We support the comments made by the BTF Tree Champion about the need to retaintrees which do not need to be felled and to adequately replace those which do, including thosepreviously removed. The loss of mature trees in private gardens throughout Bristol is gainingmomentum and is not being compensated for by the planting of very young specimens or by whatare effectively bushes.

We draw attention to paragraph 130 of the Consultation Draft on Revisions to the NPPF datedFebruary 2021 which states:"Trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments, andcan also help mitigate and adapt to climate change. Planning policies and decisions should ensurethat new streets are tree-lined, that opportunities are taken to incorporate trees elsewhere indevelopments (such as community orchards), that appropriate measures are in place to securethe long-term maintenance of newly-planted trees, and that existing trees are retained whereverpossible. Applicants and local planning authorities should work with local highways officers andtree officers to ensure that the right trees are planted in the right places, and solutions are foundthat are compatible with highways standards and the needs of different users".

It is clear that there is currently considerable concern nationally about the need to retain andreplace trees as a matter of urgency. We therefore request that there is careful scrutiny of theproposals for the garden area including the possibilities for biodiversity net gain if the application ispermitted and for suitable enforceable conditions to be applied. Until we are reassured on thismatter we register an objection to the proposal.

We have not commented further on the acceptability on other planning grounds of the application

as the issues have been well covered by other respondents.

more appropriate for these applications?

Viewed objectively, the opinions from people in the immediate neighbourhood are quite understandable and the suspicion that this is a plan to open a ‘private’ hotel’ even if it is for relatives and visitors is therefore well founded.

2) The clients are applying for ‘self-build’ in order to escape the local CIL tax payable on projects of this size (over 100 sq metres of footprint)

What exactly is meant by self -build in this context? Does it mean the intention to commission their own builder and/or technicians as opposed to a developer doing the same? Or does it mean literally that they themselves are going to build the two properties (as happens on many TV programmes)? If the latter is the case, then it is difficult to swallow this one, given the ambitious complexity of the buildings proposed, with a great deal of heavy excavation of ground needed first.

Given the amount of disruption to traffic on a dangerous road, where new signage will be necessary anticipating the hidden bend beyond, from multiple entries and exits to and from these properties and the alterations to drainage, sewerage and water provision for so many occupations, then surely a contribution to CIL should be expected from plans for over 7000 Sq metres?

3) Even if this is, as argued, a private project in a very unusual format, it still seems to be a gross over development for this type of residential neighbourhood, with the potential to disrupt the living of local people in exactly the manner that a small hotel would do and would the local authority consider this site suitable for the latter commercial purpose? In other words, given the plans for frequent multiple occupations and the associated leisure and pleasure facilities, be they domestic and private, do they not by their very nature amount to the same as a small hotel?

On those grounds this application should be refused and the applicants and their architect directed to find a more suitable and less enclosed site where normal domestic life will not be affected.

The justifications offered by the architect are not convincing for the long term use of these buildings.

Four: Traffic considerations- Canford Lane is already known as a heavily trafficked roadway-cutting through from Redland, Bishopston, Henleaze, Horfield, Southmead, Henbury, Westbury- on- Trym to reach the Portway and main trunk roads in and out of Bristol City centre. The clean air zone, shortly to be implemented for the centre of Bristol, will cause even heavier usage as heavy freight and petrol driven cars coming off the Portway, cut across the top of the City to avoid the daily charges for entering the zone.

Repeated efforts by people who live on this road, have been made to get even one zebra crossing for safety of local pedestrians and people attending funerals at Canford Crematorium. Nothing has been done to date by the City Highways dept. to meet these safety needs, which are only going to increase for reasons stated above.

The application for these multiple use and heavily occupied buildings will only add to these problems -this is one of the residents’ chief concerns - given the position of these huge ‘homes’ just before one of the most dangerous bends in the locality.

In the plans there are only 4 parking spaces allowed for. This really is ludicrous-to use one of the architect’s descriptions! Given the numbers of extended family persons likely to be using

these premises, if the application should be granted, there needs to be a much enlarged parking area-otherwise on street parking will happen to the detriment of all who live in the neighbourhood and a worsening of road conditions in that part of Westbury.

A review by the Highways Dept of the City council is paramount in relation to this application as the architect points out too. It is to be hoped that this will cause the application to be refused or at least modified substantially to one house only to cause less congestion and danger.

Finally in summary- it must be repeated that for the first application the Society had substantial reservations as to its suitability for this location. There is little in this latest modified application to change those views.

Yours sincerely

Hilary Long-Chairman.

This current application is simply a slightly scaled down version of the previous plans fortwo huge mirror image houses. This current application to demolish the period property thenwishes to construct two large properties one of which would abut our boundary reducing light intoour garden and house including upstairs bedrooms and significantly overlook us, interfering withour garden and courtyard privacy. The loss of green space in recent years in the local vicinity andimmediate neighbourhood is disappointing and to further deplete this would be a disaster. This isonce again excessive and unnecessary destroying a period property, decreasing green space andincreasing urbanisation and adding to excessive traffic along Canford Lane which is likely to getworse with the impending clean air zone at the end of the Portway towards the city centre. Weseriously hope the BCC planners are giving due consideration to safe crossing sites along CanfordLane which would calm traffic and improve pedestrian safety to accessing green spaces such asthe Blaise Estate and Canford Park & Cemetery.Just to note, whilst we have previously been notified by post of previous applications at thisaddress this has not been the case in this instance.

I was pleased to see that there have been changes to the design of the houses sincethe last planning application was refused: however, I do have some concerns:

1/The possibility of noise pollution due to the high occupancy level of the proposed new houses andtheir extensive entertainment facilities. I know from previous exceedingly rare parties how wellsound travels from the back of the existing house to Beverley Gardens. Noise that is acceptable afew times a year.

2/The possibility that the proposed new houses are not intended as family residences. I am noexpert, but the ratio of kitchen and utility space seems small compared to the area dedicated forentertainment and other activities.

3/As other responders have stated Canford Lane is a busy main road and likely to get more so withthe introduction of the Clean Air Zone. Only last September a kitchen fitter working at my propertyarrived shaken after witnessing a lady being knocked down and her dog killed close to the cornerof Canford Lane and Coombe Lane.

Are 4 parking spaces per new proposed house enough? Will the spaces be utilised entirely byresidence or will spaces be available for visitors / trades people etc. Will parking spill out onto themain road narrowing the road and reducing visibility at an already dangerous corner?

Additionally, during construction will measures be taken to ensure that Canford lane does notbecome a parking lot for builders' vans and other trades?

4/In TOPO-SURVEY-2917522.pdf, in the bottom left-hand corner, the phrase "dilapidated wood post& chicken mesh fence ht 1.5m" is used. This statement is correct, the chicken wire was installedby the previous owner to keep her dogs in, it was very much a temporary affair. However, there isno mention of the 2.5m high (approx.) hedge that it is attached too. There is talk of a 2.1m highwooden fence erected around the proposed new houses; if correct, what effect will this have onthe hedge? The hedge does an excellent job of screening the current house from sight, especiallyduring the summer months when the trees are fully leafed. We have been tending the hedge foryears, removing dead material and inserting new shrubs.

5/On document PROPOSED_SITE_PLAN-2917529.pdf, at the rear each proposed new house,there appears to be a square structure located under the trees close to the boundary of theBeverley Garden houses? What are the structures, will they impact the trees, what there intendedpurpose?

Potential damage to existing large trees.The plans for both houses contain 7 bedrooms and meeting rooms, bars, 12 seat cinemas, saunasand gyms which suggest the design is not intended for a family home and is out of keeping withthe area, which is surrounded by family homes.We are concerned that the number of residents will create a noise problem, particularly if they areused for entertaining purposes in a multiple occupancy dwelling. The design is very similar to onealready turned down and the first floor outside balcony area is still in the new plans creating apossible noise hazard over the adjoining gardens, as we stated before.We have lived in this area for 30 years during which time the traffic on Canford lane and Coombelane has increased. Vehicles frequently travel over the speed limit on the straight part of Canfordlane, then brake hard on the left hand bend, which is partially blind. The approaching traffic exitingthe bend, speeds up.A significant number of cars entering and leaving the properties at this point would be dangerous.There have been a number of accidents already on this stretch of road.We have no objection to a development having a number of houses in a cut de sac, such as onesoff Parry's lane.

This application is very similar to a previous one - number. 20/02002F which wasrefused.This new proposal is only slightly smaller (28 persons instead of 32) in the 2 houses. In my opinionthese rooms will not be "residential " but "short term lets " or even "AirBnB" with 2 bars and 2cinemas.?This design could be used for parties, weddings, guests etc., and what about theirvehicles ?There is still 1st floor balconies, which if used would create extra noise.Then there is the matter ofextra vehicles to accommodate the people living (staying) there. !!Canford Lane is extremely busy both day and night and the entrance to 334 Canford Lane is veryclose to a sharp, blind bend.Traffic far exceeds the 30mph speed limit, and extra vehicles usingthe entrance to 334 in my opinion will only exacerbate the problem.Again as before I object most strongly. ( No.20/02002F) .Having lived opposite 334 for over 54years, there have been many Planning Applications requested, none of which I have objected to.This on the other hand is something completely different, and in my opinion would not be inkeeping with the rest of the surrounding properties, and certainly not used as "Residential "homes.

I am the owner of 112.A Coombe Lane, which is positioned behind 112 Coombe Laneand the rear-side of the right hand house in the proposed application. I do not believe that theaddition of two bedrooms to the existing application would cause any extra safety hazard.

As the closest neighbour to the proposed right hand house I am happy to support the currentapplication and the design promises two nice additional property to the neighbourhood.

Having recently completed the construction of two new replacement properties - 112 &112A - on the site at the junction of Coombe Lane and Canford Road I too had experienced theopposition from neighbours. However, I personally have no objection to the replacement of theexisting house and the proposed new development with two new alternative replacement housesat 334 Canford lane.

I am happy with the reasons stated and amendments made on the current application. The overallsize has been reduced, the footprint similarly, the style and materials proposed are derived fromthe style and materials of the existing properties and would sit well with the rest of the street.

As the neighbouring house, the positioning of the proposed windows and openings are appropriateand satisfactory in relation to my property. And as it is going to be occupied by two families, weare assured that our privacy will be respected.

Before I make a comment or objection to this application could you please inform mewhat exactly "2No dwelling houses" (Self Build) actually is ?With thanks.

As the applicant's agents, and as you would expect, we write in support of theapplication.

On 18.MAY.2021 the planning authority notified 32.No neighbours that a planning application hadbeen received for the development of 334 Canford Lane pursuant to the original application -20/02002/F - which was refused on -01.SEP.2020, following which a Pre-Application wassubmitted, the written response for which was received on 20.JAN20.21. The current application21/02002/F was prepared based on the Pre-App written response.

At the time of writing and of the 32.No neighbours notified there are 10.No comments posted, 9.Noof which are objections and the remaining 1.No is noted as Neutral, and there are no postedresponses from the statutory consultees; The application is due for determination on 16.JUN.2021.

In the first instance the applicants have accepted that the refused scheme was over-ambitious,that it extended too far into the rear of the site and that the extensive excavations beyond thebuildings to create integrated two-tier gardens could have adversely impacted on the amenity ofsome of the surrounding properties. In response to the Pre-Application the proposals have beensubstantially reduced, the garden excavations all but removed and the design of the propertiescompletely revised to respect the style and materials of the established aesthetic of this part ofCanford Lane. Little of these changes has been acknowledged in the comments posted, and muchof what is said is inaccurate and/or based on supposition!For instance, the idea that the 7.No Bedrooms shown with double-beds in each property will resultin a constant occupancy by 28.No adults, all of who will have cars is utterly ludicrous, and thecomments are clearly intended to discredit the scheme.

As to inaccuracy, objectors in Beverly Gardens state that they are directly overlooked from thefirst-floor windows and fear loss of privacy in their bedrooms. Taken in turn No.5 Beverly Gardens(BG) is set behind 332 Canford Lane (CL) and at approximately 50.M from the closet part of theproposed development and then on a line across the rear garden of 332 where the side and rearboundaries are substantially planted with existing mature hedges and specimen trees. SimilarlyNo.7 BG backs onto the rear gardens of 332 & 334 CL with a separating distance of approximately45.M, and Nos 8 & 9 BG, share their rear boundaries with the application site at an approximateseparating distance of 40.M - this is almost twice the accepted separating distance (21.M)between habitable rooms, and again the shared boundary is fully planted with mature hedges,specimen trees, and will be supplemented with a new boundary fence, the erection of which,though within the recognized root protection zones (RPZ) will not jeopardise the future of the trees.

Many of the comments made suggest that this is a dishonest or duplicitous application, andconsequently the objections made are in criticism of this imagined, fictitious use - the application issimply for two private dwelling houses only. If the applicants wanted to build Boutique Hotels,Party Palaces, Wedding Venues, or multi room AirBnb's that is what they would have applied for!!

Other comments made refer to 'negative impact on trees,' this will be dealt with by the Cityarboriculturalist; 'insufficient parking, overflow parking, and intensification of use of the accessresulting in increased danger to all road users,' all of which will fall within the remit of the TransportDepartment.

It has also been suggested that the proposals will result in the loss of amenity to the immediatelyadjoining properties at 332 & 336 CL - this is simply not the case - of course there will be anelement of change but great care has been taken to ensure that there is no sideways overlookingwith bathroom and shower room windows being limited in size and obscure glazed. All otherwindows are kept to the front and rear facades to look out over CL and the rear gardens just asthe existing situation.

It is important to note that there exists extant permission for the development of the site to provide3.No dwelling with a total of 12.No Bed Spaces - this application proposes just 2.N0 additionalBedrooms.

Amongst the inaccurate, imagined and frankly hysterical comments made we cannot see onesingle comment that can be justified in the consideration of this application.

David Hadfield - Architect

The Old Brushworks, 56 Pickwick Road, Corsham,Wiltshire, SN13 9BX

david@hadfield-noblin.com - Tel. : 01249 714229

Having recently completed the construction of two new replacement properties - 112 & 112A - on the site at the junction of Coombe Lane and Canford Road I too had experienced the opposition from neighbours. However, I personally have no objection to the replacement of the existing house and the proposed new development with two new alternative replacement houses at 334 Canford lane. I am happy with the reasons stated and amendments made on the current application. The overall size has been reduced, the footprint similarly, the style and materials proposed are derived from the style and materials of the existing properties and would sit well with the rest of the street. As the neighbouring house, the positioning of the proposed windows and openings are appropriate and satisfactory in relation to my property. And as it is going to be occupied by two families, we are assured that our privacy will be respected. Your sincerelyFoad S Sharghi

Dear Sir /MadameI am writing in support of the planning application 21/02002/F address 334. CanfordLane, BS9 3PWI have read the letter of support from the architects Hadfield and Noblin and fullysupport the planning application and all their comments made in relation to the latestapplication.Bristol prides itself on its diversity and inclusiveness so this is an opportunity for it tobe expressed.Yours sincerelyMr J Galvin

Dear Mr Boxwell,I am the owner of 112.A Coombe Lane, which is positioned behind 112 Coombe Lane and the rear-side of the right hand house in the proposed application. I do not believe that the addition of two bedrooms to the existing application would cause any extra safety hazard. As the closest neighbour to the proposed right hand house I am happy to support the current application and the design promises two nice additional property to the neighbourhood. Yours truly,Dr Raad Sabet

It's my opinion that these designs are just a rehash of the previous planning applicationthat was refused.2x7 bedroom sites, is just a small reduction on the 2x8 bed structure.

The new design is again overbearing and will overlook the private garden space of 336 & 332.

The maximum number of cars potentially using these properties will be an issue, certainly whenconsidering access to the main road and the proximity of the driveway to the bend at the end ofCanford lane.

The amount of traffic coming in and out of these properties will in my humble opinion bedangerous addition to what is already a very busy road.

It feels like these plans are a potential stepping stone to subdividing each house into flats,potentially trying to obtain back door planning for multiple units on the site.

General comments:I note that the Proposal Title includes 'Self Build', yet the Application Form S.16 states 'MarketHousing'.Houses appear to be in keeping with surrounding properties.Concern that mature foliage will require removing.Concern for visual impact from road that frontage will look like a car park, given occupant densitybetween both properties.

I object to the current planning application for several reasons:

-The scale of the development is out of keeping with the existing properties in the area and theiruse - Dwellings for a potential of 28 adults, with leisure facilities included, suggest these buildingswill not be used as family residences but have the potential to be used as short-term rentalproperties e.g. via AirBnB. Large groups of adults staying at the property is likely to result inexcess noise and possible antisocial behaviour. It will also significantly increase the traffic in andout of the property on what is already a busy road, near a blind corner, where people frequentlyspeed. Given that there are lots of pedestrians, dogs and children walking in the area because ofthe nearby Blaise Castle Estate I feel this will exacerbate traffic safety issues with the potential forsignificant harm.

-It is highly likely that the residents of each property will have more than 4 cars per house and,therefore, the 8 allocated parking spaces will be insufficient. If parking does spill over on to theroad this will further contribute to the aforementioned traffic safety issues and also present ahazard to emergency service vehicles that frequently use this road as a main highway to thehospital, etc.

-The extensive construction, including for extended underground basements, is likely to threatenthe trees and root systems on the property in an area that is known and sought after for itsgreenery. As per a previous comment, it is cause for concern that there is no landscape planavailable.

-The plan also involves the demolition of an attractive and characterful period home which

contributes to the aesthetic of the area. This seems a real shame and overtly wasteful.

This proposal is, in common with previous proposals for the same property, out ofkeeping with the existing residential properties and their use.The access to and from Canford Lane is adequate for current use but totally inadequate andhazardous for the proposed and likely use. Canford Lane is a 30mph residential streettheoretically. In actuality it is a main arterial route where the speed limit is commonly flouted toexcess and it is already dangerous to use. This will only become more problematic with theproposed Clean Air Zone which will make this road even more congested.

I comment on behalf of the trees that have been lost, will be lost immediately to facilitatethis proposed development, and which come under threat of future loss if this goes ahead.A BCC Arboricultural Officer was consulted in relation to the last refused scheme. I hope he isconsulted again about this further application. He commented upon the proper and larger RPA ofthe Sycamore, the pressure of the amount of building proposed upon the retained trees, theabsence of a Landscape Plan, the pressure on the soon-to-be-boxed in Yew tree, and the numberof parking spaces. i.e. overall too much concrete too close to too many significant trees (myconclusion).I quote "Due to the impact of the development on TPO'd trees on site (T1 and T6), I recommendrefusal in line with Policy DM17 and DM15. Any future applications should be supported with thefollowing information:- Construction and foundation details for the garage to prove root damage has been consideredand potential future subsidence has been avoided (NHBC 4.2)- Arboricultural method statement- Location and routes of underground services and utilities- Detailed specification for on-site arboricultural supervision for works close to TPO'd trees- LANDSCAPE PLAN (my capitals) "

I apologise for quoting from an earlier report by someone else, but the points made are pertinent. Iadmit to not being an expert with building plans. BCC Planning will have before it the earlier andthe current plans and will be best able to judge if the reasons for earlier refusal have beenovercome with this application.

I repeat a previous question, and ask the Tree Officer to check the assertions as to tree

conditions, especially for the Silver Birch alleged to require felling anyhow. How realistic is it toaccept that this tree requires felling and would have been felled even if there was not adevelopment in the offing? Seems probable to me that this tree too is to be felled to facilitatedevelopment, and thus should be counted for tree replacement purposes.

The 12 trees previously removed should be included in the tree count for BTRS as perimplementation of BTRS policy. We see quite a bit of this - get rid of the trees if at all possible andthen make the application to develop the land.

I ask the Tree Officer to 1) check the measurements and conditions of these trees, because I thinkthat Bristol deserves more replacements, and to 2) require the implementation of tree protectionstandards for retained trees as per the last AO's report, especially about T6 the Sycamore, whoseRPA is still quoted as 15 m despite the AO's comments in the refusal last year, and to 3) includepreviously removed trees in the assessment for tree replacement provision, and to 4) insist upon aLandscape Plan. There still is not one submitted.We see too often tiny trees, almost shrubs, squeezed on to remaining tiny areas of land withoutany chance of future survival, planted as mitigation for trees lost from the site to facilitatedevelopment, in order to avoid the expense of having to plant decent sized standard trees onnearby public land. We only know that that is not going to happen when we see a landscape plansubmitted with the application, as requested by the AO in the last refusal.Thank you.

We wish to object to this proposed development on the grounds of overdevelopment,overlooking and potential noise nuisance.

OVERDEVELOPMENT/SCALE. The proposed development is for two extremely large 3 storeyhouses (plus basements) grossly out of proportion with the neighbouring properties. The localitytypically comprises mostly 3, 4 and 5 bedroom, two storey, family size houses, which are in highdemand. If the site were to be re-developed with, say, three or four typical 4 bedroom detachedhouses, then occupation rates would still be considerably less than the proposed 14 doublebedroom plan. Oversized 3 storey, 7 bedroom houses would be unlikely to appeal to the averageresidential owner/occupier. Why would a developer build enormous, hard to sell, houses twice thesize of nearby properties, unless the intention was to let them commercially? This proposaltherefore appears to be a way of introducing future commercial use (such as HMOs or lettings forparty events).

NOISE/DISTURBANCE. The recreational uses shown on the plans could create the noise anddisturbance of a social club but without the restrictions imposed by a licence normally required forsuch establishments. This noise and disturbance would impact directly on the rear of our propertynear where basement doors to the gym are shown. Light pollution would obviously also increase.

OVERLOOKING/LOSS OF PRIVACY. There appear to be be two first floor balconies on bothhouses which would overlook the entire rear of our house and garden, seriously reducing privacy.The proposed fence does not screen the view onto our house from these balconies and there arepotential boundary issues concerning combined vegetation on our property and the developmentsite.

TRAFFIC. Eight parking spaces are shown on the plan, but the proposed occupancy rates plusvisitors mean that many more vehicles than this are likely to need access and parking. Overspillparking on Canford Lane would be extremely hazardous for vehicles on the very busy CanfordLane, close to a blind bend with two junctions. This main road also has regular emergency vehicleuse.

This proposal remains an incongruous and over intensive development of the site, entirelyunsuited and damaging to a quiet suburban residential location.

We object for many reasons:1. There would be a sight line directly from the upper floors to our bedrooms and we would sufferfrom a loss of privacy.2. 14 bedrooms is potentially 28 people, there would be unwelcome sound and light pollution tothe area.4. 28 people, with potentially 28 cars would mean insufficient parking space on site, so therewould be overspill parking on the main road, close to a bend and close the the entrance of Blaiseestate. With lots of children and dog walkers in this proximity and the existing hazards ( regulartemporary speed cameras are parked close to the site), this is an increased risk to the safety of all, not to mention the increased risk of so many people driving out of the site onto Canford Lane.4 The area has an identity synonymous with trees , nature and green. The size and scale of theproposed site is invasive to this.Removal or damage to trees is totally unacceptable ( there are Cat A and Cat B trees here)Furthermore, added concrete and less green may affect the drainage in the area.5 The design is more urban than suburban.6 Bristol is supposed to have a reputation as a 'green thinking' city. Where is the justification indemolishing a beautiful period building? Why 'fix' something which isn't broken and robs the areaof it's history and heritage?7 Anyone monitoring the planning proposals on this site would notice that the revisions becomemore and more invasive to the community on each iteration. This maybe a slightly smallerdevelopment from the one proposed in 2020 it is however a massive over development on asurban site. The change from presently 3 people and 2 dogs , to potentially 32 people is hugelysignificant. If this planning is not stopped now, residents in the community are asking where will itend?

8. Also we notice that there are large undesignated areas within the building plans which offerscope for future modification and potentially housing even more people on the site which is totallyunacceptable.9. The plans look more like 2 boutique hotels/HMO rather than family homes. This provokes thequestion regarding what is the long term motivation of this planning proposal.

We object for many reasons:1. There would be a sight line directly from the upper floors to our bedrooms and we would sufferfrom a loss of privacy.2. 14 bedrooms is potentially 28 people, there would be unwelcome sound and light pollution tothe area.4. 28 people, with potentially 28 cars would mean insufficient parking space on site, so therewould be overspill parking on the main road, close to a bend and close the the entrance of Blaiseestate. With lots of children and dog walkers in this proximity and the existing hazards ( regulartemporary speed cameras are parked close to the site), this is an increased risk to the safety of all, not to mention the increased risk of so many people driving out of the site onto Canford Lane.4 The area has an identity synonymous with trees , nature and green. The size and scale of theproposed site is invasive to this.Removal or damage to trees is totally unacceptable ( there are Cat A and Cat B trees here)Furthermore, added concrete and less green may affect the drainage in the area.5 The design is more urban than suburban.6 Bristol is supposed to have a reputation as a 'green thinking' city. Where is the justification indemolishing a beautiful period building? Why 'fix' something which isn't broken and robs the areaof it's history and heritage?7 Anyone monitoring the planning proposals on this site would notice that the revisions becomemore and more invasive to the community on each iteration. This maybe a slightly smallerdevelopment from the one proposed in 2020 it is however a massive over development on asurban site. The change from presently 3 people and 2 dogs , to potentially 28 people is hugelysignificant. If this planning is not stopped now, residents in the community are asking where will itend?

8. Also we notice that there are large undesignated areas within the building plans which offerscope for future modification and potentially housing even more people on the site which is totallyunacceptable.9. The plans look more like 2 boutique hotels/HMO rather than family homes. This provokes thequestion regarding what is the long term motivation of this planning proposal.

334 Canford Lane

We at 8 Beverley Gardens object to the proposals for 334 Canford Lane and here's why.

Previous application number 20/02002/F was refused on (among others) the following grounds:- Over-scaled and incongruous to its surroundings;- Overbearing intensive form of accommodation capacity;- Failing to mitigate the impact on nearby protected trees;- Concerns over parking/cycle provision.

The houses in this new proposal contains TWO close built 7 bedroom houses, with pictures ofdouble beds in each, meaning a potential of up to 28 adults living at the property. This is only aslight improvement on last year's party palaces of 32 people capacity over the two houses.

I see that the design of the new proposal is of a more in-keeping style for the area, slightly smallerscale, no underground swimming pools this time, and not filling quite so much of the garden spacewith massive full-length windows that overlook.But this design still has the look of an entertaining space, with two cinemas, two bars, very littleutility provision for 28 people - one objection last year questioned whether this will be a privatehome at all, but instead an AirBnB style place for large parties like weddings guests etc.

There are still first floor balconies on both buildings, which would overlook our private back garden- they're just slightly smaller than the large terraces previously proposed but the problem exists asthe same.

There are separate applications talking about providing enough protection for the TPO trees onthe property (21/01659/COND and 21/01660/COND). However, the plans on this proposal21/02002/F clearly show a 2.1m high timber fence boundary around the whole property, whichwould go underneath the root zone of many protected trees on the perimeter of the property. Atimber fence would need some sort of foundation posts, in order to secure it, which would meandigging in the root zone, which is prohibited. What's not clear is there is also another wall or timberfence line drawn on all plans, dividing the two gardens from north to south, which ends right insidethe root zone of the largest tree, the Sycamore (T06) that overlooks my property. This tree hashistoric significance, having appeared in Tithe/OS maps as a notable tree as far back as 1840.Has anyone made provision for how these fences will be secured in these areas?

On one of the plans, drawing number 017:P:001, I see what appears to be some sort of squarebuilding underneath the Sycamore tree too. Although this does not appear in all the plansprovided.

I'm not very knowledgeable about planning rules regarding parking and things of that nature, but28 potential adults living at the property will be surely posing parking jam with environmentalpollutions over the scale of land density.

We at 9 Beverley Gardens object to the proposals for 334 Canford Lane and here'swhy.

Previous application number 20/02002/F was refused on (among others) the following grounds:Over-scaled and incongruous to its surroundings;Overbearing intensive form of accommodation capacity;Failing to mitigate the impact on nearby protected trees;Concerns over parking/cycle provision.

The houses in this new proposal are both 7 bedroom houses, with pictures of double beds in each,meaning a potential of up to 28 adults living at the property. This is only a slight improvement onlast year's party palaces of 32 people capacity over the two houses.

I see that the design of the new proposal is of a more in-keeping style for the area, slightly smallerscale, no underground swimming pools this time, and not filling quite so much of the garden spacewith massive full-length windows that overlook.

But this design still has the look of an entertaining space, with two cinemas, two bars, very littleutility provision for 28 people - one objection last year questioned whether this will be a privatehome at all, but instead an AirBnB style place for large parties like weddings guests etc.

There are still first floor balconies on both buildings, which would overlook our private back garden- they're just smaller than the large terraces previously proposed.

There are separate applications talking about providing enough protection for the TPO trees onthe property (21/01659/COND and 21/01660/COND). However the plans on this proposal21/02002/F clearly show a 2.1m high timber fence boundary around the whole property, whichwould go underneath the root zone of many protected trees on the perimeter of the property. Atimber fence would need some sort of foundation posts, in order to secure it, which would meandigging in the root zone, which is prohibited. What's not clear is there is also another wall or timberfence line drawn on all plans, dividing the two gardens from north to south, which ends right insidethe root zone of the largest tree, the Sycamore (T06) that overlooks my property. This tree hashistoric significance, having appeared in Tithe/OS maps as a notable tree as far back as 1840.Has anyone made provision for how these fences will be secured in these areas?

On one of the plans, drawing number 017:P:001, I see what appears to be some sort of squarebuilding underneath the Sycamore tree too. Although this doesn't appear in all the plans provided.

I'm not very knowledgeable about planning rules regarding parking and things of that nature, butcome on - 28 potential adults living at the property isn't going to be a parking issue? Hmmm..