter - this reduction of light will be extreme during the winter months as the sun is lower on thehorizon, forcing us to keep the lights on even during daytime !- Garden sun exposure - sunlight hours will go from 7 to 3.3 , a >60% reduction. This will impactour ability to grow flowers and maintain the existing trees and bushes that make our life here somuch more pleasant

I object on the grounds of wind and airflow - the building of such a tall development in closeproximity to my house will undoubtedly create wind "tunnels" where the prevailing westerly wind isaccelerated .This is confirmed on the wind report section 4.1.16 where the conclusion is that thearea around my house will no longer be suitable for its use, thus having an impact on our ability tobe able to stay outdoors in the garden and potentially even damage property like flower pots etc.The effect of this wind acceleration on the roofs and exterior of the house is also a concern

I object on the grounds of noise and disturbance : the proposed development will have the overground car park and access roads literally adjacent to the boundary wall and a mere 2-3 metersfrom my garden. The inhabitants of the development will move their cars at anytime of day ornight, and with all the windows in my house facing directly to the site this will create disturbanceand impact on my ability to sleep.My job as an commercial airline pilot requires me to be fully rested and fit to perform my duties,this will undoubtedly affect my ability to do so

As a final note, this development's scale and height are totally at odds with the current andexpected developments in this part of town, and will be an eye sore that the council will regret foryears to come.I understand houses are needed, but make it in a sustainable, lower density and sensible way

Thank you

Mrs M Williams   1 AVON CRESCENT HOTWELLS BRISTOL  on 2021-05-09   OBJECT

I object to the size of this development, in particular its height. It is disproportionate toeverything else in the area and is an eye sore on the landscape.

A building of this size will also add considerable pollution and traffic to the area.

Ms Katherine Martin  20 CORNWALLIS AVENUE HOTWELLS BRISTOL  on 2021-05-09   OBJECT

These buildings are too high for their surroundings. This is an area full of heritage andnew buildings need to blend in.

Ms Katherine Leney   5, LEIGHTON RD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-09   OBJECT

I frequently use this area of the docks for walking, meeting friends at the Cottage puband gig rowing from the slip way. It is often busy in this area and i would like to see more publicspace here. Building residential buildings will mean the area will be private with limited access forthe public. As this land is currently owned by Bristol City Council I would like to see it remain as apublic space. It would be a good place for a park with a cafe or food outlet, open to all. Also as thisis inside the soon to be Bristol clean air zone I would like to see it being used as a green space tocontribute positively to clean air, rather than bring more cars to the area with the pollution theycause.

Thank you for considering my points of objection.

Mrs Catherine Brookes  266 HOTWELL ROAD HOTWELLS BRISTOL  on 2021-05-09   OBJECT

the design of these dwellings are not in keeping with the surrounding area and are tootall. There does not appear to have been due consideration of green issues, such as the loss oftrees and sound which is magnified near water that will inevitably increase. There would be moretraffic on a road that has already proved too weak to support the current traffic and has been out ofaction for subsidence for far too long.

Mr Malcolm Campbell Ritchie   1 ROWNHAM MEAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-09   OBJECT

This development is massively out of keeping for the area. The size of the developmentis hugely out of proportion for the low rise aspect of this historical area.

The existing caravan park provides a valuable and unique asset for the city. It would be a shameto loose such an asset for the city.

The apartments whilst advertised as affordable are harbour/river views so will not be affordable tomany bristolians or least will very quickly not be affordable. There are no schools or other facilitiesin the area. Indeed this site was originally earmarked for a school. Parking and traffic access onCumberland Road/ Avon Crescent is already an issue, which would only be made worse by 166extra households.

Mr Ian Parsons  37 POOLES WHARF COURT BRISTOL  on 2021-05-09   OBJECT

I was extremely disappointed to hear that the caravan site is to be developed, the lossof a well loved facility is being sacrificed for new housing. Whilst there is a demand for newhousing the waterside is a unique area and any space or facility now appears to be an area formore blocks of flats. If it is to be developed the proposed development is out of character with theunique position, and specifically the surrounding area. I thought this site was in a conservationarea, the City Docks Conservation Area. A relative green flat site is to be replaced with a high rise,high density blocks of flats. Surely this cannot reflect the character of the current use, nor that ofthe surrounding area. The proposed height of the development is substantially higher than anynearby building, and is massively overbearing on the immediate surrounding area of Baltic wharfand the Cottage and Marina buildings.The flats will add to the congested area, both from the road use but also from the pedestrian useon the harbourside. It does not appear that there are sufficient parking spaces, which will beneeded for most the flats, especially those with additional bedrooms. The flats are likely to attractresidents with one or more cars. The street parking is already full, so I am at a loss as to wherethe cars will be parked. This will result in more pollution not less.

Mrs Cherry Scott  12 OLD SCHOOL LANE, CLIFTON BRISTOL  on 2021-05-09   OBJECT

We look across the harbour towards this potential development from our house. Welove the harbourside and the tasteful developments. However, we enjoy the remaining trees and itwould be criminal to lose those.A high rise building in this area would be very ugly next to the 3 and 4 storey buildings.I strongly object to further cramming in of more homes into this area

Ms Valerie Steel  16 AVON CRESCENT BRISTOL  on 2021-05-08   OBJECT

This development is TOO TALL and massive. The whole site is raised which means thatthe blocks are actually 6.5 and 7.5 storeys in relation to neighbouring buildings and on the skyline.It is disingenuous, at best, of the developer to claim they are 5 and 6. To then claim it 'respondssensitively to local context', and is an 'organic extension' when nothing anywhere close is morethan 4 is outrageous. They get nearer an accurate description when describing it as 'prominent','significant due to its height and massing' and 'particularly apparent from various key viewpoints'.Photomontages 3 and 4 show quite how massively out of scale it is.This is not the right development for such an important conservation area, so close to nationallyimportant sites like the Underfall Yard. Even their own downplayed assessment of a 'moderate'impact means 'changes to the setting of an historic building such that it is significantly modified'.Why introduce a development that damages rather than enhances the area? Visual Assessment 5shows how the view of the bonded warehouse from Hotwell road is obliterated by the scale ofthese buildings.Photomontage 4 shows how changed this end of the harbour would be from a low rise, open viewsenvironment and this is without taking into account the proposed Paynes shipyard developmentthat blocks off through views on the other side of the Cottage.This proposal should go back to the drawing board. It is a lazy cut and paste of Wapping Wharf,taking no account of the sensitivity of the site, wilfully destroying mature trees on the site thatcould have been incorporated, and resembling an alien space station on its absurd raisedplatform.

Mr Richard Townsend  5A THE CAUSEWAY CONGRESBURY, BRISTOL  on 2021-05-08   OBJECT

With reference to Planning Application: 21/01331/F - Erection of residential dwellings(166), commercial floorspace, integrated car and bicycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping andassociated infrastructure and services at Caravan Club Cumberland Road Bristol BS1 6XG

I recently looked at the plans and, in particular, the photo montages for this proposed developmentas I am a frequent visitor to the harbourside, following a route from around the Nova Scotia PHinto the city along the south side of the Floating Harbour. I object strongly to the proposeddevelopment. The design of the proposed building is unattractive and out of character withsurrounding area.

The application site is located within the City Docks Conservation Area and close to UnderfallYard. The western end of the harbour is used for water sports and recreation, boat building andother light industrial activity. It has the peaceful ambiance of a traditional working harbour which isfar removed from the scale of development at the other end of the harbourside towards the towncentre. As a development it is far too dominant for the setting by virtue of its height, siting, scale,bulk, massing, form and overall design and as such is contrary to local plan policies BCS21 of theCore Strategy 2011, DM26, DM27, DM29 and DM31 of Site Allocations and DevelopmentManagement Policies 2014 and the NPPF 2019.

I believe that the accepted definition of a high-rise is a building of 18 metres or higher. This is theheight used to define a high-rise building in the Hackett Review 2018 in their review of the GrenfellTower disaster. The proposed new development at the caravan site is considerably higher than 18metres and should be lowered on grounds of safety, visual impact and effect on the conservationarea.

I hope that the Planning Committee will consider these objections and refuse the planningapplication in order that a more sympathetic application in terms of scale will be submitted as arevision.

Regards

Richard Townsend

Mr Chris Paul  22 NAPIER COURT BALTIC WHARF BRISTOL  on 2021-05-08   OBJECT

I object to the proposed planning due to the concerns below.

I understand the need for housing (though I suspect these won't be affordable in this watersidelocation) however the design of this development is totally out of keeping with the harboursidearea. It dwarfs the other buildings and the landscape.

I feel that if the height was further reduced to 2-3 storeys this would be much more in keeping withthe existing character of this part of the harbour and would also set a precedent for the furtherdevelopment of the 'Western Harbour' thus avoiding future developers thinking they could getaway with even higher buildings. I believe that height considerations outweigh the need for thestated efficient use of development land.

Any new development must take account of the unique historical siteing of the floating harbourand the accessibility of leisure activities for all. We are in danger of developing a high risedesirable flatland attached to water. The more we box the Floating Harbour in with high rise flatsthe more sterile it will become.

The one thing we have learnt from this pandemic, especially now that people are working fromhome more, is that small communities support each other. Large sterile blocks of flats don't.

This is not a NIMBY objection; it is an observation for the future of Bristol. I always thought that theFloating Harbour was Bristol's greatest asset both for the locals and for tourism not just the peoplewho are fortunate to live there. Bath redeveloped its city centre to keep in keeping with thehistorical period. It worked and tourism prospered not to mention the wellbeing of its residents.

This planning is a lifetime decision; its outcome will impact on Bristol forever. I don't want to seethe floating harbour and the Baltic Wharf development dwarfed by high rise buildings which aretotally out of character.

Mrs Carole Paul  25 WEARE COURT BALTIC WHARF BRISTOL  on 2021-05-08   OBJECT

Bristol's Floating Harbour from the M Shed, museums, SS Great Britton the Marina,Camping & Caravan park, Underfall Ship Building Yard to the pumping station is a magicrecreational & historic area that is a unique asset to the City of Bristol. It is a conservation areaand rightly so, because once it is destroyed it is gone forever.

The floating harbour is extensively used for water sports & the paths beside the harbour arealways busy with walkers, runners & cyclists of ALL ages. The caravan park provides a place forvisitors & tourists to stay & bring their business to the area and Bristol as a whole.

Height of buildingIt is therefore extremely surprising that the plans for this over bearing, oversized building has evenbeen submitted. Other than for greed & money.

Baltic Wharf Residential Development, to the East of this site, has mainly 2 story buildings with amaximum of 3 floors.In your proposed plan buildings A and B have ground floor (LG), 1st floor (You call it UG) plus 4more additional floors. That makes it a 5 story Building. The names of the floors are immaterial.Similarly Building F would be a 6 story building.

All of this is Twice the height of the neighbouring development and quite out of character with thisarea of the floating harbour.

The buildings do not only look wrong at the currently proposed heights they will also seriouslyaffect the light that currently is available to the Baltic Wharf development to the East of this sight.

The residents of the Baltic Wharf development currently enjoy the westerly sky and sunsets whichwill be obliterated by the proposed development. In addition the rich foliage on this site will havethe sunlight stolen from them so photosynthesis will be less efficient and affect the green growth.

Tree Felling on the plan:Surely, this is not allowed in a conservation area and a Clean Air Zone?The contribution they currently make by removing Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere andproducing Oxygen.In addition they help to remove water from the environment by Transpiration.

Flooding:Concreting over the major part of this sight means that flooding is more likely to occur.The water, which always flows down hill, is likely to flow from the raised ground floor (ie 1st. floor)to the surrounding properties.

Cumberland Road:The River Avon with its massive swing in tides has already breached the flood defences onCumberland Road. This is beside this proposed new development. Causing road closures &diverting the M2 metro route that has been the pride of Bristol's Public Transport.The extra weight of traffic together with drilling for foundations is likely to cause even moredamage.

Parking:Where will the residents & their visitors park their cars?

Conclusion:This is a well used site for recreation and not an ugly brown site.I believe that this building development on the Caravan Club park is totally out of place, oversized& ugly. I believe it should not be given planning permission & that Bristol should retain therecreational asset and its industrial archaeology for future generations.

Ms Amelia Scanlan  10 WEARE COURT CANADA WAY BRISTOL  on 2021-05-07   OBJECT

This development would severely negatively impact my residence and those of myneighbours.

Mr Peter Herridge  37 WESTBROOK COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-07   OBJECT

Further to my earlier comments dated May 1st I would like to make the followingOBJECTION to the proposed development on the following FLOOD RISK grounds.

The proposed development is entirely located in an area that is zoned by the Environment Agencyas Flood Zone 3 / Flood Zone 2 ( high / medium risk of flooding ). Such development should besubject to both the Sequential Test and the Exception Test set out in the NPPF.

Sequential TestNPPF Para 165 advises " The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas withthe lowest risk of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there arereasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk offlooding. The strategic flood risk assessment will provide the basis for applying this test ".

Accordingly the development proposal is accompanied by a Sequential Test dated Sept 2020 andI am satisfied that this document demonstrates the acceptability of the principle of permittingdevelopment on the site .

Exception TestNPPF (para 160) advises ;

For the exception test to be passed it should be demonstrated that:a) the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh theflood risk; and

b) the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users,without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.Para 161 advises . "Both elements of the exception test should be satisfied for development to beallocated or permitted".

Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)In an attempt to satisfy the Exception Test the development proposal has been accompanied byan FRA dated 30th November 2020. The consulting engineers have not themselves calculated a"design " water level for the proposed development but have instead adopted those used in theBristol City Council's Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SRFA) . Thus the FRA (Table 3) adoptsthe modelled flood water levels of 10.46m AOD as the "design" water level for the "MoreVulnerable" residential floor levels and 9.85m AOD when considering the "Less Vulnerable"development uses. The FRA properly adopts the precautionary approach advocated in NPPF andpromotes floor levels 300mm above the calculated flood water levels.

It is important to note that existing ground levels on the site vary between 9.48m AOD and8.07mAOD so it can readily be seen that in the "design" flood conditions in the year 2120 thedepth of flooding within the site will be 2.39m.

By contrast to the precautionary approach adopted above the FRA (para 4.2.1.1) proposes aLower Ground Floor at 8.00m AOD. This level is well below existing site levels and will thereforerequire ground levels to be lowered in this flood risk area such that the entire site will becomeFlood Zone 3 "High Probability" of flooding. This element of the proposal increases flood risk onthe site and is contrary to all prevailing government guidance. In such a "High risk" area only"water compatible" development and "infrastructure that has to be there" should be permitted.

The FRA advises ;

" The proposed finished floor level of the lower ground floor level is 8.000m AOD. It isacknowledged that ......................accordingly the lower ground floor level will be at risk offlooding........". .

It goes on to advise .......The majority of the lower ground floor level (i.e. commercial spaces, carparking area, general storage, cycle storage and refuse areas) is to be designed and constructedso as to be flood resilient, i.e. allow water entry, but be designed and constructed so as to limit anydamage from flood water and be able to return to 'normal-use' as quickly as possible followingflooding.

It is important to note that the proposed Lower Ground Floor would be at risk of flooding today to adepth that is unsafe for most users / uses. In the "design" flood conditions adopted in the FRA the

Lower Ground Floor will flood to depth well in excess of 2 metres in depth. Such flooding will befrequent, unsafe and a danger to life.

GeneralAs set out above, NPPF (para 160) advises . " For the exception test to be passed it should bedemonstrated that:

a) the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh theflood risk; andb) the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users,without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

While NPPF para 161 advises; Both elements of the exception test should be satisfied fordevelopment to be allocated or permitted.

It is my contention that the proposed development is unsafe for the following reasons.

It promotes inappropriate development in areas that are liable to deep flooding and that in thelifetime of the development will be at risk of deep and frequent flooding to depths that are a risk tolife.

The FRA does not satisfactorily address the critical issue of the speed of tidal inundation of thesite. The FRA recognises that tidal flooding is the biggest source of flood risk to the site but doeslittle to address risks associated with speed of tidal inundation of the site which will be rapid. Thisis particularly important in the more extreme tidal conditions that threaten the site and whichprevail in the Bristol Channel / River Avon. This speed of site inundation poses a significant risk tolife of not only those in the Lower Ground Floor but also those in the "Less Vulnerable" and "MoreVulnerable" areas at risk as such tidal inundation may exceed the FRA's "design" flood conditions.

The FRA has not addressed the issue of the Velocity of flood water crossing the site during arange of overtopping and/or flood defence failure scenarios.The FRA has not satisfactorily addressed the safety of those on the site and the flood riskassociated with exceedance events that exceed the "design" flood events.The increases in flood risk set out above invariably result in demands upon the public purse toimplement measures that will reduce the flooding risks. These future costs are typically borne bythe public and not the developer.

Given all of the above it is clear that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment is unsound as it, a)promotes a development that will significantly increase existing and future flooding risks on thesite, and b) does not promote a development that is safe for its lifetime . Accordingly the ExceptionTest has not been satisfied and in accordance with NPPF the proposed development should berefused until such time as these matters have been satisfactorily addressed.

Mr Joseph Goharnejad  FELIAN HUNTWORTH BRIDGWATER  on 2021-05-07   OBJECT

As a young person growing up in Bristol I have been fortunate enough to experiencesailing and other water sports on the harbour through the services of AllAboard. They do afantastic job of bringing water sports to young people, the elderly and people with physical andmental challenges. I think a building of this size will cause a lot of wind turbulence in thedesignated water sports area and make sailing instruction and paddling water sports morehazardous and dangerous. I would also say that many of the people AllAboard deal with areseverely challenged and often of a nervous disposition, the current hedge and tree screen in frontof the caravan park creates a calming environment. I think that a large block of flats with manypeople looking down will create a more threatening environment and make the task of gettingpeople on and off the water more hazardous. Getting on and off the water is always the mostdangerous part of the exercise particularly for vulnerable people. I looked at the wind assessmentin the planning proposal and I could only find references to pedestrians, not a single mention ofwater users! You are planning to build right on top of the designated water sports area and yetthere is no mention of the negative effects of the development on water users.

The western end of the harbour is rich in historical interest and industrial archeology being thehome of the Underfall Yard. Any further development here needs to be of a very sensitive natureand in tune with the existing environment. The proposed building is a monster, it is far too high andtotally dwarfs the existing buildings at Baltic Wharf, the Cottage pub and the Underfall Yard. Fromthe look of the photomontage the new building is utterly domineering and shares little in characterwith those buildings already in the area. Any building here should be limited to two or three storeysin height.

The proposal states that this is a brown field site, it isn't, it is a beautiful green oasis on the

harbourside and home to many mature shrubs and trees. To cut down these trees in the currentstate of climate change would be unforgivable. The city needs every tree it has. If there is anybuilding here it should be a condition that it is low rise and built around the shrubs and treesalready on the site. Better still, leave it alone and leave it as it is. The caravan site is a valuableasset to the city that brings in visitors and trade for the existing attractions, it is a wonderful greenarea that exists in perfect symbiosis with the designated water sports area of the harbour.Theproposal is for the benefit of a handful of rich people who can afford the fancy apartments withharbour views and to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Bristolians.

Mr Oliver Copper  56 UPPER EAST HAYES BATH  on 2021-05-07   OBJECT

The proposed works will ruin the whole feel of this beautiful place. Please let us try andpreserve a part of old Bristol. Don't go down the 'money making' route.

Mr Keith Pavey  23 WESTGATE CALEDONIAN ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-07   OBJECT

LOSS OF CARAVAN SITE - The loss of the existing caravan site is highly regrettableas it provides an almost unique city-based opportunity in the UK for touring visitors. Thereplacement site is demonstrably inferior to the current facility, sitting as it does between a railwayline and a main road with no direct access to the waterside and some distance from the harbour.

POLITICAL MOTIVATION - It appears that a political decision has been taken to curtail theexisting neighbourhood friendly use and to seriously over-develop the site for housing. We areexpected to accept the scheme for which Planning Permission is now sought even though it istotally out of keeping with its surroundings and will dramatically change the tranquil low keycharacter of this attractive western end of the floating harbour. If this scheme is a foretaste of theMayor's vision for the 'Western Harbour' then we should all be gravely concerned.

It is vital that we recognise the importance of retaining some open space in the city as a foil to thehubbub of daily life and this area of the harbour provides relative tranquility for both residents andvisitors alike. The development of every available harbourside site for high density housing shouldbe vigorously resisted before it is too late.

Given that Bristol City Council is client, land owner and developer ( via Goram Homes ) as well asthe planning authority, there are potential conflicts of interest within the development team andlittle opportunity for the level of scrutiny one would normally expect to be applied in such sensitivesituations.Maximising returns for the city and railroading the planning process is not the best way to achievegood outcomes and this is evidenced by the vast number of passionate objections submitted inrespect of the application. The harbour would be much better off without this development but if it

must proceed then I strongly object to the application in its current form for the following reasons:

DENSITY - The quoted Urban Living SPG promotes a density of up to 200 units per hectare in citycentre locations and this parameter has been applied to the site. The site is quite clearly not in thecity centre and if it has been categorised as such then this is wrong. The site has a low key almostsuburban character and new development should respect this in the form of reduced densities andsmaller scale buildings.

CONSERVATION AREA STATUS - The site is located within the City Docks Conservation Areawhich very clearly states that new development should respect the scale and character of itsimmediate surroundings. The City Docks Character Area Appraisal states that applicants mustshow how the local character of the area will be respected. With the proposed buildings twice theheight of their neighbours and some severe overshadowing of adjoining areas such respect hasnot been demonstrated. If this scheme is approved it will create a dangerous precedent for thedensity of future development in the area. This may well be one of the applicant's objectives.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING - The need to provide more affordable housing in Bristol is understoodand some units could be successfully integrated into a smaller scale scheme on this site.However, the thrust to achieve a 40% provision has clearly generated the need to increase thedensity to a level where there is sufficient open market housing to generate the profit targeted byBCC. The affordable housing element should be reduced in order to deliver a smaller scalescheme which is better suited to its surroundings. Affordable homes, yes, but not at a level whichseverely damages this hitherto harmonious environment forever.

SCALE AND HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS - The site is grossly overdeveloped and reference to themany CGI perspectives provided by the applicant only serves to show just how bulky and out ofplace the development will look from every angle. If development is to proceed the scheme shouldbe re-designed on the basis of 3 to 4 storey buildings which are in keeping with their surroundings.

TREE LOSS - The loss of most if not all of the existing trees, many of which are attractive, healthyspecimens, is a tragedy and frankly indefensible in what purports to be a forward thinking 'green'city With a different, lower key brief a skilled design team would be able to work many of them intoa sensitive scheme which responds to the constraints of the site rather than sweeping them away.The so-called biodiverse scheme offered by the applicant as a platitude is unlikely to deliver in thereal world and will, in any event, take years to reach maturity. It will require a high level ofmaintenance, particularly in its early years, which I suspect the Council will be reluctant to provide,and the scheme will suffer as a consequence.

SITE PLANNING - The site planning is bizarre in that it brings new buildings closer to the existingBaltic Wharf residences to the east side than on the west side where there is a deeper courtyardspace abutting the adjoining boat storage shed where overlooking is not a problem. The existingresidences at the edge of Baltic Wharf will be overshadowed for much of the day and their privacy

severely compromised. There are some passionate objections from residents on this matter. Hadthe site planning strategy been reversed then a deeper space could have been provided on theeastern site reducing the overshadowing and creating a much more neighbourhood friendly plan.

BUILDING PLANNING - The internal planning of the buildings is very tight with a number of longcorridors with single staircases serving up to 7 or 8 flats. As a result the internal environment willnot be pleasant and it is surprising that in the light of the Grenfell tragedy BCC would wish toproceed with a single staircase scheme where building regulation compliance will rely on pushingmeans of escape criteria to their limit.

PEDESTRIAN CONGESTION - The harbourside walkway in front of the site is frequentlycongested, and there is often a real bottleneck to negotiate, particularly in front of the Cottage Inn.The additional activity generated by the development will worsen this congestion and the highbuildings will overshadow the area for much of the day. The area currently exhibits a quieter, lowerkey character than other parts of the harbour, and this will be eroded by the development thuscreating a clone of the Wapping Wharf area which would be highly regrettable.

COMMERCIAL SPACE - Whilst the commercial units included in the scheme are a convenientway to use the otherwise redundant space at walkaway level they are not needed. In the eventthat they are let to food/drink operators this will only add to the current congestion and furthercontribute to littering which is a real problem even now. Reference is made in the application topossible arts/museum uses which frankly, in this location sounds like pie in the sky. The risk is thatthese units will remain unlet and unsightly.

CAR PARKING - The low level of car parking clearly aligns with BCC's thrust to reduce carownership in Bristol. The problem is that the scheme contains a relatively high number of 2 and 3bed flats which are more likely to attract families where the wish to own a car is more likely. Thiswill attract more car borne visitors to the site. Parking on Spike Island is already at a premium andthe presence of this scheme is bound to make the situation worse, not to mention generatingaddition traffic movement and emissions within the forthcoming low emission zone.

Ms Sarah Jackson  2 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-06   OBJECT

The development does not confirm to the Bristol Central Area Plan: "Developmentadjacent to the Floating Harbour will be expected to be of a scale and design appropriate to itssetting, reflecting the special interest and visual prominence of quayside areas and character andsetting of the surviving historic buildings and fabric and preserving and enhancing views to andfrom the Floating Harbour. Development adjacent to the Floating Harbour will be expected toretain, restore and integrate existing dockside furniture and fittings and make provision wherepossible for additional vessel moorings."

The height and density of this development is inappropriate for this location and will be to thedetriment of the character of this part the harbourside that has a relaxed character currentlyenjoyed for its peace and tranquillity by residents, visitors and tourists.

This area of the harbour has a totally different character and sense of place from that of theeastern harbour area that is closer to the city centre.This proposal appears to duplicate the Wapping Wharf style development that is appropriate to itslocation being adjacent to large industrial buildings of M Shed and Arnolfini. Here it will be totallyout of character with the Baltic Wharf/Underfall Yard area of the Conservation Area, that is awayfrom the city centre, is known for quiet leisure activities (including sailing, paddle boarding), is anaccessible place on foot and by bike to escape the bustle of the bars/retail area of Wapping Wharfand has low rise residential development.

The loss of character and impact that this development will have on this area of the harboursidewill be to the detriment of Bristol as a whole as it risks losing its identity to become just anotherhigh rise waterfront that you see at Portishead and Cardiff.

The proposed development therefore does not conform to Bristol City Council's Site Allocationsand Development Management Policy BCAP9: "Existing cultural, tourist and water-basedrecreation facilities should be retained in those uses and enhanced where possible unlessappropriate replacement facilities are provided in a suitable alternative location."

The development also conflicts with the Councils 'Conservation Area 17 City Docks and CharacterAppraisal and Management Proposals' document that describes the predominant features of thisarea's '' Scale & Proportions - Low rise, tightly planned residential developments to the west end -Industrial, low-rise warehouses and sheds facing the waterfront''It lists threats as- Unsympathetic developments that result in loss of key views and panoramas or fail to respect theindustrial character, scale and material palette of the area- Increase in high-rise residential developments that unbalance the sensitive mix of commercial/industrial/leisure/cultural/residential uses- Reduced permeability and legibility resulting from new developments

The proposed development presents all of these threats.

The Conservation Area appraisal also states:''9.2 Pedestrian and Traffic Conflicts - The high volume of vehicular traffic through parts of theConservation Area, notably around the periphery routes, can cause conflicts with visual amenityand visitor experience. Cumberland Road is a fast, heavily trafficked route; parking spaces are onthe south side, and pedestrians have to cross the busy main road to reach Spike Island, SS GreatBritain and south side of the Floating Harbour.''

The development proposal will increase traffic on Cumberland Road, that in addition to amount oftraffic on the road, and being the only access onto Spike Island, questions whether the structurecan take the construction and additional residential traffic, having recently experienced collapse.

''9.7 Unsympathetic Infill & New Development New development or infill that fails to respect thecharacter of an area, ignores the predominant building lines, scale, proportions, details ormaterials, or which obstructs important views or cuts of pedestrian routes, can cause serious harmto the special interest of the Conservation Area. ''

''9.8 Loss of Views -The loss of views, either to key landmarks within or outside the conservationarea, or to landscapes or sites beyond is impacting negatively on the character of theConservation Area.''

All of the photomontages show the bulk of this development is out of scale and proportion with thecharacter of the area.

The photomontages not included are any from the Baltic Wharf estate itself, yet the developmentwill tower over this development, blocking out views out of the estate at the eastern end androbbing adjacent properties of daylight and loss of privacy. This should be provided to show howoverbearing the development will be on the estate.

The photomontage 1 shows the height of the development will block the view of Leigh Woods thatcan be seen as you approach by the footbridge from Coronation Road. This image clearly showsthat the development should not be above the height of the existing Baltic Wharf development tomaintain views of the skyline, and to be proportionate to existing development.

The photomontage 2 shows the development as viewed from Cumberland Road as approach fromthe west is a high rise block that dwarfs the wooden sailing club buildings and creates no sense ofplace. It will be to the detriment of Bristol as an arrival point (Metrobus route) for visitors coming infrom the Long Ashton Park and Ride and airport.Currently the approach into the city has an open feel, with trees and low rise residential where youhave sense of being close to the waterfront and have views through.It appears that the Cumberland Road side of the development is viewed as 'the back' with flatroofs that are out of character with the current residential development on both sides of The Cut -Cumberland Road and Coronation Road.

The Conservation Area appraisal refers to the importance of viewpoints from Coronation Road intothe conservation area.

The proposed development therefore does not comply with Bristol City Council's Site Allocationsand Development Management Policy DM27: "Height, Scale and Massing - The height, scale andmassing of development should be appropriate to the immediate context, site constraints,character of adjoining streets and spaces, the setting, public function and/or importance of theproposed development and the location within the townscape. Design solutions should optimiseadaptability and energy efficiency and promote health and wellbeing."

Adequacy of green space - there is a lack of public amenity green space and habitat for wildlife inthe harbourside area.

This majority of 'green' in this development is roof space that will provide insufficient publicamenity for the number of flats and the habitat proposed is unlikely to support biodiversity at thescale required for connectivity to other habitats.The One City Ecological Emergency Strategy aims to increase the area in Bristol managed forwildlife and as part of the green recovery from Covid the importance of access to green space forhealth is recognised as key to this. Any development by Goram Homes and on this or any Councilowned sites should be exemplar schemes of the highest standards for green infrastructure andshould be adopting and seeking Building with Nature standards and accreditation.

It is also unclear what the management arrangement is for the proposed public space andresidential areas within the development.

Adequacy of parking - the proposed development creates a risk of overflow onto the roads in andaround Baltic Wharf and subsequently the loss of a valuable residential amenity for the BalticWharf residents.

Mr Dennis Gornall  16 GRANBY HILL BRISTOL  on 2021-05-06   OBJECT

Application 21/01331/F Baltic Wharf Caravan Site

The Hotwells and Cliftonwood Community Association (HCCA) has noticed the large number oflocal addresses making objection to this development. We have looked at the detail of most ofthese objections and notice a common theme. Whilst expressed in different ways, all these areobjecting to the height of the development.

The HCCA is fully supportive of residential development on this site now that the Caravan Clubhas secured an appropriate alternative site. We are also pleased to note the potential availablecommunity space within the development. We would support any opportunity that development ofthis site might bring for supporting and enhancing the adjacent sailing club facilitiesHowever, the HCCA is adding its name, along with so many of our residents, to the objections onthe grounds of height. We believe that the difference in height is overbearing to the adjacentbuildings in both the Baltic Wharf estate and the Cottage Pub and the Sailing club buildings. Wedo not feel that this is in keeping with the general scale and height of buildings at this end of theharbour. This is particularly noticeable with the harbour facing buildings. The special character ofthe area where people come to relax and enjoy the harbour is under threat with the intensificationof this development.We believe that if this development is given permission then it will set a precedence for moreintensive buildings which will contribute to the over development of the area and overshadow theexisting waterside developments and change the character of the area.

Until this matter is addressed we believe the application should fail.

In addition to the consistency of view in the community regarding height we feel we shouldcomment on community facilities and infrastructure. The residents of Spike Island are alreadyquite badly served and with the new residents of this development we think there will be the needfor more than cafes and restaurants. This is Council property and effectively Council development.Proper provision for services should be part of the development.The development should be part of the harbour community from the start and have suitablespace/s for use by the boating community as well as by the residential community.We would welcome the inclusion of public toilet facilities which are so badly lacking in the area.

Dennis GornallChairman Hotwells and Cliftonwood Community Association

Ms Ana Jorge  GROUND FLOOR 15 WAVERLY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-06   SUPPORT

I believe vthis monstrous building should not be built do closed to other residentialbuildings.

Mr Nigel Daniel  43 ROWNHAM MEAD HOTWELLS  on 2021-05-06   OBJECT

I am disappointed with the loss of the Caravan site as I view this a s a great asset to theCity; however, I recognise the need for housing and the alternative site for the caravans at theformer Police Horse and Dog site will provide reasonable leisure access.

I am a supporter of housing being developed in the inner City as opposed to the outskirts and thisis an ideal site; however, I object to the proposed plans on following grounds:-

* The height of the waterfront apartments; with the commercial ground floor this is a huge "block"on the waters edge; cannot the development be staggered form front to back with say a maximumof 3 storeys at the front in common with surrounding developments at Baltic Wharf and RownhamMead? This would involve the loss of only a few dwellings and potentially none if the Commercialunits are scrapped.

* The harbour area is well supported with commercial units, pubs, cafes and convenience stores(both at Baltic Wharf and Hotwells Road; the new development will not in itself support furtherretail or leisure units and the current empty units in Hotwells Road demonstrate the currentsaturation.

* With climate change at the top of the Agenda, the loss of the mature trees from the site iscriminal on ecological grounds let alone ascetic ones; there is little greenery around the harbourand the trees in front of Baltic Wharf and the trees and hedges around the caravan site break upthe otherwise sterile dockside.

I reluctantly accept this site must be developed but the current plans should be rejected in terms of

the harbourside mass and the loss of greenery. A better development can be designed.

Mr NIck Fleet  40 WEARE COURT BRISTOL  on 2021-05-06   OBJECT

In support of other residents of Baltic Wharf who have objected to this planningapplication, I support the following concerns with the development. Whilst it is recognised thatmore housing in Bristol, this application does not fix that issue:

1 - Access to parkingThe application has not suitably mitigated the parking risk for local residents. 166 residentialdwellings, and their visitors, do not have adequate parking facilities & the local car-sharingschemes are not mature enough to support this demand. Existing local residents will suffer & thecurrent demand on public parking overwhelmed, especially with the Council's plans to makeCumberland road a 1-way system.

2 - HeightThe proposals are out of proportion, overbearing and will cause overshadowing to several homesand gardens. They are significantly taller than neighbouring developments & will dominate thebeautiful, historic harbour buildings currently in existence.

3 - Context of the historic harbourThe design of the proposed buildings is unattractive, out of character with the existing landscapeand far too dominant for the setting. The application site is located within the City DocksConservation Area and close to Underfall Yard. The western end of the harbour is used for watersports and recreation, boat building and other light industrial activity. It has the peaceful ambienceof a traditional working harbour and is vastly different from the city centre - which this designseems to replicate.

4 - Removal of Caravan ParkThe proposed development displaces the caravan and motorhome park, which is unanimouslyrecognised as an asset to the city. We understand the growing need for housing, but this shouldnot be satisfied at the expense of an established leisure facility that supports employment andtourism within Bristol. Visitors to the site contribute towards the local economy, providing customto the nearby tourist attractions, pubs and eateries. They also venture on foot, by bike or by ferryfurtherinto the city centre, where they spend more money.

5 - Construction NoiseBaltic Wharf residents continue to put up with the disruptive noise from the Cumberland Roadworks. Whilst this is recognised as an essential work, which will continue for another year, severalyears of noise disruption from the this development has not been suitably considered through thecommunity engagements.

I therefore object to the application in its current form.

Miss Ines Galvao  FLAT 4 CAPITAL EDGE, 100 HOTWELL ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-06   OBJECT

This is a monstrous complex in the middle of a lovely neighbourhood - it doesn't belongthere! It will ruin lovely harbour we currently have. Definitely against such a horrible build.

Mr Colin Hudson  19 MAYCLIFFE PARK, BRISTOL BS6 5JH  on 2021-05-06   OBJECT

I have lived, studied, worked and am now retired in Bristol - I regard it as my 'hometown'.I have therefore seen many changes in the city and am particularly aware of this historical area ofthe city and the changes that have already occurred here.This proposed development is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area. It would dominatethe skyline at this end of the harbour and dwarf the neighbouring buildings. It would utterly changethe character of the whole area and is contrary to BCC's own commitments to sympatheticbuilding in historic areas of the city.Bristol should be doing its best to retain the unique character and attractiveness of the harbourand not turn every available space into a high-rise housing estate.I also strongly object to the felling of the mature trees on this site. The mayor continues to pretendthat he is 'greening the city', but felling mature trees and planting small trees to make up for it isnonsense and a 'con', as both the carbon capturing ability and the amenity value are lost, and asfor air quality, well BCC continually fail to do anything meaningful about the poisoning of the air forthe city's inhabitants.

This site is a key and precious part of the historic heritage of Bristol - this proposal will totallydestroy it's visual amenity and character, and future generations will look back and think 'whatwere they thinking of in 2021 ?'

I object most strongly to this application and urge it to be rejected.

Mr Roger Dickinson  36 ROWNHAM MEAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-06   OBJECT

They are not attractive buildings and are certainly much too high.The buildings are in a widely visible area and will therefore damage the view of a significant part ofthe water front

Mrs Helen Saunders  HOPE COURT CANADA WAY, HOTWELLS, BRISTOL, BRISTOL BS1 6XU  on 2021-05-06   OBJECT

I wish to voice my objections for the planning application for the proposed developmentof the Baltic Wharf Caravan Park.

The Caravan Park is a wonderful asset for a city the size of Bristol to have at its heart, it is inconstant use and brings no end of potential positive benefit to local businesses and the widerarea. To consider building even a small development on this piece of recreational land is awful.

Volume and height.The height proposal is more than double that of its residential neighbours. There seems to havebeen a blatant disregard for the surrounding residential architecture when the design process hastaken place. Other buildings of a similar size have been referenced around the harbour to theproposed but they are mostly all buildings of a commercial nature. The proposal is almost thescale of the bonded warehouses built in the early 1900's to accommodate imports, which are notbuildings designed for housing either then or now. The massive prospective overshadowing of allsurrounding buildings can be clearly seen in the photomontages depicted in the application.Although, I find some of the drawings not truly illustrating a "street scene" which should show anelevation of the entire site depicting surrounding architecture with all that existing architecture'sfeatures, not just shown as a massing block as it appears in the plans. These drawings shouldshow the same level of detail on the existing architecture as the proposal.

DesignThe proposal has no regard for the height of surrounding architecture, it dominates the elevationand especially in an area of historical interest, it detracts heavily from the surrounding beauty byits imposition and lack of consideration to design detail and scale.

The Design itself is very unsympathetic to the style or features of any surrounding architecture,there is no proposed use of diverse and interesting materials in the design which could have beenapplied to the proposal to make it less of an imposing solid block. This was raised as a suggestionby myself at a public meeting and has been ignored. The design itself is similar to one that youmight find at a seaside town where the designs applied are to maximise the amount with a seaview with no regard to the imposing height implications.

A proposal of this scale has no regard for the environment, infrastructure or heritage assets in thearea and actively removes established greenery from it. It will also add to the existing nightmarethat current residents of the Cumberland Road have with the enforced "one way" use of the roaddue to weakness and the consequent re-enforcement at this exact location.

Noise and disturbanceThe noise level would be magnified exponentially with any increase in people of this magnitude.The sound carries in an unprecedented way across the water in this area and a proposal of thissize would be deafening at this end of the harbour. The sound would travel across to RownhamMead and Pooles Wharf towards a great number of windows, thus disturbing the residents in theproperties further than the standard foot traffic already in this area. It would also create increasednoise to the Baltic Wharf estate as well. Let alone the massive increase in traffic noise, even ifthere are only half the amount of potential parking spaces to the amount of properties. The lack ofparking considering the amount of properties proposed is incoherent as the local Spike Islandparking permit scheme would not be able to facilitate an increase potential residents requiringpermits.

Loss of light overshadowingAlthough the Design Statement appears to feature elevations I can't see any views featuring theend of Canada Way or Cumberland Close where this proposal would have the most impact toexisting residential buildings. There should be views/sections which should be a slice through theentire development including all surrounding architecture on either side.

FloodingThis area and all adjacent areas at this level are at high risk from flooding should the lock gatesbreach at any time due to high spring tide or in the future due to global warming. This seems tohave been addressed in the proposal by building it on a plinth which will no doubt have an adverseeffect on the surrounding areas drainage systems.

Conclusively the proposal has a blatant disregard in its design for local plan advise and policiesincluding :-BCS2: Bristol City Centre Policy

BCS9:Green Infrastructure PolicyPolicy BCS21: Quality Urban DesignPolicy BCS22: Conservation of the Historic EnvironmentPolicy DM26: Local Character and DistinctivenessPolicy DM27: Layout and FormPolicy BCPA41: The Approach to Harbourside

These policies are mentioned in the document titled "MARNEL PARK" does this title relate to theproposal? It certainly can't be called Baltic Wharf as that name is already in use and is carved intothe entrance of the adjacent residential estate.

Mrs Helen Saunders  HOPE COURT CANADA WAY, HOTWELLS, BRISTOL, BRISTOL BS1 6XU  on 2021-05-06   OBJECT

I wish to voice my objections for the planning application for the proposed developmentof the Baltic Wharf Caravan Park.

The Caravan Park is a wonderful asset for a city the size of Bristol to have at its heart, it is inconstant use and brings no end of potential positive benefit to local businesses and the widerarea. To consider building even a small development on this piece of recreational land is awful.

Volume and height.The height proposal is more than double that of its residential neighbours. There seems to havebeen a blatant disregard for the surrounding residential architecture when the design process hastaken place. Other buildings of a similar size have been referenced around the harbour to theproposed but they are mostly all buildings of a commercial nature. The proposal is almost thescale of the bonded warehouses built in the early 1900's to accommodate imports, which are notbuildings designed for housing either then or now. The massive prospective overshadowing of allsurrounding buildings can be clearly seen in the photomontages depicted in the application.Although, I find some of the drawings not truly illustrating a "street scene" which should show anelevation of the entire site depicting surrounding architecture with all that existing architecture'sfeatures, not just shown as a massing block as it appears in the plans. These drawings shouldshow the same level of detail on the existing architecture as the proposal.

DesignThe proposal has no regard for the height of surrounding architecture, it dominates the elevationand especially in an area of historical interest, it detracts heavily from the surrounding beauty byits imposition and lack of consideration to design detail and scale.

The Design itself is very unsympathetic to the style or features of any surrounding architecture,there is no proposed use of diverse and interesting materials in the design which could have beenapplied to the proposal to make it less of an imposing solid block. This was raised as a suggestionby myself at a public meeting and has been ignored. The design itself is similar to one that youmight find at a seaside town where the designs applied are to maximise the amount with a seaview with no regard to the imposing height implications.

A proposal of this scale has no regard for the environment, infrastructure or heritage assets in thearea and actively removes established greenery from it. It will also add to the existing nightmarethat current residents of the Cumberland Road have with the enforced "one way" use of the roaddue to weakness and the consequent re-enforcement at this exact location.

Noise and disturbanceThe noise level would be magnified exponentially with any increase in people of this magnitude.The sound carries in an unprecedented way across the water in this area and a proposal of thissize would be deafening at this end of the harbour. The sound would travel across to RownhamMead and Pooles Wharf towards a great number of windows, thus disturbing the residents in theproperties further than the standard foot traffic already in this area. It would also create increasednoise to the Baltic Wharf estate as well. Let alone the massive increase in traffic noise, even ifthere are only half the amount of potential parking spaces to the amount of properties. The lack ofparking considering the amount of properties proposed is incoherent as the local Spike Islandparking permit scheme would not be able to facilitate an increase potential residents requiringpermits.

Loss of light overshadowingAlthough the Design Statement appears to feature elevations I can't see any views featuring theend of Canada Way or Cumberland Close where this proposal would have the most impact toexisting residential buildings. There should be views/sections which should be a slice through theentire development including all surrounding architecture on either side.

FloodingThis area and all adjacent areas at this level are at high risk from flooding should the lock gatesbreach at any time due to high spring tide or in the future due to global warming. This seems tohave been addressed in the proposal by building it on a plinth which will no doubt have an adverseeffect on the surrounding areas drainage systems.

Conclusively the proposal has a blatant disregard in its design for local plan advise and policiesincluding :-BCS2: Bristol City Centre Policy

BCS9:Green Infrastructure PolicyPolicy BCS21: Quality Urban DesignPolicy BCS22: Conservation of the Historic EnvironmentPolicy DM26: Local Character and DistinctivenessPolicy DM27: Layout and FormPolicy BCPA41: The Approach to Harbourside

These policies are mentioned in the document titled "MARNEL PARK" does this title relate to theproposal? It certainly can't be called Baltic Wharf as that name is already in use and is carved intothe entrance of the adjacent residential estate.

Mr Simon Scott-Brown  46 BACKWELL HILL ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-06   OBJECT

This proposal is a grotesque stain on the character and environment of the area, not tomention the destruction of mature trees and associated ecology. I am also concerned that thestructural integrity of the area between the two waterways will be further compromised by thisdevelopment. Finally the impact on the local infrastructure, drains, traffic volumes and attendantpollution make this proposal utterly unworkable, ill conceived, and out of step with the council'sown environmental objectives.

Mr Pete Peters  3 GEORGES RD FAIRFIELD PARK BATH  on 2021-05-06   OBJECT

Completely out of place. Love the character ot this whole harbour area as do thousandsof others. This building will destroy that let alone the traffic issues. The wealthiest of theseresidents would have a great outlook but to the detriment of thousands.

Ms Liz Freeman   47 AMBRA VALE EAST BRISTOL  on 2021-05-05   OBJECT

It's too high and I don't like all the trees being felled. The site is special and needs athoughtful improvement- in keeping with the character of Bristol.

Mr Stuart Hendry  GROUND FLOOR FLAT 25 STACKPOOL ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-05   OBJECT

Stop building on open spaces. The caravan club brings in vital tourism and thisdevelopment will adversely change the character of the harbourside

Build more green spaces, stop building structures. There is plenty of housing here already and it'sjust lining the pockets of developers and possibly others

Ms Gill Crowley  SANDFORD ROAD HOTWELLS BRISTOL  on 2021-05-05   OBJECT

There are already far too many dwellings in this area, this development will change theinherent nature of the area, we NEED more green space which locals can walk to and use, notmore residences which will increase traffic and population density. This is just about making profitsfor some people... why not redevelop disused brown field sites.sincerelyG Crowley

Mr Alan Wakefield  61 KINGSTON ROAD SOUTHVILLE BRISTOL BS31DS  on 2021-05-05   OBJECT

This proposed development is too big, too high, intrusive and ugly. Part of the attractionof this end of the harbour is its low skyline, which would this proposal would spoil. If there is to bea development at all, it should aim to be no higher than the present buildings, it should bepredominantly social housing, it should contain at least as many trees as are present now, itshould include retail outlets serving the needs of local residents, but most importantly it shouldpreserve the integrity of the waterfront as an attractive leisure facility for all the city's residents andvisitors. If the developers can't manage this then they are in the wrong job.

Mr Ron Stagg  33 WESTGATE CALEDONIAN ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-05   OBJECT

This development will :

exacerbate the ongoing problems of traffic on a road which will almost certainly need to be lightcontrolled after current works.

increase pollution in the new clean air zone

destroy a large number of mature trees

overshadow the area which is an important part of the harbour walk

close an amenity which brings visitors and revenue to the area

Mr Tom Ward  27, WESTGATE, CALEDONIAN RD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-05   OBJECT

1. The current Cumberland Rd/New Cut road and riverbank infrastructure cannot copewith further traffic and building disruption. There was a complete road collapse in this area (luckilythere were no injuries or fatalities) and the repairs which are relatively small are taking over 18months. However the rest of Cumberland Rd and riverbank is in poor condition and in need ofupgrading and improvement to safeguard existing buildings and resident access. Improvements tothe existing roads, river banking, flood defences, and access should be co pleted beforeconsideration is given to this application

2. The development will remove many mature trees.

3. It will remove a popular and successful tourist facility from the harbourside which is unique andcannot be replaced like for like basis.

Ms Tilly Black  46 AMBRA VALE EAST CLIFTONWOOD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-05   OBJECT

This planning application is unsuitable for the setting which is a thriving part of the CityDocks which has over recent years become such a popular centre for water activities andrecreation. The building construction proposed is FAR too high and doesn't fit in with thesurroundings at all. It would be very imposing. In my view a big mistake to start felling trees whichare obviously of such benefit to the environment. More housing in the area will put pressure on thenearby roads, which have suffered with collapse over recent years. In London after the 2nd WWPM Atlee wanted to flatten the terraces around Regent's Park to create more housing. Thank godthat idea didn't get through and more suitable developments were built elsewhere. The moresuccessful social housing developments in London and Bristol in terms of the welfare ofinhabitants and the surrounding communities have been the lower rise constructions with variablefeatures such as are found elsewhere around the Bristol Docks and in Kingsdown .

Dr Jacqueline Brine  38 JOHN CABOT COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE, BALTIC WHARF BRISTOL  on 2021-05-05   OBJECT

I object to this planned high-density development. It is too high, unimaginative and outof character with this western end of the harbour: it will dwarf the existing buildings on the southside, including The Cottage, the sailing club, the historic Underfall Yard and the Baltic Wharfestate, as well as tower above Rownham Mead and Poole's Wharf on the north side. All of theseexisting buildings are in character with the historical, residential and recreational aspect of thisarea. The proposed development is not.

The height of the proposed buildings will also limit the light and the sun, and cast shadow alongthe harbourside and over the Baltic Wharf estate.

The proposed commercial and retail aspect of it is also out of keeping with the area, and there isno need to replicate either Wapping Wharf or that on the other side.

The planned development makes no attempt to incorporate the existing mature trees of thecaravan site. Nor does it make any provision of green space, for residents or visitors. Yet this ispart of the intended clean air zone.

What is the likely impact of the proposed raised land on the nearby Baltic Wharf, especially withregard to flooding and water run-off?

What is the likely impact of the development, during building and afterwards, on the fragileinfrastructure of Cumberland Road, the bank of the New Cut and the Chocolate Path?

The planning document refers to 'extensive public engagement', but there has been nothing

beyond the standard opportunity to respond to their planning application - and even then there isno evidence of them taking any notice of respondents concerns, simply to resubmit again - andpresumably again and again.

Miss Jenny Hurrell  82 POOLES WHARF COURT BRISTOL  on 2021-05-05   OBJECT

Disruption of views and natural light onto my property

Mr John Hore  THE PADDOCKS BRISTOL  on 2021-05-05   OBJECT

The proposed development is completely out of character with surrounding structuresboth recent and much older. This current plan is a case of maximising the capital value of the sitewith no regard to its overall impact on what is a beautiful and interesting part of our city andharbour .

Mr Paul Harrison  27 SOUTHLEIGH RD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-05   OBJECT

These plans are for buildings that are totally not in keeping with what is already there.They are far too tall and would overshadow everything else.At a time when we need to be replanting as many trees as possible, the unnecessary felling ofmany mature trees would be a complete disaster for the area and for local wildlife.

Dr Rosemary Chamberlin  19 ROWNHAM MEAD HOTWELLS BRISTOL  on 2021-05-05   OBJECT

I do not object to much needed homes being built here but these proposed buildings aretoo tall. The development should be more modest so that it does not block light from the nearestbuildings in Baltic Wharf and does not require trees to be cut down. Homes, yes. 166 homes - no.A smaller development, ideally with some necessary shops and a GP's surgery is what is needed.

Miss Sofia Almeida   FLAT 41 CATHERINE'S HOUSE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-05   OBJECT

I object to the density of the development and significant reduction of sunlight to theadjacent neighbours.

Mr Joe PURNELL  15 WAVERLEY ROAD GROUND FLOOR FLAT BRISTOL  on 2021-05-05   OBJECT

This is an unreasonably large development and will hugely overshadow the existinghouses in Weare Court. This should not be allowed.

Dr Chi Zhang  10 CANONS WAY BRISTOL  on 2021-05-05   OBJECT

This building plan would dramatically increase the density of the development in thesurrounding area, and directly diminish the urban beautification of Bristol City. The negative impactalso includes the significant reduction of sunlight to the adjacent neighbours.

Mrs A Dekker  37 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-04   OBJECT

I need to first mention the trees that are going to be killed in aid of building on the land.All are valuable to absorbing omissions and providing oxygen. This is an under appreciated valuewhich has been overlooked in a way that the council would usually spend much time assessing.Secondly the harbour has for years been a beautiful area to walk and enjoy. There have beenmany buildings spring up in the last 20 years and almost all of them have been either sympatheticor interesting and non seem to have had as little consideration for the present residence as thismonstrosity. This building is out of character and obnoxious. It will undoubtedly cut the light frommy house and any view will be replaced by bricks. It's a far cry from what is there now and has noreference to its surroundings. The Donald Trump of buildings.

Mr Phillip Morgan  66 POOLES WHARF COURT BRISTOL  on 2021-05-04   OBJECT

I think the loss of the caravan site is very sad & i presume this is about money. I objectto the height of the building which I assume can only be motivated by greed to the detriment ofneighbours. If it was no taller than neighbouring Baltic Wharf it would be much more appropriate

Mr Ian Andrews  FLAT 28 WESTBROOKE COURT BRISTOL  on 2021-05-04   OBJECT

The aim should be for any development is to result in a benefit in environmental andlandscape terms.

The proposed development does not respect local context and street pattern, in particular, thescale and proportions of surrounding buildings, it will be entirely out of the character of the area tothe detriment of the local environment. Building height is an important aspect and thisdevelopment is too high.

There will also be detrimental impact upon residential amenities due to overshadowing, loss ofprivacy, light, tree-loss and green space. The latter will have a negative impact on clean air,surface flooding and release of carbon in contravention to climate and flood prevention policies.

The lack of parking spaces is a big concern likely to exasperate the parking problem withdetrimental impact on local residents and the environment. This problem needs to be addressed.

Mrs susie lincoln  5 NORLAND ROAD CLIFTON  on 2021-05-04   OBJECT

I have rarely objected to new housing in Bristol but I must object strongly to moredwellings in this area . This was once a vibrant mixed bag of everything, light industry, leisure,business, art, is this all to be destroyed for endless cheap boring housing and apartments ? Thereare few places for amenities to service the area. I know the area well as my son lived nearby , andcan find no place for shops or a school or capacity for a lot more traffic . Please say no to thisscheme .

Ms Pauline Davies  3 WESTBROOKE COURT, CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-04   OBJECT

I have lived at Baltic Wharf for 20 years. I have accepted that I am part of aconservation area and have complied with all planning permission for example to change mywindows or to prune the oak tree in my garden.

I am astonished that the planners of the proposed development are not being asked to complywith the same governance and standards.

In summary, I strongly objected to the proposed new development for the following reasons:

- The proposed development is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area in terms ofscale,density and the overwhelming dominance of the buildings. My sense is that commercial gainis the main driver for this development with the object being to generate the highest returns permetre of space at the total detriment to the visual impact of the building.

- The amenities ( car parking / bins) are not adequate with inadequate car parking spaces andturning points for refuse collection ( again due to the density of the dwellings)

- The development will illegally restrict the light and privacy of the properties at Baltic Wharf whichare on the boundary of the site.

- This proposal is not sustainable development as it is harmful to the conservation area, thenatural environment,residential amenity and particularly the felling of many mature trees.

Ms Karen Larwood  11 ROWNHAM MEAD HOTWELLS BRISTOL  on 2021-05-04   OBJECT

The building are too high and too close to the walkway. They will cast shadows, createa feeling of 'crowding', block light and block the views beyond for residents and visitors.This will have a detrimental impact on the life and wellbeing of residents, users of the river/sailingclub and visitors using the Harbourside walkway.The loss of the caravan site already takes away an important amenity for visitors to Bristol. Thereis no benefit to residents or visitors by building these high apartment blocks. Only the developersand those purchasing apartments for rent or AirBnb (or similar) will gain.If apartments are to be built, they need to be no higher at any point, than Baltic Wharf and need tobe much further away from the walkway to ensure a continued feeling of space around theharbour.

Mr Adrian Bass  95 PRINCESS VICTORIA ST CONTINUE ADDRESS IF REQUIRED BRISTOL  on 2021-05-04   OBJECT

So much tacky crass development already and you want to blot one of the fewremaining acres of space with another capitlist driven hideous block of flats. Shame on you.

Ms Sarah Bishop  20 VICARAGE ROAD SOUTHVILLE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-04   OBJECT

Whilst I fully understand the need for affordable homes, I feel that the proposedbuildings would adversely affect a very popular area for walking and sports. They will dominatesurrounding buildings and be out of keeping. I am also very suspicious that affordable housing willnot actually be built in such a desirable waterfront location.

Ms Ruth Yudkin  4 MERIDIAN VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-04   OBJECT

The proposed development is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area. Itdominates the skyline at that end of the harbour, and dwarfs the neighbouring buildings. It wouldcompletely change the character of the site and is not in line with BCC's own commitments tosympathetic building in historic areas.

It will harm the conservation area, the natural environment, and the sporting opportunities providedby the harbour. Bristol should be doing its best to retain the unique character of the harbour andnot turn every available space into a high-rise housing estate.

Mrs Ruth Thomas  16 CAMDEN TERRACE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-04   OBJECT

I'm not against development of the site, but the proposals are a) too tall b) too near thewater line and c) extremely ugly - such lazy architecture. Please can the developer be made to dobetter.

  BROOMHILL JUNIOR SCHOOL   on 2021-05-04   OBJECT

Mr Robert Williams  3 NAPIER COURT GEFLE CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-03   OBJECT

The caravan park at Baltic Wharf is I think an important aspect of this part of Bristol andto close it and replace with 166 dwellings plus car parking would be detrimental to the area. Theproposed one way road system on Cumberland road will cause traffic congestion with all vehiclesallowed to only turn left from their dwellings surely is not feasible. I have been a resident of BalticWharf for thirty two years.

Mrs Rhiannon Andrews  28 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-03   OBJECT

Buildings too high and would look completely out of character with the currentsurrounding properties.Parking will be problem and nuisance for neighbouring properties as not enough spaces providedfor the number of flats.No need for commercial properties at front as the area is very well served at the moment withcafes etc. and will encourage rowdiness which will create statutory noise and increased litter.The cutting down of mature trees is harmful to conservation.The caravan site brings in many tourists to Bristol which can only be for the good of the localeconomy. Most visitors tend to use the ferry and local buses and do not create further trafficproblems which the building of 166 flats with not enough parking spaces will most inevitablycontribute to further pollution and congestion.I most strongly object to this proposal.

Mr Mark Wynne-Jones  31, MEREDITH COURT, CANADA WAY, BRISTOL  on 2021-05-02   OBJECT

I bought my property in 1992 and have lived peacefully with the caravan club withinvisual range of my living room since. Many friends have been able to visit me and make use of thesite by parking their mobile homes in a BS1 postcode, without any disruption to residents livinglocally, thus enabling them to enjoy the attractions of our city at minimal cost to themselves or theenvironment.The proposal to build 166 flats on this land is both idiotic, and damaging to the community of SpikeIsland.Whilst I appreciate the need for more housing in the city, I strongly object to this application, on thegrounds that it is merely a money making venture and will have no impact whatsoever on thehousing needs of the city. In fact it will merely be an investors paradise, with non Bristolian'sbuying up the flats as investments. Even if a percentage of those flats are allocated as 'affordable'housing, this will have no impact on Bristolians being able to buy. Think about it. How manypeople in Bristol are in need of affordable housing, and how much is being built? If the proposalwere to build 166 affordable houses/flats, then I might not object.Secondly, there is an issue with noise. Recently work has been carried out to sure up thechocolate path and Cumberland Road. I appreciate this work, and I'm fully prepared to tolerate thenoise that has been ongoing for months, because it has benefit for all residents. This proposal(flats) ensures that there will be a further period of noise and disruption for possibly 2 years, thathas NO benefit to any residents.Thirdly, currently, the caravan club poses no obstruction to light. Any flats built will impede light tomy home regardless of how many stories are constructed.Fourthly, 166 new homes means that 166 new families will need to get to/from work by somemeans of transport. Building flats with no parking does not deter people from owning cars. BS1 isalready a heavily polluted area in terms of air quality. Do you really think that another 166

dwellings at its core will improve that?I will oppose this development at every stage and every level.

Miss Penny Barnes  32 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-02   OBJECT

I strongly object to the application 21/01331/F for the reasons stated below.

LOSS OF PRIVACY (OVERSHADOWING & OVERLOOKING)

I live at 32 Westbrooke Court and my property overlooks the caravan site. I have lived here for 17years and bought the property because of it's sunny aspect and private secluded garden. Theproposed development of the caravan site will cause me to suffer a total loss of privacy due tooverlooking and overshadowing. During the consultation process I asked the developers (GoramHomes) to produce a side aspect drawing showing how many windows would be overlooking myproperty. The resultant drawing revealed that literally scores of windows would be overlookingboth my home and my garden. Some of these windows will look straight across directly into mybedroom. My neighbour commissioned a local architect to produce some 3D computer modellingto assess the degree of overshadowing the new buildings would cause, this revealed that as aresult of the proposed development my property and garden will be cast in shadow from earlyafternoon onwards from mid winter through to mid summer.

OVERDEVELOPMENT AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA

The existing local developments at Rownham Mead and Baltic Wharf are built of brick and arethree stories in height which matches the local Underfall Yard. The Underfall Yard is an area ofhistoric interest and is rightly the main focus of the western end of the harbour. I have read BCCplanning policy documents BCAP41 and DM27 and they clearly state that any new developmentshould be of a scale and design appropriate to the local area and also that height, scale andmassing of the development should be appropriate to the immediate context. It is immediately

obvious to me that the existing Rownham Mead and Baltic Wharf developments accord with thesepolicies and the proposed new development does not! The proposed new building is much toohigh, in fact almost twice the height of the existing buildings, and totally out of character, contextand design sympathy with the other buildings in the area.

To be honest I think the harbour generally has become overdeveloped and is in danger ofbecoming a large housing estate rather than an historic harbour. Personally I think the caravansite should remain as it is because it is a valuable asset to the area. If the site has to be built on itshould be in sympathy with the Underfall Yard in terms of height and building materials. If thiswere the case I feel there would be much less opposition from local residents. To plough aheadand ignore local opposition I feel would be a big mistake.

FELLING OF MATURE TREES

Every day I look out onto the trees of the caravan site and feel they are an attractive asset to thelocal area.They are also doing an environmentally useful job of absorbing carbon dioxide andemitting oxygen. My understanding is that when mature trees are felled and especially when theroots are dug out previously stored carbon is released into the atmosphere. Thus by felling thesetrees the developers will be turning a carbon sink into a carbon source. How does this fit withBristol City Council's pollution policy? Or is the pollution charge only seen as a means of makingmoney? I am sorry but you can't justify felling mature trees in the current environmental situation.Planting saplings is no substitute as they will contribute very little to the immediate environment.Surely an imaginative developer could design something around the existing trees? The trees area valuable and attractive local asset that are doing an essential job absorbing carbon andproducing oxygen, quite literally the lungs of the city. Cutting them down would be an act ofenvironmental vandalism.

PARKING & HIGHWAYS

The car parking provision proposed for the new development is obviously insufficient beingapproximately one parking space per two dwellings. I imagine that most inhabitants of thedevelopment will have cars. I imagine that most will have visitors with cars. If so where are theygoing to park? Or will it be a condition of residence that inhabitants have no cars and no visitorswith cars? Car parking in the surrounding area is already very difficult and overstretched that'swhy Bristol City Council introduced a residents parking scheme. How can you possibly justify adevelopment with woefully inadequate parking facilities in an area you know full well is extremelyoverstretched for parking already. If this goes ahead it will cause parking overspill and friction inadjoining Southville, Hotwells and the existing estate at Baltic Wharf.

Cumberland Road has been the subject of constant disruption and temporary closures for manyyears now due to a variety of factors largely to do with ongoing repairs and new development.Theproposed development will add traffic pressure to this already overused and overburdened area

both during the development and afterwards due to the increased usage caused by 166 newhomes.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area in terms of scale,density and the overwhelming dominance of the buildings. The impact on neighbours, the generalpublic, harbour users, and the environment is totally unacceptable. This proposal is notsustainable development as it is harmful to the conservation area, the natural environment,residential amenity and particularly the felling of many mature trees.

The harbour is an attractive area and valuable asset which should be preserved , cherished andretained for the benefit of all, not spoilt by excessive built development. Let's keep what is left ofthe harbour as an historic asset rather than turning it into one large high rise housing estate.

Miss Penny Barnes  32 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-02   OBJECT

I strongly object to the application 21/01331/F for the reasons stated below.

LOSS OF PRIVACY (OVERSHADOWING & OVERLOOKING)

I live at 32 Westbrooke Court and my property overlooks the caravan site. I have lived here for 17years and bought the property because of it's sunny aspect and private secluded garden. Theproposed development of the caravan site will cause me to suffer a total loss of privacy due tooverlooking and overshadowing. During the consultation process I asked the developers (GoramHomes) to produce a side aspect drawing showing how many windows would be overlooking myproperty. The resultant drawing revealed that literally scores of windows would be overlookingboth my home and my garden. Some of these windows will look straight across directly into mybedroom. My neighbour commissioned a local architect to produce some 3D computer modellingto assess the degree of overshadowing the new buildings would cause, this revealed that as aresult of the proposed development my property and garden will be cast in shadow from earlyafternoon onwards from mid winter through to mid summer.

OVERDEVELOPMENT AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA

The existing local developments at Rownham Mead and Baltic Wharf are built of brick and arethree stories in height which matches the local Underfall Yard. The Underfall Yard is an area ofhistoric interest and is rightly the main focus of the western end of the harbour. I have read BCCplanning policy documents BCAP41 and DM27 and they clearly state that any new developmentshould be of a scale and design appropriate to the local area and also that height, scale andmassing of the development should be appropriate to the immediate context. It is immediately

obvious to me that the existing Rownham Mead and Baltic Wharf developments accord with thesepolicies and the proposed new development does not! The proposed new building is much toohigh, in fact almost twice the height of the existing buildings, and totally out of character, contextand design sympathy with the other buildings in the area.

To be honest I think the harbour generally has become overdeveloped and is in danger ofbecoming a large housing estate rather than an historic harbour. Personally I think the caravansite should remain as it is because it is a valuable asset to the area. If the site has to be built on itshould be in sympathy with the Underfall Yard in terms of height and building materials. If thiswere the case I feel there would be much less opposition from local residents. To plough aheadand ignore local opposition I feel would be a big mistake.

FELLING OF MATURE TREES

Every day I look out onto the trees of the caravan site and feel they are an attractive asset to thelocal area.They are also doing an environmentally useful job of absorbing carbon dioxide andemitting oxygen. My understanding is that when mature trees are felled and especially when theroots are dug out previously stored carbon is released into the atmosphere. Thus by felling thesetrees the developers will be turning a carbon sink into a carbon source. How does this fit withBristol City Council's pollution policy? Or is the pollution charge only seen as a means of makingmoney? I am sorry but you can't justify felling mature trees in the current environmental situation.Planting saplings is no substitute as they will contribute very little to the immediate environment.Surely an imaginative developer could design something around the existing trees? The trees area valuable and attractive local asset that are doing an essential job absorbing carbon andproducing oxygen, quite literally the lungs of the city. Cutting them down would be an act ofenvironmental vandalism.

PARKING & HIGHWAYS

The car parking provision proposed for the new development is obviously insufficient beingapproximately one parking space per two dwellings. I imagine that most inhabitants of thedevelopment will have cars. I imagine that most will have visitors with cars. If so where are theygoing to park? Or will it be a condition of residence that inhabitants have no cars and no visitorswith cars? Car parking in the surrounding area is already very difficult and overstretched that'swhy Bristol City Council introduced a residents parking scheme. How can you possibly justify adevelopment with woefully inadequate parking facilities in an area you know full well is extremelyoverstretched for parking already. If this goes ahead it will cause parking overspill and friction inadjoining Southville, Hotwells and the existing estate at Baltic Wharf.

Cumberland Road has been the subject of constant disruption and temporary closures for manyyears now due to a variety of factors largely to do with ongoing repairs and new development.Theproposed development will add traffic pressure to this already overused and overburdened area

both during the development and afterwards due to the increased usage caused by 166 newhomes.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area in terms of scale,density and the overwhelming dominance of the buildings. The impact on neighbours, the generalpublic, harbour users, and the environment is totally unacceptable. This proposal is notsustainable development as it is harmful to the conservation area, the natural environment,residential amenity and particularly the felling of many mature trees.

The harbour is an attractive area and valuable asset which should be preserved , cherished andretained for the benefit of all, not spoilt by excessive built development. Let's keep what is left ofthe harbour as an historic asset rather than turning it into one large high rise housing estate.

Mrs Louise Craske  1 BLACKCURRANT DRIVE LONG ASHTON BRISTOL  on 2021-05-02   OBJECT

This proposed development is totally inappropriate and out of character for this side oftown and end of the river. It will spoil the unique nature of this side of town, with its more provincialfeel and local pubs. Any development on this site should not rise higher than Baltic Wharf, in orderto strike a balance of meeting housing demands and retaining and respecting the local area.

Miss J Cobb  3 WEST SHRUBBERY REDLAND BRISTOL  on 2021-05-02   OBJECT

Bristol is being overwhelmed by more and more building, we have already lost manyopen spaces. This will cover yet another currently pleasant open space into yet more ticky tackyresidential boxes. In addition, there are vanishingly few new builds that provide genuinelyaffordable housing for ordinary people. I note too that there is no mention of providing schools,medical facilities, shops etc. There is also no mention of electric vehicle charging points which, inmy opinion, should be provided at the rate of 1 for e very lamp-post on every street if we aregenuinely concerned about encouraging people to switch to EVs.

Miss Ann Devereaux  2 TYNE STREET ST WERBURGHS BRISTOL  on 2021-05-01   OBJECT

I object to the design of an intense building in this area it not fit in with the surroundingsbuildings or the open area where there are water sports on a daily basis used by people acrossthe south west .The destruction of the Mature Trees is unbelievable at this EnvironmentalEmergency every tree counts so the intense build is totally in contradiction to our situation, our cityis becoming more polluted every day and peoples health is being impacted.The impact on the surrounding area will be a unsightly boil on what is now a place of beauty asanctuary with the water and tranquil although a busy area with walkers children and their familiesenjoying the beautiful space, these places are needed in an urban area for the locals and visitorsto our city it provides space and positive impressions for our mental health with fresh air and thewater.This monstrous design will have an impact on the residents next to it , it will overlook andoverwhelm their homes on a big scale which is totally unfair it I am sure will create their lives on anegative basis.The very idea of putting an unsightly intensely high rise in a place of eye catching and iconicbeauty is criminal one of the most sought out images of our Bristol, also I believe this area isprotected under a Conservation order? How is this possible that one can destroy it?We need to preserve places and trees and you will destroy so many essential trees so that we canBreathe. The pollution levels are already above legal limits which are responsible for more asthmaand deaths, bne it on the design and developers heads.

Miss Susanna Day  17 VICTORIA WALK BRISTOL  on 2021-05-01   OBJECT

It's far too high so will block precious sunlight, and totally change the feeling of the area.It's also really ugly.

Mrs Vivienne Amos  9 NOVA SCOTIA PLACE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-01   OBJECT

This development would replace a well established tourist amenity which bringsrevenue to the neighbourhood and city. It would tower over the surrounding buildings, blockinglight and loveliness from the current harbour view. There are already too many tall buildingscrammed in around the harbour. Every extra tall building reduces the appeal of what is an iconicand historic harbour which brings many visitors to the city. Eventually, people will no longer wish tovisit or live here as Bristol would just be another cramped city space.

Ms Vivienne Steeds  26 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-01   OBJECT

I object to the proposed height of this development as I believe it will rob surroundingareas of natural light. I also believe that there has been no proper consideration to either parkingor access for the new residential properties. The mayor also has plans to make Cumberland Roada one way road so access is going to be a problem. There will not be sufficient parking for thenumber of properties that this development plans to produce and the overflow will end upencroaching on Baltic Wharf.I also object to the planned commercial properties as I believe that it will take custom away fromalready struggling businesses in the area and make this peaceful end of the harbour no longerpeaceful.

Ms Claire Chipperfield  12 BRADVILLE GARDENS LONG ASHTON BRISTOL  on 2021-05-01   OBJECT

I don't have an issue with developing the site for housing. I think new housing should bein the city centre, rather than the greenbelt. However these flats are so tall! I think they will ruin theview for all the Clifton residents and spoil the enjoyment of the popular harbourside walk for all. Itfurther cuts off Bedminster from the city centre. Reduce the number of floors please!

Ms Rosemarie Winter  15 HOPE COURT CANADA WAY BRISTOL  on 2021-05-01   OBJECT

The developer, Goram Homes, is a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Bristol City Council,which indicates a lack of transparency in the planning process.

The application has considerably under-represented the effect of the proposal on the environment.The destruction of such a large number (75) of beautiful mature trees in an urban area at a time ofclimate change and increasing pollution levels, is unacceptable. These trees are in addition tothose already felled in the area, and Bristol already has one of the lowest tree cover rates in thecountry. I refer to the Bristol City Council Mayor's Climate Emergency Action Plan which statesthat 'Bristol City Council is a leading voice in the UK's local authority-level response to the ClimateEmergency .... ' This development will also mean many more cars on the road, at a time whenBCC is introducing a Clean Air Zone.

The visually appealing trees and mature hedging fronting onto the Harbour promenade alsoenhance the area and provide a habitat to birds and wildlife.

The proposed building is totally unattractive, oppressive and out of character with the architectureof the existing waterside buildings in an historic part of the harbourside, and will ruin the ambienceof the area.

The commercial aspect to this proposal has been included only because the development wouldbe on a flood plain, not because any further commercial activity is required in the area. Theproximity of 3 public houses and a café within 50 yards of the site renders any further commercialactivity unnecessary.

The proposal will also add to congestion due to the rapidly increasing footfall which is causingqueues to form in many parts of the harbourside, and the general over-densification of the area isalready proving detrimental to the character of the harbourside.

This proposal diminishes the location and the city, and fails to respect the unique heritage of thearea and its very popular amenities. It is detrimental to the environment and local people, anddetracts hugely from the enjoyment of the area for income-generating visitors and the manytourists who visit the area from all parts of Europe. One of the city's prime assets is being eroded.

Strong objection.

Dr Ian Davison  8 NOVA SCOTIA PLACE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-01   OBJECT

The proposal for a 51/2 storey buildings jammed right up to the walkway around theharbourside is totally unacceptable. The photomontage shows one building actually forming theboundary to the walkway. The harbourside is a great haven for people to enjoy walking and takingin the air and sunshine, and sitting on the steps adjacent to The Cottage pub. This is one of theonly areas around the harbourside where the public can sit in numbers and enjoy the views. Thesebuildings will destroy the ambience of this area by taking away all the light and air. The buildingsface northward and will cast huge shadows for a large part of the day. This would also significantlyaffect the sailing club because these buildings are so close to the water, which in turn reduces theinterest, if no one wants to sail there in the shade with less wind. If any development is to goahead in this area it should be planned to stepped backward from the harbourside so it blends inmore sensibly with the much lower historic Underfall Yard and residential buildings which havebeen thankfully kept to a maximum of three storeys.Developers cannot be allowed to dominate this iconic part of the harbour for the sake of buildingjust an extra 8 luxury flats which constitute the top two floors of the two buildings closest to theharbourside. The only people who would benefit are the developers. Even the residents of theseflats will feel a lack of privacy being so close to the waterfront and would prefer to be stepped backfarther away from the walkway. This development if left to go ahead as planned will spoil theenjoyment of this part of the harbourside for thousands of people for ever.

Mr Dennis Gornall  22 AMBROSE ROAD CLIFTONWOOD BRISTOL  on 2021-05-01   OBJECT

I fully support the appropriate development of housing in/close to the city centre.Now that the Caravan Club has another appropriate site to move to I can support housingdevelopment on this site.However, it seems to me that too many dwellings are being crammed into too tight a space. I thinkthat the dwellings per hectare here would be app. 193. I cannot begin to calculate what the densitymight be when taking the limited green and non dwelling space into account. I recognise that thismay be similar to some even more central developments like Invicta at Canons Marsh it is almostdouble the density at the Paintworks development I think.My second objection relates to height. 6 and effectively 7 storeys is too high and pays no heed toanything in the vicinity on either side of the harbour. I am not saying it should be the same heightas the adjacent buildings but it should be sympathetic to them.My third objection is in design. I am an amateur at this but there seems to be large (and quite tall)areas of plain brick wall without any redeeming features. Windows maybe inappropriate becauseof over look but anyone outside these buildings has to look at them and surely need to seesomething pleasing. My vision of this is not pleasing!My fourth objection which relates to those above is that this does not fit the context of this end ofthe harbour. It will be great to have more people living "harbourside" but this must not be allowedto spoil the nature of this space and its immediate surroundings.A comment. I am aware of concerns about there being insufficient parking which might lead toparking on the street. I would hope that if planners and developers have it in mind to limit parkingand therefore reduce car ownership in this area they will ensure that the residents of thisdevelopment do not have access to the local residents parking scheme.

For the above reasons I do not think that this application should be approved until appropriate

alterations have been made

Mrs Julia Marshall  8 NOVA SCOTIA PLACE, BRISTOL BS1 6XJ  on 2021-05-01   OBJECT

The proposed development is much higher than the buildings that surround it and wouldstick out like a sore thumb, adversely affecting the special nature of the area. The developmentsqueezes in extra storeys and reduces the number of trees at the site, which would detract fromthe historic Underfall Yard and its many listed buildings. People are drawn to this area as a placeto relax and take in the sights of the harbourside not to sit in the looming shade of a tall building.The wellbeing of residents and visitors and Bristol's historic status should come before the profitsof developers.

Mr Peter Herridge  37 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-01   OBJECT

I strongly object to the application 21/01331/F for the reason stated below.

OVERSHADOWING AND OVERLOOKING

My house at 37 Westbrooke Court faces West South West and directly adjoins and overlooks thecaravan site. I have lived here for 30 years and for all that time enjoyed total privacy and goodsunlight with a sunny and very secluded garden. I oppose the proposed development of thecaravan site on the grounds of overshadowing and overlooking which will cause me to suffer atotal loss of privacy. If the proposal goes ahead in its current form, I will have about 80 windowsoverlooking both my house and my garden. Some of these windows will look straight acrossdirectly into my lounge and bedroom windows. A local architect produced some 3D computermodelling for me and this revealed that as a result of the proposed development my house andgarden will be cast in shadow from early afternoon onwards throughout the entire year.

OVERDEVELOPMENT AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA

I also believe that the layout and density of building in this proposal is wrong. The developersplanning application clearly states that the site is 1.7 kilometers from Bristol City Centre, thedevelopment should not therefore be based on city centre housing density. This is totally out ofcharacter with the existing development in the surrounding area which is designated as aConservation Area. If this development was restricted to predominantly three storey buildings, incommon with the existing local developments at Rownham Mead, Poole's Wharf and Baltic Wharfthe problem of overlooking and overshadowing could be largely avoided, and the developmentwould be far more in scale and keeping with the rest of the buildings in the conservation area (as

outlined in policy documents BCAP41, DM27 ).

LOSS OF MATURE TREES

For thirty years I have watched the trees in the caravan park grow to maturity. Those trees arenow doing an environmentally essential job absorbing carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen. Iestimate that the trees on the caravan site are currently absorbing somewhere in the region of oneimperial ton of carbon per annum. This is a vital environmental asset to the local area. I totallyobject to the proposed felling of these trees. Young saplings contribute very little to theenvironment; global warming is not going to go on hold for thirty years whilst new saplings grow tomaturity. How can the City Council that is introducing a clean air zone to combat pollution, possiblyallow these trees to be felled? To do so would be utter hypocrisy! The trees are also a valuablevisual amenity which enhancing the harbourside, create a pleasant space for vistors and localresidents and make a positive contribution to the character of the area.

WATERSPORTS AND HARBOUR USE

The caravan site fronts onto the designated watersports area of the harbour . Since 1974 manygenerations of young Bristolians have learnt to sail here where the wind is reasonably predictablecompared to the rest of the harbour where the tall buildings make the wind unpredictable andsailing difficult. A building of the proposed height and shape will cause wind turbulence in thedesignated watersports area making sailing far more difficult this would result in an increasedhazard for those learning to sail here and the harbour being potentially less attractive for groups ofchildren and vulnerable young people who are at present encouraged to use the area

I am a small boat owner and I think it is important and informative to view the harbour from thewater. In the centre the skyline is dominated by the spire of St Mary Redcliffe and the tall cranes ofthe M Shed. As you sail through the main part of the harbour you are flanked by tall six storeybuildings that match the height of Cliftonwood ahead of you. However, as you reach the SS GreatBritain the harbour turns sharply to the South West and the Cliftonwood skyline falls gently awayto the three storey buildings of Poole's Wharf, Rownham Mead and the Underfall Yard with thedistant hills of Ashton Court estate away ahead of you. In terms of visual amenity, the proposeddevelopment will be totally out of context. It will stand at double the height of the existing buildingsand utterly dominate an area where the historic Underfall Yard is the natural focus of interest. Thedevelopments at Baltic Wharf and Rownham Mead are of red brick with roman tile roofing insympathy with the historic Underfall Yard, unlike the proposed building which is of a completelydifferent style, size and type of construction. In every photomontage the developers haveproduced, from whatever angle, the proposed building looks massive, far too high, and utterly outof context with the surrounding area.

PARKING & ROAD ACCESS

The car parking for this proposed development, 88 spaces for 166 dwellings, is woefullyinadequate. Presumably the inhabitants of the development will have cars; certainly almost all willhave visitors with cars. Where are they going to park? Car parking in Cumberland Road and thesurrounding area is already very difficult and this development will add to the problem withpossible overspill into nearby Southville and Hotwells. Almost certainly this will lead to competitionfor parking on the existing Baltic Wharf estate.

The new development will also add traffic pressure to the already overused and overburdenedCumberland Road. In October 2020 the Force 4 chandlery on Baltic Wharf closed citing BristolCity Council and the constant disruption to Cumberland Road as the reason for closure. The lossof the chandlery was a severe blow to those who, like myself, build and repair boats in theharbour.

Disruption to access and traffic flow on the Cumberland Road in recent years has been due tomany factors: laying a water pipeline; building the flood defence; preparing the metro bus route;building a new bridge at Bathurst basin; resurfacing the existing bridge; development at Wappingwharf and repair of the retaining wall and chocolate path in the new cut. To be perfectly honest theCumberland Road could do with a rest from disruption for a few years rather than yet anotherdevelopment

CONCLUSION

The scale and density of the proposed development is totally out of keeping with the surroundingarea in terms of the overwhelming dominance of the buildings. The impact on neighbours, thegeneral public, harbour users, and the environment is totally unacceptable. This proposal is notsustainable development; being harmful to the conservation area, natural environment andresidential amenity

The harbour is an attractive area and valuable asset which should be cherished and retained forthe benefit of all, not spoilt by excessive built development. Progress of the development wouldalso seem premature when the long term future of the Western Harbour area is being considered.

Mr Peter Herridge  37 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-05-01   OBJECT

I strongly object to the application 21/01331/F for the reason stated below.

OVERSHADOWING AND OVERLOOKING

My house at 37 Westbrooke Court faces West South West and directly adjoins and overlooks thecaravan site. I have lived here for 30 years and for all that time enjoyed total privacy and goodsunlight with a sunny and very secluded garden. I oppose the proposed development of thecaravan site on the grounds of overshadowing and overlooking which will cause me to suffer atotal loss of privacy. If the proposal goes ahead in its current form, I will have about 80 windowsoverlooking both my house and my garden. Some of these windows will look straight acrossdirectly into my lounge and bedroom windows. A local architect produced some 3D computermodelling for me and this revealed that as a result of the proposed development my house andgarden will be cast in shadow from early afternoon onwards throughout the entire year.

OVERDEVELOPMENT AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA

I also believe that the layout and density of building in this proposal is wrong. The developersplanning application clearly states that the site is 1.7 kilometers from Bristol City Centre, thedevelopment should not therefore be based on city centre housing density. This is totally out ofcharacter with the existing development in the surrounding area which is designated as aConservation Area. If this development was restricted to predominantly three storey buildings, incommon with the existing local developments at Rownham Mead, Poole's Wharf and Baltic Wharfthe problem of overlooking and overshadowing could be largely avoided, and the developmentwould be far more in scale and keeping with the rest of the buildings in the conservation area (as

outlined in policy documents BCAP41, DM27 ).

LOSS OF MATURE TREES

For thirty years I have watched the trees in the caravan park grow to maturity. Those trees arenow doing an environmentally essential job absorbing carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen. Iestimate that the trees on the caravan site are currently absorbing somewhere in the region of oneimperial ton of carbon per annum. This is a vital environmental asset to the local area. I totallyobject to the proposed felling of these trees. Young saplings contribute very little to theenvironment; global warming is not going to go on hold for thirty years whilst new saplings grow tomaturity. How can the City Council that is introducing a clean air zone to combat pollution, possiblyallow these trees to be felled? To do so would be utter hypocrisy! The trees are also a valuablevisual amenity which enhancing the harbourside, create a pleasant space for vistors and localresidents and make a positive contribution to the character of the area.

WATERSPORTS AND HARBOUR USE

The caravan site fronts onto the designated watersports area of the harbour . Since 1974 manygenerations of young Bristolians have learnt to sail here where the wind is reasonably predictablecompared to the rest of the harbour where the tall buildings make the wind unpredictable andsailing difficult. A building of the proposed height and shape will cause wind turbulence in thedesignated watersports area making sailing far more difficult this would result in an increasedhazard for those learning to sail here and the harbour being potentially less attractive for groups ofchildren and vulnerable young people who are at present encouraged to use the area

I am a small boat owner and I think it is important and informative to view the harbour from thewater. In the centre the skyline is dominated by the spire of St Mary Redcliffe and the tall cranes ofthe M Shed. As you sail through the main part of the harbour you are flanked by tall six storeybuildings that match the height of Cliftonwood ahead of you. However, as you reach the SS GreatBritain the harbour turns sharply to the South West and the Cliftonwood skyline falls gently awayto the three storey buildings of Poole's Wharf, Rownham Mead and the Underfall Yard with thedistant hills of Ashton Court estate away ahead of you. In terms of visual amenity, the proposeddevelopment will be totally out of context. It will stand at double the height of the existing buildingsand utterly dominate an area where the historic Underfall Yard is the natural focus of interest. Thedevelopments at Baltic Wharf and Rownham Mead are of red brick with roman tile roofing insympathy with the historic Underfall Yard, unlike the proposed building which is of a completelydifferent style, size and type of construction. In every photomontage the developers haveproduced, from whatever angle, the proposed building looks massive, far too high, and utterly outof context with the surrounding area.

PARKING & ROAD ACCESS

The car parking for this proposed development, 88 spaces for 166 dwellings, is woefullyinadequate. Presumably the inhabitants of the development will have cars; certainly almost all willhave visitors with cars. Where are they going to park? Car parking in Cumberland Road and thesurrounding area is already very difficult and this development will add to the problem withpossible overspill into nearby Southville and Hotwells. Almost certainly this will lead to competitionfor parking on the existing Baltic Wharf estate.

The new development will also add traffic pressure to the already overused and overburdenedCumberland Road. In October 2020 the Force 4 chandlery on Baltic Wharf closed citing BristolCity Council and the constant disruption to Cumberland Road as the reason for closure. The lossof the chandlery was a severe blow to those who, like myself, build and repair boats in theharbour.

Disruption to access and traffic flow on the Cumberland Road in recent years has been due tomany factors: laying a water pipeline; building the flood defence; preparing the metro bus route;building a new bridge at Bathurst basin; resurfacing the existing bridge; development at Wappingwharf and repair of the retaining wall and chocolate path in the new cut. To be perfectly honest theCumberland Road could do with a rest from disruption for a few years rather than yet anotherdevelopment

CONCLUSION

The scale and density of the proposed development is totally out of keeping with the surroundingarea in terms of the overwhelming dominance of the buildings. The impact on neighbours, thegeneral public, harbour users, and the environment is totally unacceptable. This proposal is notsustainable development; being harmful to the conservation area, natural environment andresidential amenity

The harbour is an attractive area and valuable asset which should be cherished and retained forthe benefit of all, not spoilt by excessive built development. Progress of the development wouldalso seem premature when the long term future of the Western Harbour area is being considered.

Mr Nick Buss  38 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-04-30   OBJECT

Main Concerns that I would be overlooked and block my view from the property.

Mrs Sonia Smale  10 AVON CRESCENT BRISTOL  on 2021-04-30   OBJECT

Anything built there should not be any taller than the surrounding buildings.

Mrs zoe larter  10 WEARE COURT, BALTIC WHARF, BRISTOL BS1 6XF  on 2021-04-30   OBJECT

As one of the stakeholders to the proposed development (owner of a propertyimmediately adjacent to the boundary with the caravan park) I have been involved in aconsultation process with Goram Homes and Hill.

Following a stakeholder presentation on Thursday 8th October 2020 a letter was written to thedevelopment team outlining initial concerns and objections (a full copy of this letter can beprovided if required).

The letter was written on behalf of 10 households immediately adjacent to the boundary with thecaravan park and a further 29 Baltic Wharf households who have asked to be recorded as co-signatories in support of the concerns.

A further presentation on Tuesday 15th December 2020 raised further questions which were sentto the development team by email.

Extract from email:"During the meeting we requested some further information which we would be grateful if youcould provide us with:

1) Visuals of the proposed development as it would look from within Baltic Wharf itself;2) The 'Harbour Elevation' diagram extended to include Baltic Wharf;3) The full daylight analysis report as well as an explanation of the data in 'layman's' terms; - This information should include a comparison of the proposed development with the way thatBaltic Wharf has been developed (i.e. to minimise overlooking/overshadowing);

- We would also like to see multiple illustrations of the affect on daylight of the proposeddevelopment (i.e. not just on the 'legal day'); - Confirmation of when the 'legal day' is; - Information on overshadowing affect of proposed development to gardens along the border.4) The min & max height of the proposed trees along the border;5) Information/recommendations on how noise disruption would be minimised during construction;6) Additional CAD views of the proposed development as requested in our original letter;- In addition, visuals as requested as part of the planning process: VP1 - VP12. 7) Estimation of the extra vehicles that would be using the one-way Cumberland Road - affect onpollution, parking; 8) Anything else that you have noted that we discussed which we've missed here.

Following our review of this information along with the presentation and recorded meeting, we willthen, as a stakeholder group, look to provide a formal response to you.

Would two weeks be sufficient time for you to provide us with this information?"

Extract from a follow up email sent to the development team on Tuesday 15th December:"One of our residents noted that Meredith Court was not included on the Daylight and SunlightAnalysis Results slide - would it be possible for the development team to add in Meredith Courtand send the slide over please?"

An email received from the development team on Thursday 24th December confirmed that furtherinformation would be sent to the stakeholders in response to these questions.

Extract from email:"We still have some work to do and are also aware we owe you some further information which wewill get to you in the New Year."

The promised information has not been forthcoming and there was no further communication fromthe development team until an email received on Wednesday 21st April informing the stakeholdersthat a planning application had been submitted.

I would therefore raise a concern that stakeholder consultation has not been fully completed asthere is outstanding information that was promised by the development team but not delivered.

My objections to this development are aligned to the original letter to the development team. I donot feel that these concerns have been suitably addressed during consultation (which, asmentioned, I do not believe was sufficiently concluded prior to submitting the planning application)or in the subsequently submitted plans:

Loss of light / overshadowing -

The close proximity and height of the proposed Caravan Park redevelopment will have asignificant detrimental affect on the light through apertures in the buildings adjacent to theboundary with the caravan park. As the owner of a property living immediately adjacent to theproposed development I remain concerned that our easement of light would not be maintainedand that there are unacceptable obstructions to natural light entering our windows and gardens.

Overlooking / loss of privacy -The proposed development presentation show that buildings B, C and D will overlook theapertures and gardens of the households living immediately adjacent to the boundary.

Adequacy of parking -The proposed development comprises 166 dwellings. There is insufficient parking for theproposed development and this therefore creates a risk of overflow onto the roads in and aroundBaltic Wharf and subsequently the loss of a valuable residential amenity for the Baltic Wharfresidents.

Detrimental visual impact of proposed development -The proposed development is significantly higher than all the buildings in the area. This can bestbe seen in the documents "Photomontage Part 3 and Photomontage Part 4". In comparison, allthe courts in Baltic Wharf are three-storey high maximum, with some buildings adjacent to theproposed development even lower.

The proposed development is therefore out-of-scale in comparison to the surrounding haboursidearea and is out of character when compared to the existing developments in the west of theharbour. The design does not appear to take into consideration the position on the harbourside.Care needs to be taken to enhance our beautiful harbour when building new property. This designis too tall and dwarfs the nearby property.

The proposed development by reason of its size, depth, width, height and massing would have anunacceptably adverse impact on the amenities of the properties immediately adjacent to the siteand the surrounding area by reason of overlooking, loss of privacy and visually overbearingimpact.

The proposed development therefore does not confirm to Bristol City Council's Site Allocationsand Development Management Policy DM27:"Height, Scale and Massing - The height, scale and massing of development should beappropriate to the immediate context, site constraints, character of adjoining streets and spaces,the setting, public function and/or importance of the proposed development and the location withinthe townscape. Design solutions should optimise adaptability and energy efficiency and promotehealth and wellbeing."

Neither does the proposed development confirm to the Bristol Central Area Plan:

"Development adjacent to the Floating Harbour will be expected to be of a scale and designappropriate to its setting, reflecting the special interest and visual prominence of quayside areasand character and setting of the surviving historic buildings and fabric and preserving andenhancing views to and from the Floating Harbour. Development adjacent to the Floating Harbourwill be expected to retain, restore and integrate existing dockside furniture and fittings and makeprovision where possible for additional vessel moorings."

Noise and disturbance resulting from use -The current experience of the noise generated by the movement of cars and caravans in thecaravan site currently occupying these grounds tells us that these are quite noticeable. Based onthe significant increase in volume and the fact that these movements will become a 24/7occurrence (and no longer restricted by the caravan site opening hours), we are concerned aboutthe impact this will have on the quality of life of the residents.

Additional to the noise pollution, the issue of smoke and pollution is also relevant, as the prevailingwinds are from the West - South West, thus blowing it in our direction.

Finally, most boundary properties have kitchen, bedroom and living room windows and aperturesthat face the projected area, thus creating an additional exposure.

Building works (timescale and noise) -As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, working from home has now become the norm instead ofthe exception. This means that the working schedule of the planned building works will necessarilyoverlap with our own working hours. The close proximity to our homes, the fact that most homewindows face the planned site and the prevailing winds, means that this will directly impact ourability to work and rest. An additional consideration is that both Meredith and Napier Court includeage exclusive housing.

Value proposition -I object to the development, in its current form, due to the overall value proposition of this part ofthe harbourside as opposed to areas closer to the city centre. Residents, visitors and tourists tothe Baltic Wharf area of the harbourside enjoy it for the peace and tranquility and as a place wherethey can pause, away from the more vibrant and dynamic areas closer to the city centre. Theproposed redevelopment will fundamentally change the value proposition of the Baltic Wharfharbourside area to the detriment of Bristol as a whole which benefits greatly from having thesediverse areas.

Bias of development to the Baltic Wharf side rather than the Cottage side -The planned development proposals are for 4 and 5-storey buildings to tower over theneighbouring gardens. The tallest 6-storey building is planned to be directly behind that. The entiredevelopment has a strong bias towards the Baltic Wharf side.

Initially this seemed poorly thought out, however in the virtual meeting it became clear that thedevelopment team have consciously chosen to consider the commercial interests of the CottageInn pub over the people and families who call Baltic Wharf their home.

Use of commercial space and positioning -I am concerned that commercial space, especially pubs and restaurants will have a significant anddetrimental effect the current atmosphere with potential noise and disturbance as a direct result.Similar development such as Wapping Wharf near the M Shed really highlight this. Duringweekends the area is very crowded, creating a nuisance for the residents.

There are already three local pubs in the area and many restaurants are available on walkingdistance.

Flood risk -I do not feel that sufficient analysis or consideration has taken place by the development team withregards to the knock on effect of raising the base level of their proposed development on BalticWharf and, in particular, the properties and gardens along the boundary.

Highway safety -The recent collapse of chocolate path, directly adjacent to the western end of the proposed site,has been found to have been caused by 'deep seated groundslip under Cumberland Road'. Thisraises concerns over the sustainability, size and mass of the proposed development, especiallywith forecasts of increased heavy rainfall and water flow in coming (future) years.

How is the building of such a significant development possible when even light transport iscurrently considered unsuitable for the area?

Planning application -I am concerned regarding the potential conflict of interests between the developers, GoramHomes (a subsidiary of Bristol Holding Ltd, owned by Bristol City Council) and the DevelopmentManagement (Planning Permission) team (also part of Bristol City Council). I have not been re-assured that there is a wholly independent planning application process with such a conflict ofinterest occurring.

Name of proposed development -I am a resident of a development which has, for many years, been widely known as Baltic Wharf. Ifyou drive into Baltic Wharf, the name is literally carved in stone at the entrance. I am thereforeconcerned that there will be unnecessary confusion should Goram and Hill continue using thisname for their proposed development in their communications and publicity.

Caravan Club and Water sports -I understand that notice has been served on the existing Balitc Wharf Caravan Club to terminate

their lease from the 31st May 2021. This seems to be pre-emptive as the proposed developmenthas not been approved which again introduces concerns as to a conflict of interest within BristolCity Council. Leaving the land vacant for any period of time should not be considered as, amongstother things, it introduces risk of illegal occupation and misuse.

I am also concerned that the proposed building height will create wind turbulence for the manynovice sailors who learn to sail at All Aboard - the only fully accessible watersports centre inBristol, and which caters predominantly for those with disability or disadvantage.

The proposed development therefore does not conform to Bristol City Council's Site Allocationsand Development Management Policy BCAP9:"Existing cultural, tourist and water-based recreation facilities should be retained in those uses andenhanced where possible unless appropriate replacement facilities are provided in a suitablealternative location."

Mrs zoe larter  10 WEARE COURT, BALTIC WHARF, BRISTOL BS1 6XF  on 2021-04-30   OBJECT

As one of the stakeholders to the proposed development (owner of a propertyimmediately adjacent to the boundary with the caravan park) I have been involved in aconsultation process with Goram Homes and Hill.

Following a stakeholder presentation on Thursday 8th October 2020 a letter was written to thedevelopment team outlining initial concerns and objections (a full copy of this letter can beprovided if required).

The letter was written on behalf of 10 households immediately adjacent to the boundary with thecaravan park and a further 29 Baltic Wharf households who have asked to be recorded as co-signatories in support of the concerns.

A further presentation on Tuesday 15th December 2020 raised further questions which were sentto the development team by email.

Extract from email:"During the meeting we requested some further information which we would be grateful if youcould provide us with:

1) Visuals of the proposed development as it would look from within Baltic Wharf itself;2) The 'Harbour Elevation' diagram extended to include Baltic Wharf;3) The full daylight analysis report as well as an explanation of the data in 'layman's' terms; - This information should include a comparison of the proposed development with the way thatBaltic Wharf has been developed (i.e. to minimise overlooking/overshadowing);

- We would also like to see multiple illustrations of the affect on daylight of the proposeddevelopment (i.e. not just on the 'legal day'); - Confirmation of when the 'legal day' is; - Information on overshadowing affect of proposed development to gardens along the border.4) The min & max height of the proposed trees along the border;5) Information/recommendations on how noise disruption would be minimised during construction;6) Additional CAD views of the proposed development as requested in our original letter;- In addition, visuals as requested as part of the planning process: VP1 - VP12. 7) Estimation of the extra vehicles that would be using the one-way Cumberland Road - affect onpollution, parking; 8) Anything else that you have noted that we discussed which we've missed here.

Following our review of this information along with the presentation and recorded meeting, we willthen, as a stakeholder group, look to provide a formal response to you.

Would two weeks be sufficient time for you to provide us with this information?"

Extract from a follow up email sent to the development team on Tuesday 15th December:"One of our residents noted that Meredith Court was not included on the Daylight and SunlightAnalysis Results slide - would it be possible for the development team to add in Meredith Courtand send the slide over please?"

An email received from the development team on Thursday 24th December confirmed that furtherinformation would be sent to the stakeholders in response to these questions.

Extract from email:"We still have some work to do and are also aware we owe you some further information which wewill get to you in the New Year."

The promised information has not been forthcoming and there was no further communication fromthe development team until an email received on Wednesday 21st April informing the stakeholdersthat a planning application had been submitted.

I would therefore raise a concern that stakeholder consultation has not been fully completed asthere is outstanding information that was promised by the development team but not delivered.

My objections to this development are aligned to the original letter to the development team. I donot feel that these concerns have been suitably addressed during consultation (which, asmentioned, I do not believe was sufficiently concluded prior to submitting the planning application)or in the subsequently submitted plans:

Loss of light / overshadowing -

The close proximity and height of the proposed Caravan Park redevelopment will have asignificant detrimental affect on the light through apertures in the buildings adjacent to theboundary with the caravan park. As the owner of a property living immediately adjacent to theproposed development I remain concerned that our easement of light would not be maintainedand that there are unacceptable obstructions to natural light entering our windows and gardens.

Overlooking / loss of privacy -The proposed development presentation show that buildings B, C and D will overlook theapertures and gardens of the households living immediately adjacent to the boundary.

Adequacy of parking -The proposed development comprises 166 dwellings. There is insufficient parking for theproposed development and this therefore creates a risk of overflow onto the roads in and aroundBaltic Wharf and subsequently the loss of a valuable residential amenity for the Baltic Wharfresidents.

Detrimental visual impact of proposed development -The proposed development is significantly higher than all the buildings in the area. This can bestbe seen in the documents "Photomontage Part 3 and Photomontage Part 4". In comparison, allthe courts in Baltic Wharf are three-storey high maximum, with some buildings adjacent to theproposed development even lower.

The proposed development is therefore out-of-scale in comparison to the surrounding haboursidearea and is out of character when compared to the existing developments in the west of theharbour. The design does not appear to take into consideration the position on the harbourside.Care needs to be taken to enhance our beautiful harbour when building new property. This designis too tall and dwarfs the nearby property.

The proposed development by reason of its size, depth, width, height and massing would have anunacceptably adverse impact on the amenities of the properties immediately adjacent to the siteand the surrounding area by reason of overlooking, loss of privacy and visually overbearingimpact.

The proposed development therefore does not confirm to Bristol City Council's Site Allocationsand Development Management Policy DM27:"Height, Scale and Massing - The height, scale and massing of development should beappropriate to the immediate context, site constraints, character of adjoining streets and spaces,the setting, public function and/or importance of the proposed development and the location withinthe townscape. Design solutions should optimise adaptability and energy efficiency and promotehealth and wellbeing."

Neither does the proposed development confirm to the Bristol Central Area Plan:

"Development adjacent to the Floating Harbour will be expected to be of a scale and designappropriate to its setting, reflecting the special interest and visual prominence of quayside areasand character and setting of the surviving historic buildings and fabric and preserving andenhancing views to and from the Floating Harbour. Development adjacent to the Floating Harbourwill be expected to retain, restore and integrate existing dockside furniture and fittings and makeprovision where possible for additional vessel moorings."

Noise and disturbance resulting from use -The current experience of the noise generated by the movement of cars and caravans in thecaravan site currently occupying these grounds tells us that these are quite noticeable. Based onthe significant increase in volume and the fact that these movements will become a 24/7occurrence (and no longer restricted by the caravan site opening hours), we are concerned aboutthe impact this will have on the quality of life of the residents.

Additional to the noise pollution, the issue of smoke and pollution is also relevant, as the prevailingwinds are from the West - South West, thus blowing it in our direction.

Finally, most boundary properties have kitchen, bedroom and living room windows and aperturesthat face the projected area, thus creating an additional exposure.

Building works (timescale and noise) -As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, working from home has now become the norm instead ofthe exception. This means that the working schedule of the planned building works will necessarilyoverlap with our own working hours. The close proximity to our homes, the fact that most homewindows face the planned site and the prevailing winds, means that this will directly impact ourability to work and rest. An additional consideration is that both Meredith and Napier Court includeage exclusive housing.

Value proposition -I object to the development, in its current form, due to the overall value proposition of this part ofthe harbourside as opposed to areas closer to the city centre. Residents, visitors and tourists tothe Baltic Wharf area of the harbourside enjoy it for the peace and tranquility and as a place wherethey can pause, away from the more vibrant and dynamic areas closer to the city centre. Theproposed redevelopment will fundamentally change the value proposition of the Baltic Wharfharbourside area to the detriment of Bristol as a whole which benefits greatly from having thesediverse areas.

Bias of development to the Baltic Wharf side rather than the Cottage side -The planned development proposals are for 4 and 5-storey buildings to tower over theneighbouring gardens. The tallest 6-storey building is planned to be directly behind that. The entiredevelopment has a strong bias towards the Baltic Wharf side.

Initially this seemed poorly thought out, however in the virtual meeting it became clear that thedevelopment team have consciously chosen to consider the commercial interests of the CottageInn pub over the people and families who call Baltic Wharf their home.

Use of commercial space and positioning -I am concerned that commercial space, especially pubs and restaurants will have a significant anddetrimental effect the current atmosphere with potential noise and disturbance as a direct result.Similar development such as Wapping Wharf near the M Shed really highlight this. Duringweekends the area is very crowded, creating a nuisance for the residents.

There are already three local pubs in the area and many restaurants are available on walkingdistance.

Flood risk -I do not feel that sufficient analysis or consideration has taken place by the development team withregards to the knock on effect of raising the base level of their proposed development on BalticWharf and, in particular, the properties and gardens along the boundary.

Highway safety -The recent collapse of chocolate path, directly adjacent to the western end of the proposed site,has been found to have been caused by 'deep seated groundslip under Cumberland Road'. Thisraises concerns over the sustainability, size and mass of the proposed development, especiallywith forecasts of increased heavy rainfall and water flow in coming (future) years.

How is the building of such a significant development possible when even light transport iscurrently considered unsuitable for the area?

Planning application -I am concerned regarding the potential conflict of interests between the developers, GoramHomes (a subsidiary of Bristol Holding Ltd, owned by Bristol City Council) and the DevelopmentManagement (Planning Permission) team (also part of Bristol City Council). I have not been re-assured that there is a wholly independent planning application process with such a conflict ofinterest occurring.

Name of proposed development -I am a resident of a development which has, for many years, been widely known as Baltic Wharf. Ifyou drive into Baltic Wharf, the name is literally carved in stone at the entrance. I am thereforeconcerned that there will be unnecessary confusion should Goram and Hill continue using thisname for their proposed development in their communications and publicity.

Caravan Club and Water sports -I understand that notice has been served on the existing Balitc Wharf Caravan Club to terminate

their lease from the 31st May 2021. This seems to be pre-emptive as the proposed developmenthas not been approved which again introduces concerns as to a conflict of interest within BristolCity Council. Leaving the land vacant for any period of time should not be considered as, amongstother things, it introduces risk of illegal occupation and misuse.

I am also concerned that the proposed building height will create wind turbulence for the manynovice sailors who learn to sail at All Aboard - the only fully accessible watersports centre inBristol, and which caters predominantly for those with disability or disadvantage.

The proposed development therefore does not conform to Bristol City Council's Site Allocationsand Development Management Policy BCAP9:"Existing cultural, tourist and water-based recreation facilities should be retained in those uses andenhanced where possible unless appropriate replacement facilities are provided in a suitablealternative location."

Mr Nick Cowley  16 POPLAR ROAD UPLANDS BRISTOL  on 2021-04-30   OBJECT

Having seen the before and after photographs the planned builings will be another bloton the Bristol landscape.

Ms E Melling  13 AVON CRESCENT BRISTOL  on 2021-04-30   OBJECT

I am totally opposed to this application. Firstly I'm upset that the caravan site will bemovedBut most importantly I am horrified by the height of the 'flats' - surely there are rules on how highbuildings can be compared to those flats alongside and opposite?I understand that this is a huge money making project for those intent on making as much moneyout of it as possible.Most of the flats on the south side of floating harbour are shoddy, tatty and in need in constantrepair. Is this the plan, to cram as many little flats into this space to make as much money aspossible?Shoddy plans, shoddy workmanship, shoddy Development Management.I wonder if, after Covid, many people won't want to live and work in the City? It's happening inLondon so watch out. Avarice is a sin.

Mr John Littlewood  10 THEYNES CROFT BRISTOL  on 2021-04-30   OBJECT

This is a travesty. Bristol had one of the top campsites in the uk (possibly the world) in acity location and they have thrown it away. And for what? Private profit, that's what.Housing on this site should be objected at all costs and the land used for the benefit of bristol, it'sresidents and visitors. The land use should not be changed away from leisure.Time to stand-up for once BCC.It's not like they are going to be affordable housing is it!

Ms Anna Gristwood  8 CHERRY ROAD LONG ASHTON BRISTOL, LONG ASHTON  on 2021-04-30   OBJECT

The plans for the dwellings on the current caravan site are extremely worrying as thebuildings are far too high and imposing and are out of character with the area and the historicUnderfall Yard. I'm also dismayed to read that thirty-seven trees are to be cut down at a time whenwe are being encouraged to preserve our trees and plant more. I strongly oppose this plan andvery much hope it will be reconsidered.

Dr Ruth Goodman  2 AVON CRESCENT HOTWELLS BRISTOL  on 2021-04-30   OBJECT

I object to the height of this development. It is considerably taller than other localdevelopments and towers over everything else in the area. Therefore, it is an unsightly blot on thelandscape. No doubt it will set a precedent for other tall and even taller buildings in the area, in theinterest of developer greed to pack as many high rise/high priced homes in the area. This is ahistoric and beautiful area of the city and should be treated with the respect it deserves!

Ms Anna Haydock-Wilson  23 AVON CRESCENT BRISTOL  on 2021-04-30   OBJECT

Anything built there should not be any taller than the surrounding buildings.

Mr Martin Rands  15 AVON CRESCENT SPIKE ISLAND BRISTOL  on 2021-04-30   OBJECT

This development is lazy. Goram Homes has simply copied and pasted building stylesfrom Wapping Wharf, and plonked them down next to The Cottage pub, which sadly is not listed,but ought to be. It used to be the Harbour Master's Office or some important dockside officialbuilding. It will now be swamped by a pastiche dockside building, which bears no historicalrelevance in that position. This area was for timber storage. Hence Baltic Wharf.The height precedent will threaten the adjacent sailing and boating charities Sailability, All Aboardetc. There is a danger that all waterside sites will become residential and wipe out heritage andleisure water use. The height precedent (it is far too tall) acts as a cynical trojan horse for wider'Western Harbour' high rise development. The council is in danger of killing the golden goose.Cumberland Basin and this area is one of the reasons that Bristol is a major tourist city andaccounts for some of its economic success.80 out of the 90 mature trees will be felled, after the city council has declared and ecological andenvironmental crisis. Is it not serious about this?The 'poor doors' affordable section on Cumberland Road is boring and cheap looking. These willbe the unaffordable 'affordable' flats. The Wapping Wharf 'affordable' flats are expensive!The development is too high, will cut light from the unfortunate home owners at the existing BalticWharf development, and will affect air flow for sailers on the water. Sailing on the Harbour is trickyenough as it is, due to wind swirling around four/five storey buildings.The development is out of scale. This is in the 'Western Harbour' development boundary, and if weget off to a bad start, we could destroy what makes Bristol special.Please think twice before granting this consent, just to tick 'affordable' housing boxes. 'Affordable'isn't often affordable in Bristol! Certainly not in this area.

Mrs Sue Cowley  16 POPLAR ROAD UPLANDS BRISTOL  on 2021-04-30   OBJECT

Having reviewed the before and after photos of the project, I fail to see how this issupposed to blend in to the current landscape, it does not blend in with the rest of thedevelopments in the area, and looks like a poor architecture design, money rather than aesthetics.

John & Brenda Percy  50 POOLES WHARF COURT   on 2021-04-30   OBJECT

I wish to object to some of the aspects of this proposed development.

Firstly, the height of the buildings is out of all proportion to the rest of the buildings at this end of the harbour which are at the most three stories high.

Secondly, I see no need for yet more cafés on the harbourside, particularly as there are already three pubs serving food close by. The area out side the Cottage is already crammed with drinkers on summer evenings and additional alcohol outlets will create a sort of boozers paradise no doubt with ensuing law and order problems. Have the police been made aware of this?

Thirdly, I am concerned that several trees seem to be for the chop. Any removal of greenery would be contrary to the council's avowed "green" policies.

Please bear these objections in mind while considering this project.

Yours, John and Brenda Percy.

PS. Has the council also considered the need for family housing near the centre, we seem only to envisage putting up flats, no doubt owing to the greed of developers!

Mr Chris Shea  376 HOTWELL ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-04-29  

May I confine my comment to one aspect of the design, namely the vast slab sides ofbrickwork proposed for some of the facades - Building A west elevation, Building B east elevation,and most egregious of all, Building E west elevation (also illustrated in Photomontage 2). Such anhuge expanse of brickwork is extremely oppressive and so detrimental to the surroundings.Ideally the slab sides should be punctured with windows or something similar to break them up.The proposal for a couple of courses of solider bricks is wholly insufficient - and also a very tiredidea - very 1980s and cheap looking. If it is necessary to retain the slab sides, then a higherquality, more extensive and better contrasting decoration should be employed.

Miss Nicky LOWE  69 POOLES WHARF COURT HOTWELLS BRISTOL  on 2021-04-29   OBJECT

The planned development is too high dwarfing and overshadowing nearby buildings ieBaltic Wharf & The Cottage Pub, & is also completely out of character with the historic docksSome 80 mature trees & hedgerow will be destroyed to pave the way. This area is a unique openpart of the City which should be preserved for it's water & other activities and is how the caravansite fits in perfectly. OBJECT

Mr phil pearce  39 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-04-29   OBJECT

The development is too tall, does not suit the neighbouring developments aestheticallyand will overshadow neighbouring properties. Its design is totally inappropriate for this area.(unlike a touring caravan and camper park which for many years has brought tourists and theirmoney into Bristol and been a free advertisement for reasons to visit the city

Car parking provision (0.47 per dwelling - what is this? a Reliant Robin, motorbike/sidecarmaybe?) This is insufficient and will result in nearby street parking to the detriment of localresidents. Electric cars take up as much room as any other car.

The provision of commercial units (i.e. bars) will result in anincrease in littering and noise. Bristol Waste (or the Harbourmaster - I am not quite sure who isresponsible for rubbish clearance in this area, or indeed if anyone knows, including the council.Whoever is responsible, they appear incapable of dealing with the existing littering anddisturbances to residents around the harbourside. The council seem determined to make thewhole of the residential harbourside a similar mess to the areas closer to the city centre, likeHanover Quay where some shoddy barriers have been erected lately in a futile attempt to controlthe marauding hoards of incontinent drunks.

The Baltic Wharf Management Company  26 MEREDITH COURT CANADA WAY BRISTOL  on 2021-04-29   OBJECT

We object to the above application and we believe that permission should be refused forthe following reasons.

1. Principle of Development:

The proposed development displaces the caravan and motorhome park, which is unanimouslyrecognised as an asset to the city. We understand the growing need for housing, but this shouldnot be satisfied at the expense of an established leisure facility that supports employment andtourism within Bristol. Visitors to the site contribute towards the local economy, providing customto the nearby tourist attractions, pubs and eateries. They also venture on foot, by bike or by ferryfurther into the city centre, where they spend more money.

The Caravan and Motorhome Club have informed us that they are urgently seeking an extensionto their current agreement with the city council, which is due to expire on 31st May 2021. Theapplicant has not demonstrated that there is no demand for the current use and we do not believethat they can. On this basis, a Judicial Review is likely to overturn any planning approval that isgranted.

The application form describes the site as brownfield land, when it is not. The site is still in activeuse as a leisure and tourism facility and therefore not vacant. It is not derelict and it does notfeature on the city council's Brownfield Land Register. If the site was vacant, it would beconsidered part of the dockside landscape and therefore excluded from the definition of brownfieldland.

2. Discord with the Local Plan:

The application site is not allocated for housing within the adopted Local Plan.

3. Site Limitations:

The development potential of the site is significantly limited by various factors, such as flood risk,neighbouring buildings, conservation area status, mature trees, adjacent uses and proximity toheritage assets. The existing use as a caravan and motorhome park is compatible with all of theselimitations.

4. Overshadowing and Overbearing:

The bid invitation issued to the applicant in 2019 stated that any proposed scheme "requiressufficient separation distance from perspective of privacy, light, outlook; new development backingonto should respect the scale of existing buildings". The proposals are out of proportion,overbearing and will cause overshadowing to several homes and gardens. Some neighbouringproperties will receive no direct sunlight after 1:00pm during the winter months. The applicantargues that they must build tall to achieve a minimum density in compliance with the localauthority's requirements for new housing, but this is untrue because the land is not allocated forhousing within the Local Plan.

Computer generated views of the development from street level in Canada Way and CumberlandClose were reluctantly shown to neighbouring occupiers during the pre-application consultationprocess. It is unsurprising that the applicant has not included these images within their TVIA,because they demonstrate the level of impact that this proposed development will have. Werequest that you obtain these images and make them available for public viewing.

As a result of its proposed height, siting, scale, bulk, massing, and close proximity to neighbouringproperties, the proposed development represents an undesirable overdevelopment of the site. Theproposal would be detrimental to the enjoyment and current level of residential amenity awardedto at least twenty-five neighbouring properties by way of unacceptable levels of enclosure,overshadowing, loss of direct sunlight and overbearing impact. Therefore the proposals fail toaccord with the requirements of local plan policies BCS21 of the Core Strategy 2011, DM27 of SiteAllocations and Development Management Policies 2014 and the NPPF 2019.

5. Land Raising:

The proposals require the level of the site to be raised in order to reduce the flood risk within theproposed dwellings. Land raising will adversely affect drainage systems, reduce flood storagecapacity and interfere with the conveyance of floodwater. This will increase the risk of flooding onadjacent land.

6. Impact on Heritage and Conservation Area:

The design of the proposed buildings is unattractive, out of character with the existing landscapeand far too dominant for the setting. The application site is located within the City DocksConservation Area and close to Underfall Yard. The western end of the harbour is used for watersports and recreation, boat building and other light industrial activity. It has the peaceful ambienceof a traditional working harbour and is vastly different from the bright lights, loud music andexcessive alcohol consumption found in the city centre.

The proposed development, by virtue of its height, siting, scale, bulk, massing, form and overalldesign would fail to respond to the setting, local context and landscape. It would appear as anovertly dominant, incongruous and discordant form of development that would not contributepositively to the area's character, appearance and identity. As such, the proposed development iscontrary to local plan policies BCS21 of the Core Strategy 2011, DM26, DM27, DM29 and DM31of Site Allocations and Development Management Policies 2014 and the NPPF 2019.

7. Impact on Harbour Activities:

The floating harbour provides a place for numerous water-based sporting activities. There is anunmet demand for land and buildings from clubs and groups that facilitate these leisure pursuits,many of which operate on a not-for-profit basis to maximise accessibility. Housing can be providedin many different locations within the city boundary, but water-based activities cannot. Priority forany vacant land adjoining the harbour should therefore be given to uses that require access to thewater. This proposed development threatens the safe continued use of the western end of theharbour for leisure use by groups such as 'Sailability' and 'All Aboard' and is therefore in directcontravention of Policy DM5 within the Bristol Local Plan Site Allocations and DevelopmentManagement Policies 2014.

8. Trees:

We are opposed to the loss of any mature trees on the site. The existing use of the site as acaravan and motorhome park is compatible with the landscape and planting within the site.

9. Tenure Mix

Affordable housing within new developments should be 'tenure blind'; such that it isindistinguishable from market housing and interspersed in small clusters amongst open markethomes. Consequently, affordable homes should be of at least the same quality as the equivalentopen market home. Segregating affordable and market housing results in pockets of anti- socialbehaviour and a lack of cohesion within communities. The proposed development does not adhereto these principles.

10. Parking for Residents and Visitors

The low level of parking provision that is proposed will be unworkable. Community car sharingschemes have not yet progressed to a sufficient level of functionality, and the majority ofhouseholds are therefore still required to own a car for journeys that are not practicable by bicycleor public transport. The layout of the car park is cramped and does not appear to allow sufficientspace for vehicles to manoeuvre into many of the parking bays. In a scheme where parkingprovision is so low, the number of parking spaces dedicated to car sharing should be nearer 25%,not the single bay shown on the plans. As has happened within other developments, high valueunits are likely to be sold with two allocated bays, further reducing the availability of parking formost residents.

11. Access to the site for Commercial Vehicles

The proposed development will generate substantial volumes of commercial vehicle traffic fordeliveries, removals, maintenance and refurbishment projects. These vehicles will congest thearea immediately within the entrance to the site, which has been identified as the only location forcommercial vehicle parking. The density of the proposals result in a scheme that is impossible toservice on a day-to-day basis. It is highly likely that vehicles will park on the pavement onCumberland Road, in the public car park by the water leisure centre or on the quayside in front ofthe Cottage Inn due to the lack of parking provision within the site.

12. Capacity of Local Infrastructure and Unbuilt Permissions

Spike Island is surrounded by water and difficult to access via the existing road network. The localinfrastructure has a finite capacity and consideration should be given to the consents that havebeen granted for the 142 unbuilt flats on Gas Ferry Road and 19 flats under construction onCumberland Road. Both of these schemes also incorporate commercial floorspace. The schemeat nearby Wapping Wharf is approximately 50% complete and will add further pressure as itgrows.

13. Recycling and Household Waste Arrangements

The arrangements for storage and collection of bins are impractical. There is a suggestion thatmore than 50 large bins will be wheeled a significant distance by hand to a central point oncollection day. Refuse lorries will then block access to and from the site whilst the bins areemptied. The proposals do not comply with the requirements of policy DM32 of the Bristol LocalPlan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies 2014.

14. Energy

The suggestion that the proposed development will be heated by the new Bristol Heat Network isunrealistic. The infrastructure does not exist within the local area and probably never will. We areopposed to the further introduction of any heating systems that consume fossil fuels. Within ourown estate, we have a growing number of zero-carbon households who obtain all of their energyneeds from renewable sources and drive electric vehicles. Modern electric heating systems canprovide the same level of comfort in well-insulated modern construction, if designed and specifiedcorrectly.

15. Site Management Arrangements

No site management office is indicated on the drawings. A lack of site-based facilities would resultin a poorly managed scheme.

The Board of DirectorsBaltic Wharf Management Company Limited

Ms Alexandra Gibbons   1 KENSINGTON VILLAS ROYAL PARK BRISTOL  on 2021-04-28   OBJECT

The harbourside is a great place for caravan visitors to be able to stay so a great lossfor visitors bringing money into the city. Also further erosion of open space in the centre of the city- a real loss for this area which is beautifully maintained.

Mr Alastair Todd  19 COTSWOLD ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-04-28   OBJECT

I have looked at the plans for the development and the CGI and can't believe the size ofthe proposals. They dwarf anything in the surrounding area and overshadow a large section of theharbour where people gather on days with nice weather. While the overall design is obviously inkeeping with the docklands appearance it would set a dangerous precedent to have buildings ofthis height in the area.Additionally I use this area to sail and while I understand any development may affect the windquality and strength the shorter the better to prevent this area becoming degraded for thethousands of people that enjoy watersports here every year.

Mr Mark Moran MBE  1 WESTFIELD PLACE CLIFTON BRISTOL  on 2021-04-28   OBJECT

This is an insane overdevelopemnt of a very very small block of land. It is unsightly, ittowers over the surrounding area and is totally out of keeping with the buildings around it. It is atravesty that the caravan park was closed in the first place as it brought visitors and money intothe city and a great deal of pleasure to many all year round. This is overdevelopment at its worst.The road for access is not even open from one direction. There are no redeeming features to thisat all.

  BALTIC WHARF MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED   on 2021-04-28   OBJECT

Baltic Wharf Management Company Limited3. Site Limitations:

The development potential of the site is significantly limited by various factors, such as flood risk, neighbouring buildings, conservation area status, mature trees, adjacent uses and proximity to heritage assets. The existing use as a caravan and motorhome park is compatible with all of these limitations.

4. Overshadowing and Overbearing:

The bid invitation issued to the applicant in 2019 stated that any proposed scheme “requires sufficient separation distance from perspective of privacy, light, outlook; new development backing onto should respect the scale of existing buildings”. The proposals are out of proportion, overbearing and will cause overshadowing to several homes and gardens. Some neighbouring properties will receive no direct sunlight after 1:00pm during the winter months. The applicant argues that they must build tall to achieve a minimum density in compliance with the local authority's requirements for new housing, but this is untrue because the land is not allocated for housing within the Local Plan.

Computer generated views of the development from street level in Canada Way and Cumberland Close were reluctantly shown to neighbouring occupiers during the pre-application consultation process. It is unsurprising that the applicant has not included these images within their TVIA, because they demonstrate the level of impact that this proposed development will have. We request that you obtain these images and make them available for public viewing.

As a result of its proposed height, siting, scale, bulk, massing, and close proximity to neighbouring properties, the proposed development represents an undesirable overdevelopment of the site. The proposal would be detrimental to the enjoyment and current level of residential amenity awarded to at least twenty-five neighbouring properties by way of unacceptable levels of enclosure, overshadowing, loss of direct sunlight and overbearing impact. Therefore the proposals fail to accord with the requirements of local plan policies BCS21 of the Core Strategy 2011, DM27 of Site Allocations and Development Management Policies 2014 and the NPPF 2019.

5. Land Raising:

The proposals require the level of the site to be raised in order to reduce the flood risk within the proposed dwellings. Land raising will adversely affect drainage systems, reduce flood storage capacity and interfere with the conveyance of floodwater. This will increase the risk of flooding on adjacent land.

26 Meredith Court, Canada Way, BRISTOL BS1 6XXTel: (0117) 921 3596 e-mail: office@balticwharfbristol.co.uk

Baltic Wharf Management Company Limited is a company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 01840616

Baltic Wharf Management Company Limited6. Impact on Heritage and Conservation Area:

The design of the proposed buildings is unattractive, out of character with the existing landscape and far too dominant for the setting. The application site is located within the City Docks Conservation Area and close to Underfall Yard. The western end of the harbour is used for water sports and recreation, boat building and other light industrial activity. It has the peaceful ambience of a traditional working harbour and is vastly different from the bright lights, loud music and excessive alcohol consumption found in the city centre.

The proposed development, by virtue of its height, siting, scale, bulk, massing, form and overall design would fail to respond to the setting, local context and landscape. It would appear as an overtly dominant, incongruous and discordant form of development that would not contribute positively to the area's character, appearance and identity. As such, the proposed development is contrary to local plan policies BCS21 of the Core Strategy 2011, DM26, DM27, DM29 and DM31 of Site Allocations and Development Management Policies 2014 and the NPPF 2019.

7. Impact on Harbour Activities:

The floating harbour provides a place for numerous water-based sporting activities. There is an unmet demand for land and buildings from clubs and groups that facilitate these leisure pursuits, many of which operate on a not-for-profit basis to maximise accessibility. Housing can be provided in many different locations within the city boundary, but water-based activities cannot. Priority for any vacant land adjoining the harbour should therefore be given to uses that require access to the water. This proposed development threatens the safe continued use of the western end of the harbour for leisure use by groups such as 'Sailability' and 'All Aboard' and is therefore in direct contravention of Policy DM5 within the Bristol Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies 2014.

8. Trees:

We are opposed to the loss of any mature trees on the site. The existing use of the site as a caravan and motorhome park is compatible with the landscape and planting within the site.

9. Tenure Mix

Affordable housing within new developments should be ‘tenure blind’; such that it is indistinguishable from market housing and interspersed in small clusters amongst open market homes. Consequently, affordable homes should be of at least the same quality as the equivalent open market home. Segregating affordable and market housing results in pockets of anti- social behaviour and a lack of cohesion within communities. The proposed development does not adhere to these principles.

26 Meredith Court, Canada Way, BRISTOL BS1 6XXTel: (0117) 921 3596 e-mail: office@balticwharfbristol.co.uk

Baltic Wharf Management Company Limited is a company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 01840616

Baltic Wharf Management Company Limited10. Parking for Residents and Visitors

The low level of parking provision that is proposed will be unworkable. Community car sharing schemes have not yet progressed to a sufficient level of functionality, and the majority of households are therefore still required to own a car for journeys that are not practicable by bicycle or public transport. The layout of the car park is cramped and does not appear to allow sufficient space for vehicles to manoeuvre into many of the parking bays. In a scheme where parking provision is so low, the number of parking spaces dedicated to car sharing should be nearer 25%, not the single bay shown on the plans. As has happened within other developments, high value units are likely to be sold with two allocated bays, further reducing the availability of parking for most residents.

11. Access to the site for Commercial Vehicles

The proposed development will generate substantial volumes of commercial vehicle traffic for deliveries, removals, maintenance and refurbishment projects. These vehicles will congest the area immediately within the entrance to the site, which has been identified as the only location for commercial vehicle parking. The density of the proposals result in a scheme that is impossible to service on a day-to-day basis. It is highly likely that vehicles will park on the pavement on Cumberland Road, in the public car park by the water leisure centre or on the quayside in front of the Cottage Inn due to the lack of parking provision within the site.

12. Capacity of Local Infrastructure and Unbuilt Permissions

Spike Island is surrounded by water and difficult to access via the existing road network. The local infrastructure has a finite capacity and consideration should be given to the consents that have been granted for the 142 unbuilt flats on Gas Ferry Road and 19 flats under construction on Cumberland Road. Both of these schemes also incorporate commercial floorspace. The scheme at nearby Wapping Wharf is approximately 50% complete and will add further pressure as it grows.

13. Recycling and Household Waste Arrangements

The arrangements for storage and collection of bins are impractical. There is a suggestion that more than 50 large bins will be wheeled a significant distance by hand to a central point on collection day. Refuse lorries will then block access to and from the site whilst the bins are emptied. The proposals do not comply with the requirements of policy DM32 of the Bristol Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies 2014.

14. Energy

The suggestion that the proposed development will be heated by the new Bristol Heat Network is unrealistic. The infrastructure does not exist within the local area and probably never will. We are opposed to the further introduction of any heating systems that consume fossil fuels. Within our own estate, we have a growing number of zero-carbon households who obtain all of their energy needs

26 Meredith Court, Canada Way, BRISTOL BS1 6XXTel: (0117) 921 3596 e-mail: office@balticwharfbristol.co.uk

Baltic Wharf Management Company Limited is a company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 01840616

Baltic Wharf Management Company Limitedfrom renewable sources and drive electric vehicles. Modern electric heating systems can provide the same level of comfort in well-insulated modern construction, if designed and specified correctly.

15. Site Management Arrangements

No site management office is indicated on the drawings. A lack of site-based facilities would result in a poorly managed scheme. Yours sincerely,

For and on behalf of the Board of Directors Baltic Wharf Management Company Limited

26 Meredith Court, Canada Way, BRISTOL BS1 6XXTel: (0117) 921 3596 e-mail: office@balticwharfbristol.co.uk

Baltic Wharf Management Company Limited is a company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 01840616

Mr S J Bullock  FLAT 3 MEREDITH COURT   on 2021-04-28   OBJECT

I wish to register my objection to the proposed redevelopment of the caravan club on Cumberland Road.I don't feel the local residents (of which I'm one) have had any chance to have their say on the proposed development. It should be deferred until such time that a full consultation with the local residents has been done.Could you please email me with specific details of the actual plans detailing the amount of social and affordable homes are intended to be built on the site and what community facilities will be built there too.We the local residents feel that we are being railroaded into this without fair and proper consultations being taken into account.When will the final planning meeting be held at Bristol City Council as I intend to attend and protest about the lack of local consultation.I await your prompt reply with interestMr. S. J. Bullock

Miss Stephanie Warren  2 PORTLAND COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-04-27   OBJECT

Please consider reducing the number of properties in this location and the height of thebuildings.

Our transport, shops and parking is not set up for an additional 166 properties which would lead toan additional over 300 residents and 166 cars. The roads cannot cope with the current traffic andvehicles and without additional community buildings, shops and schools in the area this is notviable.The height of the buildings will destroy the sky line in the area overshadowing the currentdevelopment and historic harbour site. New properties should add to the atmosphere and historiclocation of the area in line with its style and views of Bristol rather than blocking it. Newdevelopment is a fantastic idea but would need rethinking and proper planning.

Ms Mary Montgomery  22 ROSEBERY AVE ST WERBURGHS BRISTOL  on 2021-04-27   OBJECT

I object to the felling of 80 out of 90 mature trees at the caravan park. This is inner cityBristol where there is an increasing lack of mature trees. More and more have been felled recentlyin inner city Bristol and a recent Aerial Mapping survey shows that Bristol has the 5th lowest treecover in UK. This is shocking in a city which claims to have green credentials and to be workingtowards having clean air . Each of these trees works as a filtration plant in cleansing the air, byremoving pollutants. Each tree is also habitat to birds and the many insects essential in pollinationwhich is badly needed. Trees also provide much needed shade in the city where, due to climatechange, our summers are becoming hotter.Mature trees have proven benefit on peoples' mental health and research has shown that there isa lower crime rate in areas where there are more trees. People deserve to have housing whichincludes mature trees and green spaces. It should not be one or the other - the two should beinclusive. Planting numerous saplings does not substitute for the benefits of the loss of even onemature tree.

Mr Stephen Palmer  27 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-04-27   OBJECT

This development is wholly out of keeping with the surrounding area.

The proposed height of the development is far too high and will detrimentally dominate the skylineand overshadow its neighbours. The number of flats proposed is excessive, which is driving theheight "requirement".

The addition of commercial premises will completely change the nature of the neighbourhood,which is largely considered the quieter, more residential end of the harbour.

The limited car parking to be provided will be insufficient, and will result in many cars being parkedin surrounding areas, where it is unlikely that parking restrictions can be properly enforced.

Cumberland Road access is already restricted due to the collapse of the River Avon bank, and it islikely that the increased construction traffic over a two year period will impact further on an alreadyweakened road.

Construction is anticipated to be over a two year period, and will severely impact on neighbouringproperties

The existing caravan site is a commercially viable business, because of its location, which doesnot adversely impact on the residential environment. It is booked up years in advance andencourages tourism and spending within the Bristol economy.

The felling of some 80 mature trees is also wholly against the "environmental emergency"

supposedly declared by Bristol City Council.

I am sure many existing residents would not object to a development that was in keeping with theexisting surroundings, and took account of our concerns. However, this development patentlydoes not do so. .

Mr Jonathan Prosser  6 HOPE COURT BALTIC WHARF BRISTOL  on 2021-04-27   OBJECT

This development (as it is proposed) should not be going ahead due to being too closeto Baltic Wharf.It is too tall and will place in shadow the properties on the Baltic Wharf development for aconsiderable amount of the day. Surely their right to light should be considered.With what we've learned from CovID19 lockdowns, isn't their a need for people to have goodaccess to light for their wellbeing and health of their mind and body.

Mr Alan Tanner  43 WESTGATE CALEDONIAN ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-04-27   OBJECT

I think the proposed development is of far too large a scale, dominating the existingproperties around it. It would damage the appearance and amenity of that part of the harbour.

Mr Martin Todman  3 ROWNHAM MEAD BRISTOL BRISTOL  on 2021-04-27   OBJECT

While there continues to be a need for additional housing, opportunities for suitabledevelopment in the central area should be pursued in a well planned, joined up strategy. The planto proceed with a large development at the Cumberland Road caravan site seems prematurewhen plans for the Western Harbour Development and associated road systems are not yet inplace. The current proposal suggests there is good access but currently traffic along CumberlandRoad is restricted, what are the long term plans for management in this area and how will this fitwith efforts to improve air quality? Whatever the good intentions about less use of cars, in practicethere will be increased demand for parking which is not facilitated in these plans.With planning in Bristol much consideration should be given to character and 'iconic' views formaintaining the amenity value of the area for Bristol residents and visitors alike. These plans asthey stand will severely damage both character and views. The other end of the harbour, towardsTemple Meads, is now characterised by ever taller, more densely packed new buildings which hasmade it feel darker and more claustrophobic. A large part of the charm and character of theharbour as a whole is how it changes across it's length, and the silhouette of buildings towards theWestern end shows a gentle reduction in height through the Canada Way development towardsthe Underfall Yard. That gradually reducing profile will be significantly interrupted by this planneddevelopment. It may appear that the iconic bond houses set a standard as to building height, butthis should not be seen as an accepted precedent to create a row of buildings of similar height.The bond houses will no longer be 'iconic' if they are just situated in a row of buildings of similarheight.

Mr John Jones  8 MINERS CLOSE LONG ASHTON BRISTOL  on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

As a resident of Bristol all my life and an owner Landlord of several properties on theharbourside I get the happy feedback of many tenants who come to live and work in Bristol anddiscover the character and atmosphere of spike island. It is such a shame that one of the first andmost succsesfull dockside areas to be developed in this country is going to be spoiled by the localgovernment that should value and appreciate it.The proposed buildings are typicaly far to tall to compliment the existing developments and are ofa utlity style and construction.The proposed development will finish up looking like cheap social housing wedged into a cornerwith no sesativity to the location.

Mrs Sarah Harding  6 ASHWOOD EAST HARPTREE BRISTOL  on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

The proposed development is too big and out of character with the historic docks. Theheight will result in loss of light to the surrounding area - particularly adversely affecting the boatpark at All Aboard, making it difficult to dry boats and equipment. The building height will createwind turbulence for the many novice sailors who learn to sail at All Aboard - the only fullyaccessible watersports centre in Bristol, and which caters predominantly for those with disability ordisadvantage.The number of dwellings will increase the number of vehicles in the area - a decision seemingly atodds with the CAZ.

Mrs Carol Thomas  1 JOHN CABOT COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

Is there no architect capable of designing a structure which will not destroy the iconicnature of the area? A building of this height will dominate the landscape and in time will be viewedin the same light as those of the 1960s.166 flats is an already overcrowded area. Insufficient parking, overstretched services notconsidered important it seems.These flats do nothing to house families and only feed the 'buy to let' market. The structure will bean eyesore and anyone with a care for history, space and a landmark area that acknowledges thework of other generations will not go ahead with this building.

Mr D STONE  32 POOLES WHARF COURT, HOTWELLS BRISTOL  on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

Unimaginative, Unsympathetic design with no context or reference to the historicharbourside and dwarfing the neighbouring buildings. This scheme is TOO TALL.Concerns over increased traffic flow and road use on restricted Cumberland Road.OBJECT.

Mrs Kathleen Shortman  30 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

Buildings planned are too high and will be detrimental to the whole ambiance of this endof our historical Harbourside. The Caravan club was perfect and should remain. There are plentymore sites in Bristol that could be developed for this type of housing and are far more suitable.

Mr Paul Butler  28 HOPE COURT CANADA WAY BRISTOL  on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

I object as this is already an overcrowded area. The proposed buildings are far too tallto be in keeping. The tiny number of parking spaces proposed will obviously cause problems for allwho live in this area. The Underfall Yard, Cottage Pub, Sailing Club etc all make this a unique partof the city and the Caravan Club is a perfect fit. Family houses are needed, not more flats.

Ms Debbie Hull  28 HOPE COURT CANADA WAY BRISTOL  on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

I strongly disagree with the proposed plans. What a unique Caravan Park in the heart ofthe city! Only to be replaced by yet another overpriced high rise block of flats! There is alreadyinadequate parking in the area and this does nothing to help the housing crisis in the city.

Ms Jo Grimes  35 SOMERSET TERRACE WINDMILL HILL BRISTOL  on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

This development is far too large & will dominate the docks skyline, whereas it ought tobe Underfall Yard (which includes an important historical listed building) that has pride of place!

I walk around the harbourside regularly, as do many others, & the overpowering size & theblocking of light will definitely spoil the experience.

I am also concerned that building several storeys on what was previously an open area will affectthe wind & cause all sorts of problems for the sailing clubs which use this part of the harbour.

It will also have a detrimental effect on the residents in the neighbouring flats, which only have 3storeys. I urge you to reconsider this proposed development.

Mr Robert Sherring  1 ASHDOWN ROAD PORTISHEAD  on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

This application totally fails to respect the heritage and amenity values of theharbourside. The height of the proposed development dwarfs existing buildings nearby inparticular Allaboard Watersports and The CottagePH.

As a Bristolian by birth I do not want the Bristol waterfront further trashed by greedy developers. Ifanyone is in doubt of how unattractive overly high buildings are close to harboursides I suggestthey take a look at the developments around Portishead Marina.

Mrs Anna Louise Curvan  4 LODGE CLOSE YATTON BRISTOL  on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

It will make it difficult for AllAboard Watersports next door to carry out all their activitiesfor the wide range of people. AllAboard is a charity which carries out a great deal of facilities to awide range of people both able and disabled which will be directly affected by this development.

There will be parking issues in their carpark. More people will be around their access from theirfacilities to the water and probably the adjoining boundary of the new site will impinge on their site.

It is unreasonable to have so many properties and amenities adjacent to the waterside.

Mr Brian Hall  37 GLEBE ROAD LONG ASHTON BRISTOL  on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

The proposed building is far too high. It will overshadow the Underfall end of theharbour. It is out of proportion to all buildings in the area. It will affect the light on the ever popularharbour side around the Cottage pub. The sailors will have additional issues with the alreadychallenging wind conditions at the western end of the harbour.I see little enhancement in the project as it stands.

Ms Glynis Laurence  1 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

I think the height and scale of the buildings is not in keeping witch the western end ofthe harbour. It would dwarf the Cottage Inn, the historic Underfall Yard and all the other nearbydevelopments. The high density would change the character of the area which is currentlypeaceful and used for recreation. I do not believe it meets the city's housing need - families needhouses not tiny flats. The tiny parking allocation simply means cars will park in the surroundingareas, illegally or not. Many able bodied people walk or cycle when possible, but there are somejourneys which are not possible except by car, and some people are not able bodies. Buses arenot sufficient - the metro bus only runs until the early evening and not at all on Sundays.

This proposed development is bad news for the people of Bristol who enjoy this area and I objectto it.

Mr Jeremy McNeill  25 EMMANUEL COURT GUTHRIE ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

I wish to object to this application on the following grounds:1. This development would remove a valuable green corridor for birds and bats which currentlytraverse the caravan site, journeying between south Bristol and Brandon Hill to the north. Thesecreatures in transit use mature trees as resting points. the ecological assessment completelymisses this point.2. The caravan site is a valuable resource for visitors to the city, who bring in spending whichhelps sustain many jobs in the local economy. The fact that it is a city centre site by the harbourmeans that it has a very high occupnacy rate that would not be replaced by relocation to the outerfringes of the city.3. Visually the current site provides a welcome relief from the dominance of high buildings alongthe waterfront. This proposal would introduce many more tall buildings.4. An inevitable Increase in vehicle traffic along Cumberland Road would increase air pollution andcongestion.

Mr Andrew Osborn  FLAT 5 SION SPRING HOUSE SION HILL BRISTOL  on 2021-04-24   OBJECT

It's a horrific ugly oversized development on what is currently a lovely amenity for thecity. Thousands of people use the harbourside for recreation and this development is so huge itwill dwarf surrounding buildings such as the Cottage Inn and Baltic Wharf and prevent sun fromeven reaching the harbour where people walk. Its completely out of keeping with the area andshould be completely stopped, there are numerous brown field sites that could be developed inthis area, why trash a perfectly lovely open space with grass and mature trees. Oh yes, could it bemoney? Never mind the environment - greed is good eh.

Mr Stephen Jackman  41 STEAMSHIP HOUSE GAS FERRY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-04-24   OBJECT

I object to the proposals on the following grounds:

1) existing use of the site as a caravan site is a great benefit to visitors with mobile homes and tobusinesses in the area (for example, the Cottage Inn public house). It is a pleasant site within easywalking distance of the main amenities that Bristol has to offer. Its demise or relocation to a sitefurther from the tourist amenities will do nothing to help our tourist industry.

2) the proposed development is totally out of character with its surroundings. This can clearly beseen in the Townscape and Virtual Assessment submissions where the proposed buildings areseen to loom over the Floating Harbour, the adjacent properties on Baltic Wharf to the east andthe Cottage Inn public house to the west. The existing view from the Harbourside is of a pleasantarea of mature trees and a mature hedge fronting the promenade. The proposed building will offera view more akin to an overdeveloped seaside frontage. Local people and tourists do not want thistype of poor visual quality development and it will be detrimental to Bristol's major visitor attraction,the Harbourside; ie, the City Docks Conservation Area.

3) destruction of mature trees which, although not of category A, are of great visual amenity in anurban environment and habitat value being mainly category B and C, and destruction of maturehedging in particular that fronting onto the Harbour promenade. I suggest that the quality of treesand hedging has been under-represented in the Biodiversity Enhancement and Mitigation Schemesubmission. Both existing trees and hedging flower in the Spring and are a welcome relief in thissetting. To destroy these in a time of climate emergency and growing public awareness of theimportance of nature to our health and wellbeing is totally irresponsible.

4) an increase in traffic along Cumberland Road. The Council is aware of the current trafficrestrictions due to the River Avon subsidence works and, it is understood, once these arecomplete further restrictions will be imposed by the Council involving one-way traffic alongCumberland Road. The current restrictions and the further future restrictions are/will be aninconvenience to existing residents of Spike Island as they involve extended journeys (andincreased pollution) in order to access their properties. Despite making politically correctstatements about walking, cycling, buses in the application, the reality is the residents of the newdevelopment will mostly own cars thus adding to the traffic problems of Spike Island. Toencourage increased traffic is totally irresponsible.

5) despite a statement to the contrary in the Planning Statement (ref section 8.2: "Extensive publicengagement has been undertaken as part of the proposals with the community and Council.Including submission of a formal pre-application request for information. Through this process theApplicant has sort to shape the proposals in light of the comments received, ahead of theapplication submission."), there has been no extensive public engagement. Indeed, this PlanningApplication has not been advertised to residents of the surrounding area. It is understood that thedeveloper has ownership connections with the City Council; this is suspicious and has potentiallinks to corrupt local government leadership.

Mr John Read  2A WINDSOR ROAD ST ANDREWS BRISTOL  on 2021-04-24   OBJECT

I write a s someone who has worked a dinghy instructor and volunteer for water basedactivities at Baltic wharf for 30 years.Firstly the height of these buildings at five storeys will affect the winds in the docks, already quitetricky, adversely making sailing and particularly sailing instruction even more difficult. Theprevailing winds are West and South West and the siting of these buildings will cause a greaterwind shadow on the Southern part of the docks and turbulence on the other side in one of the fewareas left in the docks where clear sailing is possible.Secondly the placing of five storey buildings here is visually innapropriate.I had the experience a while back of trying to calm a vounteer from Europe who became quiteagitated at what he regarded as the desecration of a potentialy very fine urban site. He wasreffering generally to the very poor quality of the buildings surrounding the docks specifically theappalling flats at Harbour Way.The proposed five storey buildings for the caravan site are two high and viually poor. Visitors toBristol still come partly because of the amenity provided by the docks but they will not do so if wecontinue to spoil one of the city's best assets.John Read

Mrs Jemima Dixon  19 AMBRA VALE EAST CLIFTONWOOD  on 2021-04-24   OBJECT

I object on the following grounds

1. The development will overshadow that stretch of the harbour in a way no other constructioncurrently does.2. It dwarfs the neighbouring herItage buildings and harms the existing character of the waterfront.That area of the harbour has a distinctive industrial heritage which this will destroy.3. It will have a detrimental impact on leisure usage, in particular sailing and fishing which alongwith the above points will still further diminish appeal as a visitor attraction.4. The associated destruction of mature trees is at odds with wider green policies and should bereconsidered.5. There will be a significant increase in traffic along Cumberland Road which is an already busyroad.6. The construction traffic could further undermine the chocolate path.7. Pressure on construction finance are likely to reduce the number of affordable homes, with thedeveloper likely to see better returns by focusing on the site's high-end waterfront appeal.8. Sites with a lesser impact on an iconic part of Bristol are likely to become more numerous in thewake of Covid especially as retail premises look to change their usage.

Mr Dan Bohin  KENN MOOR DRIVE 47 CLEVEDON  on 2021-04-23   OBJECT

I use this part of the harbour regularly with my rowing club, some weeks 7 days a week,I cycle to and from.

The building is hideous.

It's already crazily busy in this area and the additional pollution and waste this build would createis unacceptable. The harbour is quickly becoming a place of trapped litter and the extra peopleliving here would only add to that.

A serious question that I would like an answer to, how was planning granted? How is a building ashideous as this one even considered enough to get to this stage?

My rowing club have been looking for a permanent home harbour side for years and we aren'table to get any permission at all, but we don't have pocketfuls of cash so go figure that one!

I strongly object to anything at all being built here, unless the building houses our rowing clubboats, with changing rooms, a function room, toilets, and a training room for cold winter days.

No to more noiseNo to more pollutionNo to more resources being usedJust no

It's irresponsible to build more housing here.

Ms Jacqui Furneaux  65, CENTRAL QUAY NORTH BROAD QUAY BRISTOL  on 2021-04-23   OBJECT

The building will be far too tall and ruin the ambience of the area. I also object on thegrounds that all the beautiful mature trees will be destroyed, hardly a good example of a formergreen city.

Please reconsider these plans.

Mr keith davis  RIVERWOOD FRENCHAY FRENCHAY  on 2021-04-23   OBJECT

This building is going to significantly affect the water sport's that happen at All Aboardwhich is a charity helping challenging people. The area will be cast in a big shadow and moreimportantly will affect the wind direction and flow. The harbour of Bristol is a real draw to all localand tourists to the area. The camp site is always full, you have to book months in advance it is thatpopular.Ard you providing parking for all residents on the basis of 2 cars per household? This is abig mistake.Turn the existing Cumberland warehouses in to residence properties. this is whereyou can gain an income.

Mrs Patricia Collinson  22 WEARE COURT BALTIC WHARF CANADA WAY BRISTOL  on 2021-04-23   OBJECT

We can understand the need for more housing but are very concerned about thedominance this new development will have on the buildings on the south side of the river andneighbouring Baltic Wharf estate. The height is well out of character and will not sit well in thegentle architecture of the existing waterside buildings. If this goes ahead it will set a precedencefor more intensive buildings which will contribute to over development of the area.

Mr David Puddy  56 HEADLEY PARK RD HEADLEY PARK BRISTOL  on 2021-04-23   OBJECT

As a member of Allaboard adjoining the proposed buildings I strongly object to theheight, proximity and design. We deal with many thousands of disabled children and adults a year.The fact that these buildings and people in them will be able to view these people while in our boatyard will be quite disturbing for them. Apart from the loss of natural light and sun.

Mr Paul brown  CUMBERLAND CLOSE 14 WESTBROOKE COURT BRISTOL  on 2021-04-23   OBJECT

I feel that the height of the buildings do not blend into the surrounding area.All buildingson the opposite side of the harbour,and around the caravan park,including the Cottage Inn,and therest of the dwellings,such as Brunel court,and Westbrooke Court,are at the most,3 stories high.Ialso feel that Cumberland Road will not be able to take all the extra traffic,and overall I feel thearchitects have not made a very good job,and to this end I object to the plans.

Mr Robin Miller  43 ELMDALE ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-04-23   OBJECT

The scale of this development is totally out of proportion to all the surrounding buildings.It will dominate everything around it. It is far too high and will block out light to neighbouringproperties and public spaces.

The high buildings will also interfer with wind patterns on the harbour isn't that end of the harboursupposed to be a designated area for watersports? Sea Cadets, Sea Scouts, All AboardWatersports, Young Bristol hundreds of young Bristolians learn to sail on that stretch of watereach year.

Mr Stephen Crichton  21 WESTBROOKE COURT CUMBERLAND CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-04-23   OBJECT

There is a shortage of green space on the harbourside and an abundance of residentialdevelopments.There is a disabled sailing charity located next door that is already squeezed for space. Theservice they provide for children and adults with additional needs, and also minority communitiesis an asset to the whole of Bristol and utilises the harbour in a way very few cities could replicate.The Mayor and city council should consider purchasing an area of this land and donating to AllAboard.The remainder of the land should then be made into a community green space for people to enjoynear the waterside.As a maximum, a development on the Cumberland Road side would be acceptable, with theharbourside of this site opened up to the community. The harbourside is unique to Bristol andevery effort should be made to make this enjoyable to all rather than squeeze every penny out ofthe land. An investment for the future.

Ms Samantha Walters  442 PORTWAY BRISTOL  on 2021-04-23   OBJECT

I object to the closesure of the campsite and the building of the new homes. Keep thesite as a caravan and motorhome site.

Dr Georges Ware  85 CRANBROOK ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

I strongly oppose this idea for many reasons.The area is already congested and road access is poor.

The area could quite possibly be under-water in 10 years time because of rising water levels.

Ms Nathalie Delaney  12 AMBROSE ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

My concerns are, having read the flood risk assessment that the building's height isnecessitated by the flood protection measures needed for the lower ground and ground floorareas. However the proposed height is out of keeping with the neighbouring properties and thehistorical nature of the area. However I am acutely aware of the lack of affordable housing in theBristol region and hope that comments will be taken into consideration in designing a moresympathetic design that is more in keeping with the area. The number of residential dwellings(166) is significant and will need to be supported by appropriate infrastructure. I am concerned,given the subsidence along the chocolate path of the impact of additional construction work in thearea and would like to understand how this will be mitigated. A development more in keeping withthe height and design of Cumberland Close would be more suitable. In particular aspects such asthe trees planted throughout the Cumberland Close/ Canada Way development, opportunities forviewpoints (e.g. the archways built into the design which create a sense of space), and theartworks along the harbourside footpath would be in keeping with the historical and amenityaspects of the areas with the leisure aspects of the area.

Mrs Amanda Sutton  LEIGH CROFT BRIDGE RD. LEIGH WOODS BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

The design does not appear to take into consideration the position on the harbourside.Care needs to be taken to enhance our beautiful harbour when building new property.This design is too tall and dwarfs the nearby property.It pays no heed to the fact its a prime waterside position, in full view around the harbour. It couldbe a building anywhere in the country.Please don't do what Plymouth City Council did a few years ago when they redesigned the toppart of the town, and paid no heed to the fact it was one of our major ports,full of history, and weended up with a shopping mall concrete and ugly, seen in every other city.This site by Bristol Harbour could enhance the area, but the proposed design is out of keeping, tootall and needs to be rethought.Where are the innovative architects who manage to blen old with new and keep a designsympathetic to its surroundings?

Mr Roger Sutton   LEIGH CROFT, BRIDGE ROAD, LEIGH WOODS, BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

The words of Prince Charles come to mind - carbuncle! The proposed development iswholly inappropriate and within that proposal the structure and design diminish the location andthe city. It is detrimental to the locality, the environment and local people, plus detracts hugely forenjoyment of the area for visitors and tourists.

Mr Geoff Dellbridge  10 NOVA SCOTIA PLACE BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

This really does not fit in with the historic harbour side area. This is a frequentlyphotographed area. SS Great Britain,Underfalls Yard, and this blot on the landscape in between!

  WEST VIEW FIR LEAZE NAILSEA  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

Unable to process the comment document

Mrs Dianne Leitch  19 ROYAL YORK CRESCENT BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

The Caravan Site is a wonderful resource and very usual to have one in such a centrallocation in a city. While I fully appreciate the need for more housing in our city I wonder whether itis a sensible price to pay to lose the Caravan Site. It has an awful feeling of money outweighingkeeping an important local amenity.

Dr Tim Mitchell  42 POOLES WHARF COURT BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

I fully accept the need for more housing provision in Bristol generally and there aremany good elements in this proposal. I have 2 main concerns.The first is in relation to the height of the buildings and I note that this has already been reducedduring pre-planning discussions. The relevant section of the proposal are:

Draft Policy DS4 expects proposals in the Western Harbour to have regard to the area's importantheritage assets and respond appropriately to key views and landmarks set out in the City DocksConservation Area Character Appraisal.

It also stresses that new development or infill that fails to respect the character of the areas,ignores the predominant building lines, scale, proportions, details or materials, or which obstructsimportant views or cuts off pedestrian routes, can cause serious harm to the special interest of theConservation Area.

"6.51 Policy BCAP41 sets out requirements for new development in the Harbourside consisting of:30811/A5/SPP/bc 18 January 2021

- Development adjacent to Floating Harbour expected to be of a scale and design appropriate toits setting reflecting special interest and visual prominences of quayside areas and character andsetting of surviving historic buildings and fabric.- Views to and from Floating Harbour to be preserved and enhanced.

Policy DM27 states: The height, scale and massing of development should be appropriate to theimmediate context, site constraints, character of adjoining streets and spaces, the setting, public

function and/or importance of the proposed development and the location within the townscape."

I feel that if the height was further reduced to 4-5 storeys this would be much more in keeping withthe existing character of this part of the harbour and would also set a precedent for the furtherdevelopment of the 'Western Harbour' thus avoiding future developers thinking they could getaway with even higher buildings. I believe that height considerations outweigh the need for thestated efficient use of development land. This development has to be considered predominantly inthe context of Underfall Yard, The Cottage and the existing Canada Wharf development.

My other concern is around the provision of parking. It is totally unrealistic to expect residents tohave 0.47 of a parking space unless draconian measures or covenants are put in place to legislatefor this and prevent overflow parking in neighbouring areas. Reducing the height of thedevelopment would mitigate my concerns, and I fully support the aim of reducing the use of cars inthe city

Ms Deppie Pangalos  15 OLDFIELD ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

I understand the need for housing (though I suspect these won't be affordable in thiswaterside location) however the design of this development is totally out of keeping with theharbourside area.

It dwarfs the other buildings and the landscape (neighbouring trees). It doesn't take into accountthe historical location that attracts a lot of tourism. It is unimaginative and quite ugly. Look acrossthe water where Pooles Wharf feels part of it's surroundings rather than sticking out like a sorethumb.

Where are our inspiring architects that could build something far more attractive (yes, evenmodern) that took the surroundings and location as it's point of reference rather than the same old,same old designs that just look to see how many dwellings they can cram in one space?

This design needs to be reworked dramatically - particularly in height/scale.

Mr andrew clay  19 AVON CRESCENT BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

The proposed development is out of proportion with nearby buildings. If development isto proceed it should be of a similar design and same height as the neighbouring Baltic Wharfdevelopment which would accordingly be in keeping with this recent development.This looks ugly and out of proportion and the council should be more respectful of the aesthetics ofsuch a popular and beautiful part of the harbour-side, not simple motivated by cramming themaximum number of dwellings into a small space. Generating money should not be the soledeterminant in planning new developments

Mrs Monika Stephan  187 BEDMINSTER ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

The proposed buildings are considerably taller than the neighbouring ones, completelyout of proportion. They look overbearing, dominate the skyline, and will cast long shadows.Also, the design is not exactly eye-catching. These blocks could be anywhere in the UK - howabout something more 'Bristol'? Vibrant, imaginative, colourful.

Mrs Rhiannon Andrews  28 WESTBROOKE COURT BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

Height of buildings far too high - compare with neighbouring Baltic Wharf. Not enoughparking spaces for number of flats which means problems for neighbouring properties. Moreparking spaces needed for this development.No need for commercial units at front - plenty of places nearby inc. Cottage Pub and WappingWharf. Steps will mean people will congregate and be a nuisance to neighbours and causedisturbance to interfere with the quality of life nearby.Please reconsider height of flats.....no need for them to be built up if you allow parking at front andunits/flats......

Dr Ian Andrews  28 WESTBROOKE CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

Height of buildings far too high - compare with neighbouring Baltic Wharf. Not enoughparking spaces for number of flats which means problems for neighbouring properties. Moreparking spaces needed for this development.No need for commercial units at front - plenty of places nearby inc. Cottage Pub and WappingWharf. Steps will mean people will congregate and be a nuisance to neighbours and causedisturbance to interfere with the quality of life nearby.Please reconsider height of flats.....no need for them to be built up if you allow parking at front andunits/flats......

Mrs Joanne Banfield   317 HOTWELL ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

This is astonishingly bad. The height of the new flats completely dwarfs the other flatsnext to it and the Cottage almost disappears. I've never been for this development as I think it'slovely that there are so many people who can come and camp so close to our wonderfulharbourside and bring in lots of tourist revenue. If these are to go ahead they need to be at least 2storeys lower. developing theso we need to think quality not quantity and ££££ again thoughwhere are the plans for school places, doctors etc for all these additional people, also in terms ofcar parking if these are city flats no parking should be granted.

Mrs Kate Hather  165 LONG ASHTON ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

I am totally shocked by the size of the proposed buildings on this small site. They areout of character with the area, and would destroy the site lines from Ashton Court, and from theriver. This cannot be permitted to go ahead at this level of development. I strongly object to theheight of these dwellings and think that these should be no taller than two-three storeys high.

Ms Selina Ward  11 FAIRFIELD ROAD SOUTHVILLE BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

The proposed height of this development is at least two storeys too high - the heightshould reflect, and not be greater than, the neighbouring Baltic Wharf development.

The further intensification of commercial use is inappropriate in this part of the Floating Harbour asthis area is primarily used for walking and other forms of exercise.

It is a shame that the caravan park is replaced as this is such a lovely way to welcome people toBristol, although I do understand the need for more housing.

Mr P Moores  8 KINGS ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

The height of the proposed development is out of keeping with the neighbouringproperties and the historic nature of the area.

A development more in keeping with the height and density of Baltic Wharf would be more suitable- the number of residential dwellings planned is significant and I don't believe it can be supportedby the required infrastructure.

The proposed design would detract from the enjoyment of the area for both visitors and residents.

Mr Anthony Marris  40 ROYAL YORK CRESCENT CLIFTON  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

The proposed buildings are hideously out of scale for the position. Housing can be builtattractively. This is very poor visually

Mrs Ameeta Virk  12 AMBRA VALE SOUTH BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

Whilst I understand the intention of adding more housing options to the city - the design(height) and location (leisure area that is already congested) is entirely inappropriate.

Councillor Mark Wright  COUNCIL HOUSE COLLEGE GREEN BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

I cannot see any changes in these plans since the public consultation last year. Backthen I responded that the plans were too tall (the blocks appear to loom over Baltic Wharf) and Igreatly regretted the design decisions which required the loss of all mature trees inside the site.So, it is with a heavy heart I feel I must submit an objection to the plans. This is a great shame,because the general look and feel of the plans is quite nice, but I really hoped the developer - whois under Council instructions remember - would listen to the public responses and lower theheights a bit.

For your info, I and the Tree Forum have been lobbying the Council and Goram for 3 years on thissite, to try to get at least a few of the good mature trees inside the site saved. The following isemail text I sent 2.5 years ago:--------------

There are a number of very nice trees on the caravan park site that residents are already callingfor saving (see attached Google 3D image). If done skilfully and at an early enough stage, many ofthe best trees could be embraced into the development in a way that greatly increases the value ofthe retail flats. If done too late or not at all, it's likely that getting planning permission will become abattle over trees, which isn't what anyone really wants. I think it would be a good demonstration ofwhy Goram is a good thing if it sets the bar high on pre-app planning on things like this - it couldreally set an example to other developers.--------------

What I find so regrettable here is that the Council/Goram's lack of transparency and publicinvolvement has been if anything *worse* than we usually see from private developers. Despite 2years of lobbying from groups on trees and height, before the pre-app plans were released, there

was no engagement *at all* until the plans were dropped from out of nowhere last year...prettymuch the same as they are now. In other words, public engagement has had precisely zero impacton these plans, as far as I can tell. It's unfortunately a fairly damning indictment of the Council'sown housing developer.

Dr David Mumford  14 CLIFTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

I live across the harbour from Baltic Wharf but often walk around the docks forrecreation. I find the design of the new buildings to be quite out of keeping - out of scale - from thesurrounding buildings on Baltic wharf The view from the other side of the harbour would bedominated by this new build.

The proposed buildings are considerably taller than the neighbouring ones along the harboursideand completely out of proportion. They look overbearing and will cast long shadows.

Bristol Harbour has come a long way in the last 45 years that I have lived in Bristol and it a greatasset to the city. Please do not spoil the wonderful landscape by building an eye-sore.

Mr Thomas Woodley  133 SOMERVILLE ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

The building is enormous and is far bigger than any on that side of the water or nearby.Given the size it is also likely to damage wind areas for the designated sailing area of the docks.Before anything of this size should be built the impact on the local community including the sailingcommunity should be throughly investigated. The sailing community provides massively for thelocal area with tens of thousands of water users this project could ruin wind conditions even furtherfor sailors. Which could have an extremely damaging affect to the nearby sailing clubs along withthe many other local businesses such as pubs, restaurants, cafes and shops that serve the waterusers. The project is also an eyesore and not in any way keeping with the local community andarea

Mr Christopher Atkinson  3 WEARE COURT CANADA WAY BRISTOL  on 2021-04-21   OBJECT

If this site must be redeveloped please maintain the character of the area, the buildingsthroughout this side of the harbour are significantly lower - the proposed towering structuresdamages not only the character of this end of the harbour but also the natural daylight andaesthetic of a beautiful part of Bristol City centre.

As a neighbour I strongly object to the size of the building proposed.

Miss Laura Williams  14 LONGMOOR ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-04-21   OBJECT

The buildings designed to go in this space are not sympathetic to the surroundings.They are high rise and look out of place.

Personally I feel that it is really sad to lose the caravan site which is unique and adds a lovely feelto the area. It isn't imposing and brings tourism to the area.

I am worried about the lack of affordable housing and the lack of local facilties ie. Parking andschools/doctors etc.

Mrs I Jones  30 NAPIER COURT GEFLE CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-04-21   OBJECT

A development of the proposed height is so out of keeping in this part of theharbourside. The height should be reduced to impact less on the local amenity. So many of theexisting established trees would be lost if this development goes ahead as proposed. This surelyworks against Bristol reducing the impact of cars and pollution. Trees play an important role indispersing and removing pollutants.

Ms Sarah Rowlands  41 QUAY POINT LIME KILN ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-04-21   OBJECT

This development is significantly out of character with the area. The buildings are muchtoo tall and will cast a huge shadow on the area. The infrastructure cannot cope with more traffic.This development will attract approximately 332 cars! This does not fit with the farcical greenstatus Bristol seems to attract.Get your act together planning this is a joke.

Mrs Jusith Pook  11 ASHTON GATE TERRACE BRISTOL  on 2021-04-21   OBJECT

Design of flats far too high. The Baltic wharf flats nearby are of an acceptable level. Theappearance of that end of the historic city docks will be destroyed by the ugly design

Ms Rosalind Olsen  45 GRANBY HILL CLIFTON BRISTOL  on 2021-04-21   OBJECT

Too big. Looms. Lacks character. This is such a special historical area, anything builtthere should enhance the area not detract. There seems to be little consideration of thesurroundings.

Mr Derek Sidders  5 YEOMEADS LONG ASHTON BRISTOL  on 2021-04-21   OBJECT

It is a scandal that this property is being considered for housing !,This is a totally unique area enabling visitors to our city to enjoy a perfect spot to explore andenjoy !, could it possibly be the location of this site will enable the builders to make extreme profits??That's it in a nutshell !!!