Shortening the mast by 3m doesn't change my initial reasons for objecting and I stillobject to this proposal. See my earlier comments.

This mast, no matter how high, and its ancillary equipment (control boxes) is completelyinappropriate for a village green in a garden suburb, conservation area. If the designation of suchprotected areas has ANY purpose at all, it should be to protect against such installations. Theremust be more appropriate and unobtrusive locations to mount such equipment.

Further to my previous comments I now have further information about the possibleeffect 5G Mobile Phone transmissions and trees. I have copied the paper below which was drawnup by a colleague in the Wokingham District Veteran Tree Association (wdvta.org.uk) inconnection with discussions with Wokingham Borough about the effect of 5G signals on the manysignificant trees in the Borough. It has also been considered by Reading Borough Council and twoplanning applications have been refused on the grounds that trees could be endangered byrequests to prune or fell them should they interfere with 5G signals.

With a lower monopole for the proposed 5G application for Sea Mills square there is even moredanger the the Addison tree would in time, as it grows, be found to interrupt 5G signals andtherefore subject to requests to prune or fell.

Paper by Derek Oxenbury

About to be introduced is a higher speed Mobile phone system to be called 5G. This uses severalhigher frequencies than the previous 4G system and some of these higher frequencies nowextend into the Millimetre wavelengths. This means that the signal absorption by the foliage oftrees is now a significant issue (similar to satellite TV signals). The system will be installed in largeCities first, then Towns and then rural areas when it becomes economical to do so.

Brief Technical description of 5G:The existing 4G system uses a frequency in a 700Mz band, similar to a Digital TV which is 600Mz.The new 5G system is going to use several frequency bands in parallel. The lowest of these is in a3.5Ghz band and for comparison a Domestic microwave is 2.45Ghz. The highest frequency to be

used is in aband about ten times higher above 24Ghz. These higher frequency 5G signals cannot easilypenetrate solid objects, like cars, buildings and trees. This requires placing the 5G base stationsevery few hundred meters in order to utilize the highest frequency bands. From a humanperspective this closespacing means the transmitter power required is very low at only a few watts and the radiationlevels are strictly controlled by an international organisation called ICNRP.

The effect on trees: Because of the low transmitter power with 5G there is unlikely to be anyphysical effect on trees. The main issue with trees will be the absorption of the 5G signals by thefoliage particularly when the canopy is wet after rain. So, there is a fear that trees will be trimmed,lopped or even felled so that the signals have a "line of sight" route. At the moment there does notseem to be a clear understanding of what the priorities will be with respect to protection of trees.Will the new base station positions bemoved to accommodate existing trees or will the trees bemodified to suit the base station?

Regulations:In Ofcom's "Electronic Communications Code" Mobile phone operators have the right to lop or cutback any tree or other vegetation that could interfere with apparatus. In the Code of Best Practiceon Mobile Network Development in England no reference could be found relating to the effect oftrees, and the Permitted Development Rights in England are set out in Part 16 of Schedule 2 ofthe Town and Country Planning.

Conclusions:There does appear to be a genuine threat to trees from the introduction of the 5G system. Thisthreat will increase when the higher frequency parts of the system are eventually installed (mainlyin Towns). Pressure needs to be applied to the mobile operators to respect the environment andtrees in particular.

Derek Oxbrough : 18-08-2019

References:s of 5G transmission on trees.White-paper-rural-5G-vision Surrey UniversityOS_Final_report_5g-report-environment-Ordnance Survey

Reducing the height of the mast from 18m to 15m does not change the location anddoes not change my original objection.

This monopole will be a visual eyesore at the heart of a thriving community and the boxes at thefootprint of the pole a visual and spatial intrusion of an area with a celebrated oak tree and ourbeloved museum. And imposing colossus in an area with low roof lines, children's playground anda much frequently community café. This is an area with a high level of dwell time, people spendtime here, they meet up, they catch up, they wait for buses, get there shopping, meet for picnics,hold community celebrations for apple day and family celebrations for birthdays - we do not wantthis monopole in the centre of our community life as we know and love it.

A catastrophe of planning that this can even be suggested for a garden suburb with conservationarea status - does this mean nothing?

We object to the revised plan for the mast on Sea Mills Square. It would spoil the lookand the character of this conservation area. Not to mention spoiling the historic tree and the minimuseum as well as being an eye sore for all enjoying the cafe outside or the park. The boxeswould be out of place as they are large and again would spoil the feel of the square.

Regardless of the mast now being lowered to 15M I am still not happy that it is beingerected on the square. I don'r object to the mask but there MUST be somewhere less intrusive!

Despite the reduced height from 18m to 15m my orginal objection to this proposal stillstands.

The reduction in the height of the equipment is not acceptable. I still believe theproposed location of the proposed mast will affect on the look and feel of sea Mills square and isunacceptable to anyone living in and around. A total rethink of this masts location needsconsidering urgently.

Please do not put the mast in sea mills square.Where you are planning on erecting the mast could damage the one hundred year old oak tree. Iwould be very sad to see that happen.You don't have to put it somewhere so open when there are plenty of places where it won't be ondisplay so much.Sea mills square is a very family oriented place.The mast will be very ugly situated in the square.Nobody wants to see it there. Find somewhere else to erect your mast.

I have already made my comment, however recently received a letter explaining theheight had changed by 3 metres. This makes absolutely no difference to my previous comments,please use these going forward.I am writing this on the evening of the deadline as the letter only arrived last week and I have beenexceptionally busy. I would rather not have to repeat myself as I've already taken the time tosubmit my concerns. Thank you.

Radiation source in a residential area by a childrens' playground.Suspected bad effect on the the environment,including insects and bird life

I object to this monopole irrespective of the reduction in height. It is inappropriately sitednext to a children's playground, vibrant café run by volunteers and beautiful trees, including theAddisons Oak tree, a historically significant tree. It and the accompanying cabinets are intrusive,unsightly and highly unsuitable for this location as it will destroy the look of the square that thecommunity has worked hard to breathe life back into for the enjoyment of all.

It goes against the aesthetics of the Sea Mills conservation area and would be at odds with the lowlevel buildings surrounding the square and open plan of the square. I request to see the reportprovided by the conservation officer regarding this proposal.

There is a strong community spirit in Sea Mills and I call upon the developers to work with us tochoose a far more suitable site.

Further to my objection to the original proposal (22/6/21), I also wish to object to therevised scheme (reduction of height to 15m) because it is not only the mast but also the cluster ofequipment at its base which will cause visual harm and be a scar on the focal point of the SeaMills Conservation Area and the heart of the local community.

The proposal of a 15m high mast on Sea Mills Square is brazen to say the least. SeaMills is a garden suburb and a designated conservation area, with the Square being thecentrepiece, so it's puzzling as to how has this application has even got this far. A mast would bean anomalous monstrosity, & in any case WiFi in the area is absolutely fine.Another mast proposal for the junction of Fishponds Road and Royate Hill has recently beenrejected as it would have resulted in "unjustified harm upon the character and appearance of thejunction." The objections to the Sea Mills mast proposal far outnumber the objections for theRoyate Hill one, so this strong showing of opposition, along with the fact that Sea Mills is aconservation area, must shut this proposal down.I spent my very happy childhood in Sea Mills and visit my parents and friends there regularly, andam very aware of the feeling of local opposition to this bizarre proposal.

I wish to put on record my continued objection to the proposed mast in Sea Millssquare. The recent suggested reduction in size does not take into account any of the concernsraised in my previous comments or those of my fellow Sea Mills residents. The objection was notjust to the size of the proposed mast (and I cannot see how anyone could think a 3m reductionwould have any less of an aesthetic impact) but to the alteration of a designated conservationarea. Not only would this mast and associated street furniture blight the area but would open thedoor to further changes and additional 'unsympathetically sited' masts and street furniture. Thesedevelopments have been identified in the council's own reports as a threat to the character of thegarden suburb. Our community takes a great deal of pride in this particular area and I would urgeyou not to allow the construction of said mast and to request that the proposers find an alternativelocation to consider their mast. I appreciate that residents of the area are keen for 5G coveragebut I do feel that the damage that would be done in the constructing of this mast is too high a pricetoo pay for improved coverage.

My initial objection stands with no alteration because the proposed reduction in heightmakes no difference at all to the damage this mast would inflict on this sensitive site in aconservation area. It would still ruin the square and have a disastrous impact on the cafe andplayground, dwarf the Addison Oak and the symmetry of the two churches, and destroy thecurrently unspoiled outlook of all the buildings round the square. It would still be inappropriate,unnecessary and ugly. It would still be an ugly monstrosity and it should still not be approved.

Sea Mills is a designated conservation area. It is also a highly residential community. Iobject on the grounds that this is detrimental to the well-being of the local residents, theconservation area should be protected (the clue is in the name), the mast is ugly (even if reducedin height). There are questions over any negative affects to health too (if not physical thencertainly psychological. With all this constant talk of the need to protect and care for people'smental health these days, why on earth would Bristol City Council want to detrimentally affect themental (and possibly, physical) health of such a residential community? The plan doesn't seem tohave been thought out very well at all.

I strongly object to locating this supersized mast in the popular and attractive communitygreen space of Sea Mills Square with its children's play area and much admired Addison's oak.

I can't see how such an overbearing and ugly structure would fit into any leafy, low densityresidential neighbourhood of traditional homes and shops, including the nearby areas of CoombeDingle and Stoke Bishop. Such a massive eyesore would be totally out of place in suchsurroundings.

The applicant's claim that the design will "minimise visual impact upon the street scene" as it willlook similar to the street lights is ridiculous. It would massively dwarf in height all nearby buildingsand trees (and streetlights) and its looming appearance would do great harm to the visual amenityof the centre of an attractive and well preserved Garden Suburb protected by strict planningregulations.

We've been assured in the past when masts have been built in the Sea Mills area that masts canbe shared and remain relatively unobtrusive, and now we are told this is not the case.

It's surprising to see that the plan has been altered to 15 metres, as the applicant claimed in theoriginal application for 18 metres that "The height of the pole has been kept down to the absoluteminimum capable of providing the required essential new 5G coverage" for the Sea Mills area.This makes it difficult to know what other claims in the documents to trust.

What is obvious is that this is entirely the wrong place for this oppressive mast -- along with itsaccompanying cabinets cluttering the pavement.

Any public benefit would not come near outweighing the severe harm to the character and settingof Sea Mills Square and its surrounding neighbourhood.

If these plans are not withdrawn, please do not allow them to proceed without a proper planningapplication.

Revision of the monopole from 18m to 15m is not acceptable as it does not address anyof my previous concerns relating to the safety of children playing in this area, effect on localwildlife and effect on income for the cafe on the square. I still strongly object. There are unusedspaces nearby that would be much more appropriate

I object to the revised height. Our child plays here and my wife and I have a coffee hereevery weekend. It's a beautiful part of the community. Please don't ruin this local green space witha 5g pole. There are green spaces nearby which are not used by families which would be moreappropriate. We as a family strongly object to the 5g pole in this location

Lowering the height of the mast will make no difference. Sea Mills Square is not theplace for this mask.

The proposed small reduction in height of the monopole makes no difference to myinitial objections.

Sea Mills Square is the small open centre of a garden suburb with low level buildings and it woulddestroy the look of the square which the local residents work so hard, in a volunteer capacity, tolook after.

It would be an absolute eyesore in the open space with no tall building to obscure it. An absolutelyridiculous proposal.

I understand that the Monopole has been reduced in height from 18m to 15m on thisplanning application.

I would still maintain that this is an unsuitable place to position such an object and that themonopole should be sited elsewhere, away from amenities at Sea Mills. To place it where it iswould ruin all the local efforts to build a community there.

The reduction in height of the mask from 18m to 15m still does not address the pointsraised in my original objection to his eyesore to even purpose that this type of mast would beunobtrusive in such a used community environment , must be looking at the location with blinkerson.

The mast should be sited elsewhere away from this busy and vibrant amenity area this would ruinall the local efforts to build a community for the greater good of both young and old alike

I was amazed by the recent attempt on the part of CK Hutchison (UK) Ltd to avoidseeking any planning approval for the installation of an 18-metre monopole with accompanyingcabins on the Sea Mills village green.

Given the barefaced arrogance of that organisation, I am not surprised to learn that it has nowresorted to Plan B: a paltry revision of its initial proposal by reducing the monopole height from18metres to 15metres. This is a bare-faced sop to our Sea Mills community, in the quite mistakenbelief that our short attention span and inability to process information would cause us to lose thenecessary interest or staying power to mount any opposition to what remains an outrageousproposal, regardless of height reduction.

It is staggering hubris on the part of any organisation - even one operating under cover ofGovernment groupthink - to believe it has carte blanche to march into our community and deface itwith such a blatant monstrosity in this way, without the slightest attempt to engage with or consultthe residents.

Given Bristol Council's own clear definition of Sea Mills' conservation status and developmentrestrictions implicit therein, it pains me to say that BCC Planning Department appears to becomplicit in this very shabby exercise. Unless I am mistaken, it advised occupiers of only 64 SeaMills addresses of Hutchinson's intention, via letters which were sent on 11th June, with close ofcomments expected by Wednesday 14th June. This cynical manoeuvre gave little time for thoseindividual residents to properly process how this proposed development might impact our greatlyprized and widely used community recreation area.

Moreover, I suspect the purpose of this highly questionable strategy was to minimise the potentialfor residents outside of these 64 addresses becoming aware of what was being proposed and toreact to it. The restricted distribution of a single advisory letter and three days in which to respond,was underhand in the extreme....and it isn't difficult to work out why.

I sincerely hope that our response - 445 letters of objection and rising - proves a salutary lesson towhoever heads Bristol's Planning Department: cherry-picking the rules and restrictions of both SeaMills Conservation Status and Covenant to appease a heavy-handed developer is untenable.Riding roughshod over this community will not work.

The Planning Department's secondary advisory letter, dated 30th June, was apparently sent to alloriginal objectors. Wisely - given the strength of our push-back - we have had a little more time inwhich to respond. This has also given BCC Planning Department time to judge the level of furyand resentment their original 'under the radar' announcement has triggered. As a community, wedo have a voice and we will be heard.

There is no need for me to specify the many grounds on which my objection is based: these arecontained in my previous objection submitted on 13th June.

Any reduction in height of the mast does not take away the impact it will have on thesurrounding interaction with the community within its green spaces , which all residents haveenjoyed for neuromas years.

The community have engaged and brought life back to the square for enjoyment for its futuregenerations , where the sight of an 15m mast will spoil the much loved green space and be ablight on the surrounding area .

Sea Mills Square is a lovely, community-focussed space where the Addison Oak shouldtake centre stage, not a 15m monopole. The area is a conservation area and it is ridiculous that a15m pole would be erected in the community's beloved space where it would dominate the lookand feel of the square.

This is a conservation area. Many of us have been prevented from having solar panelsand other tasteful improvements to our properties, as it will change the appearance of the area.This socking great tall mast will be completely out of character in the centre of our community. I'dvalue faster broadband, and would support a mast somewhere, just not there. What about with theproposed Mini housing off The Crescent? I understand the mast is so high that there won't behealth risks, associated with a shorter one.

I am a long standing resident of Sea Mills and someone who cares about the wellbeingof all residents particularly children.I object to this proposal, it is out of proportion to the surrounding area. It is unsightly andoverbearing particularly in a Conservation Area.Sea Mills Square gets the most foot traffic of anywhere in our suburb. Access to shops, bus stops,the cafe, church, the nearby school and playing field but most significantly the children'splayground.I strongly object to people being subject to vast amounts of radiation. There are a number ofstudies about radiation exposure levels within 500m of a mast that increase the risk of neurologicalsymptoms, headaches and loss of memory and learning capabilities, especially in children.

In addition to the aesthetic considerations of siting and appearance that must be considered, theapplication raises grounds for investigation of the polluting effects of radio frequency RADIATION(RFR).

The cumulative polluting effects of 5G on health, risks to wildlife particularly pollinators, energyconsumption, and non-renewables depletion, I believe ALL together far outweigh any potentialeconomic and connectivity benefits.

Has the applicant been asked to submit a risk assessment of the proposal against the scientificevidence of risks posed to the public?It is entirely legitimate for the public to expect that the authority to reject planning applications onthe argument that the proposed use is an incompatible and unacceptable use of a building or asite. If the applicant cannot prove that the proposed use is safe, then the application should be

rejected on precautionary and public health grounds.

The amended proposal for a mast is still too high and out of chararacter for a gardensuburb and would be a detriment to the amenities of the local square which my neighbours and Ienjoy. I also have concerns for its likely health impact and would think very carefully aboutcontinuing to live in this area if it is allowed to be put up.It is a totally unsuitable site for such a structure.

The proposed site is in the heart of a conservation area with the green acting a focalpoint for the estate which is regularly used by the residents.The proposed telecoms pole will dominate the green towering over the two-story houses andbuildings that surround it.Although the technology is necessary it should not be in such a prominent location and should besited elsewhere.

A mast cannot become a defining feature of a community's life. A mast like this shouldnot be placed in an immediate proximity of a children's playground; there are other discrete placesin the area (eg the meadow by the Sylvan Way/Portway traffic lights ). The plan for the mast isthoughtless and insensitive.

I believe this mast, whatever it's height, will ruin the square. I do hope that BCC willreject this application.

Since my previous objection, the proposed height of the pole has been reduced from18m to 15m. My original objection still stands. I was not objecting to the height of the pole, but tothe site. Sea Mills Square is an inappropriate site for this development. It is the focal point of thecommunity in a conservation area. I object to this revised proposal.

You don't seem to have listened to the local people. We didn't say reduce its height. Wedon't want it there on our historic green next to our post office museum and the famous 'Addison'oak tree. Reducing it from 60ft to 50 means nothing. Stop this plan now and listen to the counciltax payers. Or will you ignore us like our self serving Mayor!!

As a past Sea Mills resident for several decades, I am dismayed by the proposal toerect a 5G monopole and associated cabinet equipment in the heart of this historic garden suburb.What ever the height of the monopole, it will be an unsympathetic intrusion into the attractivecentral square and its proposed vicinity to the new museum in the telephone box and the 100 yearold Addison tree planted when Sea Mills was established. There is currently considerablecontroversy about the possible effects of 5G frequencies on trees and vice versa and it would be atragedy if the instalment of this equipment would lead to damage to the tree (which as an oakcould live for many centuries) or even to its pruning/felling. There must be other places in Sea Millwhich would be much more appropriate to site this technology.

You are proposing to erect a mast in a conservation area and next to the Sea Mills OakTree which is recognised (and has won awards) for its beauty. There is a children's park nearbyand the local community often come down here to enjoy the beauty of the area. Please do noterect a mast here. You will completely ruin the esthetics of the area and make the people of SeaMills very unhappy.

This is a completely unsuitable location for this mast. Sea mills is a conservation areawith the square at its heart, which should be a place for the community to meet and to enjoy. Thismast will overshadow the beautiful old oak tree and is in direct view from the playground and cafeon the square. It will be a massive eyesore and should not be allowed to be located here.

Thank you for your letter dated 30 June 2021 stating that the proposal for erecting a 5G monopolein Sea Mills has been revised from 18m to 15m.

With respect this revision is missing the point.

The objection is not the height of the 5G mast but its location.

In my feedback on the Council website I asked if other sites had been considered and the reasonswhy these had been rejected.

Your letter neither lists any alternative sites under consideration either in the past or present, orthe reasons that these have been rejected in favour of the location.

Please could you tell me which other sites have been considered? And the reasons why thesehave been rejected?

The residents in Sea Mills do not want an unsightly monopole erected in the central square. Theremust be a better solution than this?

Kind regards,

John Stevens

I am regularly in this area and need an outdoor space to spend time with friends andrelatives without going indoors (due to covid restrictions). This is an insult to the community of SeaMills.

Sea Mills is an area that needs care and attention. The community is successful inmaking the square a place of community and heritage.This is not welcome.There are surely alternatives to permanently spoiling sea mills.

A 15m mast will look completely out of place in this conservation area on our lovelygreen next to the 100 hundred old Addison's oak tree. It will tower above everything else in thearea. I object to its placement on the green next to Shirehampton Road.

Sea Mills is a conservation area and residents need planning permission to put in aporch that will be rejected if it's not in keeping with the rest of the surrounding buildings. A 15mmast will look massively out of place here among our lovely two storey houses, play park and cafe.There must be a better place for a 5G mast around Sea Mills that's not so obvious or right next toour oak tree and slap bang in the middle of a green area.

I completely & strongly object in every way to this planning application.

Public Health is a material planning consideration and all the evidence must be considered. Harmbelow ICNIRP safety levels is proven, INCIRP guidelines are not safe and are not law (ehtrust.org)

Polluting effects of the radiation eimtted from this mast falls within the Councils responsibilityunder the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Pollution PRevention and Control Act 1999(EPA 1900, PPC 1999)

Painting the antennas to match the external brickwork of the tower (as proposed,) would notreduce the impact of the local church being defaced by an installation that could be emittingharmful RF-EMR polluting emissions.

The proposed antennas would be sited 76m from Sea Mills Primary School School, 107m fromSea Mills Boys & Girls club, 455m from the Abona Court Retirement Apartments, 30m fromwoodland, 153m from land adjacent to the Portway, 227m from Sea Mills Recreation Ground,416m from Trym Side Allotments, 408m from the River Trym, 441m from the River Avon andapproximately 124m from my house. Therefore the 5G upgraded tower antennas could adverselyaffect young children, elderly residents, householders, me personally the roads in Sea Mills nearto St Edyths Church and a variety of wildlife including birds, fish, small mammals and vitalpollinating insects.

Up until 3 days ago I was not notified of this planning application and I'm furious that it should beconsidered in such a densely populated area.

There is a far better possible site where communication antennas are already located on top of thehill in the Blaise Estate; they should be placed there which is a relatively safe distance fromresidential properties.

Merely reducing the height is an insignificant measure and doesn't take in to accountany of the other complaints regarding this mast - with the added possibility of the height being re-instated at a later date - it will still be an eyesore. It goes against the wishes of the community.This is a conservation area. It will clutter the area, as TDM have pointed out: "TransportDevelopment Management (TDM) normally does not like telecommunications street furniture onthe adopted highway as it adds clutter to footways" and will reduce the walkway for pedestrians. Itis also a matter of public health - the council must refer this to the pollution control officer to lookfurther into the emissions given from these masts. These emissions qualify for investigation underthe Environmental Protection Act 1990. ICNIRP does not set safety exposure levels for wildlife andthe polluting effects of antenna emitted radiation falls within the Councils responsibility under theEnvironmental protection Act 1990 and the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999. This mastwill emit radiation 24/7. Please see my previous comment. I FULLY OBJECT.

Despite the reduction in height the area is still a Conservation Area and this mast wouldbe in the wrong place.

I have already lodged my objection to this application. Now the telecom company haschanged it. Is this a devious ploy to negate previous comments and give people only 7 days toobject to the new application?I object to a mast in this place I object to an 18m mast. I object to a 15m mast. I object to a mast ofany height.This is a conservation area. Residents have to get permission to make changes to the front of theirhomes. How can it be acceptable to install a mast which will be an ugly blot on the landscape?I will write to my MP for his support.

Please note my objection to this mast as:- implications for health. This mast increases presence of 5G in the area therefore causing more5G waves as it would connect with the proposed increase in masts and 5G at St Edyth's church.This means people will be surrounded by 5G no matter where they are in the area between StEdyths Church and Sea Mills Square. This also encompasses the schools and play areas. No onecan state what the implication for health is long term but constant low level radiation is a massivehealth risk and this would provide that.- secondly 5G masts have wrongly been link to Covid 19 and attracted people who wish to destroythese masts. This provides an opportunity for an increase in vandalism with no extra resources todeal with this.- Sea Mills is a designated garden suburb and the 'gold standard' for Europe - hence the massiveresearch on it kept in Bristol Library. People are not allowed basic amenities to improve theirproperties - how can a huge mast be allowed. Bristol City Council is always quoting the NapierMills covenant when it wants to block people improving their lives but is happy to ignore thecovenant when thinking about putting a health risk in the middle of the community- already the proposed mast height has been reduced - which how's how opportunistic theproposal is. The mast will be taller than the trees and is not an attractive view for a garden suburband whether local residents like it or not - the area is a designated garden suburb.Please not my objections on grounds of health and safety and wellbeing

I received a letter from BCC to say that the height of the proposed monopole had beenreduced from 18 m to 15 m.That makes no difference to the awfulness of the proposal to put it there in the first place i.e. itmakes not one jot of difference.Since my first comment I happen to have seen the mast on the pavement outside Waitrose/TheCinema in Northumbria Drive Henleaze. If anyone is in any doubt about the appropriateness ofhaving such a massive ugly thing in the middle of Sea Mills Square , go and have a look at that.

I do not want this mast to go up in the square. I think it will totally ruin the look of thesquare. I don't think it's necessary.Sea Mills is a garden suburb and it should be protected.

I completely abhor the fact that the council have even accepted this proposedinstallation of a 5G mast on Sea Mills Square it is not wanted by anyone in this neighbourhood dueto health and safety and pollution reasons. This is in very close proximity to a high volume ofpeople including children that use the play area,the cafe on the square,bus stops and shops.May I suggest that if the council want this 5G mast they place it in their home location.

The new proposed height is insignificant it is unrequired.

Please reject this application due to the many objections made by the people who voted you tospeak on our behalf please support us

I also object to this. A mast of 15m will cause the same issues as highlighted by allobjectors to the 18m application. The developers need to engage with the sea mills community tofind a suitable location for this mast.

As Chair of Sneyd Park Residents Association, I write again fully objecting to thisapplication. Little has changed and object on the following basis.1. Mast is far to high.2. Will ruin Sea Mills village green.3. Sea Mills is an historic region and should be respected and protected.Please reject this applicationStephen Small Chair of SPRA

This proposal looks completely out of place with the surroundings - it will dominate thesquare which is such an important place for residents. This location does not provide the rightbackdrop or environment for this development.

I objected to this original planning application and I understand, though I have not hadnay dirtect notification, that there has been an amednment to the application, which requires newcomments.

I do not fele tjhat reducing th eheight of the mast by a few meters makes any difference to myobjections to this. It will still be spmething that negatively impacts the area. Surely thesedevelopers should have a consultation with local people to see if a sensible solution can be arrivedat.

I am very concerned that if this amended application o approved then before long changes will bemade (eg making it taller) without much more planning required. PLEASE put people ahead ofmoney and REFUSE this application.

Don't want this

Despite the fact that this Monopole is now going to be reduced from 18m to 15m, it isstill too high, and with the cabinets below is totally out of keeping with the scale of the existingarchitecture in the Square. It is in the centre of the Estate which is an important conservation area.This is the wrong location for this equipment. It is out of keeping with the area, will be a hugeeyesore, a target for vandalism and will destroy the aesthetic of what was a very carefullydesigned area. It is too close to housing and a play area.

As per my previous comments, I was informed that the Sea Mills Square was an area ofsignificance in the Sea Mills Conservation Appraisal

My recent conversations with the BCC planning team regarding the fitment of solar panels to therear (i.e not facing the square) suggest it would not be allowed:"solar panels in a conservation area but we are not generally supportive of the due to the impacton the character of the conservation area."How fitting a mast within the centre of the Square would be allowed would be contrary to thisadvice.

Even a single storey side extension in the corner of the Square was rejected:"we do not support the side extension as this would be contrary to the conservation appraisalguidance"

I feel that if this application is granted, it makes a mockery of my previous attempted planningapplications.

As mentioned before, there must be other suitable venues for this mast, such as the existing maston Kings Weston Estate?

Why would we want or need a mast on the village green. Surely this is a ridiculous idea.If we need this mast then out it somewhere less visible where it wont detract so fundamentallyfrom the pastoral nature of the green. Please, please, deny this application.

I live in Sea Mills, it's a garden suburb, the land was gifted to the people of Bristol andcovenants about the space and its use were put in place to protect it, to provide a clean, green,pleasant environment for the residents. This proposal, this development, the visual impact of itbeing in our centre piece square - dwarfing the houses, the trees - to approve this developmentwould irrevocably damage the spirit of the agreement that affords the residents the very land ourhomes and community is built on. NIMBYism aside, this would be an eyesore in our focal centre, adegradation of the communities pride in its unique and special place in the history of Bristol and istrongly reject this application.

The size of the mast makes no difference, conservation area when it suit the council.No to the mast at any size, wrong place.

I strongly object to this planning applicationSea Mills is a garden suberb and within a conservation area.Even with the revised height it would still be an ugly intrusion of this important part of Sea Mills.

This mast is completely out of keeping with the local area, which is a conservation area.Sea Mills square in particular is the heart of the community and an area where people meet. Thereis a local play ground and community-led cafe. The proposed mast will substantially affect thelocal environment. Although the height extends above current buildings, changes to the height donot negate the wider issue. A central community space in the heart of a historic village that sitswithin a conservation area (home to a culturally important tree for example) is simply not anappropriate place for this.

After waiting for so long to get a children's playground on the Square in Sea Mills, I can'tbelieve how it's going to blighted by a 15 metre mast.The Square is a meeting place for all residents of Sea Mills. We have a cafe, a small museum ( inan original red phone box!) and a lovely green area where people sit and catch up.If a mast is so vital to the area, please put it somewhere where it would be an eyesore for all of us.

I strongly object to this proposal and believe this is a wholly unsuitable location for avast piece of telecoms equipment. This is a conservation area and the proposed installation of a15m mast on our little green, dwarfing a wonderful old oak tree and opposite a playground andlocal cafe, is an appalling idea. I couldn't be more opposed to this planning application.

Dear Sir,

Please do not site this huge Monopole on Sea Mills Square, which is a conservation area and willbe an ugly blot on our landscape, opposite an historic tree and next to a children's playground anddetracting car drivers from a busy zebra crossing and also next to our Cafe on the Square, acommunity cafe.There must be somewhere better for this, if it is indeed needed at all, on higher ground or on thePortway possibly where there is more open space or near the radio mast on Kingsweston point?I and all my neighbours, who have no access to email, feel the same way about this even if heightreduced it is still an ugly blot on the landscape.

Many thanks,Diane Cogan

No we do not want this on our square at all no matter how big, there are plenty of othermore discrete places it could go.

It's hard to believe that this has come back as a new proposal when it's merely a slightreduction in height. It doesn't address any of the significant objections made previously. It's not theheight that's the key problem, it's the fact that you're even considering putting this ugly piece oftech into the centre of a Garden Suburb, right next to an historic and beautiful oak, and right whereeveryone can see it, whether from the playground, the cafe, the shops, the road or anywhere else.Putting something so aesthetically crass into this vibrant and attractive community is an act ofvandalism. It would be better to go for a proper planning application than to just keep shaving bitsoff in the hope that people will get tired of objecting.

Sea mills square has been losing it beauty over the years, this would be just anothereye sore

seamills Square is a beautiful place where lots people meet.there is a park for childrenand a cafe.a very lovely part of seamills.this would spolit the square .we haven't got lots ofbeautiful places so please don't spoilt this one

I feel that the mast and associated cabinets are unsightly and do not sit comfortably withthe vision of a garden suburb which should be protected at all costs.I object to this plan most strongly.The local community values the Square and has tried to influence and improve the area bysupporting the children's play area, the community cafe and the mini museum in the telephonebox.This plan overides all their wishes and plans to keep the original ethos of the estate whilst bringingenjoyment and other benefits to the area

A thoroughly bad idea!

This really needs to be somewhere more appropriate rather than the middle of thesquare. reducing the height to 15m is not going to make any difference.

I do not believe that the revised height of 15 m alters the fact that the mast and itsboxes will be an eyesore in an area protected by a covenant. It will still tower above the housesand historic oak tree. The positioning in Sea Mills Square is completely inappropriate.

To erect this mast on edge of green shirehampton road where it will be to close tohouses, shops, the children's park and the cafe on the square where people come to socialize andenjoy the outdoor space, this area is a conservation area and a garden suburb. I strongly OBJECTto said mast for these reasons.

The proposed monopole location is unsuitable and I ask that the developer engageswith the local community, for example via Sea Mills and Coombe Dingle Together, to determine abetter location. The location proposed is in the middle of a Conservation area, at the centre of acommunal meeting space. After the closure of the Community Centre, the place by the Oak andthe Café is the next best place for the community to gather for celebrations and meetings.Opposite is a play area for children, and the oak is a much loved symbol, next to the Sea Mills 100Museum. The monopole would take away much needed community space and destroy thebeautiful aesthetics that took years to develop.Please reject this location, there are for sure more suitable ones in our area.

The reduced height of the proposed mast won't make a difference,it is a still absolutelyhuge, with large cabinets at its base. It is completely out of keeping with the conservation area thatit would be placed. The Methodist Church roof or in the Recreation ground, near the electricalsubstation, would be much more appropriate. The whole of Sea Mills hates this idea, and it mustbe stopped at all costs

Of all the places this communications post to go this is the last place it should live. Onlya couple of years ago did we celebrate the 100 years of the beautiful Addison tree and thememorial of the surrounding space, families and surrounding cultures that have adapted with theworlds dynamic changes. Why would this be right to put this quite frankly disgusting post and it'sboxes in the square. If it's an amazing post that generates signal please put it down Avonmouth.Would there be better use if it was higher up the downs near cliff edge as there's lots of spacesthere. Why only place it on this small beautiful spot that our little community have. Please havesome decency to listen to us as the people who live here. There are other places! How would youfeel it'll this happened to your little town right in the heart of it? Thank you for reading

Next to the 100 year old oak tree and slap in the centre of an otherwise low level andvery green space. It will dominate the landscape. Not a suitable place.

My objections still stand despite a 3m change in height.This is not the location for any mast. The Square in Sea Mills is the focal point of our community, itis a flat area where the mast will be very visible for some distance. It will still tower above thehistorically important Addisons Oak tree.This is a conservation area and covered by the Napier Miles Covenant. I am sure that this mast,plonked in the middle of the well planned out suburb, would be against the spirit of the covenant.This mast needs to be located where it will blend in and not stick out like a sore thumb. Please donot allow this to happen.

I see that the developers have dropped the height. Of the mast.This doesn't change the look of the object in the area along with the large boxes situated next to it.

Let alone the chance of the mast being agreed to being made taller at a future date.

They need to speak to us to agree on placement not blindly decide on their own with no priorconsultation with the local neighbourhood.

Lowering the height of the mast to 15m makes no difference. This mast needs to bemoved to another location. Sea mills square needs to be left alone. It's outrageous that it's evenan option to put it there.Everyone in sea mills, is totally against the mast..

No, this is a conservation area. A 15m mast is unacceptable in the Square. Why don'tyou engage with the residents to come to a suitable compromise? We do not want this mast in theSquare in full view. Also what is to stop you raising the height in the future once it is there. I fullyobject to this eyesore in our community.

This application poses a severe threat to the character of the area as described byBristol City Council's own assessment below.Conservation Area 21Sea MillsCharacter Appraisal & Management Proposals

4b Main threats to the character of the garden suburb

- unsympathetically sited small-scale additionse.g. satellite dishes, alarm boxes, mobilephone and other masts, solar panels etc.

Given that the proposed mast installation flies directly in the face of the councils own managementproposal for the conservation area I think it is disgraceful that the application has been allowed toproceed to this stage!

Clearly the reduction in height of this mast is a pointless one and makes a mockery ofthe considerable objections previously lodged and ignored. Visually it is identical at the groundlevel where it offends most.Previously I asked that an alternative location was identified by the applicant in a less contentiousarea or mounted on a tall building. We're these ideas ignored?Primarily this mast may be required but it does not seem appropriate to locate it in the historicconservation area of Sea Mills Square. Could it not be positioned on the highway land furthertowards Kings Weston or at the top of Shirehampton golf club? This area is less intrusive andmore elevated which may mean the mast performs more effectively?I appreciate we need these utilities but this location is entirely inappropriate due to the visualimpact of the equipment at ground level. Shortening the mast makes no difference to be anyonepassing it and is insulting if the planning authority supports it as a compromise by the applicant.Where was the public consultation on this? I received no literature?Please find a less public position to locate this mast rather than a beautiful village heart wherechildren play and people relax at the cafe.I wholeheartedly object to this location and the detriment to the Sea Mills community when lessintrusive alternatives could be found.I trust the elected planning committee will support the refusal of this equipment and not be swayedby the meaningless reduction in height the is ineffective at living level.

It's Not about the height of this it's about the location

Seamills square isn't the right place for something like that as the square is the main route intoseamills and the first thing you will see is this massive ugly pole, by adding something like that to abeautiful location you just ruining the beauty of the location it's self, something like that needsplacing somewhere out of the way where it is hardly seen

It's not a good location and will spoil the look of the area. It could go on the recreationground or up on kingsweaston downs along with an existing mast.

This is not in line with the garden suburb status decided by Bristol City CouncilAlso not in line with environmental aspects including health and safety.

The revised plans do not alter my previous objection in any way. It is still clear from theplans that this would have a significant impact on this attractive square which is a central hub inthe Sea Mills community. I suggest the developer finds a entirely new location which is moreappropriate and has less impact on the community.

Although I do not live in Sea Mills I spend time there with friends and family as broughtup there. This would spoil the out look of what is a well kept community space and especially neara children's play area. There must be other not so visible places where this can be placed.

The reduction in height proposed does nothing to address the issues I raised in myprevious comment: namely the fact that this will still negatively impact the aesthetics of theconservation area, and the fact that there are alternative existing locations that could be used. So Istill object.

I really object to this unsightly mast in the centre of sea mills. It is incredibly crudelooking and is not in keeping with the heritage of this conservation area.Please Re consider placing this ugly mast elsewhere eg near Kings Weston where there are othermasts already?I was under the impression planning regulations were very strict for residents to preserve theheritage of this area, so why is this mast even being considered?

RegardsSally

No just no, i objected to previous plan and i object to the new plan. No matter what sizethey put up it will be an eye sore and will be totally out of place. There are many other places thatit should go, ie: the portway, or up by the mast that already exists on kingsweston common butSeamills Square NO!!!

I agree with having a 5G mast, however could this not go in a less obvious place, suchas the Kings Weston Estate close the where there is already a mast?It would be such an eyesore for the square, especially when so much hard work has been put inby the community to create an area where people can sit and enjoy the scenery, after all, don't welive in a conservation area?

I strongly object to this mast being placed in the area.We are a conservation garden suburb area and these green spaces need to be protected.Erecting something like this towering over houses and vegetation in the area during progressivelyharsher wind speeds is totally unacceptable and potentially dangerous to the community. It is aninappropriate place to put the mast, especially considering that the area has great historic andsentimental value to many of the residents.15m may be an improvement on the previous 18m but you cannot surely think this is acceptable?And if you knew the mast could've been 15m all along, why ask for 18m? We all know that oncesomething like this is erected, it can continue to expand. We aren't stupid.I have no objection to improving digital access for many in the area but this is not the right way todo it. You should be working with the community to find an appropriate location within Sea Millsand Combe Dingle, at an appropriate height.

Dear Liam,

I am writing to object to the planning proposal relating to the mast on Sea Mills Green.

1 The site is a conservation area and should be preserved as an example of the garden suburbconcept.

2 The aesthetic appeal of the structure is low, it is in a prominent position in a highly focal areawhere aesthetic considerations are more important.

3 The mast and cabinets will attract litter and graffiti and will be vulnerable to valdals

4 There are much better locations nearby

5 There is low benefit to the community, we already have mobile internet. This is not creatingrenewable energy or improving services

Yours sincerely,

Joel Broadberry

Revised height makes absolutely no difference to this eyesore being proposed. Istrongly object to the positioning on the square, the aesthetic of the area will be destroyed by thismast and it should be put in a more discreet place away from the public and residents.

No no no. Sea Mills is slowly being destroyed.Our once beautiful home is being ruined.Please don't allow this to go ahead.It's an ugly eyesore

I am still opposed to this, even though the height has been reduced by 3mtrs. It will stillbe a huge eyesore, directly next to a children's play park, a community cafe and green space. Thisis most definitely not the place for this.

I stand by my earlier objection, in no way does the reduction in height make the erectionof such a monstrous object, plus the accompanying technical boxes any more acceptable in thispretty square used by the local community- young and old. I fully object to this abomination in thisposition.

Just here to re object to the amended height. Does not change any stance of it being3M less sounds like a classic work around to seek ahigher acceptance/less objection rate.

Please request that this is subject to a full planning application. The reduction of themast height makes very little difference, the cabinets and mast will ruin the character of thisimportant community space which is in the middle of a conservation area and next to a protectedtree. Surely a TPO should protect the area around a tree as well as the tree itself? There must bea better solution than this that will achieve the phone coverage required without the detrimentaleffect on the area and community, even if it is more expensive.

Why was this not put forward in the first place? Despite the revision objection stillstands- it's a conservation area, make the effort to find another place.

I object to a mast on sea mills Square, place it in the Rec, we are trying to raise the areanot drop it.

Please refer to the council's own document about the importance of maintaining the"character" of sea mills by avoiding overdevelopment and the construction of eye sores in busycommunity spaces.

There is no requirement for such a mast in a community space. Surely it makes more sense to usea mast which is already in place, not very far from sea mills square.

Hi this mask is still too high at 15 metres and will be an eyesore in the middle of thiscommunity area, surely there is somewhere else to place it where it will not be so visible.

I strongly object to this being out here. It will ruin the community hub in Sea Mills andwill be an eyesore to the square.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on this application. My family and Iwere horrified to read of the proposal to site a mast of 15 metres plus cabinet and ancillary workson Sea Mills square right next door to our wonderful oak tree which was celebrated last yearhaving been planted 100 years ago. As you are probably aware, Sea Mills is a protected gardensuburb built 100 years ago for returning heroes of the 1st world war. They were built with gardensback and front giving a wonderful green aspect wherever you look. They were truly homes forheroes and the idea a company can come along and plonk this monstrosity right bang in themiddle of our Square which is the heart of our community is utterly wrong. Please do not grantpermission for this application on this particular site. There must be somewhere in the vicinity itcan be placed where the impact will not be so great. Please give our community the considerationit deserves and refuse. Thank you. Barbara Nott.

I most certainly object to this planning application. Here are some of my reasons:1. Sea Mills Square is the centre of our community - such an eye sore is unwelcome.2. The Addison Oak and our 100 year anniversary is historically important to our community. Thismast will cast a shadow over our history.3. It's ugly and out of place. Put it somewhere less central.4. We already have very little in Sea Mills. The council has taken away our community centre, thelibrary is on it's way out, the children's centre closed, the recreation ground is unused. The onlything we have is that badly placed park and a tiny cafe. It doesn't mean you can make the situationworse by adding a ridiculous mast and showing that our area is of even less value.5. Our community needs beauty. Our young people need support. This is just a total joke anddisrespectful to the residents of a historic village.6. Put it somewhere else. I'm sure the residents of Stoke Bishop would love a mast there. Howabout Stoke Lodge or at the bottom of Stoke Hill, what about up on the Downs.. I doubt you wouldeven dare suggest that!Many thanks for your time.Miss Evans

A reduction in height from 18m to 15m doesn't change the previous objection that this issimply too high and too out of proportion with the local surroundings. It will ruin Sea Mills Square -3 metres isn't enough to change that reality!

Stoke Bishop Local History Group continues to object to this proposal for a tall mastwith associated ugly boxes in the conservation area of Sea Mills. Even a slightly lower mast willgreatly detract from the appearance of the area.There is no doubt that a less controversial location for this mast could be found.. please reject thisproposal.Jenny WeeksStoke Bishop Local History Group

We oppose the planning application to put a mast on Shirehampton Road. Sea Mills is a conservation area and we as residents have to abide by the rigid planning rules akin to a conservation area. It is that disappointing to hear that Sea Mills has been considered as a suitable site for a mast to sit alongside our 100 year old Addison oak tree, museum and our beautiful green space.

I think the plan to construct the mast is awful, and making it 3m smaller is extremelypatronising. It makes no difference whether the mast is 18m or 15m. Constructing a mast in themiddle of our conservation area, one of the few green spaces we have as Sea Mills residents iscruel and unacceptable. You wouldn't put a massive mast in the middle of a green space insomewhere more affluent like Clifton, should we suffer just because we aren't as well off and youfeel like you can just do whatever you like in our community? It's honestly outrageous.

I object to this proposal. This area is at the heart of Sea Mills, one of our few greenspaces that needs to be protected. As I resident here I find these plans unacceptable no matter ifthe pole will be 18 metres or 15.

Not happy with this- absolute disgrace. Leave our green alone- its the only conservationarea in Sea Mills and such a key space to us.

This needs to be moved off the square, reducing the height is not enough. It will ruin thelook of the conservation area and the hard work achieved by the community. There is no reasonwhy it couldn't be tucked out of sight. Why is there a need to downgrade a beautiful space.

I was advised by letter that the application has been revised (thank you Bristol CityCouncil). I am afraid that, for me, is not enough. This will still be a monstrosity that will blight thesquare. As I previously stated, there must be sites in the area that would be less obtrusive if it isreally needed at all. Please reject this application.

I strongly object to this 15m pole plus cabinets on the edge of the green onShirehampton Road. Case 21/02990/YSea Mills is one of the few garden suburbs left in England. Residents have paid money to replacethe local map of the area on this very green. Addisons Oak was planted on this green 100 yearsago to commemorate this wonderful new village built for returning soldiers and their families fromthe First World War.I do accept that we must move with new technology and I am aware that this mast will enable 5Gsignals, however the edge of this historic green is not an appropriate place to put it. There areplenty of other places it could be put that would not create an eyesore or a blot on the landscape.Please do not put it on the green, Sea Mills residents care and take pride in this area.Kind regardsMargaret Rew

Today i have received a letter about the proposed mast being reduced to 15m but wouldlike to say this makes no difference to my original comment i still fully object thanks

After receiving a letter today regarding the size of the mast being reduced to 15m iwould like to say that my original comments still stand and i still object to this proposal

After receiving a letter today regarding the size of the mast being reduced to 15m iwould like to say that my original comments still stand and i still object to this proposal

Not a good idea... Our square is quite an attraction, we have a children play park andour small cafe, to put a large mast here will ruin the look of our square. It would be so close to ourhomes and with the airwaves it will omit there is bound to be health risks to us all.... Having a lifethreatening illness myself (leukemia) and now in remission I'm particularly worried of what couldhappen.. Why can't this mast be put in the large recreational field in behind the houses onshirehampton road where it would be hidden and not an eyesore smack in the middle of ourloveley area..... I think if thos goes ahead in the planned location it will be a disaster waiting tohappen. Please reconsider the locationThank you

A reduction of 3 meters is not enough! This proposed site is not suitable it will ruin thewhole area. Please try & find a more suitable location for this if its really needed!

I am an elderly person living at Abona Court, which is situated behind The MethodistChurch. The site of this mast is just too close to our flats. It is known to cause cancer in somesituations and for Health and Safety reasons I don't think this mask should be sited so close to us,less than a stones throw away.I and my fellow residents disapprove very strongly.Shelah

I am an elderly person living at Abona Court, which is situated behind The MethodistChurch. The site of this mast is just too close to our flats. It is known to cause cancer in somesituations and for Health and Safety reasons I don't think this mask should be sited so close to us,less than a stones throw away.I and my fellow residents disapprove very strongly.

RUDUCING THE SIZE IT NOT THE ANSWER WE DO NOT WANT IT.

Reducing height to 15 metres makes no difference.Please see the many manyobjectionsThese are all still valid, despite reduction in heightDo not allow this planning application

The reduction by a mere 3m does not justify the erection of such an eyesore in aconservation and historically significant suburb.Nor in close proximity to a children's play area and a community cafe where locals need to gatherwithout worry and facing an ugly and unnecessary addition. it is a disgrace that it has even beenproposed.

I object to this proposal as a person who visits the area frequently.Putting said mast next to a famous tree in a conservation area & in an area where there is a strongcommunity, who use the green space for recreation & social contact, is appalling.There must be a more suitable area to place it, such as Kingsweston Down,How could anybody see this space as appropriate? It seems to me that the proposer must havethought that residents in the area wouldn't notice compared to residents of spaces in the moreprivileged areas of Bristol.I request that this application is rejected.Christine Muddiman

I am responding to the revised details - reduction of monopole from 18m to 15m. This isstill unacceptable. This is a residential area and the installation of the monopole would have aserious impact on the aesthetic appearance of this area. Sea Mills is a conservation area.The mast would dwarf the Addison's oak tree.It should be place in a non- residential area, e.g. Kingsweston Down, where there is already a TVMast. Alternatively, it could be placed on the industrial estate at Avonmouth

I object to the proposal for a huge mast in such a public and central area.

Please explain to me how reducing the height from 18m to 15m addressed the previousobjections of Sea Mills residents? The proposal is an eye-sore to a beautiful square in aconservation area. I'm keen to have 5G in the area but there must be alternatives to both the sizeand location of this pole. I think a local public consultation would be wise to find a suitablealternative.

Reducing the height from 18m to 15m is frankly patronising as it does nothing toaddress my previous concerns about the visual detriment to the area. There must be betteralternatives.

I object to the proposal for the monopole mast on the Edge of Green Sea Mills,application number 21/02990/Y on the following grounds:

(1) Siting and Visual Amenity

Sea Mills is a conservation area - a fact which was recognised in local development plans andwhich the community at large has sought to protect. A mast would dominate the skyline, createvisual clutter and be totally out of keeping with its context. Specifically the mast would tower abovesurrounding buildings and also the Addison Oak and community museum.

In relation to mobile phone masts the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says thatOperators should bear in mind that there are certain locations where sensitive siting and designare of increased importance. These include Conservation Areas.

The NPPF also advises that.. "developments improve the environmental conditions of the area". Anew mast would degrade the environmental conditions of Sea Mills and surrounding areas,notably because:a) The mast would be unsightly and create visual clutterb) The mast will emit a toxic effluent and pollutant which is known to harm wildlife and humans,according to the definitions from the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990), the PollutionPrevention and Control Act 1999 (PPCA 1999), and the EU Directive on Industrial Emissions(2010/75/EU). The Acts specifically reference 'organ toxicity', listing as examples of this cellmutagenicity, carcinogenicity, and reproductive toxicity.

Reports also indicate that phone masts devalue local properties. Further masts are not necessaryin this area as there is already full network coverage.

(2) Health Impacts

The NPPF states that 'Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning groundsonly' (2019 Para 116). Noting that the NPPF is advisory, not legislation or law but also underArticle 4 (Para 38) councils do in fact have the authority to bar the progression of an ill-conceivedand incomplete proposal if it is deemed not to be in the interests of environmental or public health.

This proposal is not in the interests of environmental or public health in Sea Mills and surroundingareas.

There is a growing evidence base which demonstrates that mast radiation is a proven healthhazard and pollutant. The Kostoff 2020 paper(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037842742030028X)andhttps://ehtrust.org/science/show that microwave radiation from masts causes adverse health effects beyond the effects whichare protected for in the UK adopted ICNIRP guidelines. It is known that radiation exposure levelswithin 500m of a mast increases the risk of neurological symptoms, headaches and loss ofmemory and learning capabilities, especially in children.(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337624982_Limiting_liability_with_positioning_to_minimize_negative_health_effects_of_cellular_phone_towers In addition,

In considering this application the Council should make an evidence-based determination of thematerial planning consideration 'incompatible and unacceptable use' of land. The 2018 EECCcode transposed into Law in Dec 2020 clearly states that public health is an imperative andcompetent authorities should be reconciling the risks. And also that since 1 April 2013 health hasbecome a devolved matter (see Local authorities' public health responsibilities standard noteSN06844 March 2014)

Residents of Sea Mills and surrounding areas have a right to declare that they do not want to takethe risk given the evidence of harm and the absence of safety-testing of 5G technology.

Please also note the Council's obligations under the Health & Social Care Act 2012, which states:'2b) Functions of local authorities and the Secretary of State as to improvement of public health:Each local authority must take such steps as it considers appropriate for improving the health ofthe people in its area. (3) Subsection (4a) the protection of the public from ionising or non-ionisingradiation.

The impact of a proposal on health and well-being are material planning considerations. The

Council has obligations and powers and is required to act on the evidence that demonstrates thatRadio Frequency Radiation has toxic effects that qualify it as a pollutant from an environmentalpublic health perspective.

(3) Impact on the environment

As already stated above the NPPF requires proper regard for impact on the environment inconsidering applications. The Council is in a position to help preserve the natural environment forthe benefit of future generations and to promote sustainability.

Several studies show that phone mast radiation can harm insects and wildlife as well asvegetation. Studies also show that masts have a high carbon footprint, as per statements by theFrench Climate Council and expert analyses.

List of studies regarding potential harm to wildlife compiled by the Environmental Health Trust, aUS foundation run by the Nobel lead author and eminent environmental oncologist Dr DevraDavis: https://ehtrust.org/science/bees-butterflies-wildlife-research-electromagnetic-fields-environment/

A report in Science of the Total Environment (2021) shows that electronic radiation is an emergingdriver factor for the decline of insects, including bees, and that an increasing number of reports isconsistent with laboratory studies. The review states that 'the precautionary principle should beapplied before any new deployment (such 5G) is considered.' See also: Balmori, 2006, 2009, 2014and 2015. Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insectshttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720384461

With regard to your letter dated 30/06/21 - I still object. You may have revised yourdetails but I have not revised my objection. The mast is STILL huge. The mast is STILL ugly. SeaMills Square is STILL a conservation area. Sea Mills residents STILL need full planningpermission to build small porches. Sea Millions STILL don't want it.#seamillsforever

You have to jump through so many hoops to get planning for anything in Sea Mills butit's ok to put a massive mast in the square? I don't think so.

I fully appreciate the benefits of 5G, this is just a stupid place to put the mast. All of the roads inthe area point towards the square, the streets don't have houses on the corners to maximise theviews within the area and out of the area. Putting it in the square means it will be SO prominent.

Making it slightly shorter doesn't change any of that either.

Why not place it in the rec instead? A short distance away, limited running of cables from anyexisting connections that are at the current proposed site but would make a big difference to thevisual disruption to this garden suburb.

This would completely disrupt the look of the area.

This is my second comment - as the pole height has been reduced to 15m since myfirst. I still object to this project. Even at 15m it would dwarf everything around it and be seen formiles. Siting this pole in the centre of a conservation area - in one of its most celebrated parts - isunsympathetic and inexcusable. It will look terrible, and ruin the aesthetic of Sea Mills Square. Istrongly object.

I am amazed and delighted at the response of the residents in Sea Mills as theycollectively object with such huge numbers to the proposed 15m 5G mast installation on the Edgeof Green, Shirehampton Road. It is heart-warming to know that so many residents are aware ofthe harmful effects of 5G technology, and are prepared to stand together by individually makingonline objections.

Please note that increasing numbers of doctors & scientists globally are calling for a halt on 5Gdue to serious health & environmental concerns. It is also known that children, pregnant womenand the elderly exposed to these unacceptable levels of radiation are particularly at risk. Residentsliving near 5G monopoles and under rooftop antennas suffer illnesses which disappear when theyare removed; this has serious implications for people living in Sea Mills, especially the children,the elderly and pregnant women.

5G technology has not been tested for public safety and there is no insurance available for healthliabilities. Additionally, there is a zone around every mast with antennas called an 'exclusion zone'within which the radiation is known to be unsafe. The plan for these 5G upgraded church towerantennas in Sea Mills does not declare the area to which this exclusion zone extends. There isalso no evidence that the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)guidelines, have taken into account the cumulative impact of all operators equipment located inthe area. Exclusion zones are much wider for 5G than 4G, as highlighted here:https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/business-management/health-and-safety/how-to-manage-radiation-exclusion-zones-for-phone-masts

Importantly there are issues of pollution and risks to the public and wildlife. Government, Councilsand Planners are following ICNIRP guidelines for safety. This must be challenged as ICNIRPlevels are too high and are protective of industry rather than the public. Legally, planners need totake this into account and realise that ICNIRP guidelines are not law; emissions from masts arepolluting and need investigating under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the PollutionControl Act 1990. Furthermore, recent evidence shows that 5G will increase, not decrease, carbonemissions:https://docs.google.com/document/d/18UYNRpoRUHQj_yPGBEbXO2l8aE4-QXMR87cIQUtM3LM/edit?usp=sharing

I therefore ask the planning department to serve the people of Sea Mills by refusing planningpermission for the proposed 5G 15m monopole and ancillary telecoms equipment.

I object to the Monopole and it's location in Sea Mills which contradicts your ownappraisal (Bristol council Conservation area 21 - sea mills) of the area when stating -

8.30 given its function as the centrepieceto the garden Suburb, Sea Mills Squareis particularly sensitive to change. Any change to its designed layout or formal character would behighly detrimental to the Conservation Area.

I strongly object to this proposal which will be to the detriment of this importantConservation Area in Sea Mills. How it is even being considered is shocking given theConservation status of the land. I implore BCC to reject the plan.

This proposal is not acceptable. The proposed position of this mast is right in the middleof a well attended heart of the community. It is also a conservation area. We oppose this plan.

I write to summarise the enormous response we have experienced to the aboveplanning application. We have had remarkable level of negative feedback about this proposal asyou will see when you consider the over 300 objections placed on the planning portal.Residents strongly object to the proposal to erect a 15m 5G phone mast monopole in the centre ofthe historic suburb of Sea Mills.As a community group we recognise the need for increased and enhanced mobile coverage in thearea, but the proposed location, right in the heart of the conservation area, is completelyinappropriate and extremely unwelcome.In 2019 we surveyed around 2000 local residents to identify what they felt important about thearea to produce our Community Plan. There was a resounding response to maintain the nature ofthe Garden Suburb and maintain all our green spaces as important local amenities. The Sea MillsSquare is one of the most important green spaces we have and a 15m monopole with its ancillaryboxes would permanently damage the feel of the heart of our village.The Square in Sea Mills is a focal point for the local community, with the cafe, playground, phonebox museum and historic Addison Oak all playing an important role in defining the unique natureof this garden suburb.This monopole is oversized for a densely populated residential area, brings no amenity benefit tothe Square, and is at odds with the heritage and history of Sea Mills.As well as the response from residents we have had messages of dismay about this proposal fromall our local Councillors and I have received an email from Darren Jones MP saying the proposedpositioning of this mast is "daft".

Thank you for your recent letter stating the proposed Monopole will now be 15m high (instead of 18m).It is not only the height that is the problem, it is the location on the small grassy area next to the bus stop and close to the 100 year old oak tree.Please consider relocating the monopole in a nearby corner of the recreation field (The Rec).

Doesn't make a jot of a difference 18 to 15 foot - an eye sore is an eye sore. Do notwreck our communal space!

As well as the response from residents we have had messages of dismay about this proposal from all our local Councillors and I have received an email from Darren Jones MP saying the proposed positioning of this mast is “daft”.

I have placed the body of this text on the portal but felt it was our duty as a Community Group to send a formal letter to you as the planning officer.

Yours sincerely

Andrew F Wootton Chair, Sea Mills and Coombe Dingle Together

I strongly object to this mast being installed on sea mills square ,we have a gardensuburb that has restrictions on what can be built and what dwellings can look like to fit in with whatis here , there are no pubs in sea mills becuase of the same restrictions . so why on earth wouldwe want some huge mast bigger than anything else in sight , thats rediculus . we have a huge T/Vmast on kingsweston hill already why dont you put yours with or on top of that one . any where ,but not here it will look bloody awfull .

What is BCC thinking about allowing such a high 5G mast to be installed in a residentialarea? Firstly it will be so high it will be taller than the beloved oak tree in the vicinity, secondly itwill be unmistakably intrusive and thirdly there are still unknown effects in health placing 5G inresidential areas.Please halt this plan.Thank you.

Sea Mills is not only within a Conservation Area but it has historic significance as one ofthe first garden suburbs in the country. Sea Mills Square is at the very heart of that ConservationArea and the centre of the local community.

To erect a mast at this focal point in the close proximity of the Addison Oak, where the localcommunity recently celebrated its centenary as a garden suburb, is totally inappropriate due to itsscale, visual impact and harm to the Conservation Area.

Whilst I accept that the mast is necessary, I urge you to reject these proposals and to think againabout a more appropriate location.

I would like to object to these masts in the most strongest way!!!

This is a completely inappropriate location in which to build such a visually intrusiveconstruction, right in the heart of our celebrated and historic garden suburb, and sticking out like amurder weapon.

Conservation area.Ancillary equipment unsightly.Highly built up area.Other possible and less unsightly in Sea Mills area, eg corner of the Rec. .Other possible areas in locality, eg. Stoke Bishop, Sneyd Park.SEA MILLS SQUARE HAS BEEN IMPROVED AND IS NOW AN INVITING AND MUCH USEDCOMMUNITY AREA, ALL (except the playground) DONE BY LOCAL RESIDENTS AND SCHOOLCHILDREN. THE ERECTION OF THIS POLE AND THE UNSIGHTLY ANCILLARY BOXESWOULD BE DREADFUL ON THIS BEAUTIFUL SITE.

I am moving to the area within the year.The benefits of masts like this allow working from home through a reliable network. Through thiscommuting (and associated congestion and pollution) is minimised. I fully support this installationand its benefits.

Sea Milld is a conservation area. The green is fast becoming an area of communitygathering. A mast of any height would visually destroy the one pleasant area of mixed social andprivate I'm Bristol.

This is an area of green space which is very important to people who live in the areaIt is also opposite a children's play areaResearch is not conclusive that these poles are safe to be near children - especially in such closeproximity to where they live and play.There are surely other pleases it can go - a brownfield site not as close to residential houses or insuch a prominent position as to cause an eyesore which the residents will not be able to avoid.I believe the proposal should be rejected.

I know this area and its history well and live less than a mile away. I cannot think of aworse location in which to site a 15 meter monopole than this Garden Suburb within aConservation Area.Sea Mills Garden Suburb is Bristol's finest example of planned post-WW1 municipal housing. Themeticulous planning of the Sea Mills Garden Suburb makes it particularly sensitive to physicalalterations, which in other ways may have little or no impact.Indeed, according to Bristol City Council's "Sea Mills Conservation Area Character Appraisal &Management Proposals" of 2011, the type of interventions that could undermine the character orspecial interest of Sea Mills Conservation Area include "New developments and infill that fail topreserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area [such as]unsympathetically sited small-scale additions e.g. satellite dishes, alarm boxes, MOBILE PHONEAND OTHER MASTS..." (my capitals emphasis)The proposed mobile phone mast, standing close to but higher than the famous Addison's Oak,would surely be a monumental failure to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of thisspecial Conservation Area and a dereliction of the planning department's duty of care andresponsibility.

I know this area and its history well and live less than a mile away. I cannot think of aworse location in which to site a 15 meter monopole than this Garden Suburb within aConservation Area.Sea Mills Garden Suburb is Bristol's finest example of planned post-WW1 municipal housing. Themeticulous planning of the Sea Mills Garden Suburb makes it particularly sensitive to physicalalterations, which in other ways may have little or no impact.Indeed, according to Bristol City Council's "Sea Mills Conservation Area Character Appraisal &Management Proposals" of 2011, the type of interventions that could undermine the character orspecial interest of Sea Mills Conservation Area include "New developments and infill that fail topreserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area [such as]unsympathetically sited small-scale additions e.g. satellite dishes, alarm boxes, MOBILE PHONEAND OTHER MASTS..." (my capitals emphasis)The proposed mobile phone mast, standing close to but higher than the famous Addison's Oak,would surely be a monumental failure to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of thisspecial Conservation Area and a dereliction of the planning department's duty of care andresponsibility.

This is absolutely the wrong place for this mast. Sea Mills is a conservation area, andfor good reason. The square has a very special history, and the proposal is to site the mast verynear to the 102 year old Addison Oak, which commemorates the foundation of the utopian gardensuburb. This mast is completely out of keeping, and will dominate the square and ruin the view ofthe oak and surroundings.

The proposed mast is too large and seriously out of scale with the rest of the Square.The bulk of cabinets at the base render it clumsy and obtrusive at ground level.

Sea Mills Square is a conservation area. The whole estate was developed as 'Homes for Heroes'and has just celebrated its 100th anniversary. The Square is of considerable historic and townplanning interest. The mast would seriously degrade the overall aesthetic of the Square and bedetrimental to its historic interest.

The proposed mast is too large and seriously out of scale with the rest of the Square.The bulk of cabinets at the base render it clumsy and obtrusive at ground level.

Sea Mills Square is a conservation area. The whole estate was developed as 'Homes for Heroes'and has just celebrated its 100th anniversary. The Square is of considerable historic and townplanning interest. The mast would seriously degrade the overall aesthetic of the Square and bedetrimental to its historic interest.

I object to the installation of the monopole on Sea Mills Square. The Square is central toSea Mills and important to the local community. It houses the Addison oak, the 100 year old tree.A playground, a community cafe. There is housing as well as businesses on the Square and it'snot far from the local primary school. I'm sure that there must be some brownfield sites or moreremote locations more suitable for a large installation like this and not in the heart of thecommunity in Sea Mills.

I can't believe this is being considered! There is a lovely community feel in Sea Millsand the green space is at the heart of it. It is vital that the centre keeps its aesthetic qualities forthe people's well being. It needs to be a place where people can congregate and enjoy the beauty.I am not opposed to such a tower completely. I don't really understand the need for speed but Iwouldn't stand in the way of progress. There must, however, be a more appropriate place to locateit rather than at the heart of Sea Mills.

Whilst it is recognised that technological progress requires the necessary infrastructurefor this to be accessible to all, the location of this proposal on Sea Mills Square itself is entirely outof keeping with this key and central site, and element of, our community.

This is a conservation area of historical significance, that recently celebrated its centenary. Therehas been a hugely successful initiative to help educate and inform residents of the importance ofthe heritage of their community, and indeed this planned community received national coverageabout the policy of the Addison Act that brought such communities into being across the country;which Sea Mills has become a living exemplar of.

Developments such as this wholly undermine the social benefits of increased engagement andawareness of, and indeed pride in, their own communities as it runs roughshod of the heritage ofthe community itself. No community could, or should, be preserved in aspic however this is selfevidently entirely unsympathetic to the nature of the site; and it is difficult to see how this could bemitigated at all within the Square itself.

With huge improvements made to the 'life' of the Square in relatively recent times, with the Cafe ofthe Square, the Play Area, the Museum, and more; a development such as this would detract fromthe success of these and would significantly detrimentally impact further enjoyment of the areanow and in future as a result of this entirely intrusive inclusion to the 'street scene'.

Further work needs to be done by the developer to research and identify alternatives, and toprovide a more comprehensive evidence base to possible solutions. The community wouldwelcome being involved in an active dialogue with the developer about this, and I am confident

that if such an approach were taken then that a mutually agreeable outcome will result.

Jason Budd

Sea Mills stands out as different from other suburbs of Bristol and was clearly designedto be a special place. Great thought went into the planning of it as a Garden Suburb, resulting inthe 1981 and 2008 decisions making the whole of the Garden Suburb into a Conservation Area.The addition of a 15.0 metre high pole with the accompanying cabinet and other works in themiddle of the main square would wreck the whole concept of the area, and destroy what makes aGarden Suburb special. It would be impossible to ignore and the beauty of Sea Mills Square wouldbe lost.Please refuse this application and refer the applicants to more appropriate settings for such anintrusive piece of technology.

I feel this proposal is completely inappropriate for the setting. Sea Mills Square isunique and any development should be respectful of its history. The mast and the gun metal greycabinets are rather ugly and obtrusive. And this together with its size will have a detrimental effecton the visual character of the Square and its surroundings. I sincerely hope this proposal isrejected.

As Vicar of this parish (St Edyth's), I do object to this. We have worked hard for manyyears to bring both community and pleasant surroundings to the Cafe on the Square, theplayground and the site of the proposed mast. I feel it is wrong in its location, size and height, all ofwhich will reduce the aesthetics and friendly feel of that location. Revd John Monaghan, Vicar ofSt Edyth's Church

I don't object to the mast but I strongly object to the location. Please do not put it on ourSquare what about the playing field not very far away.

I object to the addition of a 5G pole on sea mills green.It is not in line with the conservation area and the garden suburbs esthetics.Also it will dwarf other adjacent buildings and disfigure the skyline of the area.There is a risk of devaluation of properties in the areas.The square is a central area for the community with green space, a cafe and a playground. Theaddition of this mast will denatures everything which has been achieved so far.Sea Mills is an area which is improving.If going ahead, this mast will scar the surroundings.Also, I am worried about the radiation, particularly on children.

What an ugly thing to build in the very middle of the first Council-built garden suburb forreturning war heroes! Now the Council are smacking the community in the face by building an ugly5g mast right next to the very oak tree that Addison placed when Sea Mills was opened without somuch as a by your leave! It will certainly spoil the area!

1. what is the benefit of this new mast? Is there currently a lack of good signal in thearea?2. This is clearly unappealing to look at and will certainly detract from the space.3. I would like to see clear evidence that the hardware has undergone long term trials (published inpeer reviewed journals) to assure there will be no negative impact on those living nearby. If thishas been shown to be perfectly safe then why not be upfront with that information to assuagepeoples doubts and fears.

I totally object to this. I have family and friends living in Sea Mills that I would visit on aregular basis before covid-19 pandemic put a temporary hold on this. I have begun my regularvisits to the area now that lock down is being eased. Being a regular user to the Cafe On TheSquare I am horrified to learn that this mast will be placed on this green right next to the historicalAddison Tree. The placement of this monstrosity is unthinkable and unworkable. Such masts inShirehampton have been placed on the roof of local flats such as Sedgewick & Barwick arenowhere near 18 metres in height as proposed for Sea Mills maybe because they are on highground. This proposed mast is in a dip between two hills and as the height has been changed for asecond time what's to say it's height would be increased again due to poor reception and signals.There is also a health & safety issue in the future as this mast would most probably need somesort of security fencing to protect and making it an even bigger eyesore to the area. There is alsothe environmental aspect as it is unknown the omissions that are likely to occur (comparisons withBarwick & Sedgewick flats) and the possible destruction of wildlife and trees, in particular theAddison Tree, one of the oldest & most recognisable trees in the area. Such masts give out lowlevel noise that humans can hear but to wildlife would be excruciating. The placing of this mast inthis area is totally unacceptable and badly thought out and whoever thought this placement insuch an area deserves to be sacked! I really do hope this planning application is refused out right

Further to my original objection, I am writing to also object to the recently Revised Plansfor the Monopole mast at a height of 15m uploaded to the Planning Portal on 29th June.

My original objections, copied below, remain the same. Despite the slightly lower height proposed,at 15m, this mast would still be roughly double the height of the low-rise houses that characteriseSea Mills, it would be 10m higher than the street lamps, and it would still compete with the locallylisted, landmark buildings of St. Edyth's Church and the Methodist Church in views both within andfrom outside the Conservation Area.

The Sea Mills Conservation Area Character Appraisal states, with reference to the two churches,that: "It is important to the roofscape of the Garden Suburb that no more buildings are permitted topunctuate the skyline as this would detract from the skyline as originally planned with just the twochurches punctuating it." (Paragraph 8.40, page 74). Whilst this paragraph specifically mentions"buildings", the same would apply to the proposed mast.

Given its alien, 21st century appearance in contrast to the homogeneous and uniform 1920scharacter of Sea Mills Conservation Area, this mast would stick out like the proverbial sore thumbno matter where it was located within the Conservation Area.

As quoted in my original objection, the Sea Mills Conservation Area Character Appraisal states:"Designed and built in just over a decade, Sea Mills Garden Suburb is a single unified and uniformentity. Holistically planned and formally laid out following Garden City and Garden Suburbprinciples, it is a single homogeneous design. Unlike Conservation Areas of varied constructionthat have evolved over centuries, where it may be possible to introduce new designs, provided

they are sympathetic, Sea Mills is particularly vulnerable to change of this kind, uniformity being afundamental characteristic. Even minor changes can have a detrimental effect." (Sea MillsAppraisal, paragraph 8.2, page 71).

Under the heading "Main Threats to the Character of the Garden Suburb", the Appraisal includes"Loss of or harm to views within, into and out of the Conservation Area from ... new developments"(page 7). On page 74, the Appraisal states that "Unsympathetically sited or non-traditional streetfurniture can be highly detrimental to the public realm" (paragraph 8.35).

As mentioned in my original objection, the Sea Mills Appraisal specifically refers to "mobile phonemasts" and their impact on local views, and states specifically that "masts are out-of-character withthe conservation area". (For the context and the specific reference, please see my point 4 below).

The Appraisal further states that "Preserving the setting and views out from, as well as views intothe Conservation Area, is vital in protecting its character and significance" (paragraph 6.2.5), andin paragraph 6.2.11 (page 27) that "The preservation of all types of views both within and out fromthe Conservation Area is vital in protecting its character and special interest".

In addition to my previous comments, the Appraisal, on page 7, lists the "Main Threats to theCharacter of the Garden Suburb" stating that:

"The meticulous planning of the Sea Mills Garden Suburb makes it particularly sensitive tophysical alterations, which in other areas may have little or no impact. The following summarisethe type of interventions that could undermine the character or special interest of the GardenSuburb: "New developments and infill that fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearanceof the Conservation Area" and "Unsympathetically sited small-scale additions e.g. satellite dishes,alarm boxes, mobile phone and other masts".

All the above applies to any location proposed for this form of accretion ANYWHERE WITHIN SEAMILLS CONSERVATION AREA.

I am also concerned that, should planning permission be granted for a mast at this height, thenfurther applications to build a mast at an even greater height may be more likely to succeed.

I ask you to please REFUSE this application.

My original objection dated 18th June:-

I object to this application.

The proposed monopole mast would be harmful to the Garden Suburb's character andappearance if it was located ANYWHERE IN SEA MILLS CONSERVATION AREA, not just Sea

Mills Square, for the following reasons:

1. Sea Mills is predominantly characterised by small, low-rise, low density, two-storey, cottage-style houses approximately 8 metres in height. The proposed mast would be 18 metres, 10 metreshigher, and more than double the height, of the Garden Suburb houses. (See Sea MillsConservation Area Character Appraisal 2010 page 6 under the heading "Main Characteristics ofthe Garden Suburb".)

2. The height of the nearby tower of the locally listed St. Edyth's Church is 21.5 metres. The locallylisted Methodist Church on Sea Mills Square is a similar height. At a height of 18 metres, theproposed mast would compete with these two highly important and prominent buildings in viewsboth within the Garden Suburb and in views of Sea Mills from a distance.

3. Under the heading "Views and Vistas", the Sea Mills Conservation Area Character Appraisalrefers to the skyline of the Garden Suburb being originally planned with just the two churchespunctuating it, and states that "it is important to the roofscape of the Garden Suburb that no morebuildings" should be permitted to punctuate the skyline.

The two churches are referred to in paragraph 6.2.6 of the Appraisal (page 27) with reference to"Long views" which "are the main distant views of the undulating landscape of the GardenSuburb". The Appraisal states that "The tower of St. Edyth's Church is visible in a great number ofthese views. Occasionally, the Methodists Church on Sea Mills Square may be seen in distantviews."

It further states that: "It is important to the roofscape of the Garden Suburb that no more buildingsare permitted to punctuate the skyline as this would detract from the skyline as originally plannedwith just the two churches punctuating it." (Paragraph 8.40, page 74).

Whilst this paragraph specifically mentions "buildings", the same would apply to the proposedmast which would detract from views and vistas of the skyline, due both to its height and to itsalien appearance within a 1920s-built Garden Suburb. This would apply to ANY location withinSea Mills Conservation Area.

4. Under the same heading of "Views and Vistas", the Sea Mills Appraisal refers to "mobile phonemasts", their impact on local views, and that "masts are out-of-character with the conservationarea".

The specific masts referred to are within the Conservation Area next to the Portway, but thecomments are equally valid across the whole of the Conservation Area. These particular mastsare much lower in height than the proposed monopole mast and yet they are still consideredharmful by the Appraisal.

The Appraisal states: "The high quality views in the vicinity of the sports grounds located betweenthe Portway and the River Avon are spoiled by the mobile phone masts and floodlight masts.These masts are out-of-character with the conservation area and the surrounding area."(Paragraph 8.39, page 74).

Under the heading "Views", the whole of pages 26 and 27 of the Appraisal consist of a meticulousanalysis of the importance and significance of views both within the Conservation Area and intothe Conservation Area from outside. It states that "Preserving the setting and views out from, aswell as views into the Conservation Area, is vital in protecting its character and significance"(paragraph 6.2.5), concluding that "The preservation of all types of views both within and out fromthe Conservation Area is vital in protecting its character and special interest" (paragraph 6.2.11,page 27).

Under the heading "Main Threats to the Character of the Garden Suburb", the Appraisal includes"Loss of or harm to views within, into and out of the Conservation Area from ... new developments"(page 7).

5. The homogeneous and uniform character of Sea Mills Conservation Area is unlike otherconservation areas where construction has evolved over centuries and where there is a mixture ofarchitectural designs and types.

The Appraisal states: "Designed and built in just over a decade, Sea Mills Garden Suburb is asingle unified and uniform entity. Holistically planned and formally laid out following Garden Cityand Garden Suburb principles, it is a single homogeneous design. Unlike Conservation Areas ofvaried construction that have evolved over centuries, where it may be possible to introduce newdesigns, provided they are sympathetic, Sea Mills is particularly vulnerable to change of this kind,uniformity being a fundamental characteristic. Even minor changes can have a detrimental effect."(Sea Mills Appraisal, paragraph 8.2, page 71).

This is particularly pertinent to an intrusive 21st century monopole mast. The Appraisal states that"Even minor changes can have a detrimental effect". The proposed mast is anything but a minorchange. It would be a major change within a homogeneously designed 1920s Garden Suburb.

The Appraisal states that "Unsympathetically sited or non-traditional street furniture can be highlydetrimental to the public realm" (paragraph 8.35, page 74).

6. Precedents. A similar planning application (20/02502/Y) was refused by Bristol City Council.Part of the reason for refusal given in the case officer's report was "Due to the siting and nature ofthe proposed mast in close proximity to a Conservation Area and several Listed Buildings, theproposal would not preserve the setting of these assets and the harm to these assets would not beoutweighed by the public benefit of the proposal." This refused application was located in the"setting" of a Conservation Area. The proposed location in the current application is WITHIN a

Conservation Area and in close proximity to two Locally Listed Buildings.

As noted in the Case Officer's Report in the above application, the proposed location for therefused mast "would be contrary to Bristol City Council Advice Note 18 and Policies BCS22 andDM31" and that it should be noted that "the Authority is required (under Section 72 of the Planning(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990) to pay special regard to the desirability ofpreserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area."

In summary, the proposed monopole mast would be of a height and design which would result inthe creation of a prominent, incongruous, out-of-character, visually intrusive and dominant featurethat would result in a detrimental impact and considerable harm to the character of Sea MillsConservation Area and to the amenity of the surrounding areas, most of which are alsoConservation Areas. This would apply if the mast was proposed to be located ANYWHERE INSEA MILLS CONSERVATION AREA.

I ask you to please REFUSE this application.

I wish to submit my opposition to the revised proposal to situate a 15 metre phonemonopole in Sea Mills Square.

The revision does nothing to address the concerns expressed in my original object to theproposed 18 metre monopole - in that the developers still cannot legitimately claim that "Theproposal would not result in demonstrable harm to the character of the immediate or wider area".

The revised proposal for a 15 metre monopole still locates it in the heart of the Sea MillsConservation area.

My original objection pointed out:The City Council's (2011) appraisal of Sea Mills as a Conservation Area notes "Threats to theformal character of the Square, unsympathetic alterations to its layout or design" (2011: 43) asissues for the conservation of Sea Mills as a holistically designed, 'verdant' model garden suburb,and in particular: "8.35 Unsympathetically sited or non-traditional street furniture can be highlydetrimental to the public realm, especially in sensitive areas such as Sea Mills Square." and "8.40It is important to the roofscape of the Garden Suburb that no more buildings are permitted topunctuate the skyline as this would detract from the skyline as originally planned with just the twochurches punctuating it.(2011: 74).And that it is proposed to site the monopole adjacent to the historic Addison's Oak.

The revised plan for the 15 metre monopole does nothing whatever to address these issues. So, itcannot be claimed that it "would respect the character and appearance of the area and would notbe harmful to visual amenity by reason of its siting and design" - as set out by the provisions of the

NPPF.

I therefore strongly object to the revised plan

There is a place for 5G phone masts to improve digital connectivity in all communities,but they are large and highly visible. For this reason, they must be located with regard to theirenvironment.The proposed mast on Sea Mills Square does not do this.

- It is not within the stylistic context of the area: an area which, thanks to considerable recentcommunity action, has a high profile locally and nationally as having a significant heritage as oneof the earliest Council estates, built on garden suburb principles.- Because of this heritage, and the quality of both the architecture and the green spaces in SeaMills, this is a conservation area. The proposed mast will have a negative impact on the outlook ofthe conservation area. The proposed location, on Sea Mills Green, is close to the Addison Oakand the Sea Mills Museum, both of which are central to the identity of the area.- The proposed phone mast will dwarf the amenities on the green, overwhelm the area anddamage the amenity for residents.

A Statement of Community Involvement has not been posted with the planning application. Localplanning policy requires such a statement. The applicant should work with local amenityorganisations in Sea Mills to find an appropriate location for a 5G phone mast.

There is precedent for refusing this application. An application for a 10m mast was turned down byplanning in 2003 (APP/Z0116/A/03/1111990) after a large number of public objections.

I object to the above revised plan for a mast and works on BS9 2EE.These works would be a blight to Sea Mills Square.

I see these people, who don't seem to care that they wish to plonk their whollyinappropriate mast slap bang in the middle of our community green space and are ignoring thefact that this is a conservation area, have changed their application from an 18m mast to a 15mone. The height is immaterial really, it needs to be banished from the Square and the wholeconservaion area completely. So please note that I objected before and I still object moststrenuously!

The size of the mast is not in keeping with the Sea Mills conservation area, the mast willdwarf the trees and buildings in the square. It should be noted, as well, that the island where themast is planned to be built has been the site of car accidents that have flattened lamp postspreviously on the site.

After decades of waiting for house repairs where plans to increase the density of thearea, later declined, I believe Sea Mills now falls under a conservation area.This mast hardly enhances such an area and will be nothing more than a BLOT ON THELANDSCAPE.I have lived and returned here since 1959 and would abhor any such plans in what is a wonderful 'Square' as it was meant to be.Yours sincerelyRaymond Thomas

I strongly object to the 5g mast being placed in this part of Sea Mills. This is an area ofconservation and of historical interest. It is in the heart of our small community, close to the playarea, the cmunity cafe, the route to school for many local files and of course right next to ourAddison Oak and mini museum.

Really I'm sure there are other places, less noticeable and impactful than in Sea Mills Square toput this mast.

Please take my comments seriously as a local resident, mum and volunteer for the Sea Mills &Coombe Dingle climate action group.

I object to the 5G Mast in the proposed location as a local person with strong ties to SeaMills dating from 1988.

From the plans I can see the height, design and location of the mast and cabinets are not in-keeping with the conservation order that covers Sea Mills.

The central location in the square means it will be an eyesore and out of character. The cabinetsare likely to attract vandalism and are not a nice design compared to the transparent bus stop, andthe giant oak tree. The mast being so tall will look out of place next to an old oak tree and will bean eyesore in my opinion.

Could there be a more discrete location on the 'edge' of the Square?

Thank you.

This mast does not need to be near a children's playground , community cafe and busyjunction. It is the only green space for the Community to meet and the road is used all the timemaking it a very busy area. The radioactive waves from the mast will make the area unsafe for thesurrounding residents and I'm sure another place can be found which will be more subtle ie achurch tower !

I strongly object to this application on the grounds that a 5G 15m (reduced from 18m)mast would be a blight on the landscape - an extremely tall, ugly modern structure with 3 largecabinets on the pavement sited in the middle of Sea Mills Garden Suburb residential area, which isalso a conservation area. It is also a totally inappropriate location because of being in very closeproximity to our Addison's Oak (a tree of significant historic importance) and a popular café &children's play area on The Green.

The siting and design of the proposed mast and ancillary structures in a ConservationArea close to two listed buildings would degrade the setting, and any public benefit would notoutweigh the damage caused by implementing the proposal.

Installation of the mast and ancillary equipment on this site would be contrary to Bristol CityCouncil Advice Note 18 and Policies BCS22 and DM31. Moreover it would ignore the requirementthat the Authority is required, under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and ConservationAreas) Act 1990), to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the characteror appearance of the area.

In summary, the installation would impose a prominent, incongruous, out-of-character, visuallyintrusive and dominant feature on the Sea Mills Conservation Area. The impact on the Area wouldbe detrimental and significantly harm its character.

I request you REFUSE this application.

It is not an appropriate site for this mast.

Concerning the above proposal- I strongly object.A mast on this site seems ridiculous to me for the following reasons:The green area is in the centre of our Sea Mills community. It's relatively small but used by somany people for all daylight hours. The playpark is there and is used every day of the week firstlyby young children and their parents who use it as a social meeting place, children after school andfinally young teenagers who enjoy the space there. The mast would be an eyesore to everyoneusing the green, the park, the café and certainly to anyone living on the square.Our 100 yr old Woodland Trust Tree of the Year 2019 nominated Addison's Oak (which came in at4th place in the country) would be dwarfed by the proposed mast, and so would 2 smaller treesalong side.The Community run Cafe on the Square is busy all of its opening hours, and is a vital part of life inSea Mills. Many living on their own have company, young mums and children meet, variousgroups gather to discuss business, it's a great place to relax. The seating would be opposite thismast, as it is always outside.Sea Mills is a conservation area.Surely even if there is need for more masts, there is somewhere far less invasive than in the heartof our community in such a well-loved busy spot.

I object to this idea.

The size and height of the mast would completely destroy the character of Sea MillsSquare and is completely out of proportion with the rest of the surroundings.

This will not fit in with the area and stick out like a sore thumb. It's far too tall and near ahistoric tree. These masts are better placed away from housing.

This is an absolute eyesore, right in the middle of a lovely green space, surrounded byhouses, dwarfing the historic Oak Tree next to it, and the Sea Mills museum phonebox. Pleasereconsider and put it in an area less offensive.

Although the previous siting of the children's playground was aesthetically damagingand has already spoiled the appearance of the Square, both the size and colour of this mastseems out of keeping with the proposed location. The accompanying boxes are just too bulky forthis sensitive position. One recognises that such masts are a necessary evil but a situation on theriver side of the Portway would be a much better location and do less aesthetic damage.

We object to the location of a 5G mast. This proposed area is at the heart of the localcommunity of Sea Mills. The cafe on the square, childrens' play area, and mini museum are realassets to the area. We feel installing a big mast here would be a real eyesore that would detractfrom the enjoyment of both locals and others passing through the area. Is there a more suitablelocation for this mast?

Totally wrong! A very real health risk to the Sea Mills Community. Once again theworking classes would be the victims of greedy big business who couldn't care less. Please do notallow this to happen.

I object to the proposed 15.0m Phase 8 Monopole C/W on the grounds that it willsignificantly compromise the landscape and the attractiveness of the area for residents.

I strongly object to the proposal to erect a 15m 5G phone mast monopole in the centre of thehistoric suburb of Sea Mills. Whilst I recognise the need for increased and enhanced mobilecoverage in the area, we believe that the proposed location, right in the heart of the conservationarea, is completely inappropriate and is clearly unwelcome.

The Square in Sea Mills is a focal point for the local community, with the cafe, playground, phonebox museum and historic Addison Oak all playing an important role in defining the unique natureof this garden suburb.

Alternative locations for a mast - for instance, existing masts on St Edyth's Church roof and onKingsweston Hill, or even nearby non-residential areas along the Portway - should be fullyinvestigated before any decision is made.

This monopole is oversized for a densely populated residential area, brings no amenity benefit tothe Square, and is at odds with the heritage and history of Sea Mills. Such an incursion would notbe contemplated in the centre of Clifton village, and this should be no different here.

I was previously the Neighbourhood Housing Officer for Bristol City Council.I now live here in a Supported Dwelling Scheme.My mother Joan Sykes led the Avon's Singers from Sea Mills Methodist Chapel for Decades.Please! Please! Do Not Allow this Foul Mast....It is damaging to our village after we have done So Much to make it a good, neighbourly peacefulplace to live...Why penalise Us for the successful efforts we have made!!!! This is So Damned Wrong...SoUnnecessary, So Offensive and will be Fought against in whichever way needed to prevent it!STOP IT!NOW!!!!Thankyou for your common sense and preventing needless distress and direct action to preventthis HEINOUS ERECTION!!!!!!!!!!!

I object to the mast. There is far too much evidence against the use of 5G for healthreasons and dying bee colonies. I do not want it part of the neighbourhood I bought into as toaffect my children and family.

It should not be errected at allThanks

I strongly object to a 5G mast being built at this site in Sea Mills Conservation Area.

The introduction within Bristol City Council's Conservation Area 21 Character Appraisal states that'the statutory framework places Bristol City Council under a duty of care to recognise thesignificance of its built environment and positively manage change within it.' If BCC were to allow a5G mast to be erected within this Conservation Area it would be directly contradicting the purposeof its own framework, to protect an area of historical significance.

Point 4b of the Appraisal document identifies the following as a 'Main Threat to the Character ofthe Garden suburb':'unsympathetically sited small-scale additionse.g. satellite dishes, alarm boxes, mobilephone and other masts, solar panels etc.' Given the consideration of such smaller-scale additions,a large-scale 5G mast sited within the historic square must certainly be considered a threat.

To quote point 8.35 'unsympathetically sited or non-traditional street furniture can be highlydetrimental to the public realm, especially in sensitive areas such as Sea Mills Square.' Placing a5G mast in the Square would certainly fall within the definition of 'unsympathetically sited' and'non-traditional'.

Further to the above points the playground and cafe in the Square are of great importance to localfamilies including my own and I strongly believe that the mast will have a negative impact on this.There is a lot of concern involved with technology such as 5G and this is likely to lead to peopleavoiding the area and a loss of community. Surely there must be a better, more open site, away

from a Conservation Area where the mast can be sited?

This new aerial would be an awful addition to Sea Mills Square. A total blot on thelandscape even if it is reduced to 15m metres it will be an eyesore. It should not be installed. Thearea is within a Conservation area. Bristol should be planting trees in such spaces.

I believe this should be referred to full planning approval and that councillors for thelocal area should be able to respond and object to the mast being placed in such a prominentposition in a conservation area, in the middle of our communal green space. Whilst it is importantthat technological advancements are made available to our community and beyond and I don'twant to be seen to be having a NIMBY attitude, there must be a better, more discreet placement ofthe mast and other necessary road furniture that will not impede on the beauty of our community.We deserve to have this preserved and a solution found to give us opportunities to not experiencelevels of digital poverty in an area that has deprived LSOAs.

Since my original objection I note that the applicant has re-submitted plans which lower the height of the mast to 15 metres.

This makes no difference to my objection, the mast, along with the three cabinets at the base is still out of keeping with the focal point of this conservation area. It damages the setting of the culturally, historically and socially significant Addison Oak (a runner up in the Woodland Trust's Tree of the Year 2019) and punctures the skyline in a way no other structure in the area is permitted to do.

The developer has shown no awareness whatsoever of the significance of the garden suburb and has made no effort to mitigate or disguise the visual impact of the mast. This is a very poor quality proposal and should be thrown out without delay.

Mary Milton

This tower would be completely out of place in our Square. an inappropriate eye sore.Surely there are more discrete places it could go. Over recent years Sea Mills has been doing aexcellent job improving the our square, From erecting a new safe play area on it for the kid.Converting the old Telephone box into a lovely mini Museum and ever converting the old Bus stopToilets in to Cafe.This Tower would spoil what so many have worked hard on making the area so nice for every one

I grew up in Sea Mills square at the Post Office and have vivid memories, from the1930s to the 1950s, of this very special and significant place at the centre of the estate. Sea Millshas a unique history as one of the first garden housing estates to be built after the First World Warand I remember it as a light and leafy place in which to spend a happy childhood. The design ofthe Square is such the shops form an attractive boundary to the green and open area throughwhich the main road passes and where buses can be caught. Since the Sea Mills 100 project hasbeen established it has become even more of a focal point with the interesting museum in thetelephone box and the naming of the 100 year old Addison oak tree. The proposed mast wouldstand out as an ugly and unsympathetic anomaly in this attractive space. It would dwarf the tree,the museum and the surrounding houses and detract from the historic and pleasant architecturaldesign of the area. I would have thought there were many other places where this mast could besited without having such an unfortunate impact on the heart of this lovely estate.

I strongly object to this proposal because it would be highly damaging to the characterand appearance of the meticulously-designed Sea Mills Garden Suburb which was designated aConservation Area to protect these qualities. This harm would not be outweighed by publicbenefits.

Under the National Planning Policy Framework a conservation area is a designated heritage assetand its conservation is given great weight in planning permission decisions. Historic Englandchose the Sea Mills Garden Suburb as a case study in "Understanding Place - Historic AreaAssessments 2017". "Sea Mills is a fine example of an inter-war municipal garden suburb, plannedby Bristol City Council in the aftermath of the First World War. Its interest and quality wasrecognised in 1981 when part of the estate was designated a conservation area. Concern aboutincremental change and future development led to the study of the estate, carried out by the SaveSea Mills Garden Suburb Group (members of the local community rather than professional historicenvironment professionals)... "The reports by the Group were used to inform a revisedconservation area character appraisal in 2011, undertaken by the Council. The case demonstratesthe impact of a community-led assessment, which delivered an effective evidence base for formaldecision making."

The Sea Mills Character Appraisal and Management Proposals document says"4.1 The special interest of Sea Mills, and the reason for its designation as a conservation area,relates to the significance of the Garden Suburb. It is an intact example of Ebenezer Howard andRaymond Unwin's model of a planned Detached Garden Suburb, and Bristol's finest example ofplanned post-WWI municipal housing... 4.2 All the elements that define it as a garden suburbcombine to give Sea Mills its special interest. This includes: the planned layout and

interrelationship between buildings and spaces; the low density; the simple, cottage-style housesgiven uniformity through their architectural details; the verdant and spacious character; therelationship to local topography, and picturesque landscape setting; and the extent of greenspaces, especially the gardens, which are what make it a "garden" suburb. The overall uniformityof character and appearance in all these respects is a fundamental characteristic of the GardenSuburb and Sea Mills Conservation Area... 4.5 The layout in particular sets the Garden Suburbapart; based on an axial framework centred on Sea Mills Square, softened by concentric curvingroads which follow the contour lines and roads that follow the adjacent topography of the TrymValley. Focal greens, public green spaces and enclosed open spaces, and local landmarkbuildings punctuate the Suburb...4b Main Threats to the Character of the Garden Suburb 4b.1 Themeticulous planning of the Sea Mills Garden Suburb makes it particularly sensitive to physicalalterations, which in other areas may have little or no impact. The following summarise the type ofinterventions that could undermine the character or special interest of the Garden Suburb: - Newdevelopments and infill that fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of theConservation Area ...- Unsympathetically sited small-scale additions e.g. satellite dishes, alarmboxes, mobile phone and other masts...5.32 Dr. Christopher Addison cut the first sod at Sea Millson 4th June 1919, inaugurating Bristol's whole post-WW1 Housing and Town Planning Scheme. Acommemorative oak tree planted at the event still flourishes in Sea Mills Square. 5.33 Bristol wasat the forefront of the national housing scheme, Sea Mills Garden Suburb being one of the earliestof the post-war garden suburb layouts ...5.34 In 1937, John Betjeman wrote of the new Sea MillsEstate as having "a surprising beauty showing off in the evening sunlight; and vistas of trees andfields and pleasant cottages that that magic estate has managed to create". Sea Mills Square6.1.7 The centre or central "place" of Sea Mills Garden Suburb is Sea Mills Square, a formalsquare influenced by an aerial sketch of an imaginary garden city/ suburb, which is central to andinfluences the whole layout of Sea Mills... 6.1.8 Sea Mills Square functions as an enclosed spacewhich, at the same time, has a sense of openness. The Square is enclosed by a perimeter of two-storey houses and shops with the Methodist Church sited at the centre of the northern perimeter ofthe semi-circle. The central green open space, together with the views out along the axial roads,gives the Square a sense of openness...8.30 Given its function as the centrepiece to the GardenSuburb, Sea Mills Square is particularly sensitive to change. Any change to its designed layout orformal character would be highly detrimental to the Conservation Area. 6.1.9 ..The view along St.Edyth's Road into the Square is terminated by the imposing Methodist Church, a classicUnwinesque terminal feature. Similarly, looking back down St. Edyth's Road, away from theSquare, the view is terminated by St. Edyth's Church, so that the two churches "look" at eachother. 6.2.11 The preservation of all types of views both within and out from the Conservation Areais vital in protecting its character and special interest. 8.40 It is important to the roofscape of theGarden Suburb that no more buildings are permitted to punctuate the skyline as this would detractfrom the skyline as originally planned with just the two churches punctuating it. 6.3.2 LandmarkBuildings are larger, more conspicuous buildings that stand out due to their scale, prominentlocation, specific function or architectural style. These include: - St Edyth's Church* - Sea MillsMethodist Church... 6.3.4 Sea Mills Methodist Church, also by Sir George Oatley, was constructedin 1930. Located on the northern side of Sea Mills Square, it is the main focal point for the formal

centrepiece of the Garden Suburb. 7.5.2 Sea Mills retains some original street furniture thatcumulatively gives interest and quality to the street scene and makes a positive contribution to thecharacter and appearance of the area Figure 80: Original K6-type telephone kiosk designed byGiles Gilbert Scott. 8.35 Unsympathetically sited or non-traditional street furniture can be highlydetrimental to the public realm, especially in sensitive areas such as Sea Mills Square. 7.6.12Single tree specimens can be a focal point in local views or formal landscaped compositions; whilegroups of mature trees may form part of a historic planting scheme. 'Addison's Oak' in Sea MillsSquare has a Bristol-wide historical significance."

Described by Eugene Byrne (in Bristol and the First World War, 2014) as "in its way" "one ofBristol's most important monuments", the Addison's Oak was on the short list of ten treesnominated in the Woodland Trust's Tree of the Year 2019 (England) award. On 4th June 2019 itscentenary was celebrated when dignitaries, invited guests and residents sang "Happy Birthday" toit and a cake baked for the occasion was cut.

The K6 telephone box, now owned by a community group, is now the Sea Mills 100 Museum.http://seamills100.co.uk/ http://seamills100.co.uk/category/phone-box/

From the above it's clear that the proposed 18 m high mast and its equipment cabinets would dosevere visual damage to the appearance and historic character of the Conservation Area, inparticular to the Square which is the heart of the Garden Suburb. Due to the mast's massiveheight and incongruous appearance it would visually overwhelm the Square as an open space andbeing asymmetrically located would disrupt its formal layout. It would compete visually with theplanned Landmark Building, the Methodist Church, and tower 10 m over the houses, at more thandouble their height. Being an alien feature in a garden suburb it would be the eye-catching, focalpoint for all views into and within the Square. The cabinets would be unsightly street clutter. Thegrassed open setting and historic value of the Addison Oak and the K6 telephone box museumwould be badly impacted. In "Understanding Place" Historic England chose a photograph of theseto illustrate Sea Mills, and the mast proposal would ruin this iconic view. This development iswholly inappropriate and has no place in this Garden Suburb.

I ask that it is assessed and refused in the same manner as recent similar proposals such asApplication No.19/02502/F Mast outside Bristol Zoo Car Park, BS8 3HU (in a Conservation Area)and Application No. 20/02502/Y Opposite 129 Ashley Road, BS6 5NT (in the setting area of aConservation Area), the latter being refused for the reason:

"Due to the siting and nature of the proposed mast in close proximity to a Conservation Area andseveral Listed Buildings, the proposal would not preserve the setting of these assets and the harmto these assets would not be outweighed by the public benefit of the proposal. Additionally, theheight and design of the proposed mast would result in the creation of a prominent, visuallyintrusive and dominant feature that would result in a detrimental impact to the character of thelocality and to the amenity of the surrounding residential properties and the adjacent Important

Open Space (Grosvenor Green). Therefore, the proposed development would fail to accord withPolicies BCS9, BCS21 and BCS22 of the Bristol City Council Core Strategy (adopted June 2011)and Policies DM17, DM26, DM29, DM31 and DM36 of the Site Allocations and DevelopmentManagement Policies Document (adopted July 2014) as well as guidance within the NPPF (2019)and Part 16 Class A (Communications) of the Town and Country Planning (General PermittedDevelopment) Order 2015 (as amended)."

Further to my letter of objection today the correct application no. for the proposal for aMast outside Bristol Zoo Car Park is 19/01889/F.

Dear Mr Fisher

I have just received a letter dated 11th June (?) for the aforementioned application of an 18 metre high pole yards from my house. I have four days to reply - not ideal is it?

I have already commented online but feel very strongly so would like to also send an email.

I moved to Sea Mills in 2018 as it was a quiet and friendly suburb of Bristol, surrounded by nature. I understand it is even under some kind of protection order. There is historical significance to the area, which I am sure you are already aware (see https://www.about-bristol.co.uk/sea-02.php and Sea Mills: we visit one of the first council estates to benefit from the Addison Act).

The proposal is an absolute insult to the people of Sea Mills.

We feel forever the forgotten suburb of Bristol (for example the proposed Clean Air Zone leads avoidant traffic through our main road). I believe this is partly due to the community, many of which are elderly or vulnerable and therefore cannot voice their opposition. The council are well aware of this fact.

We are also having a new "small houses" development, something I only found out about too late as it will be very close and cause months of disruption. At least it has a positive hope for the community.

The proposed pole will completely undermine the conservation of Sea Mills square, which many neighbours have worked hard to protect. It will totally overshadow our beautiful, huge, Addison oak tree (The Bristol tree which could be crowned the best in England).

The telecoms boxes already litter our area, and as someone who looks out on the square I can confirm that we have had at least one, usually more, work van parked near and working on one of the boxes EVERY week since I moved here in 2018. I am being serious.

These boxes are known to disrupt persons with certain neurological disorders as they emit noises which are not generally noticeable by the general population (https://www.autismspeaks.org/sensory-issues). Our ableist culture ignores these issues.

I strongly plead that the pole and associated cabinets be placed somewhere that is not central to a small community. For example a golf course, or field with no housing. Alternatively, like the mast by Kings Weston, behind houses, rather than where many face towards.

Finally, I think it is worth bearing in mind that we have all experienced a difficult 18 months so far. Reading a dry letter (which should probably have included an illustration to demonstrate the height compared to nearby trees etc.) and responding isn't top of the priority list of many. Just because they have not written does not mean they are in support of the application. Everyone I have spoken to has been horrified by the idea.

With best wishes,

Jenny French

I'm shocked by this proposal. This seems to me, to be the most inappropriate place thismast could be placed in the whole of Sea Mills. I am questioning how much thought really wentinto the proposed location.. The community of Sea Mills have worked hard to create a wonderfulspace on The Square which includes a cafe, children's park, mini-museum and of course thewidely celebrated and appreciated Addison Oak which stands proudly there. To place this mastwould be a total eyesore and not at all in keeping with the beautiful garden suburb of Sea Mills.

It is vital that planning remembers the original principles behind the Sea Mills Estate.The Square has become a focus of community gathering and would be visually ruined by having amast. I would also have health concerns for the children's playground. If a mast is essential thenusing the height of surrounding buildings would be preferable.

I strongly object new 5G mast on the tower of St. Edyth's Church as it will destroy thesurroundings of the conservation area of Sea Mills and will bring health risks to the the area.I wish to object to the installation of additional mounted antennas and GPS node, these nodes cancause medical problems and can emit high frequency electromagnetic and sound waves. As I liveopposite St Edyths church I am worried about the health issues and environmental impact thisinstallation will directly have on me, my family and neighbours. There is extensive scientificevidence which justifies challenging national policy of only following Public Health England andICNIRP guidelines for safety. Guidelines are not obligatory. Please consider the facts below whenmaking your decision and refer to the pollution control officer to look further into this, theseemissions qualify for investigation under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.ICNIRP is based on heating effects over 6-30 minutes, this mast will emit radiation 24/7.Children absorb more radiation and their developing nervous system are vulnerable and are notprotected by ICNIRP include link to this document https://www.radiationresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/On-the-Clear-Evidence-of-the-Risks-to-Children-from-Smartphone-and-WiFi-Radio-Frequency-Radiation-Final-20201.pdfPeople with metal and medical implants are not protected by ICNIRPICNIRP does not set safety exposure levels for wildlife https://actionagainst5g.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2009-Wildlife-Balmori.pdf

This is a completely inappropriate site for an 18m telecommunications pylon. Sea Millsis a conservation area, rightly celebrated as one of the first and best examples of social housing inthe entire country, developed as "Homes for Heroes" at the end of the First World War. A vitalaspect of the vision for Sea Mills was the incorporation of green space, with the square being theheart of the community and the Addison Oak planted as a reminder of its importance and thenational significance of the Addison housing act. The proposed pylon will tower over the mostimportant tree in the entire city, which was also shortlisted for UK Tree of the Year 2019.

The square is home to a well-used children's playground, community café and mini-museum. Withthe closure of Sea Mills Community Centre (which has no plans to reopen), the square is the onlylocation for community activities. This pylon will have a significant impact on the ability of people touse and enjoy the space. This Council and its administration cannot celebrate the importance ofSea Mills with centenary celebrations only to allow it to be grotesquely defaced a mere two yearslater.

I object based on the negative visual impact this pylon will have on Sea Mills Square.This 18m pylon will tower over the Addison Oak and all housing in the area. Sea Mills is aconservation area of historic significance, built as "Homes for Heroes" for veterans of the FirstWorld War. The importance of Sea Mills was celebrated with the Centenary a mere two-years ago,with a Council and National Lottery funded mini-museum placed in the square, incorporated in aclassic red telephone box. This pylon will detract from the museum's design and deface theimportance of the green space. The square is the focal point of the Sea Mills community, with awell-used play area and community café. Community groups of all kinds coordinate from thesquare and it was of vital importance during the lockdown. I helped to run socially distancedtoddler groups in this location, which would have been much less pleasant in the shadow of atelecoms tower. I urge the council to reject this application.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to register my objection to the proposal to erect a telephone mast in the middle of Sea MIlls Square. It would spoil what is a beautiful centre to the community.

Regards

Kevin Caffrey

My husband and I have not been notified and as we are both in our 70s do not want these out up just for health and safety reasons thoroughly against this .

Sea Mills Square is totally the wrong site for such a mast. It will totally destroy the imageof a garden suburb, as envisioned 100 plus year ago. The must be more discrete sites than this.

As Chair of Sneyd Park Residents Association, we wish to object to this application. Wehave a close relationship with Sea Mills via Stoke Bishop forum.We object on the following grounds1. Site of mast is not in a suitable position and will destroy the village green of Sea Mills2. The mast is to high and will dominate the surrounding area3. Another site should be found and this historic site protectedKind regardsStephen Small Chair of SPRA

There is extensive scientific evidence which justifies challenging national policy of onlyfollowing Public Health England and ICNIRP guidelines for safety. Guidelines are not obligatory.Please consider the facts below when making your decision and refer to the pollution controlofficer to look further into this, these emissions qualify for investigation under the EnvironmentalProtection Act 1990.ICNIRP is based on heating effects over 6-30 minutes, this mast will emit radiation 24/7.Children absorb more radiation and their developing nervous system are vulnerable and are notprotected by ICNIRP include link to this document https://www.radiationresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/On-the-Clear-Evidence-of-the-Risks-to-Children-from-Smartphone-and-WiFi-Radio-Frequency-Radiation-Final-20201.pdfPeople with metal and medical implants are not protected by ICNIRPICNIRP does not set safety exposure levels for wildlife https://actionagainst5g.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2009-Wildlife-Balmori.pdfThis mast would be unsightly, unhealthy, central to a residential area, opposite a playground, andin a celebrated garden suburb.

I completely object to this planning application. A 5G mast should not be placed in acommunity and residential area which is also a community recreation area. There remainconcerns regarding 5G masts and public health as well as potential impact on wildlife. Placing thismast in such a densely populated area and also by a childrens playground is not appropriate.Aside anything else, it will visually impact the local community negatively.I would make 2 alternative suggestions:1 - install the mast on the hill in the Blaise estate where there are already communication masts.2 - paint the mast to reduce the visual impact (see the camouflaged masts on StEdyths church)

The height of this proposed structure is disproportionate to the area. Seamills isbecoming an area of historical significance and it should not be used as a "soft" place where thelocals will not complain too much.

I strongly object to the installation of the proposed 5G mast. It should NEVER be givenpermission to be placed in a suburban area that has the Napier Miles Covenant in place. It willhave an extremely negative impact on the area in terms of location, potential damage to theAddison oak, the community created Sea Mills museum, the visual impact of such a largestructure, right in the centre of our community.It is not necessary, essential or justifiable to allow this 5G mast to be placed in the centre of SeaMills, the garden suburb of Bristol.

Good Afternoon

I would like to notify you of my objection to this planning application.

My reasoning behind this is that Sea Mills Square and the wider development has a huge historical significance given it's construction after the First World War. It was great to see it's centenary celebrated in the last few years and is a clear indication as to how people feel about the area. This planning application has absolutely no place in this area, especially when it's being positioned in search an obvious area for all to see. There should also be consideration for the visual impact it will cause on the historical tree situated on the Green, Addison's Oak.

Regards

Leon Collis

The Square in Sea Mills is a major amenity in this Garden Suburb Conservation Area. Itis the focal point of the village where the Addison Oak commemorates the birth of Sea Mills justover 100 years ago. There are frequent celebrations around the oak and the Sea Mills Museumtelephone box and a mast 18 metres high would overwhelm the area and damage the amenity forresidents.A different location should be found

I have the privilege to live just down from the Sea Mills square. I work both in the 'Cafeon the Square', which is loved by the local community and has been described as a lifelinethrough this difficult year, and as a local youth worker looking to support vulnerable young peoplein the local area.

In both these jobs, I get to see how the Sea Mills square is an extremely important place to allowthe community to come together, for families to allow their children to play safely, and for youngpeople to have a safe open place to come and meet their friends. And what makes this space sowelcoming to all is that it is a beautiful open green space in the heart of Sea Mills - made evenmore special by our proud 100 year old Oak tree.

I object to this plan to build a big telecommunications mast on the Sea Mills square, because itwould massively disrupt this site of natural beautiful. I would also worry it would cause somefamilies not to want to bring their children to a park near such a large industrial mast. Additionally,we have many more vulnerable older customers at the cafe who come each day to meet theirfriends and receive support. Many of them sit enjoying the surrounding view. I believe this maycause them not to want to come to the cafe, and thus cutting themselves off from the support wecan offer, because they do not want to sit next to or see a big mast blocking their view.

Thank you,

Robyn Coleman

I'm sure another site could be found, away from this historic conservation area which isused substantially by local residents.

Please would you move the location of this mast. It would be very detrimental to thisconservation area and would spoil the atmosphere of the Square.

I think this structure would be totally out of place in a conservation area and residentialarea. This should be erected where there will be no impact on the residents and not have to lookat an eyesore 24/7.

I will add my voice to hundreds of others objecting to this proposal which surely cannotbe allowed to proceed without appropriate scrutiny.It is staggering that anyone would propose an 18m mast in the middle of open space in aconservation area - even more so when you consider that the Council has very recentlyconsidered that Sea Mills Square was deserving of 'local green space' status, which would mean itwould be protected in perpetuity. That status is given to land that is 'demonstrably special' basedon the following factors: beauty, historic significance, recreational value, tranquillity and richness ofwildlife. It is impossible to see how any of these could be enhanced by installation of an 18m mast,vastly out of character with its surroundings. The detriment is immediately obvious.Please ensure that this proposal (if not withdrawn due to the strength of opposition) is put througha full planning process.

Sea mills square is so lovely with our historic phone box, cafe , play area and churchbuilding. Please could the mast go in somewhere that is not a community gathering space.

Sea mills Square celebrated 100 year old Addison oak decently. And to place this insuch close proximity would be tantamount to vandalism. Instead they could place it in the corner ofthe recreation ground where the play ground used to be.

This structure would be completely unsightly on the proposed site. As a regular visitor tothe cafe, I enjoy the current views with very view few overpowering structures ib the area

Having been a resident of this area, and only recently moved. This mast will be veryunsightly, im sure there is a better, more obscure site within this area that it could be placed,providing the same coverage.

It seems that the preparatory work to place the pole has already taken place? Does thatmean any objections from the locality is immaterial to the council and the contractors.

The Sea Mills Community have worked hard to make the square pleasing to the eye & ithas become a Community hub during lockdown. The museum, cafe, play area & Addison Oak treewould all be overshadowed by a huge 5G mast. I have no objection to 5G as mobile coverage isnot great in the area but surely there must be somewhere a bit less obvious where the mask cango.

fully object

The community have put a lot of work into making the area a nice community friendlyarea .Dont think this is the right place for this mast .could it not be put elsewhere please where it isless intrusive.

The whole estate is a designated Conservation Area and the proposed location is in thesquare 18 m high mast in the open area of the square would be a blot on the landscape and ascar across the focal point of the Conservation Area, with additional cabinets and electricalcabinets at ground level.Approximately 10 years ago the council was thwarted when it tried to demolish some of thehouses and the local school that were part of original schemes. It feels as tough the council areonce again showing the same disregard for the people of Sea Mills.Moving on to the 21st century we need this technology, but it should be not so visible and shouldbe ideally be already masts or similar lighting. The mast and its associated infrastructure shouldcertainl not be built in the Conservation Area.

Putting a 5G mast right in the middle of a conservation area where residents needplanning permission to add a porch onto their house is madness. It would tower above Addison'sOak, our 100 year old 6 metre high tree that is currently one of the highest things in the skyline.Residents have only added extensions or modified their houses in a way that is in keeping with thearea. This mast would stick out like a sore thumb. While I understand that 5G masts might becomea necessity in the near future, their placement must surely be better thought out than this. Thereare a large number of brownfield sites locally that this huge 18 metre mast would be better suitedto. I heartily object to the placement of a 5G mast on the green next to Shirehampton Road.

Sea Mills is a conservation area. Here is an opportunity for the council to prove that itstands by that designation not only when it is convenient for them but because there is inherenthistorical, architectural and community significance in Sea Mills generally and its Squarespecifically. This objection has nothing to do with 5G conspiracies but is about the principle ofconservation and planning that should be sympathetic to the community and their wants/needs.Sea Mills does not want a 5G mast in the middle of our square.

I object most strongly to the construction of an 18m mask and associated works within agreen conservation area which is used by the wilder community for social events and celebratingits history. Should not the Council be taking all positive and proactive steps to protect the trees ourgreen spaces and our heritage for future generations, this type of development is totally out ofcharacter and will blight its surroundings of which has been an active part of bringing thecommunity together for both young and old

We have recently received your letter about a proposed 18m Telecoms mast on The Green in Sea Mills, Bristol

This news has caused much consternation. The proposed site is very close to housing and near the Addison Oak, planted when this garden suburb came into existence over 100 years ago.

I have also emailed our local councillors with these concerns.

With many thanks,

E M Nourse

I am a resident of Seamills, and was brought up in the area in my childhood and teens.This is a beautiful green, and conservation area.

Amassed that has been proposed for the square, would be very out of place, and also how do we know how safe these things are?

I am requesting that this does not happen, it would definitely not be a good thing for this I hope those of us that do not agree with this will be listened to, and hopefully that our requests for it not to happen will stop it from happening, and therefore protect this beautiful area.

With regards,

Marie H

Dear Sir,

I thank you for the informative letter sent to me on 11th June, 2021, concerning the above proposal.

I find it inconceivable that any one would consider erecting any mast on this site bearing in mind the following:-

The green area is relatively small, but used by so many people for all of the daylight hours.A. The excellent play ground only a matter of yards away, used firstly by the toddlers and their parents who use it as a social meeting place, then pre school children, later children after school and finally young teenagers. All having fun and treating the equipment with respect.B. The mast would be an eyesore to those folk living within a stone's throw of it.C. The beautiful Addison Oak, (nationally know as, I believe, it came 4th in a competition) would be dwarfed, and so would 2 smaller shapely trees along side.D. The Community Cafe on the green, is busy all of its opening hours, and is a vital part of life in Sea Mills. Many living on their own have company, young mums and children meet, various groups gather to discuss business, a great place to relax. The seating would be opposite this mast, as it is always outside in the summer months, and is, anyway, in these present times.

E. This is a conservation area.F. I know it has not been scientifically proved, but many people would be very worried about health risks being near to the mast.

In this modern age, I am aware of the need to provide more of these masts, but, please, there must be a suitable site in a less attractive position.

Thank you for taking the time to read these comments.

Geraldine Richardson

Sea mills is a conservation area, so why put a this monstrosity.

The appearance of this mast will be completely out of keeping with the residential areaof Sea Mills. It will be too tall and distort the appearance of this long standing square. It should besited away from an established residential area, and where it cannot dominate the skyline

A 5G mast of this size in a conservation area is absurd. Given the areas history,including up to the modern day where the Addison's Oak was shortlisted for Woodland Trust'sTree of the Year award 2019, the 18m mast would completely dwarf the area and take away fromthe areas significant history. I do not mind a 5G mast servicing the area, and there are a numberof brownfield sites that can accommodate it. But the current proposals on placement have clearlynot been considered in the slightest, with not a though given to the residents and the area itself.

My parents live on The Crescent and we are frequent visitors. The proposed mast willbe a huge eye sore and ruin a beautiful space with so many historical features.

Placing a 5g mast of such a height in a conservation area is wholly inappropriate andwill ruin the character of the area for ever. This is an area that is being actively renewed andimproved by residents, especially so over the last couple of years. If this goes ahead it will look notonly very much out of place, but it is right next to a children's play area that is used a lot as well asthe new cafe on the square where people sit out to watch their children play and where people goto find community and connectedness. A mast scarring this landscape could have significantimpacts on these aspects of community living, which is something that has clearly shown itsimportance over the last year or so of the pandemic. There are brownfield sites that are muchbetter suited to a 5g mast location.

I am not a nimby but there must be better sites in the area. This pole would turn asquare that we are all rightly proud of into an unbelievable eyesore. Addison Oak is close to theproposed site, imagine the effect! People living in the square would have to view this monstrosityon a daily basis. Please refuse this application and allow us to continue to look after a beautifulpart of our garden suburb.

Putting an eyesore such as this mast on an historic square would seem incongruouswith this being one of the few remaining garden suburbs in England.It will spoil the overall look of the square. This is deemed to be a conservation area, there is noplace for this mast on this square.Margaret RewI

Please do not site this eyesore on Sea Mills Square next to the children's play park & inthe middle of a conservation area.There must be somewhere more open for this, if needed, on Portway perhaps or at Kingsweston?

This will ruin the character of the area and the health of the local people.

While I accept the need for a 5G antenna, I do not think the placement in the middle ofthe village green is appropriate.

Why can this not be placed on the St Edyths church tower where there is already mobileinfrastructure

alternative less obtrusive location would be in the recreation ground by the football club house

The location of this pole is inappropriate and will have a significant negative impact onthe appearance of the area. Also, why can't mobile phone companies share masts for theirtransmitters, is there not another pole or location that is already being used?

This is going to look so out of place and ruin a lovely green space surely there's somewhere else it can be put that's not so in your face

Why on earth are you even considering putting it in Sea Mills Square!? An atrocity of anidea!! Considering the size of Bristol and the vast landscape that is available to you, could you nothave thought about sticking it somewhere out of the way so that it's not an eyesore to anyone?Hang on, sorry, this is Bristol City Council so why am I surprised!? How about sticking it up oncollege green or even outside the Mayor's house, oh wait that would be classed as an eyesore.You lot are a joke!

While a mast is a good idea, the location is not right. Right in the middle of a gardensuburb and conservation area, towering over the Addison oak and housing? This can't be right.The local community has spent a lot of time and effort into making the square a place people canenjoy and relax, giving the area a community feel. Putting a mast here would make all that work awaste of time. Find another more suitable location nearby where it won't be such a blot on thelandscape.

I wholly and most emphatically object to this proposal - this mast would be a unsightlyblot on the Sea Mills Conservation Area landscapeFIND SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!

This will spoil the out look for all the residents of Square which is a conservation area.Why not put it in the recreation ground behind the houses if we really have to have it in Sea Mills.

Totally inappropriate for a conservation area in the centre of the community.Unacceptable so close to a children's play area and cafe which we use regularly. A total eyesorein an area of cherished land for over 100 years. This is not only ugly and unnecessary but possiblydangerous as well.

I have no objection to there being a tower and additions in the local area, however theproposed location appears to be totally illogical. The area is of historical significance, and there isno way that it could be disguised or hidden. There are numerous other potentially suitablelocations nearby. I would therefore request that this be reconsidered.

This mast will be unsightly in an urban conservation area, detracting from the area andruining the views from many properties. It is too close to one of very few large trees remaining inthe area. It is totally the wrong location for such a tall mast.

Find it very hard to believe that this is the most suitable location... even just the edge ofthe square would be better and less unsightly...

The proposal of this pole shoukd be reconsidered... it will adversely affect the aestheticsof the local area. There is simply no need for this pole here - surely IF the pole HAS to be installedthere is a better place for it to go, the mobile phone companies need to think more about localcommunities they are affecting.

Why is this necessary in a conservation / residential area? There is plenty of waste orindustrial land a mile away from this site in Avonmouth and / or an existing aerial sited on the ridgebehind Haig Close. Surely the precedent is already set with the masts and wind turbines in thoseareas? Sea Mills has a particular character from 100 years ago that should not be scarred by thismast. What would Mr Addison have thought of this? Homes fit for heroes........? I have been WFHsince March last year and have had no issues with internet connection. Please do not put thismast here. I can see the star on top of St Edyth's church tower every Christmas. That is howthings should be left.

This proposed mast is not appropriate within a conservation area.

This is not a suitable place for such a large structure as sited adjacent to a children'splay park plus out of keeping with Sea Mills conservation area.

I have lived in sea mills 59 years and always loved the way the community has lookedafter it green spaces especially the square it is a beautiful green space where all the communitycan come together and enjoy it unspoilt beauty which we don't want to spoil with a 5g mask

I work in sea mills and directly look out onto the proposed site! Why the need to put itnext to one of the oldest and most beautiful trees eludes me, regardless of the fact is is aprotected tree!! There are numerous other green areas on which it could be put! Or use the pieceof paved land on the semi circle beside it!! Options!! Do we really need a 5g mast in the heart ofseamills i think not! It will definately spoil a well loved and looked after part of our community!!

The mast would be unsightly on the square and is not what we need. I'm fine with 5Gjust not in the way of the nice view on the square.

I am objecting to the mast as I do not think it is in keeping with the area and would bean eyesore in an otherwise unspoilt area.

I am objecting to the mast because it will spoil the look of the area and as the area issupposed to be a garden suburb the mast would not be in keeping with that ethos.

This seems like an inappropriate place too locate this mast. It will be an eyesore and itwould seem that positioning it a few 100 metres away in the area commonly called The Rec, wasbe far more sensible.This is Conservative area and planning permission for any change of appearance to houses andthe local Cafe on the Square is very strictly controlled and one feels the same should be applied tothe locating of a large and unsightly mast.I am not in favour of the proposed location of this mast especially as there is another mast just afew 100 metres away at St Edyth's Church.

Putting a huge 5G mast on our beautiful green and next to our 100yesr old Addison treeis a disgrace and will be a complete eye-soar!I have friends who live around the square and this mast is set to stand right in front of there house!Ridiculous. Why don't they go stick it in a field out of everyone way and view.We don't need this in our little village.

This is disgusting, I'm completely outraged by the news that an ugly 18m mast is goingto be put up, this is going to completely ruin the beautiful space. I've lived here all my life 42yrsand the area has always been a lovely well kept space. Their is no need to ruin it with this uglymast. The community has always taken pride to look after the area. Sea mills square is such alovely looking village. How dare 3 ruin it!!!!Who wants to see that horrid mast when they open their curtains and doors every day.Go put it somewhere else, where it can't be seen.I'm completely against it and I'm sure everyone in my areas feels the same way.Leave sea mills alone!!!!

There's just no need

I strongly disapprove of this structure being placed on the square next to the oak tree. Ifsomeone tried to build a property such as a house or block of flats this high in the square, theapplication would get declined down to the height!

We also live in a conservation area. Doesn't this mean we have to conserve the feel and look ofthe area?!

The square is a much valued communal green space valued for its village greenatmosphere. The siting of this massive piece of communications hardware on it would significantlydetract from its current appeal to the local community and indeed the many people such as I whocycle across it on a regular basis.

This aerial mast is most inappropriate visually and technically for Sea Mills Square,which is a symmetrically designed open space in the middle of a garden suburb. It containscommunity open areas (children's play area, community café, small amenity shops and postoffice) which would be blighted and visually scarred by a high-rise tubular steel aerial toweringover it.Kingsweston Down already has a national TV/Radio mast visible from Sea Mills Square, not half amile away, so why not attach the new one there. And there are other more appropriate sitesnearby e.g.the playing field at the back, and immediately adjacent to the Square

I am appalled, distressed and angry about this "Application to determine if priorapproval is required" to erect an 18 metre 5G mobile phone mast in the very heart of Sea MillsSquare.

I comment as a defender of trees and as a local resident.

I am not a technical expert by any means and I do not want to get into a debate about norcomment on the safety of 5G "radiation". I put the word in quotes because I think it is misused toengender fear where that is not appropriate. Such reading as I have done tells me that the effectsof such a mast, and all those that have gone before, are minimal, and exaggerated by mischiefmakers to make people scared. We do have an international expert on such matters, or an expertin very closely related matters, in our community, and I'll get in touch with him for an opinion. If hesays any different I'll make another comment - promise.What appals me is the gross and crass commercialism demonstrated by the fact that anyone haseven considered that placing a mast here, 5G or otherwise, is appropriate. The making of thisApplication is an insult to the community.This is the green heart of a Conservation Area where the pulse of the community originates. It isnext to one of the most culturally important trees in Bristol - the Addison Oak - a hundred yearsold, respected by all and even loved by many. Its amenity would be despoiled by placing a mast ofthis height, or any height, so close by. The amenity of The Square would be ruined for ever aswell."The Square is central to, and influences, the whole area of Sea Mills" "Sea Mills Square functionsas a closed space which at the same time has a sense of openness". "......it is a striking exampleof its use as a civic centre". (Quotes from the Conservation Area appraisal).

The views of The Square and the views from The Square are part of the ethos of the GardenSuburb. Seeing this structure placed in the middle of it would be making nothing less than aninjury, a wound, in one's soul.To put an 18 metre high modern mast, and all the cabinets that go with it ugly in itself anddominating the skyline would be a travesty- a distortion of everything that the area, and itssplendid tree represents. Take a look at the cabinets surrounding the mast by nearby Druid Hillroundabout - don't be fooled. It is proposed to put these cabinets on hard standing at the base ofthe mast. Oh, by the way, once a mast is in place and the cabinets surround it, the masts get evertaller and the cabinets tend to get more numerous. There must be a better place whereConservation Areas are not spoiled, views destroyed and the settings/amenity of importantbuildings, Listed or otherwise, will not be adversely affected. Listed and Historic buildings havePlanning Appeal decisions against ruining their amenity in their favour, but that does not mean thateverything else can be ignored.

Please decide that this cannot happen.

I object to this application.

The proposed monopole mast would be harmful to the Garden Suburb's character andappearance if it was located ANYWHERE IN SEA MILLS CONSERVATION AREA, not just SeaMills Square, for the following reasons:

1. Sea Mills is predominantly characterised by small, low-rise, low density, two-storey, cottage-style houses approximately 8 metres in height. The proposed mast would be 18 metres, 10 metreshigher, and more than double the height, of the Garden Suburb houses. (See Sea MillsConservation Area Character Appraisal 2010 page 6 under the heading "Main Characteristics ofthe Garden Suburb".)

2. The height of the nearby tower of the locally listed St. Edyth's Church is 21.5 metres. The locallylisted Methodist Church on Sea Mills Square is a similar height. At a height of 18 metres, theproposed mast would compete with these two highly important and prominent buildings in viewsboth within the Garden Suburb and in views of Sea Mills from a distance.

3. Under the heading "Views and Vistas", the Sea Mills Conservation Area Character Appraisalrefers to the skyline of the Garden Suburb being originally planned with just the two churchespunctuating it, and states that "it is important to the roofscape of the Garden Suburb that no morebuildings" should be permitted to punctuate the skyline.

The two churches are referred to in paragraph 6.2.6 of the Appraisal (page 27) with reference to

"Long views" which "are the main distant views of the undulating landscape of the GardenSuburb". The Appraisal states that "The tower of St. Edyth's Church is visible in a great number ofthese views. Occasionally, the Methodists Church on Sea Mills Square may be seen in distantviews."

It further states that: "It is important to the roofscape of the Garden Suburb that no more buildingsare permitted to punctuate the skyline as this would detract from the skyline as originally plannedwith just the two churches punctuating it." (Paragraph 8.40, page 74).

Whilst this paragraph specifically mentions "buildings", the same would apply to the proposedmast which would detract from views and vistas of the skyline, due both to its height and to itsalien appearance within a 1920s-built Garden Suburb. This would apply to ANY location withinSea Mills Conservation Area.

4. Under the same heading of "Views and Vistas", the Sea Mills Appraisal refers to "mobile phonemasts", their impact on local views, and that "masts are out-of-character with the conservationarea".

The specific masts referred to are within the Conservation Area next to the Portway, but thecomments are equally valid across the whole of the Conservation Area. These particular mastsare much lower in height than the proposed monopole mast and yet they are still consideredharmful by the Appraisal.

The Appraisal states: "The high quality views in the vicinity of the sports grounds located betweenthe Portway and the River Avon are spoiled by the mobile phone masts and floodlight masts.These masts are out-of-character with the conservation area and the surrounding area."(Paragraph 8.39, page 74).

Under the heading "Views", the whole of pages 26 and 27 of the Appraisal consist of a meticulousanalysis of the importance and significance of views both within the Conservation Area and intothe Conservation Area from outside. It states that "Preserving the setting and views out from, aswell as views into the Conservation Area, is vital in protecting its character and significance"(paragraph 6.2.5), concluding that "The preservation of all types of views both within and out fromthe Conservation Area is vital in protecting its character and special interest" (paragraph 6.2.11,page 27).

Under the heading "Main Threats to the Character of the Garden Suburb", the Appraisal includes"Loss of or harm to views within, into and out of the Conservation Area from ... new developments"(page 7).

5. The homogeneous and uniform character of Sea Mills Conservation Area is unlike otherconservation areas where construction has evolved over centuries and where there is a mixture of

architectural designs and types.

The Appraisal states: "Designed and built in just over a decade, Sea Mills Garden Suburb is asingle unified and uniform entity. Holistically planned and formally laid out following Garden Cityand Garden Suburb principles, it is a single homogeneous design. Unlike Conservation Areas ofvaried construction that have evolved over centuries, where it may be possible to introduce newdesigns, provided they are sympathetic, Sea Mills is particularly vulnerable to change of this kind,uniformity being a fundamental characteristic. Even minor changes can have a detrimental effect."(Sea Mills Appraisal, paragraph 8.2, page 71).

This is particularly pertinent to an intrusive 21st century monopole mast. The Appraisal states that"Even minor changes can have a detrimental effect". The proposed mast is anything but a minorchange. It would be a major change within a homogeneously designed 1920s Garden Suburb.

The Appraisal states that "Unsympathetically sited or non-traditional street furniture can be highlydetrimental to the public realm" (paragraph 8.35, page 74).

6. Precedents. A similar planning application (20/02502/Y) was refused by Bristol City Council.Part of the reason for refusal given in the case officer's report was "Due to the siting and nature ofthe proposed mast in close proximity to a Conservation Area and several Listed Buildings, theproposal would not preserve the setting of these assets and the harm to these assets would not beoutweighed by the public benefit of the proposal."

This refused application was located in the "setting" of a Conservation Area. The proposedlocation in the current application is WITHIN a Conservation Area and in close proximity to twoLocally Listed Buildings.

As noted in the Case Officer's Report in the above application, the proposed location for therefused mast "would be contrary to Bristol City Council Advice Note 18 and Policies BCS22 andDM31" and that it should be noted that "the Authority is required (under Section 72 of the Planning(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990) to pay special regard to the desirability ofpreserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area."

In summary, the proposed monopole mast would be of a height and design which would result inthe creation of a prominent, incongruous, out-of-character, visually intrusive and dominant featurethat would result in a detrimental impact and considerable harm to the character of Sea MillsConservation Area and to the amenity of the surrounding areas, most of which are alsoConservation Areas. This would apply if the mast was proposed to be located ANYWHERE INSEA MILLS CONSERVATION AREA.

I ask you to please REFUSE this application.

I live a mile and a half away from Sea Mills Square. My husband and I have walkedthere and back several times a week for exercise during the pandemic.When it was available, we have had a coffee and sat outside the Café on the Square. Sometimeswe just sat on a bench or in the play park. It is a lovely place and well used not only by theimmediate community but by people like us who live in neighbouring areas.It is a Conservation Area where people have to apply for permission to make changes to the frontof their homes. The café has had to get permission to make changes to the exterior. The councilhave therefore been very careful to preserve the area's beauty and its historic significance.I strongly object to the proposal to ruin this area by erecting a huge mast, which will be an eyesoreand completely out of proportion to any of the surrounding homes and shops or the wonderful oaktree that stands on The Square.

Yes, I appreciate the ever-increasing demand for faster and better telecommunicationsbut an 18m pole in the very heart of the community in a conservation area is not the answer.

Why has this site been chosen?What is the logic and reasoning behind this choice - it is access? Cost? Convenience? It iscertainly not empathetic, community-minded or environmentally sensitive.

How far does the reach of this mast's signal need to be?Can we see the area this mast need to get coverage to and then determine if this is the only sitepossible and there are absolutely no other alternatives? For example anywhere at all acrossAvonmouth industrial estate? Can't you design a horizontal Arial that attaches to the side of theM5 motorway bridge at Avonmouth? Surely this level of design and innovation is only the samelevel that has gone into the phone and the creation of 5G. How about you invest the same amountof money in the transmitting infrastructure as you invest in the receiving devices, advertising andpromotion.

Have all the other alternatives already been ruled out?1. Can the commination mast on King Weston ridge, which is already far higher, be used in co-operation with whoever owns that?2. There is already a phone mast on St Edyth's Church and others at Manor Farm have thesesites not been considered?3. The Portway has several stretches without housing that already have huge great lamppostsalong either side, another post on one of these stretches could also be less of a visual andcommunity intrusion.

Let's not go back to normal, let's go forward to better.

And 3 Mobile - you are partnering with the Samaritans as I type, why are you trying to insensitivelyinflict unnecessary distress at the heart of a community.

#beabetterphonefriend

This mast is entirely inappropriate for the location, being within the Sea Millsconservation area, which is designated to reflect its design as a garden suburb.Erecting a mast within the main green open space, Sea Mills Square will damage its designedopen and picturesque setting. Such a tall mast within the square would dominate this open space,which otherwise has only low-rise housing, shops and street furniture.

The proposal threatens the special interest and character of the conservation area in the followingways:* Harm to views into and out of the Conservation Area* Loss of green setting* Loss of original planned open space with its formal layout* Negative visual impact on Sea Mills squareShirehampton Planning Group objects strongly to this application. Although masts are supposedlyallowed under permitted development rights, this should not be to the detriment of locallysignificant conservation areas that are at the heart of our communities. Other options must beexplored.

I wish to register my objection to the siting of a monopole 5G mast adjacent to the busstop on Shirehampton Road.

The application summarily dismisses the visual impact this mast would cause on the reviving roleof the Green as a hub of community life in Sea Mills: it is claimed that it would "respect thecharacter and appearance of the area ... [and] not be harmful to visual amenity; that it is "not to thevisual detriment of the surrounding area"; and that "it would respect and continue to maintain thecharacter of the area". This is all rubbish and special pleading.

It is claimed that it conforms to the NPPF requirement of "integrating with the built environment".There is no way a mast of this height integrates with the built environment at this point. It is alsoclaimed that the oak tree nearby would screen the mast, but the effect of this would be very slight,and the Oak is regarded with great local affection and veneration, marking as it does the foundingof Sea Mills 100 years ago.

The site applied for is not only located close to the bus stop (note the bulky size of the associatedcabinets), but also to the museum, Addison's Oak, and the community-created map of Sea Mills;the children's playground and the Cafe on the Square add strongly to the centre of the communityfeel of the total Green. The grassy areas are increasingly used in sunny weather by families andgroups of friends.

It is impossible to walk round the Green and not feel that a monopole mast will not impact thevisual amenity of the area. I note that the photographs appended to the application give a distortedview of the Green, particularly considering the view from playground and cafe where people

congregate has been ignored.

I note other locations that have been considered and rejected; I wonder whether a corner of theplaying field behind the houses round the Green, served by an access drive, or a position behindSilklands Grove on Coombe Dale have been considered?

It would have been helpful if the application had shown the approximate area of the cell the mastseeks to serve, which would materially inform the force of the claims in the application.

This mast, if allowed to go ahead, will scar this location and change it forever.

Sea Mills Square is a tribute to the local community and its history. With the millenniumstone, the new map of the area organised by SMCDT, the museum and the community cafe itshows how proud local residents are of their neighbourhood. The shops, park and transport linksmean the area is used and enjoyed by a wide range of people. I believe the new mast will be anugly eyesore in this community hub and is not in keeping with this garden suburb and analternative location should be considered.

The square has been lovingly restored by the community to reflect the heritage of thearea. The mast will be much taller than its surroudings and will detract from the beauty of the area.I would request that a location other than the square itself is considered for the. Mast.

This mast would completely ruin our local village square, not only is it an unsightly mastbut also would completely dominate the the lovely open green space we have. I strongly object tothis mast being put in what is a beautiful part of seamills and somewhere where many localsspend time, if not in the park playing with children in the local cafe.

I do not like the idea of having a mobile phone mast erected in sea mills square, it willlook hideous.Sea mills square is a lovely area and we do not need that monstrous thing in the middle of it.

I object to the erection of a mast in Sea Mills community green. The area is a focal pointfor the community where many activities take place and it would hinder the use of the area forsocial purposes.

The structure would be taller than the oak tree which has great historical significance and wouldbe near the phone box museum and cafe which are enjoyed by locals.

Having the mast there would blight the area. There must be a more suitable, less used locationthat would be a better place.

I must agree with all of the other commenters and object in the strongest possible termsto the erection of this mast within our conservation area, and even worse than that, right at theheart of our community!

It is completely abhorrent to me and my family that this is even under consideration and if thisridiculous application somehow gets further than consideration I am sure that the uproar from localresidents will be something to behold.

I am just glad we live in an age where surreptitiousness such as this can be easily be brought tothe attention of local residents through social media

Inappropriate structure in a conservation area and in that specific location.

This is the wrong place for this pole. It is a beautiful residential and conservation area.Please find a more discreet unpopulated area to erect this structure.

Totally inappropriate structure for a conservation area

I have lived in Sea Mills for the past 11 years, and in that time, I've seen Sea MillsSquare blossom and become the heart of this community. The addition of the cafe, theplayground, the museum telephone box and the surrounding shops and businesses have allcontributed to making Sea Mills Square into a community-orientated place, maintaining its charmand conservation area status, with the beloved Addison Oak at its centre.

While I agree that there is a need for a 5G pole in the area, Sea Mills Square is not a suitableplace for it. Frankly, the pole would be an eyesore in an otherwise attractive area (thanks to theefforts of the community). The pole would tower over everything there - there is no hiding ordisguising it as anything other than an ugly pole in the middle of a conservation area. How the polecan be approved without full planning permission is beyond me - applications to make anychanges to our homes in this conservation area are strictly monitored and considered in order tomaintain the aesthetic of the neighbourhood.

The proposed area for the new mast is in a conservation area and this would be aneyesore. This is a very busy public space.Surely it makes more sense to use the mast already in place at St Edyths church.

Bristol city council document. Conservation area 21 Sea Mills - January 2011. "6.2.11 Thepreservation of all types ofviews both within and out from theConservation Area is vital in protectingits character and special interest."

I strongly object to sitiung an enormous mast in a residential area. The Sea Millscommunity have done a lot to create just that, a community, with play area and community cafeand to have all these feeorts dwarfed by an eneormous mast would be a crying shame, to say theleast. I have grave doubts about the safety of this technology, separate issue, but siting a mastnext to a children's play area can't be a good idea! Please refuse this request.

It's a conservation area, with a 100year old oak tree in a very flat area that will bedominated by such a structure.I strongly object to a mast being placed here.

What a truest awful and inappropriate structure slap bang in a conservation area andlovely green space. I am not an immediate neighbour but I'm quite local and it would be such ashame to ruin this area.

Given the site's location within a conservation area, in close proximity to local homesthis application would require council approval. The application itself has upset and astonishedlocal residents. Whilst 5G masts are probably deemed a necessity in the future - this is not anappropriate location. Visual impact, location in a conservation area and appropriate developmentare each valid reasons for dismissing the application.

I strongly hope that the application is rejected - there are plenty of local positions that would besuitable for a similar mast that don't damage the local community. I don't understand why the mastisn't proposed to be next to one of the existing masts that are located in the grassy areas ofBlaise.

Madness that this can be considered in a conservation area. The centre of Sea Millswhich has grown in popularity as a focal point during the last few years.Why can't it go next to the other giant mast close to where Kingsweston meets Blaise Castle.

Please subject this contentious and unpopular proposal to proper scrutiny by requiringan application for planning permission. It seems to me that the reasons given below show why thisis necessary.

Putting an ugly, forbidding, intrusive and inappropriate 18ft mast in the middle of Sea Mills Squarewould severely detract from the welcoming pleasantness of a much used, loved and recentlyenhanced community facility. As a result, meetings, socialising, children's play and non-essentiallingering by residents would be discouraged because it would no longer be an attractive venue.Local businesses and especially the greatly valued café would be likely to be significantly affected.Therefore, the overbearing, inappropriate presence of the mast would damage the visual amenityand outlook of the entire neighbourhood, and also erode the role of the square for the manyresidents for whom it is a meeting place and centre of local social activity.It would dominate the square and surrounding houses, dwarf the historically significant AddisonOak, and make a mockery of the joint effort and imaginative vision the community has put intoimproving the Square in recent years.Residents' work to cement the Square's position as the hub of the historic post-WW1 communityhas contributed to the cohesiveness of the present community. The locality's existingConservation Area status confirms the special nature of Sea Mills; but not requiring proper scrutinyvia a planning application would undermine its protected status and attack its community spirit. Itwould also fly in the face of the consistency and respect for the wellbeing and the views ofresidents that BCC's constitution requires.

I hope you will ensure proper process is followed and a planning application required for thisunnecessary, lazy and insensitive proposal.

To the people who thought up this idea are you mad . Would you like this outside yourfront door

I object to the project, inappropriate in a conservation area and damaging for thelandscape, and in particular with the magnificent oak tree on the square.

This is completely inappropriate in the focal center of the Sea Mills Garden Suburb. TheSea Mills Conservation Area Character Appraisal states, 'In exercising its planning functions in aconservation area, the local planning authority is under a duty to pay "special attention to thedesirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance" of the area (s.72 Planning(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990).' This does does not preserve or enhance thecharacter or appearance of the area and thus this application should be rejected.

https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/33832/sea-mills-character-appraisal.pdf

As a local resident I enjoy the beautiful area I live in with my children. The local historyand community should be conserved and there is absolutely no place on the square for thismonstrosity. It beggars belief that someone somewhere has actually thought this to be a goodidea.Locals have worked hard to make this area a lovely welcoming place to be and with the recentcentenary celebrations and future plans for the community it seems completely out of place tostick this massive eyesore in a conservation area.

I would like to raise my objections to the proposal. I am disgusted that you would even consider it because it will spoil the beautiful centre of our local area.Yours faithfully

Peter Cooper

Only developers with no association with the area could make an application sodisrespectful of local character. 18M high?! the monstrosity will dominate the open space,significantly detracting from the amenity that it provides for local people, and will become a targetfor graffiti. (I was at school at Sea Mills Infants and Sea Mills Junior). Industrial infrastructure likethis should be sited in a zone with other light industry, not on green open space.

While I appreciate that 5G technology is coming and has to live somewhere, placing avisually intrusive pole in the very centre of the local community's historic hub seems ill-advised.There must be several other sites close by that are capable of offering just as muchsignal/coverage without being as glaringly obvious and over-bearing.

The green on Shirehampton Road is an integral part of the open space planning which localsgreatly appreciate. This pole would negatively and significantly impact the quality of that space.Please reconsider.

Best wishes,

Max

Please do not building the mast in the square- I object to this proposal

I cannot express how deeply I object to this proposal.Sea Mills is a unique community in Bristol where there is a vibrant and active community workingtogether with the vision of continuing to develop and enhance the green space so vital for ourresidents mental well-being. Sea mills is a garden suburb, in a conservation area, designedspecifically to enable all residents living here, whatever their circumstances, to be able to seegreen space. The square has increasingly developed into the heart of our area, with the Cafe,children's playground and the beautiful old oak tree. A 5G mast, towering menacingly over it all,would completely damage the feel and sense of a community working for and together with theirneighbours.Please don't destroy what is being so painstakingly built. We should be enhancing, and notdestroying, our green spaces. I work in the NHS mental health service. Mental illness is at an alltime high. We need communities to develop and grow, and for each person to feel a sense ofbelonging and pride for where they live. A huge mast is just focussing us all on the dominance andpower that phones and social media bring to our lives. Please put them where they are not goingto be so damaging to the green spaces we have all come to rely on over lockdown.Conservation and protection of our history has been proposed as the reason we can no longer useour iron bridge to cross the road safely between green spaces. How on earth can this be justified!

The risks of 5G when in close proximity to populated areas have not yet been proven tobe safe for children, pregnant women and other vulnerable members of the population. There areno large-scale studies confirming the safety of 5G towers and the RF-EMF that they emit. As limitsdiffer by country, there isn't even data available to be used from other countries to assure thepublic that they are not about to be exposed to higher levels of depression, asthma and certaincancers. The British Medical Journal and the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health haveboth published articles citing concerns over the widespread roll out of 5G. They call for animmediate moratorium on exposure pending adequate scientific investigation of its suspectedadverse health effects. I support their view and object to the proposed placement of the 5G maston Shirehampton Road.

This a lovely square that has been and increasingly looked after by the local residents.The 'Addison Oak' is a protected historical object. To put a tower 18m next to this 6m tree ismadness and unthinking and cruel .Put it somewhere else or stick the transmitter on the comms tower above Blaize woods.

This a lovely square that has been and increasingly looked after by the local residents.The 'Addison Oak' is a protected historical object. To put a tower 18m next to this 6m tree ismadness and unthinking and cruel .Put it somewhere else or stick the transmitter on the comms tower above Blaize woods.

This is totally unacceptable. Sea Mills is full of family housing both Council and privateand will directly affect children.Sea Mills is an area of natural beauty that is split in to two parliamentary area and often overlooked. It was given to the city by Napier Miles and should be treated with the respect.This mast will affect the entire estate. I am absolutely opposed.Marie Rooney

This proposal is an awful idea, the location proposed is in the middle of our communityhub, that being the square. Why can it not be placed out of sight in a more secluded area?

Totally ridiculous proposal, 18m in the middle of a built up residential area, in front of aplay ground and a busy road is bonkers. What are you thinking!

The tree adjacent to the proposed site has a TPO on it, what would the impact be on its rootsystem for a mast of this size to be securely held in the ground.

Bristol City Council have their own written guidelines which would oppose this

Bristol City Council's (2011) appraisal of Sea Mills as a Conservation Area states:

"Threats to the formal character of the Square, unsympathetic alterations to its layout or design"(2011: 43) as issues for the conservation of Sea Mills as a holistically designed, 'verdant' modelgarden suburb,

8.35 Unsympathetically sited or non- traditional street furniture can be highly detrimental to thepublic realm, especially in sensitive areas such as Sea Mills Square." and

8.40 It is important to the roofscape of the Garden Suburb that no more buildings are permitted topunctuate the skyline as this would detract from the skyline as originally planned with just the twochurches punctuating it.(2011: 74).

Bristol City Council have set out very clear guidelines for Sea Mills as a conservation area and inparticular the Square, where the 18metre mast and three visually dominating ancillary boxes, arebeing proposedSo surely Bristol City Council must be entirely consistent with their own planning rules?

I oppose the siting of this 18metre mast on the historic Garden Suburb Square

In recent years Sea Mills has tried to take pride in itself. We change to the horrible busstop into a lovely community café, we've added a well looked after and tidy park, changed the oldtelephone box into a museum and we celebrated the Addison Oaks 100th birthday not long ago.Why would we want to go and ruin all of that with an unsightly 18m tall pole? Surely there is abetter place rather than it right in the heart of Sea Mills Square?

I strongly object to this mast being erected in the square. The community has workedincredibly hard to improve the square and this would be a eyesore- significantly detracting from thevisual amenity in a conversation area. Please ask the applicant to find a more suitable location forthe mast.

Not in a conservation area please. Not in the middle of the square which is the mainarea for Sea Mills.

I am regularly in Sea Mills and volunteer in the Cafe on the Square that serves thesurrounding area. We have recently celebrated 100 years of the Oak tree that was planted whenthe estate was built. It would be such a shame to have this telecoms pole in the centre of theSquare near the tree and cafe. I feel it would be better placed elsewhere rather than in the centrewhere it effects so many people who care about this area. Please find somewhere else for it to go.Thank you.

We are regular visitors to the play park and the cafe on the square. The proposed 5Gmast would dominate the square and not in a good way. So many have worked so hard to makethe square the lovely place to be it currently is, it would be a ludicrous decision to allow such anintrusive pice of industrial equipment to be installed in a conservation area. Only 15-20 years agothere was no play ground or cafe but just an old disused toilet block. It's now the thriving hub ofthe community, with a not-for profit cafe bring people out to enjoy the green space. There areplenty of suitable alternative sites for consideration. This application should be rejected out ofhand.

This development is wholly inappropriate for a conservation area. The proposeddevelopment is adjacent to a children's play area and a coffee shop and slap bang in the middle ofa historic green space. The height of the mast is way above the Addison Oak and is simply not inkeeping with a conservation area. The health risks of placing a mast so close to properties alsoappears not to have been adequately taken into account. I object to this proposal and amsurprised it has even been proposed.

Sea mills is a garden suburb and as such should be protected from having a mast putnext to a 100yr old tree. Put the mast on the top of the church along with the other mast or on thetelevision mast but not in the square.

I don't think that putting the 5G mast in the square, our beautiful conservation area, is agood idea. I understand that it may be important to have one, but surely there are better locations.It's a lovely and green yet small area, and having a 5G mast there would take a lot away from thebeauty of this area. It is very important to the residents, and we don't have many green spaces inthe local area.

Respect the community! This would be such an inconsiderate addition to the area.Listen to the people. We all object to this!

This will be an eyesore in this beautiful community space. The green open space isimportant to preserve & enjoy. This would be a very poor choice to make & I know our localcommunity will be against this proposal.

As I sea mills resident I am against this

This will be an absolute eyesore in a recognized conservation and very greenarea.please deny planning permission. Can it not be combined with the Kingsweston downtransmitter mast ?Thanks.Malwyn hill.

The placement of this proposed 5G mast had been given little or no forethought.

I do not object to investment in infrastructure however the positioning of this mast in a low rise,residential, conservation area which has recently been lauded as an example of a garden suburbdevelopment as it celebrated its recent centenary is completely unacceptable. It would underminethe character of the conservation area and dominate the skyline.

It is also positioned within unsuitable proximity and within the root protection zone of a 100 yearold oak tree of historical importance, protected by a tree preservation order.

I object to the positioning of this mast and believe the developers should reconsider it's location,seeking a less obtrusive site while still achieving the same goal of upgrading local/nationalinfrastructure.

Please find a more suitable site for the mast. Putting it so close to a historic tree &green community area should not be allowed.

No way! You can't be serious! That's the most ridiculous place to put something likethat, I mean this has to be a joke surely.

I do not find it appropriate to place a 18m telecommunications mast at the edge of Sea Mills green on the square.

Explain to me the thought process around placing an 18n mast next to the famous ancient oak tree and the 100-year-old red museum telephone box and opposite a kids playground is appropriate, and in keeping with the look of the residential square and its residents.

Therefore, I am not in favour of this planning approval or application.

Apart from the fact that it is right in the middle of a Conservation Area, which should be protected, the proposed site is extremely close to a popular children's playground and a very popular cafe which performs an essential support role in the local community.

I do not feel that it will be in keeping with the local area. Moreover, there is already a mobile phone mast for another company just down the road at St Edyth's Church, which makes this one utterly unnecessary as the companies should be sharing.

This is a community area, a small green spae with a children's play area. It would beruined by this unsightly 'monopole'. It would be a huge eyesore. The 5G is also not safe in an areawhere there are many homes and children play due to high levels of radiation.

I object to this as Sea Mills and Coombe Dingle is a area of natural beauty and history,so much so that small house extensions are rejected due to impact on the history of the area. Thismast would be an eyesore and completely destroy the beauty and historical importance of thearea.

I wholeheartedly object to these plans. We are in a conservation area and one of thefew remaining areas of Bristol that retains the green, natural surroundings for which the SouthWest is famous.

We are an area that attracts visitors on walks, runs and cycles and this will substantially damagethe appearance of the local environment.

Sea Mills square in particularly is heart of the local community. It is an area where people sit,children play and where local activities are held. It is home to local churches, and the volunteer run"Cafe on the Square". The appeal of these areas are the unique village feel of this square. Thismast on this area is against the ethos of Bristol protecting its beautiful areas and communities.

I object to the application in the strongest terms from my perspective as a buildingshistorian and author of the Pevsner Buildings of England volume Somerset North and Bristol,2011, in which the significance of the Sea Mills estate is outlined [p.403].

The planning of the estate is centred upon Sea Mills Square which is thus the most sensitivelocation in terms of later change. The residents have worked hard and successfully to create arenewed sense of community and to conserve the atmosphere and character of the estate,especially around the Square and the important Addison oak, planted to mark the start ofdevelopment in 1919.

The estate is now recognised as having a wider national significance as a good examples of localauthority development of 'Homes Fit for Heroes' after the Great War. Its designation as aConservation Area is in recognition of that status.

I object therefore to the disruptive nature of the proposed mast which at 18 metres would dominatethe Square and disrupt the planned symmetrical layout by its visually random placement andheight. It would also unnecessarily dominate and spoil the setting of the Addison Oak nearby.Indeed, it would be impossible to select a more inappropriate location within the estate for such anintrusion.

Further, the proposal cuts across the objectives of the Bristol Local Plan Review [2019] whichexplicitly identifies Sea Mills Square as an open space requiring protection from development thatwould harm its characteristics and appearance.

This proposal would undermine the admirable work done by the local community to reclaim andprotect its environment, an initiative which the Council surely needs to acknowledge and support.

I would ask the planning officers and elected members of Council to reject this application and askthe proposer to seek an alternative and less intrusive and damaging site both visually andhistorically.

Many reports are circulating on the dangers of 5g. Until we have a full enquiry on theeffects to human health I remain opposed to its implementation in my area.Pushing ahead regardless of public concern is aa arrogant and irresponsible approach on yourpart. Please reconsider or be prepared to face any future consequences to yourselves.

I strongly object to these proposals.

Sea Mills Square is the focal point of the local community. Installing the proposed mast will visuallyruin this area of pride for some many local residents.

It is clear from many planning application Heritage statements that the Square is the epicentre andis of utmost importance to the Garden Suburb. Planning officers keep tight control on theextensions that can be built in this area. Residents only seem to be able to extend single storey,up to 3.5m from the rear of the property, with materials in keeping with the existing building, so toinstall a mast 18m high along with the aesthetically awful cabinets on the ground, it the centre ofthis protected area seems like an outrageous proposal and one that should be declined.

This proposal is the opposite of 'enhancing or preserving' the area as outlined in many planningdocuments.

Not only is this in line with many heritage statements, but also Bristol City Councils document'Conservation Area 21 -Sea Mills - Character Appraisal & Management Proposals' in particularpoint 4.5 on page 11....

4.5 The layout in particular sets the Garden Suburb apart; based on an axial framework centred onSea Mills Square, softened byconcentric curving roads which follow the contour lines and roads that follow the adjacenttopography of the Trym Valley.Focal greens, public green spaces and enclosed open spaces, and local landmark buildings

punctuate the Suburb.

Also as highlighted in 4b.1 and something that the authors of the reports have deemed as "MainThreats to the Character of the Garden Suburb" are mobile phone masts (excerpt here -Unsympathetically sited small-scale additions e.g. satellite dishes, alarm boxes, mobile phone andother masts, solar panels etc.).

As this is a known threat to the character I can see no reason as to how this application would begranted, other than to generate income at the cost of years of history, preservation and the prideof the local community.

Sea Mills Square is an inappropriate place for such a large & unsightly structure. Pleasereconsider the placement of this mast and also if it's is required at all as there is a mast already onSt Edyth's church tower.

The Square is in the heart of a conservation area and this mast will have a negative impact on thehistorically significant area.

Please consider doing a consultation with local residents to look at alternative spots rather thanput in multiple applications- find the right spot first before applying for planning.

Absolutely not! On a beautiful green used by many.

Mobile phone coverage in the area is poor. If this will improve coverage and if mobilenetworks (other than the one installing it) can buy in to use the mast then this would be beneficialto the area.

A blot on the landscape.

This is a questionable requirement however understand 5G poles will be approvedregardless. This location at the central hub of the community is not the place for this device.Because the council have been forced to sell off all their land to developers to cover increasedyear on year costs due to extortionate contractors you are left with few options of placed to put this"pole" these poles over sized for the location. If you are going to update the technology either waydo it somewhere else.

I live in a flat with very poor mobile signal in a world where it is increasingly difficult tofunction without the ability to receive calls for authentication purposes. These masts are now asessential as electricity, street lighting etc. It is also rather unclear to me what possible problem orissue they cause except to those trained to take offence at so-called 'visual' problems.

This is located at the heart of this community. I feel there are other more appropriatelocations to site such a total structure. It was be out of keeping with the nature of the conservationarea, being 2 storey properties with regular spacing and for that reason should be subject to a fullplanning application.

I'm having a hard time believing that this proposal is even being considered for planningapplication! I've lived in Sea Mills for 22 years and love it; one of the reasons for that is that it's aconservation area and has a proud history of being a green and pleasant place to live. I've workedat Cafe on the Square (literally over the road from the proposed site of the mast) since it opened10 years ago; over the years, as the cafe has become more popular and crowded, we've longed toextend or adapt the building in some way, in order to better serve our community, but have alwaysbeen refused because of the PLANNING RESTRICTIONS in the area! So how is it that an 18mmast could be allowed right in that spot? I'm not against having a mast somewhere in the area, butdefinitely do not want it right on the Square next to our beautiful, 100-year-old Addison Oak. In myopinion, the Recreation Ground would be a far more suitable place. Many residents of Sea Millsdon't even know the Rec exists and it's mainly used by football clubs on a weekend, so surelythere's a suitable space for it there? I STRONGLY OBJECT to this proposal.

I object strongly to the proposal to cite an 18 metre monopole in Sea Mills Square.The NPPF provides that "Proposals for new or upgraded telecommunications equipment andinstallations will be permitted provided that: i. The telecommunications equipment and installationwould respect the character and appearance of the area and would not be harmful to visualamenity by reason of its siting and design".In their Planning Application form, the developers state: "The proposal would not result indemonstrable harm to the character of the immediate or wider area". This is not true.The planning application takes no account of the fact that the proposed site in Sea Mills Square isat the heart of the Sea Mills Conservation Area and is a critically important element of thecharacter of the Conservation Area. The City Council's (2011) appraisal of Sea Mills as aConservation Area notes "Threats to the formal character of the Square, unsympathetic alterationsto its layout or design" (2011: 43) as issues for the conservation of Sea Mills as a holisticallydesigned, 'verdant' model garden suburb, and in particular: "8.35 Unsympathetically sited or non-traditional street furniture can be highly detrimental to the public realm, especially in sensitiveareas such as Sea Mills Square." and "8.40 It is important to the roofscape of the Garden Suburbthat no more buildings are permitted to punctuate the skyline as this would detract from the skylineas originally planned with just the two churches punctuating it.(2011: 74).The proposed monopole would be sited next to, and dwarf, Addison's oak, which the City Council'sConservation Appraisal refers to as having "Bristol-wide historical significance" (2011: 69).Given that appraisal, it is impossible to see how the developer could conclude that the proposedmonopole "would not result in demonstrable harm to the character of the immediate or widerarea".

I therefore strongly object to the proposal on the grounds of its threat to the conservation of keyassets to the Sea Mills Conservation Area.

The site proposed for this mast, and its street level boxes, is so wrong. Siting it in thecentre point of a conservation area and Garden Suburb, Sea Mills square - or Green, will be a totaleyesore.

So much work has been done by local community to celebrate Sea Mills 100 anniversary and thehistoric "Homes Fit for Heroes" creating a beautiful village green atmosphere. Alongside theCommunity Cafe and under the historic Addison Oak, the Telephone Box restored and now a localmuseum, a community noticeboard, a local handdrawn map and regular Community Litter picksshow a real sense of pride in the area and in particular this Green heart of a Garden Suburb

An 18 metre mast and street boxes will over dominate this very special place and ruin it.There must be many out of sight/discrete places this can be sited to provide 5GI oppose the application for it to be sited here

next to the 100 year old oak tree and slap in the centre of an otherwise low level andvery green space in conservation area.

The site is inappropriate. The Square is at the very centre of Sea Mills. This mast andassociated structures would have a detrimental effect on an area of Sea Mills which includes anoak tree planted when the estate was built, a children's play area, a floral display and a popularlocal cafe. I am not objecting to siting a mast in Sea Mills, but it should not be in Sea Mills Square.

I object because I think it will look very unsightly in the centre of Sea Mills, near to thechildren's playground and dwarfing the telephone box museum and historic Addison oak tree. Thiswill very much ruin the aesthetics of the area. It will not be inkeepung with the look of the squareand the ethos of Sea Mills, known as the garden suburb, which is a conservation area.

Completely the wrong place for this. Sea Mills is a historic part of Bristol and the squareis the heart of the community. The children's play area, the community cafe, museum and AddisonOak would all be over shadowed by an ugly and dangerous eyesore.

This mast is too large and a blight on the green social meeting place that is at the heartof Sea Mills Garden suburb. It is the height of our local church and will detract from this quietresidential area, giving it an industrial appearance. In addition I believe it is a health risk for peopleliving and working close to it who would be exposed to the high energy fields which such a mastwill emit.Such a mast should not be placed here.

1. It is too close to a main road and zebra crossing.2.This mask would be a distraction to motorists.3. I would not feel safe using the zebra crossing because of the closeness of the mask to thecrossing.4.Distracted motorists looking at mask may not notice zebra crossing.5.This mask would dominate this much loved part of Sea Mills, overshadowing the 101 year oldoak and other smaller trees!!!6. BS9 2ED is part of a conservation area and this proposed mask would be offensive to my eyes,7. It is a possibility this mask would be harmful to local birds and small creatures,

This green space is the very heart of our community and is enjoyed by young and oldalike. The proposed site is situated next to the children's play area and community cafe. It'scompletely inappropriate and obstructive. Please reconsider moving it to a less obtrusive location.At a time when mental health and well-being should be the most important factor in thesedecisions it is obvious to me that this has not been the case. We must preserve green spaces forour community and not even consider such plans appropriate.

This area is a conservation area. It will be an eye sore and detract from all the lovelythings local residents have achieved over the last few years to make this area family friendly. Whydoes it need to go right in the middle of a well used public green space?

Sea Mills Square is a conservation area and any mast would be an eyesore anddetrimental to the area and its residents. A placement of this type, if approved, would bedetrimental not only to property prices for the residents impacted, but also to our general well-being.Also, 5G in a novel technology and there are concerns of its potential impact on health etc. This isunproven technology which should not be placed directly adjacent to residents' homes.Myself and my family are outraged that the council would even consider granted any application atthe proposed location.

Putting a 5g mast on the common would ruin a lovely family friendly place to visit in SeaMills. There is a park and a cafe next to it and a lovely phone box museum that the kids love. Themast would damage wildlife and have a severely negative impact on conservation of the area,green space and local amenities. House prices would also suffer. Please do not put the 5g masthere!

Putting a 5g mast on Sea Mills Square would ruin a family friendly community space. Iregularly take my son to the play park here and enjoy a coffee from the cafe sitting on the green.The 5g mast would make this area dangerous to children and spoil what is a lovely part of thearea. The mast would also remove green space therefore affecting local wildlife and conservationefforts. House prices would also be negatively affected in the surrounding area. Local amenitieswould also lose money from less visitors to the park, church and cafe. I strongly object to the 5Gmast here.

This is absolutely not the place for this mast. Next to a children's play park, communitycafe and in a quiet green area! I see no positives to having this eyesore placed here!

Sea Mills is a conservation area. There is a focus on keeping the look and feel of thehouses and community consistent in appearance. The green is a community space, with the Cafeon the Square opposite serving a much needed need for the community to have a meeting space.Adjacent to it is a play area for children. On the side is the Addison Oak, which is a symbol for SeaMills, as well as the 'Sea Mills 100 Museum'. A lot of care has been invested to make this space awelcoming and pleasant space to be, and events regularly take place in the area around the Oakand the Cafe.

The proposed monopole would destroy the usability and the overall appearance of the communal,green, welcoming space. This will set back all the hard work invested over the years and break upthe only communal space that we currently have, after the Sea Mills Community Centre had toclose.

Outrageous place to situate something so random which can be co located with existingcell towers in the area which are hidden and not in the way of the beautiful scenery of theneighbourhood green. Absolutely ridiculous idea.

Seamills square is the focal point of the area, especially the oak tree. The localresidents have made a massive effort to keep this space pristine with regular community activities.Putting a massive mast along with cabinets will completely change the feel and of course aestheticof the area and seems unnecessary when there are plenty of other spaces less attractive for it togo.

Seamills has an important history in Bristol and "plonking" a massive mast in the focal point of theconservation area is in my opinion lazy on the company who are planning to erect it.

I am not against progress I simply urge you to find a better suited site.

This would spoil the appearance of Sea Mills Square which is looking the best it's everlooked. Hardly in keeping with Napier Miles. Couldn't it go somewhere less conspicuous.

This is extremely inappropriate for an open green space in a conservation area.There is an existing mast on the church Tower at St Edyth's which should be used as a sharedfacility between providers.A tower in the square would dominate the area, looming over our green space and our culturallyimportant Addison's Oak. It would be seen for miles around. These masts should never be a focalpoint for any area, they should blend in not stand out. I cannot think of a worse location.Please deny planning.

I understand that these masks have to be placed somewhere but I think next to our localpark and community cafe is not the right place. The community have worked hard to make this alovely space & this mask is an eye sore. It would be better next to waste land. Some alternativesuggestions should be proposed before a final decision made.

Sea Mills is categorised as a conservation area and has lot of history and culture, theproposed site of the mast will not fit in with any of the surroundings

Roll on 5G, signals should be much better with this.

This location is ridiculous. While I'm in favour of ensuring a good 5G service in the area,this mast should absolutely not be placed next to Addisons oak. This is a conservation area andthe mast would jeopardise this. Please find an alternative, less conspicuous location.

I would expect that they do need permission before erecting a mast on the villagegreen. This is a totally unreasonable application and if the council do give permission to erect themast it would be challengeable via judicial review. I expect that this company are makingapplications across the country on behalf of a large contractor in the mobile phone industry orsimilar. This application may be a tactical move knowing that it will make it more likely that theirplan b will go through. This will probably be somewhere else in our community though less visible.Are this company tax payers in England or registered elsewhere in the world like so many othercompanies. Have the directors got masts on their village green in the home counties. I doubt it.

I normally have no truck with nimby-ism but this proposal is ridiculous. Why can't theperfectly good existing "masts" along the Portway be upgraded or those on St Edyths church, orthe technology be placed on the Bristol Kings Weston transmitter? I suspect this is a case of justcheapest solution but this could easily be placed somewhere where it's not impacting on theconservation area, the historic environment of the Square or the significant oak tree. It's aboutaesthetics and heritage. Object.

I was surprised to see this application. Sea Mills is now considered a suburb but retainsits village feel. The proposed site is effectively the 'village green' and is still heavily used as acommunity space. I feel that a huge mast would completely change the atmosphere and detractfrom the beauty of the surroundings and particularly the ancient Addison's oak. I believe there areother potential sites on the area which may be useable (I don't know the criteria) such as closer tothe Portway. Of course there will be comprises in any site but I feel that this decision has beenmade by people with no understanding of the importance of this community space and the waythat a large mast would detract from this.

Sea Mills Square is the central point of the whole of Sea Mills community. Thecommunity is so grateful that in recent years the Square has been enhanced with converting thedisused toilets into a cafe, from the construction of a lovely playground for children and creating amini local museum in the phone box which was also beautifully re-painted.The phone box stands next to the 100-year oak which was planted right at the beginning of theconstruction of Sea Mills.

I find the idea of erecting an 18-metre mast next to the oak as astounding and going against thegrain of all the lovely measures taken in recent years to improve this central area. I would imploreplanners to reject this proposal completely.Thanks, Mike Roberts

Good morning,I am a former resident in Sea Mills and have a number of friends who live in Sea Mills who are,rightly, extremely upset that this large and unsightly 5G mast is due to be erected in Sea Millssquare near the bus stop, shops, cafe, and children's play area.

Their objection is not on supposed health grounds - I do not accept that the evidence points to anysignificant health risk from 5G technology - but simply that this is an intrusive and unsightly andthe location should be reconsidered.

I, and they, understand the benefits of 5G technology, but an alternative site should be found.

What alternative sites have been considered prior to the plan to use Sea Mills square? And whatwere the reasons for not pursuing these options?

Kind regards

John Stevens

This is a conservation area and such a huge mast in such a prominent and busy spaceis not appropriate at all.If we must have such monstrosities then there must be somewhere more suitable away from busyareas. We don't yet know if these cause ill health in people or cause depression.Why must we even have them? Most be another way of improving WiFi access these days. Iwould rather see more wind farms than these things. Our environment is so important.

This isn't an appropriate place for such a tall mast. It's out of proportion to thesurrounding area i.e. much higher and right next to a 100 year oak tree and houses. This greenspace is very important to the local community and an integral part of the housing development.

Whilst appreciating the value of communication this independent mast in the middle of aconservation area and historic part of Sea Mills is exceptionally out of place. Why could this mastnot be located on St Edyth's church spire alongside the existing one already there? Aretelecommunications companies not required to cooperate on their locations and share masts?There is also an existing mast nearby in Blaise at a higher level than Sea Mills Square, by far abetter location.In all, I think this application needs to be refused and the company research more suitable, lessobtrusive, existing locations to piggy back their equipment and protect the Square from this uglymast which should be placed in a more discreet location rather than out in the open ruining theambience of Sea Mills.

I object to the visual appearance of this proposed mast.

I do not consider it is appropriate to install this mast in a Conservation Area and heart of thecommunity in Sea Mills.

Considerable effort has been made by the community to make the square attractive and this mastand its base would have a negative impact on the appearance of this special area for thecommunity.

Why does it have to go in the middle of the square which is the focal point of thecommunity. Sea Mills is a conservation area. This should definitely NOT get past planning. It willbe an eye sore and certainly not in keeping with a community garden suburb such as this.

Hello,

I object to the proposal. Sea Mills is a conservation area so this approach is not in keeping withthat. It dominates the aesthetic of the area and looks as ugly as you can get. Pretty disgusted thisis even on the agenda but then the people proposing this woulnt have to see it each day.

This 18m metre mast with accompanying cabinet is totally inappropriate for Sea MillsSquare particularly if it is to be situated near to the Addison Oak tree. We have a well definedgreen space in the centre of Sea Mills which is attractive, clean and mostly vandal free. To plonk amast of that height would also not be in keeping with the layout of the area. Surely there issomewhere else for it to be situated. Have areas such as Stoke Bishop or Sneyd Park beenconsidered? I think not and wonder why?

The tower is not in keeping with the garden suburb and conservation area. The locationin the heart of the community is entirely inappropriate, there must be a more suitable location thatisn't next to houses, businesses and schools.

It's a conservation area and if you let this through, what's next! There's already a 5gtower on kingweston hill!? Why do you need to pop one next to the beautiful tree :/ not impressedwith the current government's sneaky underhanded tactics. More transparency please.

I would hate for something this ugly and invasive to be visible within the centre of theSea Mills community/the primary green space. It would be directly opposite the park, the cafe andside-by-side with the beautiful oak tree. In short it's a visual monstrosity which would drasticallyruin the landscape of the area. Please don't put it somewhere as prominent and obtrusive as this.Beth

Although I appreciate that these masts have to go somewhere, this location iscompletely inappropriate. The Addison Oak tree is of great importance, and I is my understandingthat the community was given a grant to conserve and improve the area around it, after it was afinalist in the 2019 Tree of the Year Competition. How does this mast placement help to achievethis?In addition, it is also my understanding that Sea Mills itself is a conservation area. So is theplacement of a mast of this nature in an open green space, which is used by the local community,really in keeping with the conservative rhetoric?Please rethink the positioning of this mast.

It seems ludicrous that you would put a 5G pole in what is a conservation area, not onlythat next to the central landmark (Addison's oak tree).I appreciate they need to go somewhere butnot in such a central place where many residents go to enjoy the local green space and socialise

This will be unsightly and totally out of character with the area. It will simply not fit in.

Though not formally part of the Sea Mills Community Initiative, I have volunteered forand benefitted from their magnificent work over the last 10 years, specifically in regard to theirdevelopment of Cafe on the Square. This involved the conversion of a disused derelict toilet blockinto a community hub, and a stream of local residents have found or rediscovered a heart to theircommunity. The Cafe has remained highly popular despite closure/ partial re-opening duringlockdown. It also dovetails well with the nearby playground, making it a most essential provisionfor local families.I suspect the users of the cafe would have their enjoyment of the facility seriously undermined bythe invasiveness of the proposed installation.

May I also ask that the applicants claim (see their SSSI document) that ***There are no schools/colleges in close proximity to the proposed location*** be fact-checked? What about Sea MillsPrimary School in Riverleaze, BS9 2HL? Apart from the location itself, the catchment is such thatmany parents will bring their children to and from this school every day across the Square, veryclose to the proposed installation.

It's enormous and will entirely spoil the beautiful area and view across Sea Mills.Will the work cause damage to the roots of 100 year old oak.There is a mast on st Edyth's church nearby, shouldn't the companies share this?Sea Mills is a conservation area. Doesn't this plan contravene that?Thank you

I object to the proposal to erect a telephone mast on Sea Mills Square because theappearance of said mast will detract from the appearance of our local Square. This is aconservation area and one would have thought this should preclude the building of largetelephone masts. There are many other options for the placement of the mast and I fear thecurrent proposal is based entirely on the cheapest option for the phone company in question whichshould not be the main consideration. I ask that you reject the proposal and urge that the companylook for options that do not impact on the local area as this one would.

It would be such a eyesore

Comment: Sea Mills is a conservation area and a garden suburb. Putting this enormous5G pole in the heart of a suburb would be totally inappropriate.

Why would you slap a mast in the middle of a garden suburb?Other places it could be put are the recreational ground (behind) houses of Sylvan Way/ St EdythsRd/ Woodleaze/Shirehampton Road?, it would not be very noticeable here! Or on the green spaceof land at the junction of Sylvan Way/ The Portway A4, there is a small wooded area where themast could mostly be hidden here!!!Does it have to be in such a prominent position, cannot you find a place it can be hidden (to anextent). Please think of the eyesore you are going to cause, in a Conservation area andCommunity Suburb.

This seems like a bizarre place for a mast. It's not even at a particularly high elevation,and in a historic residential area. I understand the need for such things, but there are betterlocations. The local community have worked hard to make this a pleasant space. I feel this wouldruin it.

Social location , many children playing in the area, a main route into town and popularattractions , would spoil the attraction of the area and not enticing for the people coming to visit.Very random place to put it.

This would be an eye sore to the area and unfair on all that have to look out of theirwindow at it.

As a resident of sea mill object to the proposed plan to erect a telecommunications maston the edge of the green on shirehampton road. Sea mills is a green conservation area which isvalued by its residents.

As a resident of Sea Mills, I am saddened to hear that there are plans to dominate thebeautiful Sea Mills square with an incredibly tall 5G mast. In the middle of the square, this mastwill very much stick out. Surely there's a less conspicuous place that it could go instead, ratherthan ruining our lovely green square.

This is a conservation area, an attractive green space used by the community. It's alsoa site of historical interest with 100 year old oak and Sea Mills museum highlighting the homes forheroes buildings in the vicinity. This mast is an eyesore and could easily be sited somewhere lessconspicuous.

I am objecting to the placement of an 18m mast on shirehampton road in Sea Millswhere it will be in contrast to the character of the conservation area and dwarf the otherwise lowlevel houses in the neighborhood.

OBJECTION21/02990/Y

Telecoms Equipment Edge Of Green Shirehampton Road Sea Mills Bristol BS9 2EQ

Dear Mr Fisher,

Please consider the following regarding siting, sustainability, and public health grounds.

SITING

The proposal would be an insensitive placement as the 18m height is out of proportion to thesurrounding houses and shops and would be disquieting, towering above residents and the playpark. It would detrimentally affect the view from all the houses in the circular array surrounding theopen green area, being only 25m from some of the houses. This is far too close. It would beclearly visible from many residences beyond the immediate circle of houses due to its height, andfrom many approaches to the location including from both directions of Shirehampton Rd, EastParade and West parade. Overall, the mast would degrade the area.

The pavement width would be severely restricted by the cabinets, reducing the width by a third,making access for prams and wheelchar difficult. This is an important consideration for Mumsheading to the park. Children are more vulnerable and the park is a vital community asset. Thismast would mean mothers cannot peacefully take children to the park knowing they are so close

to this radiation source.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

5G is energy and resource guzzling and overall is contrary to sustainability and CO2 carbonfootprint goals.

- A 5Gmast uses energy equivalent of 35 homes and double the energy of a 4G mast. (Accordingto Ofgem for 2020 ,a year mostly in lockdown, the average electricity use for ahousehold is 2,900 KW/h per year. 5G masts use 11.6 KW power =101,616 KW/h per year. BT isthe joint-largest private purchaser of electricity in the UK.)

- The battery life of 5G devices will be shorter due to the greater energy they require compared tothose that support previous generations.

- 5G technology could add between 2.7 to 6.7 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents per year by 2030(The High Council for the Climate published its report "Controlling the carbon impact of 5G" inDecember of 2020 . The report stated that there have been insufficient evaluations into thetheoretical positive impact of 5G on the environment such as a decrease in transport demand,improvements in energy efficiency (smart meters), etc -Source: nature.com 13/09/2018https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06610-y)

- The 5G-new-radio standard is more energy efficient per gigabyte than are the 4G standards, butthe proposed 5G use cases and new spectrum bands will require many more mobile sites,outstripping potential energy efficiencies.

- Energy used by data centres and the resulting emissions has been equivalent to that of air travel.- Apart from the servers themselves the required air-conditioning consumes energy and back upbanks of lithium batteries are needed

- 5G implies a vast quantity of real-time data collected in data centres. 5G supports AI tocontinually find, check and refine relationships between this data which requires greaterprocessing power

- 5G implies the profusion of IoTdevices.( In an update to a 2016 peer-reviewed study, Swedishresearcher Anders Andrae says the internet of connected things (IoCT) industry's power demandis likely to increase from 200-300 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity a year in 2017, to 1,200-3,000TWh by 2025.)

- Claims of net-zero by Telecoms corporations, is based on the omission of data.(By buying renewable energy credits (RECs), electricity from the fossil fuel producer is recordedas sourceless "null" energy, effectively scrubbing greenhouse gases emitted during its production

from the record. RECs are how companies like Google and Microsoft can claim their data centersare

powered 100 percent by renewables while still being connected to grids that use fossil fuels.In reality, only a fraction of each company's energy comes directly from solar or wind installations;the rest comes from RECs.)

- The Green Parties in California, France and Spain have taken a stand against furtherdeployment of 5G infrastructure, to halt the dangers of runaway energy consumption and C02emissions.

- Connectivity can be fulfilled by fibre which is safer, cheaper, less energy hungry, faster, providesmore bandwidth and is more secure and private.

Please can you refuse this proposal on the grounds that the proposal is not environmentallysustainable,

HEALTH CONCERNS

The non thermal effects which happen at well below the exposure levels deemed safe by ICNIRPwho the UK follow, include significant headaches, sleep disorders, dizziness, loss ofconcentration. These are all shown to statistically significant levels in latest peer reviewed sciencewithin 500m of masts including a paper from Madrid López et al January 2021 (ref 20 below)-"What is the radiation before 5G? A correlation study between measurements in situ and in realtime and epidemiological indicators"

J D Pearce is warning telecoms companies that"There is a large and growing body of evidence that human exposure to RFR from cellular phonebase stations causes negative health effects and suggests not placing masts within 500 m ofschools and hospitals" November 2019 (ref 19 below.)

Sea Mills Primary school is 419m from the mast and so I ask you to factor this into yourconsiderations when determining the material planning consideration "incompatible andunacceptable"use of this site.

LEGAL FOUNDATION JUSTIFYING GOING AGAINST NPPF 116

PHE solicitors affirmed the status of PHE/ICNIRP guidance when deciding on plans in August2019:-'guidance is not maintained and revised by PHE for the explicit purpose of any body undertakingany other statutory function. If in any other context regard is had to the Guidance that is entirely amatter for the discretion of the relevant body and it must determine what weight to place on the

Guidance given the clear indication as to the sources from which the advice and recommendationsin the Guidance are derived. Equally, that body must determine what other evidence from ...members of the public or interested parties to consider in making any decision'.

The departure from NPPF 116 has a strong legal foundation as the studies above and thosereferenced on bit.ly/rfr-risks-zoom show that the acculmative polluting effects need to beconsidered under NPPF 180.

Bristol City Council as a "competent authority" has duties under the European ElectronicsCommunication Code (ECCC) to make public health an imperative and apply precaution. (EECC106, 110, Article 45 2h)

Please object to this proposal on all three grounds; siting, sustainability and public health.

Thank you,Karen Churchill

References:1. https://www.aglmediagroup.com/careful-design-for-5g-cell-site-power-requirements/2. https://www.telia.fi/business/article/data-centres-are-a-forgotten-source-of-emissions3. https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/5g-base-stations-use-a-lot-more-energy-than-4g-base-stations-says-mtn4. https://carrier.huawei.com/~/media/CNBG/Downloads/Spotlight/5g/5G-Power-White-Paper-en.pdf5. https://www.computerworld.com/article/3431148/why-data-centres-are-the-new-frontier-in-the-fight-against-climate-change.html6. https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/global-warming-data-centres-to-consume-three-times-as-much-energy-in-next-decade-experts-warn-a6830086.html7. https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/5gs-waveform-is-a-battery-vampire8. https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/French-study-finds-5G-increases-risk-to-climate9. https://theecologist.org/2020/apr/30/smart-techs-carbon-footprint10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320225452_Total_Consumer_Power_Consumption_Forecast11. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21082015/lighting-paradox-cheaper-efficient-led-save-energy-use-rises/12. https://old-www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/tsao_jy_2010_04_app_for_light_LEUKOS.pdf13. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-telecommunications/our-insights/the-case-for-committing-to-greener-telecom-networks14. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06610-y15. https://384ad423-7b2c-4af8-bf67-

ac6163f6e17b.filesusr.com/ugd/c1889a_4a8a29c93570411fa9a05ab3edd69a4c.pdf16. https://www.lstelcom.com/fileadmin/content/lst/marketing/brochures/5G_Infrastructure_requirements_for_the_UK_-_LS_Telcom_report_for_the_NIC.pdf17. https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-google-microsoft-green-

18. Energy Use & Carbon Emissions Source: Huawei 5G-Power-White-Paper-en.pdf19. JD Pearcehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/337624982_Limiting_liability_with_positioning_to_minimize_negative_health_effects_of_cellular_phone_towers20 Lopez https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000281?via%3Dihub

I can't believe that this is even being considered for Sea Mills Square, the heart of ourconservation area. It would tower over the wonderful 100 year-old Addisons Oak, which was short-listed for tree of the year recently, and make a travesty of our lovely green space. The Square wasplanted up with more trees around its perimeter a few years ago and if anything is to be added itshould be of the growing variety, not a huge great mast just yards away from our homes. Surelythis is exactly the kind of thing that is totally inappropriate for a garden suburb and a conservationarea to boot. It beggars belief that such a proposition should even be considered so please rejectthis idea out of hand.

I am so surprised that this is even being considered on a green space which is enjoyedand loved by local residents and children.The cafe on the square has a great vibe of people and I'm not sure I would want to look at thiswhilst drinking my coffee. The children's play area is also right next to this.I may be wrong but I thought this area fell under the conservation protection.Maybe a application to plant more trees would be more sensible.I definitely appose this application.

I object on the grounds that 5G has been proven to cause sickness in some people,putting this mast right in the middle of a residential area is wreckless.

Sea Mills is a conservation area and Sea Mills 100 has gone to great lengths to markthe square as a central hub of the community (the ode at the oak tree, museum and mapalongside the existing community cafe and park). A tower of this nature would not be in keepingwith this culturall and historically signficiant location

I am commenting to object to the proposed 5G mast for sea mills square.

The area is a conservation area and proposing such an eyesaw in a park and high street area isabsurd and should be built in a far more conspicuous place.

Sea mills appears to be the subject of a few poor council decisions recently with the CAZ zoneforcing HGV vehicles through sylvan way and now this. In contrast many new people are movingto the area, bringing up to a much higher standard and decisions like these are leaving people likemyself questioning whether to stay.

We are subject to conservation ruling and planning and the same rules should apply for this - andit would be declined.

Sea Mills is a quiet area surrounded by natural beauty. It feels like piece by piece this isbeing dragged away from the community that lives here. This mast will hugely overshadow thissmall area, eclipsing our beautiful oak tree, once nominated for tree of the year.I live directly opposite the proposed site, and along with many, many, residents would have to lookat this everyday. Why place it where so many people face towards?! Absolutely bizarre.I spend hours looking out of my window at the beautiful green, already partly spoiled by anincrease in traffic and anti social behaviour. Please do not add to this concern. A large number ofresidents here are older, and take comfort in the quiet, green scenery. We feel ignored andforgotten here, like we don't matter at all.In another light, as mentioned, we are targeted by anti social behaviour. In the last year the busstops have had glass smashed, youths standing on the roofs. The bt boxes have had antimaskposters stuck to them. The DEPLORABLE Prestige Driveways have stuck their signs to the top oflampposts, two lampposts have been driven into by cars, and finally our beautiful map wasdestroyed and has only just replaced over a year later. It doesn't take a psychic to know what willhappen to the mast.Finally, this area has huge historical significance - see http://seamills100.co.uk/history-of-sea-mills/homes-for-heroes/. The proposal of this mast here is an absolute disgrace.

This is totally the wrong place for this. For many years local residents have improvedand made open space more pleasant and inviting. This mast and associated cabinets will ruin thecharacter of the whole conservation area and is totally inappropriate. In the local plan review of 2019 this area was recommended to be classified as local green spaceso should be afforded the highest level of protection not have a monstrosity like this built with nopublic consultation. It would be next to and dwarfing a beautiful, historic protected tree . I know weneed phone masts but a better place could be found.

- Sea Mills is in a conservation area- I'm unable to have a two storey extension which wouldn't change the look of the area but therecan be a mast put in a very public place - makes no sense- next to a children's play park that is always used especially after school- Already have multiple masts on St Edyths church- Proposed placement is next to main roads, thoroughfare and school walking path- Aesthetically I pleasing- Damage to the existing tree roots if planted where proposed- unknown health issues potentially associated with masts- To close to a volume of children / walking trafficDefinitely raising objection to this mast being put anywhere in Sea Mills

Far to close to residential property

This telecommunication mast is not of a suitable design for this local. Its just not inkeeping with a conservation area & would dwarf the Addison Oak. If it needs to be installedanother design needs to be considered which could more in keeping with the location.

I'm absolutely dumbfounded that Sea Mills square would even be an option to sight a5G mast. It is a garden suburb and conservation area and an 18m mast would be entirely out ofkeeping and look ridiculous. Where will it go? Next to the children's playground? Or the 100 yearold oak tree? The entire estate was designed for local people to be able to use and see greenspaces from wherever they are in Sea Mills, an 18m mast would dominate what is a low level,pleasing green space. Put it somewhere else, our square is not the place.

This would be such an eyesore on a lovely green and who knows what the impactwould be o people including children, the play park is very close by and this application shouldn'tbe passed.

Sea Mills square is the centre of a garden suburb (conservation area). The erectionwould look absolutely awful, dwarfing the beautiful addisons oak. Gobsmacked that it would beproposed to be plonked on the square, which is one of the very few open spaces we have. Pleasejust no.

I grew up in Sea Mills and moved away after 23 years. I now live a couple of miles awayand drive through Sea Mills frequently and also visit my daughter who lives there. It is a hideousidea to put a phone mast and its associated equipment onto the Square. Sea Mills Square is avery special place in the centre of the Garden Suberb that was built over a hundred years ago andwould equate to vandalism to spoil it with a ghastly phone mast. Once a beautiful space has beenspoiled there is no going back it is spoiled forever and this application must not be approved.

I can't believe that a better place can't be found for this. To put in the middle of aconservation area is not joined up thinking. The local community has worked hard to up theawareness of this beautiful square. It will look out of place and destroy the character of thispleasant green space.

I believe there is no issue with this 5G telecoms Marston solution apart from perhaps analternative position agreed with residents if possible. I think people are getting too concernedabout 5G being a negative thing it's actually an amazing benefit for society. The height of the mastwill insure wide- scale coverage to the surrounding area. I realise that the height of most chosenby the operator is to meet coverage threshold targets in the local area, otherwise it would've beena smaller tower height chosen. I support this application.

Considering the location is key to the green space of sea mills and is in the square,where I have been informed the formally planned square is more protected than the rest of the seamills area. If planning is permitted for this, then I feel it opens up future planning interpretations ofthe conservation area.There is a mast erected on the kingsweston/blasé estate which is already there, and wouldn't addto the eye sore that is proposed.

I do not understand why there is a need to put this abomination in this beautiful littleSquare when only on 2019 under the local plan, published for all to see, this Square was deemedto be given the highest protection of 'Green belt status" . This Square is much loved andfrequented by local people with it's prize winning ancient Addison Oak, little Telephone Box library,community cafe and children's play park. I strongly object to the proposal to erect this mast in theSquare.

I object to the placement of this in the conservation area. In recent years, Sea Millssquare has been improved by the addition of the children's play area and the cafe. This mastwould dwarf the Addisons Oak tree. It is far too high and intrusive for a residential area; this is acompletely unsuitable location for it.

Sea Mills is a garden suburb conversation area and the proposed mast would beentirely out of keeping aesthetically with the local area. The square was recently the centre of theSea Mills 100 celebrations and the unique character of this area would be undermined if theproposed mast is erected. I understand the significance and benefits that the mast could provideto mobile signals but consider the scale and location proposed to be totally inappropriate and Istrongly oppose the proposal.

Absolutely appalling there are risks to health with 5 G masts

I am writing as a resident of Sea Mills to raise my concern and objection to theplacement of a proposed 5G mast on Sea Mills Square and ask for a more suitable location beidentified.

The square has been identified as a valuable space of historic interest and character for ourcommunity and I believe that the visual impact of putting in this mast and the cabinets connectedwith it would have a really negative impact on all the hard work that has been put into the areaover the past few years through many people.

Over the 15 years that I have lived here I have seen the previously quite barren looking anduncared for area with an uncomfortable amount of antisocial youth behaviour, develop into afriendly, welcoming space. I believe that the size and placement of this proposed structure woulddraw attention to itself in a way that would bring down the atmosphere and would lead to undoingthe growing pride and ownership of the community to their environment and also that antisocialbehaviour would rise as a result.

The Bristol Local Plan Review 2019, clearly identified Sea Mills Square as an open space worthyof protection from development that would harm its characteristics and appearance.

I ask that any decision ensures that the council keeps to it's commitment to keep this designatedvaluable area protected.

Although not directly affecting our road, I feel that a mast on the square would be veryunsightly and out of context. There must be more suitable places which would be equally effectiveand less of an eyesore.

Sea Mills has an enviable history as one of the first 'garden estates' and is a residentialarea, in which we residents take great pride. The overall design of the dwellings ensured that fewif any domestic rooflines exceed 10 metres in height. This creates a pleasing, architecturalconformity enjoyed by many Sea Mills residents, whether passing through or lingering in theSquare - one of the most green and open areas of the whole complex and hugely enjoyed byadults and children alike.The proposal that our current streetscape should suddenly be dwarfed by a 5g Mast standing 18metres high - and surrounded by a series of brutal 'cabins', which in turn dwarf the nearby busshelter and an ancient tree - is a request completely at odds with the quality-of-life aims andaesthetic aspirations of this area's original designers.Unless something untoward happened overnight...I believe Sea Mills is still categorised as aConservation Area, obliging all its residents to abide by strict rules and regulations when we wishto make the most inoffensive alterations or additions to any part of its existing fabric. The idea thatan external company, at the bidding of an increasingly authoritarian government, should rideroughshod over all the norms with which we residents are expected to comply, is offensive andtotally undemocratic.The proposed 5G Mast is a visual aberration - ugly, intrusive, overpowering and will be utterly atodds with its immediate surroundings.Of course, this is likely why Sea Mills (rather than Stoke Bishop, Redlands or Clifton Downs) hasbeen chosen as the recipient of said monstrosity. This blue-collar neighbourhood is frequentlydismissed as being too stupid to notice that it is consistently short-changed and too aestheticallyignorant to recognise that something truly ugly is being foisted upon it. But when increasingnumbers of us are paying in excess of £350 thousand pounds to live here, local authorities can nolonger afford to take our presumed indifference to the degradation of our surroundings for

granted....Therefore, I strongly object to the Planning Permission application submitted on behalf of CKHutchison Networks (UK) Ltd. For the building of a 5G Mast on Shirehampton Road.

This construction is in a Green space and my st not be allowedThe visual impact to local area is very intrusive and undesirableDoes not comply to reducing impact of climate change, uses significant energyMore trees should be planted in this area, not 5G mastIs in a conservation area, and does not comply with historic character, thus is illegal

This is an extraordinary proposal for a conservation area. The location is in the centreand focal point of our historic 'homes for heroes' garden suburb in one of the most well used andtherefore visible parts of the estate. It is adjacent to and taller than Addison's Oak a 100 year oldtree which was planted to mark the start of large municipal council house building in 1919. Thecentenary of this event was celebrated 2 years ago on Sea Mills Square with funding and supportfrom The National Lottery Heritage Fund and Bristol City Council. To blight such a piece ofnational housing history with the juxtaposition of a permanent huge mast and three large cabinetsis irresponsible and disrespectful to our neighbourhood.

The application completely ignores the impact on the local landscape. I am not against 5G ingeneral, I am also not against sensitive building projects in our conservation area. This onehowever is completely out of character for the area. It ignores the historical significance of the tree,the green spaces around the square and the views across the estate.

Hutchinson have tried to minimise reaction to this development by calling it a '5G Pole' this is alaughable attempt to disguise the impact of a 19m (as measured on their plan) mast. This isobviously an attempt to erect a mast as cheaply as possible as it is close to existing power andfibre optic cables. They must be forced to make a full planning application and not be wavedthrough as permitted development. There will be other more suitable but more expensive siteswhere this project can be built and they should be forced to take that option.

I note that a similar application from another Hutchinson company, for a 10m mast was turneddown by planning in 2003 (APP/Z0116/A/03/1111990) after a large number of public objections. Ithink you will find that public opinion has not changed.

Mary MiltonSea Mills resident and project co-ordinator of Sea Mills 100 and the mini-museum on Sea MillsSquare

This would drastically affect the look of the square especially with the plans to build nextto a 100 year old oak! It would negatively affect the feel of the square too.

Please do not allow this huge mast to be located on sea mills square at the centre ofsea mills conservation area and next to the iconic Addison Oak. Local residents have put in lots oftime and effort to preserve and recognise the heritage of this area and placing this mast in thislocation would undermine this work. Furthermore residents not make even minor changes to theirproperties without permission due to the historic nature of this area, and this mast would constitutea very big change to the area. There is no need for it to be placed in such a central spot, a spotwhere it would be so out of place. There are many other locations around Sea Mills that would notconstitute such a violation of landscape and would not cut right across the area's heritage status.To agree to this mast would undermine efforts of locals to preserve and maintain their heritage.

I would like to request that a more appropriate place be found for the 5G mast. Sea Millssquare is a place of beauty to be conserved, a place where children play and where others takewalks. A mast in this area would be unsightly and spoil the conservation area.

I object to this 5G mast being put up in a residential and conservation area. I use thisarea regularly and feel it will be detrimental both in location and in the look of the area. It is a nicesquare with a cafe, playground and local shops with trees and a green it does not need a hugepole towering over houses and trees and I don't want to see it and I am certain many residentsdon't want it dominating the skyline in a pleasant urban green area.

This 5g mast is completely out of keeping with the historic Sea Mills Square, which hasjust celebrated its centenary, being next to the Addison's Oak, It was named after Dr ChristopherAddison MP, who was responsible for the 1919 Housing and Town Planning Act which led to thefirst council houses to be built to provide "homes fit for heroes" returning from the First World War.Find a more suitable place than on our historic square, where children play in the park and peoplecongregate outside the Cafe.

This application is really beyond a joke. The Local Plan Review clearly stated theimportance of the highest planning protection for Sea Mills square. A mast three times the heightof the tallest tree in the square is ridiculous.

The proposal is completely unsuitable as it will be highly visible and spoil the characterof the square. It is also adjacent a culturally and historically significant tree, the Addisson Oak. Aless obtrusive location should be found.

Absolutely disagree with a monstrosity structure being considered for a place on ourlovely green area of Sea Mills. An huge eyesore not to mention a massive health hazard . I hopepeople with common sense with reject this horrendous proposal!!!!!

This development is wholly inappropriate for a conservation area. The proposeddevelopment is adjacent to a children's play area and a coffee shop and slap bang in the middle ofa historic green space. The height of the mast is way above the Addison Oak and is simply not inkeeping with a conservation area. The health risks of placing a mast so close to properties alsoappears not to have been adequately taken into account. I object to this proposal and amsurprised it has even been proposed.

This nearly 60ft behemoth standing proud of homes and trees in this neighbourhood willcreate an absolute eyesore for people living in this conservation area, including myself. How farwill the base of the cabinets jut out onto the public footpath? Will it make accessibility difficult forany passers by? Particularly anyone in a wheelchair or with pushchairs. It is a legal requirementthat residents are asked about new planning applications - have you asked all residents? Icertainly haven't been informed or asked if I'd like a 60ft mast near my home. Why do you thinkthat people want to look out of their windows and see this mast and its boxy hardware cabinets?This area was recommended to be classified as a local green space, and it is also a conservationarea. All the houses in the local area will be able to see it from their properties - which willimmediately reduce their house prices.No risk assessment has been undertaken regarding 5g and no insurance against health liabilitiesare in place. It has NOT been proven that 5g and EMFs are safe for both humans and theenvironment. There is extensive scientific evidence which justifies challenging national policy ofonly following Public Health England and ICNIRP guidelines for safety. Guidelines are notobligatory. Please consider the facts below when making your decision and refer to the pollutioncontrol officer to look further into this, these emissions qualify for investigation under theEnvironmental Protection Act 1990.ICNIRP is based on heating effects over 6-30 minutes, this mast will emit radiation 24/7Children absorb more radiation and their developing nervous system are vulnerable and are notprotected by ICNIRP : https://www.radiationresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/On-the-Clear-Evidence-of-the-Risks-to-Children-from-Smartphone-and-WiFi-Radio-Frequency-Radiation-Final-20201.pdfPeople with metal and medical implants are not protected by ICNIRP, nor are those who aresensitive to EMFs.

ICNIRP does not set safety exposure levels for wildlife.It is your responsibility and ethical duty as a government to ensure the health and safety of thecitizens of the UK. The ecological damage that will be caused by 5g and the masts while we aregoing through a climate crisis will just continue and add to this crisis. Have you considered thematerials that are used in the structure of the mast - where do all the raw materials come from andhow much damage are they causing to the environment? This should also be a consideration. Itotally object.

I think the placement of this 5G tower needs to be rethought as to ruin a really nicespace with something that look hideous !

Presumably this site has been chosen because it is well away from the homes of themanagement of all mobile phone companies?

If the 5G radiation is not dangerous, then place the tower/mast near to the home of the local MP,or influential business leaders, or Marvin Rees.

It may have escaped the notice of those with their snouts deep in the trough; but this structure willbe 150m from a children's play area - but perhaps the health of future generations comes a poorsecond to maximising profit for the wi-fi companies?

18m may sound reasonable enough, but to those of a certain age, that equates to a 60ft tall towererected within a few metres of peoples' homes and less than half a mile from the nearest primaryschool (as well as the play area mentioned above). It will blight the surrounding area for as long asit survives.

How any company can believe that they can erect something of this nature without prior approvalis beyond me.

This is almost unbelievable- a 19 metre mast to be put on Sea Mills Square-a GardenSuburb in a Conservation area. It would be very near the famous Addison's Oak planted in 1919 tocommemorate Christopher Addison's Health and Housing Act which paved the way for large scaleCouncil housing. He said 'I could not envisage a more glorious position to build "Homes fit forHeroes"- coming home from WW1.So whose idea is it to contemplate sticking this monstrosityright next to it? Surely the fact that Sea Mills is in a Conservation area should prevent this sort ofthing happeningThere has to be a more suitable position for it.

Sea Mills is a conservation area and putting this "pole" up in the square would be aneyesore and detrimental to the environment. No one has spoken directly to the residents as far asI am aware, certainly I have not been contacted and I do not want to have this in such closeproximity to our community.

Absolute eyesore that will not be welcome.

See Mills Square is a historic place in the heart of a thriving garden suburb. Theproposed mast has been planned with no sensitivity- it would be very visible from all angles andwould tower monstrously over the beloved Addison's oak. This is a historic tree which is therightful focus of the square. Also adjacent is the telephone kiosk which was recently turned into amuseum, maintained by dedicated locals. Very nearby is a children's play park and a thrivingcommunity café, both of which were planned and are cherished by local residents of allgenerations. Such an enormous mast would be an absolute blight on this lovely little community,where I grew up and travel to frequently to visit my elderly parents. They are most upset at thisproposal. I can't believe that anyone, local or otherwise wants such a structure deforming SeaMills Square.

Ridiculous Proposal!!This would dominate well known,well loved village square and not only be an aesthetic nightmare,but a severe danger to the oak, the community cafe ...the shops but most relevantly to the Largewell used childrens' play Area.....

My objection to this proposal is mainly based on the issues of:1. Conservation2. Design3. Appearance of the development1. ConservationSea Mills is a Garden Suburb - a precious and historic community set up precisely because peopleneeded healthy, beautiful and affordable places to live after the First World War. Residents andothers have worked tirelessly to ensure that it remains an attractive, healthy and community-spirited place. To place a huge mast right in the middle of the Square - and next to Addison's Oak- would be a disrespectful act. The whole feel of the garden suburb, which has been so carefullynurtured, would be ruined at a stroke. What pride could residents feel in a place that had such amonstrosity plonked into it, as if they were of no consequence? To say that 'this equipment isconsidered unlikely to have any material impact on the local area' shows that the applicants havecompletely disregarded the local residents, as well as the historical importance of the area. It'ssimply not true.2. DesignThe 'design' is simply a huge pole and ugly accretions. There's no way of disguising the fact thatthere's a massive pole smack in the middle of The Square.3. Appearance of the developmentThe application says there will be 'a limited impact on the locality and general visual amenity'.What nonsense! It will be massively intrusive, will dwarf the magnificent Addison's Oak, andgenerally look horrible.

As someone who is proud to have been brought up in Sea Mills, and whose family is still there, I

am shocked that this is even being considered. I have seen it grow from a rather overlooked,quiet, underfunded neighbourhood into a vibrant, friendly, supportive place, with an enviable senseof community - and a beautiful place for a people to thrive. None of the documents put forward bythe applicant show that there has been any understanding of what this ugly pole would do toundermine the pride that people feel in their beautiful home. Dr Addison said: 'I could not imaginea more glorious position than that of Sea Mills' when he cut the first sod for the Homes for Heroes.Please don't ruin it.

It would totally ruin the look of tbe Square. Why can't it go on the field at the back?Sea mills has so much history. To put a massive pole on the middle just seems stupid.

While 5G masts are necessary and undoubtedly not dangerous, placing one in themiddle of Sea Mills Square will cause an eyesore in an area which has strict conservation areastatus. It's proposed position is in a location where it will dwarf a beautiful 100 year old tree and bean eyesore for local residents enjoying the green space.

Please do not put on our square, surely there are other more suitable locations

Perfectly safe 5G antenna would allow for faster local internet speeds. The signal in ourarea is atrocious, and an upgrade would be much appreciated!

I cannot believe this is even being contemplated...Sea Mills Square is a conservationarea. It is totally wrong that anyone could be suggesting something so unsightly and potentiallydamaging to health could be plonked down in the centre of our community in a green space wherefamilies live and children play. It would be totally wrong for this to be allowed to happen in whatshould be a protected area.

This 5G mast will be greatly out of character for the Sea Mills conservation area,dwarfing the houses and trees around it and detracting from the carefully designed street scene.

Having read the planning application I would suggest that the applicant has not done their duediligence on the area in which they would like to site this mast. They say they have chosen the sitefor the mature trees in the area but do not note that the mature tree in question is the historic, 102year old Addison Oak, which was planted to commemorate Dr Christopher Addison, whoinstigated council housing, and only two years ago was nominated for British Tree of the Year.Siting an 18m mast and all its cabinetry right in front of this important oak tree is not only unsightlybut unsympathetic to the history of Sea Mills and its current residents.

From the photo taken in comparison with the nearby Oak tree the mast will tower abovethis and dominate the square. In Sea Mills we are proud to call our selves a garden estate, this willbe totally out of place. Please do not allow this totally inappropriate object to be erected in thisgreen area.

Signal for mobile devices is quite poor in the area. I support this application to improveconnectivity.

Sea Mills is a conservation area, protecting the areas green spaces, wildlife andappearance. Planning is so restricted to houses in the area for this very reason so the thought thatthis could even be considered is ridiculous. And to place it in the centre of the community, right bythe children's play park is absurd. I strongly oppose this proposal

No thank you. Our community has already been destroyed and taken down to the barebones. An ugly and intrusive (let alone potentially dangerous ( it s not welcome.

This area is a garden suburb conservation area, and as such the authorisation of anystructure should be heavily checked. The proposed area is in heavily used area, very near to achildren's playground.There is already a communication tower on kings Weston down, which is at a much betterelevated level.Anyone visiting my home have never had trouble keeping connection to their phone.

I object to this proposal. Sea Mills square is not an appropriate place to put themonopole.

Absolutely insane to put a 5G mast which emits high levels of radiation in the middle ofa densely populated housing area, a conservation area and worst of all right next to a kids playground. Disgusted and shocked this is even being considered.

I strongly object to having 5g mast so close to where I live, let Bcc have it on their doorstep

I don't agree with any more 5G mast being erected, it is proven that this technology isnot good for human or animals ! Our welfare and health is at serious risk.