The Baltic Wharf Caravan site has been an asset to the area, with its mature treesmaintaining a green canopy. The steady flow of tourists it attracts have also boosted the localeconomy.

The proposed development is insensitive in nature, will involve the destruction of many trees andirrevocably change the skyline when viewed from the other side of the harbour, including the viewsfrom my house.

I therefore object to this development.

The proposal to build at five stories is vandalism. There is no existing precedent for 5stories of residential buildings on the western end of the harbour. Also all plans should challengethe existing heritage rules that do not allow solar panels on the harbour. The new buildings shouldchampion sustainability.

The speed limit on Cumberland Road is 30mph, not 20mph (source:https://bristol20mph.co.uk/where/). A visibility splay of 43 metres is therefore required, not 25metres as erroneously stated in the report to committee. This will require removal of a much largersection of the boundary wall (which offers the site protection from floodwater).

The existing infrastructure and road network in this vicinity are insufficient toaccommodate the influx of vehicles resulting from the anticipated increase in population.Presently, the operation of the Bus Gate poses significant challenges for accessing the area, asituation exacerbated by ongoing development endeavors. Moreover, the proposed expansionthreatens the loss of mature trees, a sacrifice deemed unjustifiable.

Compounding concerns, the developers are encountering difficulties in selling recently constructedapartments adjacent to the SS Great Britain. It is reasonable to question whether similar issueswill persist. In the event of failed sales, the burden of cost may ultimately fall upon taxpayers.

It is apparent that financial interests have influenced decisions, overshadowing genuine efforts toaddress flooding concerns in the area. Thus far, substantive measures to mitigate such risksremain absent.

The officer's report to committee contains a number of factual errors. Some of these aresummarised below:

1. The report to committee states that the site is located in Flood Zone 2 and 3. This isINCORRECT. The entire site is located within Flood Zone 3, as stated within the applicant's ownFlood Risk Assessment dated 6th November 2023.

2. The land does NOT fit into the NPPF definition of brownfield land. As the officer's own reportstates, the definition of brownfield land EXCLUDES "land that was previously developed but wherethe remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into thelandscape."

3. The report describes the site as "mainly hardstanding", which incorrectly gives the impressionthat the land is impermeable. I visited the site on 18th April 2024 and I can inform you that the onlyimpermeable areas are the tarmac roads within the site. More than 80% of the site is grass andgravel, all of which is permeable. Given the known flood risk within the locality, it is vital to avoidbuilding on this permeable land.

4. The report states that a site notice was erected to inform the public about the application. This iscompletely untrue. Not a single site notice has ever been put up. Site notices are a LEGALREQUIREMENT for proposals that do not accord with the Local Plan. Site notices are standardprocedure for all planning applications and are of particular importance for major development in a

conservation area.

5. The report states that the scheme has been designed as 'tenure blind'. This is untrue. All of theaffordable units are clustered together.

6. The report suggests that the application must meet the density requirements set out in the LocalPlan policies. However, because the application site is not allocated for development within eitherthe Local Plan or emerging Draft Local Plan, it is classed as a 'windfall site' and it is not subject tothe same density policy requirements.

Sadly, it is evident that the planning department have been overcome by the conflict of interestassociated with this application, resulting in a biased report. For example:

1. Within the summary, the officer states that "a number of trees will be lost". An unbiased reportwould inform you that 82 out of 102 mature trees will be lost.

2. The report states that the development "has the potential to impact sunlight to neighbouringproperties and have an overbearing impact." There is no doubt whatsoever that the proposalsWILL significantly impact the amount of natural light to twenty homes adjoining the site boundaryand have an overbearing impact on a much larger number. The conclusion states "the design,scale and orientation would not have any adverse impact.". This is untrue.

3. Repeated use of the term "much-needed housing" is unnecessary. We are all aware of thehousing crisis. A balanced report would avoid superfluous and subjective terminology. If you agreethat Bristol is a better place for its variety and diversity, you will hopefully agree that tourism andleisure facilities are just as "much-needed" as housing.

Members of the Development Control Committee will surely recognise that the damage caused bythis proposed development will be far greater than any benefit arising from it.

Further comments – 16 April 2024

2

habitat type.4

There is a shortfall of 3.24 Urban Individual trees Habitat Units. No proposals are made for

how this shortfall will be mitigated as required by the Biodiversity Gain Hierarchy (see

Appendix 1).5

We calculate that, in addition to the 63 ‘small’ SMC category trees proposed to be planted

onsite, a further 237 ‘small’ SMC category trees will need to be planted offsite to comply

with the SMC Trading Rules. This assumes that the trees will be planted within Bristol. If

this is not possible then more mitigation trees will be needed, depending on where space

outside Bristol can be found to plant them. If no sites can be found, then the applicant may

buy statutory biodiversity credits, though buying statutory credits is a last resort for

developers who are unable to use on-site or off-site units to deliver biodiversity gain.6

This figure includes the 215 replacement trees required under DM17 and BTRS. Doing this

will achieve a biodiversity gain of 16.63%, though other, more distinctive offsite habitats

could be created or enhanced instead. The applicant must say what it plans to do.

5. DM17 and BTRS. We calculate that 215 replacement trees will be required under DM17 and

BTRS to replace the 77 trees which will be lost.

We agree with the Arboricultural Officer’s observation that it is difficult (even impossible)

to find new planting sites within a one-mile radius of the development site – usually

required for new offsite trees.7 Special rules have been established for funding these under

BTRS. The obligation to replace trees lost to development, as set out in DM17, is clear. The

trees lost must be replaced. It is not sufficient to make a s106 payment.

Nor is it sufficient (as has been the default adopted historically) to use the funds generated

as a result of DM17 and BTRS to fund the replacement of other trees lost in the normal

course of tree management. New trees in new sites must be planted. Under DM 17 it is

incumbent on the applicant to identify and fund each site.

However, the Biodiversity Net Gain Guidance (the Guidance) advises that: ‘It would be

inappropriate for decision makers to continue to give weight to aspects of existing local

policies related to biodiversity gains which are inconsistent with the statutory framework

for biodiversity net gain. The statutory provisions are an important material consideration

that in many cases will take precedence over local planning policy. The statutory

framework represents the appropriate national approach towards, and benchmark for,

biodiversity gains in planning.’8 Accordingly, the Biodiversity Gain obligations take

precedence over both the DM17 and the BTRS requirements.

4 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c60e0514b83c000ca715f3/The_Statutory_Biodiversity_Metric_-_User_Guide_.pdf - page 12. 5 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/595/part/7A 6 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/statutory-biodiversity-credits 7 21_01331_F-ARBORICULTURAL_TEAM-3613285. 8 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain - Paragraph: 020 Reference ID: 74-020-20240214

Further comments – 16 April 2024

3

6. The Statutory Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (HMMP).9 The 30-year Landscape

and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP), which the developer proposes to use, has now

been superseded with the introduction of HMMPs. The applicant has made no proposals to

comply with its obligation to do this.

It cannot be sufficient to suggest that this can be dealt with after permission is granted,

for we have no idea whether or not what may be proposed will even be viable or how it

will be funded.

Whilst a Biodiversity Gain Plan may only be presented after a Grant, the Guidance makes

it clear that: ‘Biodiversity net gain, however, is not just a post-permission matter. To

ensure the biodiversity gain objective is met and the condition can be discharged

successfully, it is important biodiversity net gain is considered throughout the planning

process.’10

The guidance goes on the add: ‘Some applicants may want to submit draft Biodiversity

Gain Plans, including completed metrics of the post-development value of the onsite

habitat, alongside the planning application [as this applicant has done]. These draft plans

may be particularly helpful if there are firm proposals for onsite habitats, including

landscaping plans, which can generate an accurate post-development value for the onsite

habitat.’11

Paragraph: 019 Reference ID: 74-019-20240214 of the Guidance adds:

‘... Development may not be begun until the Biodiversity Gain Plan is approved.

Given this, it would generally be inappropriate for decision makers, when determining a

planning application for a development subject to biodiversity net gain, to refuse an

application on the grounds that the biodiversity gain objective will not be met.

However, decision makers may need to consider more broadly whether the biodiversity

gain condition is capable of being successfully discharged [our underlining]. Matters for

consideration may include the following (but this is not an exhaustive list):

• The appropriate balance expected between onsite gains, off-site gains and the use of

statutory biodiversity credits for the development, taking account of the Biodiversity

Gain Hierarchy ...’

Given our observations at paragraphs 5 and 6 above, it would be reasonable for the decision

maker (in this case, the Development Control Committee) to require more evidence before

deciding whether any biodiversity gain conditions requiring offsite mitigation is capable of

being successfully discharged.

9 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/creating-a-habitat-management-and-monitoring-plan-for-biodiversity-net-gain. 10 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain - Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 74-002-20240214 11 Paragraph: 014 Reference ID: 74-013-20240214

Further comments – 16 April 2024

4

Replacement tree planting proposals

We note that the applicant plans to plant 63 replacement trees on site (see Appendix 2). The

majority of these trees are small-form ornamentals which will produce very little canopy cover

and take at least 27 years to achieve.

This is meagre recompense when compared to the trees which are currently growing on the

site. We estimate that they are about 40 years old, average eight metres in height and have an

average canopy spread of nearly 37 square metres each. The majority of trees are in good to

fair condition, of good quality, are mature to middle aged and have a long to medium remaining

contribution still to make to the amenity of the site and the area as a whole (see Figure 1

below).

Figure 1: Tree survey analysis.

Furthermore, the mitigation hierarchy set out at paragraph 186 a) of the NPPF states that: ‘if

significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through

locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last

resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.’12

It is hard to imagine how destroying 77% of these well-established trees, which will continue to

provide valuable amenity and eco-services long into the future, can be anything other than

‘significant harm’. Given that there are no proposals for this loss to be ‘adequately mitigated,

or, as a last resort, compensated for’ then it follows that planning permission should be

refused.

12 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65a11af7e8f5ec000f1f8c46/NPPF_December_2023.pdf

Further comments – 16 April 2024

5

Appendix 1 – Biodiversity Gain Hierarchy

Further comments – 16 April 2024

6

Appendix 2 – Revised tree planting schedule - 21_01331_F-

REVISED_PLANTING_SCHEDULE-3663042

Sadly I won't be able to attend the Planning Committee meeting next Wednesday. Iwish to record my objection.I note the Viability Report. As I read it, the project will run at a loss if the Affordable Housespromised in the project remain at 40% of the development. So we Bristol Tax Payers will bepaying for the project. OR, much more likely, the developer backtracks on the Affordable Housingnumbers in the proposal and makes a profit. Please don't be fooled and give it your approval.For the many reasons, financial, environmental and life threatening, the whole project needs to besent back to the drawing board. Regards. David Wright a Concerned Neighbour

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Sadly I won't be able to attend the Planning Committee meeting next Wednesday. I

wish to record my objection.

I note the Viability Report. As I read it, the project will run at a loss if the Affordable Houses

promised in the project remain at 40% of the development. So we Bristol Tax Payers will be

paying for the project. OR, much more likely, the developer backtracks on the Affordable Housing

numbers in the proposal and makes a profit. Please don't be fooled and give it your approval.

For the many reasons, financial, environmental and life threatening, the whole project needs to be

sent back to the drawing board. Regards. a Concerned Neighbour

This application should be refused planning for so many reasons, identified in otherobjections both by the public and statutory consultees. My objection is, that none of these reasonswill count for anything now that it has been announced at the Cabinet meeting 23rd Jan that thedevelopment will be 100 percent 'affordable'. This means it will get permission just on the strengthof that assertion, although only the most credulous could possibly believe this will ever happen.A document from Stantec, Reconsultation Response Letter added 22nd Dec '23, includes thefollowing:'Since submission of the application in April 2021, over 2 and a half years ago, build costs haveincreased substantially and required the affordable housing proposals to be reviewed. Red Lofthave been commissioned to undertake a Financial Viability Assessment (May 2023) that isprovided as part of submission documents.Based on the outcome of the objective viability appraisal assessment, prepared by Red Loft, thescheme is not economically viable. It is therefore conclusive that the provision of additionalaffordable housing, section 106 obligations, or other planning gain contributions, exceeds themaximum viable level at the site in planning terms.The objective viability appraisal assessment prepared by Red Loft includes sensitivity testingbased on 0% affordable housing provision. The analysis shows that this change would allow thedevelopment to generate a residual profit, however, at a level that still bears a financial risk for thedeveloper'.Where is the full Financial Viability Assessment?Where is the evidence that there is now grant funding for 100 percent affordable?As the scheme is 'not economically viable', how is the developer/ council going to pay the requiredcontribution to the Flood Defence strategy?Perhaps planning permission is being so urgently sought that the current administration will say

anything, however fanciful, to get it.Perhaps this is because it would open the flood gates for anything and everything developers wantbuilt in the 'western harbour' area.And finally, in the extremely unlikely event that the development is really 100 percent affordable, itwould represent the worst possible value for the tax payer as much cheaper land could be used.

The proposed blocks are 2 floors too high and will loom over this end of the FloatingHarbour, which is currently much more open than the other.

Any commercial development on the ground floors, which is intended as a sacrificial layer, willchange the nature of this area detrimentally. Anything of this nature needs to be kept at the otherend.

The caravan park is welcoming and part of the uniqueness of this city that is being steadilyeroded.

Dear development Management,

We see that a revised Planting Plan and Planting Schedule have now been published on the planning portal.

However, the planting plan fails to show the whole site and the planting schedule fails to identify how many trees of each species will be planted or whether they will be planted, either in public spaces or in private gardens. As you will be aware, trees planted in private gardens may not be taken into account in Biodiversity Gain calculations.

Please can you ask the applicant to provide this information.

Regards

Mark CD AshdownChair - Bristol Tree Forum

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 32 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. I wouldalso add that I asked the developer several times to produce this modelling during the so called"consultation" and they consistently failed. In the end I had to procure it myself.

OVERDEVELOPMENT AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA

I also believe that the scale and density of the buildings in this proposal is inappropriate.Theprinciple buildings in the development are double the height of the surrounding buildings. Thedevelopment needs to be lowered by 3 storeys. The developers planning application clearly statesthat the site is 1.7 kilometers from Bristol City Centre and only .8 kilometre from Ashton Courtestate, the development should not therefore be based on city centre housing density. Thehousing density of the adjoining Baltic Wharf estate is 96.8 dwellings per hectare, the proposeddevelopment is 193.2 dwellings per hectare, almost exactly double. This is totally out of character

with all the existing development in the surrounding area which is designated as a ConservationArea. If this development was restricted to predominantly three storey buildings, in common withthe existing local developments at Rownham Mead, Poole's Wharf and Baltic Wharf the problemof overlooking and overshadowing could be largely avoided, and the development would be farmore in scale and keeping with the rest of the buildings in the local conservation area (as outlinedin 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 twoimperial tons of carbon per annum. This is a vital environmental asset to the local area provingmuch needed oxygen and cooling. I totally object to the proposed felling of 82 mature trees and124 meters of mature hedgerows. Young saplings contribute very little to the environment; globalwarming is not going to go on hold for thirty years whilst new saplings grow to maturity. How canthe City Council that is introducing a clean air zone to combat pollution, possibly allow these treesto be felled? To do so would be utter hypocrisy! The trees are also a valuable visual amenity whichenhance the harbourside to create a pleasant space for visitors and local residents and make apositive contribution to the character of the area.

The proposal fails to comply with Bristol Core Strategy (BCS9) which states "retain greeninfrastructure wherever possible". The proposal fails to comply with the Bristol Central Area Plan(BCAP) that states that it is "important to integrate green infrastructure within new developments".The proposal fails to comply with the Development Management policy (DM17) that stresses the"need to integrate existing trees". The proposal fails to comply with the National Planning PolicyFramework (NPPF para 131) which states that planning decisions should ensure "that existingtrees are retained wherever possible". National and local policies are perfectly clear and state thatdevelopments should be built around existing green assets.

I also note that the developer refers to this as a "brownfield site", although it does not appear onthe Bristol City Council register of brownfield sites. The site has been used since 1978 as acaravan park, most of the trees, shrubs and hedges date from this time and originally most of thesite was laid to grass. I think any reasonable person would see this as greenfield rather thanbrownfield. It is certainly a welcome green asset in the harbourside conservation area which hasvery little tree cover overall.

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 predictable

compared 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 most important and informative to view the harbour fromthe water. In the centre the skyline is dominated by the spire of St Mary Redcliffe and the tallcranes of the M Shed. As you sail through the main part of the harbour you are flanked by tall sixstorey buildings that match the height of Cliftonwood ahead of you. However, as you reach the SSGreat Britain the harbour turns sharply to the South West and the Cliftonwood skyline falls gentlyaway to the three storey buildings of Poole's Wharf, Rownham Mead and the Underfall Yard withthe distant hills of Ashton Court estate away ahead of you. In terms of visual amenity, theproposed development will be totally out of context. It will stand at double the height of the existingbuildings and utterly dominate an area where the historic Underfall Yard is the natural focus ofinterest. The developments at Baltic Wharf and Rownham Mead are of red brick with roman tileroofing in sympathy with the historic Underfall Yard, unlike the proposed building which is of acompletely different style, size and type of construction. In every photomontage the developershave produced, from whatever angle, the proposed building looks massive, far too high, andutterly out of context with the surrounding area.

PARKING & ROAD ACCESS

The car parking for this proposed development, 80 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 development will cause an unacceptable level of overshadowing, overlooking and loss of lightto the existing properties and gardens adjoining the site. The scale and density of the proposeddevelopment is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area in terms of the overwhelmingdominance of the buildings. The impact on neighbours, the general public, harbour users, and theenvironment is totally unacceptable. This proposal is not sustainable development; being harmfulto the conservation area, natural environment and residential 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 still being beingconsidered.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:

OVERSHADOWING AND OVERLOOKING

My house at faces West South West and directly adjoins and overlooks the

caravan site. I have lived here for 32 years and for all that time enjoyed total privacy and good

sunlight with a sunny and very secluded garden. I oppose the proposed development of the

caravan site on the grounds of overshadowing and overlooking which will cause me to suffer a

total loss of privacy. If the proposal goes ahead in its current form, I will have about 80 windows

overlooking both my house and my garden. Some of these windows will look straight across

directly into my lounge and bedroom windows. A local architect produced some 3D computer

modelling for me and this revealed that as a result of the proposed development my house and

garden will be cast in shadow from early afternoon onwards throughout the entire year. I would

also add that I asked the developer several times to produce this modelling during the so called

"consultation" and they consistently failed. In the end I had to procure it myself.

OVERDEVELOPMENT AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA

I also believe that the scale and density of the buildings in this proposal is inappropriate.The

principle buildings in the development are double the height of the surrounding buildings. The

development needs to be lowered by 3 storeys. The developers planning application clearly states

that the site is 1.7 kilometers from Bristol City Centre and only .8 kilometre from Ashton Court

estate, the development should not therefore be based on city centre housing density. The

housing density of the adjoining Baltic Wharf estate is 96.8 dwellings per hectare, the proposed

development is 193.2 dwellings per hectare, almost exactly double. This is totally out of character

with all the existing development in the surrounding area which is designated as a Conservation

Area. If this development was restricted to predominantly three storey buildings, in common with

the existing local developments at Rownham Mead, Poole's Wharf and Baltic Wharf the problem

of overlooking and overshadowing could be largely avoided, and the development would be far

more in scale and keeping with the rest of the buildings in the local 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 are

now doing an environmentally essential job absorbing carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen. I

estimate that the trees on the caravan site are currently absorbing somewhere in the region of two

imperial tons of carbon per annum. This is a vital environmental asset to the local area proving

much needed oxygen and cooling. I totally object to the proposed felling of 82 mature trees and

124 meters of mature hedgerows. Young saplings contribute very little to the environment; global

warming is not going to go on hold for thirty years whilst new saplings grow to maturity. How can

the City Council that is introducing a clean air zone to combat pollution, possibly allow these trees

to be felled? To do so would be utter hypocrisy! The trees are also a valuable visual amenity which

enhance the harbourside to create a pleasant space for visitors and local residents and make a

positive contribution to the character of the area.

The proposal fails to comply with Bristol Core Strategy (BCS9) which states "retain green

infrastructure wherever possible". The proposal fails to comply with the Bristol Central Area Plan

(BCAP) that states that it is "important to integrate green infrastructure within new developments".

The proposal fails to comply with the Development Management policy (DM17) that stresses the

"need to integrate existing trees". The proposal fails to comply with the National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF para 131) which states that planning decisions should ensure "that existing

trees are retained wherever possible". National and local policies are perfectly clear and state that

developments should be built around existing green assets.

I also note that the developer refers to this as a "brownfield site", although it does not appear on

the Bristol City Council register of brownfield sites. The site has been used since 1978 as a

caravan park, most of the trees, shrubs and hedges date from this time and originally most of the

site was laid to grass. I think any reasonable person would see this as greenfield rather than

brownfield. It is certainly a welcome green asset in the harbourside conservation area which has

very little tree cover overall.

WATERSPORTS AND HARBOUR USE

The caravan site fronts onto the designated watersports area of the harbour . Since 1974 many

generations of young Bristolians have learnt to sail here where the wind is reasonably predictable

compared to the rest of the harbour where the tall buildings make the wind unpredictable and

sailing difficult. A building of the proposed height and shape will cause wind turbulence in the

designated watersports area making sailing far more difficult, this would result in an increased

hazard for those learning to sail here and the harbour being potentially less attractive for groups of

children and vulnerable young people who are at present encouraged to use the area

I am a small boat owner and I think it is most important and informative to view the harbour from

the water. In the centre the skyline is dominated by the spire of St Mary Redcliffe and the tall

cranes of the M Shed. As you sail through the main part of the harbour you are flanked by tall six

storey buildings that match the height of Cliftonwood ahead of you. However, as you reach the SS

Great Britain the harbour turns sharply to the South West and the Cliftonwood skyline falls gently

away to the three storey buildings of Poole's Wharf, Rownham Mead and the Underfall Yard with

the distant hills of Ashton Court estate away ahead of you. In terms of visual amenity, the

proposed development will be totally out of context. It will stand at double the height of the existing

buildings and utterly dominate an area where the historic Underfall Yard is the natural focus of

interest. The developments at Baltic Wharf and Rownham Mead are of red brick with roman tile

roofing in sympathy with the historic Underfall Yard, unlike the proposed building which is of a

completely different style, size and type of construction. In every photomontage the developers

have produced, from whatever angle, the proposed building looks massive, far too high, and

utterly out of context with the surrounding area.

PARKING & ROAD ACCESS

The car parking for this proposed development, 80 spaces for 166 dwellings, is woefully

inadequate. Presumably the inhabitants of the development will have cars; certainly almost all will

have visitors with cars. Where are they going to park? Car parking in Cumberland Road and the

surrounding area is already very difficult and this development will add to the problem with

possible overspill into nearby Southville and Hotwells. Almost certainly this will lead to competition

for parking on the existing Baltic Wharf estate.

The new development will also add traffic pressure to the already overused and overburdened

Cumberland Road. In October 2020 the Force 4 chandlery on Baltic Wharf closed citing Bristol

City Council and the constant disruption to Cumberland Road as the reason for closure. The loss

of the chandlery was a severe blow to those who, like myself, build and repair boats in the

harbour.

Disruption to access and traffic flow on the Cumberland Road in recent years has been due to

many 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 Wapping

wharf and repair of the retaining wall and chocolate path in the new cut. To be perfectly honest the

Cumberland Road could do with a rest from disruption for a few years rather than yet another

development.

CONCLUSION

The development will cause an unacceptable level of overshadowing, overlooking and loss of light

to the existing properties and gardens adjoining the site. The scale and density of the proposed

development is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area in terms of the overwhelming

dominance of the buildings. The impact on neighbours, the general public, harbour users, and the

environment is totally unacceptable. This proposal is not sustainable development; being harmful

to the conservation area, natural environment and residential amenity.

The harbour is an attractive area and valuable asset which should be cherished and retained for

the benefit of all, not spoilt by excessive built development. Progress of the development would

also seem premature when the long term future of the Western Harbour area is still being being

considered.

From the Save the Baltic Wharf Trees Steering Committee

Granting permission for Baltic Wharf, based on promises of future flood defences, is comparableto offering contraception AFTER conception. Why rely solely on assurances of future safeguardsin the face of rising waters and risks? Already the Council is bailing out Goram Homes.

Until the other day, the escalating threat of a sudden tsunami in Bristol had wisely prompted theEnvironment Agency(EA) to vehemently oppose approval. Until 8th April they prioritised publicsafety and the implementation of effective flood defences before considering any permissions. TheSecretary of State even refused the appeal for the new caravan site on nearby Clanage Road, aspeople would have only minutes' notice to evacuate.

All that changed overnight with the sudden recent enticement, of developers contributing to futureflood defences. It is an unholy exchange for immediate planning permission. Granted, the EA isdreadfully underfunded. That is no reason to abandon its former principled stand.

Any approval would set a dangerous precedent for development in the highest risk flood zone 3,considering the catastrophic impact of flooding on public safety. There is simply no escape routepossible, according to the developers themselves.

A second important consideration includes the absence of a legally nearby area to replace thesignificant loss of 83 trees and thick hedgerows. Already, the scandalous lack of Enforcement, toreplace all the trees lost on Avon Crescent, does nothing to give us confidence.

Thirdly, do members know that the present houses on Avon Crescent have been refused propertyinsurance? None of the proposed flats will be insured either. Or are "affordable"/social housingresidents deemed desperate enough to accept dangerous housing? In any case, the offer for so-called "affordable" can be withdrawn at any time after approval.

In summary, any approval on Baltic Wharf will likely endorse the entire Western Harbourdevelopment, putting thousands at risk from flooding. Is this really worth it? For the developers,most certainly. Not for our beautiful, world famous Harbourside.

Granting permission for Baltic Wharf, based on promises of future flood defences, iscomparable to offering contraception AFTER conception. Why rely solely on assurances of futuresafeguards in the face of rising waters and risks? Already the Council is bailing out Goram Homes.

(1) Future plans for flood defences do not help provide safety until several years afterthe development will have been inhabited, if at all.(2) Loss of the only significant area of trees on the Harbourside. Plans for replacing them arevague, only partially take place in the same location, and are no substitute for the loss of maturetrees.(3) No indication of any infrastucture improvements in the area to mitigate this (and the other)developments on the harbourside.

(1) and (2) will only become larger problems as climate change worsens.(3) is why I recently moved out of the area.

Until the other day, the escalating threat of a sudden tsunami in Bristol had wiselyprompted the Environment Agency(EA) to vehemently oppose approval. Until 8th April theyprioritised public safety and the implementation of effective flood defences before considering anypermissions. The Secretary of State even refused the appeal for the new caravan site on nearbyClanage Road, as people would have only minutes' notice to evacuate.

All that changed overnight with the sudden recent enticement of developers contributing to futureflood defences. It is an unholy exchange for immediate planning permission. Granted, the EA isdreadfully underfunded. That is no reason to abandon its former principled stand.

Any approval would set a dangerous precedent for development in the highest risk flood zone 3,considering the catastrophic impact of flooding on public safety. There is simply no escape routepossible, according to the developers themselves.

A second important consideration includes the absence of a legally proximate area to replace thesignificant loss of 83 trees and thick hedgerows. Already, the scandalous lack of Enforcement, toreplace all the trees lost on Avon Crescent, does nothing to give us confidence.

Thirdly, do members know that the present houses on Avon Crescent have been refused propertyinsurance? None of the proposed flats will be insured either. Or are "affordable"/social housingresidents deemed desperate enough to accept dangerous housing? In any case, the offer for so-called "affordable" can be withdrawn at any time after approval.

In summary, any approval on Baltic Wharf will likely endorse the entire Western Harbourdevelopment, putting thousands at risk from flooding. Is this really worth it? For the developers,most certainly. Not for our beautiful, internationally famous Harbourside."

Regarding Public Realm views from conservation area South of the river.

I'm extremely disappointed that, after repeated requests during the SCI process , and following theinitial application upload process of 16 March 2021. There are no verified views of the proposalfrom the South of the New Cut.Given the numerically very large amount of valid input on trees made by the public before andafter other uploads later in 2021, I think a "see the wood-from the trees" comment on City Views toa new case officer to be appropriate and constructive before this goes to committee. This is awords-only submission but I may add a further illustrated version very shortly.

Nothing has arisen in two and a half years since my illustrated letter of 14 October 2021 , whichitself pointed out the applicants were ignoring the Elephant in the Conservation Area room sincethe SCI process, nothing has been done to produce a proper visualisation from across the NewCut to the proposed development , only 100m away.

In that time period, summer views from Coronation Road BS3 to the site have actually improved inscope , with a combination of diseased tree failures and purposeful tree pruning around vicinity ofthe CDCA character appraisal viewpoints P28 and P29. It's now a regular thing to see pedestriansstop and look joyfully North, and possibly take in the Vista on a smart-phone before continuing upthe Coronation Road pavement.

The TEP Townscape and Visual assessment, (uploaded 16 March 2021) , volume 1, 5.45"Receptor 3 Public Seating Area South of the New Cut) actually contains two photographs whichdon't get the TVIA treatment subsequently:

These are Image 1 and Image 2 (page 43 of 120 in the original PDF)

"Image 1: View from the riverside seating area on the South Side of The New Cut lookingNorthwest towards the site", This is CDCA Panoramic P29 and has been used by Griffithcontractors throughout their reinstatement of Cumberland Road , to view and triangulate andmonitor their own progress. The Caravan Site and views beyond are very clear from this popularpublic access point installed by the Bristol City Council over 30 years ago, (which is regularly tidiedup by Friends of Avon New Cut [FrANC] volunteer groups, and has just had its lower vegetationCleared again by Tree surgeons working for Griffith on the river wall in 2024). Walking betweenthe three "Heritage Bollards" at this level (just below that of Cumberland Road) provides a range ofviews to the Clifton Escarpment, some clearer in winter than summer due to intervening tree coverbut never the less the beneficial potential of a riverside walkway much vaunted in subsequent localplans was first modelled here over 30 years ago. It is very clear that the proposal will break theskyline from Here but with what, be it benign or horrendous, has never been presented in public.

Bristol Civic Society also stressed this in their letter of 14 May 2021. In the absence of anythingthey could see changing this situation by the time of their letter of 13 October 2021, I thenproduced my own mock visuals of 14 October 2021.

Given the inclusion of more obscure views down from Clifton-Wood at much greater distance tothe North-west, I've never understood the applicants fear of their own South Façade unlessthrough guilt !Everything simulated is presented from the North. With the possible exception of a Genuine buthigh level viewpoint West View from Vauxhall Bridge to A-Bond and the Underfall. This minimisesheights at Caravan park as it's taken from above first floor level, possibly second floor level.

"Image 2" is originally the antidote to SCI Consultant Claims that there was "no view from thesouth" which were probably based on Pre-2020 Streetview and not an actual site visit. The "Team"talking on zoom in the Covid era seemed very bemused about where the BS3 postal district was,80m south of their redline, when zooming pictures of their Harbourside North façade to the BS3planning-group from other cities.

"Image 2 View from Coronation Road looking Northwest towards the roadside seating area andtowards the site beyond the New Cut" .This is from the South Pavement (Ground level 13m AOD approx.) now in the BedminsterConservation Area but originally in CDCA, passing through Panorama point P28 of CDCA (theseating and wheelchair viewing area) to the site and in the picture you can see L-R The Underfallchimney, the Caravan site and the Current 1980's Baltic Wharf residential development and atrained eye would see bits of Suspension Bridge and other high Clifton landmarks. It is worthstating the Ivy covered tree Left has since blown over in a gale (it was dead) , and that under aFrRAC liaison with Parks department in 2021 the tree to the right has been professionally prunedto open up the year round vista from the roadside seating area P28.

FrANC and the Council keep this tidy and it is a very popular viewpoint and destination for walkersand cyclists.October 2023 Streetview Does get a view into this world (from a google camera 3m up above theroad surface remember) before the leaves fell off in November 2023, and any site visit will confirmviews to the proposed site exist, night and day. They just change with season and the tides....

To concludeSet in the Panoramic Views list of CDCA 6.2.5 , P28 Formal viewpoint on Coronation Road(Upper) and P29 Formal viewpoint on Coronation Road (Lower). are sited on the riverbank in thissection of Coronation Road and are prime receptors of the development, and are harmed by it.No attempt is made to model this in order to assess the degree of harm. It seems unlikely that ascheme not pushed by the Mayor's office would have got away with this state of affairs in the daysof City Design etc.Please provide these TVIA's

Please see also others including :Cllr Mark Wright 22 April 2021Bristol Civic Society 14 May 2021Historic England 14 May 2021 (Hannah David)

I strongly object to the proposal on the following grounds:ECOLOGY AND BIODIVERSITY. The site is 12m away from the Floating Harbour WildlifeCorridor, 25m from the River Avon Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI, and is within thewatercourse network of the West of England Nature Partnership (WENP) Nature RecoveryNetwork. The area habitat net gain needs to be reassessed by the applicant with regards to treecoverage and delay to habitat creation, and the net loss in hedgerow habitats needs to beremedied. Appropriate justification for the net loss of hedgerow habitat has not been provided. Anoverall net gain in biodiversity would not being achieved on this site. The proposed onsiteecological enhancement provision (bird and bat boxes) is not sufficient for a site this size, betweena wildlife corridor and an SNCI. The proposal undermines the City Council's efforts to address thedeclared Climate and Ecological Emergencies.LOSS OF TREES. The tree area for the site has not been calculated correctly. The tree loss onthis site is significant and detrimental to the area. Consequently, the development is is contrary tothe One City Plan goal of doubling tree canopy in Bristol by 2046. The tree loss on northernboundary by the harbourside walkway is not supported. This is a valuable ecological corridor forwildlife traversing the site from the floating harbour or River Avon. The applicant has not providedjustification for its loss considering its ecological function.DESIGN, HEIGHT AND MASSING. The development is out of keeping with the area.Consequently, it does not comply with the Bristol Central Area Plan (BCAP) 41 which states that itis not expected to be an area of major change, and development is expected to be of a scale anddesign appropriate to the setting.FLOOD RISK. This development is in a severe Flood risk area (flood zone 3) and would putresidents and emergency services at risk. The development should not be allocated or permitted ifthere are reasonably available sites in areas with a lower risk of flooding.

Application no 21/01331/F

Site address: Caravan Club Cumberland Road Bristol BS1 6XG

Bristol’s Floating Harbour is UNIQUE & a huge asset to Bristol. Why destroy it?

The West end conservation area at Baltic Wharf currently has a peaceful & diversecommunity, a popular recreation site & the Caravan Site is part of this.

Yet another multi story block of flats is NOT UNIQUE & will destroy this.

Do you want this on your conscience?

The Council needs to be forward thinking, respecting the conservation area the CAZzone & heritage of this site in Bristol.

Proposing to fell 74 of the 91 mature trees & replace with some saplings isenvironmentally disastrous. Mature trees have many advantages: Shade needed for hotdays & reducing UV light which can cause cancer. Transpiration. A process thatcauses water to rise from the tree roots to the leaves where it evaporates & provides acooling process + helps with flood prevention. Reducing green house gases: Plantsuse Carbon Dioxide in the process called photosynthesis so reducing carbon dioxide inthe air. Planting saplings is great, but you have to wait more than 40 to 70 years beforethey become mature have the same affect as the trees that you have felled.

PLUS Bristol City Council, in 2011, made a Heritage Statement that they would NOTallow high rise buildings in this area. So, why are you allowing it?

The height of the building is given in stories. But cleverly they forgot to count the groundfloor & just simply renamed it lower ground floor so they could add an extra layer! (ieGround floor is 2 stories!)

FLOODING: Disturbing the ground at the caravan park & placing this multi-storybuilding there is likely to cause flooding both on the site & other sites in the BristolHarbour. The recent high tides have shown how vulnerable Bristol is.

Are the developers going to build a high level bridge for evacuation of residents?Are the developers going to pay for flooding they cause in adjacent buildings?

Obviously this proposed development is all about MONEY.

The Council needs to be forward thinking, respecting the conservation area & heritageof this site in Bristol. Why not convert unwanted office buildings & shops into newhomes? Not destroying assets.

Just think: Why do people choose to take holidays in Venice? –

Because it is UNIQUE

Why do people currently want to live in Bristol? –

Because it is UNIQUE.

Are you going to be the Council members that destroy this, all for the sake of money?

I want to object strongly to this current application.The Environment Agency is now suggesting that it might withdraw its flood risk objection IF thedeveloper (Bristol City Council via Goran Homes) is made via planning condition, to make acontribution to FUTURE flood defences. This site is in the highest risk 3 area, and the flooddefences are needed before it is built.It is not certain that planning conditions will be respected in the future.Metrobus AVTM was given planning consent in 2014, with conditions attached. Some of theseconditions were that a shared space would be built at Avon Crescent, and that the destroyed treeswould be replaced. Neither has happened in ten years, and the planning department refuses toenforce, as it is a council to council scheme. Like Goram Homes at Baltic Wharf.Another relevant point to make about parallels with Metrobus, is that Metrobus was 'sold' to thecommunity with promises of improved flood defences.I recently tried to insure my house in Avon Crescent, and could not obtain insurance cover forflood risk. It is unlikely that occupiers of the Baltic Wharf flats will be able to get this flood riskcover either.Goram Homes (Bristol City Council) and Hill Construction, should build a more sympathetic designwhich preserves more of the trees, at a lower height, around courtyards, AFTER flood defencesare installed, and not before.I think that the Environment Agency's volte face has more to do with a funding shortfall for theBristol Avon Flood Strategy, than with public safety and good practice.The Environment Agency ought to be protecting us from flood risk.

The designs look high quality and the flats will be an amazing place to live for hundredsof people. The site has good transport links and is on brownfield land, making it suitable fordevelopment.

I most strongly object to the continued possibility that this site will be developed forhousing.It is in the highest level of flood risk as has been identified by the Environmental Agency. Recentflooding of the area again highlights that such weather extremes as is now occuring, will mostcertainly happen again and many times in the future. It is utterly irresponsible and grossly obscenethat such an area could possibly be considered for housing. Putting potential residents lives at riskis an utterly untenable situation.Even if flood defences were put in they would not become effective for some considerable time inthe future which would then inevitably render a highly dangerous situation being active for someconsiderable length of time meanwhile.The Baltic Wharf site that is earmarked for this housing development was not registered asbrownfield because it is clearly a greenfield site that has over 100 mature trees standing there -the majority of which would be annihilated in order to adhere to Goram Homes' plans. That such adevelopment could be considered at a time when inner city trees are vital to the health and safetyof residents is disturbingly questionable. We need to maintainand protect our mature city trees!The final point I want to include is that the caravan club being sited here in the inner city is quiteunique and brings a considerable revenue to Bristol. This should not be overlooked.

I object very strongly to this application to build on this piece of Greenfield Land. Thispiece of land is in a Flood 3 zone. With the recent high tides, and the overtopping of the harbourbarriers, it would be very ill advised to build on this land. The need to destroy in excess of 70 verymature trees is criminal. This Caravan Park is a unique feature to Bristol and compliments thenature of the use of The Harbourside here. This area for water sports, sailing, rowing, paddleboarding and swimming is available to all who live in Bristol. This area must be preserved, as whatis proposed to be built is ugly, out of character in every way, will spoil living in Baltic Wharf, havean adverse effect on boat users, (with the wind swirling).The Environment Agency has objected to the plans on flooding reasons. Nothing has changed,apart from the climate becoming wetter and flooding more regular. I STRONGLY OBJECT TOTHIS APPLICATION.

This development is not suitable for families or children.

Summary:-

1) The Baltic Wharf proposed development does not comply with Council requirements for achildren's play area onsite, falling well short of the minimum space required.

2) There is no offsite play area for young children within the required 100m distance, the nearestpark being 800 m away, across busy roads.

3) There is no commitment to open a new G.P. surgery in South Bristol where the health service isalready stretched. The additional 500 people living in the new development would exacerbate thisongoing problem.

In their planning statement, the developers, Goram Homes, have made manymisleading/outdated/incorrect claims. For example, describing the development as being flood -resistant, when it is in the highest flood risk zone with no means of escape, 40% 'affordable', wheneven *)% rents are unaffordable to most incorporating an increase in biodiversity when there is asevere decrease, claiming to be able to replace destroyed trees when there is actually nowhere toplant them, calling the site 'brownfield' when it does not comply with the planning definition, andclaiming a successful relocation of the caravan park when this application was rejected due tosevere flood risk. I am sure these points will be well covered in other people's objections.

The Applicant claims the area is 'well served' by local amenities but the data they use is flawed.

1) Bristol City Council's Urban Living Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) states arequirement for housing developments to provide a minimum allocation of open space onsite. TheSPD provides calculations to estimate the likely occupancy of a development based on detailsprovided in the planning application. In the case of Baltic Wharf there would be 34 predictedchildren requiring at least 10 sq.m per child which equals a minimum of 340 sq.m total. But theactual open playable space within the residential gardens would be 277 sq.m, falling nearly 20%short of that required.

Worse still, the developers claim ( section 7.34) the playable space 'exceeds the required 0.3sq.m. per person'. They appear to be ignoring the council's own Planning Document. Instead, theyare referencing another source that has no function in planning terms.

2) The SPD also requires that the resident children have access to play areas off site, within 100mdistance for children under 5 years and within 400m distance for children over 5 years.In fact there is no play area on Spike Island at all. The nearest area is at Charles Place in Hotwellswhich is 800 m away and would involve crossing a three lane carriageway which is one of thebusiest roads in Bristol. The next nearest park is Greville Smyth Park, over 1 km away.

The children and their carers would not be 'well served' by local play areas.

3) The Mayor recently said there is no commitment to opening a new GP surgery in South Bristol,despite thousands of new homes being built.

GP services are already very stretched across this area and many patients struggle to book adoctor's appointment.

Therefore people who move into this new development would not find themselves 'well served' bylocal health surgeries.There has been a suggestion that building new houses would actually 'free up' NHS resources' bypresumably providing healthier homes. But this would only apply if developers were replacing aslum area with better housing. In the case of Baltic Wharf the housing is in addition and wouldattract wealthy people, many from outside Bristol, and any 'affordable' properties with 20% rentalreduction in this premium area will still be unaffordable to people on low incomes.

Finally, the local Vauxhall Bridge being currently closed for up to two years will affect pedestrianaccess to local parks, schools and supermarkets. Therefore there will be an increased necessityfor people to use cars, but parking is very limited on the development plan.

In conclusion, the proposed Baltic Wharf development would not be "well served" by localamenities and fails to deliver what a community needs.

This application is a good example of why the citizens of Bristol have no confidence inthe local planning process. The application clearly fails the sequential test since the SS GreatBritain car park is on higher ground with easier emergency access and less flood risk meaning itshould obviously be developed before the Baltic Wharf site. The Baltic Wharf site is also entirely inflood Zone 3 and should be opposed by the Environment Agency on the grounds of flood risk, asindeed it has been for the past 3 years.

However we seem to have recently had changes of personnel on the part of both the EnvironmentAgency officer and the planning case officer and now the problems have magically disappearedand the application is due to come before the Development Committee on April 24th.

The EA officer tells us she may be able to withdraw her objection if the developer contributesmoney to the proposed flood prevention scheme. This is the developer (Goram Homes) that iscurrently running at a loss of £3 million, owned by Bristol City Council who are running a currentbudget deficit of £17 million! What are they going to use for cash? Monopoly money? Or perhaps apiece of paper addressed to the citizens of Bristol with I.O.U written on it!

Meanwhile back in the real world the flood defence scheme is £100 million short of cash and thepeople of Bristol will be lucky to see a flood defence system in place by 2040. The EnvironmentAgency must be crazy if they sully their reputation by passing this application!

What about the Sequential test? Well it's up to the Planning department to determine that. Yes,the same planning process that the people of Bristol have no confidence in!

If the Environment Agency nod this application through and the planning case officer recommendsit to the Development Committee on 17th April I sincerely hope the local MP and ward councillorrefer the application to the Secretary of State and request that he call it in!

I work on climate change and can assure the committee that the existing trees on thissite are an irreplaceable asset that will provide cooling shade and will definitely save lives astemperature spikes become more common. This is a present danger, not something far in thefuture. With 102 trees and nearly 40% tree cover, this is the last substantial tree covered greenspace on the harbourside, an area with one of the lowest percentage tree-cover in Bristol (7% vs18.6% for Bristol as a whole). In fact, the trees on Baltic Wharf represent over 30% of all trees onthe harbourside between the City centre and Cumberland Basin. Should the Western Harbour bedeveloped for residential properties, the value of this green space would be greatly magnified. Thedevelopers propose to remove 82 trees, and around half of the hedgerows.The site is within the West of England Nature Partnership (WENP) Nature Recovery Network, withthe Floating Harbour Wildlife Corridor to the north, and the River Avon Site of Nature ConservationInterest (SNCI) to the south. As such the site represents an important ecological site.With the loss of 82 trees, the development is not compliant with Bristol Core Strategy policy BCS9("retain green infrastructure wherever possible") and Development Management policy DM17("need to integrate existing trees").The Bristol Central Area Plan (BCAP) states that "opportunities for additional major green assetsare limited .... Important to integrate green infrastructure within new developments".The developers have proposed 162 replacement trees (in accordance with the TreeCompensation Standard [TCS]). However, there are no available spaces in the vicinity of thedevelopment site, in particular none on the harbourside where they are most needed, none inHotwells, Cliftonwood or Clifton. In fact, there are only 2 available sites within the required 1 mileradius. There are no open ground sites available, and no hard standing planting sites have beenidentified. This is contrary to the Planning Obligations supplementary planning document (SPD),which states "Council will implement tree planting in specific locations identified through the

planning approval process".According to the requirements of the recently implemented Environment Act, the site must achieveat least 10% biodiversity net gain (BNG). With the loss of habitats on site, the required level of treereplacement is 510 trees. With the lack of replacement sites, the proposal is short of mitigation by508 trees.If the developers choose to ignore the requirements of BCS9 and DM17, a compensatory paymentis mandated. As no open ground sites are available or been identified, such payments must be,according to the Planning Obligations SPD, £3,318.88 per tree (index linked from 2012). As such,the minimum obligation for compensatory payment must be £531,020 (in line with TCS) or£1,685,991 (in line with BNG). This is in agreement with the councils Tree Officer. Because thedeveloper is wholly owned by Bristol City Council, it is essential that Council Officers are notperceived to be at all lenient on this issue.It is contrary to the declared Climate and Ecological Emergencies.It is contrary to the One City Plan goal of doubling tree canopy in Bristol by 2046.It is contrary to the Council's Ecological Emergency Action Plan ("embed nature into alldecisions").

Baltic Wharf is not a brownfield (previously developed) siteThe site been described arbitrarily and without reason, a "brownfield" site. It is not as it does notcomply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) definition, "Land which is or wasoccupied by a permanent structure"; This site is not, and has never been, occupied by apermanent structure. Crucially, it is not on the councils register of Brownfield sites, which, by law,needs to be maintained up-to-date by the Council. Indeed, this site is the largest area of woodedspace on the Harborside, with 38% tree cover, and represents over 30% of all trees on theharbourside between Princes Bridge and Cumberland Basin.This development is inappropriate and out of keeping with the areaIt does not comply with the Bristol Central Area Plan (BCAP) 41 which states that it is "notexpected to be an area of major change", and any development is "expected to be of a scale anddesign appropriate to the setting". Also for this area "opportunities for additional major greenassets are limited .... Important to integrate green infrastructure within new developments".The Secretary of State has decreed: "local authorities will not be expected to build developments.... which would lead to a significant change of character, for example, new blocks of high-rise flatswhich are entirely inappropriate in a low-rise neighbourhood".This development is not "liveable"It does not comply with the Urban Living Supplementary Planning Document (Growth andRegeneration) which requires, for this development (of 70 one-bed, 82 two-bed and 14 3-bed) on-site outdoor space of 1036m2 and Child Play Space of 340m2. Actual provision falls well short ofthis.It does not comply with the SPD on off-site children's play areas, which require for under 5yrsplay-area to be within 100m and for over 5yrs within 400m. There are no play areas even close tothese distances.Other services. The nearest GPs surgery is over one mile away, there are no primary schools on

Spike Island, and the nearest is 2.1 miles away by car. The nearest supermarket is 1.5 milesaway. The lack of nearby services is discriminatory against those with limited mobility.This development is in a severe Flood risk area and would put residents and emergency servicesat riskThis development site is in the highest numerical flood risk area (flood zone 3), which both localand national planning policy categorically requires that there must be safe escape route forresidents during an extreme floodThe Environment Agency (EA) has strongly objected to seven separate flood risk assessmentsprovided by the developer on the basis that the whole site is at risk from dangerous flooding, andeven the developers admit "That it is not possible to currently demonstrate a safe/dry access routeto and from the site in the design flood events". National planning policy requires that "thedevelopment will be safe for its lifetime" and that "safe access and escape routes are included".National guidance further requires "Access routes should allow occupants to safely access andexit their dwellings in design flood conditions. Vehicular access to allow the emergency services tosafely reach the development during design flood conditions will also normally be required." Nosuch safe access or escape are possible as the whole area will be flooded.In a flood zone 3 site, national and local policy unambiguously states "Development should not beallocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposeddevelopment in areas with a lower risk of flooding." Within a few hundred metres the SS GreatBritain site is available (it features as such on the developer's [Goram Homes] website), this is in alower flood risk area, therefore according to national and local planning policy the Baltic Wharfdevelopment "should not be permitted".There has been a suggestion that strategic flood defences would allow this development to goforward. However, these are still in the planning stage and, even if these proceed, would not be inplace until 2040 at the earliest. Planning policy clearly states that the development "incorporateadequate mitigation measures to make the site safe from flooding in the period up to the deliveryof strategic flood defences". This development does not satisfy this requirement.The latest flood risk assessment produced by the developer includes modelling of a range of tidalflood scenarios based on a number of assumptions. As any climatologist will tell you, it isimpossible to reliably modelling individual extreme weather events, such as storm surges, which inextreme cases can result in an additional 8 metres of sea level rise. Both Bristol City Council(BCC) and Environment Agency recognise that dangerous flooding could become as frequent asonce a year within 75 years (BAFS Strategic Outline) with an unacceptable risk that such an eventwill occur between now and 2040.The proposed strategic flood defences are a joint project between Bristol City Council and theEnvironment Agency. The project has a funding shortfall of £100 million, which both partners arekeen to fill. The Baltic Wharf development, and the greater Harbourside development that thiswould open up, would contribute to the cost of the flood defences, helping to fill the funding gap. Itis conceivable that both are conflicted in this case, and we would not want a situation wherefinance is put before public safety.If planning were to be granted on this site it would be the first time in Bristol that a committee hasapproved a residential development in a current flood risk 3 area where there is no guaranteed

route of escape or entry for emergency services. Considering that flooding kills more people thanany other natural disaster, is this committee willing to take a chance and approve this applicationand potentially put the lives of Bristol residents at risk?This development will not provide genuine affordable homes, nor is it likely to alleviate the housingcrisis."Affordable" in this context is 80% of market rent. Rental costs in the new harboursidedevelopments is very high, with average rent £2000-£2800 PCM for a two bed flat. Rents of£1600-2240 are beyond the means of those in desperate need of a home (maximum housingallowance is £825). It is likely that most of the properties will be bought up by investors, Londoncommuters and second homeowners, and therefore this development will do little to alleviatehomelessness in Bristol.This application is a "Trojan Horse" for the much larger Western Harbour development.Should this development be approved despite it being in an extreme flood risk area with no meansof escape or access, then it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to refuse other applicationson the basis of similar extreme flood risk. As we have seen with the recent high tide, this area ofBristol is at risk of flooding and this risk will only increase with time.

So few trees left around the harbour. I would accept this ONLY if all 166 were low rentapartments for teachers, nurses etc.

Removing the trees and greenery is plainly wrong. Our first born was conceived underthose trees!

I object to further overdue development of the harbour side and the loss of an openspace and useful recreational resource

Therefore, this development cannot be considered for approval, as reflected in your, and theEnvironment Agency's (EA), previous objections, because it is not safe and cannot be madesafe without major flood defences not part of this proposal, and an alternative site in a lowerflood risk area is available.

However, I am now rather confused and surprised that the flood risk team seem to be of theopinion that the development DOES NOT need to be safe from flooding over its lifetime.Nothing material has changed. Being within flood risk 3 requires that the applicant makes thesite safe in the event of a design flood with an annual probability of 0.5% (AEP). Thisrepresents the risk today, and therefore this is NOT an avoidable responsibility, irrespectiveof any additional flood modelling that may have been undertaken.

The latest FRA produced by the developer includes modelling of a range of tidal floodscenarios based on a number of assumptions. As any climatologist will tell you, modellingclimate is possible, but modelling individual extreme weather events is not. Although it isreasonable to predict increases in sea level, it is not possible to predict weather events, suchas cyclonic storm surges, which in extreme cases can result in an additional 8 metres of sealevel rise. Both Bristol City Council (BCC) and EA recognise that 1/200-year floods couldbecome as frequent as once a year by 2100 (BAFS Strategic Outline) with an unacceptableprobability that such an event will occur between now and 2040 (see flood risk map below).

Because of this inherent danger and unpredictability of extreme weather events, the NPPFand Local Plans make it clear that "hoping for the best" is NOT an option, and thata development must be demonstrably "safe for its lifetime". This development is not safe.

It has also been suggested that, if the developers contribute to the delivery of the jointEA/BCC Bristol Avon Flood Strategy (BAFS), the EA may consider withdrawing its objection,despite the development not being safe. It is perhaps understandable that both BCC and theEA are keen to close the £100 million funding gap for BAFS through developer CILcontributions, but this MUST NOT be at the cost of public safety.

Crucially, line 1 of the policy FR2 of the new local plan states that developments must:

"Incorporate adequate mitigation measures to make the site safe from flooding inthe period up to the delivery of strategic flood defences"

which this development utterly fails to do.

A very optimistic timeline for BAFS is that construction will begin in 2027, completed in 2036.However, as this project is still in consultation and is short 50% of its funding, a more likelycompletion date, if indeed it goes ahead, is beyond 2040. Therefore, the Baltic Wharfdevelopment must be safe from flooding for at least 15 years. As such, there is no justificationfor the Flood Risk team to withdraw its objection until such a time the BAFS is in place andfully functional.

I recognise that BCC may be under enormous political pressure from the Mayor’s Office toapprove this council underwritten development, as that would open up the whole WesternHarbour for similar developments. However, the people of Bristol put their trust in the Counciland agencies such as the EA, and financial and political motives should never override publicsafety.

The Baltic Wharf development is such an extreme case, being the highest numerical flood riskand having no possible means of escape, that were this proposal to be permitted it will be the

first time that such an application has been approved in Bristol, and as a precedent, willcompletely undermine flood protection in the city.

I would suggest that the Flood Risk team rethink their previous withdrawal of their objectionto this development, and properly consider national (NPPF) and local planning policies, andput public safety before lesser concerns.

In case there was any doubt of the flood risk.... footage of this week’s hightide (https://youtu.be/VnEcm-MKO10).

Best Wishes.

Bristol Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (2023)

Flood Risk

This site is entirely within flood zone 3, with the nearest "safe" area for residents (which mayinclude infants, pregnant women, elderly and physically impaired) being over 200 metres awayand requiring crossing a river which will also be in flood, or 300 metres distant along a floodedroad, adjacent to, and undistinguishable from, the fast-moving river. Estimates of the rate of floodwater flow range from 5.4 to 20.4 MPH, easily sufficient to sweep away pedestrians and vehicles.

Up until now, the EA and the councils Flood Risk team responses to the developers many (sevenon my last count) flood risk assessments (FRAs), have consistently and, in accordance withnational and local policy, maintained that for this development to gain approval by the LPA, theapplicant must demonstrate that:

“the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of itsusers” (Part 2 of the Exception Test [NPPF 170]).

This policy requirement is confirmed in the current and new Local Plans:

"that the development remains safe from flooding over its lifetime" (BCS16 and FR1).

Furthermore, national guidance states:

“Access routes should allow occupants to safely access and exit their dwellings in designflood conditions. Vehicular access to allow the emergency services to safely reach thedevelopment during design flood conditions will also normally be required.” (PlanningPractice Guidance on flood risk Para 39)

It should be noted, at this point, that the developers themselves have stated:

"it is not possible to currently demonstrate a ‘safe’/dry access route to and from the sitein the ‘design’ flood events" (FRA 2896094, Para 4.2.2)

As well as failing part 2 of the Exception test, this development has also clearly and demonstrablyfailed the sequential test, which states:

"Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably availablesites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding."(Para 162)

in that a short distance away there is a development site (the SS Great Britain car park) which isavailable (as Goram Homes and, unlike Baltic Wharf, adjoins lower flood risk areas. The developer,Goram Homes, even has this listed on their website as a potential development site(https://www.goramhomes.co.uk/developments/ss-great-britain-car-park/). This alternativesite, therefore, exactly matches the NPPF requirements of an alternative site.

Therefore, this development cannot be considered for approval, in line with seven EA and threeFlood Risk Managers objections, because it is not safe and cannot be made safe without majorflood defences not part of this proposal, and an alternative site in a lower flood risk area isavailable.

Flood Risk Assessment

The latest FRA produced by the developer includes modelling of a range of tidal flood scenariosbased on a number of assumptions. As any climatologist will tell you, modelling individualextreme weather events such as cyclonic storm surges, which typically generates more than 1metre, but in extreme cases 8 metres, of additional tidal surge, is not possible. Both Bristol City

Council (BCC) and EA recognise that 1/200-year floods could become as frequent as once a yearby 2100 (BAFS Strategic Outline) with an unacceptable probability that such an event will occurbetween now and 2040*.

Being within flood risk 3 requires that the applicant makes the site safe in the event of a designflood with an annual probability of 0.5% (AEP). This represents the risk today, and therefore thisis NOT an avoidable responsibility, irrespective of any additional flood modelling that may havebeen undertaken. Nothing material has changed to justify putting safety concerns to one side.

NPPF and Local planning policy

Because of the inherent danger of flood events, and unpredictability of extreme weather events,the NPPF and Local Plans do not provide an option to "hope for the best". A development mustbe demonstrably "safe for its lifetime". This development is not safe, and the developers admit itcannot be made safe in the event of a “design” flood.

It has also been suggested that, if the developers contribute to the delivery of the jointEA/BCC Bristol Avon Flood Strategy (BAFS), the EA may consider withdrawing its objection,despite the development not being safe. It is perhaps understandable that both BCC and the EAare keen to close the £100 million funding gap for BAFS through developer CIL contributions, butthis MUST NOT be at the cost of public safety.

Crucially, line 1 of the policy FR2 of the new local plan states that developments must:

"Incorporate adequate mitigation measures to make the site safe from flooding in theperiod up to the delivery of strategic flood defences"

which this development utterly fails to do.

A very optimistic timeline for BAFS is that construction will begin in 2027, completed in 2036.However, as this project is still in consultation and is short 50% of its funding, a more likelycompletion date, if indeed it goes ahead, is beyond 2040. Therefore, the Baltic Wharfdevelopment must be safe from flooding for at least 15 years. As such, there is no justification forthe Flood Risk team to withdraw its objection until such a time the BAFS is in place and fullyfunctional.

I recognise that BCC may be under enormous political pressure from the Mayor’s Office toapprove this council underwritten development, as that would open up the whole WesternHarbour for similar developments. However, the people of Bristol put their trust in the planningcommittees, and financial and political motives should never override public safety.

The Baltic Wharf development is such an extreme case, being the highest numerical flood risk andhaving no possible means of escape, that were this proposal to be permitted it will be the firsttime that such an application has been approved in Bristol, and as a precedent, will completelyundermine flood protection in the city.

I strongly suggest that DCCA properly consider national (NPPF) and local planning policies, andput public safety before lesser concerns.

*In case there was any doubt of the flood risk.... footage of this week’s high tide (https://youtu.be/VnEcm-MKO10). Overtopping of current flood “defences” occurs on a regular basis, for example recorded high tidelevels in March 2020 (8.81m AOD) were well above “crest level of the flood defences within the immediatevicinity of the [Baltic Wharf] site” (8.57m AOD).

All-Aboard Watersports is a charity whose aim is to deliver watersports to those who donot usually access the water due to physical, mental, cerebral or economic barriers. A large part ofour delivery is sailing including the Royal Yachting Association Sailability Scheme. Our watersportcentre is immediately adjacent to proposed Building A of the proposed scheme.Our objection is to a development of this size, height and density. A development of this size willcause a combination of wind shielding and turbulence in the designated water sports area. Thiswill make sailing instruction extremely difficult and more hazardous. It may make the designatedwater sports area unusable. The wind assessment in the planning proposal only discusses andreferences the effects to pedestrians not a single mention of water users. The developer isplanning to build right on top of the designated water sports area and yet there is no mention ofthe negative effects of the development on water users.

Bristol City Council seems to be viewing this site solely as a property development opportunity.More recognition needs to be given to the fact that this is a working harbour and the site frontsonto a designated water sports area. Water sports instruction together with boat building andrepair are the prime functions of this part of the harbour and any new development needs to takethis into consideration. We see no evidence of this in the plans for the proposed development.

Many of the people All-Aboard deal with are severely challenged and often of a nervousdisposition, the current hedge and tree screen in front of the caravan park creates a calmingenvironment especially when getting clients onboard boats. A large block of flats with many peopleoverlooking the site together with increased footfall along the waterfront will create a morethreatening environment and make the task of getting people on and off the water morehazardous. Getting on and off the water is always the most dangerous part of the exercise

particularly for vulnerable people.

We are in favour of sustainable and inclusive developments which enhance the harbourside forthe benefit of all. The increase in footfall will discourage some of our users from using our facilities.

The western end of the harbour is rich in historical interest and industrial archaeology 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 substantial, it is far too highand dwarfs the existing buildings at Baltic Wharf, the Cottage pub and the Underfall Yard. Thesebuildings are predominantly three stories high and brick built. From the look of the photomontagethe new building is utterly domineering and shares little in character with those buildings already inthe area. Any building here should be limited to two or three storeys in height.

The proposed size of the development will make our boatyard damp and dark, year round whichwill cause faster deterioration of our equipment and pose safety and security issues.We have concerns about the water run off into our yard, we cannot see that this has beenaddressed in the environmental assessment reports and would welcome further clarification onthis.

I object strongly to the application.I object to the huge overbearing sizing of the development, overshadowing, loss of privacy, loss oflight to neighbouring properties, loss of light and sun along the harbour, loss of trees and the totalnegative impact the development will have on the character and historical nature of the harbour.Who is gaining from this - not the people of Bristol.The development will still lead to increased traffic, an increase of cars, delivery vehicles, amenityvehicles, maintenance vehicles, visitors, leading to congestion, pollution and parking issues.Reduced car parking spaces will simply create parking issues in the surrounding area. Bristol isalready a heavily polluted city.The development will totally change the quiet, relaxed feel of this end of the Floating Harbourwhich is so important for peoples' mental and physical well being and which is a attraction of thearea. It will be destroyed.This area is used for outdoor water sports, walking and relaxing. There has been no properassessment of the impact on water sports in the area, but the developers position seems to be togloss this over and that the water sports will simply have to adapt to any adverse impact. This areashould be set aside for further water sports for the harbour area as it is unique opportunity withinBristol for this type of activity.The caravan site is also unique in a city and is an asset to Bristol. The applicant has not submitteda marketing report to demonstrate that there is no ongoing demand for the current use. Where isthat report?The development is not at all suitable for the area, as the number of objections clearly show.Are the environment agency now being forced into changing their original flood recommendationsso that a convenient 'solution' of development can now be arrived at!! How can that be changedfrom one meeting to the next!!

This application should be refused

Really excited by these plans, much better use of the this harbour side location, close tothe city centre. I like the design, the landscaping and think this would be a great place to live.

Further additional comments – 19 February 2024

2

April 2023.1 In light of this we have updated our biodiversity gain calculations but have used

the obligatory Statutory Metric2 rather than the now redundant BNG 4.0 metric calculation used

by the applicant.

Save for the comments below, we have adopted the applicant’s baseline habitat and habitat

creation parameters used in their metric calculation. However, we reserve our position pending

the production of further evidence and clarification of the anomalies and inconsistencies

discussed below:

1. The two tree surveys produced were undertaken 21.5 months apart - the first on 07/08

June 20213 and the second on 23 March 2023.4 Given this gap, it is surprising that the tree

diameters (DBH) have not increased at all in the intervening period. It is a generally-

accepted rule-of-thumb that trees add about 2.54 cm (1”) to their girth annually. This is

an annual DBH increase of 0.8085 cm, so it would be expected that most of these trees

would have added about 1.6 cm to their DBHs in the 21.5 months between the two surveys,

given that only two trees, T10 & T11, are identified as mature, though these too increase

in girth.

2. The applicant also states that: ‘All trees recorded on the previous survey were still present

on the site. It was noted that most of the trees had grown in height by approximately one

metre, with several poplar trees which had been recently topped at the time of the

previous survey having gained around two metres in height through vigorous growth. These

same trees have also increased their crown spread by around 1m in all directions.5

However, our analysis shows that only 50 of the 102 trees have grown taller while one has

lost 2 metres (T100) and none have increased their crown spread. We wonder if the data

from these two surveys has somehow been mixed up.

3. The applicant has calculated the baseline Individual trees Urban habitat area at 0.241

hectares. It advises that this ‘includes all trees on site, which lie within an urban

environment. The area of the trees has been mapped using the exact canopy coverage as

measured for the Arboricultural survey undertaken by TEP (Ref: 8074.01.001).6

This is the wrong approach. Both the BNG 4.0 and the Statutory Metric guidance require

that the area of baseline Individual trees Urban habitat be based on the diameter at breast

height (DBH) of the trees surveyed, not on their canopy areas. The Statutory Metric user

guide states that:

The biodiversity metric uses set values to represent the area of individual trees

1 21_01331_F-BIODIVERSITY_NET_GAIN_ASSESSMENT_V2-3603559 & 21_01331_F-BIODIVERSITY_METRIC_4.0-3603573.xlsm. 2 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/biodiversity-net-gain. 3 21_01331_F-ARBORICULTURAL_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT-3046093 4 21_01331_F-BALTIC_WHALF_TREE_SURVEY_UPDATE-3603576. 5 21_01331_F-BALTIC_WHALF_TREE_SURVEY_UPDATE-3603576. 6 21_01331_F-BIODIVERSITY_NET_GAIN_ASSESSMENT_V2-3603559 – page 6.

Further additional comments – 19 February 2024

3

depending on their diameter at breast height.

This value is a representation of canopy biomass, and is based on the root

protection area formula, derived from BS 5837:2012.

Table 14 sets out class sizes of trees and their area equivalent.7

Using this methodology, we calculate that the correct baseline Individual trees Urban

habitat area of the onsite trees surveyed is 1.1542 hectares, of which 0.2448 will be

retained (see Appendix 1). It is the same for the BNG 4.0 metric, though only three

equivalent size categories are used – small (0.0041 ha), medium (0.0366 ha) and large

(0.0764 ha). On this basis, the baseline habitat area of the trees on site would be 2.2707

hectares, of which 0.4884 hectares will be retained. The applicant’s ecologist seems not

to be aware of this, even though they use this methodology to calculate the habitat area

of the 63 trees proposed to be planted on site.

While immaterial for the purposes of this analysis, using the averaged cardinal canopy radii

data from the latest arboricultural survey, we calculate that the combined canopy area of

these trees is 0.3741 hectares, not the 0.241 hectares used by the applicant.

4. We do not agree that the strategic significance of Individual trees Urban habitat is

moderate. Both Local Plan core policy BCS9 and SADMP DM17 give specific protection to

trees. Accordingly, we have set it to High – ‘Formally identified in local strategy’ – to

reflect this for both the baseline and the created Individual trees Urban habitat

7 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c60e0514b83c000ca715f3/The_Statutory_Biodiversity_Metric_-_User_Guide_.pdf.

Further additional comments – 19 February 2024

4

calculations.

5. On this basis, we calculate that there is a net onsite loss of area habitat of 44.52%.

Furthermore, the biodiversity gain trading rules have not been complied with. Making

allowance for the 63 small category trees which the applicant proposes to plant on site,

we have added a further 230 small size category trees to be planted off site, though within

the LPA, in order the meet the trading rules requirements (this will need to be recalculated

if the applicant proposes planting trees outside Bristol). This includes the 219 replacement

trees required under DM17 and the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS) and results

in a net area biodiversity gain of 10.76%. This is just above the applicant’s 10% biodiversity

gain target. In the alternative, higher distinctiveness habitats may be created to mitigate

the loss of this medium distinctiveness habitat.

6. If the LPA requires it, we can recast our calculations using the BNG 4.0 methodology, though

510 small size category trees will then need to be planted off site (or higher distinctiveness

habitats created) to meet the trading rules requirements. This will result in a biodiversity

gain of 5.71%, so further mitigation will be needed to meet the applicant’s 10% biodiversity

gain target.

7. We note that the applicant and the LPA’s Arboricultural Officer calculate that 162

replacement tree will be needed under DM17 & BTRS, so ask to see the basis of their

calculations. It would also help if the applicant would also produce a schedule of the trees

to be removed.

8. We agree with the Arboricultural Officer’s observation that it is difficult to find open-

ground planting sites (or any sites) within a one-mile radius of the development site –

usually required for new offsite trees.8 Special rules have been established for funding

these under BTRS, but these have been superseded by the new obligations on developers

to arrange for and fund offsite habitat provision using the Statutory Habitat Management

and Monitoring Plan (HMMP)9 and the Biodiversity Mitigation Hierarchy, which permits

offsite mitigation where it is not possible on site.10

9. The obligation to replace trees lost to development, as set out in DM17, is clear. The trees

lost must be replaced. It is not sufficient (as has been the case historically) to use the funds

generated as a result of DM17 and BTRS to fund the replacement of other trees lost in the

normal course of tree management. New trees in new sites must be planted.

10. We note that there are no proposals for making good the 65.22% loss of hedgerow habitat.

No explanation is given for this, nor are any proposals made to compensate for this loss.

The applicant accepts that ‘inclusion of further hedgerows would reduce the amount of

space available for community use or reduce the developable footprint’,11 but does not

propose to mitigate this loss off site, as they are required to do.

8 21_01331_F-ARBORICULTURAL_TEAM-3613285. 9 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/creating-a-habitat-management-and-monitoring-plan-for-biodiversity-net-gain. 10 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain - Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 74-008-20240214. 11 21_01331_F-BIODIVERSITY_NET_GAIN_ASSESSMENT_V2-3603559 – paragraph 5.7.

Further additional comments – 19 February 2024

5

11. The three habitat types – area, hedgerow and watercourse habitat - may not be cross-

traded (as the applicant seems to imply); Rule 2 of the user guide states: ‘Biodiversity unit

outputs, for each type of unit, must not be summed, traded, or converted between types.

The requirement to deliver at least a 10% net gain applies to each type of unit.’12

12. The 30-year Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP), which the developer

proposed to use, has now been superseded by the introduction of HMMPs.

A copy of our Statutory Metric calculation will be provided on request.

12 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c60e0514b83c000ca715f3/The_Statutory_Biodiversity_Metric_-_User_Guide_.pdf - page 12.

Further additional comments – 19 February 2024

6

Appendix 1 – Baseline Area Individual trees – Urban Habitat

Tree

ID

Tree

Count

Trees

Removed

DBH

(cm)

Statutory

Metric

Category

Baseline

Habitat

(ha)

Habitat

removed

(ha)

Habitat

Retained

(ha)

Totals 102 79

1.1542 0.9094 0.2448

T1 1 1 29 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T2 1 1 18 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T3 1 1 17 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T4 1 1 21 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T5 1 1 34 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T6 1 1 33 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T7 1 0 39 Medium 0.0163 0.0000 0.0163

T8 1 0 30 Small 0.0041 0.0000 0.0041

T9 1 1 38 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T10 1 1 79 Large 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

T11 1 1 65 Large 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

T12 1 0 30 Small 0.0041 0.0000 0.0041

T13 1 0 48 Medium 0.0163 0.0000 0.0163

T14 1 0 31 Medium 0.0163 0.0000 0.0163

T15 1 0 36 Medium 0.0163 0.0000 0.0163

T16 1 0 21 Small 0.0041 0.0000 0.0041

T17 1 0 29 Small 0.0041 0.0000 0.0041

T18 1 1 28 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T19 1 0 9 Small 0.0041 0.0000 0.0041

T20 1 1 40 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T21 1 1 40 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T22 1 1 41 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

Further additional comments – 19 February 2024

7

Tree

ID

Tree

Count

Trees

Removed

DBH

(cm)

Statutory

Metric

Category

Baseline

Habitat

(ha)

Habitat

removed

(ha)

Habitat

Retained

(ha)

T23 1 1 39 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T24 1 1 34 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T25 1 1 39 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T26 1 0 20 Small 0.0041 0.0000 0.0041

T27 1 0 32 Medium 0.0163 0.0000 0.0163

T28 1 1 20 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T29 1 1 20 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T30 1 0 28 Small 0.0041 0.0000 0.0041

T31 1 1 41 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T32 1 1 22 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T33 1 1 36 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T34 1 1 30 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T35 1 1 39 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T36 1 1 38 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T37 1 1 31 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T38 1 0 28 Small 0.0041 0.0000 0.0041

T39 1 0 29 Small 0.0041 0.0000 0.0041

T40 1 1 28 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T41 1 0 36 Medium 0.0163 0.0000 0.0163

T42 1 0 22 Small 0.0041 0.0000 0.0041

T43 1 0 35 Medium 0.0163 0.0000 0.0163

T44 1 0 39 Medium 0.0163 0.0000 0.0163

T45 1 1 40 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T46 1 1 33 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T47 1 1 41 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T48 1 1 23 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T49 1 1 10 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

Further additional comments – 19 February 2024

8

Tree

ID

Tree

Count

Trees

Removed

DBH

(cm)

Statutory

Metric

Category

Baseline

Habitat

(ha)

Habitat

removed

(ha)

Habitat

Retained

(ha)

T50 1 0 29 Small 0.0041 0.0000 0.0041

T51 1 1 28 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T52 1 1 11 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T53 1 1 10 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T54 1 1 24 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T55 1 1 46 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T56 1 1 39 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T57 1 1 38 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T58 1 1 40 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T59 1 1 21 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T60 1 1 29 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T61 1 1 40 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T62 1 1 42 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T63 1 1 40 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T64 1 1 39 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T65 1 1 38 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T66 1 1 28 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T67 1 1 26 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T68 1 1 16 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T69 1 1 28 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T70 1 1 37 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T71 1 1 40 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T72 1 1 31 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T73 1 1 40 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T74 1 1 29 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T75 1 1 28 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T76 1 1 26 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

Further additional comments – 19 February 2024

9

Tree

ID

Tree

Count

Trees

Removed

DBH

(cm)

Statutory

Metric

Category

Baseline

Habitat

(ha)

Habitat

removed

(ha)

Habitat

Retained

(ha)

T77 1 1 26 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T78 1 1 26 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T79 1 1 29 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T80 1 1 38 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T81 1 1 22 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T82 1 1 20 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T83 1 1 34 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T84 1 1 21 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T85 1 1 38 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T86 1 1 40 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T87 1 1 41 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T88 1 1 42 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T89 1 1 33 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T90 1 1 40 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T91 1 1 31 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T92 1 0 25 Small 0.0041 0.0000 0.0041

T93 1 0 39 Medium 0.0163 0.0000 0.0163

T94 1 0 34 Medium 0.0163 0.0000 0.0163

T95 1 0 40 Medium 0.0163 0.0000 0.0163

T96 1 0 35 Medium 0.0163 0.0000 0.0163

T97 1 1 35 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T98 1 1 32 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T99 1 1 30 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T100 1 1 33 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

T101 1 1 30 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

Further additional comments – 19 February 2024

10

Tree

ID

Tree

Count

Trees

Removed

DBH

(cm)

Statutory

Metric

Category

Baseline

Habitat

(ha)

Habitat

removed

(ha)

Habitat

Retained

(ha)

T102 1 1 31 Medium 0.0163 0.0163 0.0000

The south harbour side promenade, space made available to the public, forms analmost continuous walk between the Underfall Yard Visitor Centre and Redcliffe Bascule Bridge.Its a pleasant and popular recreational walk.Parts of the route become shaded in winter months when the sun is low. The shading is generallyfrom residential building erected since the commercial closure of the docks. No where are thebuildings more than three stories high or set well back from the harbour side. This proposal is forbuildings six plus stories high and about 11m away from the waters edge. This is much closer tothe waters edge than other buildings along the south side of the harbour and very much taller. Theimpoliteness of this proposal is breath taking.The applicant should now be required to provide an environmental analysis of this walkwaycomplete with shadow diagrams at specific times of day at monthly intervals throughout the year.Only then can the lay person make a judgement of the cost of this loss.

Our house sites directly to the east side of the boundary to this proposed development.The proposal (as it is) should be refused due to "risk/danger to life" as there will be a greatlyenhanced risk of flash flooding, which will in turn, come straight into our property.The docks in this part of Bristol was built to take advantage of the 2nd highest tidal range on theplanet. Currently the existing capacity of the Docks is only designed to hold the tidal water and anexpected annual amount of rain water.The current caravan park/site is mainly grass and gravel, as such any heavy downpours of raincan easily soak away then finally be reabsorbed slowly into the existing river or basin.As we all know global warming is worsening year on year, and even now we are experiencinghigher and higher levels of rain in Bristol so the risk of flash floods in this area with a river one sideand the harbour on the other side is already very high.Our house is designed with a living room on the 1st floor (and as any flash flood in the futurewould be greatly exacerbated by this development) we may not even notice water rushing into theground floor of our property until its too late (especially in the evenings).To gain our support we would like to see.A much larger gap between our properties and the new development. This area should be planedup with reedbeds and maybe a garden area for the new residents of the new development. Thedevelopers should also be required to make changes to our properties so the existing 1st floorliving room can be relocated to the ground floor (if we wish).

Dear Mr Calabrese,

Paragraph 4.1 of the Flood Risk Assessment produced by Hydrock (dated15th March 2023) contains the same mistruth about the Sequential Test.It states:

"To this end, a separate assessment (included with the PlanningApplication submission) has been undertaken which concludes that theproposed development passes the Sequential Test"

The application fails the Sequential Test because the development can beconstructed on land that is at a lower risk of flooding.

I am sure that you are aware of this, but it would appear that it hasnot been brought to the attention of Hydrock.

Regards,

For and on behalf of Baltic Wharf Management Company Limited

The flood risk alone should deem this completely in appropriate and dangerous. Risk tolife and property should never be ignored.

It is Extremely disappointing to find this new drawings set is solely an argument aboutFlood Risk with no new Verified Drawings of views from South .Once again Failure to develop City Docks Conservation Area views from P28 Formal viewpoint onCoronation Road (Upper) and P29 Formal viewpoint on Coronation Road (Lower).There is a clear threat to historic Cross-Bristol views which has been pointed out at Pre-Ap andthe applicants have simply ignored the issue time and again, and its harms throughout, from pre-ap to application and application updates , and now they do so again !Its a FB stich up as the building will break the skyline significantly interrupting the many views tothe Clifton escarpment and create the impression of another Tobacco Bond sized edifice ingrouped mass.

Look at the photomontages. How can this out of scale monstrosity be allowed in aconservation area. Does it really enhance the area or massively damage it?

The applicant has recently announced that their architects have designed a scheme for153 flats on the site of the SS Great Britain car park, not 110 as stated within the Sequential Test.

This further confirms that the application fails the Sequential Test.

The Environment Agency objects to this development because of flood risk. The floodrisk should be addressed prior to building, as an extra storey has been added as you can't haveresidential on the ground floor. The height ought to be reduced. It is too tall, too blocky, andunsympathetic to its environment. The roof shapes should reference Underfall Yard, and the DutchBarn. The last remaining timber shed.There was never any warehousing this end of the docks. Cut and pasting Wapping Wharf isinappropriate and lazy.

Too many mature trees will be lost. The Harbourside desperately needs trees to breakthe monotony of bricks and concrete. The developer should come back with a more sympatheticdesign, that retains more of these mature trees. Many replacement trees do not survive, and takemany years to do the same environmental good as mature trees.

I object to this development on several grounds.

1) The proposed buildings are on a potential flood plain.2) The environmental impact of the project including the destruction of several trees3) Removing an inner city caravan site which is an important tourist amenity for the city.

Great idea to build much needed homes, caravan park not needed and only used byselect few club members, none of whom are council tax paying residents

I'd like to object to the proposed development of the caravan site for the followingreasons:

1) There is a conflict of interests as the developer is owned by the council, who is overseeing theplanning permission. The submission states much of the development is there to meet "planningrequirements". I don't believe that the application will be given independent and balancedconsideration.2) The development will have and adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours by increating noise and disturbance by the addition of commercial units on the ground floor of thedevelopment. Additionally the buildings will overshadow all of the buildings in the vicinity.3) The development is developing the site to an unacceptably high density and will result in theloss of established trees, and the open aspect of the current site.4) The development is over-bearing, and completely out of scale compared with existingdevelopment in the vicinity. This is a conservation area, where I have to seek permission to havesolar panels due to concern of the impact on the ascetic of the area, and a 7 story development isconsidered acceptable.5) The development isn't in keeping with the character of the western end of the harbour, wheredevelopments do not exceed 5 stories.

There appears to be recognition by the developer that the development is regarded as too tall, butthe have done little to address the concerns of the neighbours.

Bristol does not need more luxury housing, it does need this caravan club as there areno others available. We do need affordable housing - which this would not be. There must be lotsof unused office buildings which could be converted for younger single people who can no longerfind places to rent, this plan would not solve that problem. I have also heard that your plan wasrejected on environmental grounds being to close to flood risk area.Recently I was walking in vicinity of Feeder canal, there are lots of empty sites which would alsobe more likely to produce affordable housing. Stop building on the docks and concentrate yourefforts in more appropriate areas.

I oppose this development for the following reasons:

The trees are likely to be lost in direct contravention to the council's own green policy BCS9.Planting a few young trees will not give the environmental benefit of the current mature trees.People using the caravan site currently walk to the harbour attractions; by moving it out of theharbour area there will be increased traffic by people driving into Bristol. It makes economic senseto keep the Caravan park here because the council will make money out of the congestion chargebecause many motorhomes are non-compliant. It is also estimated the visitors bring in millions ofpounds worth into local businesses.The caravan site is fully booked almost every day of the yearshowing the demand; it should be increased in size rather than moved.The harbour side skyline will be adversely affected by a out of place tower blocks.The land is not suitable for building because it is likely to be flooded in the future.The land is being given away to private developers with little benefit to the council; why should thecouncil help the wealthy become richer who will let the properties at extortionate rents?The Flats are likely to be bought for investment driving up prices with little affordability for thosemost in need of housing.The land is currently a green field not a Brown field site (as incorrectly referred to by Marvin Rees)as it never has had any significant buildings on it for hundreds of years.There are plenty of other sites owned by the council which would be far better for homes; perhapsall the empty offices (real brown field sites) could be converted?There will be traffic chaos for years during the building and afterwards made worse by the collapseof Cumberland road which has still not been repaired. Increased traffic will permanent because ofthe occupants driving to and from their homes.

The scale of the Development would be out of character with the surrounding area. Thispart of the harbourside is historic and offers a more tranquil aspect for visitors. It is a wellestablished green space with a high number of mature trees. With the recent introduction of theClean Air Zone it would be a travesty to cut down so many trees. There are many alternative siteson which flats could be built.I strongly object to these current proposals.

Following the consultation response, we would like to reiterate that the development iscontrary to Bristol City Councils declarations of Climate and Ecological Emergencies andcommitments made in the One City Plan to be Carbon Neutral by2030 and to double tree canopy cover by 2046 and does not make the required mitigation for theproposed loss of mature trees. The removal of 82 out of 101 trees is not acceptable and to bereplaced with only 10 'near' the site is of great concern. The area will be left with limited greeneryas so many new developments are. We should be doing all we can to not fell any mature trees inBristol, as the carbon loss of this cannot be replicated simply by planting new trees in their place.

The area will be within a new clean air zone. Given the poor quality of the access roads to the siteand the 'option of EV charging in the future', this will only increase the poor air quality. EV chargingshould be a given for new developments of this scale.

Should a new development of this scale not look to do more to mitigate the use of clean water onthe site by using grey water to flush toilets and/or harvesting rainwater for the gardens? Or duringthe build process?

Is the development A rated for energy efficiency? If not, why not?

Given the flood report, why build on a known flood risk area? Building insurance for occupiers willeither not be affordable or non-existent.

Bristol doesn't need more luxury flats, it needs homes.

I oppose this proposal for the following reasons:-1) Baltic Wharf is currently a very successful caravan park much valued by visitors to our city2) If the use of this land is to be changed from a caravan park then I would point out it is the lastgreen space on the harbourside - an area much valued for recresational use by people from allacross our city, but speaking as someone who lives in inner-city St Pauls all the more valuable.3) I would say that our city needs more parks/green spaces rather than more high-rise luxury flats4) I understand the area now has an even highr risk of flooding and further development forhabitation is utter madness!!!5) Development of the site would involve the removal of some one hundred trees. Trees havemany benifits in urban areas including connection with nature, psychological wellbeing, cleaningthe air of pollution, and crutially with impending climate-change trees cool the air lading todramatic life-saving impact, see for example www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/feb/21/urban-heat-islands-cooling-things-down-with-trees-green-roads-and-fewer-cars

6) The tree repelacement policy of the Council is worthless especially in central areas where norecepient site are available.

Thanks you.........Rowland Dye

I strongly object to this planning application.

Bristol does not need more luxury housing, it does need affordable housing which this would notbe. The Flats are likely to be bought for investment driving up prices with little affordability forthose most in need of housing.

It does need this caravan club as there are no others available. It is a unique asset to have acaravan park so close to the city centre and would be a big lost for tourism to Bristol. People usingthe caravan site currently walk to the harbour attractions; by moving it out of the harbour areathere will be increased traffic by people driving into Bristol. It is also estimated the visitors bring inmillions of pounds worth into local businesses. The caravan site is fully booked almost every dayof the year showing the demand; it should be increased in size rather than moved.

The trees are likely to be lost in direct contravention to the council's own green policy BCS9.Planting a few young trees will not give the environmental benefit of the current mature trees. thedevelopment 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 and todouble tree canopy cover by 2046 and does not make the required mitigation for the proposedloss of mature trees. The removal of 82 out of 101 trees is not acceptable. The area will be leftwith limited greenery as so many new developments are. We should be doing all we can to not fellany mature trees in Bristol, as the carbon loss of this cannot be replicated simply by planting newtrees in their place.

The harbourside skyline will be adversely affected by an out of place tower blocks. It is much too

high and is completely out of keeping with the historic and low-rise buildings at this end of theharbour.

The land is not suitable for building because it is likely to be flooded in the future. The proposeddevelopment is in a high risk flood zone and the plans as they stand do not offer sufficientmitigation strategies to ensure the safety of future residents.The land is currently a green field not a Brown field site (as incorrectly referred to by Marvin Rees)as it never has had any significant buildings on it for hundreds of years. There are plenty of othersites owned by the council which would be far better for homes; perhaps all the empty offices (realbrown field sites) could be converted?

There will be traffic chaos for years during the building and afterwards made worse by the collapseof Cumberland road which has still not been repaired. Increased traffic will be permanent becauseof the occupants driving to and from their homes and there will thus also be an increase in airpollution.

For all these reasons I strongly object to this application.

Baltic Wharf is currently a very successful caravan park much valued by visitors to ourcity, who bring income to local amenities.This is the last green space on the harbourside - the trees are a valuable resource againstflooding, as well as essential for oxygen and well beingIi would say that our city needs more parks/green spaces rather than more high-rise luxury flatsI understand the area now has an even higher risk of flooding and further development forhabitation is utter madness. Development of the site would involve the removal of some onehundred trees. Trees have many benifits in urban areas including connection with nature,psychological wellbeing, cleaning the air of pollution, and crucially with impending climate-change,trees cool the air lading to dramatic life-saving impact, see for examplewww.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/feb/21/urban-heat-islands-cooling-things-down-with-trees-green-roads-and-fewer-carsThe tree repelacement policy of the Council is worthless especially in central areas where norecipients places are available.

I would like to object to the application on the grounds that the following issues haveclearly not been addressed by the developer:- The proposed development is in a high risk flood zone - the plans do not offer sufficientmitigation strategies to ensure the safety of residents and businesses in the event of a flood.- The plan removes a significant number of trees - this will add to the rapid decline in numbersaround the Habourside, and is not in line with sustainability goals and the Council's own target ofbeing carbon neutral by 2030.- The plan will increase traffic to the area - this will increase emissions and, again, is not in linewith sustainability goals and carbon neutral targets.- The height of the new development is excessive - the developers have failed to take any steps toprotect the character of the area, and address the concerns of the local residents and businessesthat will be significantly impacted.For these reasons, we consider that this application should be rejected.

All my previous objections remain as nothing has changed.

The development is in a high flood risk area and does not provide any of the flood protectionsrequired by the National Planning Policy Framework. It would result in residents and visitors beingexposed to a dangerous and unacceptable risk. Advice from the Environment Agency has beenignored.

This site is greenfield and there is no justification for BCC to designate it as brownfield. It is notlisted as a brownfield site on the Council's register. The felling of 90 mature trees is unacceptableat a time of climate change and is also totally inconsistent with the introduction of the Clean AirZone and the need for a greater tree canopy in Bristol to mitigate rising temperatures. Theproposal contravenes Bristol Core Strategy 9 'to protect, provide, enhance and expand the greeninfrastructure assets which contribute to the quality of life within and around Bristol ...includingopen spaces, trees' which is a key policy for the Bristol Central Area Plan for Harbourside. Theapplication does not make the required mitigation for the proposed loss of these trees inaccordance with the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard defined in DM17, or Biodiversity NetGain, the standard now adopted by BCC. The Harbourside lacks any other green space and it isessential that this is retained.

This unattractive, overbearing, high-rise monstrosity will dwarf surrounding historic buildings andwill destroy the unique nature and ambience of this part of the harbourside.

This proposal received 600+ objections and almost none in favour and should be abandoned withimmediate effect.

I strongly object to this proposal.

My objections to this development on a greenfield site (not a Brownfield site asincorrectly referred to by Marvin Rees) remain the same, as nothing has changed!

The proposed building is not in keeping with the current surroundings and will dwarf over the BalticWharf properties, The Cottage and spoil the special heritage area that is Underfall Yard.

This area is popular with many residents of the City of Bristol who enjoy the leisure activities.

The development is in a high Flood Risk area as highlighted by The Environment Agency and thisadvice appears to have been ignored.

It is a well established green space (one of the last around The Harbourside)with a large numberof mature trees, and with the introduction of the Clean Air Zone it would be so wrong to cut themdown.

The Cumberland Road has been in a state of continuous roadworks restricting access to and fromthat area, and with the proposed introduction of a Bus Gate will only make things worse.

The caravan site is extremely popular and brings in a large income to the City and the localbusinesses.

I strongly object to this planning application and the commercial element proposed.

Leave this unique Greenfield site, it's mature trees, and caravan site alone. FIRMLY OBJECT.

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I oppose this proposal for the following reasons:-

1) Baltic Wharf is currently a very successful caravan park much valued by visitors to our city

2) If the use of this land is to be changed from a caravan park then I would point out it is the last

green space on the harbourside - an area much valued for recresational use by people from all

across our city, but speaking as someone who lives in inner-city St Pauls all the more valuable.

3) I would say that our city needs more parks/green spaces rather than more high-rise luxury flats

4) I understand the area now has an even highr risk of flooding and further development for

habitation is utter madness!!!

5) Development of the site would involve the removal of some one hundred trees. Trees have

many benifits in urban areas including connection with nature, psychological wellbeing, cleaning

the air of pollution, and crutially with impending climate-change trees cool the air lading to

dramatic life-saving impact, see for example www.theguardian.com/sustainable-

business/2017/feb/21/urban-heat-islands-cooling-things-down-with-trees-green-roads-and-fewer-

cars

6) The tree repelacement policy of the Council is worthless especially in central areas where no

recepient site are available.

Thanks you......

To Whom It May Concern

I am writing to object to this proposed development as Chair of Hotwells and CliftonwoodCommunity Association.

Based on conversations with local residents and reviewing comments on this application it is clearthat the following issues have not been addressed by the developer:

The proposed development is in a high risk flood zone and the plans as they stand do not offersufficient mitigation strategies to ensure the safety of future residents and businesses. We believethe proposal, as it stands, poses a risk to life in the event of future flooding.

The developers have failed to address local residents' and busineses' concerns regarding theheight of the new development. It is out of character with the profile of the area and wouldnegatively impact the community of residents and businesses.

The plan removes a significant number of trees from this end of the harbour and will increasetraffic to the area. This approach is not in line with sustainability goals and the Council's own targetof being carbon neutral by 2030.For these reasons we consider that this application should be rejected.

Rachel McNallyChair Hotwells and Cliftonwood Community Association

I would like to object to the building application for the 166 residential dwellings pluscommercial floor space.The property will not suitable on so many levels, The area which the application is in question ishigh on the Environment Agency level 3 flood risk, there is no way anyone wholives there would be safe, the probability of someone becoming suddenly ill or a pregnant womanwho needed medical assistance or of those who has a form of disability either pre or during thehigh tide flooding this would make it highly impossible for any rescue service to be made. I do notunderstand how the developers are not aware of the risk to life and limb of people with only oneaccess road which would also be also flooded due to the strong tides that from all accounts willonly increase in the near future, with that road flooded how do they anticipate that people will berescued? We are I believe are in an environmental emergency or so Bristol City Council has saidthey are completely ignoring the fundamental concerns of peoples lives including their financialsituation of either losing their homes permanently or of a damaging environment it would seemthat the developers are not really concerned with this rather they have a monetary gain, if there'sany social housing which is of vital importance they will be of a very small number and not in sightof the harbour just tick a small and insignificant box.The caravan park brings in a vast amount of financial gains to the cities businesses from thesecretary of state it apparently brings a million pounds per annum which a bonus to the city, thevisitors also experience Bristol right on the doorstep it is a valuable asset that not many citieshave, apart from that there are also the social assets for the caravan park to stay it affects us themin a positive way, also on a regular weekly schedule there are water activities for manydisadvantaged children-young people those activities will be either radically reduced or more likelywill be totally lost this is unacceptable on so many levels.The caravan park is the only green space that is on the harbourside it has a 100 or more mature

trees plus valuable hedgerows with small birds animals living in and around the area we needsuch natures assets for our city our lungs mental and emotional health and welfare we cannotafford to lose the last remaining mature trees plus hedges within a concrete city there is nowhereelse to plant any trees which be of any benefit to us or our diminishing wildlife it would take at least30 years for any new saplings for them to provide us with any benefits for our lungs or any otherhealth benefits.In our last years heatwave i encountered some elderly people who told me that they werefrightened to leave their homes to go into the city because of the lack of shade ( No Trees ) this isnot the way to treat the local or any people.I would like to say that this application should not be given to those who say that we need housingwhich of course we do but we also need good housing social housing and affordable and at thisarea we will have nothing.RegardsAnn Hughes Devereaux

I must object to these proposals for several reasons: -

1/ The proposals are detrimental to the historic appearance of the area. This is because theconstruction would not be sympathetic to the surrounding area, in terms of both scale andcharacter.

2/The site is not in need of regeneration, so it can not be defined as a brownfield site. For manyyears it has supported a successful Caravan and Motorhome Club site which contributesconsiderably to both the local economy and to the council's funds. The site is also an appealingarea. This benefit to the community would be lost.

3/The site contains virtually the only green space, in terms of trees and bushes, around the docks.The proposals include the removal of most of this. Their removal would damage theattractiveness, and hence the appeal, of this leisure area. (eg the Sailing Club, the Underfall Yard,Nova Scotia pub and Cottage Inn).

4/There are insufficient facilities in terms of doctors, shops and schools within a reasonabledistance of this site to support such a large number of dwellings.

5/There are other areas in Bristol that are in need of regeneration. These should be prioritisedahead of this site, which is not in need of regeneration, in fact It would be a loss to the community

I write my comments not only as a resident of Bristol of many years but also anoccasional user of the 30 year old Caravan Club Caravan & Motorhome site.I object to the plan to build yet another large block of apartments, on this site on the followinggrounds:The large block of apartments proposed is not in keeping with the aesthetic of the unique and lowrise historical buildings at this end of the Cumberland basin, such as the Underfall Yard andCottage Inn .It would dwarf this end of Cumberland basin and the unique, historical buildings, which are somuch part of the unique character of Bristol, spoiling this gentler, more open and tranquil end ofthe city by the water.The caravan site has been very popular and pays its way, serving many different types of visitorsto Bristol, being uniquely inclusive and in keeping with the unique character of Bristol.Very importantly, the site also provides the relief of a beautiful and much needed relaxing greenspace with trees and low skyline, in keeping with the near adjacent historical, aestheticallypleasing Underfall Yard.

Once erected, this unique space is gone for good.

Please do not allow the height of the proposed development to exceed that ofneighbouring Baltic Wharf housing development.This area, including Underfall Yard historic site is an attractive asset for this city. Existing trees andskyline should be protected.

Commenter Type: Amenity - Residents Group

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:To Whom It May Concern

I am writing to object to this proposed development as Chair of Hotwells and Cliftonwood

Community Association.

Based on conversations with local residents and reviewing comments on this application it is clear

that the following issues have not been addressed by the developer:

The proposed development is in a high risk flood zone and the plans as they stand do not offer

sufficient mitigation strategies to ensure the safety of future residents and businesses. We believe

the proposal, as it stands, poses a risk to life in the event of future flooding.

The developers have failed to address local residents' and busineses' concerns regarding the

height of the new development. It is out of character with the profile of the area and would

negatively impact the community of residents and businesses.

The plan removes a significant number of trees from this end of the harbour and will increase

traffic to the area. This approach is not in line with sustainability goals and the Council's own target

of being carbon neutral by 2030.

For these reasons we consider that this application should be rejected.

Chair Hotwells and Cliftonwood Community Association

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I would like to object to the building application for the 166 residential dwellings plus

commercial floor space.

The property will not suitable on so many levels, The area which the application is in question is

high on the Environment Agency level 3 flood risk, there is no way anyone who

lives there would be safe, the probability of someone becoming suddenly ill or a pregnant woman

who needed medical assistance or of those who has a form of disability either pre or during the

high tide flooding this would make it highly impossible for any rescue service to be made. I do not

understand how the developers are not aware of the risk to life and limb of people with only one

access road which would also be also flooded due to the strong tides that from all accounts will

only increase in the near future, with that road flooded how do they anticipate that people will be

rescued? We are I believe are in an environmental emergency or so Bristol City Council has said

they are completely ignoring the fundamental concerns of peoples lives including their financial

situation of either losing their homes permanently or of a damaging environment it would seem

that the developers are not really concerned with this rather they have a monetary gain, if there's

any social housing which is of vital importance they will be of a very small number and not in sight

of the harbour just tick a small and insignificant box.

The caravan park brings in a vast amount of financial gains to the cities businesses from the

secretary of state it apparently brings a million pounds per annum which a bonus to the city, the

visitors also experience Bristol right on the doorstep it is a valuable asset that not many cities

have, apart from that there are also the social assets for the caravan park to stay it affects us them

in a positive way, also on a regular weekly schedule there are water activities for many

disadvantaged children-young people those activities will be either radically reduced or more likely

will be totally lost this is unacceptable on so many levels.

The caravan park is the only green space that is on the harbourside it has a 100 or more mature

trees plus valuable hedgerows with small birds animals living in and around the area we need

such natures assets for our city our lungs mental and emotional health and welfare we cannot

afford to lose the last remaining mature trees plus hedges within a concrete city there is nowhere

else to plant any trees which be of any benefit to us or our diminishing wildlife it would take at least

30 years for any new saplings for them to provide us with any benefits for our lungs or any other

health benefits.

In our last years heatwave i encountered some elderly people who told me that they were

frightened to leave their homes to go into the city because of the lack of shade ( No Trees ) this is

not the way to treat the local or any people.

I would like to say that this application should not be given to those who say that we need housing

which of course we do but we also need good housing social housing and affordable and at this

area we will have nothing.

Regards

As a local resident I have received notification of revised application details.

I continue to strongly object to this application for the following reasons.1. The proposal is massively out of keeping with the local area. The size of the building will towerover the local residential properties and the historic harbourside.2. The destruction of the local environment; he site is currently home to a number of mature treesand hedging. During these times of environmental consciousness these assets should be retaining3. Loss of civic amenities; during covid this area of the docks was a haven for the people of Bristolto enjoy. This development would destroy that with barren tower blocks4. The caravan site is a popular facility, and always full of visitors to what used to be a lovely city.5. The site is liable to flooding, make access to the development difficult, especially once the busgate has been introduced.6. There is not enough parking or local amenities to accommodate the proposed number ofresidences.7. The properties will not be affordable to people on even an average wage.8. The proposal to move the caravan site to a location which is even more of a flood risk is wrong.

The development of this site will not benefit anyone except a few developers who will not have tolive with the consequences of this ill thought threw development.

I feel that the proposed development is far too big for this historic site and is out ofkeeping with the area. I also object to the loss of trees and the risk of flooding. The caravan park isa unique amenity and attracts tourists who might not stop in Bristol.

I am truly disappointed to see that this plan is still be considered. Providing profit to thedevelopers is the only 'benefit' I can see from this plan. While I understand that housing isrequired, we have many empty buildings in Bristol - half of the Lloyd's building, the whole ofDebenhams, opposite Temple Meads to name a few. Why is the council still even considering thiswhen there are already buildings that can be used, that will not remove vital environmentalfeatures such as hedging and mature trees. The removal of such a well used facility in the caravanpark is unacceptable. With so many concerns being raised over mental health, why is thedestruction of a site enjoyed socially by many considered viable? The proposed site for thecaravan park to be moved to will be underwater in the coming years - we all know the site will notsurvive if moved. Finally, the plan is not in keeping with the rest of the historic harbour as is far toohigh, and with views across to the suspension bridge will not be affordable to those on an averagesalary. I continue to strongly object to this horrible and saddening idea that will damage the areaso many enjoy and call home.

The concerns over flood risk do not appear to have been adequately addressed.In addition the concern over the nature of the development and it's impact on the character of thispart of the harbour (as shown by the very many objections) has been ignored. Surely the numberof objections should lead any planning consent being dependent on a radical reconsideration ofthe plans for the whole development

In my previous objection raised from my then Address 2a Windsor Road I objectedprimarily on the grounds of the effect the height of the buildings would have on the sailing in thearea adjacent to these proposed buildings. This is a major amenity used by many Bristolians andvisitors. ( I have been associated with AllAboard Waterpsorts Center and its predecessor for morethan thirty years.)I see nothing in the wind studys or the revisions to the proposed buildings to suggest that anyconsideration has been given to this aspect ot the proposal.I also consider that the height of these buildings is inapropriate to the situation and detrimental tothe quailty of the docks environment.It also seems very shortsighted to remove the caravan park which, despite quite high costs isalways full and brings many visitors and their spending into Bristol.I repaet my objection to this proposal. John Read

Having read the updated documents I wish to say that all my original objections remain.As an immediate neighbour my principal objection concerns the overbearing size and height of theproposed building and the fact that my house and garden would be overlooked and for most of theday overshadowed throughout the entire year.

OVERBEARING, 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 over 30 years and for all that time enjoyed total privacy anduninterrupted sunlight with a sunny and very secluded garden. My house stands 11 metres high,this proposed building stands 28 metres high and is only 20 metres away. The effect of this is thatmy house and garden will be overshadowed for most of the day throughout the year. A localarchitect has modelled this for me in three dimensions (3D) and confirmed that the level ofovershadowing is utterly unacceptable. Incidentally I asked the developers to model this as part ofthe so called consultation process and they constantly avoided doing so, I imagine because theyknew the level of overshadowing was unacceptable.

In addition to the overshadowing I will have about 80 windows overlooking both my house and mygarden. Some of these windows will look straight across directly into my lounge and bedroomwindows causing a complete loss of privacy.

I see from the updated Flood Risk Analysis that the levels of the residential accommodation have

been raised to avoid danger to life from the potential flood water. I imagine this will lead anincrease in the height of the building further increasing the extent of overshadowing, overlookingand the generally overbearing nature of the structure.

OVERDEVELOPMENT AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA

I believe that the overbearing scale and density of the buildings in this proposal is wrong. Theprinciple buildings in the development are double the height of the surrounding buildings. Thedevelopment needs to be lowered by 3 storeys. The developers planning application clearly statesthat the site is 1.7 kilometers from Bristol City Centre and only .8 kilometre from Ashton Courtestate, the development should not therefore be based on city centre housing density.

The housing density of the adjoining Baltic Wharf estate is 96.8 dwellings per hectare, theproposed development is 193.2 dwellings per hectare, almost exactly double. This is totally out ofcharacter with all 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 less overbearing and more in scale and keeping with the rest of the buildings in thelocal conservation area (as outlined in policy documents BCAP41, DM27 ).

LOSS OF MATURE TREES

For over thirty years I have watched the trees in the caravan park flourish and grow to maturity.Mature trees provide shade and cooling and help to offset the "heat dome effect" in city areas.Last summer saw U.K. temperatures rise in excess 40 degrees centigrade and underlines theneed for trees in city areas. The city centre and harbourside has the lowest density of tree cover inthe entire city, we cannot afford to lose these trees.

The trees on the Baltic Wharf Caravan Park are currently doing an environmentally essential job,absorbing carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen. I estimate that the trees on the caravan site areabsorbing somewhere in the region of two imperial tons of carbon per annum. This is a vitalenvironmental asset to the local area proving much needed oxygen and cooling. I totally object tothe proposed felling of 82 mature trees and 124 meters of mature hedgerows. Young saplingscontribute very little to the environment; global warming is not going to go on hold for thirty yearswhilst new saplings grow to maturity. How can the City Council that has introduced a clean airzone to combat pollution, possibly allow these trees to be felled? To do so would be utterhypocrisy! The trees are also a valuable visual amenity which enhance the harbourside to create apleasant space for visitors and local residents and make a positive contribution to the character ofthe area.

The proposal fails to comply with Bristol Core Strategy (BCS9) which states "retain green

infrastructure wherever possible". The proposal fails to comply with the Bristol Central Area Plan(BCAP) that states that it is "important to integrate green infrastructure within new developments".The proposal fails to comply with the Development Management policy (DM17) that stresses the"need to integrate existing trees". The proposal fails to comply with the National Planning PolicyFramework (NPPF para 131) which states that planning decisions should ensure "that existingtrees are retained wherever possible". National and local policies are perfectly clear and state thatdevelopments should be built around existing green assets.

I also note that the developer refers to this as a "brownfield site", although it does not appear onthe Bristol City Council register of brownfield sites. The site has been used since 1978 as acaravan park, most of the trees, shrubs and hedges date from this time and prior to 1978 most ofthe site was laid to grass. I think any reasonable person would see this as greenfield rather thanbrownfield. It is certainly a welcome green asset in the harbourside conservation area which hasvery little tree cover overall.

FLOODING

I note that the Environment Agency has submitted a highly detailed objection to the developmentbased on flood risk. However I would like to add a comment from the layperson's perspective. Ihave lived on Baltic Wharf for over thirty years. In the first twenty of those years the CumberlandBasin flooded once. In the past ten years it has flooded three times. This is an obvious andincreasing risk. The city council should be directing resources at flood prevention for existingbuildings rather than building more dwellings in a high risk (Flood zone 3) 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. As you leave the city centre by boat the skyline is dominated by the spire of St MaryRedcliffe and the tall cranes of the M Shed. Sailing westerly through the main part of the harbouryou are flanked by tall six storey buildings that visually match the height of Cliftonwood ahead ofyou. However, as you reach the SS Great Britain the harbour turns sharply to the South West andthe Cliftonwood skyline falls gently away to the three storey buildings of Poole's Wharf, RownhamMead and the Underfall Yard with the distant hills of Ashton Court estate away ahead of you. In

terms of visual amenity, the proposed development will be totally out of context. It will stand atdouble the height of the existing buildings and utterly dominate an area where the historicUnderfall Yard is the natural focus of interest. The developments at Baltic Wharf and RownhamMead are of red brick with roman tile roofing in sympathy with the historic Underfall Yard, unlikethe proposed building which is of a completely different style, size and type of construction. Inevery photomontage the developers have produced, from whatever angle, the proposed buildinglooks massive, far too high, and utterly out of context with the surrounding area.

PARKING & ROAD ACCESS

The car parking for this proposed development, 80 spaces for 166 dwellings, is woefullyinadequate. Presumably the inhabitants of the development will have cars; certainly almost all willhave visitors with cars. They will also have commercial visitors delivering goods and services.Where are they going to park? Car parking in Cumberland Road and the surrounding area isalready very difficult and this development will add to the problem with possible overspill intonearby Southville and Hotwells. Almost certainly this will lead to competition for parking on theexisting 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 through endless roadworks as thereason for closure. The loss of the chandlery was a severe blow to those who, like myself, buildand repair boats in the harbour.

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, a civil engineering taskthat has currently been underway for almost three years causing frequent noise and disruption tothe existing residents of Baltic Wharf. To be perfectly honest the Cumberland Road could do witha rest from disruption for a few years rather than yet another development.

CONCLUSION

The scale, density and overbearing nature of the proposed development is totally out of keepingwith the surrounding area in terms of the overwhelming dominance of the buildings. It will causean unacceptable level of overshadowing to the existing dwellings to the east of the site. It is totallyout of keeping with this quiet low rise historic end of the harbour. An area which up until now hasbeen focused on conservation, preservation, boat building and the provision of water sports andwater based activities for both the young and the elderly. The impact on neighbours, the generalpublic, harbour users, and the environment is totally unacceptable. This proposal is notsustainable development; being harmful to the conservation area, natural environment and

residential 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 at thistime would also seem premature when the long term future of the Western Harbour area is stillunder consideration.

As a resident of Bristol and leisure user of the docks for 35 years I object to this last areof the docks being developed.When i started to use the docks to teach people sailing 35 years ago I shared the dream of makingthe dock, sorely neglected at that time, the jewel of Bristol, with people enjoying the calm of thewater and beauty of the city.i have seen the dockside crowded out with residential accommodation for the richest people of thecity throughout that time. I have seen the high rise of ill conceived and poor housing constructed. Ihave seen the building of so called "accessible housing included" as justification for many ofthese, only for them later to be deemed unfit by housing associations as not fit for purpose as theydo not meet regulation sizes. For those unfit dwellings to then be sold by developers for half amillion pounds.The caravan park has accommodated many hundreds of thousands of visitors to Bristol, whosefinancial contribution to the hospitality industry has been enormous and that has providedemployment for many in the city. It has also contributed many thousands to the city council inbusiness rates for the venues whihc have benefitted from serving those visitors.

I have sailed dinghies and taught thousands of young people to sail in the docks and this last areaof almost "Free" wind to now be blocked off and wind funneled will be the probable death of thesailing charity that I have supported throughout that 35 year period.

So more rich people, less good accommodation for those who need it, less income to the city,fewer visitors, poorer revenues for the hospitality industry and fewer leisure facilities for the youngpeople of the city.

So developers can get rich.

No , this should be cancelled.

Dear Sir or Madame,

I wish to complain about the proposed development of the Caravan Club Cumberland RoadBristol.The substantial size of the proposed development is significantly out of proportion to the existingbuildings and structures along the south side of the Floating Harbour.

As a regular user of the harbour I am also concerned that the vast buildings will irreparablydamage the sailing conditions in the harbour by adversely impacting the wind flow.

I strongly object to this proposal on the following grounds.1. The flood risk in this area has not been adequately addressed despite revisions. This is anextremely serious issue recognised by Bristol City Council but not resolved by any means.2. This development if agreed, will totally alter the character of the area which is the lastundeveloped part of Bristol Harbourside and contains very many mature trees which provide vitalshelter and habitat for wildlife.3. The current use of this site as a caravan and camping park is successful in that it is always fulland brings huge benefit to the local economy, usefully using the land while not destroying thenatural environment.4. The height and size of the proposed buildings are much too big and will completely dwarfexisting, surrounding dwellings.5. Huge numbers of local residents and other Bristol people object to this proposal, there isvirtually no support for it. All the comments here are objections.

So, no change to the proposed height and mass of this development, despite all theobjections. This is a conservation area and this development does nothing to enhance thecharacter of the area, which is all low rise - 3 storeys one side and opposite, 2 storeys the otherside. This will stick out ( and up ) like a sore thumb, looming above everything around it andadversely affecting views of Underfall Yard and the bonded warehouses, from Hotwells road.

A unique facility for the city which brings many visitors into the centre of Bristol all yearround.

The revised plans still maintain a building height that is completely out of proportion tothis part of the harbour. It will dwarf surrounding buildings in this low-rise end of the harbour, whichis currently used for traditional business and leisure activities. The removal of trees in an area thathas bird life does not seem to be in keeping with the city council's declaration of a climateemergency. If this area is to be developed, then it should be low rise and maintaining the trees.

This development is too high, will involve the chopping down of mature trees andincreases the likelihood of flooding. The caravan site is a unique resource for the city neighbouringthe watersports facilities if it has to be replaced then it ought to be with something with somearchitectural merit and not too overbearing for this, quieter, end of the Floating Harbour.

This is not the place for more commercial uses - there is plenty of that at Wapping Wharf,Millenium Sq, Gasworks Lane etc. The relative peace at this end is vital for mental health andwellbeing

I object to the cutting down of mature trees on this site. They are few and far between inthis part of Bristol and planting new ones in their place is not sufficient.

Apart from the completely inappropriate nature of this development in terms of height,tree felling, lack of parking, inappropriate location - all of which have been previously stated - Iobject to the proposals for the same informed reasons as the Save Baltic Wharf campaign group,which I have reproduced here in case others have not seen them.

The developers seem to have done nothing to address the concerns of the community regardingthe appropriateness of the development, or all of the previously stated objections by those such asthe environment agency, preferring to simply state that they (the developers) are right andeveryone with opposing views is wrong!

Objection to 21/01331/F Caravan Club, Cumberland RoadWe object to the fatally flawed application 21/01331/F, and in particular the revised flood riskassessment and the update to the Sequential Test. This site is in a Flood Risk 3 zone, thehighest numerical flood risk there is, with a "Danger for all" to anyone on site during a design flood.

SummaryThis proposal fails to satisfy ALL of the provisions for "planning and Flood Risk" detailed in theNational Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2018/2019/2021 sections 159 to 169.

1. The development is contrary to NPPF section 159 which states "the development should bemade safe for its lifetime".2. The proposal fails to "take account of advice from the Environment Agency and other relevantflood risk management authorities" (NPPF 160).3. The proposal fails the sequential test (NPPF 161-163) as there is another "reasonably available

site appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk offlooding".4. The development fails Part 1 of the Exception test (NPPF 163-166), as there are no identifiedsustainability benefits for the community. In fact there are sustainability detriments as there will bea loss of an estimated £1m income to local businesses bythe loss of the Caravan Park, and over 70 trees will be permanently removed from anarea of lowtree cover.5. The development fails Part 2 of the Exception Test (NPPF 163-166) as the developers have notdemonstrated that "the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerabilityof its users", a conclusion also reached by the EnvironmentAgency. The developers admit "that itis not possible to currently demonstrate asafe/dry access route to and from the site in the designflood events".6. The developers attempt to pressure the LPA by describing precedents where planningpermission has been given on appeal. The two examples used are fundamentally different to thecurrent application, as each was able to provide "a high -levelwalkway ... to allow free access/egress for people and the emergency services.". No suchprovision is available, or indeed possible, for the Baltic Wharf site.7. The developers failed to provide a more appropriate comparison, Clanage Road, where theSecretary of State refused planning permission for the same issues raised for Baltic Wharf.Indeed, the risks at Baltic Wharf are demonstrably greater than for Clanage Road.1. This site is not safe for the lifetime of the development In the original Flood Risk Assessment,the developers admit: "That it is not possible to currently demonstrate a safe/dry access route toand from the site in the design flood events". Nothing has changed to provide any additionalevacuation route or access for the emergency services, and yet this telling admission is missingfrom the later Flood Risk Assessments. Of course there can be no safe evacuation route, becausethe whole of Spike Island will also be flooded. The developers add: "A tidal flood event can last forlong periods of time with multiple tidal cycles"and, astonishingly; "in the event of a flood event, residents will be able to seek safe refuge onsite". This is entirely contrary to Planning Practice Guidance on flood risk paragraph 39 whichstates: "Access considerations should include the voluntary and free movement of people during adesign flood" and "Access routes should allow occupants to safely access and exit their dwellingsin design flood conditions. Vehicular access to allow the emergency services to safely reach thedevelopment during design flood conditions will also normally be required." So presumablyapproved residents and visitors will not include anyone with chronic illness that may requireemergency care, will not include the very young or the elderly, will not includeanyone who may be subject to accidental injury, anyone disabled and of course cannot includeanyone pregnant or who may become so. The Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan provided bythe developers does not allow for evacuation or access by emergency services at the time ofmaximum flood, contrary to the NPPF and the Guidance on Flood Risk. The Statements made bythe Environment Agency during the Clanage Road Caravan Park development appeal make itvery clear that warnings of very high tides as a result of storm surges may not provide notice ofmore than a few minutes. The evacuation route suggested

by the developers would be entirely inundated in a design flood, and residents would need a full90 minute forewarning in order to access these. Furthermore, the developers pass theresponsibility to retrieve any warnings to the residents - "sources should be explored by the sitemanagement team's Flood Wardens and residents to stay informed on the flood risk tothe site". It is very clear from the developers "Recommended Flood Preparation Checklist" and the"Residents Recommended Flood Preparation Checklist" that they do not fully grasp the extent orthe nature of the danger they are exposing residents to. Again, responsibility seems to fall entirelyon the residents to do what they can, in the event of a flood.2. The proposal fails to take account of advice from the Environment Agency and other relevantflood risk management authorities (NPPF 160). The Environment Agency and the Councils ownFlood Risk Manager have consistently objectedto this development based on flood risk that has not been mitigated by the developers plans. TheEnvironment Agency recognise that: "The design flood depths of the magnitude posed at this siteposes a significant hazard and the mitigation measures proposed are inadequate". The councilsown Flood Risk Manager objects on a number of grounds and concludes:"The application therefore fails to meet NPPF requirements as described". As such, the proposalfails to "take account of advice from the Environment Agency and other relevant flood riskmanagement authorities" contrary to the NPPF, section 160.3. This proposal fails the Sequential TestBecause this site is not one allocated in the development plan, it is necessary to apply theSequential Test. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (section 162):"Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonablyavailable sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding".The developers only mention sites that have already been given planning permission, but failto mention the one site that is "reasonably available, appropriate for the proposed developmentand in an area with a lower risk of flooding" - the SS Great Britain Car Park. This site is very closeto Baltic wharf, is under consideration by this developer (GoramHomes), and is therefore "reasonably available", is mostly flood zone 2 and adjacent to a low floodrisk area and is currently a car park with little ecological value. This site, therefore, fulfils thecriteria detailed in the NPPF and the Baltic Wharf site hasfailed the sequential test.4. This proposal fails Part 1 of the Exception TestIn order for a development to proceed, assuming it has passed the Sequential Test, it must passthe Exception Test which requires:1. The development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh theflood risk; and2. 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.Both arms of the exception test should be satisfied for development to be allocated or permitted.Part 1 of the test requires that the developer demonstrates that there are: "Wider sustainabilitybenefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk". This development would result in the lossof around 70 trees, and destruction of the only tree

covered site on the harbourside. Furthermore, the Caravan Site has itself been identified withsustainability benefits for the community. The Planning Inspector has stated, and thesecretary of State agrees: "Existing site at Baltic Wharf with easy access to the centre of Bristol;economic benefits which are estimated to generate over £1m annually; the provision ofrelatively inexpensive visitor accommodation". It is difficult to see how developing this site wouldprovide any sustainability benefits to the community, indeed the development would be detrimentalto local sustainability, and as suchfails part 1 of the Exception Test.5. This proposal fails Part 2 of the Exception TestPart 2 of the Exception Test requires the applicant to demonstrate, via a site-specific flood riskassessment, that:"The development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, withoutincreasing flood risk elsewhere." The developer acknowledges: "That it is not possible to currentlydemonstrate a safe/dry access route to andfrom the site in the design flood events". The Environment Agency concludes that: "Thedeveloper's updated flood risk assessment fails to demonstrate that the development is 'safe' forits lifetime". Therefore, very clearly, the development comprehensively fails Part 2 of the ExceptionTest.6. The developers provide inadmissible precedents to support their caseThe developers site two examples where developments were allowed at appeal in high flood riskareas despite objections from the Environment Agency. This is clearly an attempt topressure the Planning Office and Development Committee into allowing this dangerous proposal.1. The first, a purpose-built student accommodation on Feeder Road was fundamentally differentto Baltic Wharf, in that the site adjoins land with low flood risk, and "a high level walkway wasproposed to allow free access/egress for people and theemergency services.". No such evacuation or access route is provided, or indeed possible, forBaltic Wharf, and as such all residents, and emergency services, would beat risk.2. The second example, a development on Silverthorn Lane of student accommodation and aprimary school, again is adjacent to areas of low flood risk and, as with the Feeder Road proposal,there is a "high level walkway" which allows both evacuationof occupants and access for emergency services. This was crucial to the Secretary of State findingin favour of the development, stating "The Secretary of State notes that a key flood design featureis the proposed high level walkway". As previously, thereis no possibility for such evacuation/access routes for Baltic wharf. Again, to quote the developers"it is not possible to currently demonstrate a safe/dry access route to and from the site in thedesign flood events".7. The developers failed to provide a more appropriate precedentInstead, there is comparable planning site much nearer than either of the above precedents, theproposed development of a caravan park at Clanage Road (20/09130/F). This site has asimilar, though slightly lower flood risk, in that a small part of the site is flood risk 2 (rather than 3),and being adjacent to a low flood risk area had a poor evacuation route, rather than

no evacuation route at all, as for the Baltic Wharf site. Again this was "called-in" by theEnvironment Agency, was the subject of a public enquiry, and the development was rejected bythe Secretary of State. In reaching his decision on this site, the same issues were highlighted aswould apply (even more so) to the Baltic Wharf site. "The Secretary of State notes that there is nodispute that the flood risk at the site is very serious indeed. He further notes that the 'design flood'could cause 'Dangerfor Most' over much of the site. For the reasons given the Secretary of State agrees that if theflood risk cannot be successfully mitigated, planning permission should be refused for theapplication proposal." "The Secretary of State agrees that in this case the probability of flooding ishigh and will increase over time, and that this means that floods of lower severity thanthe design flood are likely in the future to create a hazard rating for a large part of the site of'Danger for Most' or 'Danger for All'. He further agrees that the question to answer is whether themitigation proposed would be sufficient for the site to besafe for its lifetime given the severity of the flood risk."As such, and in line with the recent letters to Council Leaders and the LPA which highlights theneed to take flood risk into account, it is highly likely that the Secretary of State would upholdrejection of planning on this site.

ConclusionIt is very clear that were this development allowed to go ahead, it would be contrary to all of theflood protections required by the NPPF in a high flood risk area, and would result in residents andvisitors being exposed to a level of risk assessed as "Danger for all". The developers admit "that itis not possible to currently demonstrate a safe/dry access route to and from the site in the designflood events". It is, therefore, utterly irresponsible of the developers to persist in their attempts tobuildresidential properties on this dangerous site, and if they do so, it is the duty of the Planning Officeand the Development Committee to stop them from putting at mortal risk the citizensof Bristol. It is suggested that this site may, one day, be protected by, as yet, theoretical floodprotection measures. However, it would be negligent of the Local Planning Authority toconsider development on this site until such measures are in place. It is little comfort to thosesuffering the fatal effects of flooding to know that in decades to come there may be floodprotection that is needed right now

I oppose this application for a number of reasons, including:The loss of the Caravan Club site. It is a wonderful amenity which adds to the distinctive characterof this end of the harbour and provides an affordable way for visitors and tourists to stay in theheart of the city.The loss of so many mature trees, at a time when we all recognise their importance to wildlife, tous and to the environment as a whole.The height of the development, which will dwarf the historic 'low-rise' buildings nearby.

Following the issue of the updated documents, my objections to this development stillstand mainly due to the proportions of the development being out of character with this area of theharbour, which is low-rise area of the harbour of significant historic importance that is recognisedby its Conservation Area status and Underfall Yard being a Scheduled Monument. Thedevelopment would have a significant negative influence on the whole area, completely dwarfingthe adjacent Baltic Wharf estate, the Cottage pub and the sailing club building.

I strongly object to the development as currently proposed.

To Bristol Planning Committee - my profound objections of 15 May & 25 October 2012remain and I urge the Committee not to approve this application. In any event The EnvironmentAgency has objected repeatedly for fear of flooding risk. The Bristol Tree Forum are quite correctlypointing out this application flies in the face of current planning guidance. In short the Caravan sitewith all its wonderful trees should be retained OR a simple 2 storey low rise development bedesigned around the existing trees. Any height above this will destroy the varied skyline thatcurrently exists and the overdevelopment would generate too much activity in this more tranquilarea of Harbourside where ship building & refurbishment and water sports etc should be givenspace to thrive. Please refuse. Sincerely yours, Mike Nicholas.

I

1 The proposed development remains too high, and is out of keeping with this end ofthe harbour.2 The site will lose the many mature trees and hedges that provide for wildlife, cleaner air, andflood drainage.3. The Technical Design Note states that 'the developer's updated flood risk assessment fails todemonstrate that the development is "safe" for its lifetime (100years), without increasing floodingelsewhere', and presumably increasing the risk to the residents of Baltic Wharf.4. The density of the property will increase car usage on already problematic road infrastructureand proposed traffic restrictions.For all these reasons I continue to object to this proposal.

Objection to 21/01331/F Caravan Club Cumberland Road - Save Baltic Wharf Campaign Group

“in the event of a flood event, residents will be able to seek safe refuge on site”.

This is entirely contrary to Planning Practice Guidance on flood risk paragraph 39 which states:

“Access considerations should include the voluntary and free movement of peopleduring a design flood” and “Access routes should allow occupants to safely accessand exit their dwellings in design flood conditions. Vehicular access to allow theemergency services to safely reach the development during design flood conditionswill also normally be required.”

So presumably approved residents and visitors will not include anyone with chronic illness thatmay require emergency care, will not include the very young or the elderly, will not includeanyone who may be subject to accidental injury, anyone disabled and of course cannotinclude anyone pregnant or who may become so.

The Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan provided by the developers does not allow forevacuation or access by emergency services at the time of maximum flood, contrary to theNPPF and the Guidance on Flood Risk.

The Statements made by the Environment Agency during the Clanage Road Caravan Parkdevelopment appeal make it very clear that warnings of very high tides as a result of stormsurges may not provide notice of more than a few minutes. The evacuation route suggestedby the developers would be entirely inundated in a design flood, and residents would need afull 90 minute forewarning in order to access these. Furthermore, the developers pass theresponsibility to retrieve any warnings to the residents - “sources should be explored by thesite management team’s Flood Wardens and residents to stay informed on the flood risk tothe site”.

It is very clear from the developers “Recommended Flood Preparation Checklist” and the“Residents Recommended Flood Preparation Checklist“ that they do not fully grasp the extentor the nature of the danger they are exposing residents to. Again, responsibility seems to fallentirely on the residents to do what they can, in the event of a flood.

2. The proposal fails to take account of advice from the Environment Agency andother relevant flood risk management authorities (NPPF 160).

The Environment Agency and the Councils own Flood Risk Manager have consistently objectedto this development based on flood risk that has not been mitigated by the developers plans.

The Environment Agency recognise that:

“The design flood depths of the magnitude posed at this site poses a significanthazard and the mitigation measures proposed are inadequate”.

The councils own Flood Risk Manager objects on a number of grounds and concludes:

“The application therefore fails to meet NPPF requirements as described“.

As such, the proposal fails to “take account of advice from the Environment Agency andother relevant flood risk management authorities” contrary to the NPPF, section 160.

3. This proposal fails the Sequential Test

Because this site is not one allocated in the development plan, it is necessary to apply theSequential Test. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (section 162):

Objection to 21/01331/F Caravan Club Cumberland Road - Save Baltic Wharf Campaign Group

“Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonablyavailable sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower riskof flooding”.

The developers only mention sites that have already been given planning permission, but failto mention the one site that is “reasonably available, appropriate for the proposeddevelopment and in an area with a lower risk of flooding” - the SS Great Britain Car Park.This site is very close to Baltic wharf, is under consideration by this developer (GoramHomes), and is therefore “reasonably available”, is mostly flood zone 2 and adjacent to a lowflood risk area and is currently a car park with little ecological value.

This site, therefore, fulfils the criteria detailed in the NPPF and the Baltic Wharf site hasfailed the sequential test.

4. This proposal fails Part 1 of the Exception Test

In order for a development to proceed, assuming it has passed the Sequential Test, it mustpass the Exception Test which requires:

1. The development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the communitythat outweigh the flood risk; and

2. The development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability ofits users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduceflood risk overall.

Both arms of the exception test should be satisfied for development to be allocated orpermitted.

Part 1 of the test requires that the developer demonstrates that there are:

“Wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk”.

This development would result in the loss of around 70 trees, and destruction of the only treecovered site on the harbourside. Furthermore, the Caravan Site has itself been identified withsustainability benefits for the community. The Planning Inspector has stated, and thesecretary of State agrees:

“Existing site at Baltic Wharf with easy access to the centre of Bristol; economicbenefits which are estimated to generate over £1m annually; the provision ofrelatively inexpensive visitor accommodation”.

It is difficult to see how developing this site would provide any sustainability benefits to thecommunity, indeed the development would be detrimental to local sustainability, and as suchfails part 1 of the Exception Test.

5. This proposal fails Part 2 of the Exception Test

Part 2 of the Exception Test requires the applicant to demonstrate, via a site-specific floodrisk assessment, that:

“The development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability ofits users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere.”

The developer acknowledges:

“That it is not possible to currently demonstrate a safe/dry access route to andfrom the site in the design flood events”.

The Environment Agency concludes that:

Objection to 21/01331/F Caravan Club Cumberland Road - Save Baltic Wharf Campaign Group

“The developer’s updated flood risk assessment fails to demonstrate that thedevelopment is ‘safe’ for its lifetime”.

Therefore, very clearly, the development comprehensively fails Part 2 of the Exception Test.

6. The developers provide inadmissible precedents to support their case

The developers site two examples where developments were allowed at appeal in high floodrisk areas despite objections from the Environment Agency. This is clearly an attempt topressure the Planning Office and Development Committee into allowing this dangerousproposal.

1. The first, a purpose-built student accommodation on Feeder Road was fundamentallydifferent to Baltic Wharf, in that the site adjoins land with low flood risk, and “a high -level walkway was proposed to allow free access/egress for people and theemergency services.”. No such evacuation or access route is provided, or indeedpossible, for Baltic Wharf, and as such all residents, and emergency services, would beat risk.

2. The second example, a development on Silverthorn Lane of student accommodationand a primary school, again is adjacent to areas of low flood risk and, as with theFeeder Road proposal, there is a “high level walkway” which allows both evacuationof occupants and access for emergency services. This was crucial to the Secretary ofState finding in favour of the development, stating “The Secretary of State notes thata key flood design feature is the proposed high level walkway”. As previously, thereis no possibility for such evacuation/access routes for Baltic wharf. Again, to quote thedevelopers “it is not possible to currently demonstrate a safe/dry access route toand from the site in the design flood events”.

7. The developers failed to provide a more appropriate precedent

Instead, there is comparable planning site much nearer than either of the above precedents,the proposed development of a caravan park at Clanage Road (20/09130/F). This site has asimilar, though slightly lower flood risk, in that a small part of the site is flood risk 2 (ratherthan 3), and being adjacent to a low flood risk area had a poor evacuation route, rather thanno evacuation route at all, as for the Baltic Wharf site. Again this was “called-in” by theEnvironment Agency, was the subject of a public enquiry, and the development was rejectedby the Secretary of State.

In reaching his decision on this site, the same issues were highlighted as would apply (evenmore so) to the Baltic Wharf site.

“The Secretary of State notes that there is no dispute that the flood risk at the siteis very serious indeed. He further notes that the ‘design flood’ could cause ‘Dangerfor Most’ over much of the site. For the reasons given the Secretary of State agreesthat if the flood risk cannot be successfully mitigated, planning permission shouldbe refused for the application proposal.”

“The Secretary of State agrees that in this case the probability of flooding is highand will increase over time, and that this means that floods of lower severity thanthe design flood are likely in the future to create a hazard rating for a large part ofthe site of ‘Danger for Most’ or ‘Danger for All’. He further agrees that the questionto answer is whether the mitigation proposed would be sufficient for the site to besafe for its lifetime given the severity of the flood risk.”

Objection to 21/01331/F Caravan Club Cumberland Road - Save Baltic Wharf Campaign Group

As such, and in line with the recent letters to Council Leaders and the LPA which highlightsthe need to take flood risk into account, it is highly likely that the Secretary of State woulduphold rejection of planning on this site.

Conclusion

It is very clear that were this development allowed to go ahead, it would be contrary to all ofthe flood protections required by the NPPF in a high flood risk area, and would result inresidents and visitors being exposed to a level of risk assessed as “Danger for all”. Thedevelopers admit “that it is not possible to currently demonstrate a safe/dry access route toand from the site in the design flood events”.

It is, therefore, utterly irresponsible of the developers to persist in their attempts to buildresidential properties on this dangerous site, and if they do so, it is the duty of the PlanningOffice and the Development Committee to stop them from putting at mortal risk the citizensof Bristol.

It is suggested that this site may, one day, be protected by, as yet, theoretical floodprotection measures. However, it would be negligent of the Local Planning Authority toconsider development on this site until such measures are in place. It is little comfort to thosesuffering the fatal effects of flooding to know that in decades to come there may be floodprotection that is needed right now.

(Save Baltic Wharf Campaign Group)

Following the issue of the updated documents, my objections to this development stillstand:1. The proportions of the development are out of character with this area of the harbour, which isthe last low-rise area of the harbour, filled with historic architecture, and this would have asignificant negative influence on the whole area, completely dwarfing the adjacent harbour masterpub.2. The scale of the building would act as a windbreak for the watersports centre, right in the middleof the area of harbour that has been designated for watersports (including sailing), thussignificantly impacting bot the business and leisure users that use this stretch of water. Currentlythe low lying land and trees offer a stable wind flow to this area; adding such a large scale buildingwould result in significant ind shear and turbulence i the most prevalent wind conditions, thatwould negatively impact the conditions within this area for sailing, and in particular teachingsailing.3. There would be a negative impact on local businesses from loss of the caravan site, as thenumber of customers for the Nova Scotia, and harbourmaster pub, who see continual turnoverfrom visitors to the campsite would be lost. These would not be replaced by the residents, asresidents are less likely to eat out thoughout the week, compared to tourists.4. The designation of this area as a brown field site seems to be an unfair and somewhat dubiousclassification of a site filled with mature trees, and the loss of trees resulting from the developmentwould be significant both in terms of their contribution as a carbon sink, and the aesthetically softline they currently provide to the sykyline in this area of the harbour.

I would like to object to the approval of this planning permission. The area is not suitablefor the build of 166 new dwelling for several reasons.Firstly, this is a flood risk area and it has been declared so in the Flood Risk Assessment. It wouldbe unsafe and reckless to allow the development to proceed.Secondly, the plan doesn't take into account traffic congestion and parking; the existing roadinfrastructure is not sufficient to serve the increased population of residents in spike island andwould cause of air pollution and public malaise due to the lack of parking spaces and traffic jams(this would be even worse in case the Bus Gate was introduced).Furthermore, the Caravan Park is a green lung in the city of Bristol and as such it should beprotected and preserved; trees improve the air quality of the area and provide a nesting place andshelter to migrating birds.I totally understand the need of affordable housing in Bristol and am supportive of newdevelopments, however these must be introduced in suitable areas. Bristol has several derelictbuilding, empty and in a bad state of repair, which make the city look run down and that ifredeveloped would provide the housing facilities the Bristol needs.

I appreciate the need for housing in the centre of the City, but this is the loss of anunique leisure facility in the centre of the centre of the city which brings valuable profile and touristincome. I therefore object tp the development of teh site.

I also object to the proposed development on the following grounds:-* It is much too high on to teh waterfront, effectively 7 stories including the flood defences,significantly higher than any other water facing buildings at this end of the harbour. Has anyconsideration been given to a stepped building away from the harbour?* Further commercial accommodation is not required; the proposed 168 units can be served byexisting facilities around Baltic Wharf and Hotwells Road, the latter having a number of emptyunits.* Thye exisiting Caravan site is a green oasis with mature trees and hedges; the proposalssigniifcantly reduce these, especially on the waterfront which otherwise is bare of greenery at thisend of the harbour.

The scale of the development remains intrusive in the last part of the harbour which islow rise and allows the bonded warehouses to stand out with Underfall Yard to the fore.This piece of land offers a unique opportunity to be used to support recreational harbour activitiesand widen opportunity to access the water with and expansion of water based activities.

The site is liable to flooding and to cause flooding in the local area if concreted over.There are already many developments of this type close by, all of which are struggling to findbuyers. The local road infrastructure is already overstretched and this development will affectpollution and quality of life for those already resident in this area.

I object to this proposal because1. The development is too high and too dense. This end of the harbour is low rise, quiet andenjoyed not just by residents but visitors from across the city.2. New residents will have cars as there is no decent public transport - the M2 does not run onSundays and stops running by 9pm in the evenings. Car owners will be searching in nearbyresidential streets to park their cars. They will have to take a circuitous route using CoronationRoad, adding to emissions.3. There will be a loss of mature trees, providing shelter, shade and wildlife. New saplings will notcompensate for this.4. Flood mitigation measures do not appear to be adequate.

I strongly object to the size and scale of these proposals which will ruin the ambience of thissection of the harbour.

It will cause AllAboard Watersports restrictions for what they do as a Charity. Moretraffic, and the building will be overlooking the Charity. Trees on the site now will go and willreduce healthy air etc.

I understand that the Bristol area, like so many others, needs more housing. Iparticularly appreciate the need for low-cost and low-rent housing for public workers including butnot limited to health and education workers. So I don't oppose housing developments in general.

However I do object strongly to this development, as it sits on one of the few open spaces leftaround the entire harbour. This represents a breathing space for everyone and also is a greenspace with many mature trees. Obviously these trees will be cut down and due to their age cannotbe replaced in this area, nor any area at their age. With the recent introduction of the clean airzone, which I support strongly, it seems a shame to be chopping down mature trees at the sametime.

More importantly, as this is the Harbourside area, it is clear to everyone that these will not be low-rent or low-cost housing and will just be more of the same as we have on the city side of the water- high end, high cost flats for sale. Even with some minor attention to the rules, the absoluteminimum will be done for the needs of poorer people.

There is plenty of brown land available to build flats in Bristol, more appropriate for this kind ofconstruction, and better able to consider the needs of public workers at the same time. Thisproposal takes no account of road access in this area, which has been disastrous for a long time.The road itself is still being considered for a bus gate - which would mean these residents wouldnot be able to drive Eastbound from this block would instead have to take a long circuitous routearound Coronation Road to go a short distance.

I like the Caravan Club site a lot, and it is a lovely green space with many mature trees. There is

no need to destroy it for yet another high-end block of flats which do nothing for Bristol's serioushousing crisis.

David Wood

I have previously objected to this application but in view of the Notification of RevisedDetails dated 27/01/2023 received from BCC Development Management I am taking theopportunity to record my continued and total opposition to the scheme currently proposed byGoram Homes. Despite literally hundreds of objections to the original submission the schemeremains largely in its original overbearing form with little response to neighbourhood concerns.I am sad to see the loss of the caravan site which clearly adds to the varied mixed use characterof the harbour and, for visitors, must be one of the most attractive city sites in the UK.However, on the assumption that the site is destined to be developed I believe passionately thatthe current proposals are totally out of keeping with the scale and attractive low key character ofthe western end of the harbour. The development is too dense, too high and, in common with anumber of other new buildings appearing in the city, rather ugly. We need skilled local designers tocreate a much more contextual scheme which is sensitive to its surroundings.The loss of all the trees on the site is lamentable, particularly when most of them are categorisedin the applicant's own Aboricultural Method Statement as having a long or medium termcontribution to make to the site's ecology. The replacement planting will take years to mature andwill require careful management to succeed.The impact of this scheme on traffic generation and parking ( in conjunction with other majordevelopments either planned or under construction on Spike Island ) has clearly not been properlyconsidered.I note also that the Environment Agency is recommending refusal of the application due toinadequate consideration having been given to flood mitigation measures.In view of the above I would urge the planning committee to refuse this application and force theapplicant to think again. If our mayor and council members believe in local democracy then thisshould be the only outcome.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I understand that the Bristol area, like so many others, needs more housing. I

particularly appreciate the need for low-cost and low-rent housing for public workers including but

not limited to health and education workers. So I don't oppose housing developments in general.

However I do object strongly to this development, as it sits on one of the few open spaces left

around the entire harbour. This represents a breathing space for everyone and also is a green

space with many mature trees. Obviously these trees will be cut down and due to their age cannot

be replaced in this area, nor any area at their age. With the recent introduction of the clean air

zone, which I support strongly, it seems a shame to be chopping down mature trees at the same

time.

More importantly, as this is the Harbourside area, it is clear to everyone that these will not be low-

rent or low-cost housing and will just be more of the same as we have on the city side of the water

- high end, high cost flats for sale. Even with some minor attention to the rules, the absolute

minimum will be done for the needs of poorer people.

There is plenty of brown land available to build flats in Bristol, more appropriate for this kind of

construction, and better able to consider the needs of public workers at the same time. This

proposal takes no account of road access in this area, which has been disastrous for a long time.

The road itself is still being considered for a bus gate - which would mean these residents would

not be able to drive Eastbound from this block would instead have to take a long circuitous route

around Coronation Road to go a short distance.

I like the Caravan Club site a lot, and it is a lovely green space with many mature trees. There is

no need to destroy it for yet another high-end block of flats which do nothing for Bristol's serious

housing crisis.

Dear Bristol City Council,

21/01331/F Caravan Club Cumberland Road Bristol BS1 6XG

I would like to respectfully make two observations regarding the Sequential Test for thisapplication:

Firstly, paragraph 5.3 of Barton Willmore's Sequential Test dated November 2021 describes theapplication site as an area "in need of regeneration" in order to limit the search area to sites withinthe Bristol Central Area Plan. Regeneration and reuse of derelict land and buildings aroundBristol's harbour is nearing completion. The application site itself is neither vacant nor derelict. Inview of this, I believe that the sequential assessment of other available sites should include allsites within walking distance of Bristol city centre, and not be restricted to the boundary of theBristol Central Area Plan.

Secondly, paragraph 028 of HM Government's Guidance on Flood Risk and Coastal Change,states that reasonably available sites for assessment during the Sequential Test "could include aseries of smaller sites and/or [be] part of a larger site if these would be capable of accommodatingthe proposed development." The Sequential Test prepared by the applicant has failed to considerthese options.

Yours sincerely,

James Savage

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:

Dear Bristol City Council,

21/01331/F Caravan Club Cumberland Road Bristol BS1 6XG

I would like to respectfully make two observations regarding the Sequential Test for this

application:

Firstly, paragraph 5.3 of Barton Willmore's Sequential Test dated November 2021 describes the

application site as an area "in need of regeneration" in order to limit the search area to sites within

the Bristol Central Area Plan. Regeneration and reuse of derelict land and buildings around

Bristol's harbour is nearing completion. The application site itself is neither vacant nor derelict. In

view of this, I believe that the sequential assessment of other available sites should include all

sites within walking distance of Bristol city centre, and not be restricted to the boundary of the

Bristol Central Area Plan.

Secondly, paragraph 028 of HM Government's Guidance on Flood Risk and Coastal Change,

states that reasonably available sites for assessment during the Sequential Test "could include a

series of smaller sites and/or [be] part of a larger site if these would be capable of accommodating

the proposed development." The Sequential Test prepared by the applicant has failed to consider

these options.

Yours sincerely,

We refer to the undated and unaddressed document referred to as 'Update toSequential Test', produced by Stantec. The document makes reference to Bristol City Council'sFlood Risk Sequential Test Practice Note (August 2013), which states that a "pragmatic" approachwill be taken when assessing the Sequential Test for development in regeneration areas. Theapplication site is not in a regeneration area and therefore any suggestion that flood risk legislationshould not be followed is inappropriate and open to legal challenge. The applicant cites thedeviation that occurred at St Phillip's Marsh in order to promote the regeneration of that area,which is like comparing chalk with cheese. The application site is green, in active use as a thrivingleisure and tourism business, provides habitat for wildlife and positively contributes to the urban airquality.

1.St Christopher's should be declared an ACV.2. No proper provision for SEN in development

Dear Mr Calabrese,

21/01331/F Caravan Club Cumberland Road Bristol BS1 6XG

We refer to the above application. Section 4.1 of the Flood Risk Assessment dated 12thSeptember 2022 states that the proposed development passes the Sequential Test, butthis is fundamentally not true. The applicant has appointed architects and begun pre-application discussions in progress at three other city centre sites, all of which arecapable of accommodating the proposed development and are at a lower risk offlooding. Those three sites are listed below:• Castle Park• Portwall Lane• SS Great Britain Car Park

The Environment Agency asked the local planning authority in November 2021 to“provide written confirmation as to their position regarding the Sequential Test for thisapplication.” Please provide us with a copy of the same.

We maintain our opinion that the proposed development should be refused consent forthe numerous reasons outlined within our letters dated 28th April 2021, 14th October2021 and 20th December 2021. We believe that any consent issued for the proposals intheir current form will be open to legal challenge.

Yours sincerely,

I object to the project on the grounds of destruction of the existing, established trees onsite.There is shortage of mature trees in the city and particularly in that area of town, thereforedestruction of the existing trees should be avoided at all costs.

I object to the current proposal, which would include the destroying of wildlife in theCaravan Club, located in Cumberland Road, Bristol.

Though the area might be fit for housing development, architectural and landscaping plans shouldat least incorporate the trees in the plan, not fell them. It's backwards to apply a green air tax forthe central areas of Bristol, and then actively destroy trees.

The site itself is an ideal site fof housing, however they MUST NOT destroy the maturetrees. Urban design must incorporate them. Rising temperatures will benefit and the localenvironment requires them

I strongly object to the felling of the perfectly healthy Baltic wharf trees As a frequentvisitor to Bristol we spend a lot of time walking around the waters edge into Bristol centre andvisiting various attractions and spending our hard earned money here. What draws us is the largeamount of wildlife along this particular stretch and that it is so green and fresh. It is a real pleasureto come and sit by the trees overlooking the water especially on hot and sunny days. Please donot fell these trees, it is totally unnecessary and if you have to build new flats build them aroundthe trees. Trees are a healthy natural resource and it is criminal to fell them unnecessarily.Thank you

I object to the planning application as it will severely impact the character of the currentbaltic wharf area. This area is the last area of 'low rise' green space remaining in the harbourside,and is a treasured location for locals going for walks, and relaxing. The addition of these buildingswould destroy the character of the area, completely overshadowing the historic harbourmastersoffice, destroying countless trees, and creating a barrier that would severely impact wind for sailingin the baltic wharf activity centre

For such a detailed context analysis, the final design iteration is a surprising departurethat seems to ignore the scale, character and appearance of the local area. This part of thefloating harbour is characterised by lower-scale development of three storeys maximum, whichallows the listed bonded warehouses to stand out and dominate. The 6 or so storeys beingproposed is just too high. The outcome would be to diminish the prominence and dominance ofthe bonded warehouses, the Underfall Yard chimney and views to the Leigh Woods escarpment.These are important features that are of value to the character and appearance of the City DocksConservation Area but the city as a whole. The views west from Vauxhall Bridge will be particularlynegatively affected by the tallest blocks being proposed. Historic England have picked up on thescale of the development but the City Council seem not to be seeking a reduction in scale, this issurprising given development plan policy and the Government's push for good design. Housingnumbers and affordable housing are obviously important and worthy benefits, but these should notcome at the cost of irreplaceable resources such as the Conservation Area and the city scape thatis critical and so vulnerable to change in this part of the Floating Harbour.

21/01331/F | Erection of residential dwellings (166), commercial floorspace, integratedcar and bicycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping and associated infrastructure andservices. | Caravan Club Cumberland Road Bristol BS1 6XG

I object to this planning for the following reason overloading the nearby GP practise within the areaBridge View Surgery, Pembroke Road and Bedminster Family Practise.

RefBaltic Wharf Caravan Site, Harbourside, BristolHealth Impact Assessment September 2021. Healthcare Infrastructure Audit para 4.9- 4.11 statsMarch 2021

In this it is reported that using the HUDU standard that the 3 clinics can support an additionalpopulation of 35571

With a total of 47 FTE GP and according to this report a patient total 4900247x 1800 = 84,600 patients Max

I used the GP Practise workforce stats on NHS Digital the nearest stats I could get nearest thereport date of march 2021 date was October 2021.

The first noticeable figure was the patient load for Bridge View Practice which incorporates 4clinics the patient capacity is 38,776 the GP FTE 16.93Although when you look at bridge view website at (our team) it has 12 full time doctors but 2 were

on maternity leave.

If you apply the HUDU standard 16.93 x1800= 30,474 Max.

This means having 38776 patients in this practice is an overload of 8302 already

When you add in the other clinicsBedminster Family Practice 5.11 FTE GP 12378 PatientsPembroke road 8.8 FTE GP 18328 Patients

Total FTE GP for 3 practice 30.8430.84 x1800= 55512 Max capacity HUDU stdActual capacity for 3 GP surgery 69,482 overloaded by 13,970 patients

I belong to a different doctor's surgery my old surgery St Martins surgery closed some time agobut their patient load of 10,000+ had to be divided up into nearby clinics putting more strain on thehealthcare system.Prior to when the covid epidemic hit early 2020 it was difficult to get an appointment online thereused to be a 2 week wait and now most clinics are not operating face to face consultation and alsoa triage system.People get fed up and use hospital emergency for ailments that doctors could see to or make 999calls which clog up emergency services.My view in this time I would not approve of any building work for this current climate where thefuture is uncertain.I didn't know the Bristol Caravan Club existed but in this current situation it is important having anarea where visitors could park and stay when more and more people are staying in the UK onholidays and being safe from covid.I have seen recent residential building work e.g. Boklock on the brook, Imperial park and Filwoodand others.All this will have a future impact on healthcare and other amenities

Dear Mr Calabrese,

I wish to object to the Sequential Test report submitted by Barton Willmore and published by youon 17th December, on the grounds that it contains incorrect and wholly misleading information.Sections 1 and 2 of this latest Barton Willmore report have simply been cut and pasted from theirprevious submission of April 2021. However the Environment Agency updated their StrategicFlood Risk Assessment modelling in July 2021 so the claims made by Barton Willmore in thislatest report are out of date and therefore extremely misleading. For example, in Section 1.4Barton Willmore state "Whilst the entirety of the site is within Flood Zone 2, only the northern halfof the site and a small area in the south of the site is within Flood Zone 3", this is incorrect, theentire site is within Flood Zone 3 as correctly stated by the Environment Agency in their updatedsubmission of 26th November. Section 2.0 again incorrectly refers to the site as being in FloodZone 2, section 2.4 states that a Flood Risk Assessment is currently being prepared by Hydrock, Itake it that this refers to the FRA that has already been submitted by Hydrock on 29th October andsubsequently objected to by the Environment Agency on 26th November?

I am extremely surprised that a supposedly reputable planning consultancy should submit a reportthat seems woefully unaware of the latest changes to the Environment Agency SFRA modelling(July 2021) and equally unaware of the current sequence of published documents pertaining tothis planning application. Might I respectfully request that you withdraw this document and return itto Barton Willmore until such time that they are able to familiarise themselves with the currentSFRA modelling published by the Environment Agency (2021) and also remind themselves of thecurrent sequence of submissions to this planning application?

Having this misleadingly inaccurate document appearing chronologically after the latestEnvironment Agency submission (26th November) could potentially confuse members of theDevelopment Committee into thinking that it addresses the concerns raised by the EA when itdoes nothing of the sort. I am sure that you would wish to avoid any such confusion.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Herridge

We refer to the revised Sequential Test prepared by Barton Willmore dated November2021 and respectfully draw your attention to the following observations:

Section 5.4 states that alternative sites would need to have capacity for more than 100 units orhave an area greater than 0.8ha in order to meet the search criteria.

The table of site assessments in Section 6.5 states that the alternative site at Portwall Lane doesnot meet the search criteria, despite having capacity for an estimated 110 units. Section 6.5 alsostates that the alternative site adjacent to the SS Great Britain does not meet the search criteria,despite having capacity for an estimated 115 units.

Sections 5.4 and 6.5 therefore directly contradict each other.

The brief issued by Goram Homes to potential joint venture partners in April 2019 stated that theCity Design Group suggested that the Caravan Club site had a capacity for 120 homes. Thesubmitted proposals comprise a far greater number, but the applicant wrote to us immediatelyafter submitting the application and informed us that "There are likely to be further changes madebefore it goes to planning committee". Perhaps they were referring to the need to reduce thenumber of dwellings from 166 to 120?

We maintain our opinion that the proposed development should be refused consent for thenumerous reasons outlined within our letters dated 28th April 2021 and 14th October 2021. Webelieve that any consent issued for the proposals in their current form will be open to legalchallenge.

The Caravan and Motorhome park is an amazing asset to the area and it will be a greatshame if it has to go just for more housing to be built in its place. There is much housing alreadythere and it's just brilliant to visit for a few days at a time in such a lovely place. Please considerleaving things as they are, it's not all about money.

I object strongly to destroying this open site. There are many places you can developnew housing which do not need to be next to the water

The amended application is still the wrong development in the wrong place and in myopinion should not be granted planning consent.

As per my objection 15 May 2021, this end of Harbourside must not become another WappingWharf. This area has it's own special environment, allowing residents, visitors from the caravansite & elsewhere and the many boating activities to co-exist.

Barton Willmore's letter states that a reduction of one storey will make negligible visual benefit.The current proposal will have NO VISUAL BENEFIT and it will be too late to realise this oncebuilt!! Please find another site to provide new homes, not on this precious asset.

This will not enhance the floating harbour as a visitor attraction. The influx of visitor thatcomes to Bristol via the caravan site will be lost. Arguably the most popular caravan site in thecountry that is full ever day of the year will be lost. Each new visitor provides an injection of cashinto the local economy visiting local pubs restaurants going on boat trips and visiting localattractions that residents living in a block of flats will never be able to match.

This development will provide short term economic gain for a few people but at a cost to many.

The floating harbour is Bristol greatest visitor attraction but it is becoming just another suburb ofBristol.

keeping this much loved facility is a no brainier. Building another block of luxury flats for economicgain on this site is a crime and will directly effect the tourist businesses around the harbour.

Overwhelmingly too many flats and too much height for the site and location.Not in keeping with adjacent buildings or the tone of the neighbourhood.

We need more Trees, simple as.

I profoundly object to this development on the grounds it will harm wildlife and itundermines the principles of urban conservation. No city anywhere can afford to cavalierly fell asingle mature tree.

Research from Sheffield University shows trees are doing more forward planning for climatechange

Cont. from previous comment which submitted itself prematurely...

Trees are doing more planning to counteract climate change than the British government (seeresearch from Sheffield University).

Tree replacement is a fantasy, with ZERO available sites and £50,000 in unspent S106 funding.

It is insane to allow any development in this area until the flood risks are better understood andreal mitigations are in place. Consider, you do not yet know what the road infrastructure will beafter the Western Harbour regeneration project ...

Please cease, desist and think again.

The need for plentiful, affordable housing should be balanced with aesthetic,environmental, social, fiscal and practical concern.

I object to this development based on a balanced view of the location and potential disruption andharm to the area.

The caravan park is an extremely unusual and popular venue in this area. It provides a valuedspace for travellers and locals to spend time in an excellent part of this wonderful city. It's losswould be a tragedy.

A multi-storey development would provide high cost housing for people who can afford it. Thegeneral experience is that affordable housing is minimal

Traffic would increase enormously, leading to issue similar to those experience on Cumberland Rdfor the last few years

This development is overwhelmingly a financial bonus for the Council (not a bad thing) and,mainly, the developer. It will probably be useful for extremely rich investors from outside of the UK.

I live on the Rownham Mead waterfront - directly opposite the proposed development.This was the first harbourside housing development in the early 1980s with a vision of individualhouses with gardens, lots of green space, and lots of trees. It attracted families and has become afamily community.

The waterfront gardens are much admired by the hundreds of Bristolians and visitors who walk,cycle, scooter, past every day. We have won numerous awards for our contribution to theatmosphere of this unique part of the harbourside.

I talk most days to passers by who come to enjoy a special place. City planning at it's very best.So different from that nearer the city centre.

The proposed Baltic Wharf development will not only reverse the plan of previous generations butwill also be a kick in the teeth for those of us who have worked so hard to create a very specialpart of our city.

In spite of the clever drawings, this is a proposal for large, harsh, blocks of apartments right on theharbourside. There will be fewer trees than on the current Caravan site.

The atmosphere of this enjoyable stretch of waterfront will be irreversibly destroyed.

Please do not approve this development now in isolation. It needs to be part of the biggerdiscussion over the wider Western Harbour proposals.

I live across the water from the proposed development.One of the reasons I came to live on this part of the harbourside was the open spaces andgreenery. Important for me as an asthmatic.Here on Pooles Wharf Court we have a large area of lawn surrounded by trees and flower beds.The housing is a mixture of houses and apartments. Low rise, to ensure light and sunshine. And aview up into Clifton Wood and Clifton beyond.This new proposal on Baltic Wharf is the opposite. Harsh. Dense. Fewer trees. Much higher. Lesssunlight.It is a stark reversal of the long term Council plans which, up to now have been to keep this end ofthe harbour open and green.This new scheme needs to be scrapped and replaced with something that respects what has beennurtured for so many years.

I have already objected on the grounds that the development is too high for thesurrounding area. The revision does not meet my objection. The council should be designing newbuild to enhance this historic area.

I support the many points made by the objectors. The main point is that things havechanged so much over the period of the design of this development that we need to stop and thinkwhat is best for Bristol. There are many commercial buildings that are no longer being used assuch around the harbourside (the Lloyds building being the most recent) so we need to look athow spaces across Bristol are reused. This is an open space that we need to keep open for thesake of the Clean Air Zone and CO2 targets. It is time to step back and think again.

I am writing on behalf of Hotwells and Cliftonwood Community Association.

The revised plans show very little change to the original scheme and the Community Associationobject to the scale, mass and height of the buildings. This scheme represents over development ofa sensitive area, which will have a detrimental impact to the Harbourside. There is not enoughprovision for new community facilities and there are little or no benefits to the existing community.The association welcome new homes for people but not at the scale and density of thisdevelopment.

This area should in no way lose these lovely mature trees. Any green spaces should beleft untouched and the concept of replacing them just gives an excuse for destruction where thisshould in no way happen. The only way we can limit the climate emergency is to protect areas likethis.

The proposed building at 6 stories is too high and don't retain enough established trees.Spike Island doesn't have the road infrastructure for the additional cars.Although there is a need for housing, please look to the examples set at Wapping Wharf withlower rooflines and better architectural design.

I object to this development. I think the present use of this site significantly enhancesthe area and provides a very useful facility in the centre of the city. There is also the loss of maturetrees to consider. It's no good the Council declaring a climate emergency if it then goes aroundcutting down mature trees. Planting saplings to replace them is no good. It will be years beforethey are big enough to provide the same benefits as the trees already there. Then there is thequestion of over development. How attractive will this part of the city be if every square inch isdevoted to flats and new houses?

I have written my concerns already but feel the need to also say that people are totallyfed up with thousands of flat (bland and cheap) being built in every square inch of available land.We are going to regret this as a city in years to come. There have been thousands already builtalong the river in the last 15 years...please stop. Diversity is SO important,the caravan club was sogreat for visitors. Please lets have something different on what seems to be the last piece ofavailable land in that area....although no doubt the greedy landowners elsewhere will sell someother piece of land where another few hundred flat can be squeezed inNot to mention the lack of trees in the area. Be brave , build a park!!!! What a legacy BCC..buy theland and build a park...one can only dream.

I strongly object to this proposal. With the climate crisis a very real threat to human lifeall trees are essential to the survival of life on Earth. Their replacement trees do not becomeeffective for 20 years. Houses on the other hand only solve a problem for one family or smallgroup of people at a time and should only be built on a brown site. The number of trees on this sitemeans it is not a brown site, whatever the council thinks. Chopping down trees is not acceptableand I therefore strongly object to this proposal.

Proposed size/height of building, loss of trees, limited parking mean this is an entirelyinappropriate plan and should be scrapped.

Absolutely NO to this development because of 6 storey building dwarfing the historicdockyard buildings and environment, the capping of so many mature trees - a building of thisnature is absolutely at odds with the historic conservation area of the wharf and dockside.Shocking that this is even being considered at planning stage by the council.

Not more high rise flats. The caravan site brings people into the city.There are far too many flats being built in tge city.

I totally disagree with this development. It will ruin the area for all that use it

This is simply a terrible idea on so many levels.The proposed destruction of mature trees.The proposed destruction of long held green spaceThe height of the proposed buildings.PLEASE THINK AGAIN.

The amount of traffic that this will generate on local roads is unacceptable bothregarding congestion and pollution. Not to mention parking problems. The building is too high andwill dwarf the other buildings and turn this lovely and unusual area into a space like so manyothers. The loss of 82 trees will be the first negative impact. Do not allow it to happen, please

Bristol needs much more housing, and density in central locations like this is a greatway to provide it. It will give plenty of support to local businesses (as well as providing new retailspace which will clearly be successful given the ongoing success of Wapping Wharf / Cargo.)

People say it's out of keeping with the harbour but this clearly isn't the case - the massive bondwarehouses are far more defining of the site and the harbour's industrial heritage than a caravanpark or some naff 90s housing next door.

The massing seems well designed so blocks are offset allowing the majority of the flats to be dualaspect and avoiding the endless hotel style corridors that dominate developments like WappingWharf. Space standards look OK although Bristol would do well to adopt slightly more rigidstandards like the London Housing Design guide - 22m2 for a 2B4P L/K/D is not exactly generous,or future proof! The pitched roofs work well to give character and harmonise with otherdevelopments on the harbour.

As young people renting in Bristol its clear MUCH more housing is needed, it is a living city not justa relic preserved in aspic for only existing homeowners to enjoy and watch as their properties goup and up in value. As such we broadly support this proposal.

2 other points to note:

1) Its a shame timber cladding and structure could not be more widely used to reduce theembodied carbon of the scheme - brick need not be ubiquitous, and the planning departmentshould consider the environmental impact they themselves are having in requiring brick.

2) Any 'public space' should be strongly conditioned as such - the developer cannot be allowed forthis to be gated down the line when its convenient for them.

The development would spoil this area of the harbour. The proposed buildings are too high andnot in keeping with the surrounding. In the current climate it is madness to remove mature trees.

Save this site from development

I object to this development on the grounds that it will adversely affect the enjoyment ofthe harbour which I walk around on a daily basis

Please do not destroy precious city center trees! I'm not against new development onthis site, but it must prioritize the existing flora and preserve as many trees as possible.

With the current climate change situation all green space and mature trees should beleft in place and not harmed.

To lose such a tourist asset for housing is a terrible idea apart from the fact this is notthe right place for this kind of development.I fully object to this development it's factuality incorrect in its wording regarding neighbouringbuildings, it will not be affordable, the design is really ugly and will not be in keeping with the area,thee would a tragic loss of green space and 70 odd mature trees.If any planning officer agrees this is a good development overall they need to be sacked !! It's theworst possible idea for this space. Please don't support this I object to everything on thisdevelopment.

I object to this proposal. Anything built in this location should be in direct keeping withother buildings along this stretch of harbour. This building would be too high.

Dear Mr Calabrese,

21/01331/F Caravan Club Cumberland Road Bristol BS1 6XG

We refer to the revised documents that have been submitted in connection with the aboveapplication. The revisions do not address the concerns listed within our letter dated 28th April2021 and we remain opposed to the proposals.

The application documents state that the applicant held several pre-application meetings with yourdepartment. Since the submission of the application, we understand that you have held furthermeetings with the applicant. Despite this, the application does not comply with local or nationalplanning policy. It is therefore reasonable for us to assume that the applicant is ignoring youradvice at this stage. We respectfully remind you that the city council will be guilty of proceduralimpropriety if you have informed the applicant that they are not required to comply with policy.

We make the following observations in addition to those within our earlier representation:1. No public notices have been displayed at any time during the consideration of this application.2. The applicant has not submitted a marketing report to demonstrate that there is no ongoingdemand for the current use.3. Several hundred objections have been submitted to the city council and 3 comments in support.We would like the applicant to provide evidence to support their claim that "Feedback has beenlargely supportive of the principle, the open space, ecology and climate change aspects.",contained within the Statement of Community Involvement dated December 2020.4. Contrary to the Sequential Test produced by Barton Willmore dated April 2021, the application

site is not allocated for housing within the existing Local Plan or the emerging draft Local Plan.Furthermore, the proposed development FAILS the Sequential Test because Bristol City Councilhave already announced their intention to sell the SS Great Britain Car Park and Portwall LaneCar Park to Goram Homes. These sites are within the search area, at lower risk of flooding, ofcomparable size, able to accommodate the requirements of the proposed development, notsafeguarded for another use within the existing or emerging Local Plan, deliverable anddevelopable. Despite this, both have been conveniently omitted from Barton Willmore's list ofidentified sites.

We would like to meet with you online to discuss this application at your earliest convenience.

This site is vulnerable to flooding

Not enough affordable or social housing to address current housing needs (homeless people inBristol are currently being arrested under the vagrancy act further endangering their chances ofturning their lives around).

Not enough prior engagement with locals

Density of housing increases flood risk

The proposed height sets a precedent for future development in the Cumberland Basin area

The trees are important for the local and citywide environment

Further building works on Cumberland road could cause mental and physical health problems forneighbours

Retain this valuable semi-green space! The harbour side must not be allowed tobecome one massive housing estate.

The harbour area is a resource for the whole city, not just local residents. The site inquestion is also a fantastic central resource bringing visitors directly into the city. As such, the areashould be judged and defined by, not just, the height of individual buildings, but also its spaces,low level development and views.We also have the ongoing Harbour Hopes consultation and it would be better to simply wait andsee what the outcome is from that and have a more joined up development plan.I agree with other comments about traffic, the height of this development and the ability of theCumberland Road to withstand the impact of the construction process and the longer term higherdensity of traffic. All my previous comments still stand and I oppose the development

This is a peaceful area of the harbour, used for leisure activity. It is away from thehubbub of the Cargo end of the harbour and is enjoyed by many for its calmness. The housingproposed will change the area by removing mature trees and adding high buildings that dwarfexisting buildings. The height is inappropriate to a heritage area. Removing mature trees during aclimate emergency (as acknowledged by the council) should not be allowed. In summary, anyproposed development should not be allowed to remove mature trees or build higher than itssurrounds.

People using the caravan site currently walk to the harbour attractions; by moving it outof the harbour area there will be increased traffic by people driving into Bristol. It is estimated thevisitors bring in millions of pounds worth into local businesses.The caravan site is fully booked almost every day of the year showing the demand; it should beincreased in size rather than moved.The harbour side skyline will be adversely affected by a out of place tower blocks.The land is being given away to private developers with little benefit to the council; why should thecouncil help the wealthy become richer who will let the properties at extortionate rents?The land is currently a green field not a Brown field site (as incorrectly referred to by Marvin Rees)as it has no significant building.The trees are likely to be lost in contravention to the council's own green policy BCS9.Planting a few young trees will not give the environmental benefit of the current mature trees.There are plenty of other sites owned by the council which would be better for homes; perhaps allthe empty offices (real brown field sites) could be converted?The roads cannot cope with the extra traffic during building and afterwards because of collapse ofCumberland road which has still not been repaired.

I object to the height of the buildings, which is out of proportion to surroundings, theremoval of trees, and the scale of the whole project which I think is inappropriate for the site.

The revised plans do not reflect public opinion.

The Bristol Floating Harbour is a MASSIVE ASSETT to the city & future generations. PLEASE DONOT DESTROY IT just for money. The West end of the harbour provides an open space,recreation & what will be a much needed relaxation during & after the covid experience. PLEASEDO NOT GIVE PLANNING PERMISSION to this over powering & oversized development in BalticWharf. In this conservation area the aesthetics & atmosphere of Baltic Wharf is essential & theproposals contravene the 2011 Bristol Council Heritage Statement!The proposed 6 & 7 story buildings need to be reduced. Blocks A & B to lower ground + 2 floors =3max. F block lower ground + 3 floors = 4 stories max. This is the same as the adjacent BalticWharf on the East side. This will solve the problem of light, sunsets, aesthetics, privacy & parking.The Developers will say that it does not produce enough housing on this GREEN SITE! But sincethe original plan was made life has changed, & COVID helped. The Council will have to addressthe empty retail stores & the change of working ethics releasing office space. There will benumerous buildings in central Bristol that need to be revitalised & refurbished. These can providethe much needed housing & save a city from decay. So, please do NOT Destroy the vibrant,green, & active Caravan Park for an over sized set of flats & destroy your Heritage pledge & yourpotential chance to win a UNESCO Recognition for Bristol Floating Harbour & Suspension Bridgein the future.

The Floating Harbour is a unique historical, cultural and recreational asset to Bristol.

The City Development Report of December 2011 states the future threats to the area would be:

1. Unsympathetic developments that result in loss of key views and panoramas or fail to respectthe industrial character, scale and material palette of the area

2. Increase in high-rise residential developments that unbalance the sensitive mix of commercial/industrial/leisure/cultural/residential use.

The current plans for the New Development do not take the above into consideration. This is aonce in a lifetime decision. We either have a development of high rise residential blocks (i.e. 6stories high) which set the minimum height for the next development or a more appropriate designwhich is the same height as the nearby properties i.e. 4 stories.This will not unbalance the sensitive mixture in the future see threat 2.

Due to rising population over the next decades we will always have a need for greateraccommodation but at what cost? Why destroy one of the greatest assets that Bristol has to offer,for the few, when the rest of Bristol and dare I say it the World suffers by a lack of thought inplanning.

Keep it low and in keeping with the rest of the surroundings and maintain a healthy environmentfor all. When we hear constantly about the need of a good mental health for the country we needan open and sympathetic development for Bristol not an over bearing one.

And please can someone produce an image of the development showing at least 300 metreseither side of it so everyone can see the impact it will produce.

I object on the grounds of loss of green space, and increased air pollution

I still object strongly to the 'revised' (what revision) application. Please refuse this application.

Although, I do not live in the area, I am a frequent visitor and, this development would completelyruin this lovely area of Bristol.

Minor alteration leave the major concerns of objections still the same - the development willchange the the radical impact this development will have on the skyline, and character, andhistorical nature of this end of the harbour and Underfall Yard "The Heart of Bristol City Harbour".

I still object on the grounds of size, overshadowing, loss of privacy, loss of light to neighbouringproperties, loss of trees - criminal in this day and age.

There will still be traffic, increased pollution and parking issues. Reduced car parking spaces willnot stop people having cars. It will create parking issues in the surrounding area. This thinking isflawed!

This development will significantly degrade the quality of life of everyone around it. It will changeforever the quiet,relaxed feel of this end of the Floating Harbour which is so important for peoples' mental andphysical well being. This area is used for outdoor water sports, walking and relaxing. There hasbeen no proper assessment of the impact on water sports in thearea, but the developers position seems to be to gloss this over and that the water sports willsimply have to adapt to any adverse impact.

The caravan site is unique in a city and is an asset to Bristol. I am a frequent visitor to the City andthis caravan site has been essential in allowing me to visit, with access to flat level ground andclose to amenities.

The applicant has not submitted a marketing report to demonstrate that there is no ongoingdemand for the current use, and in any case, there is.

As this site comes within a Conservation area, I do not understand how such a design can beapproved, especially sincethe application site is not allocated for housing within the existing Local Plan or the emerging draftLocal Plan.

With so many objections, there is obviously a lot that needs to be changed with this application.Indeed, so many objections have been submitted to the city council and only a few in support, sowhere is the evidence from the applicant to support their claim that "Feedback has been largelysupportive of the principle, the open space, ecology and climate change aspects.", containedwithin the Statement of Community Involvement dated December 2020. A total falsification!

In addition, the proposed development FAILS the Sequential Test -the SS Great Britain Car Parkand Portwall Lane Car Park have both have been conveniently omitted from Barton Willmore's listof identified sites.

Why are residents and people not listened to!! Greedy developers who just want profits whateverthe cost to locals and the environment.

Revised plans by the developer do not seem to contain substantial alterations and I stillobject for the following reasons -1). The building is still far too high with its surroundings and will therefore not blend in with othermearby buildings and landscape.2). There will be many more cars which will increase pollution which is already excessive in Bristol.3). There will be removal of mature trees which will be detrimental to the reaching of carbonneutral targets.4) The area will be at risk of flooding.Bristol has such an asset in the area around the dockside and I feel that money has become theprime motivation for this development and that other considerations - the unique character of thenearby Underfall yard, boatbuilding, water sports, and the open spaces, and the ability to stay in acaravan along the dockside - have all been sidelined. Bristol will sadly lose all these amenities ifthe development goes ahead and Bristolians will be the losers.

I am lodging objection on behalf of the Hotwells and Cliftonwood CommunityAssociation.

We are disappointed to see no significant changes to the original plans which brought so manyobjections. We note that objections continue to pour in.

Again our objection is centered around the height of the building which are not in keeping with thisend of the harbour. We believe it should be noted that this is not a city centre development. It liesat one end of the harbour which is very close to open countryside.

Our original objection still stands and we believe the application should be rejected

I lodged objection on 1st May and I see insufficient change in relation to the points Iraised for me to do other than confirm my objection in the same form as before to these plans

I strongly object to the proposed redevelopment plans of the "Caravan Club,Cumberland Road, Bristol" on the following grounds:

Size and structure of the development -Buildings A and B are far too high, overshadowing the existing buildings on a very flat area of theharbourside. Standing on Hotwells Road ALL buildings within eyesight are currently only 3 or 4storeys. This new building is not at all in keeping with the surroundings.These two proposed buildings also are directly on the waterfront, which will create a high wall ofbuilding, replacing a hedgerow and tree-lined boulevard. The tree-lined boulevard currentlyextends the entire length of this section of harbourside. With the proposed development, half ofthe trees will be lost. The resulting loss of wildlife habitat and important green space in a time ofecological crisis is unacceptable and the area will not retain its identity.Buildings A and B are the same size as Wapping Wharf, which are set back from the waterfrontand also fit their neighbouring skyline. This new development does not in any way fit with itsneighbouring skyline and is not acceptable.

Buildings B, C and D create a high wall of brick straight across Weare Court and Westbrook Court,which will greatly reduce their right to light from their living space. There is also a loss of privacy.

Digging foundations for tall structures will surely impact the surrounding stability of the land, giventhe river wall is under repair from collapse - has any assessment been carried out on the impacton other buildings and the roadside?

Number of dwellings -

166 new dwellings is too many for the area, considering that 142 new homes are being built inMcArthur's Yard, and the SS Great Britain car park is to be redeveloped into further housing. Thisputs stress on Cumberland Road with likely bottlenecks at both ends. The road is on the riveredge, which is currently being repaired, more traffic and heavy vehicles will put further pressure onthe river wall with no room for expansion.

Developments (complete and in planning) along Cumberland Road, including Wapping Wharf,total over 600 new flats, the balance of accommodation doesn't fit the needs of the population.There is an oversupply of apartments, especially in post-covid times where fewer people arebuying this type of living, and it is increasingly hard to buy a house in Bristol due to supply andprice. There is more of a need for affordable houses rather than more flats, affordable orotherwise.Very little of this new development will help with affordable housing, and none are houses withgardens. Therefore this is not suitable for families or those who can't live in a flat, and thereforedoesn't solve the housing problem.

Consider designing something that has a mix of accommodation, like Baltic Wharf, which hashouses, maisonettes and flats, with gardens and green space, rather than squeezing in as manyflats as possible.

Reducing car parking spaces while leaving the same number of flats means that extra pressurewill be created for parking on Spike Island.

Tree retention and environment -The revised tree retention plan does not resolve any concerns.

This is the only green space around the harbour, and this building should not be allowed becauseit does not fit with environmental planning. Although a private site, it is valuable green space,removal of 82 trees is not acceptable. Replacing these with saplings that will take 30 years tomature should not be allowed, it goes against the councils own declaration of climate emergency.

The addition of 6 trees along the harbourside will not work. Why remove mature trees andimportant hedgerow to replace with 6 saplings? Also over time these new trees may createproblems with the foundations of the harbour wall if they are planted so close to the water's edgeas is proposed. The existing trees on the harbourside outside Baltic Wharf are set back from theretaining wall, giving space to grow.

Instead of removing the green space, work with it and adjust the building plans. Example of this isCastle Park View where the tree boundary is retained and keeps a green cityscape. This shouldeasily be achievable here by adjusting the plans. The same should apply with the trees down theside of the plot next to Baltic Wharf.

Daylight assessment -Reviewing the daylight addendum, care has been taken to ensure the new flats have adequatedaylight, but the impact on Weare Court and Westbrook Court has been dismissed because theyhave multiple floors and are deemed low risk. This is disgraceful and must be considered high riskas their daylight is being removed from their main living space, which will severely impactresidents' health and wellbeing. They cannot be expected to live in a bedroom because that roomhas more light, but their living room on the ground floor has severe light reduction due to the sizeof buildings B, C and D.

Flood Risk -The development is on a high risk flood zone, and has been objected to by the EnvironmentAgency. Continued development in areas at risk of flood should not take place. Also this willincrease the risk of flooding in the local area by changing the natural landscape into a concrete-based one, surely going against planning policy. I strongly agree with the Environment Agency'sassessment on this.

Overall I object to the development plans as they stand and this site would be better served as aunique city centre, popular, caravan park, bringing tourists and income to the city. it is even full inOctober. However if building is deemed necessary I would propose:1. Reduce the building height to a maximum of 4 storeys2. Retain as many of the mature trees on the site as possible, keeping the tree-lined frontage3. Change the plans to provide mixed dwelling with a variety of housing options and adequate on-site parking in a similar style to Baltic Wharf

The revised plans have not significantly addressed previous objections, therefore mycomments made before still stand on the grounds of:

1) Area at risk of flooding.2) Loss of a number of mature trees.3) Impact on air pollution4) Height of building5) Design not at all in keeping with the historic nature of the area

Dear Mr Calabrese,The revisions do not address the concerns listed within my previous objection. I am objectingpersonally and as a member of the Steering Committee of the citywide group, Keep Baltic Wharf inthe Harbourside: Halt All Plans.

Personally, I would like to propose that this rare piece of peaceful, healing and green space shouldbe low-impact social housing, for the most vulnerable on the housing list. Only if it is proven safefrom predicted flooding, by proper defence systems, and from the coming heat waves.

Baltic Wharf could then be designed beautifully around the existing trees, creating something ofwhich Bristol can be proud. Of course, its children's play areas, schools, GP surgeries and foodshopping would all have to be part of the overall Cumberland Basin/Western Harbour Area plan.Which it is not. Baltic Wharf has been arbitrarily and cleverly removed from that official map, inorder to create a precedent for yet more high rise and dangerous developments.

As this Harbourside Hoax now stands, I would ask any paid promoter, planning officer or electedofficial, who supports this application one question: Would you really like to have this dangerousoverbearing and high density as part of your legacy for our future generations? Could you puthand on heart and tell your grandchildren that you are still proud to back this? If not, then I ask youto be part of the solution, and not of the problem. Halt all planning applications and insist onlooking at the whole Harbourside area in a holistic way, with integrity, and not with the profitmotive.

Specific objections from our group:

1. The application violates all number local or national planning policies.

2. If promoted, it will put the Council in danger of procedural impropriety, and possibly fined.

3. There's in increasing risk of a tsunami tidal surge in the world's second most powerful area, aswell from flash floods. This is confirmed by the Environment Agency(EA)-and ignored bydevelopers, who lack even a Risk Assessment after the EA increased the flood risk to level 3."Adapt or Die," was their headline recently. So die it will be if official warnings are deliberatelyignored.

4. This is without doubt a green space, with 101 trees, 124 metres long of hedgerow cover andwildlife. Yet officials suddenly claim it is "brownfield," when it defies every national officialdescription of that category, the NPPR, as well as sheer common sense. Promoters lie, and claimtheir right to a planning application by insisting that "there was a previous planning application."Where is it then? The caravan site was only ever a timber yard with no buildings or hardstandingwhatsoever. The timber here came from the Baltics, and the other timber yard was appropriatelynamed Canada Wharf, for its North American timber for shipbuilding.

5. Arbitrarily removing Baltic Wharf from its natural home within the Western Harbour Area Projectthus denies any democratic, two-year consultation by the citizens of this city. Even wastingcouncillors' valuable time and railroading this application is a deliberate attack on local democracy.Halt ALL plans and consult honourably.

I have been told by reputable sources that one of the reasons for doubling the population of thissmall area is because the Council is lacking sufficient funds to maintain the Harbourside, given theneglect and buck-passing of previous administrations. And that Chinese/Malaysian investmentcould solve that problem. At what cost? Developers admit that there are no new Avon flooddefences. So if Harbourside infrastructure is really so precarious, then why not be honest with thepublic? Admit that £____million is necessary. But do not attempt to fob off dangerous housing inthe name of an increased housing need. Which is destined mainly for immigrating Londoners, inany case. Ask for help, raise money for our Harbourside heritage, from real friends of Bristol, notthe circling billionaire vultures, preying on our weakness.

Ends

PS Contrary to the Sequential Test produced by Barton Willmore dated April 2021, the applicationsite is not allocated for housing within the existing Local Plan or the emerging draft Local Plan.Furthermore, the proposed development FAILS the Sequential Test because Bristol City Councilhave already announced their intention to sell the SS Great Britain Car Park and Portwall LaneCar Park to Goram Homes. These sites are within the search area, at lower risk of flooding, of

comparable size, able to accommodate the requirements of the proposed development, notsafeguarded for another use within the existing or emerging Local Plan, deliverable anddevelopable. Despite this, both have been conveniently omitted from Barton Willmore's list ofidentified sites.

I most strongly object to the felling of the trees.The existing campsite is both useful andattractive and brings visitors and money to Bristol. It a welcome alternative to more residentialdwellings on harbour side.Please leave it alone!

Community Involvement process is DefectiveThe Community Involvement exercise was futile and way below the standard one would havehoped for in what is in effect a FB application pushed hard by the Mayors Office. (But made as anF)Neighbour & stakeholder involvement was clearly only one in six of the "main influencers" on page6 so comfortably outweighed by the other five ! (eg Development team, Goram and Hill , et al )before going through the motions of lecturing people about the proposal on zoom in October 2020.

Specifically, neighbours for my address and Post Code which does overlook the site, will hear itbeing built regardless and suffer any traffic diversions across the New Cut river ; my whole terraceof BS3 homes that see the site directly at around 130m in six months of the year, was left out ofleafletting described in the SCI and left out of the neighbour notification process by BCC planning /Management as well.

Getting involved in the October zooms it was clear the team were presenting North views and hadnothing realistic available from the South side of the river in spite of pre-ap complaints about thisearlier.I asked specifically in an earlier meeting that a realistic South view across the new cut be putforward to the upcoming BS3 Planning zoom meeting .Come the BS3 Planning Day the usual views from Poole's Wharf to the North were presented andthe Goram Homes rep didn't appear to know where BS3 was when asked , i.e. South neighbours ,into which community the development residents will presumably seek school places and otherresources such as park-sized green-space.The SCI states A newsletter (page 5) was issued to "nearly 3,000 homes in the area marked

below" on page 7, an area which includes parts of BS3. I've door stepped relevant bits of BS3 andyet to find anyone who was leafleted. It's just a token aspiration by the applicants.

-The building is far too high compared to nearby properties.-The building scale is disproportionately large compared to other buildingsThere are no local provision for the number of children and adults living in such a largedevelopment (GP surgeries, schools, shops).- The need to travel in and out if the area, to access work, schools shops etc will increase trafficcongestion and pollution.- There is inadequate parking provision and will bring more traffic into an area the councilattempting to reduce air pollution.- The planting plans do not replace existing trees adequately (negative impact on co2 absorption)- There will be a reduction in biodiversity.

I still object strongly to the 'revised' application.

The very small alterations that have been made to the application are simply token and the samenegative impact of thedevelopment on the skyline, character, and historical nature of the harbour and Underfall Yardremains. The previous objection made with regards to huge sizing, overshadowing, loss of privacy,loss of light to neighbouring properties, loss of trees - still exist and have not been addressed.

In addition, the development will lead to increased traffic, increased pollution and parking issues.Reduced car parking spaces will not stop people having cars. It will createparking issues in the surrounding area.

As a frequent visitor to the harbour, this development will significantly degrade the quality of life ofeveryone around it. It will change forever the quiet, relaxed feel of this end of the Floating Harbourwhich is so important for peoples' mental and physical well being and which is a attraction of thearea.

This area is used for outdoor water sports, walking and relaxing. There has been no properassessment of the impact on water sports in the area, but the developers position seems to be togloss this over and that the water sports will simply have to adapt to any adverse impact. This areashould be set aside for further water sports for the harbour area as it is unique opportunity withinBristol for this type of activity.

The caravan site is also unique in a city and is an asset to Bristol. The applicant has not submitteda marketing report to demonstrate that there is no ongoing demand for the current use, and in anycase, there is.

As this site comes within a Conservation area, I do not understand how such a design can beapproved, especially sincethe application site is not allocated for housing within the existing Local Plan or the emerging draftLocal Plan.

So many objections have been submitted to the city council with regard to this application and onlya few in support, sowhere is the evidence from the applicant to support their claim that "Feedback has been largelysupportive of the principle, the open space, ecology and climate change aspects.",contained within the Statement of Community Involvement dated December 2020.

Furthermore, the proposed development FAILS the Sequential Test -the SS Great Britain Car Parkand Portwall LaneCar Park have both have been conveniently omitted from Barton Willmore's list of identified sites.

I hope that this application will be refused.

I have taken the time to look at the additional documents that have been added to thisplanning application. My impression is that very little has changed and the changes that have beenmade are only minor. I therefore strongly object to the application 21/01331/F for the reasonsstated 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, these three dimensionalimages revealed that as a result of the proposed development my property and garden will be castin shadow from early afternoon 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 BCC

planning 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 obvious to methat the existing Rownham Mead and Baltic Wharf developments accord with these policies andthe proposed new development does not! The proposed new building is much too high, in factalmost twice the height of the existing buildings, and totally out of character, context and designsympathy with the other buildings in the area. Despite numerous objections to the height, scaleand massing the developers have done nothing to address these issues.

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 because it is a valuable asset to the area. If the site has to be built on it shouldbe in sympathy with the Underfall Yard in terms of height and building materials. If this were thecase I feel there would be much less opposition from local residents. To plough ahead and ignorelocal 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. It appears from the newly submitted documents that the developers nowintend to fell even more trees, 82 of them in fact.

PARKING & HIGHWAYS

The car parking provision proposed for the new development is obviously insufficient and has infact been reduced since the original submission. Only 74 spaces for 166 properties is nowherenear enough. I imagine that most inhabitants of the development will have cars. I imagine thatmost will have visitors with cars. If so, where are they going to park? Or will it be a condition ofresidence that inhabitants have no cars and no visitors with cars? Car parking in the surroundingarea is already very difficult and overstretched, that's why Bristol City Council introduced aresidents parking scheme. How can you possibly justify a development with woefully inadequateparking facilities in an area you know full well is extremely overstretched for parking already. If this

goes ahead it will cause parking overspill and friction in adjoining Southville, Hotwells and theexisting 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 areaboth 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. It is much too high. The impact onneighbours, the general public, harbour users, and the environment is totally unacceptable. Thisproposal is not sustainable development as it is harmful to the conservation area, the naturalenvironment, residential amenity and particularly the fellage of 82 mature trees.

The harbour is an attractive area and valuable asset which should be preserved,cherished andretained for the benefit of all, not spoiled 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.Please reject this application, it is so totally unsuitable in so many regards.

Culturally, historically, environmentally not the right idea. Why not be that quirky Bristolwhich has a campsite in its city centre, it's not all about money. On the opposite side of the riverwe have the youth water sports and at the top the rowing and water sports by the cottage. It allblends in beautifully as a leisure area which supports all the local businesses. Now with Lloydsgoing too all the more reason to maintain what we have.

I object to this development based upon grounds of destruction of green space, lack ofsustainability, non-compliance with local and national policy, damage to the environment and thethreat to the lives of citizens of Bristol

This is not a brownfield site

Developers like to describe sites as being "brownfield" and this is particularly the case since theRichard Eddy motion on protecting green spaces was approved at Full Council. Baltic wharf hasbeen described arbitrarily and without reason, a "brownfield" site. It is not as it does not complywith the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) definition:

- Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure.... and any associated fixed surfaceinfrastructure.

As much of the site is maintained as a garden (manicured lawns, trimmed hedges and maintainedtrees) it is further excluded from the definition:

- This excludes land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds andallotments...

Crucially, it is not on the councils register of Brownfield sites, which, by law (Regulation 3 of theTown and Country Planning (Brownfield Land Register) Regulations 2017), needs to bemaintained up to date by the Council.

Furthermore, the act states:

- Where it is unclear whether the whole site is previously developed land, only the brownfield partof the site should be included.

With 102 trees and nearly 40% tree cover, this is the last substantial tree covered green space onthe harbourside, an area with one of the lowest percentage tree-cover in Bristol (7% vs18.6%[Bristol] vs 25% [Clifton]).

The development is in an Environment Agency severe floodrisk area

The Environment Agency (EA) strongly objected to this development based on half of the sitebeing in Flood Zone 3 and half in Flood Zone 2. The NPPF requires "safe access and escaperoutes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan". This application hassaid that that "it is not possible to currently demonstrate a safe/dry access route to and from thesite in the design flood events" and therefore the EA judge the proposal "fails to meet NPPFrequirements".The latest Flood Map for Planning increases the risk of the whole site to Flood zone 3, thereforemagnifying the risk recognised by the EA.

There is no up-to-date Flood Risk Assessment submitted by the developers. Bearing in mind theflood risk for the site has been raised since the previous Flood Risk Assessment, the latter is nowobsolete, and the lack of a current assessment should disqualify this application.

Bearing in mind the increasing risk of flooding, and the recent devastating floods in Germanywhere thousands have died or are missing, it is not right that developments such as these shouldrisk the lives of the citizens of Bristol.

There will be a loss trees and no available replacement sites

There will be a loss of 82 healthy mature trees. There will be some planting on site, but there is noguarantee of their survival long-term, they are generally smaller species trees than those theyreplace, and they will not achieve maturity for decades.

The applicant states that 162 trees will be planted off-site as replacements for those lost on site.However, there are no available replacement tree planting sites on the harbourside, and as S106trees must be planted within one mile and in the same area committee, there are in fact zero treereplacement sites of any sort. Any replacement trees will need to be in new sites, with a total costof £535,000.

This fact is recognised in the Bristol Central Area Plan (BCAP) which states "opportunities for

additional major green assets are limited .... Important to integrate green infrastructure within newdevelopments".

The development is not compliant with Bristol core strategy(BCS), development management (DM) or Bristol CentralArea Plan (BCAP) policies.

The development is contrary to BCS9 ("retain green infrastructure wherever possible") and DM17("need to integrate existing trees"). It is also not compliant with the BCAP which states that it is"not expected to be an area of major change", and any development is "expected to be of a scaleand design appropriate to the setting", and because "opportunities for additional major greenassets are limited .... Important to integrate green infrastructure within new developments".It is also contrary to the declared Climate and Ecological Emergencies, to the One City Plan goalof doubling tree canopy in Bristol by 2046, and to the Council's Ecological Emergency Action Plan("embed nature into all decisions").

The development is not "liveable" or sustainable

The proposal does not comply with the Urban Living Supplementary Planning Document (Growthand Regeneration) which requires, for this development (of 70 one-bed, 82 two-bed and 14 3-bed)on-site outdoor space of 1036m2 and Child Play Space of 340m2.

It does not comply with the SPD on off-site children's play areas, which require for under 5yrsplay-area to be within 100m and for over 5yrs within 400m. There are no play areas even close tothese distances.

Other services - The nearest GPs surgery is 3.3 miles away by car, there are no primary schoolson Spike Island, and the nearest is 2.1 miles away by car. The nearest supermarket is 1.5 milesaway. The lack of nearby services is discriminatory against those with limited mobility.

With the loss of trees in this area, habitation is projected to become very uncomfortable or evenlife threatening. Dangerous heat waves, such as the one in 2003 which killed 70,000 peopleacross Europe (WHO), mostly elderly and vulnerable city dwellers (Lancet), will occur every otheryear by 2050 (Met Office), putting 12 million UK citizens at risk (Climate Coalition). Without trees,the heat island effect can raise temperatures in city centres a further 12C above ambient.

The concept that a compact "walkable" city centre with few trees is sustainable is fatally flawed. Itis also out of date, as working from home and online shopping has created a trend towardssustainable decentralised living. This development is part of a dangerous experiment with our city.

I strongly object to this planning application. The harbour, particularly the Underfall yardarea, is a great asset to Bristol's tourist trade and for Bristol residents' recreational use of the area.What other city in the UK has a camp site right in the heart of its city? This is so special. As far as Iknow the camp site has not caused any problems for the police or local residents and no reports ofantisocial behaviour. It is an asset. Its presence adds to the quality of the area. A large scalebuilding, as proposed, does not. I would be in agreement with the plans if I thought for one minuteit would help all the people who have no suitable housing, but we all know this is not the case.I object to the plan because of huge increase of traffic on a small road.I object to the lack of sufficient parking facilities for the number of proposed residents and extraspaces for visiting family and friends.

Objection to 21/01331/F | Erection of residential dwellings (166), commercial floorspace,integrated car and bicycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping and associated infrastructure andservices. | Caravan Club Cumberland Road Bristol BS1 6XG by Stephen Wickham , 201Coronation Road, BS3 1RQ.

Please Note This is core text-only of a visual objection I will be emailing to Planning dept.

Re Failure to develop City Docks Conservation Area views from P28 Formal viewpoint onCoronation Road (Upper) and P29 Formal viewpoint on Coronation Road (Lower).There is a clear threat to historic Cross-Bristol views South to North , which has been pointed outat Pre-Ap and the applicants have simply ignored the issue and its harms throughout. Thedevelopment proposal is too high for its location.

Repeated requests for real south views TVIA across the New Cut from identified CDCA panoramapoints have fallen on deaf ears before and after the application was lodged , and there is nonesuch in the latest revised drawing issue either in spite of taking the team to task on zoom at theirbriefing on "improvements".

Architects elevation Views through the site on architectural drawings have tended to show bluesky and seagulls down to ground level where there should be a mass of Clifton-wood and Cliftonescarpment beyond. This suggests the model they have developed is confined to the chocolatepath on North bank of the new cut (South boundary) and the Pooles wharf cycle route North of theharbour. (North boundary). Yet the architects and everyone else knows this Clifton topographybeyond is the selling point of the more valuable flats in the development ! Not a "Sea-or Ocean

view" !

This is in spite of the views company TEP , Townscape and Visual assessment, volume 1, 5.45Image one and two, visiting a "Receptor 3"; including winter photographs on Coronation Road thatproved the site proposal was publicly visible from the pavements of Coronation Road south side inBedminster CA, AND venturing down the steps to P29 CDCA. No doubt they go on to dismiss thisin text, as such studies do when the applicant is paying, but it could and should have developed aswhat are called photomontage in the March application. There was no obstacle to taking thephotographs in Winter.

Keeping this VERY simpleThe lampposts on Cumberland Road on the site boundary break the skyline substantially(application docs)The lampposts are 12m tall according to Pinpoints.The buildings are up to 22m tall and will breach the skyline with joined up massThe Proposal will wreck the Coronation Road Views to the Clifton Escarpment for ordinary peopleusing the street or its panorama points.

In addition One of Bristol's most pleasing dynamic views is the flicker-assembly of landmarks onthe Clifton Escarpment whilst on the move as a vehicle passenger or cyclist in winter onCoronation Road.

Set in the Panoramic Views list of CDCA 6.2.5 , P28 Formal viewpoint on Coronation Road(Upper) and P29 Formal viewpoint on Coronation Road (Lower). are sited on the riverbank in thissection of Coronation Road and are prime receptors of the development, and are harmed by it.

I participated in the CDCA review of 2010 so am aware of the various panorama and glimpse viewlocations incorporated, I was also consulted in the creation of the viewing points P28 and P29 in1991 as a Bedminster Planning initiative by the city council officers of the day , piggybacking uponthe repairs to the new-cut riverbank following an arterial water main burst in Coronation Road in1989. And between times I've tidied the area up annually with Friends of Avon New Cut. Thus Iresent the City ignoring these outlooks in its own planning application for the caravan park. Therewas good reason for their creation for tourists (including caravan park visitors) and citizens onwalks around the docks.

The Photomontage #1 does not cover these points . It is a view West not North from VauxhallBridge , and it is a view from 4m above Cumberland road with a datum of around 15m OD underthe camera tripod, Not from street level on Coronation road . At best it seeks to make a silk purseout of the sows ear of the initial March 2021 application drawings. And to distract attention fromthe real south views northwards, which will be lost to the whole city.

I understand a large number of trees are to be felled. Are the equivalent number of treesto be replanted? How can this be a carbon neutral development? I am late to support theenvironmentalists opposing this development but would hope to understand more fully before thisdecision is taken.

Please do not destroy this lovely campsite, there are now so many flats and housesaround the docks area we need more green spaces not less. If you want to sell Bristol as a greenenvironmentally good city you are going about it in a strange way. The site is also great fortourists. We must have many redundant office buildings which could be developed for housing -this is the only campsite!

Whilst I accept there is a pressing need for housing in the city I cannot support thisapplication as the site has a value to both local people and visitors that cannot be replaced.The value of the presence of a green space in the city cannot be estimated. Not only is it isproviding desperately needed habitat for creatures including rapidly declining insects it is also acarbon sink and the mature trees on the site add much to the local ecology.The application will provide housing but at what cost to our precious and fast disappearing greenspaces? Please rethink this application.

What on earth has this proposed application got to do with this areaOut of keepingOver development of the siteCompletely out of character

The revised plans don't address any of the previous concerns raised regarding theapplication. How is the caravan site considered a brownfield site with loss of more than 100mature trees ? The central government has mentioned that no new development should beapproved in flood prone area and this has been completely ignored even when the environmentagency has rejected the plans.

I strongly object to the revised plans as well

New buildings will spoil harbourside natural beuty. It will increase noise and air pollution.Not sure how much it is flood proof as well.

Carvan site keeping nature alive in this area.

I object to the size of this building on Spike Island. It is not in keeping with the otherbuildings in that area. When Pooles Wharf Court was originally built, it had to commit to the heightof the buildings around it so that they were not dominating the skyline. This building needs to bebuilt the same height as Baltic Wharf. The Cumberland Road cannot take all the traffic generatedfrom such a tall building. Why spend all that money on the metro bus from Ashton Court just to besat in a queue of traffic along the Cumberland Road? Too many residents with cars in a smallspace. No parking. Too many CO2 emissions. Overcrowding. Blocks of flats are too high. Loss oftoo many trees in an age when we are concerned about global warming.

Too big too tall. Completely object too destroying Riverside Garden Centre.

The tannery not so much.

I still object strongly to the application. Nothing has changed.

I object to the huge overbearing sizing of the development, overshadowing, loss of privacy, loss oflight to neighbouring properties, loss of light and sun along the harbour, loss of trees and the totalnegative impact the development will have on the character and historical nature of the harbour.Who is gaining from this - not the people of Bristol.

The development will still lead to increased traffic, an increase of cars, delivery vehicles, amenityvehicles, maintenance vehicles, visitors, leading to congestion, pollution and parking issues.Reduced car parking spaces will simply create parking issues in the surrounding area. Bristol isalready a heavily polluted city.

The development will totally change the quiet, relaxed feel of this end of the Floating Harbourwhich is so important for peoples' mental and physical well being and which is a attraction of thearea. It will be destroyed.

This area is used for outdoor water sports, walking and relaxing. There has been no properassessment of the impact on water sports in the area, but the developers position seems to be togloss this over and that the water sports will simply have to adapt to any adverse impact. This areashould be set aside for further water sports for the harbour area as it is unique opportunity withinBristol for this type of activity.

The caravan site is also unique in a city and is an asset to Bristol. The applicant has not submitted

a marketing report to demonstrate that there is no ongoing demand for the current use. Where isthat report?

The application site is not allocated for housing within the existing Local Plan or the emerging draftLocal Plan.

The development is not at all suitable for the area, as the number of objections clearly show.

This application should be refused.

This is publicly owned land which should be used for the benefit of the public - too muchpublic space has been privatised.

There is little green space around the harbour and already a great deal of housing.

The plans are for buildings too high within their surroundings, presumably to maximise profits forthe developerSo they will present an out of proportion eyesore, especially as the design is simplistic, unoriginaland ugly.

There is little benefit for low cost affordable housing.

There will be yet more private cars in a constrained space (Spike Island) with poor connections tothe rest of the city increasing air pollution and noise.

Killing mature trees is a destructive and short-sighted action not worthy of a European GreenCapital

There is a risk of flooding

The caravan site brings visitors and their spending power into the city - so another amenity will belost

It will add further to the harbour becoming a canyon lined with poorly designed flats, higher than

the earlier commitments to limit the height of buildings around the water

Two Vauxhall Bridge viewpoints look west,30 years and 50m apart. Centre of pictureis Panorama point P29 in CDCA whichlooks North to Clifton. 100m from site.

The proposal seen from North Vauxhall Br.High vantage point minimises height atCaravan Park.

Riverwall repair andnew public access 1991before landscaping seenfrom South VauxhallBridge

P29 is a lower public access (c 8m OD) With an open view to Clifton and Leigh Woods . It was devisedby the planning department at BCC as the first of a series of joined up river access points but remainsunique. P28 is similar at top of steps but at 13m OD has better view of Clifton Escarpment andsuspension bridge.

IPhone extremepanorama

IPhone view to Clifton andCumberland road repairs May 2021.One of three Merchant VenturersBollards in foreground

SITE

SITE P28

P29

SITE

P29P28

As No work has been insisted uponfrom this angle in CDCA we don'tknow what the proposal looks likein context .

It is probably Taller than this !

View North West to LeighWoods October 2021Formal CA Viewpoint

Nothing has been doneto see what the effectof the development ison this type of publicSouth to North view toClifton from BS3Bedminster &Southville.

It Could easily beas bad as this,but we wontknow as thingsstand !

My objections are on the grounds of size, overshadowing, loss of privacy, loss of light. Iown an adjacent property and there is nothing of this character at this end of the harbourside.

This development will significantly degrade the quality of life of everyone around it and set adangerous precedent for future developments in the harbourside.

The resubmitted proposals do not seem to have addressed the major concerns of theobjections originally raised. Only minor alterations to the height of some of the blocks do notchange the the radical impact this development will have on the skyline, and character, of this endof the harbour. There will still be inevitable traffic and parking issues. Overall, it seems very oddthat this plan should proceed before the development plan for the Western Harbour has beenagreed as it is directly linked with it.

Bristol Civic Society has considered the latest proposals. The Society does not considerthat the changes proposed lead to any amendments in the objections submitted on 14 May.

All my previous objections remain as nothing has changed.

This site is greenfield and there is no justification for Bristol City Council to designate it asbrownfield. That is misleading at best. Recent Government policy is that greenfield sites are not tobe used for development and this plan goes against government policy.The felling of 80 mature trees is unacceptable at a time of climate change and highlights thehypocrisy of declaring a climate emergency on the council website. The statement that thedevelopment will increase biodiversity is beyond comprehension when no sites have beendesignated to replant most of the trees and the developer shows no urgency in doing so, andoffers no guarantees that sites will be found. In any case, they will take 40 years to be effective.The developer is unable to say at what point diversity will be increased - 40 years? 100 years?BCC has a very poor retention record for trees as a high percentage are allowed to die.The harbourside is already crowded, particularly at weekends with people now queuing to accessbridges and pinch points. This is before at least another 600 units come on stream within yards ofthe development. There are already accidents on Prince Street bridge where pedestrians, cyclists,scooters, skateboarders and dogwalkers compete for space.The proposal of siting an art gallery in the small commercial space (one part of one building) istotally unnecessary when there is an artists studio nearby which holds open days, and the M Shedand Arnolfini are within walking distance.This ugly, high-rise monstrosity which dwarfs surrounding historic buildings and the scheme ingeneral illustrates the fact that the architect is not local, does not know the area or have anyappreciation of the unique nature and ambience of the harbourside which all Bristolians come toenjoy.

I strongly object to this proposal.

We are currently in a climate emergency , this has even been called by BCC. To meetour Paris Agreement requires the National response must surely require trees to be retained.This is not a brown field site but a green space with 74 trees, all helping to mitigate climate changeand providing wildlife habitat in the city.We must not slow more development to ear up our natural resources at these important greensites.I therefore object to the proposed destruction ( development ) .

Whilst I'm happy to see this site developed for mixed use I'd like to see a lot of socialhousing and the trees on the site preserved

The slight revisions to the plans do nothing to address the main issues of scale andmassing on this site. The blocks essentially have too many storeys and do not sit well adjacent toeither Baltic Wharf or the historic buildings at this end of the harbour.

Any commercial space will change forever the quiet, relaxed feel of this end of the FloatingHarbour which is so important for peoples' mental and physical well being. This area is used foroutdoor water sports, walking and relaxing - it is not Gaol Ferry Steps.

Car parking spaces have been removed however, even though it is envisaged that the residentscan travel to work by other means, daily car usage does does necessarily relate to car ownershipso where are all these additional vehicles going to park?

The removal of mature trees would be another bad outcome.

All in all please could attention be paid to the comments that have been made throughout thisprocess.

Since the wealth of objections to the previous proposal there appears to have been verylittle change to the proposals.

The height issue still remains, with the buildings being totally out of keeping with both the heritagearea and the surrounding three story buildings.

While attention has been paid to providing the new residents with adequate light, by addingwindows, the concerns of the existing residents whose properties will be completely overshadowed have been ignored as immaterial.

Lip service has been paid to the retention of mature trees with 82 mature trees being removed andbeing replaced apparently by saplings in other areas. Harbourside already has the lowest densityof trees in the city.

Car parking has actually been further reduced to 74 spaces for 166 dwellings. Regardless of theaspirations, this is simply not realistic for the proposed occupancy of the buildings and will createparking issues in the surrounding area where we know strict enforcement is lacking

The wind surveys appear to have shown that there will indeed be an impact on water sports in thearea, but the developer position seems to be to gloss this over and that the water sports will simplyhave to adapt to any adverse impact.

I am also less than convinced that the flood measures being out in place to protect these newbuildings will not simply redirect any flooding to neighbouring properties.

Finally, I attended the residents "consultation" on Monday, of which we were advised at extremelylate notice, and found those presenting to be resistant to all feedback from residents, simplystating that we need more housing, that this is a logical place to build it - being a brownfield site(which is open to contention) and inner city (which is also open to contention) and giving theoverall impression that regardless of perfectly valid objections to the size and scale of thedevelopment, that it will be going ahead regardless. The style of presentation was "you told usthese were your objections" and "this is why we will not be addressing them".

It seems to me that the majority of people in the area, while regretting the loss of the caravan site,would support building plans that were in keeping with (and did not spoil) the area, and indeedwith BCC's own strategy, but those being submitted currently are wholly inappropriate and thedevelopers are not interested in listening as the bottom line is profit.

I object to cutting down 70 trees.

I have objected to the application on 3 issues that could easily be remedied,unfortunately money is the big factor on all 3. I am not against the project in it's entirety, just a fewareas of concern.The issues are the height of the buildings, one floor lower would make a huge difference to thelook and fit in with the existing landscape, and would get much more support, of course this wouldmean less profit for the builders.Parking, supplying one parking space for less than half of the properties and none for the rest isbased purely on profit of course, supplying a sensible amount of parking will mean less profit but isneeded. The thinking that by reducing spaces will stop people having cars is probably flawed. Thechances are that we will see parking mayhem in the local area as I have no doubt that there will befar more car owners than spaces by some margin.Bristol, supposedly claiming to be a green city should really be looking at saving many more of theestablished trees on site, of course leaving the trees in place means less profit.I would much rather the site was left as it is but I guess being realistic we need to accept that sucha project was going to happen at some time, just listen to the publics views and make a bit lessprofit and there will be much more support for the project.

The development remains far to tall for the site as is clearly shown by thePhotomantages. It will destroy the character of the area particularly The Underfall Yard "The Heartof Bristol City Harbour".I also confirm with others that there are no community facilities or doctors surgery on the Islandand this has not been addressed by the developers

I do not object in principle to the Council's use of this site to provide much-neededsocial housing (although a larger proportion would be preferable). I am worried about the flood riskwhich seems to have been underestimated and which has created problems with the design,including the unfortunate removal of valuable mature tree cover and the looming height and massof the buildings.

I strongly object to the density of the scheme and in particular to the height of the designedbuildings which will dwarf all the surrounding area - the Cottage pub, the Underfall Yard, thesailing Club and the Baltic Wharf estate (where I have lived for nearly 20 years). As this sitecomes within a Conservation area, I do not understand how such a design can be approved.Given the new ongoing consultation about the " Western Harbour" changes, it would make senseto go back to the drawing board on this scheme as well - and do some joined-up thinking for once.

I am responding as a nearby resident of Bristol. This proposed plan represents anappalling loss of established trees in city area with irredeemable damage to climate andenvironment and air quality at a time when experts internationally recognise that we are Red Alertfor climate impact. We can surely come up with more creative solutions that don't entail any loss oftrees.I thought Bristol City Council had declared a Climate Emergency but I struggle to see where thismanifests itself in reality.

My objections are as follows:(1) Loss of the only part of the Harbourside that has extensive mature tree cover. Only a smallnumber of these will be left standing after the development. It is inadequate to replace these withsaplings (many off site), which even if they are properly looked after will take decades to replacethe loss of mature trees.(2) The above contravenes the BCAP which stresses the importance of preserving the few greenspaces in the area, as well as contravening BCS9, DM17, the One City Plan Goal for trees, andthe Ecological Emergency Action Plan.(3) The Baltic Wharf development needs to be considered in conjunction with the wider WesternHarbour development plan consultation - whose remit it was under originally before being removedfrom it.(4) The characterisation of the site as "brownfield" is at best a technicality and would be judged amischaracterisation by any witness to the site.(5) The proposed building will dominate the area (at least three storeys higher than anything elsearound) and cause damage to the historic character of the Harbourside, an area that attracts manyvisitors and tourists.(6) The development claims to provide some "affordable" housing, but this will be out of reach ofanybody on the Council's social housing waiting list.(7) It puts further strain on the infrastructure of Spike Island (e.g. lack of GPs, dentists, schools,etc) while not containing anything to mitigate it.I am categorically NOT a NIMBY - as a resident of the area, I get no use out of the current caravanpark. If a development were proposed that retains the trees, offers real council housing, and is inkeeping with the character of the area, I would be very much behind it. In other words, copying theexample of the current Baltic Wharf development which I am very happy to be a resident of.

These revised plans go no way to address concerns raised.I still stick by my original objections, the loss of light and privacy to the residents of Baltic Wharf.The overbearing height of the buildings, that will tower above surrounding properties.The loss of the mature trees and hedgerow.This development is completely out of character with this area.The area is used primarily for water activities which serves the whole community of Bristol.Do not build on this greenfield site, and leave the caravan site and this unique area of Bristolalone!!! COMPLETELY OBJECT.

I object on the grounds of size, overshadowing, loss of privacy, loss of light andincreased traffic and city air pollution.

Despite a lot of objections, comments and concerns, there has been no substantialchanges to the proposals.

The proposed height of the development will still dwarf neighboring properties, considerablyreduce the amount of daylight they receive and a lot of mature trees will be removed. These areonly a small number of the previously stated objections ignored by the developers. Moreover, notincluding the Baltic Wharf development with the Western Harbour consultation doesn't make anysense.

It is sad and disappointing to see that rather than positively engaging with the communities tocome to a compromise, the developers are pressing on with the plan delivering most profits.

I object to the loss of light and potential pollution but also to the fact that this campsite isreally unique and an asset to the city and the harbourside and city would be better served bykeeping it in some capacity

I object on the grounds of size, overshadowing, loss of privacy, loss of light andincreased traffic and city air pollution.

I object on the grounds of size, overshadowing, loss of privacy, loss of light andincreased traffic and city air pollution.

I object on the grounds of size, overshadowing, loss of privacy, loss of light andincreased traffic and city air pollution.

I strongly object on the grounds of increased traffic and city air pollution.

The caravan site is real amenity for travellers to Bristol. They spend money in the city,support the local pubs and restaurants, and the site contributes to the open space in that area. It ispart of the landscape for the urban population of birds and other living things. The proposal seemsambitious in terms of the space available.We own a flat in the Hope Court development - exemplary as an example of relatively low densityand humane housing.Neither the design nor the concept of the proposed development are in any way exciting orinspiring. The area does not lack shops in nearby Southville, and coffee shops are plentiful alongthe dock, so there is no demonstrable need for any more of those.The caravan club site is at least on a human scale and provides a real service to low budgettourers who might not otherwise visit Bristol at all.Maybe the council can buy the site and run it themselves, along the lines of myriad Frenchcampsites.

I have many reasons to object including the loss of trees, and that as far as I can seethere are no available spaces for replacement tree planting nearby. Also, it's contrary to planningpolicies and the Central Area Plan, and the aim to double the tree canopy by 2046, and theEcological Emergency Action Plan. BCC have declared not to build on Greenfield sites and arefalsely calling this Brownfield which it is not. The risk of flooding has increased to Level 3 ( thehighest risk you can get, severe) in this area, and therefore risk to life. So the developers shouldbe putting in an updated new flood risk assessment but they haven't done so ( the old one is nowobsolete). They have removed Baltic Wharf from the Harbourside public consultation therefore anydevelopment in BW will undermine the outcome of the rest of harbourside."

I object on the grounds of losing so many trees, increased traffic and city air pollution.

I object to this planning application which is falsely described as being on a brownfieldsite. BCC have declared not to build on Greenfield sites, which the Caravan Club really is, inessence. This build will incur the loss of dozens of mature city-centre trees, with no availablespaces for equivalent replacement tree planting nearby - contrary to planning policies and theCentral Area Plan, and the aim to double the tree canopy by 2046, and the Ecological EmergencyAction Plan. The flood risk in this area has been increased to Level 3, and therefore poses a riskto life, the planning application has failed to update the flood risk assessment accordingly. BalticWharf has been surreptitiously removed from the Harbourside public consultation andconsequently any development in BW will undermine the outcome of this consultation. Bristolurgently needs more social and affordable housing, and the people who need to be provided withthis accommodation also need to be kept safe with regards to flooding, air quality, good mentalhealth and the multitudinous dangerous potentialities of the climate and ecological emergency.New developments must prioritise truly affordable and social housing without compromisingBristol's existing ecology - for the benefit of us all. There are many examples of sustainable(environmentally and financially) social housing projects in the UK and abroad that Bristol couldlearn from. We are at the point of no return, where developers must no longer be allowed to profitat the expense of the health and well-being of people living in and around the area ofdevelopment.

A development of this value should be able to build around existing nature trees and notloose them. I'm also concerned with the amount of affordable housing in this development itshould be a much higher percentage. The design is not consistent with the character of the areaas well. Bristol has declared an ecological emergency so we should be taking biodiversity intoconsideration in every application.

Concerned that I will be overlooked and block the view from my house. Also the extratraffic on what is already a busy route.

It's the next to an important heritage site. There should be public amenities for all in thislast remaining part of the docks to be developed. .

The proposed development is far too big and unsightly. It does not fit in with itssurroundings but overpowers them. It's an ugly oversized intrusion into an attractive area andwould be a disaster if allowed to go ahead. What's needed is something smaller and shorter andnot so dense. Please keep some important green space rather than have so much developmentcrammed in. I'm truly horrified by these proposals

This development is out of keeping and out of character with the surrounding buildings.It is adjacent to lower level buildings, Baltic Wharf, The Cottage Inn and the Underfall Yard and theremoval of established trees with further expose this development.

This is not an opportunity for another Wapping Wharf-style development as that was in an areathat it could be acceptable and if it wasn't for it being a Council-owned developer, I'm sure thisplanning application would have never seen the light of day!

FULL OBJECTION

the caravan site is an important resource for Bristol that encourages tourism/visitors andtheir money that then supports city centre/harbourside businesses

I feel that this development is wrong for the area. 6 storey buildings are too high and thedensity of housing too much. The population of Spike Island has mushroomed, yet facilities arelacking. Our only bus service is the Metrobus and this doesn't run in the evenings or on Sundays,there is no convenient doctors surgery or school. Also the area has a high flood risk.

It is a complete travesty that the Baltic Wharf area is going to become the same sterileenvironment the area opposite, from @Bristol plaza down to the harbourside. Built for localresidents?? Really?? Why not look up on a warm sunny day, on a weekend and see how manybalconies are empty, doors and windows shut. Support for local shops? Really?? How long did Mand S @harbourside last?? When the bars and restaurants are closed/quiet, the area is devoid ofatmosphere. So will Baltic Wharf. The loss of the Caravan and Motorhome site ( look at itsbookings!! Fully booked up to and beyond Christmas!) Will a devastating loss to the local economyas a wonderful amenity which brings visitors to our city into the most stunning part of it.Caravanners (as we are) shop locally, spending money in local shops, bars and cafes/restaurants.It's this churn of visitors that makes Bristol thrive, not providing over expensive flats that most can'tafford. Look how sterile Manchester Quays is, waterside shadowed by tower blocks and very fewpeople. This will devastate this vibrant area and lose a very valuable, jewel in the crown caravansite.

I absolutely do not support the construction of a large residential development of thissite.

It will overshadow the area, dominating the skyline of what is currently a fairly low rise section ofthe harbour and be at odds with the historic nature of Underfall Yard.

The Caravan Site provides a great space for visitors to Bristol and it is a real asset to the city tohave a caravan site within a stones throw from the city centre, providing support for localbusinesses as visitors come to stay year round.

I strongly believe this will have an incredibly negative impact on the currently joyful experience ofwalking around the harbour, not least due to the years of building work.

In addition it seems foolhardy to plan additional building work on a floodplain and in an area that isalready shown to be at risk from structural issues.

They paved paradise and put up a parking lotWith a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swinging hot spotDon't it always seem to goThat you don't know what you got 'til it's goneThey paved paradise and put up a parking lotOh, bop, bop, bopOh, bop, bop, bopThey took all the trees, and put em in a tree museumAnd they charged the people a dollar and a half to see themNo, no, noDon't it always seem to goThat you don't know what you got 'til it's goneThey paved paradise, and put up a parking lotOh, bop, bop, bopOh, bop, bop, bopHey farmer, farmer, put away your DDTI don't care about spots on my applesLeave me the birds and the beesPleaseDon't it always seem to goThat you don't know what you got 'til it's goneThey paved paradise and put up a parking lotHey now, they paved paradise to put up a parking lotOh, bop, bop, bop

Why not?Oh, bop, bop, bopListen, late last night, I heard the screen door slamAnd a big yellow taxi took my girl awayDon't it always seem to goThat you don't know what you got 'til it's goneThey paved paradise and put up a parking lotHey now, now, don't it always seem to goThat you don't know what you got 'til it's goneThey paved paradise to put up a parking lotWhy not?They paved paradise and put up a parking lotHey, hey, heyPaved paradise and put up a parking lotOh, bop, bop, bopOh, bop, bop, bopI don't wanna give itWhy you wanna give itWhy you wanna giving it all awayHey, hey, heyNow you wanna give itI should wanna give it'Cause you're givin it all awayI don't wanna give itWhy you wanna give itWhy you wanna giving it all awayGivin, givin it allGivin it all awayWhy do you want me?Why do you want me?'Cause you're givin it all awayHey, paved paradise to put up a parking lot

A facility such as the caravan site still existing in the heart of the city is one of the thingsI love about Bristol. It wouldn't happen anywhere else but that's a reason to keep it rather thanbuild on it. The fact it's always fully booked shows there's demand for the facility and it helps retainsome peace and tranquility on that stretch of the harbourside. Bristol harbourside is very muchenhanced by that area not being built up as this planning application proposes.

The proposed development is too high, too dense and the proposed destruction of theexisting trees runs counter to the climate and environmental issues facing the city.

Destroying mature trees and replanting is completely disingenuous, young trees take a very longtime to reach the carbon absorption capacity of mature trees so this is destruction with no benefit.

The development also does not fit with the historic nature of the area or take into account currentbuilding height.

These flats will not address the housing issues facing the city, more unaffordable luxury flats builtfor investors does not provide homes for those struggling to rent or buy in the area.

Despite many comments objecting to the size and scale of the proposals, the revisedplans have done very little to address this. The proposed development would still tower over theexisting buildings at Baltic Wharf.

My property neighbours this development and I am very concerned about loss of light and privacy,from both inside my property and from the garden. This could have a detrimental impact on qualityof life for neighbouring residents, as well as the future value of our properties.

I remain STRONGLY of the opinion that any building should not be any higher than the currentbuildings at Baltic Wharf.

The proposed development is simply not in keeping with its surroundings and should it be built, itwill likely destroy the peaceful ambience of this end of the harbour, which is generally gearedtowards leisure and water-based sporting activities.

Furthermore, parking provision within the development remains wholly inadequate. This is likely tolead to further parking issues on Spike Island and the surrounding area.

I strongly object to the proposals.

The amended proposal does not reduce the negative impact the erection of 166residential dwellings, commercial floorspace, integrated car and bicycle parking, refuse storage,landscaping and associated infrastructure and services will have on the Spike Island environment.

It is in addition to the 147 residential homes, mixed commercial workspace and cafe being build atthe McArthur's Yard development

There is exploratory work on the development of the SS Great Britain Car Park for residential unitsin the near future.

These are all in an area at high risk of flooding. All of these development will be serviced byCumberland Road - which is in very poor condition - with a 40 meter section actually crumblinginto the Avon New Cut - luckily without any serious injuries or loss of life. This small area of roadrequired approx. 18 months to be repaired - with loss of contraflow traffic - which could be crucialin the event of a major emergency.

The current development is taken in isolation and the externalities introduced by this developmentdo not adequately reflect the impact of other con-currant developments in the same area whichare expected to use the same utilities and services.

A more detailed comprehensive assessment of of all the building projects proposed in the areasserviced by Cumberland Road and Coronation Rd and the impact of the increased number ofresidents - upwards of 500 in total need to reassessed along with the health and environmentalimpacts - these proposal are inadequate and the excessively optimistic in relation to any benefits

that the development might bring.

The proposed build at 6 storeys high is completely at odds with the buildingssurrounding and opposite the site (Rownham Mead houses at maximum 2-3 storeys high). Thelow rise look of this end of the harbour is in keeping with the historic Underfall Yard, which risksbeing compromised by a large residential scheme.The loss of trees would be hugely detrimental to the area and would leave it devoid of the charmappreciated by tourists who visit this end of the harbour.

It'll be a great pity to cut down so many of the trees in the caravan park, which not onlylook beautiful as one walks by, but also help to absorb pollutants coming from traffic on the variousbusy roads nearby. Traffic will increase on the Cumberland Road as the majority of the hundredsof new residents will likely have their own motor vehicle. The prospect of increased air pollutionand noise is unwelcome.

Very disappointed with the revised plans, no understanding of the impact this will haveon the location. It is out of character and ill thought out. I am sympathetic towards building morehomes but this plan is totally unsuitable for the surrounding area. Please think again and showsome responsibility the impact this building would have on the locality.Strong objection.

I feel strongly that things should be left as they are. The caravan and camping siteneeds to stay because it brings tourists into the area, and we do not need any more flats in thatarea. It makes the area sterile and would spoil the skyline. There isn't enough space for parkinganyway and it would cause extra traffic in the area.

I object to the felling of 82 healthy mature trees on the last substantial tree coveredgreen area on the harbourside in an area of very low tree cover. This goes against Bristol CoreStategy policy BCS9 ( retain green infrastructure wherever possible) and DevelopmentManagement Policy DM17 ( need to integrate existing trees ) and against Bristol City CouncilsEcological Emergency Action Plan ( embed nature into all decisions). It would be possible to retainthe trees and build around them, particularly as it is on Council owned land.There are no available spaces nearby for replacement tree planting. The future will see lifethreatening heatwaves ( one every 2 years by 2050) which these trees would help reduce theintensity of for local residents, the elderly and infirm being most vulnerable.The Council are falsely calling this site Brownfield, it is a green site according to the NationalPlanning Policy Framework definition. Therefore according to a recent Council decision not tobuild on Green sites this precious green space should be preserved.The Council has also removed Baltic Wharf from the Harbourside public consultation, anydevelopment pushed through here would undermine the wider area plans.The Environment Agency has recently upgraded the flood risk of Baltic Wharf to be the highest lifethreatening level 3, so the old flood risk assessment is now obsolete.

I'm really disillusioned that this proposal is being put forward. With such a historicalimportance, the docks has always had to find ways to build and adapt in light of housingdevelopments and its accepted that one side is now saturated with housing. It is such a shamethis is looking to continue with six storey towers overlooking the beautiful historical underfall yard.

This stretch of the docks is so loved for the seasonal changes with the tree lined walkways. Thecurrent site is beautifully tucked behind trees that enhance the serenity of the door and theseplans will destroy this.

I urge more time to be spent considering the objections outlined to this proposal. Once thelandscape is destroyed it cannot be returned.

Proposed development is not in keeping with the area, destroys trees that we need andis close to undertaking yard heritage site. Appreciate housing is needed but should not be at anycost to aesthetics and should take into consideration neighbours, local residents and those thatenjoy the harbour, trees included

Thought it was going to be a primary school not housing. No to new housing. Itunto loseunique amenity and the trees/green. Turn offices in city centre in to housing.

This development will provide much needed housing including some sharedownership/affordable housing in a prime location on the harbour side, close to employmentopportunities and recreational amenities.

The trees present on the site are not afforded any special status as a protected habitat. Their lossshould be mitigated through a planting and landscaping scheme as part of the new development.

The location of the site on the harbour walkways will encourage active travel into the nearby citycentre and green spaces such as Ashton court.

The present use of land is out of keeping with the surrounding residential and recreationalamenities. It does not contribute any amenity or community to the surrounding area. Building onthe success of the regeneration of the harbour by promoting a sustainable and mixed communityis a far more productive use of the land.

The design, scale and massing of the development are appropriate to a harbour side location andin keeping with nearby developments both adjacent and opposite.

The loss of a view is not a material consideration in planning, and the development site is notsubject to any landscape or other designations.

On a personal note, shared ownership and one bed flats are my only route to owning a house inthis city. There is a major undersupply of these types of properties in Bristol when compared toother core cities, particularly in desirable and walkable neighbourhoods.

The protection of views from privately owned homes which have gained value from the publicinvestment in the Harbourside's regeneration should not outweigh the need to address the chronicshortage of housing in Bristol.

My concerns remain the same following the new submissions for the proposeddevelopment. I do not feel that the developer has addressed any of the important issues that wereraised during the first round.

In addition to the below I feel that the proposed development should form part of the overallWestern Harbourside redevelopment programme and consultation process and should not beviewed separately.

As one of the stakeholders to the proposed development (owner of a property immediatelyadjacent to the boundary with the caravan park) I have been involved in a consultation processwith 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 ofour residents noted that Meredith Court was not included on the Daylight and Sunlight AnalysisResults slide - would it be possible for the development team to add in Meredith Court and sendthe 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 maintained

and 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 24/7

occurrence (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."

After carefully reading the applicant's resubmitted documents I object to the application21/01331/F even more strongly. The loss of trees and green assets (82 mature trees and 124meters of mature hedgerow) is even greater than I originally thought. This is clearly not compliantwith the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF para 131), the Bristol Central Area Plan(BCAP), the Development Management policy (DM17) and the Bristol Core Strategy (BCS9) all ofwhich require the retention of existing trees, green assets and green infrastructure whereverpossible. The height, mass and density of the proposed building remains virtually unchangedmeaning it is totally out of scale and character with the surrounding developments and will causeunacceptable overlooking and overshadowing of adjoining properties and gardens. There are evenfewer car parking spaces than originally proposed. The concerns regarding flooding raised by bothmyself and the Environment Agency remain unaddressed. My objection in further detail is outlinedbelow.

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 scale and density of the buildings in this proposal is wrong. The principlebuildings in the development are double the height of the surrounding buildings. The developmentneeds to be lowered by 3 storeys. The developers planning application clearly states that the siteis 1.7 kilometers from Bristol City Centre and only .8 kilometre from Ashton Court estate, thedevelopment should not therefore be based on city centre housing density. The housing density ofthe adjoining Baltic Wharf estate is 96.8 dwellings per hectare, the proposed development is 193.2dwellings per hectare, almost exactly double. This is totally out of character with all the existingdevelopment in the surrounding area which is designated as a Conservation Area. If thisdevelopment was restricted to predominantly three storey buildings, in common with the existinglocal developments at Rownham Mead, Poole's Wharf and Baltic Wharf the problem ofoverlooking and overshadowing could be largely avoided, and the development would be far morein scale and keeping with the rest of the buildings in the local conservation area (as outlined inpolicy 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 twoimperial tons of carbon per annum. This is a vital environmental asset to the local area provingmuch needed oxygen and cooling. I totally object to the proposed felling of 82 mature trees and124 meters of mature hedgerows. Young saplings contribute very little to the environment; globalwarming is not going to go on hold for thirty years whilst new saplings grow to maturity. How canthe City Council that is introducing a clean air zone to combat pollution, possibly allow these treesto be felled? To do so would be utter hypocrisy! The trees are also a valuable visual amenity whichenhance the harbourside to create a pleasant space for visitors and local residents and make apositive contribution to the character of the area.

The proposal fails to comply with Bristol Core Strategy (BCS9) which states "retain greeninfrastructure wherever possible". The proposal fails to comply with the Bristol Central Area Plan(BCAP) that states that it is "important to integrate green infrastructure within new developments".The proposal fails to comply with the Development Management policy (DM17) that stresses the"need to integrate existing trees". The proposal fails to comply with the National Planning PolicyFramework (NPPF para 131) which states that planning decisions should ensure "that existingtrees are retained wherever possible". National and local policies are perfectly clear and state thatdevelopments should be built around existing green assets.

I also note that the developer refers to this as a "brownfield site", although it does not appear onthe Bristol City Council register of brownfield sites. The site has been used since 1978 as a

caravan park, most of the trees, shrubs and hedges date from this time and originally most of thesite was laid to grass. I think any reasonable person would see this as greenfield rather thanbrownfield. It is certainly a welcome green asset in the harbourside conservation area which hasvery little tree cover overall.

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, 74 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 Bristol

City 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 still being beingconsidered.

Not enough parking - use the first 2+ floors as a car park.Dangerous to build cheap UK normal homes on a flood plain heading into climate crisis. Need tobuild preparing for this.

Many of the objections to the development I don't agree with - I lived in a high rise condo in a cityfull of them (Singapore), I support building on brownfield sites, and sometimes tree loss isunavoidable provided other habitats are provided in its place - but setting up these future homeowners to flood risk and then uninsured properties, inability to sell, negative equity after the firstflood happens in 5, 10, 20 years (nothing in house age time) can't be the right way to address thehousing crisis. It's unfair on the future owners.

I typed a long objection in only for this system to wipe it.

The guidance notes say it will be held on the same machine it was typed on for up to 2 days, yet Icannot find it.

What an awful system you have - not fit for purpose !

I typed a long objection in only for this system to wipe it.

The guidance notes say it will be held on the same machine it was typed on for up to 2 days, yet Icannot find it.

What an awful system you have - not fit for purpose !

Not only will this development lead to the destruction of trees but it will also inevitablyincrease the risk of flooding in the Cumberland Basin area which will impact upon existngresidents and tjose movomg into the newly built houses.

This proposal is out of keeping with the area, it is significantly taller than nearbybuildings.Cumberland Road cannot support more vehicles as will be associated with this number of homes.This area is a flood zone this is a terrible idea.

I have owned a property in the neighbouring Baltic Wharf (Canada Way) developmentfor a number of years.I do not accept that the proposed development is of an appropriate scale. It increases the buildingheight considerably above that of the developments in the area, at up to six storeys and breechingthe established levels by more than a storey. While the high density figure of 193 dph is within thecouncil's target range, this scale and density of development would overwhelm the area and theneighbouring developments.

I object to this development because of the height of the building- it will reduce light andprivacy for existing neighbours and have a negative impact on the immediate environment. It issuch a shame to get rid of a central caravan space for visitors too.

Earlier this week I attended a presentation by the developer Goram Homes and theirbuilding partners Hill. The changes made to the original plans are negligible. The building is still fartoo high, there are even less parking spaces planned and they are cutting down more trees thanwas previously the case. I object to this planning application in the strongest possible terms.

All my original objections still stand. In addition I would like to say that there are only 74 parkingspaces for 166 flats, estimated number of residents is 350 to 400 plus visitors, deliveries and othercommercial services. How will this work? There will be parking overflow onto the rest of thealready overcrowded Spike Island.

This isn't a brownfield site, it's a green field full of trees as it always has been in the 34 years Ihave lived here.

The building is far too high, it needs reducing to half that height.

I have lived here since the nineteen eighties and in that time the river level and the height of thetide has gradually increased. Bristol City Council should be installing a flood prevention scheme toprotect the property that exists, not building a monster block of flats.

Even better, just leave the Caravan Park as it is since it's a great asset to Bristol.

I wish to repeat my objection to this application. Having looked through the reviseddocuments it seems that very little has changed and none of my objections have been addressed.There are in fact even fewer car parking spaces.

I have lived on the adjoining Baltic Wharf estate for over 34 years and object to the application onthe grounds that the proposed parking provision is woefully inadequate. To build 166 dwellingswith only 74 parking spaces is desperately shortsighted, the parking provision needs to be twice oreven three times that. With the proposed inadequate level of parking provision new residents andtheir visitors will seek to park in the existing access roads and allocated parking of the adjoiningBaltic Wharf estate causing constant friction and disharmony with existing local residents.

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 34 years I have lived here the Cumberland Road has frequently been subject tocongestion and hold ups. Building 166 new dwellings here with the developers and other peopleare in the process without endangering the police are likely to make the wind speed and directionunpredictable and sailing qué tal va la cosa del curso que te ha dicho que no has hecho elexamen para el curso que te ha dicho que no has hecho el examen para el curso que te ha dichoque no has hecho el examen para el curso que te ha dicho que no has hecho el examen para el.parking at a time when the entire road network is due for redevelopment will cause chaos. Why

can't the developers see this? 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.

I wrote in April primarily to draw attention to the negative effect that this development;excessively high for its location, will have on the wind patterns in the area of the docksimmediately adjacent.This is the most heavily used sailing area.Despite the documents claims to take into account wider considerations and the effect onneighbours no mention is made in the wind studies of the deleterious effcts on the users of thewater.They do however state that there will be increases in speed in some areas and reductions inothers making sailing even more difficult.These will ineveitably reduce the amenity value of the Baltic Wharf dock area; a major asset to theCity of Bristol in many peoples eyes.It is a pity that those responsible, in their desire to cram in more "units" and more profit, arecommitted to an inapropriately tall and dense development and pay so little regard to the longerterm value of the site from a visual and amenity point of view.John ReadLong term volunteer with Allaboard Watersports

This is not the city centre, it's a part of the Western Harbour and as such should beincluded in the 2 yr public consultation.This is not a brownfield site, neither on the BCC list as such, nor by legal definition.There are no plans for the essential play facilities that are legally bound to be in place.No infrastructure planned ie Drs Surgery, shops, schools etc.The development does not adhere to the Council's own rules about environmental concerns thatare to be taken into account on all planning applications.This is the last green space on the Harbourside. It needs to be preserved.It is a travesty to build high rise luxury appartments that will set a dangerous precedent for thearea. We are living in a climate crisis. BCC needs to stop cutting down mature trees with thespurious caveat that saplings will be planted. A sapling cannot absorb tbe same amount of C02 asa mature tree.

I object strongly to the proposals for the following reasons:- Building height not in keeping with the surroundings (references to tall buildings weak)- Parking allocation insufficient for amount of properties and location- increased traffic on already over busy Cumberland Road- loss of mature trees and associated bio diversity not in keeping with Councils own Environmentalpolicies- loss of Caravan Park as Unique tourist destination and it will be detrimental to the uniquecharacter of this end of the harbour- mixed use of development will increase late night noise for existing residents- loss of daylight/ overshadowing for neighbouring properties which has been shown in applicantsown documentations has not been mitigated- 100year flood event design is not in keeping with councils own Flood risk strategy which currentlyrequires design for a 200 year flood event

Climate change is happening. This means that green spaces and mature trees areinvaluable in providing shade, water soak and supports bio diversity for wildlife.The housing proposed is situated Ona potential flood plain. It is essential that we consider nowwhat we will require in the future to combat climate change.

Housing on this used camp site site is unnecessary. The campsite provides a useful amenity andcan continue to be so.The housing will not provide truly affordable housing and the proposal is likely to be amended bythe developer to provide less affordable housing

I object to this application for the following reasons; I do not want the trees on this landto be lost, there is little if any available spaces for replacement tree planting nearby.This is the lastsizeable green area on the Harbourside and is a vital asset to the whole community which playsan important role in mitigating temperature increase and climate change in the city. Additionallythe application is contrary to planning policies and the Central Area Plan, in particular the statedaim to double the tree canopy by 2046. It also goes against the Ecological Emergency ActionPlan. Bristol City Council have declared that they won't build on Greenfield sites and are falselylisting this as Brownfield when it is quite clearly not. In this area, the flood risk has increased toLevel 3 ( the highest risk you can get - severe) and so such intensive development poses a realrisk to life as well as ecology. Indeed, an updated flood risk assessment is required as theprevious one is now obsolete and as Baltic Wharf has been removed from the Harbourside publicconsultation, this may lead to the likelihood that if given the go ahead, the proposed developmentin Baltic Wharf will undermine the outcome of planning the rest of harbourside."

I object for the following:-1) Substantial loss of trees in an area already low for Bristol2) no available spaces for replacement tree planting nearb3) the loss of trees is contrary to planning policies and the Central Area Plan, and the aim todouble the tree canopy by 2046, and the Ecological Emergency Action Plan. 4) BCC havedeclared not to build on Greenfield sites and are falsely calling this land a Brownfield.5) Flood risk has increased to Level 3 ( the highest risk you can get, severe) in this area, andtherefore risk to life. BCC need an updated new flood risk assessment.6) BCC appear to have removed Baltic Wharf from the Harbourside public consultation thereforeany development in BW will influence the outcome of the rest of harbourside.THANK YOU

We object to this development for several reasons:-

-The site has been incorrectly described as "Brownfield". Baltic Wharf does not comply with eitherthe legal or the dictionary definition of "Brownfield".

-The loss of 82 healthy trees would change the character of the area irreparably. The mitigationplan is a token gesture and would not reach maturity in our lifetimes.

-The development would extend the evolving sterile "concrete jungle" atmosphere of the docks,which would be to the detriment of residents and would deter visitors.

-The development is not compatible with:-Bristol Core Strategy Policy BCS9 "retain green infrastructure wherever possible"

Development Management Policy DM17 "need to integrate existing trees".

-There has been inadequate consultation, and consideration of public opinion, on thedevelopment. The site has unjustifiably been removed from the Western Harbour 2-year PublicConsultation.

-There are other areas in Bristol which are much more suitable for affordable housing, andhousing in general. These would not have such a seriously detrimental impact on Bristol's famousdocklands environment.

-The proposed development is remote. Play areas, doctors, schools and supermarkets are notwithin a reasonable distance of the development

Thank youSally Parker and David Ellis

More than 70 valuable trees will be lost in this proposed development, moreover thereare no available spaces for planting replacement trees nearby. The proposed development iscontrary to planning policies and the Bristol City Council Central Area Plan, contrary to the plan todouble the tree canopy by 2046, and to the Ecological Emergency Action Plan. BCC havedeclared not to build on greenfield sites and are calling this brownfield, which is false. The floodrisk in this area has increased to the highest level 3 which involves a risk to life. BCC shouldtherefore have updated the now obsolete existing flood risk assessment but have not done so.BCC has removed Baltic Wharf from the Harbourside public consultation, undermining democraticprinciples, so any development in Baltic Wharf risks undermining the outcome of the rest of theHarbourside.

We object to this development for several reasons:-

-The site has been incorrectly described as "Brownfield". Baltic Wharf does not comply with eitherthe legal or the dictionary definition of "Brownfield".

-The loss of 82 healthy trees would change the character of the area irreparably. The mitigationplan is a token gesture and would not reach maturity in our lifetimes.

-The development would extend the evolving sterile "concrete jungle" atmosphere of the docks,which would be to the detriment of residents and would deter visitors.

-The development is not compatible with:-Bristol Core Strategy Policy BCS9 "retain green infrastructure wherever possible"

Development Management Policy DM17 "need to integrate existing trees".

-There has been inadequate consultation, and consideration of public opinion, on thedevelopment. The site has unjustifiably been removed from the Western Harbour 2-year PublicConsultation.

-There are other areas in Bristol which are much more suitable for affordable housing, andhousing in general. These would not have such a seriously detrimental impact on Bristol's famousdocklands environment.

-The proposed development is remote. Play areas, doctors, schools and supermarkets are notwithin a reasonable distance of the development

Thank youSally Parker and David Ellis

The proposed development is a discraceful attempt to meet a political pledge to provideaffordable housing in Bristol, at the cost of the long term effect on the character of the waterfront.The proportions completely dwarf the adjacent cottage pub, making the historical harbour mastersaccomodation seem insignificant. There will be considerable loss of trees to the last remaining'green section' of the waterfront. The amount of accomodation currently offered by the caravan siteis significant, and this seems a brutal and unnecessary development with little benefit to Bristoloverall, and highlights how perverted a situation we have found ourselves in whereby a Bristolcouncil sponsored organisation is hell bent on the destruction of the fabric of our city.

Chopping down so many trees to build luxury housing is indefensible in the face of aclimate crisis. Bristol City Council declared a climate emergency in 2018 so why are developmentslike this even being considered?

To quote from the Mayors Climate Emergencey Action Plan of 2019:

"We are committed to telling the truth about the Climate Emergency we face and tackling it inconcert with the linked challenge of social justice"

In what way could a development that destroys so many trees and creates housing that mostcannot afford be in line with this statement?

I object to this application as I think Bristol needs this site to remain as it is, especiallythe trees and it would be far better to repurpose existing buildings for social housing than todestroy precious green space which could either remain as a caravan park or be made into apublic park.

The resubmitted proposals do not seem to have addressed the major concerns of theobjections originally raised. Only minor alterations which do not change the radical impact thisdevelopment will have on the skyline, and character, and historical nature of this end of theharbour and Underfall Yard, "The Heart of Bristol City Harbour".

I still object to the development on the grounds of size, overshadowing, loss of privacy, loss of lightto neighbouring properties, loss of trees. Nothing has changed. Loss of trees is unacceptable at atime of critical climate change

There will still be inevitable traffic and parking issues and increased pollution. Reduced car parkingspaces is not realisticfor the proposed numbers of occupancy of the buildings and will create parking issues in thesurrounding area. The reasoning that reducing spaces will stop people having cars is flawed

This development will significantly degrade the quality of life of everyone around it. It will changeforever the quiet,relaxed feel of this end of the Floating Harbour which is so important for peoples' mental andphysical well-being.

This area is used for outdoor water sports, walking and relaxing. There has been no properassessment of the impact on water sports in the area, but the developer seems to gloss this overand that the water sports will simply have to adapt to any adverse impact.

The caravan site is unique in a city and is an asset to Bristol and is a selling point to tourists and

visitors. This will all be lost.

As this site comes within a Conservation area, I do not understand how such a design can beapproved.

With so many objections, there is obviously a lot that needs to be changed with this application.

What is the point of consulting with neighbours if they are then not listened to!! Greedy developersand profits whatever the cost. Please refuse this application.

After reading the amended proposal from the developers, I conclude that no significantalterations to the original project were made and the ones that were done do nothing to mitigatemy original concerns.My objections on the grounds of size, overshadowing, loss of privacy, loss of light are still validand I would like to reinforce them.This development will significantly degrade the quality of life of everyone around it and set adangerous precedent for future developments in the harbourside.

Additionally, reading the resubmitted proposals, the argument for not reducing the size of thisenormous building is the loss of affordable homes. This is a total fallacy, as the proposeddevelopment could easily be made an acceptable size whilst keeping the number of affordablehomes, just by altering the ratio and building less high cost homes, who will benefit no one butwealthy buyers and the developers themeselves

I therefore vehemently object to this proposed development

Thank you

Joao Gomes

After reading the amended proposal from the developers, I conclude that no significantalterations to the original project were made and the ones that were done do nothing to mitigatemy original concerns.My objections on the grounds of size, overshadowing, loss of privacy, loss of light are still validand I would like to reinforce them.This development will significantly degrade the quality of life of everyone around it and set adangerous precedent for future developments in the harbourside.

Additionally, reading the resubmitted proposals, the argument for not reducing the size of thisenormous building is the loss of affordable homes. This is a total fallacy, as the proposeddevelopment could easily be made an acceptable size whilst keeping the number of affordablehomes, just by altering the ratio and building less high cost homes, who will benefit no one butwealthy buyers and the developers themeselves

I therefore vehemently object to this proposed development

Thank you

Joao Gomes

The new documents and proposed changes don't respond to my previous objections.The comments from my previous objections still stand, in relation to all of the following: greenspaces, impact on landscape, impact on wild life, reduced day light for neighbouring buildings,privacy issues, flooding, parking issues, traffic and congestion, loss of landmarks and wellestablished touristic attractions, family-friendly and quiet environment, safety issues.

There still appears to be no consideration for the environment or the existing residents.The revised plans still do not hide that this development would be a blot on the landscape, and donot blend in with the existing properties.Approving this development would give Carte Blanche to any architect who has not got our city atheart.I objected the original plans, and the revised plans have not changed my mind.

I strongly object to the revised plans for the Baltic Wharf Caravan site.

In overview, having attended a Baltic Wharf consultation meeting at 6pm on 11 October 2021, Inow understand that despite extensive objections from many sources, the developers have notchanged their plans in any meaningful way.

I therefore remain very concerned about:

- The height of the development which is seven stories high including the plinth. This is totally outof context of the immediate surrounding areas. I believe this is driven by a need to maximisevolume of properties/profit rather than fulfilling a duty of care towards existing residents, many ofwho will be negatively impacted by a loss of light/ the visual impact of this poorly designedbuilding,

- The low level of parking at the building which is aspiration rather than realistic and will result inan additional parking burden on properties surrounding the site.

- The loss of trees. There was assertion that there will not be a net loss of trees at the presentationyesterdays as other will be planted elsewhere in Bristol (location to be confirmed). I wasastonished at this statement as there will still be a significant loss of trees at Baltic wharf which isthe only subject of this consultation and furthermore, will not benefit from trees elsewhere inBristol!

I would also like to add that this is the first public consultation that I have ever attended and having

listened to the developers state that they had simply decided not to make changes without anyreference/ accountability to an external governing body, I have completely lost my trust in theconsultation and planning process overall .....and local government.

Please rectify this by intervening and requesting further changes to the revised plans whichaddress my concerns.

Pauline Davies

I am truly sad to see that the developers are trying to continue with these plans and thatthe recent revisions have not taken into account the many requests from neighbours and HistoricEngland to at least lower the building, which remains too high to blend with the currentsurroundings, looking to turn an attractive tree lined and covered area into an eyesore.

Not only is the removal of so many mature trees detrimental to wildlife but is also detrimentaltoward the council and government carbon neutral targets.

As an area already highlighted by the council to be included within the CAZ zone, encouragingmore cars into the area will only increase pollution into an area which is already struggling withcongestion challenges. This will surely continue to be damaging to public health.

I also note the flood report findings, where the proposed properties fail to meet National PlanningPolicy Framework. We know this will become an area of significant flood risk in the coming yearswhich will no doubt have significant insurance and quality of life difficulties for any residents.

As Lloyds TSB have now announced the selling of their crescent property further east on theharbour, surely the appropriate use of this to be empty property would be of much better use.

I continue to strongly object to this proposed development, believing that society would be betterserved with open green space for the many and not expensive apartments for the few.

I am dissapointed that the revisions made by the developer has not taken into accountthe hundreds of objections about the size and density of the development being far too great.

My primariy objection to the revised plans remains; the size and density of the development is stilloverbearing and out of scale to the character and make up of existing developments within thisand the surrounding area of only 2 or 3 storey buildings on this part of the Floating Harbour.

This proposed development would dominate the skyline and erode the current low-rise appeal andcharacter the western end of Bristol's historic Floating Harbour. No other buildings are this tall oneither side of the Floating Harbour, and so if this development were to go ahead it would set a newprecedent for further taller buildings in this area.

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. 166new dwellings is developing this site too densely, and is not within keeping of the current levels ofdevelopment in the western end of the Floating Harbour.

This density of development will generate a significant increase in traffic in an area / Spike Islandthat has only 2 exit and entry points via a single arterial route. This will cause more traffic pressurenot only on Spike Island residents 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 they

believe 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 thesurrounding 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 isnot expected to be an area of major change". Development "will be expected to be of a scale anddesign appropriate to its setting", "reflecting the "character and setting of the surviving historicbuildings and fabric and 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.

As a regular visitor to Bristol harbourside are, it would appear that the development isinapproprite for the area. It does not comply with the Bristol Central Area Plan (BCAP) whichstates that it is "not expected to be an area of major change", and any development is "expectedto be of a scale and design appropriate to the setting".

It is in a major flood risk area so further development of accomodation would be unwise.

It is contrary to the declared Climate and Ecological Emergencies and will result in the loss of 82mature trees. There is very littke green space left in the built up harbourside area, so what is stillthere shouldn't be detroyed.

While I can see that the developers have attempted to respond to previous concernsraised regarding tree clearance, I do not feel that the project should go ahead. The area is alreadyfull of high density dwellings. The exisiting use (caravan park) is a valuable asset for affordabletourism in the area. The new plans do not allay concerns about the removal of so many maturetrees. This is of vital importance in a city where air quality is so poor. South Bristol in particularappears to have far less mature trees and the proposed plans would only exaccerbate this issue.In the context of other questionable building projects going ahead in south bristol, I fear that theplans as they stand would only have a negative impact on a much-loved and needed leisure areafor residents and neighbours

The development is contrary to Bristol City Councils declarations of Climate andEcological Emergencies and commitments made in the One City Plan to be Carbon Neutral by2030 and to double tree canopy cover by 2046 and does not make the required mitigation for theproposed loss of mature trees. Within reason, we should be doing all we can to not fell any maturetrees in Bristol. Has the planting list been developed on the basis of the right tree in the rightenvironment or is it just a list of various species?

The site will consume a significant amount of construction materials, particularly as it will be builton a concrete platform. Is anything being done to mitigate the C02 cost of the steel and concreteused in the build? Has consideration been given to a smaller development allowing for lessuse/need of such materials?

The area will be within a new clean air zone (?). Given the poor quality of the access roads to thesite and limited EV charging points on the site, this will only increase the poor air quality.

Should a new development of this scale not look to do more to mitigate the use of clean water onthe site by using grey water to flush toilets and/or harvesting rainwater for the gardens? Or duringthe build process?

The use of natural gas to heat/power this development seems wrong and very short sighted.Surely a new council backed development should be looking to make use of more sustainablepower sources like heat source pumps?

The development should also be aiming to be A rated for energy efficiency.

The access road to the site is one of the poorest in the area and floods.

The building is far too high compared to other buildings on the waterfront at this end of theharbour. It will stand out from all perspectives and is not sympathetic to the scale of surroundingbuildings, put simply it is ugly.

Violates Policy BCAP41: The Approach to Harbourside 9.7.5, which states that barring theredevelopment of Wapping Wharf & the Western Harbour development, any development shouldenhance the area around the Harbourside, and any development adjacent to the Floating Harbourwill be expected to be of a scale and design appropriate to its setting. This development fails withregard to its scale, and will loom over existing properties around the Harbourside.

Affordability - as some of the affordable flats will include shared ownership, this does not makethem affordable. As a council owned development, more should be being done. The fact that thesocial housing element of the build will be segregated is also very disappointing.

Is the council confident that the retail spaces will be taken up? The pandemic has resulted in manyempty retail units across the city, is this likely to happen here? Should this be reviewed? Any retailspaces should be more affordable to local businesses so that it doesn't just end up being large,soul-less chains coming in. The impact this could have on small local businesses could bedevastating.

The proposed high rise blocks of flats are too high and overbearing for such a sensitivehistoric site in a conservation area. Too many mature trees would be destroyed.

Any planning applications for the site should not be considered until the development plan for the"Western Harbour" has been agreed following the completion of the current public consultationexercise on the development plan.

The revisions have not addressed the key concerns that I and others have previouslyraised regarding the height and bulk of the development.The development should be in scale with both neighbouring residential development (Baltic Wharf)and other residential development at this end of the harbour that is noted, and enjoyed for itshistoric and tranquil character. The development will detract from both these aspects.My objection to this application remains as set out in my previous comments (6th May 2021).

Not only will this development remove a city based campsite of which there are too few,it will also remove mature trees and change the look of this part of the city. I can't believe thatsufficient parking will be provided so cars will spill over onto neighbouring streets and there will bean increase in traffic too.

Having read through the updated planning application I have to say that all my previousobjections still remain. In fact I am shocked to see that the applicant is intending to fell 82 treesand remove about 120 meters of hedging! I object for the following reasons:

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

At 6 storeys the development is still too high and would spoil the look of the historic endof the harbour. This area is much quieter and all the better for it. The caravan park is a valuableasset,bringing much needed tourism to the city.The loss of 82 trees and surrounding hedges from this site would be harmful to the localenvironment. A recent study carried out by the Natural History Museum found that Britain had lost50% of its biodiversity. Surely we should be planting more trees not felling them.I strongly object to these proposals.

What arrogance. A large number of objections, including from council officers, and noneof it taken seriously.This is effectively the same application as the original so all the initial objections still apply. It is stilla groupof monolithic 7 storey blocks that are totally insensitive to the setting and surrounding buildings inthis conservationarea. With Paynes Shipyard now granted permission the currently open view across the harbour isalready doomed but this schemewould make it much worse.

There is so much misrepresentation of what this site is and what it will become. It is not city centre,it is virtuallythe western edge. It is not brownfield or registered as such, it is a green amenity space with amuch valued amenityalready running successfully on it and bringing tourist revenue to Bristol. Its current usage allowsthe flourishing ofmature trees, and hedgerow which will not be replaced, much needed generally and particularlyaround the harbourside whichhas a much lower than average tree density. Trees planted in compensation will be elsewhere andno benefit to local residents.

I question the actual degree of public benefit this scheme offers and whether it is worth theruination of this tranquil,low rise end of the harbour. Much is made of the 'affordable' units it will offer but who is fooled by

the idea that any of theseflats will be 'affordable' in normal peoples understanding of the word. How many actual councilflats will there finally be after thedeveloper finds costs escalating due to the difficulties of the site, as happened at Castle Park.

Apparently the 'project' area and the 'regeneration area' of 'Western Harbour' are different, by thesplitting of an invisible hair,but clearly any scheme for this site should be considered in the context of any overall masterplan.Once flood prevention is designedin for the whole area there would no longer be any need to put the whole thing on a storey highslab of concrete for instance. The circlingwolves, hungry for the big killings to be made in Cumberland Basin have already picked offperipheral sites at Clanage Road and Paynes shipyardbut please don't let them have this one.

I think it's disgraceful that this site will be removed in favour of more flats we DON'TNEED. Moreover, the mature trees that's exist on this site require protection - we need trees to liveand there's hardly much green left in the harbour.

I work on boats in the docks and we get high volumes of people who come and have holidays inthe caravan park on that site, it will be a great shame to see it go.

In my opinion the revisions do not make any positive contribution to the depressingproposed development and my comments on the earlier application also apply to this one,I hope the Council will encourage its development arm to come up with something far better forthis incredibly important site.

How short sighted can this council be,it's not addressing the housing problem inBristol,far from it with the high price tag on these new luxury flats.the fact it will cut down 82mature trees is criminal.I'am guessing none of our concerns will be addressed,the developers willdo just what they want,shame on you Bristol council!!!!!!

This development is still too large and out of character with the adjoining developments.This will set new standards for high-rise development round this end of the harbour which are outof character and will change the area irretrievably.Not enough parking.Destruction of trees - replacement with young trees is not acceptable.Current use brings income and tourists into the area.

The revised details are very similar to the old ones with no real change or mitigation ofthe development's impact on the surrounding areas and housing. I reiterate my previous objection.

How can you remove 82 living,breathing,CO2 conversion machines in the guise ofdevelopment.Do you not pay attention to the WORLD news ?????

How can you remove 82 living,breathing,CO2 conversion machines in the guise ofdevelopment.Do you not pay attention to the WORLD news ?????

It is bad enough that you want to delete a unique caravan park from Bristol's heritage inorder to erect a load of posh flats with inadequate parking whilst there is pathetic public transportin the city. Now you want to cut down 82 trees in the midst of a global climate crisis. Have you noshame? This is purely about money, not providing affordable housing.

There have been no real changes made from the first application. The height remainsthe same and most trees will be felled.The proposed new development is too high, too overbearing, and disrespects the surroundingbuildings in the conservation area.Too many trees will be felled, neighbours will have their homes loomed over and light retricted.The immediate neighbour 'The Cottage' pub is a two storey building, which will be swamped bythese overbearing buildings, as will the Grade 2* listed Underfall Yard buildings.The proposed buildings are inappropriate on this site, and look to me to be a lazy 'cut and paste'replication of the Wapping Wharf development. An alternative successful design was possible.The original buildings were timber sheds, not warehouses, and the new development should havebeen a lower design, built around courtyards (still high density), saving more trees and referencingUnderfall Yard and the Dutch Barn roof profiles.

Following the submission of revised details of this planning application.I wish to make my objection known for the following reasons:-This is currently the only green area in the whole of the Harbourside. How can it possibly bedestroyed by a development totally out of keeping with the sorroundings? And also where noprovision has been made in the plans for schools, GP surgeries or any green space which mustsurely be a mandatory provision for creating any new development.Between 70 to 90 mature trees are in danger of being felled to make way for these 6 storey luxuryflats. This is contrary to BCC's One City Plan to double tree numbers by 2046.The Council's own Ecological Emergency Action Plan ("embed nature into all decisions") appearsto not be being adhered to in this planning app - as well as the Council's Ecological EmergencyAction Plan ("embed nature into all decisions"). or the Bristol Central Area Plan (BCAP) where itstates that it is "Important to integrate green infrastructure within new developments".The development is in an area where there is a severe risk of flooding now ascertained by NPPFas a Level 3 which would place all residents into potentially seriously dangerous circumstances.This risk of flooding has already been highlighted by the Environmental Agency and the recentNPPF survey drastically emphasises this.Baltic Wharf actually should be included in the 2 year Western Harbour Consultation as it is part ofthe designated area. Why has it been omitted? Also Baltic Wharf is said to be a brownfield siteand yet it is clearly not so.This development plan is highly misleading with so many many matters that have not beenconsidered or addressed by Goram Homes.

I strongly object to this proposalThe buildings are much too high and the density of them too great.We should not be destroying mature trees.The development should completely rethought and ideally, dropped altogether

The revised plans are almost identical to those previuosly submitted and all my previousobjections still apply. The buildings are simply to heigh and to close to Baltic Warf and will castshadow.They look oppresive like a Russian cold war prison and at such a high level of density will spoilone of the earliest and most successfull dockside developmemnts in the country. Parking willinevitably be a problem that will radiate to surrounding areas.The City Council in its attempt to add to much housing to the dockside will spoil the area for manymore than will benefit.

I wish to once more voice my objections for the planning application for the proposeddevelopment of 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.

The revisions have done nothing to address the myriad of objections regarding the originalproposals height, volume and potential impact to the surrounding low level quiet harbourside.Reducing the Block E which overlooks the road alleviates no ones concerns.

The height of the proposal is still more than double that of its residential neighbours. There is still ablatant disregard for the surrounding residential architecture when the design process has takenplace. Other buildings of a similar size have been referenced around the harbour to the proposedbut they are mostly all buildings of a commercial nature.

DesignThe revised proposal has some differences in brickwork which does nothing to change the horriblevisual impact caused by the height and volume.

A proposal of this scale has no regard for the environment, infrastructure or heritage assets in thearea and still actively removes established greenery from it. Keeping a few of the established 60+trees on the site does not constitute preservation of existing greenery. It will also add to theexisting nightmare that current residents of the Cumberland Road have with the enforced "one

way" use of the road due 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 hugely in this area and yet the proposal still contains additional commercialproperty with implications of facilities with late evening drinking and the huge volume in noisewhich comes with it. The area has been inundated with people using the locality for recreationaldrinking during the pandemic, we do not wish to encourage this further by inviting more people tothis area as the Police seem unable cover the area effectively now to make it a safe and pleasantplace for the existing residents.

The lack of parking considering the amount of properties proposed is incoherent as the local SpikeIsland parking permit scheme would not be able to facilitate an increase potential residentsrequiring permits.

Loss of light & overshadowingNothing has been done to revise the designs in order to alleviate the many worries the originalproposal created for the Baltic Wharf residents in immediate proximity to the boundary line. Thereis still no "street scene" level drawings which should be in the package to illustrate the elevationsalong Canada way and the proposed buildings C&F and Cumberland Way and the proposedbuildings A&B so those viewing this application can really see the effect of the scale of thisproposal next to the existing architecture and the overshadowing it would cause.

FloodingThe many objections pointing out the serious nature of prospective flooding and the additionalimpact of flooding created by the run off from an elevated development has not been addressed.

In addition, in the "revisions" you are still referring to it as Baltic Wharf, Baltic Wharf already exists,I live there and there can't be two locations with the same name in close proximity! Let alone thesame city.

Objection remains, it doesn't need to be built.

Losing this campsite is another loss of something great about our city. Camping areasin city centres are amazing and hard to come by in the U.K. More should be done to save them.

The revised plans only reduce the height of part of the proposed development. Thedocuments state 5 storey but they are in fact 6 storey in the revised drawings.The reduction in height needs to be across the whole development and no higher than BalticWharf and other adjacent waterfront buildings.

The parking remains insufficient for so many homes and will push more cars onto alreadycongested roads where parking continues to be an issue.

The proximity of the high walls along the waterfront walkway do nothing to create a feeling ofspace which has been so important to wellbeing. Demarcation of boundaries can be with plantingnot walls.

Any development must retain the light and openness of the waterfront and not be high or close tothe waterfront.

The loss of mature trees is still part of the plans at a time when trees and the environment areeven higher on the agenda for numerous good reasons including well-being and absorbingpollution.

Where more light is required following the day light evaluation 'fail' notices for certain apartments,the response from the developer indicates that additional windows will be put in "where possible".This is NOT a satisfactory response. Either additional windows are put in or they are not. if theyare not then the design still fails the daylight assessment.The revisions must be part of any decision to proceed and any failure to revise means the

development can not proceed.

I continue to object to this development.

The amendments do not address the real issue that the site is a far too large,particularly in height, compared to the surrounding area. The changes hardly attempt to addressthe many concerns raised and the loss of the amenity follows a trend when amenities aresacrificed for housing that can be placed on brown field and disused sites.

I object to this development on the basis that it will have a negative impact on thecurrent low-rise horizon of the west-end of the harbour. The height of the proposed development isnot in-keeping with the rest buildings in the west-end of the harbour and will dominate the skyline,block sunshine and block wind used by the sail boats. It will ruin one of the prettiest parts ofcentral Bristol. Also, the felling of trees to build yet another block of flats is totally the opposite ofwhat we should be doing to help the environment. This development needs to be stopped.

Absolutely reject this on so many grounds. Why on earth build on a Cat 3 flood riskarea? Why build brand new instead of retro-fitting empty retail and office space in the Broadmeadarea?Building a 6-7 storey building in this area will set the standard for height and encourage otherhumongous structures to erect around it (again, against Environment Agency advice on a floodplane.)And affordable homes- unlikely. I don't think you have anyone fooled. Like the chocolate factory inEaston? At least if you choose to build on council owned green space you could build somecouncil homes to meet that imaginary quota that you made up off 2000+ council homes a year.Felling mature trees and replacing them with young trees makes no environmental sense- who willtake care of these! Council and government policy states that "green spaces should be preservedat all costs". This is NOT a brownfield site by any definition, nor is it on the brownfield register.

This development will still dwarf the rest of this area of Bristol.Too densely developed - not enough parking spaces - loss of mature trees and a green space inthe city.I strongly object to this development .

I strongly object to this development.The destruction of mature trees and increasing the flood risk is unforgiveable.As for the actual planned buildings they are completely out of character with the surrounding area,too high, not enough parking and green space, and in contravention of the council ownenvironment policies.It will not be of benefit to Bristol business unlike the tourism the park provides.

I object to the new plans on the following grounds:- as with the previous plans, the buildings are far too high and out of scale with their surroundings;- these over-height buildings then lead to a loss of amenity value for all local residents and forvisitors to the historic harbourside;- the loss of mature trees is quite shocking in the light of the BCC's declared 'Climate Emergency';- the new housing will have both residents and visitors with cars. There is no doubt this will placefurther pressure on the limited amount of local parking

The revised development is still on a scale that will dwarf the low scale developments inthat part of the harbour including Underfall Yard. There is still no acknowledgement of theopportunity to widen access to water based activities through development of facilities with waterfrontage. This is short sighted as this site is one of the last dockside development sites.

OBJECT:Have the original objections not been taken into account...this development is too high anddensely developed in context to this area of the harbourside, will create increase traffic into analready inadequate and fragile road system with no meaningful public transport system and we willlose a vital and important green city centre space. Please reconsider!

The proposed changes to the original are minor.

Objections include

the loss of so many mature and semi mature trees.

the increased number of vehicles to the centre of the congestion charging area - to ban all the newtenants/owners from having cars is quite plainly 'political wishing'.

the volume of construction traffic that will need to use Cumberland Road which is currently closedbecause of the slippage to the bank of the river.

a development which will over shadow a peaceful area of the harbourside which is currentlymainly used for peaceful leisure activities.

as this development is part of the Western Harbour area why not wait and include it in thatdiscussion ?

Having looked at the revised plans, nothing really has changed and I can only reiterateagain that the replacement of a well used leisure facility with this unwanted ( by neighbouringbusinesses, leisure users and residents ) development will completely spoil the peace andtranquility of this unique location.

There needs to be room for all types of dwellings along the river and the caravan parkbrings in much needed tourism to the heart of Bristol. Not everyone can afford hotels at city prices.We should be open to a diversity of visitors to our city. This little caravan park has been a localbusiness for may years and should not be closed due to potential pound signs swinging over itshead like the sword of Damocles.

As a current resident of Cliftonwood and ex resident of Spike Island (Avon Crescent)and regular user of the Harbourside area's amenities, I object to the current application plans forthis site for the following reasons:

1. It is far too big with too many dwellings for the facilities available in the area. Spike Island hasno doctor's surgery, only one small shop, only one small primary school in Hotwells now that StGeorge's Brandon Hill is closed. There are primary schools in Southville but they are oversubscribed. There are no community buildings for mothers and toddlers to meet or elderly peopleto meet, without having to go to privately run and expensive cafes.

2. This number of residents will significantly increase car traffic in the area which the current roadsystem is not set up for.

3. It's height is far too big for the site because it will dwarf the surrounding homes and otherbuildings.

4. This building will be in an area at risk from flooding which has already seen significantsubsidence in the Cumberlan Road beside the Avon Cut. A building of this size could causesimilar issues.

At the risk of repeating comments already made, it is clear to me that:

1. The proposed development, whether in its original or revised form, constitutes a significantoverdevelopment of the area in question. The size and density of the proposed buildings isoverbearing and disproportionate;2. The destruction of such a large number of mature or semi-mature trees is clearly contrary to thecouncil's environmental policies and will have a deleterious effect upon the environment;3. The proposed development will bring additional traffic to the council's declared clean-air zone.

For these reasons I object to the proposal.

"TECHNICAL DESIGN NOTE" is factually incorrect. 10 Weare Court is not a 3 storytownhouse, it's a 2 storey maisonette.

"In addition to this, the three-storey townhouses (5-10 Weare Court) in question are comprised ofkitchen/diners (ground floor), living rooms (first floor) and bedrooms (second floor), shown in thefloor plans in Appendix A. As residents have multiple living spaces to utilise, overall impact tothese units is deemed lower."

Has this been fact checked or verified by anyone?

Unfortunately there is a lack of research and incorrect floor plans being utilised in the "IMPACTON EXISTING BUILDING" section, which should be re-analysed with information reflecting thereality of neighbouring buildings.

I still object to this. Whilst I realise we need housing, this existing space enables peopleto visit Bristol and it's harbourside and spend money in our fantastic city, they are coming incaravans and campers and moving them out of town will mean they won't be able to WALK theywill have to drive! If you continue to build too densely in this area you will just destroy the beauty ofit as the wildlife will disappear with the destruction of the trees. Less is more, we need to be usingup vacant buildings for housing. Create better public transport systems like London then you won'thave to keep building in the centre! You can't say let's build 15 minute neighbourhoods and haveDIY/garden centres on the outskirts where people have to drive to buy the stuff they want todecorate. They will still want a car to travel on holiday or visit friends family etc. For example myparents live in the Midlands, my sister in Essex so I still need a car to visit them despite living inthe centre.

What community facilities are proposed within this application

The revised proposals of Sep 2021 have done nothing to make me considerwithdrawing my objection (and reasons for it) made back in April this year.

Respect the amenity value of the dockside particularly this area near to the Underfall Yard, whichis an active area for heritage boatbuilding and watersports.

It is clear that the applicant has done nothing but tinker at the edges with this revisedsubmission. In fact the responses seem to focus on the degree to which changes suggested byobjectors adversely impact on the development. Frankly, so what - the real issue is the massivenegative impact the development will have on this tranquil area of the harbourside.The design brief is fundamentally wrong and the resulting design proposals are overpowering, outof scale with the surroundings and totally inappropriate for the site.The need for housing is well understood and I suspect that despite the regrettable loss of thecaravan site, a more modest and well-mannered scheme would be generally supported. However,to see such a prolific volume of objection largely ignored in pursuit of railroading this awful schemethrough the planning system makes a mockery of the consultation process and local democracy.The mayor, the council and the development team should be ashamed of themselves.

6 storeys is still too high for the highest block in this development and will dominate andharm the appearance on that side of the harbourside. If the caravan site has to be replaced(questionnable) then buildings should be no higher than those properties in Baltic Wharf and themature trees should be preserved. The planting of new trees, assuming they survive, will not havean environmental impact for many, many years.Given that two of the three bonded warehouses are, supposedly going to be used for housing, whydoes this harbourside area need to be damaged in this way?Perhaps consideration should be given to using properties which were designated for businessuse but, since the pandemic, are now empty.

Despite the many comments objecting to the size and scale of the proposals, theserevised plans still tower over surrounding buildings and destroy the peaceful ambience of this endof the harbour. Any building should not be any higher than the current buildings at Baltic Wharf.The idea that people will not have cars is fantasy - how many flat dwellers do you know who donot own a car? . They will park in surrounding roads when the RPZ is not operational, causinghavoc for local residents. The area is quiet, and geared towards leisure, boat and sailing relatedactivities in contrast to the other end of the harbour. Once you spoil it, it's permanently spoiled.

I strongly object.

Dear Sir /Madam,

I attended an online meeting with Goram Homes on Tuesday 21st September and was dismayed to discover that they intend to fell 82 mature trees on Baltic Wharf (caravan site) as a result of planning application 21/01331/F. Are you aware that there are also 47 mature Ash trees within 150 metres of this site? These trees would have to be seen as highly threatened since Ash dieback (Hymenoscyphus fraxineus) is widely expected to effect more than 95% of British ash trees.

The Ash trees to which I refer are located along the harbour front, along Mardyke Ferry Road and in various groups around the sculptures in the adjoining Baltic Wharf housing estate. All are within 150 metres of the proposed caravan park development.

The loss of 119 (82 + 47) broadleaf trees in an area of approximately three hectares within the Conservation area would be catastrophic. The harbourside is not only a Conservation area but it also has the lowest level of tree cover (7%) in the entire city.

Both local policy (BCS9) and national policy (NPPF para 131) are very clear and state that trees and green assets should be retained and integrated into new development. Could you please instruct Goram Homes to follow these policies and desist from cutting down 82 trees on Baltic Wharf? The area is already likely to lose 47 trees through natural causes it does not need to lose more through poorly planned development.

Yours faithfully, Peter Herridge

With a growing number of others I have wondered what words mean when it comes tothe environment, climate and biodiversity in this city. Again it seems the word are for someoneelse other than the councils own housing group. We need to have more mature trees not less, andnot to sacrifice them as will be the case if this planning application is allowed. We can work aroundtrees (they even move them in some countries) so there is no need for more of nature'sdestruction for the sake of so called 'development'. Development for whom? If we are a city thatjust relies on rhetoric but not action we the people will not support the council as it destroys justanother piece of nature however small it might be. I oppose this application.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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%

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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

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.

Destruction of too many trees in central Bristol.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

This is going to destroy harbourside green space!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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?!?

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?.

Please protect the trees and green space - thanks!

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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 .

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.

Disruption of views and natural light onto my property

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 .

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.

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.

I object to the density of the development and significant reduction of sunlight to theadjacent neighbours.

This is an unreasonably large development and will hugely overshadow the existinghouses in Weare Court. This should not be allowed.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's far too high so will block precious sunlight, and totally change the feeling of the area.It's also really ugly.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Main Concerns that I would be overlooked and block my view from the property.

Anything built there should not be any taller than the surrounding buildings.

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."

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."

Having seen the before and after photographs the planned builings will be another bloton the Bristol landscape.

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.

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!

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.

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!

Anything built there should not be any taller than the surrounding buildings.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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

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

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.

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.

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. .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.