Additional Comments – 19 August 2024

2

The Ecological Appraisal created ten new and two enhanced area habitats. These deliver 1.11

and 1.67 HUs respectively, whereas the BNG 3.0 calculation creates only six and enhances one,

delivering 0.72 and 1.93 HUs each.

Given that the metric calculation has been substantially reworked between 24 September 2021

and 13 December 2023, there can be no reason not to adopt the latest version.

The calculation of the Urban/Individual trees habitat area

We have long argued that the use of BNG 3.0 will not work when it comes to calculating the

baseline habitat area of urban (now called ‘Individual urban’) trees habitat.4 The published

table below is unworkable because it gives no guidance on how to interpret the table, nor does

it offer any logical way of allocating a particular tree with a given stem diameter to one of the

three tree size categories.

There are also two errors in the table: in the second column heading, 'Diameter' should read

'Girth'; and in the fifth column the ‘Area equivalent (ha)’ for Large category trees is out by a

factor of 10. It should be 0.0113 ha.

The table below illustrates some example ‘solutions’ to resolving this problem, but they

produce very different results, especially when compared to the results achieved when the

later iterations of the metric are used.

Our calculations are on the basis that there are 98 trees on site, all of which are in moderate

condition and have high strategic significance and that 37 will be removed:

BNG Metric Criteria Baseline

(ha)

Lost

(ha)

Retained

(ha)

BNG 3.0 lower

habitat

Above 0 and <= 10 Area 0.0005 ha

0.5774 0.1805 0.3969 Above 10 and <= 30 Area 0.0041 ha

Above 30 Area 0.0113 ha

4 https://bristoltreeforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/small-sites-metric-consultation-1.pdf.

Additional Comments – 19 August 2024

3

BNG Metric Criteria Baseline

(ha)

Lost

(ha)

Retained

(ha)

BNG 3.0 median

habitat

Above 0 and <= 15 Area 0.0005 ha

0.491 0.1481 0.3429 Above 15 and <= 40 Area 0.0041 ha

Above 40 Area 0.0113 ha

BNG 3.0 upper

habitat

Above 0 and <= 30 Area 0.0005 ha

0.2894 0.0653 0.2241 Above 30 and <= 50 Area 0.0041 ha

Above 50 Area 0.0113 ha

BNG 3.1

Above 0 and <= 30 Area 0.0041 ha

1.6183 0.3792 1.2391 Above 30 and <= 90 Area 0.0366 ha

Above 90 Area 0.0764 ha

BNG 4.0

Above 0 and <= 7 Area 0 ha

1.6144 0.3751 1.2393 Above 7 and <= 30 Area 0.0041 ha

Above 30 and <= 90 Area 0.0366 ha

Above 90 Area 0.0765 ha

BNG Statutory Metric

Above 0 and <= 7.5 Area 0 ha

1.1232 0.2939 0.8293

Above 7.5 and <= 30 Area

0.0041 ha

Above 30 and <= 60 Area 0.0163 ha

Above 60 and <= 90 Area 0.0366 ha

Above 90 Area 0.0765 ha

Each of these habitat losses will require different levels of post-development mitigation

depending on the metric used. Using the habitat creation criteria below:

Distinctiveness 4

Condition 2

Strategic Significance 1.15

Temporal risk 0.382

Spatial risk 1

Small category tree area (ha) 0.0041

Additional Comments – 19 August 2024

4

we calculate that the new habitats needed will be as follows:

BNG Metric

New Habitat

Area required

(ha)

Replacement

trees required

BNG 3.0 lower habitat 0.4725 116

BNG 3.0 median habitat 0.3877 95

BNG 3.0 upper habitat 0.1709 42

BNG 3.1 0.9927 243

BNG 4.0 0.9819 240

BNG Statutory Metric 0.7694 188

It is clear that the selection of a workable metric is essential for the proper calculation of the

likely biodiversity net gain that this application can achieve and for the compensation which

will be required to mitigate any loss it causes. As BNG 3.0 is unworkable, the metric used ought

to be one of the later iterations, ideally the Statutory Metric.

A summary of our calculations is available and may be downloaded in detail from here:

https://bristoltrees.space/trees/surveys/analyse-BNG.xq?name=BedminsterGreen.

This development does not work. Removing most trees in the area (with remaining onesovershadowed) will affect the neighbourhood negatively. Personally, this development impacts myproperty's right to light and even more so, my neighbours'.There's no infrastructure to support such high density- assuming nobody there will have a car orthat they'll enjoy being right next to the train line is just a money making scheme.Bedminster needs housing but this is not it - research shows such buildings add to decline inmental health of its residents.I'm absolutely disheartened by lack of empathy showed by the developers.

The Bedminster Green development is in 5 stages and at each stage the originalapproved plans have been amended to increase density and raise heights. This plot is the finalstage and in addition to those factors occurring again there is also removal of facilities mentionedin the original application such as shops and parking. However even more concerning is theincreased damage to, and loss of trees, on Bedminster Green itself. These changes should not beallowed. In addition to this there appears to be issues relating to the opening up of the Malagoriver. Has this proposal gone through the full planning process? Although it was initially mentionedas an attractive development with visual and green benefits, it now appears to be little more thanan open gully that has been created to alleviate potential flood risks created by the developmenton the Green itself. Can this proceed without support from the Environment Agency? All of thislarge scale development sees a substantial reduction into the amenity value of the Green andconsiderable loss of well established trees.

I am writing to formally object to the planning application referenced above, concerningthe proposed redevelopment of Plot 5 Bedminster Green, Hereford Street, Clarke Street,Whitehouse Lane, Bristol BS3 4NA. The application involves the construction of three newbuildings, ranging from 7 to 11 storeys, comprising 330 residential apartments along withcommercial space and associated amenities.

As a resident of Gwilliam Street, Windmill Hill, I have significant concerns regarding thisdevelopment proposal, particularly with the height of the proposed buildings. My objections arebased on the following points:

Impact on Local Character and AestheticsThe proposed high-rise buildings are significantly out of scale with the existing built environment inthe Bedminster Green area, which is predominantly characterized by low to mid-rise structures.The introduction of 7-11 storey buildings will drastically alter the character and skyline of theneighborhood, leading to an incongruous visual impact that detracts from the area's historical andarchitectural context. This sentiment is echoed in comments from various residents and localgroups.

Overshadowing and Loss of LightThe height of the proposed buildings will result in considerable overshadowing of surroundingproperties, particularly those on the lower slopes of Windmill Hill and the adjacent streets. This willlead to a loss of natural light for existing residents, adversely affecting their quality of life and

potentially leading to higher energy costs due to increased reliance on artificial lighting. CouncillorTessa Fitzjohn highlighted concerns about the removal of light from Bedminster Green fromSeptember to March, impacting homes similarly.

Traffic and Parking PressureThe addition of 330 residential units with only 21 parking spaces is insufficient and willundoubtedly increase traffic volumes in an already congested area(OBJECTS-3641669). This willexacerbate existing traffic issues and create further parking problems, which are a significantconcern for local residents. The development's provision for parking may not be sufficient toaccommodate the additional demand, leading to overflow parking in surrounding residentialstreets.

Strain on Local Infrastructure and ServicesAn influx of new residents will place additional strain on local infrastructure and public services,including schools, healthcare facilities, and public transport. It is crucial to consider whether thecurrent infrastructure can support such a significant increase in population without compromisingthe quality of services for existing residents. The Windmill Hill & Malago Community Group raisedconcerns about the density of accommodation exceeding the approved limit of 200 units/ha,estimating around 350 dwellings per hectare.

Environmental ConcernsThe construction of high-rise buildings can have substantial environmental impacts, includingincreased carbon emissions during construction and heightened energy consumption post-completion. Additionally, the reduction of green space and potential disruption to local wildlifehabitats are matters of serious concern. The removal of mature trees and green spaces willadversely affect biodiversity and local wildlife. The sustainability statement also lacks clarity on theproposed strategy for renewable energy, further raising concerns about the environmental impact.

Affordable Housing ProvisionWhile the inclusion of affordable housing is welcomed, the proposed 20% is below the Council'sguidance of 30% for major developments. It is essential that the proportion of such housing issufficient to meet local needs and that it is genuinely affordable for those on lower incomes.Detailed assurances and clear commitments regarding the affordability criteria and allocationprocess are necessary.

In light of these concerns, I urge the planning committee to reconsider the height and scale of theproposed development. A reduction in the height of the buildings would help to mitigate many ofthe adverse effects outlined above and would result in a development that is more in keeping withthe character and needs of the local area.

I appreciate your consideration of these points and look forward to a revised proposal that betteraligns with the interests of the existing community.

The proposals for building 3 are too high. Originally we were promised it would go nohigher than the railway line. Now it's 7/8 stories. The flats will overlook and look into the bedroomsof houses in Windmill Hill. They will dominate the houses in Fraser Street in particular. Theremoval of the poplar trees on the green should be withdrawn. If not more mature trees and notjust saplings should be put in place. There is insufficient green space on Whitehouse lane so it willsimply become an unattractive wind tunnel.

Yet again Bristol planners seem to not understand what it's like to live in such a denselypopulated development. Destroying the green is an act of nature vandalism and should not beallowed. Why the buildings need to be so tall is unfathomable. Look at how well it works atWapping Wharf with around six storeys. Learn and recreate, don't pander to the developers andtheir greed.

I object strongly. This area of trees and grass and flowers should be protected for alllocal residents. The new building round here is ruining the area making a high rise concrete jungleout of windmill hill and Bedminster.This small area is a haven for walking from Windmill Hill to East Street and it is absolutelydisgusting that you propose to build out and cut down the old trees. It will take years for new onesto grow and despite the need for homes once land use is redesigned there is no going back.People in all the new flats being built need green space to thrive and flourish. Think of the childrenof the future.

With the amount of building happening on Malago Road, I think that some green spaceneeds to be left. This is especially as all the buildings ate flats and therefore do not have gardens.I would also argue that the number of affordable units is woefully inadequate and quite frankly ajoke. Malago Road already now looks like somethping out of the 1960's high rise boom.

Buildings should consider people and their health and wellbeing and not just providing a roof overpeople heads. This is a development to far.

With the amount of building happening on Malago Road, I think that some green spaceneeds to be left. This is especially as all the buildings are flats and therefore do not have gardens.I would also argue that the number of affordable units is woefully inadequate and quite frankly ajoke. Malago Road already now looks like somethping out of the 1960's high rise boom.

Buildings should consider people and their health and wellbeing and not just providing a roof overpeople heads. This is a development to far.

Additional Comments 15 May 2024

2

one-year delay, then there will still be a net of biodiversity loss of -6.83% or -0.81 area habitat

units. This is contrary to the requirements of the NPPF.

In order to comply with the NPPF and achieve a bare minimum biodiversity gain, a further 68

‘small’ category SM trees which will achieve a poor condition and be planted in areas of

moderate strategic significance will have to be planted. We have allowed a one-year delay.

This will result in a biodiversity gain of 0.08%.

If the applicant agrees to abide by the current SM obligations, then, in order to comply with

the trading rules and have no net loss of broad individual trees habitat, 156 small category size

SM trees (or higher distinctiveness habitats) will need to be created offsite after a one-year

delay. These will also achieve poor condition and have medium strategic significance. If 156

small category size SM trees are planted off site, then a biodiversity gain of 9.04% can be

achieved. The shortfall to achieve a 10% biodiversity gain (if accepted) may be made up using

other habitats.4

Once again, we urge the applicants in this and the parallel pending applications to restore the

Malago River (23/00611/FB) and install heat network infrastructure across Bedminster Green

(23/02915/F) to align both their arboricultural and biodiversity gain evidence so that they all

use the now-obligatory Statutory Metric tool5 and apply the same habitat parameters.

A copy of our Statutory Metric calculation is available here - 21_05219_F - BTF - Statutory

BNG Tool - 15 May 24.

4 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c60e0514b83c000ca715f3/The_Statutory_Biodiversity_Metric_-_User_Guide_.pdf - page 12 et seq. 5 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statutory-biodiversity-metric-tools-and-guides.

We need green spaces. We should not be cutting down mature trees or urbanisinggreen spaces due to the health benefits of them. We would never consider cutting down maturetrees in Clifton, this is targeting poorer areas where if anything you need more investment in publicspaces. This is becoming a more intensely populated area with so many flats and studentaccommodation blocks being built. We need more green spaces not less.

The Panel noted that the reduction in height of some blocks was offset by the increasein height of that adjacent to Bedminster Green, which would increase shading to the Green. ThePanel's original comments of 16th November 2021 stand. This is considered to be over-development of the site. Taken together with the approved and forthcoming surrounding plots thisresults in an excessive quantum of development. This scale of development will generateovershadowing for a significant amount of time. Furthermore it does not sit comfortably with theexisting scale of development of both the existing immediate industrial context and domestic scaleof development within Windmill Hill and will block long distance views towards the north west forusers of Victoria Park. Consequently, it is considered that the proposal provides insufficient publicbenefits to outweigh the harm caused by the impact of such a poor scheme on relevant heritageassets. It does not accord with relevant up to date Local Plan heritage policies nor therequirements of the NPPF and cannot be supported.

Insufficient Doctor surgery, dental services, car parking facilities, natural green areas toimprove mental/ physical health, everyday shopping requirements, public transport systems, tosupport for the population increase intended by development.

Too many high rise buildings are n the area.Major concerns over parking for all residents and crease strain on limited services in the area.

Having high rise development in this plot would lead to safety concerns for those accessingBedminster parade/ east st from windmill hill- not very nice for lone women to walk through suchareas!!

Plus, losing the green space and trees is a tragedy especially combined with the other negatives

Green space is crucial to communities, there has been a lot of development in the areaalready. The trees are well established and should be left where they are.

With the development of the new high rise flats/accommodation this area is a necessarygreen space for the area and should not be touched. These green spaces are needed for thehappiness and mental wellbeing of neighbours. The trees' age alone should be reason to notdemolish and develop. If the council approves this it demonstrates that they have no considerationfor their existing residents in the area.

With the development of the new high rise flats/accommodation this area is a necessarygreen space for the area and should not be touched. These green spaces are needed for thehappiness and mental wellbeing of neighbours. The trees' age alone should be reason to notdemolish and develop. If the council approves this it demonstrates that they have no considerationfor their existing residents in the area.

Destruction of remaining green space cannot be justified.

Residents were told this would be kept green, opening up the river for wildlife, and this was agreedto build the student flats nearby.

Please stop taking our green spaces from us.

I know this may be shouting into the wind with regards to the number of objections onthis proposal but I am in support of these proposals.

The current 'Bedminster green' is not a quality space. It feels unsafe and unpleasant to walkthrough. The proposals seek to improve this green space. By looking at the site plan, there will beno loss of this public space as the proposed buildings are on areas currently occupied by carparking and low density industrial buildings. By introducing these residential units, the green willfeel safer as there will be passive surveillance over the green.

The landscape plan shows that a large percentage of the existing trees will be retained and newones planted. The reinstatement of the river Malago to the green will help increase the biodiversityof the area as new plant species can be introduced.

The developments are of a proportionate density in relation to the other Bedminster Green plotscurrently under construction, and help to taper the density from plots 2 and 4 north of the site,which feature tall buildings, down to the domestic scale south of the railway line.

Hello,I use this green space every day with my young children. Destruction of mature trees in an area ofBristol with so few is completely unacceptable. There is already huge development in the area, allof which will benefit from the green space.

Regards,Will (local resident)

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Hello,

I use this green space every day with my young children. Destruction of mature trees in an area of

Bristol with so few is completely unacceptable. There is already huge development in the area, all

of which will benefit from the green space.

Regards,

Object to the loss of wildlife garden and 13 trees from Bedminster green. There alreadyhas been huge development. People need green spaces for their mental well-being. This hasalready been depleted and yet the human content of the area has been significantly increased.The community does not need any more building it needs to conserve and use the current greenspace - there are going to be more people - this is needed - the research on mental well-being allsupports this.The proposal is so high - it will impact light levels and will impact the little bit of green space thatwould be left.Stop this please, enough is enough !

I have walked through Bedminster Green a couple of times a week for over thirty years.In springtime it has snowdrops, crocuses and daffodils. I don't want to lose them.

There are plans to cut down about thirty mature trees. There are plans to build hugelooming buildings. I am concerned about the impact it will have on local wildlife.

It is horrible looking out from the City Farm allotments, and seeing those huge buildingsgoing up already.

There are no plans for sufficients infrastructure.

Over the last few years, I have noticed small pockets of small scale developments inBS3, within walking distance of Plot 5 and all of the others. Why have none of the latestbatch of money grabbing developers learnt from them (or from local people worriedabout the proposals)?

I understand that the Environment Agency have expressed concerns about flooding inthis application.

I object to this latest ill advised, half baked proposed development.

I think that the site may have crashed/tinmes out (service unavailable) each time I triedposting comments, I seem to have lost them now, unless they did actually get through.

I strongly object to the ill advised, half-baked proposals that do not take enough acountof local residents concerns (looming buildings, parking, infrastructure needs, etc), showno consideration for the infrastructure needs of incoming residents, will involve the lossof many mature trees, risk flood damage (as already advised by the EnvironmentAgency, amongst others.

Over the last few years, I have noticed a number of small scale local housingdevelopments. Why didn't the (money grabbing?) developers stop to think about them(and the people who continue to live in the area), as well as the unlucky new residentsoccupying pokey new dwellings?

Objecting, based on pretty much the same reasons that are mentioned here over andover again.

I strongly oppose the loss of trees & open space being considered regardingBedminster green. This will impact on the quality of the regeneration of this part of Bedminster &will seriously detract from the ambience of the otherwise successful redevelopment of the area.A line must be drawn between what is acceptable & the consideration of investment & profit for theCouncilLinda Duncan resident

I strongly oppose the loss of trees & open space being considered regardingBedminster green. This will impact on the quality of the regeneration of this part of Bedminster &will seriously detract from the ambience of the otherwise successful redevelopment of the area.A line must be drawn between what is acceptable & the consideration of investment & profit for theCouncilLinda Duncan resident

I strongly oppose the loss of trees & open space being considered regardingBedminster green. This will impact on the quality of the regeneration of this part of Bedminster &will seriously detract from the ambience of the otherwise successful redevelopment of the area.A line must be drawn between what is acceptable & the consideration of investment & profit for theCouncil

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I strongly oppose the loss of trees & open space being considered regarding

Bedminster green. This will impact on the quality of the regeneration of this part of Bedminster &

will seriously detract from the ambience of the otherwise successful redevelopment of the area.

A line must be drawn between what is acceptable & the consideration of investment & profit for the

Council

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I strongly oppose the loss of trees & open space being considered regarding

Bedminster green. This will impact on the quality of the regeneration of this part of Bedminster &

will seriously detract from the ambience of the otherwise successful redevelopment of the area.

A line must be drawn between what is acceptable & the consideration of investment & profit for the

Council

Absolute insanity building 330 flats with only 21 parking spaces!! This will significantlyimpact the local area in an already congested part of the city with parking backing up onto windmillhill which already very difficult to park. Not only will it impact the local wildlife but will make localresidents lives extremely difficult! This needs significant careful re-consideration BCC!

The development plot for this application is a lovely green area, used by all those in thesurrounding area not only as commutes to work, route into the town area but also by myself andother dog owners.

Loosing this space to a large scale development would be of detriment to the surrounding area.

In addition it adds further high rise development blocks to the area, which has already sufferedfrom a significant number of other approved developments.

Whilst other developments are a welcome way to improve the overall area, loosing green spacesto do so, should be absolutely objected given the loss of green space, trees and benefits to dogowners, commuters and the local community space.

Of all the development opportunity areas in the local area, this is one I strongly object to.

I am totally opposed to 3 buildings on 3 sides of the wild garden and the loss of any ofthe trees on Bedminster Green. The green is a well-established wildlife area with verymature trees and it should be protected from any development. There are so manyhigh-rise buildings being built nearby, the wildlife garden / green is an oasis amongstthem and should remain as it is for the tenants in the flats and for other residents livingnearby. Green / wildlife areas are proven to be necessary for people's mental healthand wellbeing and there should be more of them not less. Trees help us breath. 3high-rise buildings on 3 sides of the green is too much. We need sunlight not darkareas.

Another issue with the proposed development is the low number of parking spaces tobe provided. It is a fact that people will own a vehicle, no matter how good publictransport is and / or if their place of work is within walking distance. They may not usethat vehicle very often but they will have one. Where will the excess vehicles park?The area is already saturated with current residents' vehicles and I know myself howdifficult it can be to find a parking space in the area, especially in the evenings, when Ido not want to have to walk very far in the dark.

New apartments at Bedminster Green

I object to the application for the three buildings on Bedminster Green. They are muchtoo high and out of proportion for the area. They will cast a large shadow across thegreen, potentially damaging it. There is already a bit of a wind tunnel from the currentdevelopments and this will make it worse.

With only 21 parking spaces planned it will become a nightmare to park a car onWindmill Hill where I live. I hope that you are going to address this issue, with aresidents only parking scheme for Windmill Hill.

I object to the removal of trees. With so many people coming to the area the green withits trees are a vital resource for everyone.

I also object to the whole development as it is. If you had tried to come up with theugliest design then this would be the winner. It would never have been allowed inClifton.

There was a chance to do something fantastic with the area with so much landavailable, and it's been wasted with this ugly souless piecemeal development.

Last time I had to call a doctor I was 44th on the list to talk to the receptionist. I hope

you are going to address the physical and social infrastructure issues relating to themassive influx of new people to the area.

Regards

The suggested building is not in keeping with the area, even the new residential style forthe green in the overall area plan. It encroaches massively on the 'protected' green onyet another side, one of the only remaining green spaces left in Bedminster. It is of aquite hideous size, height and style. It is visually more like a prison than a developmentand will be like a wall, creating not only darkness and shadowing in an already poorly litarea, but is just far for too high, given we also have the latest 17 storey monolithic towerblock also now up only metres away, which was turned down twice at 8 storeys andsomehow now passed at 16 storeys? The whole view from Windmill Hill and VictoriaPark has been totally taken away by these latest tower blocks, it's created a barrier likedisconnect from the hill into the harbour. It may provide well needed residential rentalsbut at the cost of creating a them and us feel to this run of monster blocks suddenlystringing up. It would not be allowed i Clifton that's for sure...

The look and damage to the surrounding green and trees has been well versed in othercomments and objections. this would be the 5th tower block in the last year in this smallarea, it's frankly massive overdeveloped already and a blight on the landscape andeyeline. Windmill Hill now genuinely feels disconnected for Bedminster by these barriersof flats.

Zero attention to regular parking spaces is addressed in the proposal and as it actuallyironically removes the existing car park, why is no regard made for this? It is franklynonsense to suggest no one will own or drive a vehicle in this latest proposed block ofpotentially another 1000 residents? As we have also had 4 other blocks go up in a100m area of the green of late and an additional influx of around 3000 further people/students and not one regular parking space provided, where are these thousands ofpeople going to park? It's again nonsense to suggest all will suddenly be walkers orcyclist only. The council refuses to have a PRZ close by and will not currently entertain

one, so where will these thousands of new residents genuinely park? On our narrowalready overcrowded streets has and will be the answer. In addition to the workmen intheir thousands on all these projects for the last two years, who have daily parked oncorners, pavements, blocked and damaged numerous vehicles of residents.

As a resident of Windmill Hill only metres away this constant developing of the fourtower blocks surrounding it has made our day-to-day life horrendous in many respects,with no end in sight still. The all day rat run of traffic and sat naps shortcut cars/ taxis/vans avoiding the ever changing red lights on (now only one-way!) Malagao Road hasbeen a two year (so far) battle of stressed drivers, stand offs, roadblocks, badly parkedvehicles, blocked emergency vehicles not getting access and missed refuse collections,some often not happening at all. There is a tipping point of adding continual newresidential space, when ironically selling the car park plot to site it on that would haveprovided some respite for some of these new residents. This seriously needs to beaddressed now and not later when 2000+ more people live such a small dense area fo400m.

So it's an objection from me and it would be helpful if the planning department actuallyvisited the hill and took a literal view back to Bedminster and what these blocks arecreating in this dense small area? You won't be able to park safely that's for sure shouldyou come by car but you'll see the warzone fo builders vans and cars parked anywhereand everywhere that make daily living hideous.

I object to the application.

The 20% affordable housing is well below the 30% target set out by the Council. People needaffordable homes to buy in the area, or at least affordable rents. This is yet another build-to-letprofit making scheme that fills up space without offering properties to purchase, and that fails toeven offer much in the way of affordable rental properties.

With parking already a problem, this development will remove an existing public car park andintroduce hundreds of new residents with cars, and will only offer parking for a very smallproportion of them. This will make parking in the area even more of a problem.

There should be a commitment to replacing trees removed in the process of developing, at thevery least. Since the development will introduce more air pollution into the area, the developersshould by rights be increasing the number of trees, not reducing it.

Overall, this seems a highly cynical profit-grabbing project that will bring little benefit to the areaand exacerbate existing problems.

I object to this development on the grounds that there is already a huge amount of newhousing development going on in this small area and no plans to increase infrastructure toaccommodate the huge increase in residents and cars. There is insufficient parking for theplanned development in an area that is already hugely congested with cars. There also appearsno assessment around availability of GP services and nursery and school places to accommodatethe huge increase in residents.

I'm very concerned about the proposed plans to build 3 high buildings aroundBedminster Green, in an already extremely densely populated area. These developments threatenBedminster Green as they will overshadow it and will mean that 37 trees will be removed as wellas a wildlife garden, this will cause a huge loss of biodiversity in the heart of the city. We need thisgreen lung, it is vital for the health of our city not to mention the mental health of all the localresidents, including myself who enjoy walking through the green and hearing the birds, seeing thebeautiful crocuses in Spring. The development's proposed are too high and too dense. Thisproposal is for 330 flats with only 21 parking spaces, for disabled people. So this will of coursemean that people living in the new flats will try and park up Windmill hill, where I live and amalready struggling to find a parking space at the moment, it's at capacity already. The green is avery important open space in the heart of Bristol and should be protected at all costs.

This area should simply not be built on. Already this area is one of the most denselypopulated in Bristol and people who will live here will need Bedminster Green as a precious greenspace, especially as many of the new flats are dark, tiny and are single aspect. People will fry inthem when the temperatures reaches 30+, as it surely will on a regular basis soon. Theimportance of these small urban green spaces for our wellbeing has been well researched. Thewooden building should be left as a community resource. Reducing biodiversity in this way isstupid and suicidal. The green will be surrounded on all four sides and will be in the shade for fourdays. Any councillor voting for this is contributing to the climate crisis. Please don't say you weren'twarned. With over 2000 new flats, Bedminster has done its bit. What about other areas like Cliftonand Redland providing more housing?

Hiya,

I'm emailing as I want to share my thoughts and concerns with you, regarding theapplication for development on bedminster green.

I'm strongly against this development happening. I live locally and work locally atwindmill hill city farm. Living and working locally has meant that I've seen the ongoingdevelopments around the area and how that's effected mental health, climate anxiety,green spaces vanishing, the farm is now shadowed by flats which will have a knock oneffect on paddock health which has a knock on effect on wildlife habitat. And not tomention the noise.

Seeing the developments happening in bedminster has made my heart sink and to thinkanother one could potentially happen makes it sink further.I believe we need that green space more than we need those flats. With only 20% beingaffordable, it seems the only benefit would be monetary gain for someone down the line.Someone who doesn't have to live with the effects of the development. And what to the5000 unoccupied empty houses in Bristol? Including 400 council houses. Why are theynot being occupied first.

Bedminster green is a beautiful bit of green, the local community all equally enjoy andcomment when the crocuses start blossoming, and the trees and plants there are a

habitat for wildlife. Which is much more urgently needed right now.

I'm not a home owner, I rent, and I'm between 25 and 30 and many people of my ageand demographic feel the same. Although housing is important, it can't keep being atthe expense of habitats, wildlife and also peoples mental well-being.

Thanks

I object to this development on the grounds that there is already a huge amount of newhousing development going on in this small area and no plans to increase infrastructure toaccommodate the huge increase in residents and cars. There is insufficient parking for theplanned development in an area that is already hugely congested with cars. There also appearsno assessment around availability of GP services and nursery and school places to accommodatethe huge increase in resident. There is also already significant littering on the streets which thecouncil is unable to contain. More intensive housing will exacerbate this.

Further concerns:Significant harm to the biodiversity of the areaa. Loss of more than thirty mature trees, with ninety nine trees onb. Insufficient attention has been given in the plans to the effect of shading/artificial light from thebuildings and to the effect of noise on bats and other wildlife.c. The buildings themselves as currently designed by their height, density and breadth andpositioning will block out vital light for trees, shrubs and wildlife on the Green. Of course, this lackof light also impacts upon the whole community using the Bedminster Green as well.d. There appear to be considerable risks associated with contaminated soil in this area because ofits industrial past.e. Sewage outflow into the Malago - I am concerned that the density of occupation of the buildingswill put too great a burden on the sewage network. This poses risks to fish and river life.f. Too dense and too high. The developer should provide exact details of the density of theirproposed buildings. The area

already has a large number of new developments which will bring a large influx of new residentsinto the area with no extra infrastructure provided - e.g. GP surgeries or additional green spaces/parks or parking.g. To preserve the amenity and adequate sunlight for Bedminster Green and its local communityand flora and fauna, these buildings are too high.

Too high and too dense.Green spaces are important for mental health and this area has become very built up. This area ison my daily route whereas no other parks are. Also, the development will overshadow anddominate houses on Fraser street which will negatively impact on the existing community. Mentalhealth support is very scarce so it is important to maintain existing aspects of the community thathelp to promote mental health.Loss of trees will reduce biodiversity. Also, the railway line is an important bat run which will beimpacted negatively by increased light pollution.

It will be import that there is an entrance to the station from Whitehouse lane if more people areusing it as the roads around the bridge are very busy and the pavements can becomeovercrowded. The development may impact on the ability to do this.

The green proposed redevelopment not only will disadvantage those who who areaware of the seasonal changes and look to this area as a point of viewing said seasonal changeseg the beautiful abundant spring blooms, but also acting as a green corridor that has naturallycome into being from years of growth. The value of green corridors as I'm sure you are awarewithin a built up environment as proposed is crucial for far too many reasons to list here and anagenda many other areas of the uk are trying to redevelop in part to stimulate a declining naturaleco system. To remove this part of a buzzing corridor of bedminster, an area that is seeingsignificant changes in favour of man made eco structure is a shame, not just culturally but by thecouncils own declaration of a major climate emergency.

As to the removal of mature trees from an area that is at target of high carbon emitting traffic area,what justification is there based upon said statement of intent from the council. It is widely knownand factually based to state that a mature tree absorbs more carbon than that of a sapling, rootsthat carbon into the soil in process that naturally occurs with any mature tree, yet despite this andthe offsetting of tree loss as set by government levels the decision to remove said trees has beenput forwards. As to previous statements by Bristol tree forum that the removal of said mature treescannot be mitigated as to legal requirements in the area of said plot to be redeveloped it wouldseem that the carbon impact imitigation will not be localised to the area most benefitting from it.

As to the mitigation aspect to allow a redevelopment to have a go- ahead despite theacknowledged and factual based understanding of carbon sequesting is frankly a joke and furthershould not be dismissed in anyway.

If data ast to the levels of carbon release in the busy area were analysed fully the resulting datawould be suffice enough to render the removal of a set of mature carbon capturing trees obsoletesdespite any form of mitigation towards carbon sequesting with replanting, a dubious and pleasehighlight this, long term solution to issues that need responding to now.

As to the future redevelopment of the plot where are the guarantees that the raising of the malagoand redevelopment will not be for aesthetic, remove public access and be offset through legalconstraints within the bedminster area.

If the redevelopment is to remove said trees and native habitat whilst being offset in anotherlocation where are the guarantees this area will be maintained accordingly to stimulate growth vsreplacement by neglect.

Essentially you the council are freely allowing developers to have full reign over how mature treesare legally being offset in their removal in an area that has factually proven to be high inemissions, which not only goes against your own declaration but against public opinion.

Removal and redevelooment of this plot leaves more questions unanswered, no assurances andabove all nature, a vital part of bristols unspoken system of reliance to be vulnerable to man madeefforts that lack continuity, reaffirmation and confidence in being managed effectively at a timewhen the council by its own admittance is suffering from austerity motivated prioritisation ofresources. So despite this risk, you are actively engaging with a removal of what can only becalled vital lung to a busy emission area that goes against your very own declaration.

Do not let this development go ahead when there are multiple risks involved and significant lossesto the Bristol community and councils own declarations of climate insecurity. It's a loss far toogreat to be offhandedly assigned the label of learn from rather than make a point of in terms ofdeveloper relations

Bedminster Green is a very important green space for local residents and otherswalking from further out into town. This has both physical and mental benefits. It is an importantgreen corridor for wildlife which should be maintained, following Bristol's nature ambitions.It is also Important Open Space protected from development by DM17.Major concerns include:Biodiversity loss - tree loss, other flora and fauna loss, pollution (soil, air, water)Density of population - infrastructure strain (eg NHS services, parking)Height of buildings - blocking light, vistaMoreover, this is in the context of large amount of new housing development taking place in thisarea which will already be putting strains on resources (such as those indicated above). At thevery least, this proposal should be delayed so impact of developments can be seen allowingconsideration of future context. Please restore faith in the Bristol political context and planningprocess by acting upon the concerns of residents.

I find it ludicrous for you to suggest building 330 apartments on Bedminster Green withno provision for parking when every household has at least one car nowadays.

As someone who lives in Cotswold Road on Windmill Hill I am acutely aware of thecurrent difficulty residents have finding somewhere to park… driving all over the Hillsearching for a space when they come home in the evening.

In addition, I would regret the loss of yet another open green space in this already highlydeveloped area: The loss of the trees, grass and flowers, plus habitat for wildlife andrecreation space for people.

Consequently I strongly object to this application.

As a wheelchair user I ask that if any work is started that provision is made forwheelchair access and is guaranteed from Windmill Hill to East Street shops at alltimes.

Yours sincerely

Dear lovely planning committee,

Please have a heart for what is left for the wildlife and humans in the area.

My heart sinks as I walk through the area on a daily basis and see the birds looking confused andtrees and grass looking bedraggled.

Have we not had enough 'progress' in this area..... please can you find somewhere else to developother than dear old Bedminster.

I have lived here for 20 years and I fear you may be creating a student ghetto, with no supportinginfrastructure, green spaces, and a wildlife extinction zone.....

Kind Regards

Rachel Sidery

To whom it may concern,

Ref. New Apartments at Bedminster Green

I'm writing to object to the plans for three buildings on three sides of Bedminster Green,as this will affect the sunlight, wildlife and the future of the Green.

I appreciate urbanisation is necessary, but it is our responsibility to ensure any buildingprojects protect and/or create thriving habitats for wildlife.

The removal of 37 trees (Bristol Tree Forum) and others being affected is of particularconcern. Trees help clean the air, provide a habitat for animals and birds, and providehumans with access to nature.

Bedminster Green is designated an Important Open Space and should be protected atall costs from development that does not support it. Yes, we need homes, but we alsoneed green spaces.

Kind regards,

I'm writing to object to the plans for three buildings on three sides of Bedminster Green,as this will affect the sunlight, wildlife and the future of the Green.

The removal of 37 trees (Bristol Tree Forum) and others being affected is of particularconcern. Trees help clean the air, provide a habitat for animals and birds, and providehumans with access to nature.

Bedminster Green is designated an Important Open Space and should be protected atall costs from development that does not support it.

Kind regards,

Hello.

I have been observing with interest the huge-scale "brown-field" development along theDalby Avenue/Malago Road corridor, which is going to be one of the most denselypopulated districts of the city.

Clearly this influx of residents means a golden opportunity to bring back prosperity tothe run-down commercial area of East Street.

Yet Bristol knows all too well the long-term social perils of tightly packed high-rise flat-dwelling. Bedminster Green is a very modest, God-given breathing space where themany hundreds of newcomers should be able to escape from their concrete cages. Toobliterate it in favour of yet more apartment blocks is a step too far.

I trust that the Council will reprieve this invaluable green space.

Comment on planning application; 21/05219/F

Dear BCC planning committee and the developers.Do what you want, you're going to anyway! There's no local democracy left!Even if the planning committee reject this plan, you'll be back with another only slightly different,and if you don't get what you want, you'll take legal action, costing the council money it doesn'thave, and central government will agree anyway, because they're in on it! Those corporate events,and smoozing, party donations, they'll get this through. Damn the community, damn the littlepeople.This whole charade is a joke.The community doesn't want this, we like our scrubby little green space, which doesn't make thedevelopers any money.The heart is being ripped out of East Street and the Bedminster district, so might as well take thelungs as well!Climate emergency? What climate emergency?! The one the council declared, but will be forced toroll back on. So contradictory, and so sad.What will you say to your children and grand children when we can't breathe, and the planet isflooded or burning and can't sustain life! You can't eat money, but some people will never learn.Despite what the Universities and developers say this city does not need any more student flats,we need homes for people, habitable, with space, sunlight, adequate water and drainage. Peoplecommitted to community, not transient student populations. BS3 is already the most denselypopulated ward in Bristol, and simply cannot absorb this number of people. Most of which will have

cars, despite there being no parking locally. They'll still order stuff online like everybody else sothere's no guarantee the local shops will benefit. Schools are oversubscribed and Doctorssurgeries are over stretched.

The triangular building is truly grotesque. This monolith is precisely as unflattering fromEVERY angle and the high facade viewed from the east would loom over Dalby Avenue. Drop thisheight.

See the recent developments - a continuation along the scale of which would obscure allpedestrian vistas and direct attention to the new and ugly yellow-brick buildings to the East.

There are not nearly the required percentage of affordable homes for rent in the scheme -representing a failing for Bristol's citizens.

There are no provisions for social spaces or amenities - such as adequate communal multi-purpose rooms, and the staggering population increase - well over 1000 - will again deplete thelocal resources which have seen no investment despite VAST increases in residentialdevelopment - literally thousands of flats, total - in an area significantly smaller than Broadmead.

It is too big. Turn it down.

Refuse this scheme for its unapologetic block-architecture, poor affordable rates, unnecessarydevastation of green space and poor, poor design, focusing so clearly on profitable returns andignoring

The triangular building is awful. It's size is ridiculous compared to the area and focussesonly on the developers pockets doing nothing for the community and infrastructure.

It's just awful, how could anyone think this is a good idea. We already have inadequate doctors,schools and dentists for the community as it is how can they get away with adding this manypeople with so little care for anyone. It's disgusting.

There are not nearly the required percentage of affordable homes for rent in the scheme -representing a failing for Bristol's citizens.

There are no provisions for social spaces or amenities - such as adequate communal multi-purpose rooms, and the staggering population increase - well over 1000 - will again deplete thelocal resources which have seen no investment despite VAST increases in residentialdevelopment - literally thousands of flats, total - in an area significantly smaller than Broadmead.

It is too big. Turn it down.

Refuse this scheme for its unapologetic block-architecture, poor affordable rates, unnecessarydevastation of green space and poor, poor design, focusing so clearly on profitable returns andignoring any charm, style, grandeur or even any 'Bristol feel'.

I appreciate that development in the area has its benefits but I object to the plans forPlot 5 for a number of reasons. The immediate area has already been vastly altered by theexisting developments which have already impacted the local environment. Further buildings willnegatively impact the quality of living for those living in the area as well as those visting and thoseexpected to move into the new development. The density of the buildings impacts light and spaceas well as the outlook for residents of Windmill Hill and beyond.

One of the most important and beloved aspects of this area is the Green and the surroundingtrees, including those in Hereford Street carpark. With the existing developments, the positiveimpact of the Green, with it's beautiful mature trees, has been made even more evident. It is ahaven amongst the new tall blocks that is so important for the Wellbeing of individuals in the area.What's more, the hugely important biodiversity in the area, including the trees, flowers, birds andbats would be severely negatively impacted by this development and this is an action that couldnot be reversed, regardless of proposals to create new green spaces and plant new trees - thebiodiversity that has been establlished over many years needs the Green and surrounding area toremain as it is in order to survive. It would be the wrong decision to risk this for the sake of yetmore buidlings being cramped into the area.

Please reconsider this proposal for the sake of the local area, people, wildlife and nature.

Thank you.

It's very ugly, too high and not enough affordable rents.

Ugly building, too high will ruin scenery and doesn't include enough affordable rents.

This green space is an inherent part of the wellbeing of this community and will bedestroyed, along with dozens of mature poplars and other trees, habitats for creatures, fields ofseasonal crocuses and a green corridor which links an urban residential neighbourhood with avery busy urban shopping high street. The many new developments within metres of this proposalhave already changed the area from a Victorian suburb into a wall of buildings, losing sunlight,green spaces and quality of life. It is well known that the health of a community can be measurednot only in economic terms but also in the way it offers a connection to nature and wellbeing. Theloss of this green corridor, traversed by thousands of pedestrians each day, into an urbanmonstrosity of more high rises which will block even more daylight and annihilate this corner ofpeaceful nature in a busy commute will be a tragedy. I have lived in this neighbourhood for 19years and while I agree that some change and more sustainable and affordable housing isnecessary, the height, annihilation of mature trees and lack of integration into the existingcommunity is a travesty. I heartily object.

The rush to build on and around Bedminster Green is driven by targets imposed beyondBristol. It does not take into account the lack of local amenities or facilities such as parking.Doctors' surgeries and schools are already at capacity yet still it goes on... Go to BedminsterGreen. Look at the buildings that have already been constructed over the past couple of years andask yourself, how much more can this small area take?

Yet again far too many flats are being proposed with hardly any affordable housingbeing built. It's been proven that placing people in high rised properties can cause mental healthdeterioration.Why are houses no longer being built this side of Bristol? Why is it always already huge and richorganisations coining it in, in order to make vast profits and not thinking about the localenvironment that already exists?Parking is already a problem on the Hill...the building of these flats will only increase the problem!Existing wildlife will suffer!

This development will not bring anything good to the area. The buildings are too high,we know that high rise living is not good for a number of reasons (Mental health, become rundown, no outdoor space, crowded and unpleasant places to live).

You are planning on cutting trees down which will have a terrible effect on wildlife and air quality.

No new (and desperately needed) infrastructure included. Where are the doctors/dentists?

We need green space. The pollution due to the clean air zone pushing cars out into this area hasmeant that air quality is now horrible. All of these high rises will just add to this problem.

No Parking!! Where are all of these people going to park. They will have cars, everybody does.

I could go on.

A smaller, low rise or even houses would be much more in keeping with the area and much betterfor the city in the long run. stop being greedy!!

This proposal is destructive to local community, to local nature and terrible in its design.11 stories is way too tall (as are other local proposals). Very similar density could be achieved withbetter design for 6-8 stories.

The quality of materials and finish of the design is awful and will create a negative impact on thelocal community.

There will be a loss of established and important wildlife to the local area. The unnecessarily tallbuildings will create too much shadow in this area already dominated by terrible unnecessarilynew tall buildings.

Bedminster Green must be protected, not overshadowed and must increase biodiversity net gainof established greenery and trees, not reduce it.

The most gravely problematic issues are the height and threat to established greenery, and nonew provision of good public space or local independently run commerce.

Approving this will show no care for or understanding of this area.

I wish to raise my great concerns regarding this proposed development Application No21/05219/F. revised Feb 2024

Bedminster Green had the potential to be a high quality inner-city model of 21st century living. Asa resident of 30 years, I'm watching with utter dismay as the City Council further allows developersto destroy the environment and community building a soulless concrete jungle that will simply bethe slums of tomorrow. This city knows all too well the long-term social perils of tightly packedhigh-rise flats.

No consideration has been given for the mental well-being of the existing residents who are livingwith the inconvenience and cost (punctures, buckled wheels etc) of all the construction day in andday out.

No consideration has been given to the long term mental health or well-being of the adults, letalone any children who will be living in those blocks. The density of accommodation goes againstthe Urban Living SPD and overall will exceed the city council's approved limit of 200 units /hectare. A lack of mixed housing for families will alter the residential diversity. Only 20% are'affordable' which is lower than the 30% recommended.

This type of development would not be allowed to happen in the more affluent areas of the city.

This part of the development will block out the light in the only communal green space in the entire

development of over 2000 flats. This means no sunlight from September to March, which willnegatively affect any remaining natural habitat and lead to further environmental degradation, letalone the wellbeing of people in the flats who won't get sunlight either during these months.

The green space provides habitats for hedgehogs, birds, bats and insects in part due to thehedges and mature trees and yet it will be completely demolished apart from a few trees the bit ofurban seating and the Malago River. It's an absolute travesty that we are seeing highly biodiverseand ecologically important urban green spaces being destroyed.

Furthermore, it makes a total mockery of City Council's commitment to environmentalsustainability and ecology as quoted below:

The One City Climate strategy - to make sure that all new building development uses blue andgreen infrastructure AND the city's natural environment, including tree cover and biodiversity, hasbeen restored.

The declared "climate emergency" and commitment to be carbon neutral by 2030. Are youconveniently not counting the CO2 emitted by building with all that concrete???

The One City Ecological Emergency Strategy 2021, to ensure that 30 per cent of Bristol's land ismanaged for nature. Reducing and tidying up the bio-diverse habitat of Bedminster Green andremoving 70% of the light goes against this.

Marvin Rees stated the need to align the city's work on poverty and economic inclusion with thepressing need to decarbonise the city and protect ecological diversity. That excludes Bedminsterobviously!

I'm utterly disappointed by the continuing disregard for inhabitants of this part of the city and thelack of human vision by the planning and development department.

I wish to enter Objection to Application 21/05219/F.Applicant has entered no provision for alleviating the extra pressure on already stretchedcommunity services (Doctors, Dentists, Health Facilities, Schools, Childcare, Public Transport etc)that such a high-density development will add. In addition, there is little evidence within theupdated Application that the Applicant has adjusted the 2021 proposal to take into account morerecent adjustments to Fire Regulations (Secondary Footwells, Sprinkler Systems etc). It should befor the Issuing Authority (Bristol City Council Planning) to take into account these deficiencies inApplicant's proposal, and require the Applicant to adjust the proposal, and resubmit at a later date,subject to current Regulations/ Legislation. GW 06.03.2024

In regards Application 21/05219/FI Register my Objection to the proposal on the grounds that Bristol City Council have not providedproof that the sale of Bedminster Green space (to Developers) is not counter to the original articlesunder which it was designated and bequeathed as such. Failure to provide such proof could provecounter to many sections of the Town&Country Planning Act 1990, and therefore be in breach ofthe Law, and further, open to reflective review. GW 06/03/2024

I would strongly like to object to this planning application (21/05219F)

I have lived in the same house on Windmill Hill for nearly 26 years.The recent intense, concrete jungle rising up in the surrounding area is quite frankly miserable towitness.

The daily inconvenience of diversions on pavements and roads is a drain. But far from this, is theworrying future of the area. There are already hundreds of flats built and being built, and now thisone is proposed on Bedminster Green. This green is part of the psyche of the area.

As human beings we need designated green spaces to support our relationship with nature.Walking to visit my elderly father each day, I see life in the Malago.... kingfishers really do livethere.

This planning application is so insulting for its position and, its lack of sensitivity. Nothing, shouldbe built on Bedminster Green... our beloved Important Open Space. The trees are so special ashighlighted by the Bristol Tree Forum.

Bridgeview Medical holds our GPs and nurse specialists all of whom, are already stretched tocapacity to care for residents in the Bedminster/ Windmill Hill area. Schools, local services egBristol South Swimming Pool are running at full capacity. Parking is a nightmare. It never used to

be so that tells us that it will only get worse... if that's possible.

Who are the people receiving all the rents from these hundreds of flats?

Please put a stop to any further development. I walk to my local cafes and shops and I think tomyself 'did I move?' ... I don't recognise my neighbourhood anymore.

To whom it may concern,I am writing to object to the above development in the strongest possible terms.1.) The design of the proposed development is unacceptable. Its brutalist architecturewith a black void in the centre is more reminiscent of an early 20th century prison ratherthan a residential block of apartments. The character of the area is being completelyruined by new developments which jar with the existing architecture.2.) Bedminster Green is a designated green open area, much loved by local people.This development will remove the wildlife garden and 13 trees. This aspect ofBedminster must be protected and enhanced not eroded. Green spaces are importantfor local ecology and wellbeing. The 11-storey height of the building will undoubtedlydamaged wildlife by blocking sunlight.3.) Of the 330 flats, I am informed only 20% will be affordable. This is totallyunacceptable. We do not need students flats and flats for rent, so that private landlordscan profit BUT affordable housing for young local people and families.4.) Only 21 parking spaces are allocated for the 330 flats. The local Victorian streets willbe inundated with people parking in them from the new developments. They are alreadyfull of inconsiderate contractors who park in the local streets despite being told not to bythe developers. Residents parking MUST be allocated for the Victorian streets in andaround the development. It is disgusting that money has been set aside for this by thedevelopers but the Council will not act upon it.Yours sincerely,

I strongly object to this development.Im fed up of developers edging into green spaces , we need the green spaces as much as weneed the housing. Technically we need the green spaces more!If only 20% is to be affordable, I can imagine this has monetary benefits for people down the linewho are NOT effected by this development. And who won't even be near it to see or live theeffects.Housing is important but when it's not affordable and keeps being at the expense of wildlife,habitats and peoples mental health then it doesn't work.I'll be so sad if this development goes ahead, especially with all the other developments that havetaken place locally already. Can't that bit of green just be left alone to do as it's doing.

The recent intense, concrete jungle rising up in the surrounding area is quite frankly ajoke under the umbrella of 'Bedminster Green'

If these gargantuan soviet style greed towers are to be constructed you can wave goodbye to thetitle 'Bedminster Green and retitle it Bedminster mud' the Malago Runs underneath and with theabject shade these horrendous excuses for architecture will throw will kill off any wildlife andestablished shrubbery.

The following paragraph is taken directly from the Avon Wildlife trust.https://www.avonwildlifetrust.org.uk/news/protecting-green-spaces-bristol-and-bath

'In February 2020, we joined city partners in Bristol in declaring an ecological emergency. Thispowerful step was made in recognition of the accelerating loss of wildlife and resulting risks to theecosystems that underpin life on earth.

Together, we have set out a pioneering vision in our One City Ecological Emergency Strategy. Ourmission is to halt the destruction of habitats in Bristol, and protect 30% of the city's land for wildlifeby 2030. We are already working with the Council in updating the city's maps to identify wherehabitat improvements would have the most benefit for wildlife. The pandemic has proven theimportance of this - not only for nature, but also for communities, who find sanctuary in the greenspaces near them.Bristol is facing a number of emergencies at the same time, including the ecological emergency,

the climate emergency and a housing crisis, which has led the Council to set ambitious targets forhouse building.'

Plot 5 in no way aligns with any of the above and in no way serves the community (housing,schooling,healthcare are all at their limits in this area, emergency vehicles and bin Lorrie's areunable to traverse the hill due to overcrowded parking caused by 'just the builders' of thedevelopments. Where is any of these inhabitants going to park? The build to rent notion only fuelsthe housing crisis too.

As a local resident I am beyond tied of the greed I am seeing. In no way is plot 5 an architecturaldesign that has thought about the quality of life of its inhabitants and existing community and infact completely opposes the the local and national standards set in 2024.

The recent intense, concrete jungle rising up in the surrounding area is quite frankly ajoke under the umbrella of 'Bedminster Green'

If these gargantuan soviet style greed towers are to be constructed you can wave goodbye to thetitle 'Bedminster Green and retitle it Bedminster mud' the Malago Runs underneath and with theabject shade these horrendous excuses for architecture will throw will kill off any wildlife andestablished shrubbery.

The following paragraph is taken directly from the Avon Wildlife trust.https://www.avonwildlifetrust.org.uk/news/protecting-green-spaces-bristol-and-bath

'In February 2020, we joined city partners in Bristol in declaring an ecological emergency. Thispowerful step was made in recognition of the accelerating loss of wildlife and resulting risks to theecosystems that underpin life on earth.

Together, we have set out a pioneering vision in our One City Ecological Emergency Strategy. Ourmission is to halt the destruction of habitats in Bristol, and protect 30% of the city's land for wildlifeby 2030. We are already working with the Council in updating the city's maps to identify wherehabitat improvements would have the most benefit for wildlife. The pandemic has proven theimportance of this - not only for nature, but also for communities, who find sanctuary in the greenspaces near them.Bristol is facing a number of emergencies at the same time, including the ecological emergency,

the climate emergency and a housing crisis, which has led the Council to set ambitious targets forhouse building.'

Plot 5 in no way aligns with any of the above and in no way serves the community (housing,schooling,healthcare are all at their limits in this area, emergency vehicles and bin Lorrie's areunable to traverse the hill due to overcrowded parking caused by 'just the builders' of thedevelopments. Where is any of these inhabitants going to park? The build to rent notion only fuelsthe housing crisis too.

As a local resident I am beyond tied of the greed I am seeing. In no way is plot 5 an architecturaldesign that has thought about the quality of life of its inhabitants and existing community and infact completely opposes the the local and national standards set in 2024.

The buildings proposed will block out all light on to the green and remove nature treesthat the wildlife need. The height of the buildings are too much and not enough parking has beenincluded

The buildings proposed are not designed with the community in mind. The housingdensity is too high and it isn't promoting a family community. The lack of sunlight on the green willbe a problem in the winter months leading to the community not being able to use it as it will bewaterlogged.

There is minimal change to the plans from when we last saw them. The heights of thebuildings are too much abd we don't need this extra development.

I'm worried about the loss of wildlife and 13 trees from Bedminster Green although I'veheard 100 trees will be impacted by this development.

There are only 21 parking spaces for 330 flats (only 20% are affordable)

Bedminster Green is designated an Important Open Space and needs to protected fromdevelopment

(I'm not against the other developments currently underway as these are being built on derelictsites)

To build any more high rise buildings before we see the effects of the hundreds of newtenants moving into Bedminster would be a horrendous mistake.Objections should be made strongly to these plans. Services are completely overstretched and thelack of light and nature won't do anyone any good.This plan should at least wait a good couple of years to see the effects of the new population inBedminster.Who is getting the rent from the people living in these flats, which will no doubt be hugelyexpensive? Bedminster and Windmill Hill do not need more greedy landlords.

We need more homes in Bristol. Strongly support development here. The area looks adump and needs investment. Support 66 affordable homes

This development is not what the local area needs. It has not addressed the need forparking or enough affordable housing - only 21 parking spaces!!!! This is totally outrageous andwill drastically affect the local areas roads making them less safe four pedestrians and children.The development will only reward the developers - where is the provision for the additional nurseryplaces, school places, primary care provision etc?! Not even a nod in that direction. The existingflats going up have already bullied their way through (incidentally also making the area almostcompletely unusable for pedestrians). The road and pavement layout means me and my toddlerhave nearly come a cropper several times trying to negotiate a safe place to cross from thewindmill hill area towards East street.PLEASE will developers consider what is actually best for the area and local residents. I myselfam a GP and am totally bowled over by the lack of provision for healthcare in the area- what wouldsuch a massive additional construction of yet more rental flats do to the pressure on the GPsurgeries?!

While the principle of developing Plot 5 is appropriate I have significant concerns withthe plans a currently proposed leading to my objection to the current application.These concerns are:- Design - The proposed height and massing of the buildings is at odds with the existing buildingsin Windmill Hill. Further their common (and ubiquitous) design fails to take account of the localarchitecture or character in any visible way. These factors combined result in an overbearing anduninspiring character when seen from Windmill Hill and Bedminster Station. The design of thesebuildings will have a negative effect on the placemaking of the local area.- Overdevelopment - Per the Urban Living SPD appraisal Part 2 the proposal density is 351dph,significantly over the identified optimum density of 120dph and even exceeding the BedminsterGreen Framework of 220-320dph. To achieve this density ~50% of the apartments are single bedand therefore unsuitable for families. While Bristol is facing a housing shortage this should not beused as justification to exceed density limits that were researched and set for good reasons.- Natural Light - The design of these buildings leaves both Bedminster Green and many of theproposed apartments regularly in shadow which will be a detriment to the local wildlife, activity onthe Green and the mental health of residents within the proposed apartments.- Parking - The proposal has minimal parking provision of 9 ordinary spaces for 330 dwellingsjustified by the central location and transport links. However, this justification is at odds withcurrent car ownership levels in Bedminster and Bristol more broadly. No justification is provided asto why the residents of these buildings are significantly less likely to own a car than theirneighbours. This unrealistically low level of car ownership has been used as the basis for theTraffic Impact Assessment and therefore likely does not accurately assess the impact of additional

journeys on local roads. The application acknowledges the unrealistically low parking provision byincluding mitigations (introduction of an RPS) for problem parking in Windmill Hill. However, thecreation of new RPSs has been frozen for several years. Therefore, this mitigation cannot beimplemented, and the developer should propose an alternative mitigation to the inevitable rise inon street parking and traffic their plan will create.- Commercial/Community Uses - Very little detail is provided on the expected impact of the groundfloor units identified for commercial or community use. The noise, traffic and other impactsgenerated should be assessed and accounted for.- Building 3 - This plot is very poorly designed for liveability with noise pollution being a keyconcern. Its mass also overlooks both the station and local properties.- Public Transport - The proposal for Plot 5 makes no provision for a station entrance at the Northside of Bedminster station which would enable the Station to act as a true interchange betweenMetroWest, local bus, MetroBus and Airport services.

My objection to the proposed development rests primarily on the height, density andsolid mass of the blocks of flats that are in no way sympathetic to the local architecture, merelyadding to the ugliness of the recent tower block constructions. The flats around Bedminster Greenwill negatively affect enjoyment of our small green space, for so long taken for granted as anenjoyable area to walk through and see the spring blossoms, crocuses and changing leaf colouron the way to the local shops. The Green will be hemmed in by the tall blocks, receiving lesssunlight particularly in winter months and likely detrimental to wildlife.It is unlikely this design would have been given permission to be built in more affluent areas ofBristol and is it shameful that developers have been allowed to construct flats simply for profithere. Allowing this latest group of flats will in no way alleviate the dire lack of long term affordableand family housing in the city.I urge the council to reject this current proposal, squeezing out our local Important Open Spaceand cementing an alienating environment by encroaching on our Green.

I strongly object to the planning proposal for new buildings around Bedminster Green. Ihave lived on Windmill Hill for fifteen years and am horrified at the proposals for high rise buildingsaround the green, this is a vital area for both wildlife and residents, and to lose the mature treesand surround it with high rise flats is insanity, driven by the pure greed of property developers. Ifthe proposed 7-11 story blocks are built, surrounding the green on all sides, there will beinsufficient light for any plants to grow properly, and the green will simply become a dark and dingywaste-ground. It's a vital wildlife corridor, a stepping-stone for all the creatures that live and feedalong the Malago and in the general area to move around - Little Egrets and Kingfishers havebeen regularly seen locally, as well as Bechstein's Bats and numerous amphibians and otherspecies. At a time when biodiversity is under such threat already, this reduction in habitat andincrease in light and noise pollution would be catastrophic for the local wildlife population. Inaddition to biodiversity concerns, the plans for the buildings are too high, and too dense, the areais already buckling under the strain of increased population density without any infrastructureimprovements being made, doctors, dentists, schools, library, leisure facilities, all are fit to burstalready, and that's without the vast number of extra people that would arrive if the developmentgoes ahead. The shape of the triangular building is as ugly as it is inefficient, and it's astonishingthat architecture of such poor aesthetic and general quality has been proposed throughout thisplan - where are the solar panels, the considerations of passive solar gain, the wind turbines, theelectric car charging points, the cycle storage etc etc etc? The proposal offers insufficientaffordable housing, insufficient parking (in an area already choked with traffic and parked cars)and is opposed by a vast number of existing residents, over 1100 have already signed a petition tostop this plan and save the green as we know it. We can do much better than this, please,

planners, get your act together and start doing your job before the whole of the local areadisappears under a tidal wave of concrete.

the proposal looks really ugly and monolithic, creating an imposing big barrier whenanyone comes down from Windmill Hill. The central area will get very little sun, and therefore verylittle can grown there.It will destroy much habitat for local wildlife and many trees, which are vital for the health of theinhabitants of the area, and for the aesthetic value, and flood defence etc..There are very few parking spaces, which will result in cars being parked on Windmill Hill, whichalready has substantial parking problems, leading to dangerous implications eg emergencyvehicles not being able to access areas etc.The Green has been designated as an Important Open Space and should be protected fromdevelopment that does not support it.There is very little provision for affordable housing.

This objection has been written by:

Hilary Saunders,50 Raymend Rd,Windmill Hill,BristolBS3 4QW

I have merely uploaded this on her behalf.

I would like to object to this planning application because it has designed on each side of thegreen high rise buildings that will overshadow the green. This will make the green dark and unsafeto walk through, especially for women, particularly at night, I certainly would not want to walkthrough it..

The plans are completely out of character of the urban architecture which comprises of mainlyVictorian terrace family homes, currently on the Windmill Hill side of the boundary.

I feel that the way this application has been handled by the planning officers and developers feelslike a war of attrition because it has gone on for so long, and information is now being conflatedwith other planning applications like that of the Malago River restoration project and the districtheat network pipe which needs to be installed under the green.

All this development will destroy the green, 3 mature tress are already having to be removed forthe District Heat network and or the Malago River Restorations.

I plead with you to make way for nature.

I strongly object to this development on several grounds1. The proposed builds, from the plans, look absolutely horrid and would be a blight on the area.2. The loss of the trees and habitat for wildlife, which i believe to be very important.3. The green is designated an important open space and should be protected from development.The effect on local parking, already made increasingly problematic by the development on StCatherine's place, Stafford Etr etc.4. The Developments that have already gone up are quite sufficient, another will be detrimental tothe area.

I'm horrified by the proposal of this massive site of multi-storey flats. If it was socialhousing, I would think again. I have no faith in being 20% of affordable housing, and from what Ican see, the quality of the building will cause them to have to be rebuilt in 20 years time. Felling oftrees on Bedminster Green would be a catastrophe: I cannot see how it could ever be justified for37 trees to be filled and 99 trees altogether being impacted by the development. Our wildlife in thisarea is under serious threat. The green is designated as an Important Open Space and should beprotected. And I am at a loss thinking about how there is absolutely no infrastructure planned forthe influx of many hundreds of people. Again, if this was social housing I would think again. All Ican see is mindless shortsighted profit and no consideration for the broader picture. I beg you toreign in this monstrosity.

I have lived in this area for over 30 years and strongly object to the development of the3 buildings surrounding Bedminster Green.Plot 5 is dominant mass which is too high, plunging nearby homes and the Green in to darkness.They are also only 3 metres away from the railway line which will be horrendous in regards tonoise and vibration for residents. The area is already blighted with tower blocks , providing 2000new flats as far as the eye can with an estimated increase in population of 40% and yet noprovision has been made for extra schools, doctors, dentists, parking etc. The building proposaloffers both insufficient parking and affordable housing.Bristol appears uncommitted to One City Ecological Emergency Strategy, which is supposed toensure that 30% of land is managed for nature. Surrounding the green by high rise flats, removingtrees and 70% of the light does not meet this target. The Green is a precious space providingtranquillity and calm in the centre of an area of redevelopment and which is currently a home forhedgehogs, birds, bats and insects. I am also shocked they are proposing the removal of 13 treesfrom the Green and a total of 99 altogether by this development.I am appalled Bristol has failed the residents of Bedminster and Windmill Hill by their lack of visionwith this whole development when they could have provided more affordable housing andinfrastructure in preparation for the increased population density whilst protecting and supportingbiodiversity.

I strongly object to this tower block proposal. There has already been so many towersbuilt in this area that the neighbourhood already will not be able to cope with the strain on schoolsand doctors. Another building that adds 330 flats with only 21 parking spaces will be huge burdenon the community space. To destroy the green area that is desperately needed and block out thelight and kill the trees is sheer selfish planning that is not for the community at all. There is no planfor where all these people will park and go to school or doctors. We are already at bursting pointbefore anyone has moved into all the tower's currently being built.

I strongly object to this.

Planning Application 32/05219/F

I would like to object to these plans.I am very concerned about the flats you are proposing build at Bedminster Green. I really do notunderstand why so many flats are being built in such a small area.

The flats will destroy the wildlife, a loss of 37 tree, and the loss of green space is a real travestyThis Green space is very important for peoples mental health. The flats will cause shadows wheresunlight is needed, for wildlife and flowers and also for people. The Green is a designatedimportant open space and should be protected from development at all cost.

I am concerned about the very large increase in population in such a small area. There are not thefacilities to support the vast increase number of people. The area will become over crowed andover populated. It has already becoming a very over populated area in such a small space. Overthe last five years many shops, banks and pubs have closed on East Street. The shoppingprecinct is completely derelict and is an absolute disgrace to the area . The other new flats in thearea, have been built with the knowledge that a new railway line and system will be developed.This new railway line has still not happened.

The purposed block of flats at 11 storeys will be too high for the fire brigade to fight fires on thefloors 8 and above, as their ladder and turn table will only expanded to 8 storeys. We all knowwhat happened with Grenville Flats in London.

It is difficult to understand the rational behind the high rise flats, there is plenty of publishedresearch which documents that living in this high rise housing is not good for quality of life, andpeoples mental Health.

Windmill Hill was a very quiet and peaceful area. As a local neighbour living in Windmill Hill area,we have already endured 2 years of Constant noise from the flats that have already been built inthis area. Please do not underestimate how noisy it is!!! The noise is soul destroying, especially inthe summer as we are not able to sit out side in our back garden.

Please please please think again and reconsider building these new high rise flats. To manypeople will be living in a very small geographical area. To much noise for the local residents whohave already Endued the building of flats the noise has been overwhelming for the last two years.No development of new local services to support the huge increase in the population, includingnew railway line which has not happened. These flats will damage the Green space,wildlife, treesand mental health of the people who will loose the Green space.

Thank you for reading my objections.Best wishes Elizabeth Lewington, local residents Gwillaim Street Bristol

I strongly object to this building proposal for yet another huge block of flats in acommunity neighbourhood. We haven't even seen the effect of all the people moving into the allthe huge existing flats being built. We are already a bursting underlimited community whereschools and doctors are at a shortage, more flats are going to put a serious strain on theresources already under strain.The community needs green spaces and it will. Look out the sunlight so the small green remainingwill die. Only 21 parking spaces are proposed for a 330 flat buildings.. where are they going topark? On my residential road in Windmill hill, that's where.The community will absolutely suffer with more blocks of enormous flats and an influx of peoplethat will make traffic even worse, and the resources strained.I absolutely strongly object to this proposal.We absolutely will

Please, in the name of whatever passes for sanity these days...please do not continuewith this wretched plan, the final nail in the already very heavily nailed coffin that was Bedminster.The whole area will become a 'concrete canyon' with barely any light let alone sunlight likely toshine down on the 'green' and surrounding area. I have seen the plans for the green and they aresimply diastrous for wildlife and will likely be a cold dank place to sit or to pass through. For yearsnow the beautiful crocuses have been spreading and spreading, so much so that people stop allthe time to photograph them in their brief splendour. Something to actively look forward to everyyear, what will happen to them? The grass and half the bulbs have been crushed by hundreds ofworkmen from the building sites shortcutting back and forth. Why cut healthy trees down justbecause it's 'ok' to re-plant other trees within a mile, everything about these plans is wrong andyou'll win because we become sick and tired of typing this kind of thing...as if you give a damn. Idaresay too many palms have been greased to stop these crappy plans going ahead but of coursewe can't mention that, eh? A Pox on your plans!

These are the reasons I think this is a poor, badly thought-out development proposal that takesaway far more than it will bring to the neighbourhood and the city in general.1. The development is far too high and too dense. There will be 11 storeys in the triangularmonster block. This is too high.2. The units are too small making it feel as though the developer really doesn't care about thepeople who will be living there but only about profits.3. There are 330 units and only 21 disabled parking spaces!! This area is going to be flooded withcars and nowhere to park them.4. Whilst they are all for rent only 20% of them are affordable. There should be more. It is anational and local scandal that rents are so high. This development does very little to help thesituation.5. The plan is to destroy a wild life area and 13 trees from Bedminster Green. Our council plans todestroy mature trees during a climate emergency. How can this be right.6. The green has been designated an Important Open Space. When there are tall buildings on allsides of the green this will dramatically affect sunlight. How can it possibly be called Open? It willbe dark and cold and no longer an asset to the area.7. None of these developments seem to have really tried to build in a sustainable way. Thetriangular block will be dark with shadows cast onto the internal windows making it hard to heatand unsustainable.8. The block between Whitehouse Lane and the railway station is 7 storeys high and willovershadow and dominate houses in Fraser St.

9. The railway line is also an important bat run, including probably rare Bechstein's bats, and thelight from the flats will destroy this.10. The photograph provided shows only 8 storeys where the viewer can count them and theviewpoint is from above so that the real impact of the buildings is not shown. I don't know whosupplied this image but it doesn't provide an accurate picture of what the development will reallybe like from a normal human viewpoint. I think it constitutes a kind of misinformation.11. Developments should enhance and improve an area. This one downgrades and impoverishesit instead by blocking sunlight, killing wildlife, up-rooting trees, blocking sight-lines, flooding it withcars, providing a low standard of housing, using up resources due to lack of sustainability inbuilding, creating ugliness and unhappiness.

Thank you

i would ask that the storeys are lowered to fewer than 10 to not block sunlight so muchto the green and also to protect the skyline - otherwise there will be one huge wall for all windmillhill residents

i would ask that the project protect trees and plant trees for any trees removed

also to fully deculvert the river so it is a sufficient ecosystem not just a little stream

also has there been thought around GPs, schools, and shops with all these residences going up?

If the developers lived in this area they would not be building this kind of thing. Theyclearly don't care about the effect these blocks will have on the environment and on the mentalhealth of those living in the flats and nearby. The buildings are too high, too dense and too ugly.They are also the wrong kind of housing - we need housing for homeless people. I am all for socialhousing to relieve the Council housing waiting list but I can forsee the developers wriggling out oftheir obligation to the quota as so many have done before.

The green will be deprived of light so it will be ruined. It is also wrong to cut down the establishedtrees. We need more, not fewer trees like this. This green space although relatively small, is animportant one.

There is no infrastructure to support an influx of thousands of new residents. Has any preparationbeen done to help the community cope with this? Or is it simply a question of relying on marketforces?

This process feels very undemocratic. While we are consulted we have very little say in whathappens even though it may affect us a great deal. Consultation appears to be merely a tick boxexercise. Many people local to Bedminster Green have not only objected all along to thesedevelopments but better ideas have been proposed. All have been ignored.

I wish to express my objection to the proposed development of Plot 5 of BedminsterGreen.

While I appreciate and accept there is an overarching need for development in the area, I feel thisapplication should be refused on the following grounds:

Firstly, the size and density of the development are out of keeping with the area and look tosignificantly - and negatively - disrupt the local community by creating a physical barrier betweenWindmill Hill and East Street. That is further exacerbated by the size and density of thedevelopment.

Second, the number of affordable properties within the development is currently only proposed tobe 20% - below the target of 30%. Experience would suggest that this number will in reality bereduced further if the application is successful, with no sanctions on the developer when that doeshappen.

Thirdly, the complete lack of social housing, just affordable housing. Bedminster benefits greatlyfrom a diverse spread of social backgrounds and the lack of any provision of social housingpenalises those not able to afford the already extremely high rents and house prices, preventingthem from living in the same part of the city that they work or even grew up.

Finally, the effect of the development on the local ecological system. Bedminster Green and the

wider Malago are has a number of mature trees and micro ecosystems. While there is a proposalto open the Malago, that will be at the expense of these local ecosystems which once destroyedwill never fully recover. It is noted that with the Green itself, the Green will be surrounded by large(11 storey in the case of the tallest building proposed by this application), with a resultantdetrimental effect on the light and passage of wildlife through the area.

Should this application be refused, as I believe it should, then a reduction in the size and densityof the development commensurate with the existing area should be considered, together withmore affordable & social housing and a sympathetic approach to the effects on the local ecology.

The four other plots around Bedminster Green (two nearing completion) are likely tobring well over two thousand new residents to the area - equivalent to about three English villages.Any rational plan for such intensity of development would have provided for an accessible greenspace.

We have one already. It is small but it is green.

Instead of extending it into the Hereford Street car park to make a medium sized space, thecouncil - owner of the land - appears to have entered into an agreement with a developer to addanother crowded village to the mix long before anyone had even sought outline permission.

This suggests that the development is a fait accompli with a bit of tinkering at the plan's edgesbeing the only change likely to be accepted. I hope such tinkering will at least include an increasein the number of affordable homes.

We have been assured that development on this plot would not involve any adverse impact on thegreen itself. But there is already an intention to dig up the ground for the heat network, while thisplan involves tall buildings overwhelming the space on three sides. Moreover, construction on thisscale cannot avoid killing off much plant life from the smallest crocus to the tallest tree.

I have to say that the whole Bedminster Green project has been incoherent at best and out ofcontrol at worst. Developers have pushed to the limit and the council is happily ticking off the

numbers.

Real housing need and quality control have not been priorities.

Will Bedminster Green be one of the glories of Bristol in fifty years?

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Planning Application 32/05219/F

I would like to object to these plans.

I am very concerned about the flats you are proposing build at Bedminster Green. I really do not

understand why so many flats are being built in such a small area.

The flats will destroy the wildlife, a loss of 37 tree, and the loss of green space is a real travesty

This Green space is very important for peoples mental health. The flats will cause shadows where

sunlight is needed, for wildlife and flowers and also for people. The Green is a designated

important open space and should be protected from development at all cost.

I am concerned about the very large increase in population in such a small area. There are not the

facilities to support the vast increase number of people. The area will become over crowed and

over populated. It has already becoming a very over populated area in such a small space. Over

the last five years many shops, banks and pubs have closed on East Street. The shopping

precinct is completely derelict and is an absolute disgrace to the area . The other new flats in the

area, have been built with the knowledge that a new railway line and system will be developed.

This new railway line has still not happened.

The purposed block of flats at 11 storeys will be too high for the fire brigade to fight fires on the

floors 8 and above, as their ladder and turn table will only expanded to 8 storeys. We all know

what happened with Grenville Flats in London.

It is difficult to understand the rational behind the high rise flats, there is plenty of published

research which documents that living in this high rise housing is not good for quality of life, and

peoples mental Health.

Windmill Hill was a very quiet and peaceful area. As a local neighbour living in Windmill Hill area,

we have already endured 2 years of Constant noise from the flats that have already been built in

this area. Please do not underestimate how noisy it is!!! The noise is soul destroying, especially in

the summer as we are not able to sit out side in our back garden.

Please please please think again and reconsider building these new high rise flats. To many

people will be living in a very small geographical area. To much noise for the local residents who

have already Endued the building of flats the noise has been overwhelming for the last two years.

No development of new local services to support the huge increase in the population, including

new railway line which has not happened. These flats will damage the Green space,wildlife, trees

and mental health of the people who will loose the Green space.

Thank you for reading my objections.

Best wishes

This is inexcusable and unjustifiable. Yet is shameful. It will blight the area. You all knowthis. You all know we need more green spaces, not less. You know that climate change is real andthat to address it we need green solutions. This is not a green solution. You all know that SouthBristol is one of the least biodiverse sections in Bristol and yet, you want to ruin what precious littlegreen space it has.

We do not need these towering monstrosities. We do not want these towering monstrosities. Noone who lives here wants to see you remove trees (and by remove, really it means kill) and no onewants to see Bedminster Green plunged by shadow for most of the day. The loss of green spaceand of habitat is unacceptable. Bedminster Green is a protected space. So, protect it!

As an aside, there's a new office building in Temple Meads, called the Welcome Building. It openssoon. Because the architects and developers involved in its construction and development areaware and do understand, several oak trees were removed from the site, temporarily replanted ina local school field, and will be planted back in place when the development works finish. That ishow you do it.

Oh, and as ALWAYS, these buildings in this proposal are far too high (but you know that), thereisn't enough affordable housing (as always) and the buildings are ugly, ugly, ugly. Plus we do nothave enough infrastructure to support the amount of people moving in. Plus no-one in Bedminsterwanted to be forced to live in an shoved up in minutes major metropolitan area. So, thanks forthat.

Nobody who lives in Bristol wants tower blocks. You have ruined Bedminster enough already withwhat you have approved. Don't ruin it further still by approving this. It is too much

Dear Development Management,

I am writing as a resident of with my concerns regarding the proposal for330 flats in Bedminster Green. I strongly disagree with the plans to remove green spacein an already overpopulated area of the city, to be replaced with an 11 storey building. Itwill remove a valuable area of peace within a busy community, which has already beensubjected to significant building works.Of particular concern is the infrastructure and parking provisions. The roads andservices in Windmill Hill will not be able to accommodate an even greater increase inthe population. Parking is already at a critical state, and providing 21 parking spaces for330 flats, alongside the other new developments, will eradicate any parking forresidents in the surrounding roads.I strongly object to the development of Bedminster Green and would be deeplydisappointed by the council's decision if building commenced in this area.

Yours sincerely,

I find it bizarre that it is even being considered to remove any trees from this area.Because of developments over the past few years, Bedminster Green is now a tiny oasissurrounded by tower blocks. From the St Catherine's Place tower blocks to the ones being builtadjacent to Little Paradise and all the developments along Whitehouse Lane, thousands ofproperties are being built - are we not allowed even a handful of trees?The hedgerows around the car park off Hereford Street have already been destroyed in the nameof development. Taking down trees that are decades old and replacing them with saplings doesnothing to help Bristol's carbon footprint. Signs have gone up this week to tell contractors not towalk across Bedminster Green as the flowering areas have been trampled. It is a small but much-loved area currently hemmed in by concrete and should be left alone entirely.

I wholeheartedly object to this development encroaching on already limited green area.In an already densely populated zone this will cause further pollution, increased noise and theremoval of natural light.

Issues will be further worsened by a lack of parking provision close to pedestrianised areas.

We are in a housing crisis and are in need of new development, however the proposedapartments only have 20% affordable units. This is not right in a city where many of mypeers are being driven out due to the high cost of living - we should be focused oninvesting in affordable housing, not expensive units that will drive up the cost of localamenities for current residents.

I am also concerned about the news that the development will destroy the wildlifegarden and remove/impact somewhere between 40-100 trees. Bedminster Green isbeloved by so many, it's a great green space in the city and every spring the purplecrocuses coming up are stunning. It's also an important habitat for birds, insects, andother ecology. I don't think any new building project should destroy local ecosystemswithout very good reason. From what I can tell the intention is just to make a moremanicured outdoor space - how and why should this justify cutting down so many treesthat have taken decades to grow?

Please consider this statement as part of your proceedings in making a decision.

Best wishes,

Would like to raise concerns about this proposed development for the following reasons:- oppressive design- lack of proportional parking spaces and risk of overspilling in an already busy area.- it's impact on green space and natural habitat and wildlife with regards to reducinggreen space as well as enviable impact of reduced sunlight.

Best wishes

Bedminster Green is so important to the local community. My son (10) and our littlefamily are so worried & concerned about losing this green space & all the mature trees. This areawill be densely populated so it makes absolute sense to keep this as an open space or green lung.Research on the importance of small urban green spaces like Bedminster Green clearly showstheir importance for mental heath, especially as some of the surrounding flats are tiny and singleaspect. The loss of so many established trees (35+) will severely reduce biodiversity, which isalready at crisis point. There will be a highrise block on all four sides of the green, leaving thespace in shade. The block between Whitehouse lane and the railway station is 7 storeys high andwill overshadow and dominate houses in Fraser St. It is also very close to the railway line whichcould cause problems for residents. It will create a solid wall of highrise buildings in front ofWindmill Hill. This area has been singled out for a multitude of 'highrise' developments. Affordablehousing has been reduced from 30% to 20%. It is likely that this will be reduced further as this hashappened with numerous other planning projects.

I am writing with concerns about application21/05219/F.

We are in a housing crisis and are in need of new development, however the proposedapartments only have 20% affordable units. This is not right in a city where many of mypeers are being driven out due to the high cost of living - we should be focused oninvesting in affordable housing, not expensive units that will drive up the cost of localamenities for current residents.

I am also concerned about the news that the development will destroy the wildlifegarden and remove/impact somewhere between 40-100 trees. Bedminster Green isbeloved by so many, it's a great green space in the city and every spring the purplecrocuses coming up are stunning. It's also an important habitat for birds, insects, andother ecology. I don't think any new building project should destroy local ecosystemswithout very good reason. From what I can tell the intention is just to make a moremanicured outdoor space - how and why should this justify cutting down so many treesthat have taken decades to grow?

Please consider this statement as part of your proceedings in making a decision.

I object on the basis of the damage the new development will do to Bedminster Green,which is a much needed green space with mature trees that should not be destroyed. Thecrocuses are also particularly lovely there and they will no doubt be impacted by the height of thebuilding.

I'm not against the principle of flats on that site as more housing is very much needed but notenough of the flats are affordable housing and more amenities (doctor's surgeries, dentists etc.)need to be added too.

I object to this planning proposal.

Local people desperately need open green spaces - as does wildlife. The developments proposedwill result in a curtailing of space and light as well as the loss of somewhere between 13-37mature trees and impact a further 99 mature trees. This loss of wildlife habitat & green amenitywithin the city is just inexcusable.

Additionally, the building of 330 flats with only 20% planned to be affordable and with a total of 21parking spaces is just planning at it's poorest - this will benefit the builder's profits - not the localpeople.

I understand the conflicts of housing pressure and pressure for open land, but it is essential thatwe do not build over every green space in our city and also important that any development isagreed by locals and made in a way that enhances the space - not dominating & destroying it.

Please reject this proposal

It is an emphatic no from me. The recent extensive development in Bedminster, markedby heightened traffic, pollution, noise, and numerous traffic lights, has already burdened the area.

Despite a marginal reduction in height, the revised proposal for Plot 5 still presents anoverwhelming concrete jungle of wall-to-wall housing - surely this should be a great opportunity fora more eco friendly and creative project . This project jeopardises the only communal green spacein a development of over 2000 flats, casting shadows and reducing sunlight, particularly affectingVictorian terraces.

The proposed demolition of the community-utilised green space, serving as a habitat for wildlife,contradicts NPPF social objectives, biodiversity, and climate change goals. Opting for fewer treesis not a viable choice these days, even if replacements are considered elsewhere. The loss of thisarea not only impacts the community but also endangers the habitats of hedgehogs, birds, bats,and insects.

Block 1, reaching an excessive 11 storeys, exceeds the approved limit, obstructing views andaltering the landscape. The density surpasses the council's limit, and the lack of diversity in rentedproperties compounds existing concerns within the Bedminster Green complex.

'The literature suggests that high-rises are less satisfactory than other housing forms for mostpeople, that they are not optimal for children, that social relations are more impersonal and helpingbehaviour is less than in other housing forms, that crime and fear of crime are greater, and that

they may independently account for some suicides.'Robert Gifford 'The consequences of living in high rise buildings'

With only 20% affordable housing and insufficient parking facilities, the development falls short ofcouncil guidance. We do not need more unaffordable housing! The sheer scale of thedevelopment raises concerns about the strain on local services such as GPs and schools, whichare already oversubscribed.

The removal of street trees, the Green House garden, and surrounding hedges is also alarming forenvironmental reasons. Furthermore, the insistence on an environment dominated by a concretejungle is troubling for mental health. The necessity for trees and green spaces is paramount forour well-being, and an excessive focus on concrete structures is undeniably depressing.

The development's shortcomings underscore that it wouldn't be accepted in more affluent areas ofBristol.

With all the other flats going up in Bedminster, this is going too far. This applicationcannot possibly be properly considered without taking into account the other 3 or 4 large high risedevelopments within 300 yards. Too many too quickly. This one will also overshadow the littlegreen space (Bedminster Green) to such an extent that very little will grow there, and it will sooncease to be green. Local people rely on this green space for their well-being.

This development will suffocate the green with tall buildings that block the light and failto make it a focal point for bedminster. Shorter buildings, greater investment in improving thebiodiversity in the green and surrounding areas and better provision of facilities and public spaceare what the area needs!

The area will be devoid of any green.

There. has already been a huge amount of development in Bedminster, marked by heightenedtraffic, pollution, noise, and numerous traffic lights, has already burdened the area.

Despite a reduction in height, the revised proposal for Plot 5 still presents an overwhelmingconcrete jungle of wall-to-wall housing - surely this should be a great opportunity for a more ecofriendly and creative project . This project jeopardises the only communal green space in adevelopment of over 2000 flats, casting shadows and reducing sunlight, particularly affectingVictorian terraces.

The proposed demolition of the community-utilised green space, serving as a habitat for wildlife,contradicts NPPF social objectives, biodiversity, and climate change goals. Opting for fewer treesis not a viable choice these days, even if replacements are considered elsewhere. The loss of thisarea not only impacts the community but also endangers the habitats of hedgehogs, birds, bats,and insects.

Block 1, reaching an excessive 11 storeys, exceeds the approved limit, obstructing views andaltering the landscape. The density surpasses the council's limit, and the lack of diversity in rentedproperties compounds existing concerns within the Bedminster Green complex.

'The literature suggests that high-rises are less satisfactory than other housing forms for most

people, that they are not optimal for children, that social relations are more impersonal and helpingbehaviour is less than in other housing forms, that crime and fear of crime are greater, and thatthey may independently account for some suicides.'Robert Gifford 'The consequences of living in high rise buildings'

With only 20% affordable housing and insufficient parking facilities, the development falls short ofcouncil guidance. We do not need more unaffordable housing! The sheer scale of thedevelopment raises concerns about the strain on local services such as GPs and schools, whichare already oversubscribed.

The removal of street trees, the Green House garden, and surrounding hedges is also alarming forenvironmental reasons. Furthermore, the insistence on an environment dominated by a concretejungle is troubling for mental health. The necessity for trees and green spaces is paramount forour well-being, and an excessive focus on concrete structures is undeniably depressing.

The development's shortcomings underscore that it wouldn't be accepted in more affluent areas ofBristol.

Enough! No more!

Bristol Council has in my opinion allowed a particularly hideous building to be erected on theMalago Road. Bedminster does not deserve this. It undermines confidence in the Council that itcould be thought of as acceptable.

I am against any more building until the present ones in progress are filled and we see how theinfrastructure copes. I am not confident it will. I would welcome the information as to how it willwhich you must, of course, have. Otherwise how could you Bristol Council have allowed thebuildings in the first place. There will be thousands of people arriving.

As for the green, it needs light to breath and grow and in it's turn it feeds us. The buildings willblock the sun. The size of the green is small but the pleasure and health it gives to us is precious.

Leave it alone.

Enough! No more!

Bristol Council has in my opinion allowed a particularly hideous building to be erected on theMalago Road. Bedminster does not deserve this. It undermines confidence in the Council that itcould be thought of as acceptable.

I am against any more building until the present ones in progress are filled and we see how theinfrastructure copes. I am not confident it will. I would welcome the information as to how it willwhich you must, of course, have. Otherwise how could you Bristol Council have allowed thebuildings in the first place. There will be thousands of people arriving.

As for the green, it needs light to breath and grow and in it's turn it feeds us. The buildings willblock the sun. The size of the green is small but the pleasure and health it gives to us is precious.

Leave it alone.

Enough! No more!

Bristol Council has in my opinion allowed a particularly hideous building to be erected on theMalago Road. Bedminster does not deserve this. It undermines confidence in the Council that itcould be thought of as acceptable.

I am against any more building until the present ones in progress are filled and we see how theinfrastructure copes. I am not confident it will. I would welcome the information as to how it willwhich you must, of course, have. Otherwise how could you Bristol Council have allowed thebuildings in the first place. There will be thousands of people arriving.

As for the green, it needs light to breath and grow and in it's turn it feeds us. The buildings willblock the sun. The size of the green is small but the pleasure and health it gives to us is precious.

Leave it alone.

Enough! No more!

Bristol Council has in my opinion allowed a particularly hideous building to be erected on theMalago Road. Bedminster does not deserve this. It undermines confidence in the Council that itcould be thought of as acceptable.

I am against any more building until the present ones in progress are filled and we see how theinfrastructure copes. I am not confident it will. I would welcome the information as to how it willwhich you must, of course, have. Otherwise how could you Bristol Council have allowed thebuildings in the first place. There will be thousands of people arriving.

As for the green, it needs light to breath and grow and in it's turn it feeds us. The buildings willblock the sun. The size of the green is small but the pleasure and health it gives to us is precious.

Leave it alone.

Enough! No more!

Bristol Council has in my opinion allowed a particularly hideous building to be erected on theMalago Road. Bedminster does not deserve this. It undermines confidence in the Council that itcould be thought of as acceptable.

I am against any more building until the present ones in progress are filled and we see how theinfrastructure copes. I am not confident it will. I would welcome the information as to how it willwhich you must, of course, have. Otherwise how could you Bristol Council have allowed thebuildings in the first place. There will be thousands of people arriving.

As for the green, it needs light to breath and grow and in it's turn it feeds us. The buildings willblock the sun. The size of the green is small but the pleasure and health it gives to us is precious.

Leave it alone.

Enough! No more!

Bristol Council has in my opinion allowed a particularly hideous building to be erected on theMalago Road. Bedminster does not deserve this. It undermines confidence in the Council that itcould be thought of as acceptable.

I am against any more building until the present ones in progress are filled and we see how theinfrastructure copes. I am not confident it will. I would welcome the information as to how it willwhich you must, of course, have. Otherwise how could you Bristol Council have allowed thebuildings in the first place. There will be thousands of people arriving.

As for the green, it needs light to breath and grow and in it's turn it feeds us. The buildings willblock the sun. The size of the green is small but the pleasure and health it gives to us is precious.

Leave it alone.

Enough! No more!

Bristol Council has in my opinion allowed a particularly hideous building to be erected on theMalago Road. Bedminster does not deserve this. It undermines confidence in the Council that itcould be thought of as acceptable.

I am against any more building until the present ones in progress are filled and we see how theinfrastructure copes. I am not confident it will. I would welcome the information as to how it willwhich you must, of course, have. Otherwise how could you Bristol Council have allowed thebuildings in the first place. There will be thousands of people arriving.

As for the green, it needs light to breath and grow and in it's turn it feeds us. The buildings willblock the sun. The size of the green is small but the pleasure and health it gives to us is precious.

Leave it alone.

Enough! No more!

Bristol Council has in my opinion allowed a particularly hideous building to be erected on theMalago Road. Bedminster does not deserve this. It undermines confidence in the Council that itcould be thought of as acceptable.

I am against any more building until the present ones in progress are filled and we see how theinfrastructure copes. I am not confident it will. I would welcome the information as to how it willwhich you must, of course, have. Otherwise how could you Bristol Council have allowed thebuildings in the first place. There will be thousands of people arriving.

As for the green, it needs light to breath and grow and in it's turn it feeds us. The buildings willblock the sun. The size of the green is small but the pleasure and health it gives to us is precious.

Leave it alone.

Enough! No more!

Bristol Council has in my opinion allowed a particularly hideous building to be erected on theMalago Road. Bedminster does not deserve this. It undermines confidence in the Council that itcould be thought of as acceptable.

I am against any more building until the present ones in progress are filled and we see how theinfrastructure copes. I am not confident it will. I would welcome the information as to how it willwhich you must, of course, have. Otherwise how could you Bristol Council have allowed thebuildings in the first place. There will be thousands of people arriving.

As for the green, it needs light to breath and grow and in it's turn it feeds us. The buildings willblock the sun. The size of the green is small but the pleasure and health it gives to us is precious.

Leave it alone.

Enough! No more!

Bristol Council has in my opinion allowed a particularly hideous building to be erected on theMalago Road. Bedminster does not deserve this. It undermines confidence in the Council that it

could be thought of as acceptable.

I am against any more building until the present ones in progress are filled and we see how theinfrastructure copes. I am not confident it will. I would welcome the information as to how it willwhich you must, of course, have. Otherwise how could you Bristol Council have allowed thebuildings in the first place. There will be thousands of people arriving.

As for the green, it needs light to breath and grow and in it's turn it feeds us. The buildings willblock the sun. The size of the green is small but the pleasure and health it gives to us is precious.

Leave it alone.

Enough! No more!

Bristol Council has in my opinion allowed a particularly hideous building to be erected on theMalago Road. Bedminster does not deserve this. It undermines confidence in the Council that itcould be thought of as acceptable.

I am against any more building until the present ones in progress are filled and we see how theinfrastructure copes. I am not confident it will. I would welcome the information as to how it willwhich you must, of course, have. Otherwise how could you Bristol Council have allowed thebuildings in the first place. There will be thousands of people arriving.

As for the green, it needs light to breath and grow and in it's turn it feeds us. The buildings willblock the sun. The size of the green is small but the pleasure and health it gives to us is precious.

Leave it alone.

Enough! No more!

Bristol Council has in my opinion allowed a particularly hideous building to be erected on theMalago Road. Bedminster does not deserve this. It undermines confidence in the Council that itcould be thought of as acceptable.

I am against any more building until the present ones in progress are filled and we see how theinfrastructure copes. I am not confident it will. I would welcome the information as to how it willwhich you must, of course, have. Otherwise how could you Bristol Council have allowed thebuildings in the first place. There will be thousands of people arriving.

As for the green, it needs light to breath and grow and in it's turn it feeds us. The buildings willblock the sun. The size of the green is small but the pleasure and health it gives to us is precious.

Leave it alone.

Enough! No more!

Bristol Council has in my opinion allowed a particularly hideous building to be erected on theMalago Road. Bedminster does not deserve this. It undermines confidence in the Council that itcould be thought of as acceptable.

I am against any more building until the present ones in progress are filled and we see how theinfrastructure copes. I am not confident it will. I would welcome the information as to how it willwhich you must, of course, have. Otherwise how could you Bristol Council have allowed thebuildings in the first place. There will be thousands of people arriving.

As for the green, it needs light to breath and grow and in it's turn it feeds us. The buildings willblock the sun. The size of the green is small but the pleasure and health it gives to us is precious.

Leave it alone.

Enough! No more!

Bristol Council has in my opinion allowed a particularly hideous building to be erected on theMalago Road. Bedminster does not deserve this. It undermines confidence in the Council that itcould be thought of as acceptable.

I am against any more building until the present ones in progress are filled and we see how theinfrastructure copes. I am not confident it will. I would welcome the information as to how it willwhich you must, of course, have. Otherwise how could you Bristol Council have allowed thebuildings in the first place. There will be thousands of people arriving.

As for the green, it needs light to breath and grow and in it's turn it feeds us. The buildings willblock the sun. The size of the green is small but the pleasure and health it gives to us is precious.

Leave it alone.

Enough! No more!

Bristol Council has in my opinion allowed a particularly hideous building to be erected on theMalago Road. Bedminster does not deserve this. It undermines confidence in the Council that itcould be thought of as acceptable.

I am against any more building until the present ones in progress are filled and we see how theinfrastructure copes. I am not confident it will. I would welcome the information as to how it will

which you must, of course, have. Otherwise how could you Bristol Council have allowed thebuildings in the first place. There will be thousands of people arriving.

As for the green, it needs light to breath and grow and in it's turn it feeds us. The buildings willblock the sun. The size of the green is small but the pleasure and health it gives to us is precious.

Leave it alone.

It astonishes me that developments of this size are still being proposed aroundBedminster Green. Current structures under construction overwhelm and overshadow the existingarea and create wind tunnels that make traversing the area on foot an unpleasant experience.Further boxing in of this area will make a dark and soulless place for all those wishing to get toeast St from windmill Hill and beyond.This is yet another development with no parking and no thought of additional services in an areaalready under strain.The current building and bedminater green provide a green haven for both people and wildlife,current proposals remove a great number of trees and wish to create much more formalised openspace which is far less pleasing and mindful.

Application21/05219/F

I would suggest that one of The Great and The Good who make decisions about our builtenvironment i.e. homes to live in, communities to thrive in, and natural habitats to survive in, comeand actually look at what is a happening in our neighbourhood. I would wager they would beabsolutely horrified at the scale and amount of development in Bedminster Green.Quite apart from all the usual very significant considerations -which we have all been banging onabout for the past MANY years and mainly ignored- too high, insufficient parking, lack of affordablehousing, destruction of mature trees, building on designated open spaces. cramming block afterblock of inappropriate prison like structures in very close proximity to each other, THE DESIGNSARE ABSOLUTELY APPALLING.And what is the triangular space in the centre of the block supposed to do? give light? space? It islike in inside of a prison wing. Quality of life and considerations to mental health is being ignored. Itis all about build now and pay environmentally and socially later, but it will be too late.We are told on a daily basis about the water crisis we are all facing, over flowing drains andsewers, flooding, because of overdevelopment and poor infrastructure. We are stacking up moreand more problems for the future and nobody is listening.

I would like to object to this planning application for the following reasons:

- This development is absolutely huge, far too big for the site, and will totally overpower the greenspace and the entrance to Windmill Hill. It is completely out of scale and style with Windmill Hillwhilst effectively forming the entrance to it. Anybody walking down Windmill Hill (the road) will facea huge wall of hard buildings, rather than the variety of roofs that are visible now. The city will becut off from Windmill Hill, and vica versa.- The development will totally change the whole nature of the green space. It will cut out all directsunlight, much of the light and take out half of the green area, which at the moment is a site ofwildlife garden, green roof and trees and shrubs. The green itself will be half the size, and will beovershadowed and surrounded by tall buildings. All research shows that this is not good for mentalhealth - both for new and existing residents.- Tall buildings create wind tunnels. The current building site operated by Dandara (who areproposing this development too) has already created very powerful wind effects. As a cyclist andpedestrian who has to pass it most days, I have already felt the effects of this. To have to navigateall the extra wind effects that will be caused through this new proposal is too much.- We can already see at the current Dandara building site that the works spill over onto thesurrounding land. With works on 3 sides of the Green, we can see that machinery and workspacewill spill over onto our Green. We know that lots of trees will be lost, although there is no clear mapgiven to show the extent of tree loss, taking into account this proposal, plus ones for the DistrictHeat Network, the River Flood Alleviation Scheme and the road widening project. It is very hard toreconcile this with BCCs claim that we are working towards Biodiversity net gain. There is nothing

but huge loss here for wildlife, and therefore for the residents. This is surely illegal. The Green isdesignated an Important Open Space and as such should be protected from development thatdoes not support it. This development does not.- Looking at building A, it is clear that the building has been designed to maximise living units andprofit. It is using every inch of the site to build on and going up as high as it dare (higher even thatthe suggestions on the Bedminster Green Framework - a plan in itself which was steamrollered inwith no agreement from the local community.- Building C is squeezed between the road and the railway embankment, in a place you would beforgiven for thinking could not actually take a tall building. No surprise that most of the smallamount of affordable units will be here. The lower floors will be looking out onto the embankmentwith trains, including nuclear waste, rumbling past above their heads. This is not a living space Iwould wish on anybody. I would like to suggest that the designers of this space spend 6 monthsliving there, but of course that will not happen.- Dandara"s current building site claims to be a responsible construction site. But they have beenasked countless times to take care of the land around the building site - and they have continuedto allow their employees to trample across the Green and damage the bulbs, and fill the car parkup with rubbish. There is nothing caring or thoughtful about the way they operate, and this willmean 3 more sites with the same problems. At the very least we need to have an agreementupfront that they will deal with all these problems before any work starts on another Dandara sitein the neighbourhood.- The railway line is a travel route for protected bat species that live in Bristol and fly out to feedinggrounds beyond the edge of the city. These bats are put off by too much light, and these buildingswill clearly spill lots of light onto the railway line. There needs to be a bat survey done prior to workstarting, research done into which lighting will cause least problems, and a follow-up study tomake sure no damage has been done.- The living units themselves are not good designs. Floor to ceiling windows will cause overheatingin the summer and don't give enough privacy. The height itself causes lots of shadow over otherparts of the buildings, as well as over the Green and public spaces.- 20% affordable is not enough. On each site around Bedminster Green, the amount of affordablehousing has been paltry. These 3 buildings, on BCC owned land, should be setting the example ofminimum 30% at the very least.- 21 parking spaces in unrealistic. Lots of the new residents, plus their visitors, will have cars, andthese cars will have to park somewhere. Windmill Hill is already chock full of cars, there is no roomfor more. To claim that transport will all be by bus, train, bike and on foot is unrealistic. Perhaps itwould be good to do a survey of local people who already live here, to get a true picture of how itwill be for these new residents. We should be encouraging people to walk and cycle, but at themoment, as a walker and cyclist, it feels lethal as I try to cross Bedminster Green and access EastSt, my local shopping street. Nothing is being done by Dandara to make it easy and safe for localpeople whilst they are building, quite the opposite, and are we to have 3 more sites with the samelack of care?- These buildings have no provision for outdoor playing, gardening or growing. All activities thatare good for physical and mental wellbeing. A disgrace that these have not been thought through

and provided for.- Bedminster deserves better than this. We want a good development, with homes for a variety ofdifferent demographs. Buildings that do not overpower the green space, ones that are sustainableand liveable. Ones that add to our mental wellbeing and create a lovely place to live. We want adevelopment that we can all be proud of - the residents, the developer and Bristol City Council. Ican't imagine this proposal being put forward for any other place in our city. Why is it being putforward here?

I object to the scale of this proposed development because:- It will reduce the current Important Green Space, with loss of trees and habitat.- It will overshadow what green space remains.- There is not enough affordable housing.- There is not enough parking.

I object to the design of this proposal because the buildings are oppressive, ugly and boring.

The proposed planning is out of proportion and too much for the small space available.You are cramming too much dense housing options in to too small an area. The tower blocksbeing built are already worrying in that where will people park, how will they access GP services?And please don't destroy the Bedminster Green which is a valuable green space which needs tobe protected and improved (not re-done with new trees). And don't destroy the crocuses that comeup every year.

To many flats for the space and not enough parking for over 300 residents in an alreadycrowded area. 2 developments already been built which are very adjacent to this proposeddevelopment. This will also have an impact on the local wildlife, the green is already a designatedImportant Open Space and should be protected from development that does not support this. Istrongly disagree with this proposal and urge the council to reject it completely and not let anamended proposal be resubmitted .

This is very poor design, as I said years ago when it was first submitted (and when Iwas still a councillor!) The high buildings on the south-east and south-west of the park will keepmuch of the park in shade through autumn-winter-spring. As the green has the Malago flowingthrough it, the ground is always wet - and blocking sunlight to it will ensure it becomes saturatedand unusable in winter-spring.

All architects will know this simple stuff as they are taught it in 1st year courses, so seeing suchbasic errors being promoted for a major scheme is very disappointing.

If you're wondering how high-sided plazas work in far away countries:a) they're pavedb) they don't have a river flowing through themc) they're in cities with much lower rainfall, and much more sun, than Bristol

Bristol and Bedminster deserves much better than this cash-and-carry level of design.

I strongly object to the proposed plans for Plot 5 as the impact on Bedminster Green willbe hugely detrimental to wildlife, due to the destroying of many mature trees the lost of the nature garden the lack of light caused by the height of the surrounding buildings the negative impact on residents' mental health the high density of the new dwellings, using every bit of land possible the wholly inadequate parking facilities provided & the impact on current Windmill Hill residents.

I do not agree to losing the lovely green that currently provides suchjoy, especially with all the crocuses & daffodils in spring time.

Please reject this proposal!

The revised plan for this development remains unacceptable.The amount of "affordable" housing has been reduced from 30% to 20%. Unacceptable at a timeof housing crisis.Parking provision is grossly inadequate, and will inevitably impact significantly on local residents.The height of the elevation facing the Green has been increased to 11 stories, further decreasingthe light which will reach the green, and thereby further restricting the ability of plants and trees tothrive. All plants are dependent on adequate light to photosynthesize and thus grow effectively.We know that biodiversity is at crisis point. The proposed plan threatens biodiversity further.The additional height will also increase the winds associated with high buildings: technicalassessments say these winds will be mitigated by planting etc, but any wind above and beyondthe usual environmental wind will further decrease the Green's attractiveness as a place to lingeror refresh oneself.The density of the proposed development makes it all the more important that residents haveaccess to a nearby useable outdoor space, which is recognised as being essential for mentalhealth.The Green has the potential to be a great asset to residents of future developments, but the heightof the proposed buildings and the removal of existing trees will negatively impact on the Green'sbenefits to future residents and the existing population of Windmill Hill and neighbouring areas.

The sheer idea that we would need less green in our city is absolutely abominable tome.

The green is essential for the health of Bristol for removing carbon dioxide from the air, givinghomes to urban dwelling animals and contributing in other important ways to the bio-diversity ofour city.

The height of the structures proposed will also mean less sunlight for the area which will diminishthe health of not just the flowers and trees, but also the people who walk through there too.

I very much object to this proposal. There have always been substantial amount of newbuilding gone up in that area. More flats are being built without any new amenities being put inplace, ie, doctors surgery, parking spaces. Already residents can't park as it is. The loss of thegreen will be very sad for the community as it is a beautiful leafy spot that commuters walk througheveryday. Please don't destroy it.

The local area around Windmill Hill is at capacity with the latest development bringingan influx of over 1000 new people. Some of these are going to be students, which I don't object toper se, but that they won't contribute via council tax. The local area is already over subscribed formany services such as GPs, schools and dentists yet this does not seem to be built in to theplanning process. Parking and traffic in the area are already challenging due those living here.The green space is an oasis amongst urban concrete and it's much needed for mental accessphysical wellbeing. To remove this green space with it's trees and flower will be a travesty.

Application No 21/05219/F

Site Address Plot 5 Bedminster Green Hereford St, BS3 4NA

Comments from Councillor Tessa Fitzjohn Green Party

I am writing to raise my concerns regarding the proposed development Application No 21/05219/F.revised Feb 2024

Bedminster Green had the potential to be an inner-city high quality innovative model of 21stcentury living. Sadly, a decade on, we are still trying to right the wrongs in what is Bristol's largestregeneration project, that has failed on its lack of vision or ambition.

My comments are detailed below:The revised offer for plot 5, offers a slight reduction in height but overall remains a dominant massof wall-to-wall housing, blocking out the light in the only communal green space in the entiredevelopment of over 2000 flats.

With the removal of the Green House, and the surrounding green context we are losing the mostattractive aspect of this area, replacing the trees and greenery with towers that will block sunlightin the winter, create shadows and dominate the surrounding victorian terraces.Councillor Lisa Stone, calls this space the Green Lung which is exactly what it is, but it also

doesn't explain that its a very attractive area used by the community, and provides habitats forhedgehogs, birds, bats and insects in part due to the hedges and mature trees and yet it will becompletely demolished apart from a few trees the bit of urban seating and the Malago River.

Since 2021 there've been, changes to the NPPF revising and strengthening aspects that Iconsider reference Bedminster Green but are not being met and should be considered as reasonsto turn this application down.

"Social objective of the planning system to include the fostering of "well-designed, beautiful andsafe places".

"Use all opportunities to improve biodiversity" should be "integrated" into a scheme's design".

"Emphasis trees in new developments and that existing trees are retained wherever possible".

"Commit to meeting Bristol's climate change objectives and recognise the concerns expressedacross groups that this should explicitly reference the net zero emissions target."

I also draw attention to Bristol's commitment to The One City Ecological Emergency Strategy, toensure that 30 per cent of Bristol's land is managed for nature. Tidying up the bio-diverse habitatof Bedminster Green and removing 70% of the light doesn't meet this target either.

Bristol's Draft New Local Plan also emphasisthe impact of good housing on mental health on adults and children, whilst ARUP produced astrategy for Cities Designed for urban childhoods, and that begs the question of does Plot 5 deliveron this objective??

I quote Historic England who politely challenge Plot 5's quality of design and heritage context."That the proposed design approach will not deliver a positive response to its context and advisethat the quantum of development, as proposed, could be delivered in a better way, taking astronger steer from the areas character, in terms of building proportions, materials and detailing."

Bristol's Civic Society has made numerous objections, and I've picked out their commentregarding tall buildings built around a green area. for example, Hyde Park London and CentralPark New York??"The Society suggests that the developers and the Council compare this proposal to QueenSquare, which has been highly successful as a public space following the Council's regeneration."Bedminster Green is a fraction the size of those well-known spaces...please let's get real.

My other concerns relate to:DesignThe height will remove light from Bedminster Green from September to March; this lack of light will

affect the homes in similar way. The scheme divides into three blocks with consistent massing andmaterial treatment.I am concerned the affordable housing block is within three meters of the railway line and willsuffer from noise and pollution.Block 1 at its highest point reach 11 storeys, which will mask the topography of Windmill from therest of the city, and at the highest point exceeds the framework.The entrance to Windmill Hill will be obscured and looking from the hill onto a wall of high-risedevelopment losing the iconic views across the city.

DensityThe density of the accommodation is over Bristol City Councils approved limit of 200 units Ha. Weestimate around 350 dwellings per hectare.All the properties are built to rent accommodation which does not provide the correct residentialdiversity when considering the large number of rental properties already provided by newdevelopments within the Bedminster Green complex.

In a Bristol context, optimum densities in new development schemes have been demonstrated as:- 200 units/ha in a city centre setting (i.e., Wapping Wharf)- 120 units in an urban setting (i.e. Paintworks or Junction 3); or- 100 units/ha in an outer urban setting (i.e. Gainsborough Square, Lockleaze)'This goes against the Urban Living SPD.

Affordable housing We welcome the inclusion of 20% units of affordable housing, (social orintermediate rent) however this is below the Councils own guidance of 30% for majordevelopments.

Loss of biodiversity and site habitat.The removal of street trees, the Green House garden and hedges surrounding the car park. Themajority of the trees on what used to be called Malago Green will be cut down.( This applies to theapplication for the community heating.) Bio-diversity net gain will be replaced out of the city.

SummaryI am saddened and shocked that again, Bristol Council's Growth and Regeneration Team havefailed their councillors and their residents, by their lack of vision and ambition for an inner city sitethat could have been upheld as high quality urban design. Instead as a Director of Housing nowretired said 'we are building the slums of tomorrow'.

As Councillor for Bedminster, I believe we can do better and South Bristol deserves thebest.

I wish to voice my objections to the above proposal.

It will alter the whole character of this area. From terraced housing, multi-generational andinvested in the neighbourhood it proposes to construct small units within high multi-storey blocks,filled with one demographic, here today and gone tomorrow.Doctors and dental practices are already failing to cope with the numbers in this neighbourhood.I am not persuaded by the lack of parking provision (a mere 21 spaces!) that residents in the newblocks will not have cars, or their visitors either. They will be using Windmill Hill to park.The Green itself, which I understand to be designated an Important Local Space will be a sad lossto all those who enjoy the trees and flowers and who find some respite there in these hectic andstressed times. It is very easy to see that during the construction of these blocks it will be abuilding site, and everything in it destroyed.My overall impression is that Bedminster does not matter. Developers in pursuit of profit will,without conscience, erect an urban ghetto and leave it to us who live here, and the councillors andthe rest of the city, to pick up the problems and the bill.We deserve a better design, creating decent homes for families for a better, healthier future.

This whole project is to intense. It's to high. Bedminster Green is an important greenspace though small it's the lungs of that area. The whole push of developing high rise rabbithutches is undesirable and does not provide family housing. I fully object to this scheme. Theimpact on the residents of Windmill Hill is being ignored. We need good quality family housing notblocks of small flats.

Firstly the flats are too high, there will be less light the neighbouring flats will accentuatethisOnly 20% of the flats will be affordable housing, I think that's unfair and unreasonable.Only 21 parking spaces, it's ridiculous to think that no one will want to drive a car, families, schoolruns, works van etc. All the cars will end up being parked on Windmill Hill which is already burstingto the seams with parking issues. Including numerous emergency services not obtaining accesson the highway because of this.Bedminster green is an important green space, full of beautiful trees, wildflowers and wildlife. TheGreen is designated as an important green space. Valuable for our own mental wellbeing. Itshould be protected not destroyed. Green spaces are invaluable for the community as a wholeand should be fought for.Surely it's a human right to have a green space available considering all the other flats going up inBedminster around our Community.Our community don't want this whether they are able to comment or notPlease take this into considerationDon't be responsible for cutting trees downMany thanks

Wendy Biggs

This development, like the rest of Bedminster Green is far too high & will turn this part ofSouth Bristol into a depressing collection of tower blocks.There is insufficient parking & the area has already been clogged up by large numbers of cars &vans due to the ongoing construction work.The loss of trees is disgraceful & the only bit of green space on the walk into central Bristol will belost.There does appear a disproportionate emphasis on building high rise in South Bristol whencontrasted with the rest of the city, the likelihood of an oppressive set of buildings being placedelsewhere is probably zero.I have lived in the area for over 20 years & am finding the idea of being in a version of Hong Kongintolerable & will move if this & the large number of other seemingly uncoordinated series ofdevelopments nearby are approved.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Firstly the flats are too high, there will be less light the neighbouring flats will accentuate

this

Only 20% of the flats will be affordable housing, I think that's unfair and unreasonable.

Only 21 parking spaces, it's ridiculous to think that no one will want to drive a car, families, school

runs, works van etc. All the cars will end up being parked on Windmill Hill which is already bursting

to the seams with parking issues. Including numerous emergency services not obtaining access

on the highway because of this.

Bedminster green is an important green space, full of beautiful trees, wildflowers and wildlife. The

Green is designated as an important green space. Valuable for our own mental wellbeing. It

should be protected not destroyed. Green spaces are invaluable for the community as a whole

and should be fought for.

Surely it's a human right to have a green space available considering all the other flats going up in

Bedminster around our Community.

Our community don't want this whether they are able to comment or not

Please take this into consideration

Don't be responsible for cutting trees down

Many thanks

I don't support this change in application for the following reasons:- It does not provide affordable housing at 30% as per policy BCS17 as per the Affordable HousePractice Note (July 2022)- All the properties are build to rent accommodation which does not provide the correct residentialdiversity when considering the large amount of rental properties already provided by newdevelopments within the Bedminster Green complex

I have lived on Windmill Hill for 6 years. The development in the area has gone crazy!The student appartments on whitehouse lane Dandara on Dalby ave, windmill pub to 5 x flats. totalover 700 odd flats! Wheres the parking? Wheres the additional infastructure? Catherines house isstill being developed. The additional inflyx of people could be in excess of 1000 people how willthe GP services manage? Dentists?Bedminster green is a tranquil sight around the area a really important green space! Green spacetherapy is paramount to peoples mental health and wellbeing. Please leave the green as it is! Andthe Bellamy hut should stay, built around.I am not against development but why so high why so much?BS3 should be residents parking too! Ludicrous this is not in place. Ppl use area as through roadand park here to access the town. The pavements on windmill hill are narrow and roads alreadybusy/hectic. I work in community and need my car. Not easy for everyone to be car free.

Bedminster green

I totally oppose the application. Too many people ….too boxed in…This green area must stay green.I live in and have had constant noise sometimes at nightBang. Bang. Bang banging it's madeNo need for 1000,s flats in such a small steady full area. Disgusted with the councilallowing the first lot of ridiculous high story ugly non easy to buy flats..

This project is going to destroy all what it's left green in this area. It will cut off the onlysunlight that would light the streets. All the new occupiers will have no place to park and windmillhill narrow streets will become over trafficked and local residents will have no place to park. It willalso obscure the view of the colorful houses on the hill erasing everything that made bedminster aloving area to live and a symbol for the city. The local services will not be able to absorb theimpact of the rapid gentrification and people will be denied basic services as GP, dentists, schoolsand nurseries. The construction of low quality hyperdensity building is not what the market needand it's not in the spirit of the city or the bedminster area. This will just bring decadence, decreasethe quality of live of the people living the area and reduce the value of the whole city.

I object to the current plans.

I appreciate the land needs to be redeveloped but the current proposed buildings are too high andare not in keeping with neighbouring existing residential areas. I addition I worry about the impacton nature and light levels of surrounding areas.

In addition I don't think the design has considered parking requirements with only 21 spaces for330 flats.

The recent changes to this application make no considerable difference to thedevelopment, they will still build on the Green and create a densely packed site (the loss of 1 or 2storeys making no discernible difference). There has also been a reduction in affordable housingfrom 30% to 20% despite a reduction of only 9 flats.The wind microclimate report also acknowlwedges that infrequently being in the area could beuncomfortable, and given that extreme weather conditions are becoming more regular this couldlead to greater frequency and create problems with wind tunnells

Precious little green space already - this would destroy the last of it.

The density of housing here is already extreme - the local services, GPs, Dentists and streetswon't be able to cope with any more.

So little thought given to the aesthetics of the design - will have a lasting impact on the area.

Doesn't even meet the council's own affordable housing target (none of these developments do).

This part of Bedminster has been a building site for the past 3 years - disrupting pretty mucheverything. The noise pollution, actual pollution and congestion on the local streets has gottenworse and worse. Approving any more development at this stage would show utter disregard forthose who live this part of Bristol.

The proposed development that encompasses Bedminster Green if given the go aheadwill be a disaster for biodiversity and the overall health and wellbeing of Bedminster residents.Given the current climate emergency mature trees are essential. The felling of mature treescannot be mitigated against by replacing with saplings. The canyon effect created by largebuildings will dramatically reduce sunlight and leave any remaining green space largely in theshade making the space an unpleasant for gathering in. Urban areas like Bedminster need asmuch green and tree covered space as possible. The residents of Bedminster are being extremelyill served by these type of planning applications that promote monolithic high rise structures thatare entirely unsuited to area and needs of local people. In fact, I cannot see how Bedminster willbe served in anyway by these kinds of planning proposals. What the area really needs is low tomid rise social housing and plenty of green space for people to move about in.

I object to the application for the following reasons -

- Inclusion of 20% affordable housing falls well short of the 30% target set out by Bristol CityCouncil for this area, for no clear reason other than maximising profit.- Inclusion of yet more high rise, high density housing concentrated into the area, for no clearreason other than maximising profit.- Exclusion of adequate car parking for - presumably - well over five hundred new residents ofdriving age whilst demolishing an existing public car park, for no clear reason other thanmaximising profit.- The dominating prevalence of new build-to-rent property in the local area - for no clear reasonother than maximising long term profit - is absolutely innappropriate considering the demand forhomes that can be bought at sensible prices.- Net reduction in total number of trees in the area for no clear reason other than maximising profit.

There's a theme emerging here. We need to build homes and I understand why they need to bebuilt at profit, but they cannot purely be built for profit at the cost of everything else. Our towns,cities and villages are not simply resources to be endlessly plundered by huge corporations.

I approve of opening up the Malago River but I think this should be achieved whilemaintaining as many existing mature greens in Bedminster Green as possible.

I do not approve of the height of the development. There should be a maximum height of 8 storeysfor this development especially around the Green to keep the development at a human scale. 8storeys is the maximum height that residents can maintain a connection to the ground. As can bealready seen from the existing development being constructed on Malago Rd between LittleParadise and Stafford St towers are not appropriate for the area. There is no need for buildings ofthat height in Bedminster and the residents in the upper floors are not going to have anyconnection with the ground.In Bristol a good example of medium/high density at a human scale is the Wapping Wharfdevelopment.

This is the only green space available to residents( with mature trees and a blanket of crocus in spring)There is not sufficient parkingThe area is currently being built on with thousands of flats going upPlease don't destroy our last small area of green land for the sake of mindless profit

What a horrible development. To lie there you overlook a triangular courtyard that willnever see day light because it's hemmed in on all 3 sides.But my main objection is that it's tall (11 stories!) - come on, how is that in any way in keeping withthe local residences? It'll be an eyesore. And the argument that you've given permission for othereyesores in the adjacent places is just compounding the issue.No or hardly any parking. This will just mean overcrowding of local streets where residents will beforced into getting RPZ, and probably these people in these flats will also qualify as locals so therewill be a frenzy of parking rage as people fight to park the cars. Which will be needed, becauselocal transport is so appalling.Only 20% affordable. That is in no way meeting the requirements of the local populationIt's immediately adjacent to a fine green, open area which is appreciated by residents. By placingsuch a huge building next to this place, and by removing all the trees, you ill turn it into either aquagmire as it is getting now as people will just walk across it all the time, or as it's deprived oflight by being surrounded by tall building, it will be a dingy and pathetic piece of ground wherenothing will grow because there is no light.This needs to be reconsidered. 5 floors at the highest. Space between buildings so that light, airand creatures can move. Please stop poisoning our environment with these hideous lumps ofconcrete.

Height/density: we need more housing & higher density but this is too concentrated. In apredominantly 2 & 3 storey area 10 & 11 storeys is too much. Planning should have encouraged aspread of density e.g in a neglected area as East St. The height is not relieved by set-backs. TheGreen is overwhelmed. Sunlight. The grass won't see much.Only 20% affordable units rather than 30% as asked for.Layout of Bdgs 1 & 2. The triangular ends may have poor daylighting at lower levels.Bedminster Green: Opening up the Malago seems like a hobbyhorse not likely to ride far. The flowin the Malago is slight. Is it worth taking away 1/3rd area of grass for this & granite slabs? Why aretrees not shown on Sectional drawings.Conclusion; Please reject. Please listen to the many objections that all these schemes havereceived. We are not Nimbys. We live around here & we care for the area.

I am objecting to this proposed development due to the impact it will have on wildlife,existing tree and greenbelt cover, and most importantly, on the existing residents of Windmill Hill.This area has just seen a huge increase in high rise flats which will push resident numbers in thearea up. This has not been accompanied by increased car parking facilities of a meaningfulnumber, or by protecting the car parking ability of existing residents by putting permit parking inplace. This development would push parking numbers on windmill hill to breaking point, negativelyimpacting the quality of life for residents and making traffic both impenetrable and dangerous onan already very narrow hilly space. This is only one of many infrastructural issues that putting sucha large number of residential properties in place would have on the area.

These plans seem overly intensive and not integrated or considerate of the existingcommunity or ecosystems at all.

I'm really excited by and supportive of the river being brought to the surface but otherwise thescheme is feeling too intense and unsympathetic of the local area.

None of the developers live here, I wish they did and they would be incentivised to create a moreintegrated, social space for residents new and old.

Development and new housing is needed but not at the loss of trees but it feels like ourneighbourhood is being punished. We've already had years and years of traffic disruption - mykids are way too familiar with traffic cones and fag ends from the construction workers.

People moving in may see little goodwill from surrounding neighbourhood who are gaining verylittle from the new buildings being

My original objections to this build still apply. The revised proposal suggests onebuilding moving from 7 to 5 storeys, why can't all the buildings be this height maximum.The impact on the community here is that it will create less of a community, increased congestionboth in terms of traffic flow and parking which is already a nightmare. There are not enoughparking spaces in the revised submission. Developers are deluded if they think people will nothave cars. Why do we need more rental properties when we have the 16 storey block alreadybeing built to accommodate only rental occupiers. Local amenities are already under pressure -doctors, dentists etc, there is no plan to rectify this. Notifying the NHS that they need to dosomething, is NOT a solution.

The buildings are unattractive and will destroy the ambiance and community of this area. Thesheer number of tenants will have a detrimental impact on the green spaces left. More greenspaces should be created. ie. Plot 5 could be a green space to help accommdate the increase ofpeople from the 1200 students and the Dandara 16 storey building.

The wrong solution for the housing crisis: Tall buildings are less efficient, use more carbon, energyand heating and less adaptable. 5 storeys can be easily adapted from residential to office to shop.The proposal damages the views of Bristol from Windmill Hill, and boxes in Windmill Hill. Therehas been little public engagement with the proposal for Plot 5.

Dear Development Management,

I see that updated arboricultural evidence has been published for the parallel application to restore the Malago River (and by implication the application to install heat network infrastructure across Bedminster Green) - attached. This uses a different tree identification method than the evidence published in this application, even though both surveys refer to largely the same trees. We also suspect that each records contradictory observations about each tree.

This makes it very difficult to make a meaningful like-for-like comparison between the two surveys reported. Ideally, all three applications should reference the same reports but, if this is not possible, can a concordance please be produced to enable reliable gross referencing for each application?

We also suggest that a combined statutory biodiversity metric calculation be produced of the onsite baseline habitats. In that way we can all be sure that proper, like-for-like comparisons are being made.

RegardsMark

Mark CD Ashdown

Chair - Bristol Tree ForumTrees of Bristol

The buildings already under construction will result in huge congestion, lack of parking,inadequate services including medical, dental and schools. The additional buildings / homesproposed in this application will make this much worse. The buildings are too high, they are alsougly and look like a cross between rabbit hutches and corporate offices.

There have been so many objections to the building plans, local residents have tried and tried toget their voices heard but Bristol City Council has no intention of listening - what is the point inasking for comments?

The other blocks, however terrible, are on brownfill sites. Here we have an area of grasswith trees and flowers. Plus an innovative eco building.

People need this area for a space to relax and be outside. It has potential and there is now aFriends of Bedminster Green Group to work on in.

The high density of housing being built around it needs this ready made green area. It is apleasant walk through to the park, school and Windmill Hill that needs to be kept.

Local people will have to adapt to the building of hundreds of new flats and I appeal to theplanners to keep at least this essential green space.

With the ongoing and unprecedented level of development happening in the area Iwould plead with the council and planning authority to reconsider the scale of this proposal.

The size of this proposed build will negatively impact on the surrounding area due to overall size,as there is a lack of infrastructure to support the proposed number of properties. A smaller andmore moderate build would be more in keeping with the area. Please consider the quality of life forresidents, rather than the quantity that can be squeezed into a plot (and the profit that can bemade).

Furthermore, Bedminster Green should be protected in its entirety. This green space is a havenfor both wildlife and people, indeed the health and wellbeing benefits are immeasurable. It isessential that you reconsider any plans to damage / remove any trees - each of these mature andwell established plants offer essential habitats to a variety of wildlife in what is otherwise an urbandesert.

The Green will also be a refuge for many people living in the new flats and the health benefits arelikely to be considerable. Indeed, as shown by a recent research study by Turunen et al (2023) inFinland, visits to parks, community gardens and other urban green spaces may lower city dwellers'use of drugs for anxiety, insomnia, depression, high blood pressure, and asthma. With this inmind, please make saving Bedminster Green a priority for all of the local community.

Please take a long view of what is happening in this whole area and think about thepeople and families that will be moving in and reconsider the proposals for this site.We all need green spaces to support our mental health. The Green is such a small area andpeople living in high rise homes without their own outside space will give The Green an evenbigger importance than it has now.Green spaces need sunshine to flourish - the Dan Dara development will completely overshadowit making it a more miserable and less desirable place to linger in .The Bedminster development area is going to be grossly over populated it would be far better notto develop the plot 5 but to keep The Farm Federation Building, turn it into a meeting place forlocals and make the whole parking area into a green recreation area.Put people first not money making developers.

Public open space should not be used in this way. Residential space can be found byconverting redundant and empty office and commercial properties.

I strongly object to this revised application. 1. The unnecessary felling of trees - giventhe increased development already planned in the area there should be consideration for retaininggreen spaces. 2. The height of the proposed building is still unnecessarily high - 4-6 storeysshould be more than adequate and won't make the road fell oppressively high storey, and a windtunnel, as well as obstructing the views of Bristol from Windmill Hill, as well as boxing in WindmillHill. There has been no consultation with residents of Windmill Hill on how this area should bedeveloped. 3. This kind of development does not generate a sense of community and well being.The regeneration of Bedminster should focus strongly on retaining this sense of community. 4.Inadequate amenities being provided - 8 parking spaces is a joke given that this will negativelyimpact the surrounding area which is already crammed with cars, as well as the impact on trafficflow. 5. The Green will be in shadow for all but two hours of the day if Dandara are allowed to getaway with building another monstrous highrise where the wooden building is now situated. Betterconsideration should be given to quality of life of existing residents.

No mature trees must be removed at all, since these are vital to local health as well asquality and identity of the environment. No more tall buildings either. 4-6 stories is enough!!

Disagree with whole plan especially losing so many trees on Bedminster green It'scriminal damage!

My objection primarily focuses on the significant reduction in affordable housing fromthe initially proposed figures.

The original plan promised a substantial proportion of affordable housing, essential for the localcommunity's diverse socio-economic needs. The revision to reduce these numbers not onlyundermines community trust but also sets a concerning precedent for future developments.

The initial proposal was likely favored due to its commitment to affordable housing. Altering thisaspect post-approval is misleading and detrimental to those who supported the project based onits original merits.

While not directly about the aesthetic, the change in housing composition impacts the social fabricand character of the area, which was initially to be bolstered by a diverse mix of residents.

In light of these points, I urge the planning officer and committee to reconsider the approval of thisrevised plan and hold the developers to their original commitment to the community.

The density of building is too much for the local area to accommodate. Theinfrastructure can't support it, and it is taking away the unique skyline of this area. The existingconstruction has created wind tunnels and building on both sides of the road will create a darkvacuum. None of the proposed architecture is contextually relevant to the idiosyncrasies of Bristol.It is unimaginative and too high.

Its appalling that in the times of climate crisis we have companies like this who not onlydestroy important local habitant but also does it even before application was even considered.Sounds like a crime against local community to me. Bristol tree forum counted that 54 trees willhave to be replanted and who knows how many years waited to compensate the damage. Shameon you!

I am writing in support of the Tree Forum's comments. That this many trees are beingfelled in this day and age is beyond comprehension especially noting the Council's recent publiccomments on supporting street trees.

In addition the height and mass are out of proportion to the neighbourhood as seems to beincreasingly the norm with planning applications in south Bristol.

Yet again the application is being made (amd presumably will be considered) without reference tothe rest of the area and without any form of co-ordination so that a planned streetscape andbuilding design can be achieved.

This is geared to provide the maximum units for maximum developer profit as is to be expected. Itshould be the Council's role to ensure instead that we are left with just as many units in a moreacceptable, planned streetscape with mid and lowrise buildings consistent with the area.

Dear David,

I must also add that I find it quite unbelievable that the developer should have takenpreemptive action to remove these trees while their application is pending. Was thisstep agreed with you?

I appreciate that, in law, there is nothing to prevent them doing this because the site hasno statutory or policy protections. However, by their actions, the developer haseffectively removed one of a number of possible development options which mightotherwise have been available to planners or considered by the committee deciding thismatter that they might otherwise have had.

Needless to say, this puts me in mind to the similar preemptive action taken by thedevelopers of the old Bart Spices site on Mead Street last year. You will recall the furorethis generated at the time.

In light of this, we ask that you now place an emergency TPO on all those trees stillgrowing on the whole development site which have not yet been removed so that thissort of behaviour cannot be repeated.

Regards

Chair - Bristol Tree Forum

The density of this development would create an overcrowded site and no new serviceshave been provided for so many people (NHS services are already at capacity). Furthermore theloss of this green site would result in the loss of trees and the wellbeing benefits of this greenspace for local people. The density of the development would lead to new residents also missingout on the health and welll being benefits of living in this nature area. Lastly this is an importantspace for nature and the building over of most of the green space is not in keeping with thecouncils declaration of an ecological emergency and promises to protect green spaces asimportant for public health.

The resulting development will be negative factors on:Loss of light or overshadowingVisual amenityTraffic generationLoss of treesLayout and density of buildingDesign, appearance and materialsLandscapingNature conservation

It's the only little bit of green space left in the area. Keep it and turn in in to a wildlife haven and aplace to help local residents with fresh air, mental and physical health.

I object to this development on the grounds of loss of amenity, loss of trees, lack ofparking provision and increased traffic generation

Amenity: Bedminster green is a small oasis of green, with crocus cover in the spring and severallarge and imposing trees. It has immense value as a means of respite from the busy roads andshops that surround it. It is a link to Bedminster's history, providing a sense of place and identitywhich will be lost if this development goes ahead.As the City Council says itself in its Ecological Emergency Action Plan: "The Bristol GreenInfrastructure Strategy together with other strategies and plans, new and revised policies includingthe Liveable Neighbourhoods policy, will enable planning and management of green infrastructurethat is crucial to sustainable healthy living"

Loss of trees: The planning application mentions "we will retain 'some' trees". There are severalhuge and beautiful elms, sycamores and other trees providing habitat for wildlife, and shade andbeauty for passers-by. Again, the City Council itself says:"Trees and Woodland deliver significant benefit to nature, people and place. They are a keyelement of the ecological network and green infrastructure."

Lack of parking provision: The site is not large enough for housing as well as associated parking,so local streets, already overcrowded with quite a bit of illegal pavement parking. This will onlyincrease.

Increased traffic generation. Bedminster streets are some of the busiest in Bristol - levels ofpollution are high and building on a green space to provide housing without consideration of theincrease in traffic that will be generated and the associated air pollution is completely contrary toall the Council's ambitious plans for combatting climate change.

This development will significantly reduce the number of tress and amount of greenspace at the site. Considering the other developments going on in the area it is essential that thegreen space and all existing tress are retained. The mayor has acknowledged that there is aclimate emergency and has pledged that Bristol will commit to action. If this development isapproved in its current form, it will do significant environmental harm. It should not be approved.

This application would lead to an unacceptable loss of green space, including longestablished trees - this is a rare green lung in the area & the small provision for new greeningwould both be a large net loss, but also would unreasonably remove the established ecosystem &verteran trees. Saying that, the opening up of the Malago is a positive idea - but is something thatcould be achieved without the vast building project.

The density of the scheme, especially given the existing usage, is wholly unsuitable.

The removal of The Green House, an inspiring & unique building, would be a great loss. We wouldhave a low-carbon (& already established) green building replaced by dense & carbon-intensivenew builds - unsuitable!

I would also pose that the materials used in such a construction project should be termed ashazardouse - while relatively benign in isolation, the whole process of use, the highly carbon &energy intensive nature of the production, highlights how destructive such a project is in local,national & international terms.

While some redevelopment & changes might be valid, the whole scheme is over the top. Whenany parts are accepted, and people are generally not against *some* redevelopment, then it is keythat the ecological aspects of building regulations are not just met but greatly exceeded - it can notbe acceptable to wave through buildings that are not zero-carbon in use (let alone construction &all the embedded carbon in the materials). The Council can & must set strict conditions so that a

project like this truly has minimal impact.

Application Reference: 21/05219/F

Address: Plot 5 Bedminster Green Hereford Street Clarke Street, Whitehouse Lane Bristol BS34NA

Proposal: Demolition and redevelopment to provide 3 new buildings (7-10 storeys) comprising 339residential apartments (Use Class C3) (including affordable housing), ancillary residential areas,commercial space (Use Class E), landscaping, public realm and parking.

Case Officer: David Grattan

As well as adding my name to other objections raised, whilst my comment isn't strictly a planningobjection and therefore cannot strictly speaking be useful, I want to raise a concern that thedeveloper insisting that the size of the development is the only financially viable way to achievethe 30% affordable housing is nonsens, and is merely a means by which they are attempting toask for a compromise on the min 30% policy figure. Just saying...sucks!!

The height of this block will block sunlight from the green for large parts of the year.

Having all these blocks looming over the green will make it less friendly for users of the green as itwill effectively become a courtyard for the blocks.

Lower rise blocks required all round to allow sunlight into the green

I am objecting to this further development due to its massive size alongside all the otherproposed developments. How is the local infrastructure going to cope?

Has Bristol City Councils Urban Design Team provided their view on this proposal, as this will bevery interesting to see?

Also are there any physical models that show the cumulative impact on the local area of all theseseparate developments? Again this would be very helpful to see.

This application has received 96 objections, no support & 1 neutral.The Community consultation that they undertook (online during Covid) said 60% welcomedregeneration & 71% supported mix of affordable & for sale new housing units...so how has thisapplication managed to receive virtually universal condemnation.? This is not Nimby-ism!I hope when the Committee looks at it they will reflect the public view. Otherwise where is localdemocracy?My views: the basic problem is excessive density. That arises from the flawed BDF, an exercisecarried out by alliance of Developers, that considered the Plot sites 1-5 with little consideration ofthe larger context & problems of East St. (BCC accepted this flawed plan. Why? Note it does nothave Local Plan status.) The result is the excessive density of accommodation on these plotswhile around the larger East St. area there is a low-rise, low density, run down mixture of shops &flats. Many of these are empty or in poor state. The BDF was assuming a trickle down effect,which is highly questionable.Dandara has claimed that the requirement to put in 30% affordable housing has led to the densityproblems...otherwise the scheme would not be viable. This is a variation on the proposals on othersites that claim the unviability of the affordable requirement. In this case BCC owns the site.This high density has produced unfortunate design results: overshadowing, overbearing blocks,that are reflected in many ways. They claim a net gain to biodiversity. Really? By opening up theMalago stream & removing some Green area, disturbing tree root communities, etc. We may berelying a bit much on the little trickle of this stream: hardly a river?The Green being surrounded on E., S., & W. sides is going to make it a miserable space, & lessused than it is even now. To put up 7 to 10 storey blocks around these sides is not desirable.

In one of the houses on Stafford St., the daylight analysis shows an 80% loss due to the block infront of it. In the sectional plans & sun/daylighting analyses we have little indication how Block 3with its 7 storeys would overshadow the Green. Many of the "model" views seem to try say "lookwe're a bit lower than all that across in Plots 2 & 4!" The whole complex looks horrendous!The Townscape & Visual Impact views- even though the viewpoints have been carefully chosen-show a great heights of brickwork, an over-uniformity of treatments. Block 1 particularly, againwiping out numerous trees, surrounds a courtyard that will get little light. The design raises it toimprove this: as if that would make the height of the surrounding blocks lower when viewed fromoutside!.We need affordable housing & housing in general, but it should be spread more around thegeneral East St area, upgrading existing buildings, providing model schemes how to add perhapsa couple of storeys...while the Plots around the Green should, before it is too late, be lowered &redesigned. The block almost on the railway should be scrapped (block 3).BCC owns this site. The Planning Committee should be stringent in demanding a differentproposal to this. They should listen to the 96 (so far) Objections & demand a completely newproposal. Even the Developers should reject it, on the grounds of their won criteria/ thesenumbers. Please don't ruin Bedminster!

Bedminster Green is a beautiful little park with mature trees and plants which cannot bereplaced. Each Spring there is a spectacular display of crocuses and it breaks my heart that suchthings are helpless against the ruthless greed of developers

The proposed development of plot 5 is a gross over development of these sites whichwill be a lasting harm to this part of Bristol and to those who live and work nearby.The current public open space and rights of way across this space are shown within the red lineboundary with no assurance that these public spaces and rights of way will retain that status if thisdevelopment should go ahead.The proposal ignores the context and urban grain of this part of Bedminster.The Daylight and Sunlight report makes much of a diagram showing the majority of the retainedgreen open space gathers a minimum of two hours of direct sun at some point during the day on21 March. It does not report that even on the longest day of the year, at any time throughout mostof the day shadowing will enclose over half of the site. The ambition to create a wild flowermeadow with an even more diverse plant selection look thwarted.The Arboricultural Assessment by fpcm on their drawing 8501-T-08D shows Category A trees(trees of high quality) to be due for removal. These trees, G6.9(A) - G6.15(A) fall outside of the redline area and should not be referred to as being due for removal. Any plan for their removal shouldbe made public and include a justification.No meaningful employment use has been shown as a replacement for that which will be lost if thisdevelopment proceeds.

I am writing to raise my concerns regarding the proposed development Application No21/05219/F, in my capacity as a resident of Windmill Hill, and as a Green Councillor forBedminster as the impact of this development will effect what other planning applications comeforward across the city.

My concerns are detailed below:

Out of the five Bedminster Green developments, Plot 5 is going to have the most negative andunpleasant impact over all the four developments.By removing the Green House, and the surrounding green context Dandara are removing the lastattractive aspect of this area replacing the trees and greenery with towers that will block sunlight inthe winter, create shadows and dominate the surrounding victorian terraces.As a senior officer describes the design, we are creating the slums of the future.The petition organized by Councillor Lisa Stone, calls this space the Green Lung which is exactlywhat it is, but it also doesn't explain that its very attractive and a surpring amount of birds, batsand insects and yet it will be completely demolished apart from the bit of urban design around theMalago River.

DesignThe height will remove light from Bedminster Green from September to March; this lack of light willaffect the homes in similar way. The scheme divides into three blocks with consistent massing andmaterial treatment.

We are concerned the affordable housing block is within three meters of the railway line, and willsuffer from noise and pollution.Block 1 at its highest point reach 10 storeys, which will mask the topography of Windmill from therest of the city, and at the highest point exceeds the framework.The entrance to Windmill Hill will be obscured, and looking from the hill onto a wall of high-risedevelopment losing the iconic views across the city.

DensityThe density of the accommodation is over Bristol City Councils approved limit of 200 units Ha. Weestimate around 350 dwellings per hectare. A total of 339 apartments.

In a Bristol context, optimum densities in new development schemes have been demonstrated as:- 200 units/ha in a city centre setting (i.e. Wapping Wharf)- 120 units in an urban setting (i.e. Paintworks or Junction 3); or- 100 units/ha in an outer urban setting (i.e. Gainsborough Square, Lockleaze)'This goes against the Urban Living SPD.

Affordable housing We welcome the inclusion of 101 units of affordable housing, (social orintermediate rent) however this is only 7% of the overall development and as such is way belowthe Councils own guidance of 30 -20% for major developments.

Loss of bio diversity and site habitat.The majority of the trees on what used to be called Malago Green will be cut down, and replacedwith trees that can handle less light.

SummaryI am saddened and shocked that again, Bristol Council has not had the courage, to encourage ourvolume house builders to develop a master plan for this area, which focuses on the very bestideas of 21c urban design.As a Green Councillor for Bedminster, involved in developing the next Local Plan I understandhow these things work, and we need to be inspired by cities like Nottingham who are doing better.

This is considered to be over-development of the site. Taken together with the approvedand forthcoming surrounding plots this results in an excessive quantum of development. Thisscale of development will generate overshadowing for a significant amount of time. Furthermore itdoes not sit comfortably with the existing scale of development of both the existing immediateindustrial context and domestic scale of development within Windmill Hill and will block longdistance views towards the north west for users of Victoria Park. Consequently, it is consideredthat the proposal provides insufficient public benefits to outweigh the harm caused by the impactof such a poor scheme on relevant heritage assets. It does not accord with relevant up to dateLocal Plan heritage policies nor the requirements of the NPPF and cannot be supported.

We object to this application for the following reasons:

1. The proposals in the context of the framework will lead to overdevelopment, lacking appropriatestrategies for mix of unit sizes, tenure types, masterplanning, public realm and response tocontext.The massing and height indicated, together with the adjacent sites for future developments show aworrying and totally inappropriate scale for the area which would create a wall of buildingsovershadowing the public domain at street level and destroying the local and city wide views andvistas.The combination of these buildings plus the other surrounding applications could result in the mostdisastrous and destructive piece of urban planning seen in Bristol.

Refer toBristol Development Framework Core Strategy - Policy BCS18 & Policy BCS21BCS18 item 4.18.1 Housing Type & 4.18.5 - 4.18.8.Also Section 3 Spatial Vision and Objectives, 3.4 Objectives, items 2 & 4

2. Consultation has been poorly advertised, been sparse and comments from the community notconsidered. Key concerns, such as family housing, building height and massing, have not beenresponded to.

Refer to

Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy - Objectives 3.4 item 11. Community involvementand engagement, and page 125 Policy Delivery

3. The site is not an appropriate location for a building of the proposed height. The scale ofbuildings proposed is overbearing, insensitive and out of character with the local context. Amajority of the existing buildings in the neighbourhood are 1-3 storeys in height including thosewithin the Bedminster Conservation Area. The increase in scale of this new proposal displays acomplete disregard for context, neighbourhood, community, environment and views across thecity.

Refer toUrban Living SPD Q1.4, Q3.1Bristol Local Plan DM26: General Principles vi and DM27 Height, Scale and Massing

4. The proposed buildings are too high, overshadowing other existing buildings and public spacesfor significant periods of time. The sun- and daylight of neighbouring buildings will be significantlyreduced. The bulk and massing of the proposed buildings may overshadow and cut out daylightand sunlight to the existing and proposed residential properties. The distance between blocksseems ill considered, creating issues of privacy within the development and to neighbouringbuildings, to the detriment of existing and new residents.Day and sunlight to Bedminster Green and the Malago will be significantly reduced, leaving it asan uninviting and overshadowed space.

Refer toUrban Living SPD Q1.5, Q3.1, Q3.9Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy - item 4.2.13

5. We disagree with the visual impact assessment.Taking away views to and from Windmill Hill, and all of Bristol, views that currently provide respiteto residents, views that create the Genius Loci of Bristol, views that attract visitors and that are soimportant to the mental wellbeing of the population.Although many views are of concern, we note a number below that illustrate the inappropriatenessof scale and disregard for context.View 3,4 from Bedminster Station platform and Victoria Park playground show an ungainly solidwall, hemming in the park and Windmill Hill. The play park, intended as respite and joy for childrenand young people, will feel oppressing.View 5 and 6 show how out of place and inappropriate the height and massing of the proposeddevelopment is, masking the views to the surrounding creating a solid obstruction and obscuringany views to and from Windmill Hill. It would take away any visual connection between Bedminsterand Hotwells, Clifton, Ashton Court and the city centre.View 8: The views from St Johns churchyard illustrates how out of place and inappropriate theheight and massing of the proposed development is, masking the distant views to the surrounding

neighbourhood of Windmill Hill whilst overshadowing the context of East Street and theConservation Area. This is also a key view identified in the Bedminster Conservation AreaAppraisal.The distant Views 11, 12 show how the proposed development will blight the views and vistasacross the city, with yet another unimaginative ungainly block. It causes substantial harm to viewsfrom and to Brandon Hill to Windmill Hill, from and to Ashton Court. With its excessive height andmassing the proposal masks the historic assets, characterful colourful housing, topography andlandscape.In addition, important views to and from Victoria Park, Windmill Hill, recognised elevated vantagepoints, popular public spaces are missing in the TVIA and should be provided.The use of the outline of adjacent application on the visuals as a background is misleading, as theproposals submitted for the adjacent sites are totally inappropriate for the context and should notbe used as justification for another overbearing development.The TVIA admits "adverse" effects on townscape character area Windmill hill and Victoria park(page 21 of Townscape and Visual Impact Appraisal).The Design and Access Statement admits that the proposed development would "obscure long-distance views across the city centre including ... landmark features", and that this is "consideredan adverse change" (page 101).

Refer toUrban Living SPD Q1.3, 3.1. and 3.2SPD01 Tall Buildings - Appendix E Visual Impact Assessment - guidance on methodology &Appendix C View Protection Framework & also Appendix G (Policy B7A)

6. The application site sits in close proximity to the Bedminster Conservation Area.The proposed development would substantially harm the character of this area including keyviews, landmarks and identified heritage assets of this Conservation Area.

Refer toBedminster Conservation Area Character Appraisal Local character and distinctiveness 2.2Positive Context and 2.3 Negative ContextUrban Living SPD Q3.1The following views as identified in the Bedminster Conservation Area Appraisal are particularlyaffected:1.3 York Road: Key View and Landmarks: Views southwest from Whitehouse Street across toWindmill Hill and beyond as far as the Dundry Hills2.3 Bedminster Parade: Views channelled north/south along Bedminster Parade.3.3 East Street: View south to Windmill Hill terraces/Victoria Park from junction of EastStreet/Dalby Avenue;The Robinson Building to the southwest and the former Wills Factory to northeast5.3 Dean Lane: Vista across south Bristol punctuated by Bristol South Bath's chimney andRobinson Building, reaching to Windmill Hill and beyond to Bedminster Down

From Dean Lane/Catherine Mead St north towards the tower of St Paul's Church; and easttowards Wills Factory and Victoria Park beyondViews east from Lydstep Terrace towards Former Wills Factory and the ridge of Victoria ParkbeyondView to the Salvation Army building from the Booth Road/Cannon Street junction6.3 Coronation Road: Views to the south and south/east from the north end of St John's Road9.2 Landscape and Routes, and9.3 View east along New John Street and St John's footpath10.3 British Road: Views east from British Road across the city:Views to the south west from Diamond Street towards Windmill Hill/Victoria Park and BedminsterDownThe proposed development entirely contradicts the Bedminster Conservation Area Appraisal, page50: "9. St John's Churchyard Views north spoiled by 1960s tower block, Northfield House,Catherine Mead Street. Encourage the appropriate redevelopment that better responds to localcharacter and resist the development of over-scaled buildings that affect the context of heritageassets or significant landmarks through the planning process"

Refer toBedminster Conservation Area Character Appraisal

7. The Wind Assessment information for the proposed building massing within the applicationdocuments confirms that buildings of this scale may create undesired wind turbulences,'downwash' and wind funnelling at ground level, for residents, neighbours and pedestrians.

Refer toUrban Living SPD Q1.5, Q3.9Policy DM 27: Layout & Form: Blocks and Plots item v.Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy - item 4.21.13

8. The text in the Design and Access Statement refers purely to "non-resi use" along the majorityof Ground Floor spaces. This could be anything, including a garage or storage. These types ofspaces do little to engage with or enliven the streetscape. Opportunities for ground level activatesthat could interact with the public realm or creation of spaces for people to use, meet andsocialise, are missed.The street level, particularly Building 1 is is poorly thought out. A row of apartments for families(3B5P) are northeast facing, without any adequate outdoor space, facing a busy, polluted MalagoRoad.The proposed landscaped courtyard in Building 1 and 3 is very small and will be overshadowed formost of the year and most of the day. It feels uninviting, creating an oppressive environmentwhere public use will be poor, and planting is unlikely to thrive.The provision for car parking appears unrealistic with the number of residential units planned. This

will put increasing pressure on already overcrowded parking in the neighbouring streets.The elevations refer to "Bristol byzantine style". Whilst this style would feel foreign in the context ofBedminster in the first place, the elevations are detailed in a bland an unimaginative way

Refer toBristol Development Framework Core Strategy - items 4.21.8 - 4.21.13Bristol Local Plan - site allocations and Development Management PoliciesPolicy DM27: Layout & Form, Blocks and Plots item iiiPolicy DM28: Public RealmPolicy DM28: Shared Spaces - item ii & ivPolicy DM29: Design of New Buildings items 2.29.3 & 2.29.5

9. The proposed development does not appear to contribute to the community infrastructure,whilst the high density and large number of proposed flats would add pressure onto local facilitieswhere the capacity of local schools, GP surgeries, etc. is already under strain. The focus is onprivate resident's uses at ground floor rather than much needed community facilities.

Refer toBristol Development Framework Core Strategy - Community Facilities item 4.12.1 - 4.12.4

10. Poor consideration for the mix of housing tenures, types, sizes and a lack of provision forfamily homes. Provision of almost solely 1 & 2 bed flats in the scheme is not contributing to amixed and balanced community, especially in the light of the high number of 1 & 2 bed flatsalready proposed in the Bedminster Green area.

Refer toBristol Development Framework Core Strategy - Policy BCS18 & Policy BCS21BCS18 item 4.18.1 Housing Type & 4.18.5 - 4.18.8.Also Section 3 Spatial Vision and Objectives, 3.4 Objectives, items 2 & 4

11. A density figure has not been provided but is estimated at 339 dwellings on 0.96ha, workingout at about 350 dwellings per hectare. This is excessive and exceeds the Bristol DevelopmentFramework Core Strategy, Delivery Strategy and the Urban Living SPD

Refer toBristol Development Framework Core Strategy - Policy BCS20 Residential DensitiesUrban Living SPD 0.5

12. Not all apartments appear to have adequate external amenity, and there is little or inadequatespace for external realm or green space.

Refer to

Bristol Local Plan - site allocations and Development Management PoliciesPolicy DM27: Layout & Form, Blocks and Plots item iiiPolicy DM28: Public RealmPolicy DM28: Shared Spaces

13. The proposal may have detrimental impact on the biodiversity and wildlife, in particular aroundBedminster Green.Refer toBCS23 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy (June 2011)Bristol Local Plan - site allocations and Development Management Policies ( July 2014)Policy DM33: Pollution Control, Air Quality and Water Quality

I object to this development due to;- over development of the site, not enough amenity space allowed within the site for bike storage,recreation, refuse storage, electric car charging- poor quality design- the development shows little variation in roof-line which is out of characterwith the surrounding area- poor quality design- the highly repetitious facade design does not reflect the existing high level ofvariation in facade texture and design in the surrounding area- poor quality design - monochromatic colour scheme out of character with the existing variety offacade colour seen in the surrounding area- poor quality design - materials proposed do not reflect the existing variety of surface materialscharacteristic of the surrounding area- obstruction of key views - the area surrounding the development (particularly the residential areato the south) is characterised by views and vistas of new landmark and historic buildings in the citycenter, the continuous nature of the proposed development creates a "wall" which blocks theseviews from key locations such as bedminster station, this has a negative impact on the amenityand character of the local area

Please do not pass this awful development! There are so many reasons why it shouldnot go ahead and so few why it should.1. Terrible living space; the triangle nature of the building puts one in mind of a prison block,windows overlooking the centre will be looking into a dark, probably rubbish filled, forgotten space.2. The loss of so many mature trees!!! Bedminster needs more mature trees, not fewer! Thesetrees are an important temperature regulator and carbon sink for the busy road passing by. Theloss of these trees will not be negated by any 'remedial' planting on the tiny bit of grass left behind.Bristol City Council has declared a climate emergency, why are there proposals to reduce treecover?3. Overcrowding; this area is already immensely busy with pressure on schools, doctors, dentists,parking and roads. Adding this number of flats with no parking spaces and no planning foradditional doctors or dentists is madness.4. There are plenty of actual brownfield sites nearby that don't have established trees on whichcould be built on, namely the empty retail sites along East Street.

The building is too tall to comply with local policy and the density of the proposal is toohigh. Block 3 is very close to the railway line and the detrimental effects of noise and air pollutionwill be felt by its residents. The material selection and repetitive nature of the design is oppressiveand not conducive to successful place-making. The visual impact of the blocks as a wall frommany viewpoints is damaging to the local area and the height of the building masks the localtopography. It will block beautiful views in both directions, and compromise the beauty of Bristol forso many people. The developer is going to make a massive profit for a poorly designed profitdriven solution. This proposalfails on so many levels and should be turned down.

The proposed development has buildings of significant effect combined with Catherine'splace will make Malago rd feel like an over shadowed valley

All off the buildings are too high and imposing wand would significantly reduce natural light in thegreen areas that are on the plan and are currently in existence

It would be a foreboding entrance to Windmill hill community

The infra structure in the area would not be able to cope with such a development

This is an extremely disappointing application which I am absolutely opposed. Whatmakes it worse is that the land is council owned, so the council had much more freedom to createsomething that the community wanted, but the have chosen to completely ignore it. We askedNicola Beech on numerous occasions what the plans were for Plot 5, yet this socialist chose toignore the wishes of local people, instead preferring to work with an Isle of Man-based developer.At no time was the community properly consulted, which I'm afraid is typical of this presentcabinet.This area will soon be densely populated, with numerous tower blocks planned. Therefore, itwould have made sense to keep Plot 5 as a green lung, providing much needed space to thesesurrounding tower blocks. Unfortunately, now it will form the last brick in a concrete and glass wallthat will stretch for several hundred metres right across the front of Windmill Hill, thereby cutting offthis attractive area from the City. It will create another Barton Hill, stupidly repeating the mistakesof the sixties. Bedminster Green, at present a much-loved space, will be reduced in size andsurrounded on all sides by tower blocks, so will be perpetually in the shade. The number of treeswill be drastically reduced, and consequently the biodiversity, for example, the green will no longerbe home to foxes, badgers and bats at the moment. The wooden building on the green forms partof the identity of the area, yet it will be removed in an act of what only can be described asvandalism. The blocks are far too high, square, and ugly, and will tower over the two-storeyhouses of Windmill Hill. Windmill Hill will disappear from view from the rest of the city.Another major problem is block 3 is too close to the railway, and this will cause an increasingproblem of noise and pollution for residents as the line gets busier over the coming years. This, ofcourse, is where this developer has chosen to place the affordable housing, lumping it together.

Altogether, if this application is allowed, it will further blight the area. It will be an eyesore fordecades, with people wondering what was the thinking behind building such a monstrosity. Itshould be turned down flat.

It's outrageous that planners seem to be able to build tower blocks with no regard forthe local community or the new residents' wellbeing.

How can it be right (especially in this time of climate crisis) to destroy green wildlife havens andcut down trees?

The height, density and light pollution would have a devastating effect on wildlife, including thevery rare bats that fly through this area.

The development that has already received approval will already have a huge impact on traffic -it's already a problem, particularly during rush hour. An additional 300+ residences with only 27parking spaces is just ridiculous, and the implications in terms of congestion are off the scale.

Bedminster Green is hugely important to the local community, as is the wooden house with grasson top (also in terms of biodiversity) - replacing this with a 10 storey block is going to destroy thewhole area.

The saddest thing is that local residents feel the planning committee ignore residents feelings andhas no interest in preserving communities, only in ticking boxes. We are all exhausted anddemoralised by these frequent and horrendous proposals - this is not the place for high buildingsand the area doesn't have the capacity for this many new homes.

1. The proposed blocks are too high (anything more than 5 stories), and dense, and outof keeping with the low rise Victorian and Georgian architecture of the area. This developmentbelongs in the city centre nearer Bristol Temple Meads.

2. The immediate area surrounding Bedminster Green, has historic architectural distinctiveness,ancient topography, and a large residential community. More needs to be done to preserve this.

The Character Appraisal of Bedminster Green states:''The historic route (from West Street through East Street, onto Bedminster Parade and intoBristol) has pre-Saxon origin. The street layout and plot structure are medieval survivals, rare inboth the Bristol and national context. Many individual buildings and groups of buildings haveimportant local value. Despite its negative features, the merits of East Street significantly outweighthem.''[P.8 Bedminster Conservation Area Character Appraisalhttps://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/239165/BedminsterCAMarch2014update1_0.pdf/b0bfeed5-a280-40ff-93ee-138830f59ec4]as well as:''The 1960s saw the clearing of acres of Victorian townscape to the south and east of East Street.What replaced the bombed out buildings and vacant plots tended to be low-grade industrial sheds,or brutalist buildings and tower-blocks. St John's and St Luke's Church were both demolished.These post-War interventions posed a significant threat to the vibrancy of Bedminster.

Despite this, there remains much to be celebrated and protected in Bedminster. The fine Victorian

townscape and shopfronts, key landmarks and buildings of merit and remnants of the survivinghistoric route structure, underpinned by a community spirit that sets the area out as unique.''[P.20Bedminster Conservation Area Character Appraisalhttps://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/239165/BedminsterCAMarch2014update1_0.pdf/b0bfeed5-a280-40ff-93ee-138830f59ec4]

3. The loss of established trees and greenery around the Federation of City Farms building shouldnot be allowed during the urgent Biodiversity Crisis we are currently in. It will take many years tomake up for that loss and it contains protected species.

4. Red Brick Facade. P.36 of the Design and Access Statement states: ''The panel observed that'currently the facades are illustrated with a pale brick, whereas there are examples of strong, darkred brick within 5 minutes' walk of the scheme.' As the proposals were developed the design teamagreed with the panel and minimised the palette to a multi-tone red brick paired with a light redstone and light red metal. The choice of colours were to refer to the strong red brick found withinthe vicinity of the development. ''

This is wrong: So much red brick on the facade will stand out too much on the skyline, and add tothe building's oppressiveness. Instead lighter natural colours should be promoted to blend in, likeoff white, pale grey/green/ pale yellow a reflection of nature, e.g see Leonardo Hotel, Bristolcream/gold colour facade where 'Bristol-based architects AWW are designing the building, whichhas been "carefully considered" to respect the historic context of the surroundings':https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/business/huge-200-bedroom-hotel-shops-2732907

5. It is true that Bedminster contains former factory buildings such as Factory no.1, legacy of theSlave Trade, however today, Windmill Hill doesn't need several Tobacco Factory like buildings allclumped together, at the base of a charming cluster of terraced houses and the historic Romantopography of East Street.

6. It worries me that these factory buildings are the inspiration and design justification forBedminster Green development as explained in your Design and Access Statement. A BondWarehouse by the harbour for example, although listed, ought to be demolished and it isextremely oppressive to walk around.

7. The trade off for the justification of the Bedminster Green developments seem weak such asstated in the framework: "Town centres, such as East Street, are facing major challenges and it isvital that there is a substantial residential population on its doorstep to boost and support trade,investment and overall vitality.'' https://www.nashpartnership.com/2019/03/07/framework-to-revitalise-bedminster-green-supported-by-bristol-city-council-cabinet/

I argue that there is already adequate footfall on East Street, it is busy every time I have walkeddown there, and the local area of Windmill Hill / Southville is already a thriving community. It is the

poor quality of the shops (Betting Shops, Off Licences etc), and the closure of key services suchas Barclays Bank due to online habits, as well as the large Asda taking away the need for some ofthe shops, that has led to decline.

A shift in shopping habits, due to the way people are addressing the climate emergency, Covid-19realisations during lockdown of the importance of the street focussed on community interaction,and for originality to trump what a supermarket can offer, are already happening. A new ZeroGreen store has opened on East Street, alongside an independent traders emporium, and thelocally sourced produce from the Bristol Loaf have opened in the last few months. This hashappened without masses of new developments, and will continue to be the trend.

8. The close together nature of several large blocks of flats will create a wall cutting off WindmillHill from the rest of the city. The colourful houses along Windmill Hill are iconic of Bristol and canbe seen from the Clifton Suspension Bridge and Brandon Hill, and views should be preserved.

Building (1 is higher than the agreed height in the developers framework and is too highfor the location. It would cause a canyon effect on Malago Road with a seventeen storey buildingopposite. The shading of the Green would be oppressive. The internal shading of the centre of thebuilding would be depressing and damp. This building should not be the enclosed triangle that isproposed but should six storeys maximum and be open on one side.

Building (2 is too bulky and uninspired to be next to a recreational space. Its Hereford St elevationis too high and will create a canyon effect with St Catherine's Place. It should be set back furtherfrom the Green and the storeys above ground level should be set back to prevent it beingoppressive.

Building (3 is too high and too close to the railway. The original raison d'etre for this building wasto facilitate a new entrance to the station and provide workshop and office space. This has beencompletely forgotten and instead is being used and an excuse to cram in more cramped,unhealthy one and two bedroom flats. It would create a wall along the railway that would blockviews from Victoria Park and the streets at the bottom of Windmill Hill.

The approval of this proposal for plot 5 would be a missed opportunity to create a new heart forSouth Bristol and a disaster that would blight the area for generations. This land belongs to thepeople of Bristol and the council has a duty to protect the health and well-being of the citizens,now and in the future, and to look after their assets. The developer is going to make a massiveprofit for a poorly designed profit driven solution. The inclusion of the minimum percentage of

'affordable' housing on a plot owned by the city is outrageous. We need housing in a mixed tenure,mixed use, sustainable development that will facilitate a happy, healthy community. This proposalfails to do that and should be turned down.

I object most strongly to this development on the following grounds.

The building is too tall to comply with local policy

The height of the building masks the local topography

The density of the proposal is too high for an inner city area

The proposed methods of reducing energy use are unlikely to work

The scheme does not comply with policy regarding on site renewables

Block 3 is very close to the railway line and the detrimental effects of noise and air pollution will befelt by its residents

The material selection and repetitive nature of the design is oppressive and not conducive tosuccessful place-making

The loss of local biodiversity is unacceptable.

There are endangered species in the area that must be protected.

The visual impact of the blocks as a wall from many viewpoints is damaging to the local area.

In summary, so many elements of these plans are isolating, not sustainable for our community orour local ecosystem and hugely detrimental to this area of Bristol. Development yes, butsustainable and community focused surely?! We have a choice here how that happens. YOU havethat choice to either contribute to the health of this planet and those who live here, throughsustainable and conscious development of large scale projects like this, or to play your part indestroying it and all of us who live here. It's as simple as that. YOUR choice, so what do YOUchoose?

My objections relate to the density and scale of the developments, in the context of theother developments in this area, which together will overwhelm the existing housing. There isinadequate consideration of green spaces and the infrastructure does not support such a largepopulation increase. More balance and a cohesive approach to all these developments aroundBedminster Green is needed - clearly the area does need development but packing in as manyhigh rise blocks (10 storeys) as possible to generate profits for developers is short-sighted and willbe a mistake in my view that we will look back kn and regret.

Too tall, destroying green space

This whole plan is a monstrous carbuncle that will scar this area of Bedminster forgenerations to come. It will create a vast concrete wind-tunnel, affect wildlife and endangeredspecies such as bats on the green, have people living in crammed spaces right next to the railwayline and basically affect sightlines for present residents of the area.

There are no redeeming features whatsoever here, the designs are too tall and featureless, thereis complete lack of green space...it really is a throwback to East Europe of the 1960s and 70s.Appalling lack of vision when there is so much scope for exactly that here...

I wholeheartedly reject it.

Victoria Park on Windmill Hill was built to give working people some green space toprovide respite from their urban lives. Many people enjoy walking there to see the views over thecity and sitting on the slopes to watch the sunset over Ashton Court and Clifton.

Others enjoy walking across Bedminster Green with the tall trees and green space, and thedisplay of crocuses in the Spring is a much-loved local event.

This development will deny future generations of these simple pleasures.

It will block beautiful views in both directions, and compromise the beauty of Bristol for so manypeople.

I feel so ashamed that this is what we will leave the next generation, and so sad for the people,particularly children, who would have to live in such tall, cramped and unattractive buildings, soclose to the railway line and main road into Bristol.

Surely we can do better than this for the people of Bristol?

Building 1 is taller than the developers framework states. It would significantly reduce the lightfalling on the green.

Building 2 is too bulky and uninspired to be next to a recreational space. Its Hereford St elevationis too high and will create a canyon effect with St Catherine's Place. It should be set back furtherfrom the Green and the storeys above ground level should be set back to prevent it beingoppressive.

Building 3 is too high and too close to the railway. The original main reason for this building was tofacilitate a new entrance to the station and provide workshop and office space. This has beencompletely forgotten and instead is being used as an excuse to cram in more cramped, unhealthyone and two bedroom flats. It would create a wall along the railway that would block views fromVictoria Park and the streets at the bottom of Windmill Hill.

The approval of this proposal for plot 5 would be a missed opportunity to create a new heart forSouth Bristol and a disaster that would blight the area for generations. This land belongs to thepeople of Bristol and the council has a duty to protect the health and well-being of the citizens,now and in the future, and to look after their assets. The developer is going to make a massiveprofit for a poorly designed profit driven solution. The inclusion of the minimum percentage of'affordable' housing on a plot owned by the city is outrageous. We need housing in a mixed tenure,

mixed use, sustainable development that will facilitate a happy, healthy community. This proposalfails to do that and should be turned down.

The buildings are not only too high they are ugly and in combination with the otherdevelopments would create a visually unpleasant walled skyline of continuous brick blocking anyviews into Windmill Hill or out from Windmill Hill across to the city - the topography ruined.

The density of dwellings at 350 per hectare on such a small are of land is far too high. This willimpact on local services - Doctor's and dentists case loads are already over stretched andobtaining appointments would be even more difficult.

Parking in Windmill Hill is already an issue with residents and incomers cars parking for the dayand commuting from Bedminster Train Station - Windmill Hill will become an unregulated and overcrowded parking lot - stress levels of residents will only increase.

Bedminster Green provides a welcome space in an industrial and commercial area giving abreathing space and combating a traffic polluted area.Surrounding 'The Green' on all sides with towering edifices will create a dark and shaded arearestricting sunlight/day light and air flow and will affect all things growing there.

The Bedminster Green Framework recommended a density per hectare of 220- 320 which can beachieved by leaving plot 5 as an open space - it is after all public land and should be enjoyed bythe public. The space should be extended to become a 'Pocket Park' boosting the look and feel ofthe area creating an enhanced welcoming space with seating and more planting.

The council needs to think about everyone living in this area and the depressive effect of anovercrowd development on mental health and wellbeing of all residents.

It feels as if the council are treating us as a disposable neighbourhood to tick boxes for the wholeof Bristol's housing needs. Stop the rot before it starts and make Bedminster Green a mini NatureReserve - bats included.

These are the latest plans to come forward to vastly over-develop the BedminsterGreen area, changing its character in perpetuity with overcrowded building plots with lowestcommon denominator design and insufficient space between them. They are quite out of characterwith the existing housing locality and we wonder why it should fall to this part of Bedminster toprovide such a large contribution to Bristol's undoubted future housing needs. The preoccupationwith high-rise building brings to mind the discredited enthusiasms of the 1960s, which have notturned out well. It has been frequently demonstrated that lower building profiles on a more humanscale are quite capable of meeting housing needs without the many drawbacks of building higher.

The undistinguished design and rectangular outline of the blocks proposed would present an uglyand unrelieved wall of disruption to the valued views between Windmill Hill and the rest of the city.

Bedminster Green is a valuable green space to be enjoyed by local people and provides animportant local refuge for biodiversity. The proposals would remove some of the tree cover andreplace it with looming buildings on several sides, taking out much of the sunlight and airflowwhich are currently valuable for the mental health of local people and the perpetuation ofbiodiversity, including the protected species which are present.

The fact that only 27 car parking spaces would be provided for several hundred residences, whileprobably being in line with current planning thinking, would be disastrous for the local area as nodoubt many more incoming new residents will have cars and the predominant local places to parkthem will be on the already crowded nearby streets of family houses.

It seems inevitable that Building 1, proposed for the Hereford Street car park area, would involvethe loss of many more trees as well as the current grass-roofed wooden building. Illustrationsshow Building 1 as a triangle enclosed on its three sides. Surely this suggests that the areas in thecentre are likely to be gloomy and damp. It would be far better for the building to be open on oneside. It also reaches 10 stories which exceeds the requirements of the development framework.With a 17 storey building opposite on Malago Road there will be a canyon effect concentratingtraffic pollution.

Building 2 is of uninspired design, is likely to dominate the remains of the Green, and also tocreate a canyon effect with St Catherine's Place across the road.

Building 3 is given an unenviable position very close to to the railway. If the practicalities ofbuilding on this site can be achieved it is still likely to be a noisy home for the people living in it andwill disrupt views in and out of Victoria Park and Windmill Hill.

Overall the proposals for Plot 5 are very disappointing and it is to be hoped that even at this latestage there could be a rethink to provide a more human scale of development.

The development will do nothing to enhance the community.It is too high , too dense. A slum in the making.

The development will do nothing to enhance the community.It is too high , too dense. A slum in the making.

There is very little to approve of in terms of this proposal, apart from a small amount ofaffordable housing, though the height and proposed location (right next to the railway line whichwould have a devastating effect on the very rare bats that fly through.

The proposed tower blocks are ugly, far too dense, too high and will make a huge wall ofdevelopment in a very precious green space. The development that has already received approvalwill already have a huge impact on traffic - it's already a problem, particularly during rush hour. Anadditional 300+ residences with only 27 parking spaces is just ridiculous, and the implications interms of congestion are off the scale.

Bedminster Green is hugely important to the local community, as is the wooden house with grasson top (also in terms of biodiversity) - replacing this with a 10 storey block is going to destroy thewhole area.

The saddest thing is that local residents feel the planning committee ignore residents feelings andhas no interest in preserving communities, only in ticking boxes. We are all exhausted anddemoralised by these frequent and horrendous proposals - this is not the place for high buildingsand the area doesn't have the capacity for this many new homes.

This application looks very dense and I can't see any ways in which it will benefit thelocal area or natural environment/biodiversity. I also can't see how this would be a goodenvironment to live in, with high dose dense blocks and seemingly no amenity space.

There is no mention of any doctor surgeries, dentists or any other infrastructure weneed for so many people coming to live in an already under resourced area. The width and heightof the proposed work is monstrous for a built up area.

Very basic Architectural Design that is unsympathetic to the surroundings. Mixing loadsof students in with a small amount of social housing is barbaric and disrespectful to disadvantagedfamilies. There is still a corridor feel either side of the road which as a woman is concerning. It alsofeels like a huge slap in the face that the beautiful view as you walk down Windmill Hill will beobscured by some brown, drab cardboard box blocks. This wouldn't happen in Clifton.

I believe the development would be detrimental to the biodiversity of Bedminster Green,by cutting down well established trees, and overshadowing the land adjacent that is currently alittle wildlife haven in an otherwise built up area. Furthermore, I believe we should be conservingour green spaces, trees and plants as we are suffering a climate emergency. Malago Road is abusy road, the trees in the surrounding area need to be preserved to help clean the air of pollution.

The development does not have enough parking spaces to support the amount of residences it isproposing to create. The parking situation in Windmill Hill already causes a lot of stress andfrustration for the residents as well as pedestrians. The area being over populated by cars meanspeople are more likely to park on pavements, creating problems for wheelchair and mobilityscooter users. The proposed development would only add to this problem.

This proposed development is much too high. It will overshadow the Green to anunacceptable level, blocking light fromit, which will a) retard healthy growth of the existing trees and spring flowers, and b) turn the areainto an unpleasant wind-tunnel, which will reduce its potential use as an amenity. Green spacesare a vital part of a healthy urban environment, enabling people to have brief periods of peace.This isn't airy fairy nonsense, but a real need for residents in increasingly densely inhabited urbanenvironments. These places must be healthy and nurturing for the people who live in and aroundthem, and who pass through, not a resource to be as fully exploited as possible by developers,who will never need to live here. Please consider the welfare of all present and future residents inconsidering this application, which in its present form is much too high. Thank you.

I have moved to the Uk only recently to be with my husband. A proud Bristolian. As anoutsider what we Australians love about the UK is it history and green space.I totally understand that there is a housing shortage but there are also outstanding eco-sustainable projects being developed that work with the environment it is to encompass.Bristol, you are in an outstanding position to set an extraordinary benchmark for the rest of the ukEurope and the world. This housing project could be ground breaking rather then the complete eyesaw it currently is with huge eco deficits. The energy efficiency rating to start with.Please please become a leader and someone we can all be proud of. Have people visit the cityjust to see a structure that embraces all current and future challenges.There are many many firms out there wanting to do right by people and the environment. Pleaseuse them and be a leader of integrity rather then short sightedness.A Bankys building rather then a grotto. Green credentials rather then developer windfall. Protect your people and they will prosper. It's up to you now.

The need in this area is affordable social housing

A 10 storey building is totally out of character for the area and will significantly changethe community feel within the area. I feel the height should be limited to 5 or 6 storeys maximum. Iappreciate the need for more housing but feel that the number of 'affordable' housing may beactually be that affordable. Limiting the amount of car parking is commendable but realisticallycars will be parked in the already congested local roads.

This development horrifies me on many frontsThe loss of an important green corridor with mature trees in this time of climate change isoutrageousThe heights and such poor design of the buildings also concern meBasically this development would not be even considered in other wards egClifton I am proud to live in Bedminster and we deserve better!!!!!!!

I find it impossible to believe the proposal of such an eyesore.The lack of green spaceand parking will overload windmill hill with yet more traffic and air pollution,in a time when childrenwith asthma are suffering on their walks to school.We need lower blocks with adequate parkingand adequate green spaces not alleyways between buildings where rubbish and air pollution willaccumulate causing harm to the residences of the tower blocks and the surrounding area.Lack ofcaring for the inhabitants of this area and it seems a money grabbing ethos is the main reason forthis proposal.So much for let's think of the planet and working towards making things better foreveryone.Rammed roads,smog,and alleyways for people to scuttle around in.

I am not supportive of the proposed tower blocks in the area. This area has a lot ofyoung families, and we need to preserve outdoor spaces and protect the biodiversity in the areawhich these proposals do not. If there are to be residential dwellings built here, they need to below rise and well designed with amenities in mind that will provide for the nearby area. The area isvery special and we need to protect community resources such as the City Farm nearby which iswell used and makes the area a desirable place to be. The tall tower blocks will be a blight on thearea. We need a developer that prioritises place making, rather than maximising dwellings that willnot be fit for purpose, overpriced and end up empty whilst having a negative impact on the existingresidents. I don't believe the plans as they are right now are appropriate as they have notconsidered local need or the impact on the immediate area.

The flats are far too high, blocking views from Windmill Hill, and of the colourfulterraces/Victoria Park from other parts of Bristol. The height of all the towers makes sunlessgloomy corridors to walk through. The development is too dense, adding more people than theservices - doctors etc - could cope with. I am also worried that all the extra people will lead to extracars and will make the air quality even worse in the area, especially as the tall buildings wouldprevent the particles dissipating effectively.

I really don't like these ugly big towers. They should be kept to 3 or 4 stories and be more inkeeping with old houses in the surrounding area.

Completely inappropriate high rise blocks for this area which will cause cessation ofcommunity, more traffic and unaffordability notwithstanding demolition of green spaces and treeswhilst swamping the city farm.

This proposal would be a disaster for the community and the environment. Valuablegreen spaces will be lost. The tall structures will make cramped and overshadowed environment.The fragile infrastructure will be broken by the influx of so many new residents. The inevitableadditional traffic will be a health hazard. By all means find ways of building something conducive tothe area. This isn't it. It must be stopped.

There are so many things wrong with this proposal that it beggars belief that it has beenput forward. Here are the main points of issue.Building (1 is higher than the agreed height in the developers framework and is too high for thelocation. It would cause a canyon effect on Malago Road with a seventeen storey buildingopposite. The shading of the Green would be oppressive. The internal shading of the centre of thebuilding would be depressing and damp. This building should not be the enclosed triangle that isproposed but should six storeys maximum and be open on one side.

Building (2 is too bulky and uninspired to be next to a recreational space. Its Hereford St elevationis too high and will create a canyon effect with St Catherine's Place. It should be set back furtherfrom the Green and the storeys above ground level should be set back to prevent it beingoppressive.

Building (3 is too high and too close to the railway. The original raison d'etre for this building wasto facilitate a new entrance to the station and provide workshop and office space. This has beencompletely forgotten and instead is being used and an excuse to cram in more cramped,unhealthy one and two bedroom flats. It would create a wall along the railway that would blockviews from Victoria Park and the streets at the bottom of Windmill Hill.

The approval of this proposal for plot 5 would be a missed opportunity to create a new heart forSouth Bristol and a disaster that would blight the area for generations. This land belongs to thepeople of Bristol and the council has a duty to protect the health and well-being of the citizens,

now and in the future, and to look after their assets. The developer is going to make a massiveprofit for a poorly designed profit driven solution. The inclusion of the minimum percentage of'affordable' housing on a plot owned by the city is outrageous. We need housing in a mixed tenure,mixed use, sustainable development that will facilitate a happy, healthy community. This proposalfails to do that and should be turned down.

The trees on the green must be protected, there are currently 30+ mature trees in thisarea and the green is home to some protected species. This area is the only green space onDalby Avenue. It provides a wonderful burst of colour with crocus, daffodil and tulip flowers in thespring. Surely in the current situation regarding global warming these areas must be protected.

I couldn't find any planning application notices on Bedminster Green and the surrounding area andthought this was a legal part of an application. I feel this has been done to reduce the public'sawareness of the application and to limit the negative feedback.

A portion of block 1 at the highest point is 10 stories and exceeds the framework

In visualisation studies the square nature of the blocks creates an unrelieved wall of development,exacerbated when taken into account with other approved developments for the green.

This development will further degrade the Dalby Avenue area and it will become an unfriendlyconcrete jungle with the potential to become a dangerous area for single women to get to WindmillHill or the proposed apartments/houses.

It is a disgusting proposition that these over-sized buildings will be built here.

Building (1 is higher than the agreed height in the developers framework. It is oppressive.

Building (2 is too bulky and uninspired to be next to a recreational space. Its Hereford St elevationis too high and will create a canyon effect with St Catherine's Place.

Building (3 is too high and too close to the railway. The original raison d'etre for this building wasto facilitate a new entrance to the station and provide workshop and office space. This has beencompletely forgotten and instead is being used and an excuse to cram in more cramped,unhealthy one and two bedroom flats. It would create a wall along the railway that would blockviews from Victoria Park and the streets at the bottom of Windmill Hill.

The approval of this proposal for plot 5 would be a missed opportunity to create a new heart forSouth Bristol and a disaster that would blight the area for generations. This land belongs to thepeople of Bristol and the council has a duty to protect the health and well-being of the citizens,now and in the future, and to look after their assets. The developer is going to make a massiveprofit for a poorly designed profit driven solution. The inclusion of the minimum percentage of'affordable' housing on a plot owned by the city is outrageous. We need housing in a mixed tenure,mixed use, sustainable development that will facilitate a happy, healthy community. This proposalfails to do that and should be turned down.

On top of all this, it is a disrespectful show of aggressive gentrification that will destroy the lives ofmany residents when the price of living goes up.

The proposed ugly buildings are much too high, and will see too many people crammedin to an area already in need of improved amenities. This proposal is about maximising profit forthe developers and never mind about local people, including the poor so and so's who are going tolive in the proposed high rises.

Once again an application that takes nothing of the local area into account. Blocks offviews to and from the city, funnels wind and pollution from busy roads, reduces much neededgreen space, removes mature trees with associated protected species. For once it would be niceto see a developer look beyond their site at the wider area. Affordable housing appears to berammed up against the railway line but the blocks aren't sufficiently separate to appear so frommany angles creating a "blockade", especially given their height which is excessive. Additionally Ifind it astonishing that given COP26 has just taken place that no renewables are planned and yetanother few hundred people will need to tap into the grid for their power.

I would like to object on the following grounds:1. Very large amount of dwellings proposed. This is a very high density for the area designated.2. very low amount of parking places in relation to number of dwellings, meaning that newinhabitants will have to park in Windmill Hill which already has a big parking problem.3. The loss of the trees on the green and the Hereford street car park. Trees are important to actas a lung for the area, and against the impact of climate change. It is also an important habitat forwild life.4. Block one is 10 storeys at the highest point which exceeds the agreed framework .5. In the visualisation studies the square nature of the block creates an unrelieved wall ofdevelopment, leading to Windmill Hill being walled in, and feeling unpleasant for those living there.

There seem to be several things wrong with the current plan.There seem to be very little parking provision for the amount of housing proposed (27 spaces for339 apartments). This will mean people will look for parking in the surrounding area such asWindmill Hill, which already suffers from severe parking issues. Also, the hight of the proposeddevelopment will conceal the topography of Windmill Hill from the rest of the city.This could also deflate the value of the existing houses on Windmill Hill that at the moment havestrong views over the city.The loss of green spce and trees at the bottom of the hill.

No thought given to the impact of the buildings, or the suitability for the currentenvironment. Totally incongruous and seemingly lazy architectural design. Will irrevocably alterthe look, feel and community of this area of Bristol. Effectively creates a wall between the hill andthe city, heightening the sense of the urban mass. The buildings are far higher than mosteverything around them.

This proposal has to be considered holistically as part of the whole Bedminster Green project andnot simply on its own. The cumulative impact (social and aesthetic) of all the planning permissionbeing granted in this area will be extreme, detrimental to so many, and permanent. This land can,and should, be developed more sensitively, and with more upfront effort given to design, suitabilityand community cohesion.

I don't like the look of this housing development at all. It looks like this building proposalnear Bedminster Green, railway and St. Catherines Place will make the area far too crowded andvery dark with little parking and oppressive tall buildings. If the accommodation is for students inthe holidays the flats will be empty and it will feel alienating and empty. The shopping area of EastStreet needs to be maintained and rubbish taken away instead. I can't see how hundreds ofunattractive modern flats will help or enhance this area of Victorian houses. Bedminster transportisn't great and there are no outside bike racks so more cars will be cluttered everywhere as peoplehave no choice but to drive. The pollution will be horrendous and it will be an unhealthy place tolive. The newish modern flats seem to work on the Harbourside as the light is good and there isthe expanse of water of the Harbour and big skies so it doesn't feel claustrophobic. Windmill Hilland Bedminster feel crowded already !

This proposal should not be considered in isolation but alongside the other proposedand consented developments in the Bedminster Green area.

If this development ( and those on neighbouring plots) are allowed to go ahead it will represent adistressing failure by the council to protect and/or enhance the built realm and to safeguard thehealth and wellbeing of its citizens, both future residents of the proposed development and currentresidents of the area. The only ones to profit and gain from this development will be thedevelopers, leaving the city and the citizens to pay the price in coming generations in terms ofpoor health, social deprivation and straight-forward uglification.

The blocks are consistently rectangular in outline which creates an unrelieved wall of blockydevelopment. This is unacceptable and undesirable in a low-rise residential area. When takenalongside the other upcoming and consented developments in the Bedminster Green area, itwould completely change the distinctive character of this area, one of the oldest in Bristol, which isa mix of low-rise housing, light industrial units, and open spaces.

The high-rise block at St Catherine's Place was original intended to be a landmark building ie astand-out high building in an area of low-rise, This seems to have been forgotten.

Although the scheme is divided into 3 blocks, their consistent massing blend them into one hugemass from some viewpoints which is unacceptable in terms of our city's topography. The heightand consistent tops of the blocks mean that Windmill Hill is hidden from the rest of the city.

The height of the blocks mean Bedminster Green will be shaded and surrounded by walls on 3sides, so destroying the current amenity and health benefits of this open space; keeping the Greenbut blocking off light, sun and air movement is an empty gesture.

Building 1 is 10 storeys at its highest point which exceeds the framework developed by thedevelopers themselves. It is too high for this location and would cause a dark and oppressivecanyon effect on Malago Road with a 17 storey building opposite.

The enclosed triangle design and height of the blocks will result in a gloomy and damp overlookedarea at its centre, not conducive to health and wellbeing and not aesthically pleasing.

Building 2 is blocky and uninspired; there is a huge need for inspired and inspiring design is thislocation alongside a recreational space to enhance this area. Its Hereford St elevation is too highand will create a canyon effect with St Catherine's Place.

Building 3, the one affordable housing block, is too high for this low-rise area, and is built veryclose to the railway line. This will be detrimental to people's wellbeing and livelihoods. Let's notrepeat the mistakes of previous decades - and centuries - when the wellbeing of the poorest insociety was disregarded.

The original reason for building in this location was to create a new entrance to the station andprovide workshop and office space; this aim needs to be reinstated.

The inclusion of the minimum percentage of 'affordable' housing is unacceptable. There is little'affordable' housing in the neighbouring schemes being proposed or already consented in theBedminster Green area. As this plot is actually owned by the city, there is an opportunity for BCCto set an example through the provision of plentiful social housing, if not actually compensate forthe lack elsewhere.

Some trees will be lost on Bedminster Green and in Hereford St car park; they are home toprotected species so should all be protected.

This proposal fails on every count: aesthetically, in social provision, in terms of the health andwellbeing of residents. It should be dismissed.

This is a hideous wall of building that when you will create a continuous wall of brick andconcrete. It is yet another building that is 10 stories high and will engulf the area. Not enough carparking has been provided, we are already seeing problems with parking on windmill hill from thedevelopments that have already gone up, without any sign of residents parking scheme this isn'tacceptable. We are losing vital green space that is home to bats, wildlife, trees and beautifulflowers. The affordable housing has been shoved next to the railway line like a inconvenient afterthought. This not a well thought out design for our community.

I object for the following reasons:- Affordable housing is too close too the railway line- not enough parking has been provided for residents- it takes away vital green space- it creates an awful continuous wall of buildings- the development is too high

I am very concerned about the number of dwellings and the imposing nature of thisdevelopment forming a wall of concrete which will have an impact on air quality that is alreadypoor in the area.

The development seems unimaginative and doesn't reflect the creative spirit of this part of town.

I also feel nicht enough thought has been given to amenities - schools, doctors etc.

With limited parking being built this will become a big issue for surrounding residents.

Other concerns as follows:

Heating to be by air source heatpump, combined heat and power plant also to be used. No on siterenewables will be used.

Loss of trees on the green and in Hereford St car park, the green is home to some protectedspecies, assumed to be bats

In visualisation studies the square nature of the blocks creates an un relieved wall of development,exacerbated when taken into account with other approved developments for the green

Concern that the tall floor to ceiling windows may cause overheating

Concern that the buildings have a high envelope area to heated space area I.e. poor form factorand this combined with difficult detailing around inset balconies and overhangs will make theimproved fabric performance difficult to achieve during building

Affordable housing block is built very close to the railway line worry that this will be disruptive anddetrimental to peoples livelihoods.

Concern that block 3 does not allow easy access to the railway embankment for maintenance.

The access points to the apartment blocks are not all in readily supervised areas, we have safetyconcerns

A portion of block 1 at the highest point is 10 stories and exceeds the framework

The height of the block and consistent tops of the blocks conceal the topography of windmill hillfrom the rest of the city.

My main objection is to another block of architecturally unimaginative high density flatscontinuing to change the historical nature of Bedminster. Specifically these blocks of flats willreduce light to the Green even if they are angled in certain ways. Some trees ( hopefully not thecherry trees) and greenery will be lost here and from Hereford Road Car Park area.

The affordable housing squeezed next to the railway line is likely to be noisy and affect the dailylives of those living there.

The height of the blocks of flats, even if just within the Framework, will dominate the small Greenand those using it, and seems out of scale, surrounded as it will be by tall blocks on all sides.

Social HousingThe Bedminster Green Framework promised that there would be 30% social or affordable housingon each plot. So far there is NO social or affordable at St Caths, a tiny amount on the approvedDandara building (on a piece of land belonging to BCC and in exchange for being allowed to builda multi storey car park) and none put forward on either of the huge student accomodationproposals. So this 30% offered here on Plot 5 is basically for the whole of Bedminster Green.Maths is not my strong point, but I think if the whole of Plot 5 were to be social or affordable, thatmay give us nearer to the 30% total that was agreed in the oft quoted Framework. I also feel thatputting all the affordable housing into the block squeezed between the railway embankment andthe road is shameful. These flats will definitely be worth less than others as the residents will beexpected to live metres from a busy intercity train line, the lower levels actually being below thelevel of the railway. This cannot be a healthy place for people to live.

Scale, massing and densityAll 3 buildings proposed for Plot 5 are completely out of scale with their surroundings. The tinygreen space that you are suggesting leaving us with in the middle of these 10 storey blocks will bean unpleasant place to spend time. There is a perfect balance between open space and the heightof the buildings around it. You need to walk through some of our other green spaces in Bristol,spend time sitting in them, look at the heights of the buildings around them, pace out the size ofthe green space, understand why these spaces work - try Queens Square, Millenium Square,Berkeley Square, Grosvenor Square. The list goes on and on. To have such a tiny green spaceremaining, and such tall buildings around it is a total lack of understanding of how the urban

environment affects people.The giant triangular building proposed - designed purely to get as much mass as possible on anexisting site - should not be built. The 2 buildings on the other 2 sides are far too tall, 5 or 6storeys is the maximum you should be proposing here.

Green Space, Biodiversity and WellbeingThe reason our Green works well for us, and for wildlife, is that it is made up of a mosaic ofdifferent habitats, in total creating a large enough space for wildlife and humans to thrive. Theactual green public open space is one part of this mosaic, the others are the roof of the woodenFederation of City Farms building, the wildlife garden around the wooden building, and thecarpark. The green roof has become a mecca for insects and therefore bats, the tree canopy andshrubs in the car park provide food and shelter for many birds, insects and mammals, the maturetrees on the green provide homes and feeding for many species and the wonderful wildlife gardenhas done what it was designed to do - become an important habitat for birds, insects, smallmammals, pondlife, and a feeding space for bats. For people, this larger green space allowssunlight to filter down onto the green, and gives views of and through trees and shrubs, and thesounds of wildlife. Although the actual public open space is planned to be kept (minus a strip ofshrubs and long grass on one side) the loss of the other 3 green areas will be incrediblydetrimental to our wellbeing, as shown through lots of current research into mental health. Greenspaces in cities are vital for our mental wellbeing, and in a city that has declared a BiodiversityEmergency we should be keeping such successful green spaces as this has become. We shouldbe keeping the wooden building and its green roof on this site (the most popular local buildingaccording to local community consultation), we should be opening the garden to the public, andperhaps opening the wooden building as a community space. The car park, with its mature treesand shrubs could become another community space, perhaps for boules/petanq, and so thisGreen Lung in the heart of Bedminster could offer a place of relaxation and restoration to the largenumber of new residents who are going to be living in the already planned tower blocks across theroad. On a very specific species point, there are rare bats using the railway line for travel betweenroosts and feeding grounds. These bats are very light averse, and a tower block on the site next tothe railway embankment (building 3) will create unacceptable levels of light pollution onto thedarkened railway corridor, which is so suitable for the bats at the moment.

ConsultationThis land is owned by Bristol City Council, therefore I would have expected them to consult widelywith local people before they made plans with a developer, Dandara, for them to exploit the landfor maximum monetary gain. If they had listened to local people, they would know that our ownextensive consultation (results all readily available in the WHaM Site Brief) showed that the FedFarm building is one of the most highly valued local buildings, that we care very strongly for wildlifeand care very much for our Green. That we want to develop a sustainable community, withbuildings that are healthy and liveable both for those living in them and for the whole community.That we don't want tower blocks or high rise, we want high density but low up to mid rise buildings.6 storeys is plenty and nothing more than that is necessary. Wapping Wharf is a good example of

a good development, or Paintworks, where there is a variety of heights and good design. All 3 ofthese buildings look to have been designed purely to maximise bulk and number of units,otherwise they would not follow the contours of the edge of each site so exactly.

Sustainability and Energy UseI can see nothing in the plans that satisfies our need for new buildings to be sustainably built andbased on the practice of minimal ongoing energy usage. The Bristol policy of 10% renewableenergy use does not seem to have been looked at here, and no mention of the sourcing ofongoing electricity use. I suggest that BCCs own Sustainable energy expert is asked to lookthrough these plans and give advice on whether they meet the needed criteria.

Size and Massing - This development is ginormous and reminiscent of sovietarchitecture. Creating the appearance of an unrelieved wall. At 10 storeys (in one place) itexceeds the heights specified in the council's own framework. Windmill Hill is a community drivenarea of bristol with a large demographic of you g families.

Although the Scheme is divided into 3 blocks this will blend together from many viewpoints. Thetopography of Windmill Hill will be concealed from the rest of the city. We will live behind abarricade made even worse by other proposed and approved developments close by.

Density - At around 350 dwellings per hectare, this is far too great for the area - it's infrastructure,roads and facilities. Already it took 6 months to for our family to get into our local GP's and thatwas 7 years ago!

Loss of trees and protected species - there is a climate emergency. This type of development fliescompletely in the face of that fact. Destroying trees and potential green corridors for wildlife.

Construction - The buildings have a high envelope area to heated space area i.e. poor form factorand this combined with difficult detailing around inset balconies and overhangs will make theimproved fabric performance difficult to achieve during building.

There are also no on-site renewables being used.

Health - The tall floor to ceiling windows may well cause overheating. The affordable portion of thebuilding is built very close to the railway line. This is far from ideal.

Safety - Block 3 does not allow easy access to the railway.

Ultimately this development screams greed from the council and greed from the developers andwill be a dirty great stain on Bristol's architecture if approved for years to come. It's shameful!

I wonder if that opening/exposing of the Malago on the green between WhitehouseLane and Dalby Avenue will - instead of being an attractive nature feature - simply end upbecoming a dumping ground for rubbish and fly tipping?

Objection for the following reasons:

Only 27 parking spaces for 339 apartments, meaning that residents will be using nearby streets topark - the additional traffic will result in increased pollution in an already overpolluted area, veryclose to a primary school.

No on-site renewable energy - a big oversight when we are all attempting to reduce the impact onthe environment.

Loss of trees - impacting on air quality, and on local wildlife.

Very high structures (up to 10 stories), blocking light for many existing residents, which will havean impact on their physical and emotional wellbeing.

The surrounding area is already very built up and does not need a further block of flats.Houses would be better and build more of scomkunity. Green space also needs to be preserved.

I am honestly horrified to see how many well established trees will be destroyed if theseproposals are allowed to go ahead. The Bedminster green area is so valuable for local wildlife andair filtering and as a carbon sink.

If housing needs to be built on this site everything possible should be done to safeguard theexisting natural resources. It should also be low intensity - 4 stories at the very most - to preservethe character of the area and avoid overwhelming local services.

Strongly object. Will ruin the green site & view towards town from Victoria Park

I object to this application on the basis that the amenities and area will deterioate fromsaid development. There will be inadequate parking inadequate schooling and doctor surgeries.The proposal does not align with the use of the area.

I wish to object to the scheme on the following grounds:

1. Over developmentThe density of the scheme seems far In excess of what the SPD on urban living suggests isappropriate for the setting of the site (an inner city area). The Bedminster Green frameworkdocument suggests a lower density would be appropriate, this seems to continue a commonpractice across all of the sites on Bedminster Green of too much development at the expense ofliveability.

2. Loss of green infrastructure, habitat and biodiversityThe SPD on urban living contains guidance on urban buildings designed to create peacemaking.Despite this site being one that has great context such as the green a wildlife garden and greenroof this context has been discarded the existing green space had portions of it cut away and littleto replace it. The application documents demonstrate that there is a net loss of biodiversity, and itdoes not seem sensible when you have a rich bio-diverse area to sacrifice this asset and top it upelsewhere when you are knowingly harming life (and endangered species in the case of the localbats) on this site: if this site is the one you can protect and control, you protect this site.Furthermore if biodiversity is lost here and replaced elsewhere outside of the local area, it isdoubtful that the community will ever see the benefit of that replacement so the development willharm the existing community rather than enhance it.

3. On site renewable energy sources

The lack of renewables in the scheme is disappointing, and runs contrary to any ideal aboutmaking a scheme sustainable. The air source heat pumps discussed will require energy to run andare not in themselves renewable energy sources, neither is the CHP discussed merely an energyefficiency measure. Schemes coming through the planning process for sites within an air qualitymanagement area that do not comply with Bristol policy for on site energy generation should beturned down.

4. Unsuitable height for the contextThe scheme is too tall for the local area and appears as a sheer face of masonry despite attemptsto relieve it with insets and metal cladding. The flat tops and consistent materiality between theblocks makes them blend together and appear as a wall. The renderings show an abrupt wall ofmasonry towering over the context, blocking out the hill and staring down at the existing residentsof Windmill Hill.

5. Materiality and response to contextA portion of the development is 10 storeys making this a tall building under the terms of the SPDon urban living and this document says specifically that tall buildings should be sited away forareas of elevated ground. The 10 storey strip along Dalby Avenue does exactly this.

In summary the scheme will harm the local context and community by walling off Windmill Hill fromthe rest of the city, reducing the biodiversity in the area, and may compromise the liveability of thelocal area by virtue of its high density.

This development is over scaled for the area which is seeing major developmentsalready leading to a further loss of green space and biodiversity in south Bristol in the midst of aclimate and environmental emergency.The designs themselves once again show a lack of any vision or respect for the people who live inthe area, with the positioning of the affordable housing next to the railway line showing a lack ofrespect to the people who will love in this proposed development.There is demand for housing because Bristol is a great place to be, with community and greenspace, this development and others like it are dragging this city down.

This development will drastically impact green spaces in the area ruining bedminstergreen, precious biodiversity and ruining the skyline making windmill boxed in and urbanised. Thereis insufficient parking to accommodate the scale of new properties and will make parkingimpossible for the community. Bringing in student accommodation will destroy the family nature ofthis area... more drinking, drugs, noise and police presence I'm sure!

I object to this proposal for the following reasons:

-Building 1 is higher than the agreed height in the developers framework and will cause a canyoneffect in this location on Malago Road. The shading of the green would be oppressive and theinternal shading in the centre of the building would be damp and depressing (with little lightentering much of the internal well during the darkest months. The building should be open on oneside and no more than 6 storeys high.

- Building 2 is too bulky to be next to a recreational space. Hereford St elevation too high and willcreate canyon effect with St Catherine's Place. The building should be set back further from thegreen and the storeys above ground level set back to prevent it being oppressive.

- Building 3 is too high and too close to the railway - this building was originally planning to createa new entrance to the station, with workshop and office space. This commitment has beendropped in favour of cramped one and two bedroom flats. This building creates a wall along therailway that blocks views from Victoria Park and totally blocks the residential streets at the bottomof Windmill Hill.

This is poorly designed, Plot 1 uses land that is a public amenity, giving the only car parking to thestation at a point when Bristol has declared a climate emergency and pledged to become carbonneutral by 2030. There are already 12 schools in the vicinity that were found to have levels of airquality that breached WHO guidelines for NO2 and PM2.5. Allowing Building 1 to be built on land

that is in public ownership ('sold' or 'gifted' to the developers in a manner that hasn't been madepublic and transparent), whilst doing little to improve public transport or other public amenities inthe area (an area which is already under resourced into terms of infrastructure) is in directcounterpoint to this pledge and show no real commitment to improving air quality levels.

There is already massive development that has been give permission on all sides of this plot, withhundreds of students, several of Bristol's tallest buildings, thousands of new residents and littlethought to how they will integrate with the existing community. This proposal should be refused.

The proposed triangular layout of the building(s) to the north of Hereford Street and tothe south-west of Bedminster Green is an absolute disaster. It has the look of a terrible prisonblock.

How can you possibly condone the construction of a building that has such a narrow enclosedcentral area, that will be a shaded, dank and depressing area with little or no chance of enhancingthe life of anyone living there let alone anyone living outside of it.

Surely you can't condone this kind of construction. It is creating an unwelcome unfriendlydevelopment. You have to encourage interaction in communities, not these fortress like blocks.Open it up, more tree planting, more connected landscapes that are pleasant to be in.

The scale of the building will destroy a public view, destroy communities. Providehousing of the type that is not needed. We have a surplus of high rise apartments. There isnothing for families. Building work will cause disruption for a long time. A smaller scaledevelopment would have less opposition , would get built quickly. The proposed buildings aredestroying the area. It feels like the politicians hate the people of Bedminster and Windmill Hill. Iknow this is irrelevent to the criteria but whatever people say wont make any difference now. Youwill ignore any objections.

27 parking spaces for hundreds of new homes and no plan for a residents parkingscheme.Taken together, appartment blocks will create a solid wall of concrete and windows, blocking outlight and resulting in a canyoning effect for wind and noiseThe affordable housing block is far too close to the railwayWhat extra facilities will be provided in the area - nurseries, schools, dentists, doctors - already alloversubscribed.

STATEMENT OF OBJECTION AGAINST APP 21/05219/F

Once again I'm faced with the depressing task of writing to object to yet another ill thought out andcynical development application for high-rise blocks on Bedminster 'Green.' If it weren't so tragic,the name would be funny, as there will be virtually no daylight managing to hit anything greenliving in what is now a verdant space when it is surrounded on all four sides by high rise blocks -some with as many as 17 storeys, and half the 'Green' will have been torn up to provide floodescape (neatly badged as 'opening up the River Malago'), which will be caused by all the newbuilding altering the existing water flows.

The growth of housing should not be shoe-horned into one or two wards in Bristol but spreadevenly across it; rather than over-populating what are already the two densely populated wards inthe city which do not have the infrastructure to meet the needs of an exponential growth inpopulation.

My specific concerns with the proposed development of Plot 5 are:Block 3 - for social housing - it is nothing short of disgraceful that all of the social housing issquashed into a relatively small area practically on top of the railway line - Would you live thatclose to a railway line?

This form of ghettoisation has no place in a city which purports to care about equity and have asocial conscience. It is frankly disgusting that none of the other developments approved have the

minimum legal requirement of social and affordable housing. And that even although this plandoes have almost the minimum legal requirement this is situated all in one block and in the worstpossible space imaginable - this is not appropriate or acceptable in the C21st .

The social housing should be spread throughout the buildings. Shame on the developers forthinking that this is acceptable and even more shame on the Planning Committee if it approves theapplication.

Design - Looking at the artists drawings the blocks are incongruous with the surroundings - over-bearing and imposing. All are of similar material and design. Although separate buildings, whenviewing from Windmill Hill, in conjunction with the other developments approved, this massingpresents an unrelieved super-high and forbidding wall which cuts Windmill Hill off from Bedminsterwhich it has a natural geographical connection to.

This totally alters the typology of the city - it will not be possible to see the horizon to the North ofthe city from Windmill Hill and looking South the same is true - Windmill Hill will not be seen fromother parts of the city.

To be more congruous with the geography the buildings should be no more than 6 floors - 5 if thebottom floor is double the height. A number of the blocks in this plan exceed this - one is 10 floors- which exceeds the limit set in the Bedminster Green Framework.

Loss of light or privacy - there is a significant issue with the loss of light which will be experiencedby many of the flats within the blocks planned and the communal areas outside - these publicspaces will not be pleasant and the lack of light/light losses may well exceed the acceptable legallimits.

Overshadowing on homes - as the sun sets in the West from mid-afternoon onwards in Spring,Summer and Autumn the development will cast long shadows over the back of some of thehouses in Fraser Street and will cut significant light from all the houses in Fraser St which back onto the railway line. We don't get a great deal of sunlight on the railway side of the street as thegardens are North facing - it not acceptable to us that we should lose more.

Highway safety - adding 700-800 people - in addition to 800 students (Plot 3) and over 2,000 onadjoining developments at St Catherine's Place and Little Paradise, will dramatically increaseproblems with highway safety, especially as this development is sited adjacent to a main arterialroad to the South West of Bristol. That's even without considering highway safety during theconstruction of these tower blocks and the three even higher ones proposed for adjacent sites.

The entrances to all the blocks are less than ideal present a hazard - especially as given theirproximity to the junctions of roads (particularly Hereford St).

Safety and Maintenance of the Railway/embankment and Block 3 - if Block 3 is built access to theback of Block 3 to carry out maintenance will be severely restricted/impossible - as it will be tocarry out maintenance to the railway track and embankment behind the building - placing aresidential building so close to a railway line is nothing short of stupid.

Traffic and parking issues - As with the other developments which now have planning approvalthere is virtually no parking available in this plan (27 spaces, including disabled) and no way ofloading or unloading near the commercial outlets and none for Block 3 (affordable housing).Although car driving students are discouraged in the neighbouring Plot 3 development it is notrealistic to expect that a significant number of students, or their visiting relatives not to bring cars..All this next to the main arterial road from South Bristol into the city centre - it's a recipe for chaos,especially at the beginning and end of the academic year.

Making Whitehouse Lane one-way and closing Windmill Hill to cars as proposed in the transportplan to support this development, is a massive disbenefit to existing residents and I stronglyoppose this plan.

The suggestion of making Windmill Hill a CPZ would not solve the problem as these operatebetween 8 and 5pm Monday to Friday - when many car drivers on the Hill will be using theirvehicles to get to work - finding that there is nowhere to park on their return at the end of theworking day or at weekends. The situation is difficult enough at present as CPZs have beenintroduced in areas surrounding Windmill Hill, so commuters pushed out from these areas are nowusing Windmill Hill making parking difficult for residents already.

The traffic problems during construction will be horrendous as it will go on for years as there arethree adjacent sites all of high-rise development with applications already agreed.

Noise - It is not possible to add approximately 800 people (just on this one development) and forthe pre-existing noise level to remain the same. One of the unique characteristics of this area, andone we value most highly, is how quiet the area can be especially at the week-ends.

Noise during construction - in conjunction with three other applications approved the noise, dustand disruption is going to be horrendous for years.

Wind tunnel effect caused by density of high buildings and pollution - in conjunction with the otherhigh-rise buildings with planning approved there will be a significant wind tunnel effect andpollution will be trapped near ground level.

Amenity - The density of dwellings to space exceeds legal limits as it would be in the region of 350per hectare.

Primary care services are stretched to beyond capacity in this area even more so since the COVID

pandemic began - GP practices may still be registering patients - but that doesn't mean that theyare able to offer a decent service. It is almost impossible to get an appointment with a GP within areasonable time for a non-emergency health issue at present - especially if you are working.

With less than 30% of this development affordable housing, this development in conjunction withthe others approved, will be the death knell for the many retailers in East St who have remainedloyal to the local community in Bedminster by serving the less affluent of us in the area - where willwe go to shop once all the affordable retailers in East Street are pushed out?

Wildlife and conservation - currently we have a huge diversity of birds locally, sometimes we evenget a pair of Jays (very shy birds) in the trees between Fraser St and the railway. There are someprotected species living in Bedminster Green itself. We also have 8 different bat species, some ofthem rare, in and around Windmill Hill and Victoria Park area - you can see them at dusk in all thetrees and backs of houses on Fraser St. This recognised 'commuter route' for the bats, includingroosting sites, goes from the park and follows the railway all the way along past Cotswold Rd andbeyond. The massive scale of the developments will mean prolonged disruption, dust, constantheavy traffic and noise - this will have a significant and deleterious impact on the wild life -including the bats. There are legal consequences to destroying bat roosting and habitats.

Historic buildings - The Green House opposite the Plot 3 site is of historic interest being uniquebuilding in Bristol and of a rare construction in the UK - it's nothing short of a crime to destroy this.

Destruction of trees - many trees will be cut down if the application is approved but there is no planto replace them all in the application.

Please turn this application down - it is ill thought out, and creates a solid high-rise wall cutting usof from Bedminster, our local area.

WHaM comment for Plot 5 on Bedminster Green

Application no: 21/05219/F

The group objects in the strongest possible manner to this development.

The application form provides the following figures for the development of 339 apartments, 101 of which are affordable housing units (social or intermediate rent).

These apartments are divided into 3 blocks surrounding the patch of land known locally as Bedminster Green: Block 1 is to the west of the Green, Block 2 to the east, and Block 3 to the south across the road adjacent to the railway line. We understand that Block 3 is to be entirely affordable with the other affordable units located elsewhere.

Commercial space is located at the ground level on all 3 blocks

DrawingsIt has been very difficult to get a full appreciation for the scheme as the drawings do not have a scale bar (which this group understands is a requirement for validation of planning applications) and as a result it is not entirely clear on the full size of the development, neither does the scheme have an accommodation schedule which would also have assisted many people understanding the full extents of the scheme and what

that development entails.

DensityUndertaking a rough calculation from the figures supplied in the application form (the density calculation undertaken as part of the SPD on urban living could not be found) 339 dwellings on 0.96ha works out at about 350 dwellings per hectare, excluding that part of the green which is the subject of the council's Malago River restoration project, but making some allowance for the inclusion of portions of major roads.

Bedminster Green is within an Inner Urban Area as described in the planning document Urban Living and shown on the map on page 13 of the document. This document contains the aspiration that new developments seek 'optimal density' which is described as follows:"optimal density in new development is considered to be one that balances the efficient and effective use of land, with aspirations for a positive response to context, successful placemaking and liveability."The group has grave concerns that this aspiration is not being pursued. At over 300dph the scheme is much more dense than a typical inner urban area would be expected to be. Successful nearby developments, such as Wapping Wharf, and the first few phases of the Paintworks, are significantly lower (below 300dph) and it is appreciable through the quality in their well lit, generous public spaces. The Bedminster Green Framework envisages an average density over the whole Bedminster Green development of between 220 and 320 dph.Even this is already well above the 120 optimum first mentioned in the Local Plan or the 'Wapping Wharf' density of around 200dph later thought suitable for Bedminster Green. This development goes beyond this and makes no explanation for the increased density more suitable for a city centre area. These density guidelines have been set by the city council established to represent available resources in an area and what those types of areas can support. In going beyond these limits the development stretches what is currently available and compromises the liveability for new and existing residents without providing a solution.

Whilst it may be argued that the Green will add a significant public space to the development it must be remembered that this space is one that has grown and evolved over many years with much established plant life and extends beyond the tall trees that are the most obvious feature of the Green, but also include low level and intermediate green infrastructure thriving in the established conditions. To reach the density of this development some of the Green has been taken away (on the western edge) and bounded on 2 sides (east and west) with 9 storey buildings. The loss of this green infrastructure and the potential harmful impact this will cause on the remaining plant life is not considered 'optimal', particularly in a city that has a self declared biodiversity crisis, and particularly not on land that is owned by the council that declared this crisis.Bedminster Green is a well known, identified place loved by the local people who cross it regularly, The change to this space, which will become darker and more overshadowed by development, is not considered 'optimal' by this group.

Commercial developmentAs the area is already used by many local businesses the group was concerned about

the loss of employment, so it is good that some new spaces are proposed within the development. There is some concern that the over development of the site to 3 sides of this open space will lead to commercialization of the Green.

Biodiversity and its loss on Bedminster Green

The 'Green' in Bedminster Green is an already existing, much valued green, open space in this inner-city neighbourhood. Local people cross this space every day on foot and by bicycle to work, to the shops, to school, to college and for many other reasons. It is a part of many, many people's daily lives.

For people, and for wildlife, the Green provides an important place of safety and tranquility between 2 busy roads, a green lung and a lull in the frenetic concrete and tarmac city beyond. What makes this area so special is that it provides a mosaic of habitats for wildlife and a space for people to enjoy that reaches beyond the actual public open space. There are 4 main components to this green space.

o Firstly, the public open space of the actual green, which is made up of a range of species of mature trees, areas of wildflowers and bulbs, and long grass and shrubs along one edge.o Secondly, the Federation of City Farms building has a green roof, which is home to many species of insect and which, according to the Ecological Appraisal (Section 7.12), has a concentration of bat activity.o Thirdly, the Federation of City Farms garden has been planted and maintained for wildlife and offers a pond, trees, grass and shrubs particularly chosen to offer homes to a wide range of wildlife. The Ecological Appraisal (Section 7.12) tells us that bat activity is also concentrated around these gardens. o And fourthly, the public car park provides an almost complete leaf canopy over the carpark, for birds and insects. The trees and shrubs offer leaves, blossom and berries for people to enjoy, and homes and food for wildlife.

These 4 areas between them offer a wide range of habitats for wildlife, and a large enough area of green space for the sunlight to reach down to the ground and offer a good place for people, as well as for plants and animals to thrive.

This planning application attempts, at a stroke, to remove 3 of these 4 habitats. All that would remain would be the public open space, and that reduced at one edge. For wildlife this will have a huge negative impact with a loss of habitat and space. And this in a city where we have declared a Biodiversity Emergency. For people this loss will have a huge negative impact with a loss of greenery, sunlight and views of and through trees. And this in a time when we have research to show how important these things are to our mental health. The remaining 'Green' will be surrounded by buildings all over 9 storeys tall, and the loss of light and sunlight to the ground will impact hugely on the remaining biodiversity and on people. At the moment we can cycle and walk for a few minutes through a green area, with the sound of birds and wind in the leaves, blossom fluttering around us and the movement of small birds and mammals in the hedgerow. This proposal will leave us walking in the shadow of a huge building, and the wildlife will have had to move on.

Effect of light spill on the railway- a commuting route for rare batsRecent studies in the area have noted that rare and very light-averse bats are known to use the railway line as a commuting route between roosts and feeding sites. These species include, among others: Lesser Horseshoes, Bechstein's bats, and Brown Long-Eared bats. Some of these bats come from nationally important maternity roosts of the Lesser Horseshoe bat, which is a Priority Species under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, please see references for those studies below.This is particularly relevant, as part of the planned development lies right beside the railway line. Artificial light can cause flight paths to be severed, which, even at some distance from the roost, can cause desertion of the roost. This light can include sources from external lights, windows, and glare. We are concerned that the Ecological Appraisal does not address this as an issue. It investigates potential bat roosts on the site, and it mentions minimising light onto trees (Section 7.17), but fails to address the effect of light spill on the railway, as a recognised bat commuting route. For reference, please see the following two documents: o Victoria Park, West Site. Bat Acoustic Surveys and Examination of Lesser Horseshoe Bat Activity, undertaken by Wild Service, November 2016o Ashton Park environmental assessment (Section 6: Bats), undertaken by Baker Shepherd Gillespie, 2009As noted above, these documents both show that Lesser Horseshoe bats, Bechstein's bats and Brown Long-Eared bats are known to use the railway line as a commuting route between roosts, along with other species including Serotine, Noctule, Leisler's, Common pipistrelle and Soprano pipistrelle, and possibly other Myotis species. Nationally important Lesser Horseshoe maternity roosts are mentioned to be in the vicinity of the railway line. In the city, a severing of a major commuting route would leave the bats with no other commuting route option. The survey carried out by Wild Service in 2016 states that the railway line provides a linear linkage for bats from the River Avon to Bedminster Down and beyond. It further recommends "the creation of a dark corridor along the railway line".It is currently illegal to cause disturbance that affects populations of bats, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Artificial lighting which causes disturbance and potential abandonment of a roost can constitute an offence (Information taken from Bat Conservation Trust guidance note "Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK"). The Bat Conservation Trust guidance note states that "Artificial light can cause a flight path to be severed". Lesser Horseshoe bats, Bechstein's bats, and Brown Long-Eared bats, are known to be extremely light-adverse. The Bat Conservation Trust guidance note ("Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK") informs us that any light at all will have an adverse effect on these species of bats, as apparently the average light level on hedgerows most regularly used by Lesser Horseshoe bats has been recorded at 0.45 lux, and it goes on to state that "a no-lighting approach should be taken on foraging or commuting habitat of rare and light-adverse species such as Bechstein's bats and horseshoe bats". The lack of an External Light Assessment for this development, means that the effect on bats using the railway line does not seem to have been assessed. Such a study should surely be undertaken and must include an assessment of light sources from:

o Outdoor lighting. o Windows: The document from the Bat Conservation Trust specifically says "sources of lighting which can disturb bats are not limited to roadside or external security lighting, but can also include light spill via windows.o Glare: the document from the Bat Conservation Trust states that " Additionally, glare may affect bats over a greater distance than the target area directly illuminated by the luminaire and must also be considered on your site". o The Vertical Plane of Light: This is apparently important, according to the Bat Conservation Trust guidance note, because it enables a visualisation of the effects of illumination at the various heights at which different bat species fly.As it stands, a development on land owned by a city council that has declared a biodiversity should not be permitted unless it can be shown that minimal harm is done to endangered species living and using the area.

Form and MassingThe buildings vary only slightly in height from around 7 storeys to 10 storeys and this has produced some blocky elevations which present an ugly, unwelcoming, and unimaginative façade. Rather than using this opportunity to enhance the Green and the entrance to Windmill Hill, a place popular and well identified with the locals, has become a space that will do the opposite. Rather than mark the entrance to a well defined character area of Windmill Hill the development gives no consideration to the local urban context by presenting the same type of treatment to all elevations.It does not assist the general person to navigate, and such measures which do not provide visual cues are unhelpful and frequently confusing. The result of this treatment is unimaginative, dull facades which will in no way contribute to a successful place-making effort.

Unrelieved square tops of buildings appear as a wall in many of the visualisations and will mask the visual cues of the area that enable the people at ground level to appreciate the topography of Bristol. The consistent, repetitive and disappointing choice to avoid identifying navigable features or any attempt to relieve the monotony of the façade has created 3 building which blend together as a wall and this can clearly be see in many of the visualisations. It is especially telling, in the views from Bedminster Station platform, Windmill Hill and along Malago Road, that it is difficult to see where one block ends and another starts. Truly this is a wall that will hide Windmill Hill from the rest of the city and provide a block of development that will face the homes and gardens of many on the hill, impinging on privacy for these residents.

A portion of this development, the 10 storey part of block 1, is outside the parameters of the Bedminster Green framework for height and should not be permitted for this reason.

The architect has brought up several examples of byzantine style for architecture as an inspiration. These examples are not local to Bedminster (once a separate settlement to Bristol and larger than it). In fact, the local historic material palette of Bedminster is Victorian red brick, with stone detailing and the use of pennant sandstone. This context has been ignored in favour of a brown brick and yellow/bronze metal cladding. The notable elements of the byzantine architecture example shown, such as the high contrast details around openings, are not referenced in their design, suggesting those

local cues are not picked up in this design.

NOTE: the visualisations included in the submission show this building in context with the other approved development. We urge these images to be used and referenced when making a decision on the application.

ConsultationThe nature of the consultation with the local residents has been disappointing for this part of the development at Bedminster Green. As this is council owned land the opportunity was there for the land owner to insist that early stage discussions were had to understand the concerns and the opportunities the site represents to benefit all of the needs of the current and future residents of the area. This was not done. The group understands that a lot of discussions were had with the city Design Group over the scheme to develop it, but the local residents have only seen late-stage representations of a very nearly finished scheme that has changed little between these consultation. At each time a very high proportion of comments have been directed at the height, massing, density and loss of biodiversity that this scheme represents, yet there has been no attempt to make changes within the scheme. It is disappointing that the development team has merely done a 'tick-box' exercise on the consultation rather than use this valuable design tool for its purpose which is to produce something site specific, suited to local area and that works with the local community. The failure of the development team to engage with local context is evident in the way that the scheme is blocky, square and contemptuous to the local typology and context of Windmill Hill, by ignoring it and blocking it out.

(The group recalls an earlier scheme by the same architect on a nearby site that originally 'celebrated' the coloured house facades of Bristol, this was in part rejected because the approach was contrived and could not emulate the organic development that these facades represent. This attitude has clearly changed as the same design team now wishes to block them out and create a monotonous, uninteresting, and homogenous façade as a response to context that is not local to Bedminster).

Sustainability and approach to energy useThe scheme intends to use air source heat pumps to provide space and water heating for the apartments and makes reference to using a combined heat and power plant, though it is not clear to what purpose, unless the heat is likely to be used just for the commercial space.Bristol planning policy notes that CHPs are not a renewable energy measure but an energy efficiency measure, it is not clear how this intends to be powered.The group thinks that the inclusion of air source heat pumps rather than gas boilers is positive, but draws its attention to the fact that these need to run on electricity. The building does not include any on site renewables and the proposal does not intend to insist on energy coming from a renewable source so the scheme makes no attempt to meet the Bristol policy of providing 20% renewables on site, and for this reason permission should be refused.The above methods of heating will both have a carbon impact on the development. The developer says that they intend to minimise this by using a better level of thermal insulation than required in building regulations (a level is not stated so this could be very

small and no target is stated) and reduce the level of air changes. The buildings themselves however seem to have a large ratio of heated area to perimeter, when designing for low energy buildings using Passivhaus, for example, this is called form factor. The high form factor of these buildings because of the high perimeter area suggests that a larger amount of insulation may be needed to lower the actual energy use of the building. Materials themselves have embodied carbon which represents the amount of energy required to make the materials themselves, this could therefore be larger for this scheme (although again the level of performance for the buildings has not been even suggested as a target).The forms of the buildings themselves contain many regular indents and overhangs which will make eliminating 'cold bridges difficult to achieve. (cold bridges are areas where the thermal envelope is reduced to very low thickness or eliminated entirely, allowing heat to be lost).

The group was also concerned about the floor to ceiling windows that feature on many of the south facing windows. These will have an impact in the summer by letting in heat through the glass as they are not being entirely shaded. No overheating study has been included in the application, but if mechanical cooling methods are required in the apartments this will further drive up the electricity use of the building and with no renewables on site, the carbon footprint of the development. We believe that a council development which includes affordable housing intended for those on low incomes, should not require large amounts of energy to live in. The recent rise in energy prices and the discussions at the recent COP26 suggests this is not a development that should be permitted unless it will protect the livelihood of those people it is accommodating.

In summary, the form, layout, and absence of renewables on the building mean that the developer has made little effort to make this a sustainable building. They make no effort to comply with local energy policy and any gains they intend to make through improved fabric performance may be cancelled out.

Block 3The proximity of Block 3 to the railway line was a great cause for concern to the team. This is a well used railway line, the principal route from Bristol Temple Meads to and from the west of the country. This means it is regularly used by passenger and goods trains during the day and night, many of which sit stationary outside Bedminster Station with their engines running as they wait for platforms to open at Temple Meads. This will have a detrimental impact on the residents of Block 3 as this will be especially close to their windows and, in some cases, front doors, noise and air quality (the train line is not electrified to the south west and any proposals to do so are not in the public realm). The open balcony access to the apartments in this block forms a narrow corridor and the gap between building and the embankment could trap any exhaust emissions from the trains within these spaces.

This should not be considered a good idea to place residents in such proximity to the station. It is sad that the developer seems to propose to put the lowest value (affordable) homes in this location. There was also concern that should this block be impossible to construct to appropriate levels of sound insulation and air quality it may not be built at all. Every effort should be made to ensure the full quota of affordable

housing required by local planning policy is implemented in all developments of Bedminster Green.

The southern facing apartments on the lowest levels of this block will be below the line of the railway and have severely impacted views and daylighting on the southern façade and should not be allowed for this reason.

SecurityThere is concern that the entrances to Block 1 at the western end is not supervised and may not be secure for people to be use late at night.

DaylightingThe courtyard of Block 1 will be in shadow especially at the lower levels, this courtyard is also very narrow even at the widest end (the lack of a scale bar on the drawings makes it difficult to be certain).The size of the courtyard and the overshadowing seem to render the double aspect nature of the apartments redundant. Most of these flats will only have a single aspect of any benefit to the scheme and so we do not think this block is well designed and the scheme refused for this reason. Block 2 suffers from similar problems albeit to a lesser extent.

To conclude:WHaM objects most strongly to this development on the following grounds.

o The building is too tall to comply with local policyo The height of the building masks the local topographyo The density of the proposal is too high for an inner city areao The proposed methods of reducing energy use are unlikely to worko The scheme does not comply with policy regarding on site renewableso Block 3 is very close to the railway line and the detrimental effects of noise and air pollution will be felt by its residentso The material selection and repetitive nature of the design is oppressive and not conducive to successful place-makingo The loss of local biodiversity is unacceptableo There are endangered species in the area that must be protected. o The visual impact of the blocks as a wall from many viewpoints is damaging to the local area

I object to this application on the following grounds.

Size and Massing - This development is massive. Creating the appearance of an unrelieved wall.At 10 storeys (in one place) it exceeds the heights specified in the council's own frameworkdocument.Although the Scheme is divided into 3 blocks this will blend together from many viewpoints. Thetopography of Windmill Hill will be concealed from the rest of the city. We will live behind abarricade made even worse by other proposed and approved developments close by.

Density - At around 350 dwellings per hectare, this is far too great for the area - it's infrastructure,roads and facilities.

Loss of trees and protected species - there is a climate emergency. This type of development fliescompletely in the face of that fact. Destroying trees and potential green corridors for wildlife.

Construction - The buildings have a high envelope area to heated space area i.e. poor form factorand this combined with difficult detailing around inset balconies and overhangs will make theimproved fabric performance difficult to achieve during buildingThere are also no on-site renewables being used.

Health - The tall floor to ceiling windows may well cause overheating. The affordable portion of thebuilding is built very close to the railway line. This is far from ideal.

Safety - Block 3 does not allow easy access to the railway embankment for maintenance.The access points to the apartment blocks are not all in readily supervised areas, we have safetyconcerns

One last point - WHY SO MONSTEROUS? WHY SO UGLY? WHY SO WRONG HEADED? Whenwe could have had something forward looking, creative and problem solving? Something toenhance this area and give people much needed homes?

Thank youEsmé Clutterbuck

I wish to object to the plans for Plot 5 as currently presented on the following grounds:

The density of dwellings (over 300 per hectare) is much higher than developments approved inother inner city areasThe height and design of the development presents a dominant, uniform and unattractive wallwhich obscures Windmill Hill Asan important landmark from the rest of the City. At its highest of 10storeys the tallest building exceeds the limits outline in the framework agreementIn the context of the current climate crisis, despite the proposals for combined heat and powerthere seems to be no inclusion of further renewable technologiesThe development and the removal of trees and the consequent impact on local biodiversity is anunacceptable incursion on the vital green space of Bedminster GreenWhile the proposals include an acceptable level of affordable housing, the fact that the majority isin Building 3 is cause for concern. Its proximity to the railway line is not an ideal environment andissues of access to the embankment and the nature of the land could also be problematic. If itwere ultimately gone the case that this was not deemed viable to build what guarantees wouldthere be that the proposed percentage of affordable housing would be delivered elsewhere in thedevelopment.Overall, I urge you to reject the current proposal in favour of any future proposals that would betterserve residents and the local community.

Paul Cox

Any rational plan for Bedminster Green would have included adequate provision of open spacebut, since the project has been mainly developer led, that has not been a priority. Even when thecouncil has been involved, as with Plot 4, their obsession with achieving numbers has meantsupporting the proposal for a sixteen storey block, densely packed with 295 small apartments. Andwhat did they get in return? Twenty-one social flats (7% of the total) and a three storey car park onLittle Paradise.

The provision of that car park is intended to release Hereford Street car park on Plot 5 fordevelopment. But why should development here mean housing? Why are planners simplycontinuing as if Covid never happened, as if there is no concern over our increasing carbonfootprint nor any recent promise on bio-diversity?

Hereford Street car park is not a post-industrial wasteland; it is a tree-lined open space alreadypartly occupied by a garden and a green roofed building. It would be suitable as an addition to theexisting Green to form a double urban 'lung' providing a small but welcome breathing space for thethousands of new residents expected nearby.

I should not have to remind the Planning Committee that Plot 5 is public land. It should be used forpublic benefit. Under this proposal, half of it (the car park) will be permanently gifted to Dandara,the developer, to build 158 homes for private sale. Does the council think this is a bargain simply

because 30% of the total build of 339 homes will be social housing, even though 30% is supposedto be the norm?

It will certainly come at a cost in density. Across Plots 4 and 5 (the two Dandara schemes) thedensity will far exceed the average of 220 to 320 dwellings per hectare envisaged in theBedminster Green Framework. Indeed, since Plot 4 has already been approved at 600 perhectare, the only way even the top end of the average could be achieved would be by buildingalmost nothing on Plot 5. Not a bad idea, perhaps.

The sad reality is that, because no-one in a position of power was prepared to take responsibilityfor creating an overall vision or even a sensible balanced plan, the whole Bedminster Greenproject will end up as the sum of each developer's ambition, to leave us with an uninterrupted,densely packed, uniform wall, 400 metres long and up to 50 metres high, permanently altering thetopography of the city.

I am old enough not to care and my grandchildren don't live in Bristol but is this the legacy wewant to pass on down the twenty-first century?

Effect of light spill on the railway- a commuting route for rare bats

Rare and very light-averse bats (Lesser Horseshoes, Bechstein's bats, and Brown Long-Earedbats, amongst others) are known to use the railway line as a commuting route between roosts andfeeding sites, including from a nationally important maternity roost of the Lesser Horseshoe bat,which is a Priority Species under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

Part of the planned development lies immediately beside the railway line.

Artificial light can cause flight paths to be severed, which, even at some distance from the roost,can cause desertion of the roost. This light can include sources from external lights, windows, andglare.

I am concerned that the Ecological Appraisal does not address this as an issue. It investigatespotential bat roosts on the site, and it mentions minimising light onto trees (Section 7.17), but failsto address the effect of light spill on the railway, as a recognised bat commuting route.

For reference, please see the following two documents:- Victoria Park, West Site. Bat Acoustic Surveys and Examination of Lesser Horseshoe BatActivity, undertaken by Wild Service, November 2016- Ashton Park environmental assessment (Section 6: Bats), undertaken by Baker ShepherdGillespie, 2009

These documents both show that Lesser Horseshoe bats, Bechstein's bats and Brown Long-Eared bats are known to use the railway line as a commuting route between roosts, along withother species including Serotine, Noctule, Leisler's, Common pipistrelle and Soprano pipistrelle,and possibly other Myotis species. Nationally-important Lesser Horseshoe maternity roosts arementioned to be in the vicinity of the railway line. In the city, a severing of a major commutingroute would leave the bats with no other commuting route option. The survey carried out by WildService in 2016 states that the railway line provides a linear linkage for bats from the River Avon toBedminster Down and beyond. It further recommends "the creation of a dark corridor along therailway line".

It is currently illegal to cause disturbance that affects populations of bats, under the Wildlife andCountryside Act 1981 (as amended). Artificial lighting which causes disturbance and potentialabandonment of a roost can constitute an offence (Information taken from Bat Conservation Trustguidance note "Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK"). The Bat Conservation Trust guidance notestates that "Artificial light can cause a flight path to be severed".

Lesser Horseshoe bats, Bechstein's bats, and Brown Long-Eared bats, are known to be extremelylight-adverse. The Bat Conservation Trust guidance note ("Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK")informs us that any light at all will have an adverse effect on these species of bats, as apparentlythe average light level on hedgerows most regularly used by Lesser Horseshoe bats has beenrecorded at 0.45 lux, and it goes on to state that "a no-lighting approach should be taken onforaging or commuting habitat of rare and light-adverse species such as Bechstein's bats andhorseshoe bats".

I am also concerned there is no External Light Assessment of this development, which would allowthe effect on bats on the railway line to be assessed. This should surely include an assessment oflight sources from:- Outdoor lighting.- Windows: The document from the Bat Conservation Trust specifically says "sources of lightingwhich can disturb bats are not limited to roadside or external security lighting, but can also includelight spill via windows.- Glare: the document from the Bat Conservation Trust states that " Additionally, glare may affectbats over a greater distance than the target area directly illuminated by the luminaire and mustalso be considered on your site".- The Vertical Plane of Light: This is apparently important, according to the Bat Conservation Trustguidance note, because it enables a visualisation of the effects of illumination at the variousheights at which different bat species fly.

The scheme is much too large in scale and massing for this site. The visualisations,even in a developer-friendly best-case scenario, appear as a relentless wall of development. In thecontext of the other relentless walls of development that have already been approved, this willappear very ugly indeed. It is poor design, to a poor brief, not suited at all to the setting. It will endup looking and feeling like a prison yard, but with less natural light and likely a howling windblowing through.

Loss of trees on the green will be lost, along with established habitat that cannot be replaced.

The affordable housing block is very close to the railway line. This will not be an attractive place tolive - disruptive to people's lives and potentially mental health. Sites close to the rail line should bereserved as sites to potentially move local light industries, and more suitable sites used forhousing. Documents related to rail noise note that trains stop by 10 or 11 pm. Anyone with anylocal knowledge knows that large, noisy freight trains move along the line throughout the night, asdo empty passenger trains getting in place for the morning. This block would be an awful place tolive.

I'm concerned about the safety aspect of some entrance points, which are not well trafficked norvisible.

A portion of block 1 at the highest point is 10 stories and exceeds the local framework.The height of the block and consistent tops of the blocks conceal the topography of windmill hill

from the rest of the city.

This is really one of the worst plots in the whole Bedminster green scheme in terms of cramming in'units' in a totally unsuitable spot.

Amongst my reasons for objecting to this planning application are the following:The density of dwellings is not appropriate to the area. The height of these proposed blocks isinappropriate alongside too many other planned high blocks nearby. The design results in a heavymass of building, not at all sympathetic to the other dwellings in the area which are mostly two andthree storeys.

Tall buildings need space around them, for the residents therein and for the general area. Somany of the flats will have only other flats to look at, no other view. And the social housing islimited to a constricted area close to the railway with limited safe access to outdoor space.

Whilst I recognise that car ownership and use need to be reduced the provision of such a smallnumber of parking spaces will not work currently.

The plans presented here remove too much of the green area, trees, bushes and other wildlifehabitats.

Two sections or areas within Plot 5 do need development but not all. The green area and theunique Green House are assets, not to be removed or diminished.

Housing is needed of course but this development is not the right choice of design or the right useof the land.

This is always going to be a contentious area for any building plans - the green is animportant local green space and the city farms federation building is something local people areproud of, most local people don't want ANY building on this plot at all, whereas some (sensible)building on other plots is generally accepted.The plans are monstrous, frankly. 7 - 10 stories is WAY too high. It will create a wall of buildings ina very small plot, utterly dwarfing the existing housing. Though to be fair in contrast with the otherhuge and inappropriate buildings already suggested for neighbouring plots, it's the same - butplease, consider what you are doing to this generally rather poor and disadvantaged area. It won'tgentrify it, it will obscure and cannibalise it, it will destroy the local area. It's too much, too dense,too high, too many homes all in one small space. It will make the area feel utterly depressing andoverwhelmed with just more building. This is a residential area, not central London or thecommercial centre of Manchester. Please don't accept this plan. It makes me want to cry andmove out of lovely Windmill Hill which has been my home for 30 years because the character isswamped by ugly towering buildings utterly out of character with the existing low level traditionalhousing . And parking? The lack of parking will also have a massive effect on local roads, we allknow, as do the developers, that people will of course have cars (because the travel infrastructurein Bristol is so poor) so parking will become a bear fight. Please, see sense. Building on this plotideally no! Leave us a green space. And NOT this high. Locals have suggested 2 - 5 stories max.Please listen to us.

Please save the green and skyline.

Frankly, given our current concerns about climate and specifically air quality in this partof Bristol, it seems wholly inappropriate rhat this level of proposed development is even beingremotely considered. What the area desperately needs is more trees and green and not moreconcrete. The increase in traffic that would follow the proposed development will contribute to thealready bad air quality.We need good quality affordable housing but the scheme as it stands does not come anywherenear what should be expected of modern housing developments. This is poorly thought out massmarket development which does not in anyway encompass what a modern city should aspire to.This proposal is poor from almost every way you look at it. Canyon like structures that will be avisual blight locally. Local services are already at a stretch and as such, these structures will placea terrific burden on the neighborhood.

I am concerned that the proposal exceeds the guidelines in the framework fordevelopment of the area, does not take into account the current nature of the space (open, withtrees and pathways), and does not sufficiently take into account the need for the new developmentto provide good quality, sustainable accommodation for new residents. I think it is very unfortunatethat the adjacent sites have remained empty and unused for much of the 26 years I have lived inVictoris Park; and equally unfortunate that the plans that have been submitted have failed to takeinto account the nature of the area, or to produce a develoment that will be fit for purpose forfuture generations. This is a space that needs to take into account the existing infrastructure andthe needs of all those who use the space, including walkers and cyclists. There is an opportunityto enhance the space while providing additional housing and amenities, but this is not being givenproper attention by the developers who have too narrow and partial a viewpoint.I would really like all the parties concerned to keep in mind the need for sustainable developmentthat will enhance rather than detract from the area and be something the council can be proud ofhaving helped to achieve. Short-term thinking that focuses on profit will not do this.

This development will completely change the Green forever.

The character of the area, the scale of the local architecture, the loss of trees and the home toprotected species will be forever lost.

Repeatedly over the years we have been asked to give ideas and suggestions to Bristol CityCouncil and to the developers of these plots.Repeatedly we have asked for reasonable human scaled housing offering good quality of life, withoutside garden spaces and real opportunities to grow communities.Repeatedly our concerns go unheard...what is democracy about if major decisions which will effectour lives and communities go unheard?

We need radical forward thinking developments for the future, to grow healthy physical andemotional human beings and communities, which incorporate less density housing with greenspaces and work opportunities.

- Parking.Whilst reducing motor vehicle use in the city is essential I am concerned that the provision of 27car parking spaces for the amount of flats proposed is completely UNREALISTIC, there will alwaysbe cars and hopefully electric ...where will they park??

- Visualisation studiesThe square nature of the 3 blocks with the same material treatment blends them together andpresents as a massive oppressive block of wall with no articulation to relieve the eye.The consistent height of the tops of the blocks will visually conceal/mask Windmill Hill from otherparts of the city looking towards it, with these dense tall blocksThese tall buildings will change the sky-line of Bristol and we will loose part of the significanthistorical and architectural heritage of our city.

- HeatingThere does not appear to be any renewable energy use in this development only air source heatpump with combined heat and power plant. What level of noise pollution will this make?

- Affordable Housing.The poor levels of Affordable housing in this development have been squeezed into the leastdesirable plot, so close to the railway line gives rise to considerable concern about the quality ofliving these dwellings will provide.

Please consider these important concerns

1. Too many stories: It is far too high, blocking views, dominating the skyline and creating aneyesore from Windmill Hill and Victoria Park (one of Central Bristol's most beautiful parks currentlywith views to rival Ashton Court). It also spoils the views of the charming colourful Edwardianterraces from outside the area looking south from, for example, Ashton Court, Cabot Tower orBristol suspension bridge. In addition, the effect of tower blocks in such close proximity in thissmall space would be to create a shady, gloomy canyon like atmosphere. Building height shouldbe in keeping with the local area and so no more than 3 or at most 4 stories.2. Too dense: The local area is already very densely populated and necessities such as access toGPs and the ability to park are already under a very great deal of pressure. There are alreadyserious problems with air quality which will be exacerbated. Parking is also already a real problemfor local residents.3. Unattractive design: The modern boxy design is out of keeping with the area. Most local housesare Edwardian/Victorian, and many of the larger buildings in the area are also attractive periodproperties.4. Poor quality: The accommodation is of the lowest quality with an emphasis on extractingmaximum profit for the developers at the expense of prospective residents, as well as those whocurrently live in the area.

Personally, I think the Council should publicly refute the damaging suggestion that it favours theidea of ugly cramped and monolithic tower blocks and declare a (very Bristolian) interest in highquality ecologically sound homes. They should make it clear to developers that 3, or at most 4,

stories of high-quality residential accommodation with good outdoor space would be betterfavoured by the planning department. Perhaps then the residents of Bristol can support the nextlot of plans and get the area developed.

The development in question is inappropriate for this location. It will put pressure onlocal infrastructure, increase traffic. And at ten storeys, It is too high which would destroy theviews. It is located too close to the railway line and would result in the loss of much needed greenspace.

Re Application 21/05219/FThis development will completely change the Green forever.

The character of the area, the scale of the local architecture, the loss of trees and the home toprotected species will be forever lost.

Repeatedly over the years we have been asked to give ideas and suggestions to Bristol CityCouncil and to the developers of these plots.Repeatedly we have asked for reasonable human scaled housing offering good quality of life, withoutside garden spaces and real opportunities to grow communities.Repeatedly our concerns go unheard...what is democracy about if major decisions which will effectour lives and communities go unheard?

We need radical forward thinking developments for the future, to grow healthy physical andemotional human beings and communities, which incorporate less density housing with greenspaces and work opportunities.

- Parking.Whilst reducing motor vehicle use in the city is essential I am concerned that the provision of 27car parking spaces for the amount of flats proposed is completely UNREALISTIC, there will alwaysbe cars and hopefully electric ...where will they park??

- Visualisation studiesThe square nature of the 3 blocks with the same material treatment blends them together andpresents as a massive oppressive block of wall with no articulation to relieve the eye.The consistent height of the tops of the blocks will visually conceal/mask Windmill Hill from otherparts of the city looking towards it, with these dense tall blocksThese tall buildings will change the sky-line of Bristol and we will loose part of the significanthistorical and architectural heritage of our city.

- HeatingThere does not appear to be any renewable energy use in this development only air source heatpump with combined heat and power plant. What level of noise pollution will this make?

- Affordable Housing.The poor levels of Affordable housing in this development have been squeezed into the leastdesirable plot, so close to the railway line gives rise to considerable concern about the quality ofliving these dwellings will provide.

Please consider these important concerns

This proposal will create the inevitable canyon along Dalby Avenue, which developerspromised a few years ago that this would not happen. The height will create shadowing overexisting buildings and roads especially in the winter months with people coming home fromschool/work in the dark.

The properties proposed would include children, however there does not seem to be enoughspace for children to play safely, and if families are on the seven+ floors how can parents checkthe safety on children seven floors below. We know from the recent lockdowns that keepingchildren inside in these type of building affects their mental and physical health. Why can we nothave town houses or other homes suitable for family life.

Do the developers really believe that only 27 households in 339 flats will have a vehicle?Numerous jobs these days require driving and usually the vehicles are taken home for early starts,or general home use. Where will these be parked? There is already a complete lack of parking inthe Bedminster area, and this is getting worse. This will be a huge detriment to existing residents,coming home from work and then be unable to park near their home, which they have used for anumber of years.

Many young people may start with a flat, but usually once a family comes along, they need ahouse, I know of quite a number of people who loved living in Bedminster, but started in flats - e.g.Airpoint - but as they started families have had to leave the area and their families to be able tofind a house. Many going to North Bristol or South Gloucestershire, which means even more car

journeys!

I strongly object to this ill considered and badly designed development, the sole aim ofwhich seems to be to extract maximum profit at the expense of the environment and local qualityof life. The current design is too high, obscuring iconic views across Bristol, and does not meshwell with the existing buildings in the area - the design is ugly beyond belief. This developmentwould destroy what little green space remains in the area, vital for improving Bristol's appalling airquality, and would also increase population density to breaking point - it is already impossible tosee local doctors and dentists, the local infrastructure cannot support this many extra people. Ofcourse people need somewhere to live, but this high density abomination of a development is notthe answer, please reconsider and stop this terrible plan.

With the other developments already about to take place perhaps it would be an idea to take abreath and see how that pans out before leaping in to yet more development and confusion. It willbe a vast amount of new people taking residence. Our doctors and dentists surgeries are alreadynot taking more people so how will that be resolved?Our precious green space is in fact quite small and could do with being extended into the car-parkrather than the car park being developed to such a high degree. The car park itself has quite a fewtrees which would go and also with the demolition of the Farm Federation building and garden wewill lose a large amount of greenery. The small courtyard within the buildings will not in replacethis.With the flats being so near the railway I'm surprised British Rail has allowed this. Could it be thatthey in fact won't happen? And where will the social housing go then?Windmill Hill, with it's unique Bristol feeling will be closed off of views to it or from it by a wall massof building.In my opinion, these plans are not yet fit for purpose.Sincerely,Kay Oliver

When I received this proposal in the mail, I did not hesitate to write to the council. I havelived for a few months with the noise of the demolition near my house and it is terrible. To add thatin this case, something is proposed as it will be a huge project that will modify the structure andappearance of the neighborhood, taking away a green area as well, being in the way of the freshand clear view that we have in that side, looking to our lovely Victoria Park.I honestly wouldnt like a project like this one take place.Kind regards

The height of this building is going to effect the views for the residents of Windmill Hill. Itis so lovely to go to sleep, draw the curtains and see the city skyline of old Bristol in the distance,to have this taken away by a modern block of flats is really depressing. We welcome developmentin the area if it brings new work and affordable housing but the height and the change oflandscape is of great concern to us.Please consider the thoughts of local residents.Thank you.

Yes some of these sites need to be used/reused butThese developements are inappropriate in scale andvery unsympathetic in style and design.The densisty of living will not improve the area and without carefully organised infrastructure will only downgradea very family/old and young demographics.

While I support the development of the area, I am against building such tall andcompact blocks of flats, which would have a negative effect on the community living here. On onehand side, I am concerned about the consequences on traffic and the lack of parking spaceswhich already affects the area. On the other hand side, the architectural design doesn't integratewell with the surrounding area and there will be a lack of sunlight not only for the neighbours, butalso for the residents of the flats that were proposed to be built.

Absolutely we object for this massive building to be built next to us. It will block the Sunlight and curropt the area. So please DO NOT go ahead! Thank you.

While I appreciate the need of building more homes I certainly do not believe that highrise buildings and tower blocks is a solution here. This development will not be a good addition tothe area and will result in higher traffic and air pollution, blocking the sunlight to the neighbouringareas, increased noise levels during evening/night hours. This planning proposal appears tobenefit the investors/developers at the expense of local residents.

I object to this development on the grounds of the impactful nature a building of this sizewill have on the area; in the blocking of sunlight and overbearing affect. Parking is also asignificant issue in the immediate surrounding area already which will only get worse with theimplementation of this development. Hereford Street and Whitehouse Lane are busy roads fordomestic and commercial vehicles alongside pedestrians and cyclists; overbearing buildings, alack of sunlight and the additional traffic these buildings will bring will no doubt be too much for thelocal infrastructure to take, therefore adding more problem to Bristol's already exacerbated trafficproblems and being an unwelcome eyesore for the local residents, businesses and theircustomers. No thank you.

an independent force for a better Bristol

October 2021.

PLOT 5 - RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION PROPOSALS OF MARCH 2021.

Bristol Civic Society supports the principle of a predominantly residential development of thisvacant site. However, we have a number of serious concerns about this proposal which are set outbelow and cannot support this application.

The proposal.Dandara's development comprises 339 apartments plus provision of mixed retail, eating andcommunity uses. There are three buildings from seven to 10 storeys immediately to the east, westand south of the Green. The non-residential uses are at ground floor level facing BedminsterGreen. Public realm improvements including redesigning Bedminster Green are included.

Height, massing and design.The Society notes that the proposed heights are consistent with the Bedminster Green Framework(BGF). However, as we said in our response to the BGF, the Green is too small to accommodatebuildings of this height on its perimeter along with the proposed cluster of taller buildings on thesite immediately to the north of Dalby Avenue. We, therefore, caution against strict adherence tothe guidelines in the BGF. We would also underline that the BGF is no more than a materialconsideration in terms of planning law. It does not carry the weight of the Development Plan interms of decision making. It has also not been subject to the rigours of a Supplementary PlanningDocument prepared in accordance with the relevant regulations. In the Society's view, theproposed buildings would have an overbearing presence on the small Green and cast shadowover a significant part of it in the afternoons for much of the year.

Building 1 would be 10 storeys facing Dalby Avenue. At the eastern end of the building this wouldface even taller buildings opposite producing a canyon effect on Dalby Avenue. A similar effect willoccur on Hereford Street if high buildings are permitted at this point on plot 1. At the western end,the proposed building would relate most uncomfortably to the two storey existing houses opposite.There has been no attempt to ameliorate this jarring juxtaposition which would have anoverbearing, if not overshadowing, impact on the existing houses.

Building 3 offers the opportunity to make a transition from the tall buildings proposed to the northto the traditional residential development south of the railway line. The BGF encourages atransition from the new to the existing among other things by stepping down in scale. However, aseven storey building would not achieve this. A three or four storey block of town houses wouldprovide a better transition both in terms of scale and residential type. We also consider that theupper storeys of a seven storey building would be more exposed to disturbance from the railwayline.

The proposed massing of the three buildings is oppressive. There is little variation in height and nobreaks in the facades to allow permeability or light into the developments. The Society wouldprefer to see less dependence on perimeter development in building 1 away from the elevation tothe Green. Building 2 substantially fills its site with very little offered to relieve the solid facades.The space between the southern and northern wings of the development appears very enclosedand shady. We have already suggested a different approach to building 3.

Although the elevations are relieved to some extent by projecting or inset balconies, the overallappearance of the buildings, in addition to the comments above on height and massing, isoppressive and lacks interest and variety. All the proposed roofs are flat and there is littlediscernible relationship or reference to existing buildings in the area. The Society would like to seethis site contribute more visually to stitching new development surrounding the Green into thewider neighbourhood.

In considering these issues, the Society is not convinced that the proposal meets the requirements

of national and local planning policies to achieve a high quality of design suited to thedevelopment context. Bristol City Council and the Planning Inspectorate are giving considerableweight to these policy requirements in assessing proposals in the Bedminster Green area.

Impact on Views.The impact of the proposed development on views is, to some extent, masked by other consenteddevelopments. There is no guarantee that these permissions will be implemented and, therefore, itis important to consider the proposed development as a free standing application. Additionally,there are significant and adverse impacts particularly looking from south to north. View 5 showsthat Building 1 would cut out a considerable part of the valuable view from Windmill hill towardsAshton Court and Leigh Woods over and above the impact of consented development. View 14shows blocks 1 and 3 dominating the immediate view north from outside Bedminster station.

As seen from the Alfred Road viewpoint, the proposed development cuts across the grain of thetopography and in visual terms flattens the slope. It foreshortens views from this part of Bristol andundermines the cascade of buildings mirroring the slope. In doing so, it significantly erodes one ofthe defining characteristics of Bristol's Victorian suburbs.

Living ConditionsThe Society considers single aspect apartments to offer a less than satisfactory living environmentfor their occupants. Significant numbers of the proposed dwellings would be single aspect. Manyothers are described as dual ventilation. These have one elevation in very close proximity toneighbouring apartments and offer very limited outlook. In some cases daylight on theseelevations will be compromised. We would support larger windows on southern elevationsprovided that they were compatible with sustainability objectives.

At least some of the proposed apartments are likely to be occupied by households with children.Each dwelling has a balcony but we are not convinced that there is sufficient external playspace atclose quarters for many of the dwellings apart from those facing the Green. We believe this couldonly be rectified with a different approach to the development rather than the perimeter designproposed for buildings 1 and 2. As it stands, the Society considers that the lack of outdoorplayspace in close proximity to many of the dwellings would result in poor living conditions forhouseholds with children. We are not convinced that the enclosed open space in building 1 at firstfloor level and its roof garden will be particularly suitable for children's play.

Building 3 would be seven storeys as proposed. The upper storeys would be exposed to noisefrom the railway which would adversely affect the quality of life in them. To mitigate the impacts ofnoise the dwellings should be able to be adequately ventilated with mechanical ventilation withheat recovery, in order that residents do not need to open their windows if, for example, they don'twish to or find it difficult to sleep. Enhanced fabric performance should also be applied to improveacoustics, such as acoustic glazing and acoustic wall insulation.

Size and tenure of proposed dwellings.30% of the units provided are proposed to be affordable. The Society welcomes this. We areconcerned, however, about the preponderance of one and two bedroom apartments whichcomprise about 87% of the total to be provided. The BGF's vision included seeking to provide arange of new homes and sustainable urban living offers through a mix of residential units andtenures to help meet Bristol's acute needs and contribute to a diverse, thriving and sustainableBedminster community. We consider that the range of units proposed does not contributesufficiently to this but rather would lead to a mono-culture of small flats as we warned in ourresponse to the BGF.

Non-residential land uses.Retail, eating and community uses are proposed for the ground floors of each building facing theGreen. If viable and consistent with a revived East Street shopping centre, the Society supportsthese uses although, as noted above, we consider that building 3 could be reformatted as townhouses to facilitate a smoother transition to the character of development south of the railway.

Sustainability.The Society supports the Council's Local Plan policy commitments to sustainability and reducingthe impacts of climate change. The Bedminster Green developments should be exemplars ofachieving sustainability. As it stands, the Society has a number of concerns about thesustainability of the proposed development. We urge the Council to ensure that the proposal'ssustainability objectives are policy compliant. Our concerns are set out below:

The form factor, i.e. the shape of the buildings, is very poor - there is a lot of heat loss area, so thebuildings are not energy efficient and will require a lot of heating.

Overheating is likely due to extent of full-height glazing.

Overheating modelling comments:- currently only 3rd floor and 1st floor are tested, which are not likely to be worst case - top floor,south-westerly apartments should be tested (as worst case)- 2020 weather file shows some overheating, which is mitigated by using constant mechanicalventilation. This increases energy demand, and it is not clear how the ventilation is provided.Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) should be employed if ventilation is required torun constantly.- 2050 weather file results show that air conditioning is required to the apartments tested, whichare not the worst case, therefore it appears that a significant number will require air conditioning.As this is not being considered as part of the initial development, it is likely that there will be 'bolt-on' air conditioning units mounted onto the outside of the building which would have a harmfulimpact on the appearance of the building.- heating pipework is not modelled in overheating model as 'understood to be located outside' -

unlikely that all heating pipework is to run on the outside of the building, and if it does, the heatlosses from this pipework will be significant and inefficient. If the pipework runs within the building(likely) the overheating will be worse than modelling results show.

Airtightness of the building is 3-5 m3/(hr.m2). At these levels of airtightness mechanical ventilationwith heat recovery should be employed as otherwise there is a significant risk of mould growth andmoisture build-up.

The Society suggests that the Council should assess whether CHP (combined heat and power) asis proposed is a suitable technology for this building type. Air source heat pump (ASHP)technology should be considered to determine if it is more energy efficient.

Traffic and transport.The BGF envisaged an entrance to Bedminster Station opening directly on to the Green. BristolCivic Society supported this. However, our own investigations support the view of the developersthat this would require prohibitively expensive work and would possibly be disruptive to the trainservice during implementation. Reluctantly, therefore, we accept that the station entrance mustremain to the south of the tracks for the present. We would urge the developers to discuss withNetwork rail whether a northern station entrance is possible in the longer term and, if so, to protectthe location where it could be provided. It is also important that Dandara work with the Council andNetwork Rail to improve the access to and appearance of the present entrance. In particular, theunfriendly and narrow approach through the bridge needs to become more pedestrian friendly.Sheltering facilities on the platforms would also benefit from upgrading.

Although there are few train services stopping at Bedminster currently, implementation of theMetrowest project including the Portishead line will significantly improve services including crosscity routes. It is important that the increase in population from the Bedminster Green project, aswell as the existing community, are encouraged to use the train. There is also potential to developa fairly convenient interchange between rail and bus services including the metrobus.

The Society is not clear how the buildings will be serviced by delivery and other vehicles. There isone layby shown on Hereford Street for Building 1 and Building 2 has access space indicatedparticularly for disabled drivers to park. It is important that parking on Dalby Avenue does notcontribute to traffic congestion on this busy road.

Public Realm.The Society supports the deculverting of the Malago River. It is important that the futuremanagement of it is agreed at the outset, however, in order maintain its aesthetic quality. We alsowant to see Bedminster Green improved as an open space. We are concerned, however, thatBedminster Green is designed to cope with the pressure of the impending population growth. It isa relatively small space and we have already commented on the overbearing and overshadowingissues that the proposed buildings would cause. Hard wearing surfaces and careful consideration

of the location of facilities and seating will be vital.

The width provided on the north of Buildings 1 and 2 is welcome and we would support theplanting of suitable trees to contribute to the creation of an Avenue on Malago Road and DalbyAvenue. Careful consideration of planting on Hereford Road, ideally in conjunction with proposalsfor the south side, will also be important.

I believe that this is an unnecessary development which only adds to the increasedtraffic and ruination of the area with yet more tower blocks etc. The plans to demolish The FarmFederation green building is a terrible shame as it is a unique structure and a great organisation,likewise the plans to 'open up' the River Malago, whilst laudable in theory is a farce as the riverwould be so narrow as to be little more than a shallow ditch. Please reconsider these plans, thewhole area is being ripped up and 'improved' and local residents like myself are very concerned atthe height of proposed buildings, the overcrowding of flats, the lack of parking and the impact thatwill have on our streets nearby, the loss of views and the destruction and removal of so many sitesas to totally change the area for ever. I recognise that many more homes are needed but do notfeel that vast student blocks and high-rise towers are the solution, regards, Philip S. Cass