Living Easton Heritage and Environmental Group are a community based environmentaland heritage organisation of around 20 individuals and affiliated societies based predominantlyaround the suburbs of Easton, Whitehall, Barton Hill and Lawrence Hill in Bristol who take aparticular interest in heritage, planning and sustainability issues in Bristol.

We are aware that this is a high density development and are concerned about the potentialdestruction of archaeology without it being fully recorded.

As a prime example of this, the developers consultants failed to pick up on a significant find of claytobacco pipe kiln waste at Mead Street and Wear Street in 1982 manufactured by Richard FrankRing's Temple Back factory in the 1850's. This find was important enough to be published in theSociety for Post-Medieval Archaeology journal. This publication describes the Mead Streetarchaeological excavation referred to together with drawings of clay tobacco pipe kiln wastersrecovered from a number of pit groups across the site. It would be sensible for the developers toobtain copies of this publication from the Society for Post Medieval Archaeology to indicate thelocation of these pit groups for future reference before any groundworks are commenced - I thinkthere were at least 10 pits but it is quite possible that more pipe kiln waste could still exist.

Price, R., Jackson, R., Jackson, P., Harper, P. and Kent, O. (1984). The Ring family of Bristol, claytobacco pipe manufacturers 1802-84, exports and kiln dump waste. Post-Medieval ArchaeologyVol 18, pp. 263-300.

Ongoing research is being done on Richard Frank Ring following on from previous work carriedout by the late Dr Roger Price.

The importance of recording any new clay tobacco pipe kiln waste cannot be underestimatedbecause these finds are of both national and international importance as clay tobacco pipesproduced in Bristol by the RF Ring's factory have previously been found in Canada the USA andelsewhere.

When any archaeological excavation work is being carried out on site, it is important that theSociety for Clay Pipe Research is notified of any finds (in particular Dr David Higgins) to assist inthe observation and evaluation of any clay tobacco pipe kiln group finds which may occur.

The documentary research carried out by Dr Roger Price on Richard Frank Ring can be found inthe following publication :-

Bristol Pipemakers (& Their Families) of the 16th to 20th Centuries by Dr Roger Price

Bristol Archives Ref: NPM/B/132

Currently, we are unclear as to what conditions are going to be attached to this planningapplication, whether as a watching brief or a full archaeological excavation but we would expectthat sufficient resource is put in place to ensure that any new clay tobacco pipe kiln waste findsare properly recorded.

Although no longer a resident of Bristol, I feel very strongly about this developmentgoing ahead. By building on the old Bart Spice area of land, the height of the buildings will restrictthe view of the south side of Richmond St, over looking the city & in turn the beautiful and iconicview of the coloured terrace, be a thing of the past.By creating yet more buildings, the whole issue of access becomes a problem. The roads in & outof that part of town are at their limits most of the day. Why add more to it ?Whilst an area of wilderness exists, could it not be more forward thinking of Bristol Citydevelopment to consider creating a green area, where Wildlife could thrive. If all these potentialgreen areas are built on, it is yet another nail in the coffin for flora & fauna, the very things weneed to prioritise.I now live in Dorset, but was a resident of Bristol for many many years, each time I visit the city,my heart sinks when I witness the destruction of some areas, it's as if the charm of the city isbeing removed in a radical way. Surly the surface of roads through out the city would be moreforward thinking & better use of money.I am not a Luddite , I am all for progress & architectural endeavour, however , I feel that anotherarea of development, for the sake of filling in the green gaps is not progress, but greed.

My original objection to this scheme still stands on most of the grounds previouslynoted, which have not been resolved in any way, including the affect on the city scape, theoverbearing nature of the development, adverse affect on Listed Buildings and sub-standard livingconditions produced by an experimental super-dense proposal.

Amendments:It is notable that some things have not been resolved, such as comments that the passagebetween the building and Royal Mail site is too narrow to move bins, and now this is one of themain fire escape routes too.

The upper stairs have not been altered much beyond adding lobbies, so there are still single stairsserving many of the flats in Block C. This is currently permissible, but it is generally accepted thatthe regulations will change soon and that such designs should not be implemented. Not also thismeans that everyone in floors 6-11 of block C will have access to only one lift too, so if that breaksdown they will be in difficulty. Everyone else has the potential to access another lift and stair ontheir floor.

There are numerous examples of careless and reckless planning of this scheme which should notcontinue in this form.

For example Residential buildings of 7 storeys or over are generally said to be 'higher risk'buildings. There are also further risks associated with mixed use buildings and those with car

parks on lower levels.

A single means of escape from flats as in Block C should have a maximum distance from flat toprotected lobby of 7.5m (Building Regulations B1 3.27). The distance shown on plans for some ofthe southern flats is above that, so the escape problem has still not been resolved. There does notappear to be a proper lift exit area for those flats either, although lift exit door positions are notshown on the plans for some reason.

In short, the changes in plans submitted have not resolved the numerous issues which shouldhave lead to a refusal of planning permission in the first place and are unacceptable.

Given the opportunity I feel bound to object further to this awful proposal following theapplicant's submission of changes to the scheme. These changes have done nothing to reducethe overpowering nature of the development and its negative impact on this part of Bristol.

The proposed scheme is much too tall, much too dense and frankly, extremely ungainly. Itperpetuates the penchant which BCC seem to be developing for overdeveloping every availablepiece of land with bulky ugly buildings, in this case, it seems, against the advice of planningofficers. Surely the city deserves better.

Not only is the scheme extremely unpleasant externally. The internal planning is very crampedwith unrelenting provision of single aspect flats and long narrow corridors. Single aspect flatspresent fundamental problems with ventilation and where they face south and/or west willinevitably overheat during the summer months.

We understand there is a housing need, but not at any cost. This scheme should be scrapped andcompletely re-thought with a new lower key brief, better community consultation and a more skilleddevelopment team.

In addition to our previous statement of 22 September 2022, which we understand isconsidered 'sensitive' and therefore is not available for public viewing on the planning portal,TRESA would like to submit the following public objection to the updated plans for this application.TRESA understands the application falls within the definition of hyperdensity, which requires highstandards of design. We are, therefore, extremely concerned that the minor amendmentssubmitted in the most recent plans are insufficient to address important issues:- The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) safety concerns in relation to Block C escape routeswhich led them to conclude that changes necessary to achieve the required standard will affectland use planning considerations such as design, appearance and layout of the building. Thecurrent minor amendments include a single escape route into a narrow boundary footway that isalready considered problematic for the movement of waste bins.- The Transport Development Manager (TDM)'s concerns about: design of vehicular access;quantum of Sheffield Stand cycle parking; width of footway along Mead Street when accounting forloading bay; width of footway and St Luke's Road Mead Street junction; width of useable footwayalong St Luke's Road; width of access at site boundary to the West to enable adequate wastemovement; location of storage of bins on collection day; clarification of travel plan option.In addition, so far as we can tell:- Avon Fire and Rescue Service have not commented on the updated plans.- Crime Reduction Avon and Somerset Police submitted a list of concerns in February 2022 butand have not commented on the updated plans.- The Flood Risk manager's report of 8 August 2022 indicated "we still have outstandingcomments as submitted on the 17/02/2022"

- There is no updated report from the Air Quality Officer who objected to the application inFebruary 2022- The application fails to comply with the Mead Street development briefConsequently, we believe the following updated reports should be provided and made available onthe planning portal:- Health and Safety Executive- Avon Fire and Rescue Service- Traffic Development Management- Flood Risk Manager- The Bristol Waste Company- Crime Reduction Avon and Somerset Police- Air Quality OfficerWe would also like to see due consideration given to the impact on the Mead Street DevelopmentBrief.

TRESAcicwww.tresa.org.uk27 September 2022

Why is the committee going against its own officers recommendations?

The fire safety safety and single aspect issues are enough to have this sent back for a redesign.Add in the blocking of the iconic views by cramming in too many floors to end up with anunimpressive box and this is an insult to injury.

We do not need any more flats or apartments in this area. There is no infrastructure toaccommodate this. I do not want it on my door step having lived on york rd for over 36 years now ido not want anotger appartment block here ots dishusting bcc getting bachanders from greedyproperty developers its too high anx will block the view of people in totterdowni do not want this onmy door step

A few points from me. There has been no due consideration for the council to removelarge waste bins, you will be adding to the cost of refuse collectors' time by forcing them to carrysmall bins one after another down a fire escape route.The use of an escape route for refuse has the potential to risk people's lives if they cannot escapethe building.

There is legislative change coming in on the width of staircases which has been ignored (As it isnot law yet), as the planning authority, it is your place to hold this future legislation as gospelregardless of it not being required right now. It will be implemented.

I am also concerned, that this review was pushed forward without all required reviewers havingtheir say. It seems you have tried to blindside the objectors with a rushed proposal that will riskpeople's lives and cause very disgusting waste build-up when our waste removal team is unable todo its job.

Now is time to act and stop this building before we have yet another, not fit for purposeaccommodation built in teh city

Corruption, corruption, corruption. Vested interests. Have you learned nothing in thesixty years since the Newcastle tower block scandal?

I always think that it's hardly worth making any comments as a resident of Bristol tothese sorts of planning applications as the council seems to bend over to any developer when it isclear that the local electorate are not happy about a town planning application. The councilplanning office may as well just stay at home and watch the TV most of the time. We see thishappening now in the Broadwalk area where the redesigning of the Broadwalk shopping centreequally has no bearing on the reality of the Bristol that people want. It seems business as usual tolisten to the objections of the people and then override them at some point in the future which isclearly what is happening here. It is quite frankly disgusting.

The people of Bristol are more important than the financial desires of out of town rich developerswho care nothing about us or the environment which has made Bristol what it is/was and whichclings on to remnants of our individuality as a city as these bulldozers destroy all of that.

Another copy and paste block of unaffordable poorly built flats is not what the future should looklike and the council should know this. There is little to like about this proposed development butfrom experience it's just going to happen whatever we say. In a few years, we will also be lookingand a wholly unsuitable building on the site of Broadwalk which will again go to show the contemptthat Bristol city council hold for their people and their personal opinions.

I am very concerned by reports on the Planning Committee meeting that approved thisapplication. It does appear that the committee failed to consider all the appropriate evidence andexhibited bias in making this decision.

TRESA is extremely concerned about the process in handling this planning applicationat Bristol City Council (BCC) Development Control Committee A on 24 August 2022.The Local Government Association's Probity in Planning guide indicates that members of aplanning committee need to avoid any appearance of bias or of having predetermined their viewsbefore taking a decision on a planning application.We believe the Chair of the committee, and possibly other members, showed predetermined viewsand bias against the report presented by officers at the meeting. The Chair of the Committeestated: "Only last month you briefed members, or officers briefed members and the applicant, andI didn't seem to believe there was any major concern then. So I'm rather taken aback now we'rebeing presented with the recommendation for refusal."It appeared that the applicant had pushed for the application to be heard quickly, beforeaddressing some important issues relating to safety and transport, and before all relevant reportswere available to members of the committee.The Head of Development Management indicated (from transcript of the meeting): "Unfortunatelyit's a consequence of bringing this to committee quite quickly, which the applicants are entitled tobring it, to ask it for it to come to committee really quickly, that, you know, notwithstanding our bestefforts in sending out consultations both internally but also externally to statutory consulteesincluding new statutory consultants like the HSE on fire safety, that sometimes issues are raisedquite late in the day and we don't have the answers to resolve them. So I think that's the situationwe're in with both the transport development management issues and also the HSE issues."As a consequence, we believe a number of important issues have not been addressed andcouncillors lacked relevant information to make a fully informed decision:

- The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) report raised safety concerns about the updated planswhich appeared to confuse committee members.- The Transport Development Manager (TDM)'s Report recommended refusal but was notavailable on BCC planning website until 6 September 2022, after the planning committee meeting.- Avon Fire and Rescue Service had not commented on the new plans (their report, submittedJanuary 2022, was on the previous plans).- Crime Reduction Avon and Somerset Police submitted a list of concerns in February 2022, andno updated report on the current design is available on the planning website.- The Flood Risk manager's report of 8 August 2022 indicated "we still have outstandingcomments as submitted on the 17/02/2022".- An updated comment from Bristol Waste was emailed to the officer but has not been uploadedonto BCC planning website. However, the TDM report of 12 August (not available on the BCCplanning website until 6 September) recommends refusal because the alleyway is onlyapproximately 1.3m wide, which would not allow refuse operatives to move large, wheeled binsfrom the refuse storage area to the adopted highway. (It is important to note that this alleyway isalso an escape route.)- There is no updated report from the Air Quality Officer who objected to the application inFebruary 2022.We believe these concerns about predetermination, bias, and unavailability of relevant documentsmay warrant a judicial review.Following the 24 August 2022 Development Control Committee meeting, further plans from theapplicant have been uploaded on BCC planning website. These plans show minimal changes thatonly partially address serious issues raised in the officer's report.TRESA has the following concerns:- The passage between the building and the adjoining Royal Mail site is too narrow to move bins,and is now one of the main fire escape routes.- There are single stairs serving many of the flats in Block C. (It is generally accepted theregulations will change on this soon, which may be why the application has been rushed.)- A single means of escape from flats in Block C should have a maximum distance from flat toprotected lobby of 7.5m (Building Regulations B1 3.27). The distance shown on plans for some ofthe southern flats is above that. There does not appear to be a proper lift exit area for those flats,although lift exit door positions are not shown on the plans.- Residents in floors 6-11 of Block C will have access to only one lift. If that breaks down they willhave to use the stairs. Other residents have to access another lift and stairway on their floor.- Overall the application suffers from hyperdensity, and failure to comply with the Mead Streetdevelopment brief in terms of excessive height and the planned pedestrian/cycling infrastructure.We believe the following reports should be requested for the revised plans, and considered at afuture Development Control Committee meeting:- Health and Safety Executive- Avon Fire and Rescue Service- Traffic Development Management- Flood Risk Manager

- The Bristol Waste Company- Crime Reduction Avon and Somerset Police- Air Quality OfficerWe would also like to see due consideration given to the impact on the Mead Street DevelopmentBrief.Given concerns about predetermination and bias, it may be preferable for the new plans andassociated documents to be considered by Development Control Committee B.

As someone who works in this area it concerns me that the proposed building is inbreach of a number of guidelines which would impact the prospective residents , their neighboursand the local wildlife . The proposed building is much taller than others in the area , it doesn'tadequately account for access to daylight hours , or address polluted air. Parking is not fullyprovided given the number of flats and spaces available. Vegetation has been removed andbiodiversity will be affected. This development is in breach of Bristol Urban Living SPD and theemerging development brief for the Mead Street area as well as BCS1, BCS2, BCS15, BCS20and BCS21, and should therefore be refused .

I wish to object to the proposed development.

Some elements of this design are reasonable - the overall architectural style with the gabled roofslooks quite nice. and the green pathway linking York Road to Mead Street is pleasant (althoughi'm cautious it will become private space and blocked off from the public).

However, there are too many negatives that count against this development.

Height and location:The blocks are simply too high and overbearing compared to other local buildings. It appears to bereferencing the hideous towerblocks over the river to justify this new height.The report on overshadowing shows that buildings in the Bedminster Conservation Area would beaffected as well as blocking light to flats over the river.

The proposal for 11 storeys would block the view of the Totterdown Escarpment which is asignificant landmark in Bristol (Its used in loads of marketing stuff about Bristol). There is even apetition with over 5000 repsonses requesting for this view to be preserved.

Living in the buildingA significant proportion of the proposed units are single aspect which are often dark, and lackdecent ventilation. As well as create boring places to live.

The "Internal Daylight Assessment" for the building shows that many flats don't meet therecommended daylight targets.A previous comment neatly summarised this:"76.4% of rooms achieve recommended Average Daylight Factor (ADF) targets if kitchens areseparated from open plan kitchen-living-dining rooms. The No Sky Line (NSL) results indicate that44.9% of rooms comply with the recommended target for daylight distribution, and 54.3% achievethe recommendations for direct sunlight admission. If kitchens are included in the results, the ADFcompliance rate reduces to 58.8%, and 39.1% of rooms meet the NSL criterion."

Within the building, access is through long, narrow, dark corridors with no natural light. Imagine arussian prison!

The building only has one escape route which is not optimal. High rise buildings should havealternative escape routes (a la grenfell).

Local EnvironmentThe developers has already clearfelled any trees on this site including some mature trees andhedges. They clearly don't care about habitat and all their talk on "increased habitat" is greenwashing bollocks. Clearly its an increase if you start from zero!This completely undermines the ecological assessment statements.

Car ParkingThe plan currently has 29 general spaces and 14 disability spaces (43 in total). There are 207 flatsand a likely 1.5 people per flat = 310 people. If we assume that only half of these people have carsthat is 155 cars - where will the other 112 cars get parked? There is no on street parking on MeadStreet and no RPZ in the area so local streets will get more congested.I realise that parking is not considered material for complaints, but for local residents this is agenuine issue and will generate lower quality of life due to more pavement parking, reducedaccessibility and just making the public realm worse - just so a developer can squeeze in moreunits and "claim" to be green by no having parking.

In summary, the proposed scheme violates many of the Urban Living SPD policies as well as localplan and emerging plan for the area.This violates BCS1, BCS2, BCS15, BCS20 and BCS21 and should be refused. Come back with asimilar design, just knock off four levels and it may be ok.

As per my previous comments, the proposed development is too large for the area. Itwill block the historic and much loved view of Totterdown. The planned developments are farlarger than other sites on this side of the river, and so are not in keeping with the surroundingarea. The area is already densely populated with existing school and health infrastructure alreadyunder pressure - a much smaller development would be more suitable and sustainable,particularly for the existing community. Little parking is provided, so there is likely to be increasedpressure for parking in the Totterdown area - meaning that existing local residents are likely tosuffer as a result of such a large development. Finally, there is a high level of emotional stressedcaused by proposing such an oversized and greedy development in a wonderful and historical partof Bristol.

One additional objection, the development is situated within the Bristol clean air zone,meaning the residents of the proposed development will be incentivised to park outside of thiszone - the closest area would be Totterdown. This will mean existing residents will suffer or bepenalised through having to pay for residents parking schemes or equivalent. This will alsoadversely affect the cost of living. The smaller the development, the less impact this would haveon existing residents.

The proposed development is far too high for the area. It will block the historic andmuch loved view of Totterdown, especially the Totterdown escarpment. This iconic Bristol view isloved and treasured by locals and tourists alike as it can currently be seen and enjoyed from manyareas across the city. This will be obstructed by the the current proposed plans due to their sheerdensity and height. The planned developments are far larger and higher than other sites on thisside of the river, and so are not in keeping with the surrounding area. There is a high level ofemotional stress caused by proposing such an oversized and greedy development in a wonderfuland historical part of Bristol.The area is already densely populated with existing school and health infrastructure already underpressure - a much smaller development would be more suitable and sustainable, particularly forthe existing and incoming community.Little parking is provided by the development, so there is likely to be increased pressure forparking in the Totterdown area - meaning that existing local residents are likely to suffer as a resultof such a large development. As the proposed development is situated in the Bristol clean air zonethe residents of the proposed development will be more likely to park in Totterdown causing strainand stress for existing residents.There are also concerns surrounding road safety with so many new potential residents andvehicles with the area becoming so much more populated as a result of this enormousdevelopment. There will likely be negative impact on existing commuters with increased trafficaround the area which will produce more pollution and is detrimental for the environment and thehealth of existing local residents.

This development is far too big for the current resources of the area.Health - there are already long waits at local GPs, dentists etc if you can even get enrolled. I havemoved to the area a year ago and cannot get appointments at both.Parking - where would all these people park? Our roads are already congested with a lack ofspace for residents futher exacerbated by commuters. If the arguement is "they are students" andwont have cars then that a completely out of touch comment as Bristol students are some of thewealthiest in the UK and will all have their own vehicles.The view - Will have a detrimental effect on the landscape.

It's beautiful!Please don't be stopped by just some negative comments from ppl! Bristol deserves the best fromthe best and here it is! I hope that developers will be allowed to put more of such fantasticinvestments around this one. Everywhere tbh. This is the future! Xoxo

I can't see much different about the newly proposed plans from the previous ones. Iobjected to those on grounds of density of occupation and flats being very small with little room forany storage. I noticed that the police objected to the bike park as being a shopping ground for bikethieves. Can't see changes to this. There is still very lIttle capacity in our local schools for newintakes, this hasn't changed and hasn't been addressed. Local services such as doctors surgeriesand dentists are also heavily over subscribed and this hasn't been addressed. Although we doneed new rental accommodation in the city and this would be welcome in the area, we must surelybe able to come up with something better quality than this development. Of course, it's also toohigh.

This application ignores concerns from far and wide about the iconic skyline ofTotterdown being obscured. It also threatens the extensive wildlife in the area by reducing greenspace. The density of housing indicated ignores guidelines around welfare and wellbeing. Mostparties welcome this site being developed for housing, but this needs to be led by need andconsideration for people's well-being, rather than simply by profit. The dismay expressed by somany over the new Boatyard development at Totterdown bridge would simply be repeated. Pleasereconsider.

The development is too high and too dense and not in keeping with the surroundingarea especially the view of the Totterdown escarpment behind. There are too many flats whichhave a single aspect view which in winter may get no sun or for those facing south impossible tokeep cool in summer. It is difficult already to get GP and dentist services and there is no provisionfor the increase in people in the area. The flats are so densely packed together thataccommodation will not have good light. They are just building slums and it would be much betterto build high density low rise housing, which is what is really needed by families not asking them tolive in high rise accommodation with little or no private space or safe places for children to playwithout always needing adult supervision.

I feel there is insufficient infrastructure to support the increase in population, in terms oflocal amenities, schools, dentist, doctors. There will be increased traffic and congestion in analready poor air area

With reference to the revisions submitted for consideration for this application I continueto object to the proposal because the alterations are minimal .The scheme is still over dense, over large and over tall for its context on York Road and St LukesRoad . This revised scheme will still block the skyline and obscure the Totterdown escarpmentwhich should remain a dominant feature of the landscape.Insufficient consideration has been given to noise, air pollution and to environmental andcommunity concerns raised following the initial submission.This scheme is still deeply flawed and in breach of the Bristol Urban Living SPD as well as BCS1,BSC2, BSC15, BSC 20 and BSC 21 and should be refused permission.

I object to this planning application on the following bases:

The design is not in keeping with the character of the local buildings. Too high density and veryugly.Surely an area of terraced houses with gardens would be a much nicer place to live and better forpeoples mental health.I think here is a chance to have a beautifully architect designed neighbourhood, that Bristol wouldbe proud of.There are not nearly enough green spaces. We need more trees and planted areas.It is supposed to be affordable but the percentage is too small.The iconic view of the Totterdown escarpment which people love so much, and can be seen frommany sites all over the city, will be gone forever.The traffic is already ridiculously heavy around this area. Even if every flat doesn't have parkingthis will not help to reduce air pollution and noise.The local schools and doctor surgeries are already over subscribed and the only nearbysecondary school is 95% for churchgoers.

How is this an 'revision' to the original plans? Reducing height by one floor only shows acomplete disregard for all the concerns that thousands of people raised in the last planningapplication, namely; impact on local residents through loss of local history and industrial heritage(through loss of view), concern over low quality of life for new neighbours cloistered in smallshadeless rabbit hutches in the middle of a climate crisis, a lack of concern for overcrowding inlocal schools, GP surgeries, dentists, an increase in traffic in an already crowded York/CoronationRoad area, etc etc. The recent going out of business of the Boatyard, which really stands out like asore thumb, is another issue that has not been considered.

I agree that Bristol needs more housing and I am happy for lower buildings in this area, but thecurrent plans are insulting to South Bristol, are ill thought through and risk making this vibrant cityinto a dormitory town.

TL:DR Just lower the height of the massive tower blocks!

In addition to my previous comment and since the submission of a new one I wouldconfirm my objection to this scheme on the following grounds:

- The scheme is still significantly out of scale with the neighbouring historic context of York Road- It will still cause significant visual harm to the area in terms of the views along the York Road as itis approached- The height will cause harm to the views of the significant Totterdown escarpment.- The design of the blocks is poor and will not allow much privacy for the occupants of the scheme.- The choice of floor to ceiling windows is likely to cause overheating, privacy issues and delivers amonotonous appearance which in no way is in keeping with the local context.- If the emerging framework for the area is to deliver a car free route along Mead St, then theunderground car park entrance should not be positioned along it.

The scheme should not be approved in its current form.

Ultimately I believe the development of the Mead St site is for the good and I am notagainst any development of this area.

In this case my objection is with the height of the buildings and design especially in relation to thewider area.

The view of the Totterdown escarpment will be greatly reduced and I am concerned as to how thisdevelopment works with the proposed development of the remaining Mead St site. I don't think thedesign of this particular application is of a good enough quality aesthetically and the heights it willreach are overbearing in relation to the neighbouring buildings.

I want to see this area developed, however, please reconsider the height and design of thesebuildings.

The scheme as presented is so deeply flawed in all respects that planning permissionshould not be granted under any circumstances. It would lead to poor health, social, visual , urbanand civic problems and would also be a fire hazard. It is clearly in breach of the Bristol UrbanLiving SPD as well as BCS1, BCS2, BCS15, BCS20 and BCS21 and should be refused.HEIGHT & DENSITYThe majority of this scheme is 1 bed - so the idea that this is creating a new community of familiesin this area is implausible, and will lead to large numbers of single or 2 person occupancy (35% 2bed). The Noise Assessment Report submitted examines little except the impact of existing noise,mostly traffic, on the new residents, and concludes that many of the flats should have theirwindows sealed shut, with artificial ventilation, though no proposals are made as to how this wouldbe done. This type of design is generally considered unacceptable by current standards. There isno consideration of the considerable impact the residents would have on each other, or othernearby residents, facing a wall of other flats a short distance away with open balconies likely togive rise to considerable disturbance. This type of design is deeply flawed and known to give riseto many social issues. At 11 stories high, these are at least 8 stories higher than adjacentbuildings on York Road, and therefore create a visual eyesore, out of keeping with existingcharacter of the Victorian buildings and streets in the area and the houses on the top of theescarpment will be lower and looked down from this development. This overshadows theescarpment and obliterates key views. This is a further blight on the open spaces of South Bristolwhich remains one of the most highest density parts of the city. There would be a complete lack ofprivacy for both existing residents and those in the new development. Furthermore, a north facinggarden, as half of the escarpment residents houses are, would be cast in shadow almost

permanently preventing any growth of flora.The Heritage Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment references the photomontages whichclearly show that the scheme represents an awful blot on the landscape viewed from almost anyangle and lurks over the nearby city in a threatening manner, blocking or spoiling views of thefamous escarpment from almost all angles, and sitting uncomfortably beside the listed structure ofthe foot bridge.The proposed density according to numbers submitted with the application would still be over 500dwellings per Hectare, not including the extensive commercial and servicing areas on lower floors.The Bristol Urban Living SPD - Making Successful Places at Higher Densities indicates that anupper limit of about 120 units/Ha would be appropriate in this 'Inner Urban Area' and makes nomention of commercial activities. According to BCS20, the Totterdown escarpment, one of thehighest density urban areas in Bristol contains 120 dpH. The proposal for more than 4x this wouldclearly be excessive with overcrowding and poor social outcomes resulting. The Urban Living SPDalso states that 'a poorly designed tall building can have a detrimental impact on the historictownscape of a city like Bristol' and ' the topography and skyline of a city like Bristol.' This proposalwould do all of that if permitted to proceed.AMENITIESThe Bristol City calculator indicates that there would probably be between 26 and 87 children livingin the development. Details also state that there are a number of schools within a radius of a fewkm, but all the closest ones not only have no spare capacity but are over-subscribed, and thisdevelopment is only likely to make matters worse. The proximity of the development to one of themajor access routes to a large secondary school is dangerous with the likely increase in trafficvolume and would create a further increase in traffic as pedestrian access to school becomes aless viable option and more parents drive their children to school. The local GP and healthcareproviders are over stretched with the nearest NHS health provider currently only able to offerappointments at least two weeks away and simply would not be able to cope with additionaldemand.PARKINGThe Transport documents and Design and Access Statements do little to address the parkingproblem thrown up by the development, other than stating that little parking would be required. 14disability standard spaces are allocated to flats leaving 29 spaces for the remaining 207 flats aswell as the commercial spaces. Expectations that residents, visitors and staff would not havemotor vehicles are unrealistic and there is no nearby on-street parking at all. The only proposedsolution is for overflow parking on the Totterdown escarpment, which local residents will be able toidentify as ridiculous due to the non-existence of available spaces. As no current resident parkingscheme exists for the Totterdown area, it is already constantly overloaded as the closest area tothe train station with on-site availability. Short and long term commuters and local businesses areaware of the lack of parking restrictions and the area is permanently full of vehicles in all availablestreet parking spaces making access for any emergency vehicles almost impossible at many timesof the day.

As previously, I object to the revised proposal on a number of grounds.

TRAFFIC: I do not believe that the developers have actually taken into consideration the impactthat this development will have in an already heavily conjested area. St Lukes Road is alreadysubject to large volumes of traffic during rush hour! This development is likely to add to thecongestion and will impact the local residents for the worse.

ESCARPMENT VIEW: I live close to this area and travel to and from Temple Meads every day.The houses on the Totterdown Escarpment, like many other areas of Bristol, are iconic and a partof the fabric of this city. To obscure them with high rise flats would not only be heartbreaking, itwould be removing a part of what makes this city so wonderful and beautiful. They are visible asyou arrive by train and make Bristol unique. From my home I used to have the view of the entireTotterdown skyline. Now, most of it is becoming lost to new builds. Most recently, the large andincredibly imposing development on Bath Road, a development which is now halted as thedevelopers had gone into administration. I urge the committee to ensure that this view cannot bedrowned out by yet another large block of flats. A design which has given no consideration to thearea in which it is being built.

SCHOOLS: this area already struggles with over subscribed schools. The developers may haveconsidered amenities. Is school applications a part of this. Have they consulted with local schoolsto see if they can cope with the potential numbers a development like this may bring. Can localschools deal with numbers or will many parents in the area be forced to have to drive to an out of

area school?

On these grounds I object to this revised application.

1.its an eyesore and not at all in keeping withe the area2. Not enough affordable housing3. Not enough attention to infra structure - roads, schools, doctors, parking etc4. Will destroy much of the currently thriving local community

The area does need developing but disgusting high rise blocks are the slums of the filter - pleaselearn from the past.

I object to plans to develop on this site as proposed, on a number of grounds:

1) The Totterdown escarpment is an iconic view of the city. In fact, it was partly this that drew mywife and I to the city in 2006. had seen the Totterdown escarpment while passing through Bristolby train, and later moved here. We have lived in Totterdown since 2009.

Blocking this view from Bristol means neutralising a large degree of the vibrancy of the city andhiding a very vibrant and colourful community from the city and visitors.

2) The local infrastructure is not at all ready for a development to house such numbers (11stories!). This needs more thought, and infrastructural deficiencies to be addressed.

Examples:- The most obvious one is the lack of available primary and secondary schools in the area.- Regarding primary schools, the catchment areas of those in the area is tiny, and really limited tothe surrounding streets.- The situation with secondary schools is worse, and in fact largely involves travelling to the otherside of Bristol (Ashton Park) to attend school. It is well-known around the area that preparing forsecondary school often means leaving the area - and this is completely unfair.- There is a nearby school - St Mary Redcliffe Temple school - but there are outdated anddiscriminatory entry restrictions and naturally limited numbers.- Providing this additional housing, together with others in the area (Arena area, Bedminster

industrial area), provides a real challenge to families (including new families) to manage theirdomestic needs.- The road infrastructure already struggles at peak times and weekends. This includes WellsRoad, Bath Road, St John's Road, St Luke's Road and around Temple Meads. More housing isn'tgoing to help this situation.

I'd like to finish by indicating that I'm not adverse to new housing in itself. It needs to be introducedthough, together with:- proper infrastructure to manage the existing and proposed community needs (schools, nurseryfacilities, traffic, roads, medical, transport).- it needs to be sensitive to the community - and not trample over the history and culture of thearea (like previous councils have done in this area - and have been judged badly for it).

Kind regards,Wayne Morrison

I object to plans to develop on this site as proposed:

The Totterdown escarpment is an iconic view of the city and it would be wrong for the people ofthe area for that to be lost.

Additionally, we do not have the local infrastructure in place to manage such an increase inhousing needs in the area.

This development is much too high density for this relatively small site which is boundedby two busy roads (York Road and St Lukes Road) and a currently quiet street that will be muchbusier once the whole Mead Street development is built.

The blocks are too high for the surrounding area and will not be pleasant places to live with thehigh levels of traffic noise and air pollution and a lot of south-facing flats that will be intolerably hotin the future heatwaves that are likely with climate change.

It is not a place that families would choose to live so the residents will most likely be transientyoung people who wish to rent until they can afford to buy, leading to a lack of community with nosense of belonging.

The flats further along York Road (built in the 1980s or 90s?) are an example of a moreappropriate type of development that would fit better onto this site.

I continue to object to this scheme because the revisions submitted areinsignificant . The scheme is still over large and over tall for thesite and will obscure the Totterdown escarpment.

The design is in breach of the Bristol Urban Living SPD and should berefused.

BS3 PLANNING GROUP Continues to object to this application.21/06878/F | Mixed-use redevelopment including 221 residential (C3) units and 651 sq.m. ofcommercial floorspace (Class E) on ground floor, together with a new vehicular access off MeadStreet, cycle and car parking provision, private amenity space, servicing arrangements,landscaping, public realm, and associated works. | Land At Corner Of York Road And St LukesRoad Bedminster Bristol BS3 4ADCommentary on revised drawings:In the BS3 planning group's earlier commentary of May 2022 on 11 and 8 storey structuresproposed for the Bart's Spices site on Mead Street, the group dwelt on excessive Height andimpact on Views, as well as inadequate greenspace, local master-planning, Sustainability, groundfloor uses subsumed by bins and bikes, and boundary issues. (Particularly regarding a potentiallyhostile proposal emerging to redevelop the adjacent post office site. The applicant presumed theBarts Layout would be carried forward sympathetically)We would acknowledge that with the July revisions there are some changes to the appearance ofupper floors, a serious potential boundary issue on the East side of Block C has been addressedup to a point, and there is a small reduction of height to block A. There is also a small introductionof roof terrace on the link building, not necessarily viable for the many hundreds of potential users.Height remains a serious issue for the surrounding community however.And there are still a lot of single aspect flats. Nearly half of them.New TVIA pictures have arrived for the first time, though we would have preferred some otherviews including the Doorstep of St Mary Redcliffe school, as well as viewpoints near thoseviewpoints actually presented, which might well be more problematic than the selection offered.

The view East down York Road from within the Bedminster Conservation Area is a particularshock with buildings of unprecedented height filling the skyline.This remains an extremely dense and tall proposal, far bigger in both respects than WappingWharf not a long way away. It is as claimed proximate to many local facilities in a 15-minute citysense, but basically predates on such existing local facilities, without itself adding much. The localmaster plans are not replenishing such facilities either.We obviously hope the class E uses would get quality occupiers. But the sheer quantum ofaccommodation above, ensures an impression that most of the ground floor is consumed in binand bike stores.We remain to be convinced the developer really sees the scheme as viable to build-out givencomments earlier in the process. And we have recently seen affordable content removed nearbyduring the application process on viability grounds. (Those with long memories will remember suchreversals at Finzels reach also.) What we fear is a huge quantum of precedent setting mass beingpermitted here on the affordable promise alone, and the affordable somehow disappearing, priorto a different scheme merging.BS3 Panning Group continues to object to the revised proposal.

Whilst housing is always a necessity I believe this development would have direconsequences on the already pressurised services eg. GP. The closest gp is Bedminster FamilyPractice. Trying to get an appointment is very hard and distressing when you are feeling ill. Yousometimes have to wait 2 weeks to speak to a GP. Are you going to provide another GPpractice/pharmacy.? Are you going to build another primary school? Traffic is already horrendousas it is always clogged up at that particular point. It can take 45 minutes to get out of St. LukesRoad to feed onto York Road. The streets by Victoria Park have become one big parking lot asthere is no residence parking and everyone dumps their car there to go into town for work. Such anightmare when you have to bring sleeping toddlers back to your home. The park itself is great butit has become overcrowded. So building more flats with no gardens is going to make the situationworse.

Finally it is quite an ugly blot on the area. Why so big and dense?

Whilst I am having a rant, can I ask why nothing is done about the crazy one way systems inBristol? These cause traffic jams as well as more pollution.

Ms Mo Janssen

How sad the council have not learnt from past mistakes - housing people/ families inblocks of flats . There is no consideration of people's mental health . Single aspect too?!!! Withclear evidence of climate change this is not an option!Car parking is not adequate and will cause havoc on already overcrowded roads nearby , outdoorspace provision is poor and schooling , doctors , dentists all over prescribed already!Bristol is known for its coloured houses rising on the hills of the city , please please don't block outthese views - already on the Bath Road developers being too greedy building too high running outof money !!!Please lower your blocks , have sympathy for people who will live there and curb your profits .Out-way the greed for profit with vision and kindness please.

The development is totally out of proportion to the rest of the surrounding area. There isno consideration about where the residents will go to already over subscribed schools. There isalready a shortage of gp's in the surrounding area.A lower height would be more in keeping with current properties on that side of the river.

I can only repeat my comments made in response to the original application. I cannotsee that the changes made address any of the issues covered by the comments made to date.

The development is still too high and far too dense for the site and will result in poor qualityhousing for the inhabitants. No outside space and single aspect flats.

It will overwhelm the locality both physically and in terms of local services. It will exacerbateexisting problems - traffic, parking, air quality. This is already a traffic blackspot in the rush hour.Also local services - doctors, schools.

It is still an over development of a restricted site on busy roads with a height which is inappropriateto the location.

Please think of the existing residents as well as future ones and develop in a better way taking intoaccount local views.

This tall and over-bearing development will harm iconic views of Totterdown'sescarpment and provide unacceptably poor quality accommodation.Also the local infrastructure is not going to be able to cope if developers insist on squeezing asmany "homes" as possible into already crowded areas.IF something has to built there I would prefer to see something that benefits the community as awhole such as health care / education being considered.

I am writing to object to the revised plans for the former Bart Spices / Mead Streetdevelopment on the following basis.

Visual look - these look like unattractive tower blocks, reminding one of the sort of former SovietUnion blocks - with limited features to make them visually attractive. This design is worse that theprevious one in terms of look. In addition, these blocks will still obscure views from key locationssuch as Bedminster, Clifton and city centre, as well as from Temple Meads station - blocking keyviews of the Totterdown Escarpment. This is due to the block mass and heights of the proposeddevelopments. At 11 stories high, these are at least 8 stories higher than adjacent buildings onYork Road, and therefore create a visual eyesore, out of keeping with existing character of theVictorian buildings and streets in the area and the houses on the top of the escarpment will belower and looked down from this development. This overshadows the escarpment and obliterateskey views.The density of the scheme is also a cynical garden grabbing option of building to the very extremeperimeter of the site and and taking all available space. This will not only increase the density ofthe scheme, but impact on traffic, pollution, noise and the experience of pedestrians and localresidents as they walk along York Street and St Lukes Road. Noise and fumes will be increasedfrom traffic. The planting scheme of trees here takes over the existing pavements on the highway,rather than the developer drawing the scheme back in order to plant trees. This means that thetree planting scheme will become a liability for pedestrians and impact on easy navigation forpeople with buggies or mobility needs. The council will be then responsible for tree managementrather than the developers or owners of the property, creating an unnecessary expense and

pressure on the city council's resources for tree management and public highways maintenance.The Loading Bay on St Luke's Road is a terrible idea as is will potentially snarl up the trafficturning into St Lukes Road, causing frustration, pressure and danger at an already pressuredvehicle point.There is not cohesive plan for this scheme with the rest of the Mead Street area and should bewithheld from consent until the wider area schemes and developement plans for the areaconsidered and agreed.The majority of this scheme is 1 bed - so the idea that this is creating a new community of familiesin this area is nonsense, and will lead to large numbers of single flat occupancy or 2 personoccupancy (35% 2 bed).There is inadequate car parking with only 43 spaces for over 200 dwellings. This will create anegative impact on parking for other residents as streets around the area will be used to park byresidents from the Mead Street development.It is 40m to the base of the Totterdown escarpment and the current plans show the height to be47m - which will be higher than the houses of Richmond Street, so will block views to them fromacross the city.All in all a disappointing revision of the plans, with only minor changes, rather than a scheme thatseeks to enhance the area and add value to the community of Totterdown and South Bristol.

Although a suitable location for residential and mixed use development, the proposedheight and density of the buildings would have a significant impact on the city.

From the top of St. Michaels Hill and the platforms of Temple Meads Station, the run of residentialhouses across the escarpment are a signature view distinctive to the city.

Also, the buildings are out of keeping with the area. As presented the amenity open space is verylimited.

I understand that revised proposals have been made for this application, but they arevery slight and don't address any or the original objections.

For me it demonstrates a flagrant disregard for residents views and I wish to continue to object tothis proposal of poor design, excessive massing and height, lack of consideration to noise, airquality, community or environmental concerns. I also still strongly feel that the development of thisarea should be reviewed as a single piece rather than a series of mini developments.I recognise that there has been a slight reduction in the number of "units", from 244 to 221, thishas resulted mainly from reducing the height of 'Block A' nearest to St Lukes Road by a singlestorey, and by removing a few flats from the opposite boundary, which would most likely havenever have been viable anyway.Sadly, the towers are still uninspired and will loom over the street and their surroundings in anoverbearing way. The overall appearance is blocky and grim. Removing the dark grey metalliccladding by changing it to matching brick only serves to emphasise the monolithic nature of theblocks.The reduction in height of one block by one storey represents a marginal improvement on ascheme which is fundamentally flawed and does little to ease the sense of oppression on nearbybuildings, all of which are lower and some of which are Listed. The remainder of the blocks remainover-tall.The revised statement on Daylight states that light levels within apartments will be improved overthose previously indicated by changing the paint reflectance. This is not a legitimate improvement.Impact on Occupants

Single aspect flats face each other in vast walls only 18m apart but 34m high leaving no privacyfor the prospective residents, particularly as their balconies would be only 15m apart. Internally,the flats are served by dark narrow corridors 30m long with a single window at one end andwindowless lift shafts at the other. A revised statement claims that only 47% of the flats are nowsingle aspect. However, many of the flats claimed to be dual aspect have a single small windowfacing sideways onto a recessed balcony as their only claim to this, and several have as theirsecond aspect the unfortunate blank well created on the north-east side facing the Royal Mailsorting depot.I note that design change of introducing this well has also prevented the flats in this block havingaccess to an alternative means of escape, which is undesirable. Single stairs should not be shownwithout additional lobbies as these are, or continuing into the basement floor unchecked as this iscontrary to government guidance and a likely fire hazard.Building Height and Affect on Surrounding areaThe enormous height of the proposals would dominate the local landscape and obscure one of themost famous and iconic views in Bristol. The submitted view from Temple Meads Approachillustrates this starkly. Other views, although chosen to show the buildings in their best light, clearlyillustrate the damaging and overbearing effect on this part of the City, and the obscuration of viewsof the iconic escarpment.Although submitted drawings do not indicate it, the upper floors would look down upon nearbyhouses which are currently on top of the escarpment as well as those surrounding at lower levels.The buildings would likewise blight the surrounding area and plots of land on Mead Street andYork Road.On the West side, the building is still 1.5m from the boundary apart from the introduced well.Assuming the adjacent site were to be developed in a similar fashion, flats would be touchingdistance apart across a man-made crevasse. This is an unacceptable approach, blighting nearbylandowners.Design statements and elevations seek to draw comparisons in height with existing flats acrossthe river but fail to acknowledge the location of those buildings which are set back from roads in arelatively open landscape rather than being immediately adjacent to major roads.The design has completely failed to acknowledge the unique position adjacent to the river, a majorroad and pedestrian route as well as the nearby topography. It is bland and anonymous andappears to have been designed in isolation from the City altogether.Planning StrategyThe City Council is developing a planning strategy for this area in conjunction with the WhitehouseStreet area, which would hopefully establish some relevant guidelines in consultation with localresidents and businesses. Presumably the current scheme is designed to jump the gun on thisand should certainly be refused until a proper strategy for re-development is established.The Whitehouse Street area has an emerging strategy which includes recommendations onheights of buildings, and there is every reason why the Mead Street planning strategy should dothe same, being a more sensitive site.Density & Urban Living SPDThe proposed density according to numbers submitted with the application would still be over 500

dwellings per Hectare, not including the extensive commercial and servicing areas on lower floors.The Bristol Urban Living SPD - Making Successful Places at Higher Densities indicates that anupper limit of about 120 units/Ha would be appropriate in this 'Inner Urban Area' and makes nomention of commercial activities. According to BCS20, the Totterdown escarpment, one of thehighest density urban areas in Bristol contains 120 dpH. The proposal for more than 4x this wouldclearly be excessive with overcrowding and poor social outcomes resulting.The Urban Living SPD also states that 'a poorly designed tall building can have a detrimentalimpact on the historic townscape of a city like Bristol' and ' the topography and skyline of a city likeBristol.' This proposal would do all of that if permitted to proceed.Light LevelsThe Internal Daylight Assessment indicates that many of the apartments will be miserably darkwith those on the lower levels having low light levels and almost no view of the sky, yet concludesthis would be acceptable. There is also an assumption that the remainder of the site would remainundeveloped, and relies on having surrounds which are single storey to achieve the results that itdoes, something that is mostly unlikely to remain, and which is referred to in the Design andAccess Statement.Changing the chosen paint type in the revised Assessment is unlikely to lead to any real-lifeimprovements.The report on overshadowing nearby properties indicates that the new development wouldcompletely blight and overshadow the closest buildings which are within the BedminsterConservation Area, as well as blocking winter sunlight from existing flats across the river, yetagain concluding that this will be acceptable.PollutionThe Health Impact Assessment submitted with the application completely fails to identify an airpollution strategy or address problems beyond identifying that there may be one, despite the sitebeing directly on a busy road within the Air Quality Management Area. The size and bulk of thebuilding would contribute to trapping polluted air within close proximity, exposing pedestrians, roadusers and residents to unacceptable levels of pollutants.It also concludes that residents at first floor level would be subject to dangerous levels ofatmospheric pollution, and makes no mention of the occupants and visitors to the ground floorcommercial spaces who would also be exposed, including those shown as sitting outside by theside of some of the most heavily polluted roads in the city.Wind SpeedThe Wind Desktop Appraisal acknowledges that no wind tunnel or CFD study has been done. Itspeculatively uses data from a site 7km away and reduces predicted wind speeds by over 50%.This generic approach is unlikely to produce a correct result as it completely fails to recognise theunique topography of the area and the river valley. The conclusions that there would be littleadverse impact of wind funnelling on the surrounding roads, paved areas and residents arelaughable to anyone familiar with the locality.The revised appraisal indicates that it will be necessary to keep the existing trees to mitigate windspeeds to near-acceptable levels. It does not state if this refers to the trees already removed fromthe site.

TreesThe Tree Survey locates and classes all existing trees on the site and recommends that all exceptone should be kept, preferably with the surrounding green space. However the proposed schemeremoves every single one so the buildings can be larger. Indeed all trees and other vegetation onthe site have already been removed.The proposed replacements are not likely to fare well, sited in hard landscaping 2m away from the11-storey cliff faces of the buildings. Claims in the Ecological Assessment that landscaping andbiodiversity would increase by removing all trace of existing trees , shrubs and greenery are notcredible. No mention is made of bats which are known by residents to inhabit the area and use theriver and escarpment for feeding and as a travel corridor. The proposals are very likely to interferewith current bat transit and roosting.NoiseThe Noise Assessment Report submitted examines little except the impact of existing noise,mostly traffic, on the new residents, and concludes that many of the flats should have theirwindows sealed shut, with artificial ventilation, though no proposals are made as to how this wouldbe done. This type of design is generally considered unacceptable by current standards. There isno consideration of the considerable impact the residents would have on each other, or othernearby residents, facing a wall of other flats a short distance away with open balconies likely togive rise to considerable disturbance. This type of design is deeply flawed and known to give riseto many complaints. The proposed adjacent seating and café areas are only likely to make mattersworse.

TownscapeThe Heritage Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment praises its own scheme yet somehowmanages to miss the evidence of its own carefully selected and presented photomontages - thatthe scheme represents an awful blot on the landscape viewed from almost any angle and lurksover the nearby city in a threatening manner, blocking or spoiling views of the famous escarpmentfrom almost all angles, and sitting uncomfortably beside the listed structure of the foot bridge.SustainabilityThe Sustainability Statement claims great things in terms of energy saving, yet fails to mentionthat buildings above six storeys are known to become progressively less efficient and more energyintensive the higher they go while introducing long term maintenance problems.ParkingThe Transport documents and Design and Access Statements do little to address the parkingproblem thrown up by the development, other than stating that little parking would be required. 14disability standard spaces are allocated to flats leaving 29 spaces for the remaining 207 flats aswell as the commercial spaces. Expectations that residents, visitors and staff would not havemotor vehicles are unrealistic and there is no nearby on-street parking at all. The only proposedsolution is for overflow parking on the Totterdown escarpment, which local residents will be able toidentify as ridiculous due to the non-existence of available spaces.Waste DisposalThe Operational Waste Strategy is unsatisfactory, requiring tenants to take their segregated wasteup to 10 floors away and relying on building management to place all of the bins in collection

areas. The Strategy is also in direct conflict with the Landscape design as it shows the main binarea collection site exactly on the site of a large raised planter. This anomaly has not beencorrected in the revised design.InfrastructureThere is no mention of any infrastructure beyond the immediate site being provided, despite theadditional 221 homes proposed, which are also part of bigger plan for the Mead Street site thatcould see more than 1200 new homes. Figures produced with the application show that thedevelopers expects very few children to be present in the flats, although it is claimed the privatecourtyard would provide play facilities. The Bristol City calculator indicates that there wouldprobably be between 26 and 87 children living in the development. Details also state that there area number of schools within a radius of a few km, but all the closest ones have no spare capacity,and this development is only likely to make matters worse.Community InvolvementSadly, the Statement of Community Involvement is just that - little more than a statement. It quotespercentages of answers to leading questions designed to elicit apparently positive responses,while making little of any negative concerns expressed. This is not community consultation, anddoes not reach the standards of the City Council guidance.ConclusionsConclusions of many of the documents submitted with the proposal amount to little more than theapplicant marking their own homework and have produced hopelessly optimistic outcomes basedon little evidence.The scheme as presented is so deeply flawed in all respects that planning permission should notbe granted under any circumstances. It would lead to poor health, social, visual , urban and civicproblems and would also be a fire hazard. It is clearly in breach of the Bristol Urban Living SPD aswell as BCS1, BCS2, BCS15, BCS20 and BCS21 and should be refused.

Inadequate provision of parking. The residents of this proposed new build will park inthe neighbouring totterdown streets. There is already limited space.Traffic down st Luke's Rd will increase and st Luke's Rd is already very congested.The proposed building is ugly and will block the view of totterdown (Richmond terrace)

I strongly object to this development which is going to ruin not only our view but thehistoric view of totterdown.

The changes made to the proposed plans for this development are not substantiallydifferent from the original proposal. Because of this my original objections (submitted 6/2/22) areunchanged. The various computer generated views of the development show it to be a dark,hulking clump that looms over all that surrounds it, no matter the aspect of the images. In April '22Marvin Rees responded in writing to questions about this development: 'Totterdown is a denselypopulated urban area, and is an appropriate place to bring forward homes that can help usalleviate the housing crisis'. In other words: an already densely populated area is the right place tobecome even more densely populated. There is no logic to this. Even more so because aside fromtoo tall, too dense, too ugly and everything else that's wrong with the plans for this development,there's been no mention at any stage about Bristol City's plans to alleviate strains on alreadyoverstretched local social resources, including schools and surgeries. And this is just the start;next is the 22 storey block by Fowlers and another 400 residential units planned across the bridgeon the former Peugeot site.

Ojection to the current Mead Street development proposal on Barts /Land at the cornerof York Road and St Lukes Road

I am writing to object to the revised plans for the former Bart Spices / Mead Street development onthe following basis.

I am disappointed to see there has been no significant change in the overall plans. Even though areduction has been made in residential provision .Although car parking spaces are now proposedto be accomodated in the basement, it still seems insufficient for the number of residential unitsand small business units proposed. The concern is the negative impact this could have on nearbyestates where there is already huge pressure on parking due to the high densith of population.

The additional number of people travelling to and from the new development is likely to exacerbatethe difficulties at the already congested juncion between St Lukes Road and York Road. We don'tknow how the introduction of the clean air zone that is set to be instigated before the end of 2022,will affect this junction with the possibility of drivers having to turn round at Mead Street junction ifthey are not permitted t enter the zone.

There continues to be no consideration of the building materials/structure of the buildings to be inkeeping of the flavour and culture of the neighbouring enviornment, especially Totterdown andWindmill Hill which are characterised by the colourful frontages of the houses in the area. Thechoice of materials for the development are visually unattractive, and not conducive to the

ambience of the area . This will impact on the health and well-being of residents and neighbours ofthe proposed development.

There is no evidence to show how this development will tie in with future developments proposedfor the rest of Mead street area to create a cohesive development.

There is still the matter of infrastructure provision. Even though there is a proposal to build aschool on Whitehouse Road. I understand that this is in its early stages of development. In themeantime, nearby schools, GP provision, dentists etc are already over subscribed.

The height of the buildings suggest that there will be no privacy for the residences on theescarpment and will be overlooked. It will also obscure the view from key locations such asBedminster, Clifton and city centre as well as Temple Meads Station.

Nearby Victoria Park is well used and the Mead Street development seems to be relying on thisalready over subscribed green space to be used by the residents. There is no evidence thatfurther adequet green space is going to be added to the area. Planting a few trees and flower bedswith some seating is not enough.

highway safety - busy junction already and difficult for cars and cyclists to turn out ofroadtraffic and parking issues - insufficient car parking spaces for realistic car ownership of propertiesamenity- visual look of an area- loss of view of escarpmentwildlife - impact on various speciesdesign- out of keeping with local area and far taller than surrounding buildingsAmenities - lack of provision of schools and GP/dentists etc. those in vicinity are already veryoversubscribed

I am confused as to why you would want to destroy a view as beautiful and iconic. Whatmakes it worse is that the houses will hardly even be sustainable, so there is no greater good. Thisview is an iconic part of Bristol never mind the disruption to the transport links due to the fact thatthere will be no parking.

This is a thoughtless development which in no way values or supports the surroundingcommunity. It will add strain to an already busy central area and does not value the wishes of theresidents, destroying iconic views of all of Bristol. I also don't understand how the new residents ofthis development will be supported with medical care, access to support etc.

Further to my original objection and upon reviewing of the plans. It appears that none ofmy concerns have been address by the revised scheme and I fully object to it for the followingreasons:

1. Parking issues- the addition of this development and lack of parking will put pressure on thesurrounding areas of Totterdown which are not currently residents parking and this needs to beaddressed before the scheme can take place.

2.Amenity- The original report the developer submitted regarding the heritage views does notaccurately represent the real life situation and the views chosen in their report are only a few andpeople crossing the pedestrian bridge by the development will not be able to see the iconic view ofthe Totterdown escarpment and the developer has chosen to to address this issue in their revisedsubmission.

The design would be more appropriate to the local area if it was smaller in scale in terms of heightand density which would help address both of the above concerns and issues.

The height of the proposed buildings is completely out of scale with surroundingproperties. The buildings will block the view of the Totterdown escarpment which needs protectingas it is an important local landmark.The view of the river will be blocked. The buildings are out of character with neighbouringproperties. There is insufficient plans for infrastructure to support the proposed residents such asno primary school, senior school or Doctor's practice. There are no such supporting infrastructureswithin walking distance of the development.There is insufficient green space and social space planned for the residents of the proposeddevelopment. There is insufficient car parking spaces for the hundreds of new residents.Surrounding neighborhood is already under pressure of commuters leaving vehicles blockingroads during the day. The development is of very poor, unoriginal dreary appearance and lacksthe character and appeal of the colourful Totterdown properties

I strongly object to this reviewed application for the following reasons:The amended proposed development revision is minimal and absolutely fails to address thecontinued concerns below:This is an area that is saturated with high-rise after high-rise development and the scale of thereviewed plans fails to address the issue regarding infrastructure in real terms.The impact on the Environment - The area is already overcrowded with an extortionate number ofdevelopments which will have a detrimental effect on what is being referred to as 'Clean Air' - theaddition of this construction will without doubt impact the environment both during the constructionand thereafter because of the increase in the number of cars such a vast development will bring - Ifeel that there continues to be a demonstrated lack of understanding related to Air Quality and theimpact this will have on peoples health.Parking/Environment - this is an area that does not have the infrastructure capability to cope withthe impact of another large scale development. It is naive for Bristol City Council to take the viewthat the residents will walk/cycle into the city centre when no doubt the residents of thisdevelopment will have ambitions to travel beyond the local area to other parts of Bristol and theUK in which they will need a vehicle beyond the provision of public transport - the Crime ReductionAvon & Somerset Report points to over 1174 offences within a 500 metre radius of which 22 aresexual offences - surely the planning committee does not consider a persons safety over theunderstanding of a persons need for safety via the use of their own vehicle. Such a developmentwill therefore put strain on what is an area that is struggling with commuters/residents searchingfor parking - Failure to address.The infrastructure does not have the capacity to cope with the impact on schools, NHS provisions

such as GP's Dentist etc - this is already a very highly populated area - failure to address. This isan area that is saturated with high-rise after high-rise development and the scale of the reviewedplans fails to address the issue regarding infrastructure in real terms.I am astounded by the following comments contained in Document 21_06878_F-PLANNING_STATEMENT_ADDENDUM-3261715:- 'Height and Scale The taller building height tothe east of the Site is currently marking the junction with St Luke's Road and defining the changein character area from the conservation area to this ex-industrial regen-site. Further, the proposedscheme provides a stepping up in height from west to east to mitigate the impact of this additionalheight. The overall height of the blocks across the Site responds to the taller building heightswithin the vicinity, notably across The Cut, and scale of existing and emerging context of theTemple Quarter Regeneration Area and adjacent industrial buildings' - This demonstrates theattitude that permeates throughout this entire proposal in which the developer is cherry-pickingwhat suits - I would suggest they look to the left, right and to the rear of the site where this is notthe case regarding scale and height.Such a sizeable construction will impact the historic Totterdown skyline which is an importantfeature of Bristol, the continual desire by developers to build high-rises to achieve the highestnumber of occupants with a disregard to Bristol's history is already prevalent in this area and I donot see how the area can cope with what is already agreed without further chipping away at thehistorical identity of the area - The development is still a monstrosity and there has been a clearfailure to look at the existing buildings on York Road - I note that the amended proposeddevelopment states 'there will be no negative change to the potential impacts to heritage assets,with no harm identified to any heritage assets or their significance. The relationship with theBedminster Conservation Area will be improved, though there will be no changes to thesignificance of the CA as a result of the amended proposed development' - this is a design thatresonates with the horrendous designs of the 1960's and 70's when design was not aconsideration beyond the profit of the developer and I find this statement to be contemptuous in itsdisregard to Bristol's heritage. Bristol City Council Planning Department have to decide what ismore important - retaining and building a city that continues to be exceptional or demonstratecontempt for the city and it's resident's by enabling the profit hungry developers to continuebuilding soulless overbearing eyesores that fail to fit in with the original/historical local vernacular.Conclusion: there has been a clear failure to address the numerous concerns that have beenraised and a lack of capability in demonstrating a desire to make meaningful change to the plans.

I do not object to the building of homes there- that is a great idea. My objection is to thenew proposal- which is very similar to the first proposal. This new 'quarter' next to Temple Meads-will be a major new hub. The potential is to build a development that will feel distinctive and lookunique and will help to define Bristol for the future. These designs could be anywhere. They arepoorly thought out, both for the people that will live there, and as a landmark.1. These buildings are poorly designed. There is nothing in them that will help to create acommunity. Where are the hubs that will draw people together?2. The height of the building will obscure the iconic view of the Totterdown escarpment- as iconicas Clifton Suspension Bridge or the Hotwells house. Would you allow developments that blockthese out?

There is an opportunity here for Bristol to make a new community fit for the future that is distinctiveand iconic and is not generic. These designs are lazy. Let's go back to the drawing board andmake something for Bristol to be proud of! We all appreciate there is a housing crisis but let's notour answer be mediocrity.

A development of this size in an already heavily congested area with struggling localservices does not make sense. That, along with the fact that this development is not in keepingwith its surroundings in style or size, this development will block the view of Totterdownescarpment enjoyed by large parts of Bristol.

I believe that this proposal is too densely populated for the area as well as impacting ona great view that has become synonymous with Bristol city.

1. Traffic and Parking - traffic flow through St Lukes road towards York Road is already at astandstill during rush hour as it is used as a rat run or one of 2 ways out of Totterdown to gothrough the city.

Parking in the area is already difficult where houses have been turned into HMO's and there is nooff street parking. The addition of several thousand residents and no significant onsite parking willpush that problem into the surrounding area. To get an idea, visit the local mosque and area on aFriday at 2pm. Parking and traffic is chaotic and dozens of cars are parked illegally.

2. Highway Safety - Whilst some thought has been given to public transport and foot traffic. Theincreased car volumes will surely counter the benefits of the proposed CAZ.

3. Design - Whilst I liked some aspects of the initial design. The current design is clunky andunappealing. It doesn't sit well within the area and looks more like a blight. The area deservessomething that is well thought out, unique and attractive to make it a positive talking point.

The current design is also too large and seems to be to maximise profits. Whilst I agree with theneed for local housing and affordable housing. I think this needs to be balanced to not ruin theselling points that make people want to live in an area.

South bristol is loved for its Victorian terraces. It is now so popular that it is almostimpossible for people to move as there is such high competition. We should be building morevictorian style terrace houses with gardens and where possible, a drive.They would offer a good standard of living for families and student / young professionals that aredesperate to live in the area. People need homes not highrises, especially now we spend so muchmore time at home. And they would sell quickly and be so popular with everyone.Perhaps a good balance would be 80% new Victorian terrace style homes, 20% low rises (couldbe four stories, containing 2 masonettes) with access to lower ground gardens.

This development will add a HUGE stress to the already densely populated andCONGESTED AREA of Totterdown/Windmill Hill.

There is a massive and cynical underestimation of the provision for car usage and parking whichwill clearly spill over into the surrounding neighbourhoods- Many people will have 2 x cars letalone 1x car that is a fact CAZ or no CAZ.

York Road/St Lukes Road congestion is a disaster now, as is the roundabout at Temple Meads.

There is already provision to cycle to Temple Meads from St Lukes Road.

The scale of the blocks is too great and out of keeping with the existing housing stock.Low rise blocks would be far more acceptable visually. Please don't ruin another neighbourhoodwith ugly design e.g The Boatyard development at Totterdown Bridge. Proof of money/egos overgood design and function.

It denies any proper and significant space for wildlife.

In terms of safety - as a comparison, the new blocks of flats behind Temple Meads - AnvilStreet/Avon Street- have not afforded a sense of more safety when walking/cycling. It isanonymous, a wind tunnel, underwhelming to walk through and, significantly , not any safer.

Homes are needed but tower blocks aren't always the best solution. Relative scale and gooddesign is required and is in very short supply with these current proposals.

BCC planning has historic poor form when it comes to Totterdown having demolished half of it inthe 70 's. Please, don't make another catastrophic mistake when there could be alternatives whichwould tick the boxes.

The publication date of both the Nature Conservation Officer Comments and theArboricultural Officer Comments is confusing because they appears after the submission of therevised architectural drawings. But these comments refer to the earlier scheme and have lostrelevance to the current proposal.Neither the Nature Conservation Officer or the Arboricultural Officer seem to have noted that themajority of the on site tree planting is above the basement soffit and not planted into the groundand therefore not grow to meet the requirements of the replacement trees. Trees are alsooptimistically shown planted on the link roof.Most of the remaining tree planting positions are not within the applicants demesne but within thepublic highway. Until it can be shown that agreements have been entered into to plant andadequately maintain these trees throughout their required lifespan, 100 years plus for theFagaceae, these trees cannot be considered as replacement trees.This application should be withdrawn and a compliant scheme resubmitted when it can be judgedon its merits.

Save the iconic view of Totterdown.Far too dense !!!

I agree with the objections submitted by TRESA to this application. One of my mainconcerns is the single aspects of the flats. During the recent heatwave (and we are now beginninganother one) I saw interviews with residents of single aspect flats who had to sleep in the corridorsnear their front doors as the rest of their flats were too hot. Given the increased likelihood ofheatwaves in the future, this has to be a priority for residents.

On consideration of the revised application I cannot identify any significant changes thatalleviate or take into account my former observations and objections. In fact in some cases thealterations proposed make things worse, therefore all that I objected to before stands, and I addthe following:- The density remains very high at 440dph, the developer has reduced the floor space of someunits to maintain a high number of units. BCC will be condemning people to live in these rabbithutches which will create stress, poor neighbouring and ill health if they approve this application.Some of the family units have 10 sq m more space than a one bed flat, is this really a family sizedunit?- The roof terrace is seemingly an attempt to address the lack of useful open space andenvironmentally beneficial landscaping. A roof terrace is totally incongruous in this location and willprovide minimal benefit to residents and very little useful benefit to wildlife, especially hedgehogsthat can't climb or fly, it will not provide a link between the wildlife corridors of the railwayembankment and river banks. However it will provide nesting sites for seagulls which will bringassociated problems.- The developer's attempt to address concerns that their proposal will obscure views of the greenTotterdown Escarpment and crowning jewel of Richmond Terrace is very weak. They state "whenin fact it is already broken up by built form", if this is an attempt to say that the view has alreadybeen obscured so they should be allowed to do what they want is unacceptable and showsdisregard for the values of the people of Bristol. Of course the view is occasionally obscured, in anurban environment it is inevitable that any view will be obscured by something as you movethrough the city. However, they fail to understand that the close proximity of their proposed

development to the escarpment is what will exacerbate the loss of views of this escarpment frommany more locations around the city. The height of their development is 4-5 times that of theexisting low industrial buildings. As I said before if Bristol is to retain any sense of Genius loci itneeds to value and safeguard these iconic views. If it were possible to upload photos into theseobjections we could show the council many view points that will have interrupted views of thisescarpment.The developer states... "The Mead Street Area is identified for Regeneration so the foreground tothe Escarpment will change but it is unjustified to say that 'it should be expected that this citybackdrop will be lost'. As acknowledged within the Position Statement and demonstrated by thesubmitted HTVIA, this is not the case. I note your commentary on the Development Brief and thesuggestion that a height strategy should be adopted. It is understood that you and your urbandesign colleagues have fed into and been integral to the formulation of this document."The council have clearly been negligent in not setting a height strategy for the site and thedeveloper is maximising on this oversight, or desire on the part of the City Council and Mayor to 'high-rise Bristol'. It is entirely justifiable to say that the view of the escarpment will be lost frommore areas of the city, there is no doubt that this development in it self and as a precedent to morehigh rise will be the nail in the coffin for this view.

- The council have allowed the change of use from industrial to residential on the Mead St site withlittle consideration for support services and infrastructure for residents.This development offers scope for a "small" corner shop and "small" cafe and one or two otherbusinesses. Light industrial units which offer employment are being forced out of the area as theirsites become more valuable as 'development opportunities ', forcing people to travel further awayfor work.No community space/hub for residents has been included, the only meeting place might be abench in a dreary open space between blocks or a windswept, shady rooftop terrace. Provision bythis developer should include community space to set a precedent for future applications.

- The developer's attempt to visually associate this development with the Temple Quarter and theblocks of flats across The Cut, does not hold up ....they do not connect visually with this site ...theexisting terrace along York Road, the low rise industrial and warehouse buildings and the railwayretaining wall are the visual links to this site. The developer's attempt to connect to the York RdVictorian terrace by removing a floor of the corner block goes no way to minimise the dramaticchange in mass and height, nor the impact of overshadowing and domination of the skyline andelevation along York Road of the proposal. The height should be a maximum of 5 storeysincluding ground storey.

- As the developer rightly points out this is to be ".. the first development in a new residential-led,mixed-use quarter,....." therefore it will act as a precedent for future applications..therefore theCouncil needs to take a strong stance now and keep the scale of building mass size and heightdown .

- The developer's paragraph about the 'Elevations / Design' suggests that ' The architectural styleof the building has been informed by the history of the Site'This is a distraction and meaningless. Why be informed by, or reference, buildings that are nolonger on the site??? It shows desperation of the developer to indicate they have undergone some'research and understand the area', when in fact they clearly don't. The development should betaking heed of the residential buildings adjacent to it, namely York Road and the terrace on theescarpment.. in terms of scale, materials and detailing.If they want to be informed by history then they should continue the housing as they quote".....terraced housing along this road, with a tiled pitched roofscape" the same as theYork Rdterrace on the other side of St Lukes Rd.They state that their design has a "...varying roofscape animates the skyline and createsdistinctive elements creating visual interest, yet remaining complimentary to the historic context...." The pitched roofs will be invisible to the pedestrian at ground level and will actually lose therepitching by the smoke extractors, which also extend the height of the buildings.The developer states "In addition, the rectangular plan of the buildings support the references tothe railway buildings and industrial heritage of the area which is integrated throughout thescheme." ...this is ridiculous, the rectangles are reminiscent of communist blocks in easternEurope and Russia, no one will reminisce 'railway buildings' by these rectangular buildings...theyare the cheapest shape and offer an easy way to fit lots of units, that is the developers referencepoint.- The developer states "The elevational treatment is considered to be simple and an appropriatetraditional tripartite response to a façade concept, 'Base - Middle - Top'. The banding and windowsurrounds reference the adjoining existing York Road Terrace buildings but also act as visualrichness to avoid bland residential brickwork facades. " . This could all be acceptable if they werereferring to buildings that were on a human scale, details such as these are lost and irrelevant onblocks of this scale.

- the developers would do well to reference the materials that are visible nearby, for example thegrey sandstone retaining walls of the railway could provide an excellent scale and colour ofstonework for the ground storey ... and with soft coloured brickwork above would provide apleasing aesthetic at eyelevel.- The developer states that no unit will be for sale, but is this for the life of the building or thetenure to the housing management companies? In which case market prices will make these flatsunaffordable to many tenants and they will be forced out.- The upper floor apartments will not view the courtyard...they will look straight across to theopposite block of flats., it is absurd to make the claim they will look onto the courtyard. The lowerflats will be able to look at trees but these will block out more light in addition to the proximity of theopposite block and the shadow of the escarpment in the south will also minimise the light into flatsand courtyard.- The developer is delusional if they believe that their landscaping proposals provide a lusciouspublic open space, the 'richly' planted beds are not large enough to provide for significant plantingand are dwarfed by the buildings. Presumably informal play relates to skateboarding on the paths

as little else could be accommodated . A lawn area of this scale provides NO amenityvalue...areas of grass the size of Castle Park, Queen Square, Victoria Park offer amenityvalue..areas of the proposed size are unusable for young children to play on or for adults to userecreationally, tenants dogs may find them useful.- When was the site ,and by whom, named York Gate??? The developer???? Why not call itWatergate as it is so near the river? Or even Flood gate as the council will be opening the floodgate to more unsuitable, inhuman high-rise blocks if this is approved.It is my consideration that this application should be rejected until the proposal, put forward by theMead St Development Brief, to design the open spaces and infrastructure before individualhousing developments are developed are more detailed and approved . If this development losesa small section of land for the benefit of the whole site the loss to the developer will be minimal buta more appropriate development can be designed. I consider the adverse effects of thisdevelopment significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, and the application should berejected.

On consideration of the revised application I cannot identify any significant changes thatalleviate or take into account my former observations and objections. In fact in some cases thealterations proposed make things worse, therefore all that I objected to before stands, and I addthe following:- The density remains very high at 440dph, the developer has reduced the floor space of someunits to maintain a high number of units. BCC will be condemning people to live in these rabbithutches which will create stress, poor neighbouring and ill health if they approve this application.Some of the family units have 10 sq m more space than a one bed flat, is this really a family sizedunit?- The roof terrace is seemingly an attempt to address the lack of useful open space andenvironmentally beneficial landscaping. A roof terrace is totally incongruous in this location and willprovide minimal benefit to residents and very little useful benefit to wildlife, especially hedgehogsthat can't climb or fly, it will not provide a link between the wildlife corridors of the railwayembankment and river banks. However it will provide nesting sites for seagulls which will bringassociated problems.- The developer's attempt to address concerns that their proposal will obscure views of the greenTotterdown Escarpment and crowning jewel of Richmond Terrace is very weak. They state "whenin fact it is already broken up by built form", if this is an attempt to say that the view has alreadybeen obscured so they should be allowed to do what they want is unacceptable and showsdisregard for the values of the people of Bristol. Of course the view is occasionally obscured, in anurban environment it is inevitable that any view will be obscured by something as you movethrough the city. However, they fail to understand that the close proximity of their proposed

development to the escarpment is what will exacerbate the loss of views of this escarpment frommany more locations around the city. The height of their development is 4-5 times that of theexisting low industrial buildings. As I said before if Bristol is to retain any sense of Genius loci itneeds to value and safeguard these iconic views. If it were possible to upload photos into theseobjections we could show the council many view points that will have interrupted views of thisescarpment.The developer states... "The Mead Street Area is identified for Regeneration so the foreground tothe Escarpment will change but it is unjustified to say that 'it should be expected that this citybackdrop will be lost'. As acknowledged within the Position Statement and demonstrated by thesubmitted HTVIA, this is not the case. I note your commentary on the Development Brief and thesuggestion that a height strategy should be adopted. It is understood that you and your urbandesign colleagues have fed into and been integral to the formulation of this document."The council have clearly been negligent in not setting a height strategy for the site and thedeveloper is maximising on this oversight, or desire on the part of the City Council and Mayor to 'high-rise Bristol'. It is entirely justifiable to say that the view of the escarpment will be lost frommore areas of the city, there is no doubt that this development in it self and as a precedent to morehigh rise will be the nail in the coffin for this view.

- The council have allowed the change of use from industrial to residential on the Mead St site withlittle consideration for support services and infrastructure for residents.This development offers scope for a "small" corner shop and "small" cafe and one or two otherbusinesses. Light industrial units which offer employment are being forced out of the area as theirsites become more valuable as 'development opportunities ', forcing people to travel further awayfor work.No community space/hub for residents has been included, the only meeting place might be abench in a dreary open space between blocks or a windswept, shady rooftop terrace. Provision bythis developer should include community space to set a precedent for future applications.

- The developer's attempt to visually associate this development with the Temple Quarter and theblocks of flats across The Cut, does not hold up ....they do not connect visually with this site ...theexisting terrace along York Road, the low rise industrial and warehouse buildings and the railwayretaining wall are the visual links to this site. The developer's attempt to connect to the York RdVictorian terrace by removing a floor of the corner block goes no way to minimise the dramaticchange in mass and height, nor the impact of overshadowing and domination of the skyline andelevation along York Road of the proposal. The height should be a maximum of 5 storeysincluding ground storey.

- As the developer rightly points out this is to be ".. the first development in a new residential-led,mixed-use quarter,....." therefore it will act as a precedent for future applications..therefore theCouncil needs to take a strong stance now and keep the scale of building mass size and heightdown .

- The developer's paragraph about the 'Elevations / Design' suggests that ' The architectural styleof the building has been informed by the history of the Site'This is a distraction and meaningless. Why be informed by, or reference, buildings that are nolonger on the site??? It shows desperation of the developer to indicate they have undergone some'research and understand the area', when in fact they clearly don't. The development should betaking heed of the residential buildings adjacent to it, namely York Road and the terrace on theescarpment.. in terms of scale, materials and detailing.If they want to be informed by history then they should continue the housing as they quote".....terraced housing along this road, with a tiled pitched roofscape" the same as theYork Rdterrace on the other side of St Lukes Rd.They state that their design has a "...varying roofscape animates the skyline and createsdistinctive elements creating visual interest, yet remaining complimentary to the historic context...." The pitched roofs will be invisible to the pedestrian at ground level and will actually lose therepitching by the smoke extractors, which also extend the height of the buildings.The developer states "In addition, the rectangular plan of the buildings support the references tothe railway buildings and industrial heritage of the area which is integrated throughout thescheme." ...this is ridiculous, the rectangles are reminiscent of communist blocks in easternEurope and Russia, no one will reminisce 'railway buildings' by these rectangular buildings...theyare the cheapest shape and offer an easy way to fit lots of units, that is the developers referencepoint.- The developer states "The elevational treatment is considered to be simple and an appropriatetraditional tripartite response to a façade concept, 'Base - Middle - Top'. The banding and windowsurrounds reference the adjoining existing York Road Terrace buildings but also act as visualrichness to avoid bland residential brickwork facades. " . This could all be acceptable if they werereferring to buildings that were on a human scale, details such as these are lost and irrelevant onblocks of this scale.

- the developers would do well to reference the materials that are visible nearby, for example thegrey sandstone retaining walls of the railway could provide an excellent scale and colour ofstonework for the ground storey ... and with soft coloured brickwork above would provide apleasing aesthetic at eyelevel.- The developer states that no unit will be for sale, but is this for the life of the building or thetenure to the housing management companies? In which case market prices will make these flatsunaffordable to many tenants and they will be forced out.- The upper floor apartments will not view the courtyard...they will look straight across to theopposite block of flats., it is absurd to make the claim they will look onto the courtyard. The lowerflats will be able to look at trees but these will block out more light in addition to the proximity of theopposite block and the shadow of the escarpment in the south will also minimise the light into flatsand courtyard.- The developer is delusional if they believe that their landscaping proposals provide a lusciouspublic open space, the 'richly' planted beds are not large enough to provide for significant plantingand are dwarfed by the buildings. Presumably informal play relates to skateboarding on the paths

as little else could be accommodated . A lawn area of this scale provides NO amenityvalue...areas of grass the size of Castle Park, Queen Square, Victoria Park offer amenityvalue..areas of the proposed size are unusable for young children to play on or for adults to userecreationally, tenants dogs may find them useful.- When was the site ,and by whom, named York Gate??? The developer???? Why not call itWatergate as it is so near the river? Or even Flood gate as the council will be opening the floodgate to more unsuitable, inhuman high-rise blocks if this is approved.It is my consideration that this application should be rejected until the proposal, put forward by theMead St Development Brief, to design the open spaces and infrastructure before individualhousing developments are developed are more detailed and approved . If this development losesa small section of land for the benefit of the whole site the loss to the developer will be minimal buta more appropriate development can be designed. I consider the adverse effects of thisdevelopment significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, and the application should berejected.

The proposed development is not in keeping with the area stylistically. There are newflats on the corner of York Road which have been built with at least some element of architecturaland topographic sympathy to the area.High-rise is not typical of Bristol's historic ancestry and the current proposal is an offence to ourhistoric heritage not just in the Totterdown area but as a part of the whole of Bristol, which isknown to attract tourists as a very important part of the economy here. This latter attribute is indanger of being lost if such building proposals go ahead.The Totterdown view is iconic and an immediate point of interest as people enter the city fromTemple Meads station. This would be entirely lost under the current proposals. The plan is at leastshort-term in its nature as regards any supposed benefit to the area. We need strategies that willlast and supply long-term social and architectural benefits to Bristol as a whole.A reasonable accommodation plan could indeed be welcomed. There is a danger of over-populating the area in relation to transport and road congestion. Temple Meads roundabout andattendant roads are a known bottle-neck for traffic especially when there is any kind of disruptionto the 'normal' flow of traffic as when there is an event in the city whereby people travel from otherareas to attend.A short-term gain for a few is a long-term tragedy for the many. This must not go ahead.

I think we should wait for a decision for the Bart Spices site development depending onwhen the council have considered the layout, design, infrastructure and public open space /building ratios for the whole of Mead Street development. This should be mentioned on behalf ofthe whole immediate community as part of our collective objection. I'm also extremely concernedabout the terrifying level of density of accommodation and what a claustrophobic blight it willcreate on the city from every angle...plus it's so well documented how unsatisfactory it is forpeople to live in such environments - unfriendly, isolating, lonely, dependent on lifts etc plus hasno one considered the horrible wind-tunnel effects of high-rise and how hard it is to grow anythingin the shade of such places - and how unecological such developments are and the higher you gothe more costly they are to maintain. Never mind the iconic nature of the view which welcomespeople from every angle all around the city...we want low rise not high rise and where's theinfrastructure to support such a scar on the entire landscape? The police have already said it willend up becoming a ghetto and the whole thing is so utterly depressing - and when I walk aroundthe development across from Temple Meads that is nowhere near as high as the Mead Street siteI never see anyone interacting with anyone else and it's like a ghost town with people occasionallyscuttling about looking stressed and isolated. Do we really want this for our beautiful city? Stackingpeople like rats in some ghastly experiment to see how long it takes before they start to crack?The current plans go agains every kind of human scale that is acceptable. Walk along the BathRoad and look at the difference between Paintworks and the new oppressive cell-like developmentnearer to Totterdown. Why don't we learn our lesson? We're not New York, we're a beautiful,stylish, quirky, interesting, beacon-of-culture kind of city full of vibrant possibilities and we need topreserve some green spaces for the future of our dwindling wildlife. The stunning cedar tree was

removed (apparently that should never have happened ) and the beautiful beech hedge that hadbeen absorbing pollution for all our benefits and now you want to just create a monstrosity ofglass, concret and steel which will crush all the air out of our river la escape. Please please pleasethink again for the future of everyone near and far. Thank you!

This will completely dominate the skyline and is not in keeping with iconic Bristol.

1. The sheer size of the development is completely out of character with all nearbyexisting buildings, dwarfing them and will be an eye-sore2. There is already significant congestion around the proposed site, which will only be madesignificantly worse by having such a large population density forced upon the area3. Local services are already stretched and this will again only make the situation far worse

I cannot submit my objection via this route because I have prepared a pdf that includesphotos. Please let me know to whom I should send this pdf.

This proposed development will become known as the ''Gotham City'' of South Bristol. Itis too overbearing for the location and looms over everything around it. Do we really want that forour city? It is too big and the height needs to be lowered so it's less overpowering. If it matchedthe buildings on the other side of St Lukes Road it would look much more appropriate andwelcoming.

That, plus the fact it will detract from the views of the Richmond St escarpment must be reflectedin any planning decision. Five thousand people have signed a petition asking to protect this uniqueview, this should not be brushed aside. Providing sufficient housing is very important, but it needsto be done in a way which is sympathetic to the surrounding area. This plan does not add to thearchitectural heritage of the city. It takes away something which has added to the character andappeal of the city, both for residents and visitors.

Maximising the developers profit underpins these designs, not designing homes where people willenjoy living. Half of the flats are single aspect - those poor residents will endure hot, stuffy roomsday and night, as creating a 'through draft' with just one window will be impossible Not only willthey be hot, but dingy too. The hot, dingy apartments of Gotham City, Totterdown. Why let thishappen? The designs need to be revisited and improved for the benefit of all residents in the city.

The inevitable parking issues have already been flagged in earlier consultation responses. We allwant to reach net zero and get cars off the road. But this plan is just not realistic and the lack ofparking will create immense congestion and frustration for all local residents. We need a better

solution.

The new development will block the view of Totterdown escarpment enjoyed by largeparts of Bristol amongst many entering and leaving temple meads.

The volume of accommodation will put high strain on the local road network that is already heavilycongested.

I understand the need for housing but these blocks are reminiscent of barrack blocks.There is absolutly no attempt to lessen the impact of the buildings on the surroundings. Theydwarf the surrounding buildings and bring absolutely no architectural merit to the area. Is there anyintention to provide infrastructure? Also, there is no parking available on the streets around, soanyone owning a car or two will struggle to accommodate them. It is pointless to hope that peoplewill not be car owners. I don't understand why, several years ago, it was obligatory to provide aparking space for each dwelling but now that doesn't seem to be a consideration at all. And it willall add to the traffic congestion that already exists on Wells Road and along the river.

This looks great, please make more interesting buildings like this with shops/cafes etc.this replaces a horrible load of warehouses, great

This is a totally overbearing development that has no respect for the environment,people's well-being or the location. The buildings appear to be positioned with no regard to theproblems of Climate Change.

Single aspect buildings make heating and cooling much more difficult. There is no point in BCCdeclaring a climate emergency then building blocks which will not ameliorate the situation.

Further to my previous comments, it seems to me, based on observation, that many ofthe current dwellings on York Road are subdivided, and frequently occupied by tenants withalcohol, drug, and mental health issues. I do not feel that adding a 'multi-storey people park' to themix would be helpful.

I strongly object to this proposal1. on the grounds of height of building to the escarpment - the spoiling of important views and thepoor quality of the apartments themselves2. on the grounds of population density in an area already polluted3. on the grounds of entirely inadequate provision of parking

1. It's an eyesore2. It's over 20 metres too tall3. You people are not thinking about how you will get all of the new people you're planning tohouse south of the river across the river without gridlock and chaos by the time you've finishedcreating bottlenecks and chaos with the road system over the Cumberland basin. Seriously youshould all be forced to live in these building your give permission to and be totally banned fromliving in Clifton. You could have on houses thousands of students on the zoo site but that gets afew poxy houses.4. It's overcrowding and that causes social problems5. These is a huge strain on Doctors and dentists south of the river. Literally it's impossible to getan appointment and people are on the phone hours just trying to get through. You're increasingthe strain on an already savagely broken over subscribed system.If you had to live here you wouldn't be allowing it. High rise is not the answer. Overcrowding is notthe answer. You are totally destroying the character of the area.

If this development had been much lower rise I probably would have supported it. Thearea was traditionally low-rise housing in the main until it was destroyed in the 1960s and it wouldbe lovely if the council had the vision to recreate this missing neighborhood in a sustainable andattractive way. Unfortunately it is far too high rise and will destroy one of Bristol's key assets: theview of the colourful houses of Totterdown from across much of the city. I do not object todevelopment in the area. We desperately need more housing, however this development is notsustainable, particularly in the age of climate chaos. Just look at the additional issues that peoplein high rise flats have faced in London during the recent heatwave. I do not understand why wecannot have more development along the lines of that built in the paintworks area over the last 20years or so. I urge planners not to approve this development until the height issue is resolved.

I object to the lack of information and clear guidance concerning the height of theproposed developments - the impact of building high are simple and two fold. Buildings that affectthe skyline identity of Richmond Street as seen from temple meads station throughout Bristol tothe Western Harbour would be a huge wound to the city's identity - no one would dream ofblocking views of the Clifton Royal Crescent or Cliftonwood coloured houses skyline, and thisskyline is of equal importance, in part defining the character of the city for locals and visitors alike.In addition the amenity afforded the residents of Richmond Street in their wide ranging viewsacross the city should also be considered - this is a mixed community, of some deprivation, butwith lots of character and always promised potential, the views are part of that and a clearincentive for investment in the area - don't kill this by interfering with the skyline or blocking thegorgeous views from Richmond Street across the city.

I object to this revised application much as I did to the earlier version.

In simple terms, it is too large, too dense and too tall, and is visibly out of keeping with itssurroundings. It dwarfs the four-storey houses on Coronation Road, which themselves at presentfeel to be quite tall enough.

In terms of contradicting council policy, I note that: "A tall building should not be located where:i. it hides or masks the topography of the city;ii. it harms valued views from key vantage-points;iii. it has a detrimental impact on the city's historic environment;iv. it has a significant negative impact on the amenity of nearby occupiers or on the public realm asset out on Pg. 51 Urban Living SPD document adopted by Bristol City council 2018.

It's clear that this plan contradicts all these requirements.There are no comparably tall buildings in the vicinity which can be used to justify this approach.

This plan has also been submitted in advance of the Mead Street Masterplan, which surely shouldbe completed so that an overarching vision can be agreed before any individual applications areallowed.

In any case, I note that the consultation on the Mead Street Masterplan has failed to draw any

conclusions on the most important issue for this site - height - and so is at present not fit forpurpose. The Masterplan must include guidance on height to be of any service.

It is not clear, because the views supplied are inadequate, whether the cherished and importantviews of the Totterdown terraces will be affected by this proposal. But this is a crucialconsideration for the Masterplan, and another reason why this plan should not be considered in itsabsence.

The density is clearly far greater than guidance allows even for a city centre setting, ie of 200dwellings per hectare.

There is still inadequate play space for children. Cllr Lisa Stone assessed the need for the originalproposals at 970m2 when only 192m2 had been provided. This does not seem to have changedsignificantly.

I also object to the loss of local employment opportunities; Mead Street is currently an isolated butimportant source of varied workplaces. With the projected change of use of the Whitehouse Streetarea, and large areas of St Phillips, where are these types of workspace - factories, warehouses,non-office service industries - expected to relocate? At present they are within sustainable reachof many residents.

I question where community facilities will be for the new residents - local schools and healthservices will need extra capacity.

Whether the council is able to enforce its recent policy of not allowing many parking spaces in newdevelopments - ie, imposing a de facto vehicle ban on new residents - is something only the futurewill show. However, the large number of planned developments around Bath Road and WindmillHill will surely bring the need for a Resident Parking Zone for Totterdown, Windmill Hill andperhaps Knowle. Given the years of agony Bedminster residents have suffered from lack ofparking while the council has dithered over whether to amend existing parking zones, it is vital thatthe council begins work now on planning for an RPZ here. Given that the need for this will bedriven almost entirely by the new residential developments, from which a considerable profit willbe derived, the cost of planning and implementing the RPZs should be borne by the developers.This work ought to form part of any sensible masterplan.

I object to the size and scale of this proposed development. Although I support the needfor new housing locally, there are numerous reasons why this particular area is not fit forthe amount of new housing proposed and why I think the scale of the proposed development is ill-advised.There is not enough parking, primary or secondary school places, and other essential resourcesfor local people - local doctors surgeries are already over-stretched and new NHS dentist placesare simply not available locally. Levels of air pollution at the nearby three lamps junction arealready at dangerous levels (exceeding legal limits) making this new proposed development illadvised and particularly dangerous for children. I assume the need in Bristol for new housing ishowever greatest for families with children. What is the plan to address all of these issues beforebuilding 200+ more flats? Why not half the size of the development and put in more green spacesand tree canopies to absorb and mitigate the air pollution?The view of Totterdown's coloured houses is an iconic feature of Bristol, and a local attractionwhich would be blocked by the size of the proposed development.The council should be thinking ahead and considering the impact on quality of life of all localresidents including those it intends to move into this development.

I object to this revised application much as I did to the earlier version.

In simple terms, it is too large, too dense and too tall, and is visibly out of keeping with itssurroundings. It dwarfs the four-storey houses on Coronation Road.

In terms of contradicting council policy, I note that: "A tall building should not be located where:i. it hides or masks the topography of the city;ii. it harms valued views from key vantage-points;iii. it has a detrimental impact on the city's historic environment;iv. it has a significant negative impact on the amenity of nearby occupiers or on the public realm asset out on Pg. 51 Urban Living SPD document adopted by Bristol City council 2018.

It's clear that this plan contradicts all these requirements.There are no comparably tall buildings in the vicinity which can be used to justify this approach.

This plan has also been submitted in advance of the Mead Street Masterplan, which surely shouldbe completed so that an overarching vision can be agreed before any individual applications areallowed.

In any case, I note that the consultation on the Mead Street Masterplan has failed to draw anyconclusions on the most important issue for this site - height - and so is at present not fit forpurpose. The Masterplan must include guidance on height to be of any service.

It is not clear, because the views supplied are inadequate, whether the cherished and importantviews of the Totterdown terraces will be affected by this proposal. But this is a crucialconsideration for the Masterplan, and another reason why this plan should not be considered in itsabsence.

The density is clearly far greater than guidance allows even for a city centre setting, ie of 200dwellings per hectare.

There is still inadequate play space for children. Cllr Lisa Stone assessed the need for the originalproposals at 970m2 when only 192m2 had been provided. This does not seem to have changedsignificantly.

I also object to the loss of local employment opportunities; Mead Street is currently an isolated butimportant source of varied workplaces. With the projected change of use of the Whitehouse Streetarea, and large areas of St Phillips, where are these types of workspace - factories, warehouses,non-office service industries - expected to relocate? At present they are within sustainable reachof many residents.

I question where community facilities will be for the new residents - local schools and healthservices will need extra capacity.

Whether the council is able to enforce its recent policy of not allowing many parking spaces in newdevelopments - ie, imposing a de facto vehicle ban on new residents - is something only the futurewill show. However, the large number of planned developments around Bath Road and WindmillHill will surely bring the need for a Resident Parking Zone for Totterdown, Windmill Hill andperhaps Knowle. Given the years of agony Bedminster residents have suffered from lack ofparking while the council has dithered over whether to amend existing parking zones, it is vital thatthe council begins work now on planning for an RPZ here. Given that the need for this will bedriven almost entirely by the new residential developments, from which a considerable profit willbe derived, the cost of planning and implementing the RPZs should be borne by the developers.This work ought to form part of any sensible masterplan.

The new proposals aren't much better than the originals. It seems this development isshort-sighted and money orientated instead of being of benefit to Bristol residents. The height ofthe buildings has only been slightly reduced and is still massively out of keeping with thesurrounding areas and will still obscure the beautiful and iconic view of the TotterdownEscarpment. By the developers own admission the proposed buildings will 'partially conceal thecoloured terraced houses of Totterdown Escarpment...'. This is totally unacceptable and not in theinterests of Bristol residents or visitors to our city. Bristol is well-known for this view, it is whatvisitors see when they arrive. It is of equal importance to the coloured terraces of Cliftonwood.Views from Richmond Street should also be considered as this development will have a seriousimpact on the houses there and their value. I would also like to object to the fact that all the maturetrees on the site have already been cut down, destroying habit of birds and wildlife. Permissionwas not given for this and it will take many years for young trees to replace what was alreadythere.

Objections to development proposal on old Bart Spices site

I support the objections raised by a Totterdown resident (set out below) in relation to theinadequately 'revised' development proposal on the old Bart Spices site at the corner of St LukesRoad and York Road: 21/06878/F | Mixed-use redevelopment including 221 residential (C3) unitsand 651 sq.m. of commercial floorspace (Class E) on ground floor, together with a new vehicularaccess off Mead Street, cycle and car parking provision, private amenity space, servicingarrangements, landscaping, public realm, and associated works.

__________________________________________

Planning Application at York Road, ref. 21/06878/F

I understand that revised proposals have been made for this application. Having had a look at theproposals, I am disappointed to see that there have been very few substantive changes and I wishto continue to object to this proposal:

The design is still poor

The proposals are over-large and over-height

The proposed housing density is too high

Insufficient weight has been given to noise, air quality, community or environmental concerns

Alterations in Design

Although there has been a slight reduction in the number of units, from 244 to 221, this hasresulted mainly from reducing the height of 'Block A' nearest to St Lukes Road by a single storey,and by removing a few flats from the opposite boundary, which would never have been viable inthe first place.

Sadly, the towers still loom over the street and their surroundings in an overbearing way. Almostall public realm has been given over to very tall buildings too close to the boundaries. The overallappearance is blocky and grim. Removing the dark grey metallic cladding by changing it tomatching brick only serves to emphasise the monolithic nature of the blocks.

The reduction in height of one block by one storey represents a marginal improvement on ascheme which is fundamentally flawed and does little to ease the sense of oppression on nearbybuildings, all of which are lower and some of which are Listed. The remainder of the blocks remainover-tall.

The revised statement on Daylight states that light levels within apartments will be improved overthose previously indicated by changing the paint reflectance. This is not a legitimate improvement.

Impact on Occupants

Single aspect flats face each other in vast walls only 18m apart but 34m high leaving no privacyfor the prospective residents, particularly as their balconies would be only 15m apart. Internally,the flats are served by dark narrow corridors 30m long with a single window at one end andwindowless lift shafts at the other. A revised statement claims that only 47% of the flats are nowsingle aspect. However, many of the flats claimed to be dual aspect have a single small windowfacing sideways onto a recessed balcony as their only claim to this, and several have as theirsecond aspect the unfortunate blank well created on the north-east side facing the Royal Mailsorting depot.

I note that design change of introducing this well has also prevented the flats in this block havingaccess to an alternative means of escape, which is undesirable. Single stairs should not be shownwithout additional lobbies as these are, or continuing into the basement floor unchecked as this iscontrary to government guidance and a likely fire hazard.

Building Height and Affect on Surrounding area

The enormous height of the proposals would dominate the local landscape and obscure one of themost famous and iconic views in Bristol. The submitted view from Temple Meads Approachillustrates this starkly. Other views, although chosen to show the buildings in their best light, clearlyillustrate the damaging and overbearing effect on this part of the City, and the obscuration of viewsof the iconic escarpment.

Although submitted drawings do not indicate it, the upper floors would look down upon nearbyhouses which are currently on top of the escarpment as well as those surrounding at lower levels.The buildings would likewise blight the surrounding area and plots of land on Mead Street andYork Road.

On the West side, the building is still 1.5m from the boundary apart from the introduced well.Assuming the adjacent site were to be developed in a similar fashion, flats would be touchingdistance apart across a man-made crevasse. This is an unacceptable approach, blighting nearbylandowners.

Design statements and elevations seek to draw comparisons in height with existing flats acrossthe river but fail to acknowledge the location of those buildings which are set back from roads in arelatively open landscape rather than being immediately adjacent to major roads.

The design has completely failed to acknowledge the unique position adjacent to the river, a majorroad and pedestrian route as well as the nearby topography. It is bland and anonymous andappears to have been designed in isolation from the City altogether.

Planning Strategy

The City Council is developing a planning strategy for this area in conjunction with the WhitehouseStreet area, which would hopefully establish some relevant guidelines in consultation with localresidents and businesses. Presumably the current scheme is designed to jump the gun on thisand should certainly be refused until a proper strategy for re-development is established.

The Whitehouse Street area has an emerging strategy which includes recommendations onheights of buildings, and there is every reason why the Mead Street planning strategy should dothe same, being a more sensitive site.

Density & Urban Living SPD

The proposed density according to numbers submitted with the application would still be over 500dwellings per Hectare, not including the extensive commercial and servicing areas on lower floors.

The Bristol Urban Living SPD - Making Successful Places at Higher Densities indicates that anupper limit of about 120 units/Ha would be appropriate in this 'Inner Urban Area' and makes nomention of commercial activities. According to BCS20, the Totterdown escarpment, one of thehighest density urban areas in Bristol contains 120 dpH. The proposal for more than 4x this wouldclearly be excessive with overcrowding and poor social outcomes resulting.

The Urban Living SPD also states that 'a poorly designed tall building can have a detrimentalimpact on the historic townscape of a city like Bristol' and ' the topography and skyline of a city likeBristol.' This proposal would do all of that if permitted to proceed.

Light Levels

The Internal Daylight Assessment indicates that many of the apartments will be miserably darkwith those on the lower levels having low light levels and almost no view of the sky, yet concludesthis would be acceptable. There is also an assumption that the remainder of the site would remainundeveloped, and relies on having surrounds which are single storey to achieve the results that itdoes, something that is mostly unlikely to remain, and which is referred to in the Design andAccess Statement.

Changing the chosen paint type in the revised Assessment is unlikely to lead to any real-lifeimprovements.

The report on overshadowing nearby properties indicates that the new development wouldcompletely blight and overshadow the closest buildings which are within the BedminsterConservation Area, as well as blocking winter sunlight from existing flats across the river, yetagain concluding that this will be acceptable.

Pollution

The Health Impact Assessment submitted with the application completely fails to identify an airpollution strategy or address problems beyond identifying that there may be one, despite the sitebeing directly on a busy road within the Air Quality Management Area. The size and bulk of thebuilding would contribute to trapping polluted air within close proximity, exposing pedestrians, roadusers and residents to unacceptable levels of pollutants.

It also concludes that residents at first floor level would be subject to dangerous levels ofatmospheric pollution, and makes no mention of the occupants and visitors to the ground floorcommercial spaces who would also be exposed, including those shown as sitting outside by theside of some of the most heavily polluted roads in the city.

Wind Speed

The Wind Desktop Appraisal acknowledges that no wind tunnel or CFD study has been done. Itspeculatively uses data from a site 7km away and reduces predicted wind speeds by over 50%.This generic approach is unlikely to produce a correct result as it completely fails to recognise theunique topography of the area and the river valley. The conclusions that there would be littleadverse impact of wind funnelling on the surrounding roads, paved areas and residents arelaughable to anyone familiar with the locality.

The revised appraisal indicates that it will be necessary to keep the existing trees to mitigate windspeeds to near-acceptable levels. It does not state if this refers to the trees already removed fromthe site.

Trees

The Tree Survey locates and classes all existing trees on the site and recommends that all exceptone should be kept, preferably with the surrounding green space. However the proposed schemeremoves every single one so the buildings can be larger. Indeed all trees and other vegetation onthe site have already been removed.

The proposed replacements are not likely to fare well, sited in hard landscaping 2m away from the11-storey cliff faces of the buildings. Claims in the Ecological Assessment that landscaping andbiodiversity would increase by removing all trace of existing trees , shrubs and greenery are notcredible. No mention is made of bats which are known by residents to inhabit the area and use theriver and escarpment for feeding and as a travel corridor. The proposals are very likely to interferewith current bat transit and roosting.

Noise

The Noise Assessment Report submitted examines little except the impact of existing noise,mostly traffic, on the new residents, and concludes that many of the flats should have theirwindows sealed shut, with artificial ventilation, though no proposals are made as to how this wouldbe done. This type of design is generally considered unacceptable by current standards. There isno consideration of the considerable impact the residents would have on each other, or othernearby residents, facing a wall of other flats a short distance away with open balconies likely togive rise to considerable disturbance. This type of design is deeply flawed and known to give riseto many complaints. The proposed adjacent seating and café areas are only likely to make mattersworse.

Townscape

The Heritage Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment praises its own scheme yet somehowmanages to miss the evidence of its own carefully selected and presented photomontages - that

the scheme represents an awful blot on the landscape viewed from almost any angle and lurksover the nearby city in a threatening manner, blocking or spoiling views of the famous escarpmentfrom almost all angles, and sitting uncomfortably beside the listed structure of the foot bridge.

Sustainability

The Sustainability Statement claims great things in terms of energy saving, yet fails to mentionthat buildings above six storeys are known to become progressively less efficient and more energyintensive the higher they go while introducing long term maintenance problems.

Parking

The Transport documents and Design and Access Statements do little to address the parkingproblem thrown up by the development, other than stating that little parking would be required. 14disability standard spaces are allocated to flats leaving 29 spaces for the remaining 207 flats aswell as the commercial spaces. Expectations that residents, visitors and staff would not havemotor vehicles are unrealistic and there is no nearby on-street parking at all. The only proposedsolution is for overflow parking on the Totterdown escarpment, which local residents will be able toidentify as ridiculous due to the non-existence of available spaces.

Waste Disposal

The Operational Waste Strategy is unsatisfactory, requiring tenants to take their segregated wasteup to 10 floors away and relying on building management to place all of the bins in collectionareas. The Strategy is also in direct conflict with the Landscape design as it shows the main binarea collection site exactly on the site of a large raised planter. This anomaly has not beencorrected in the revised design.

Infrastructure

There is no mention of any infrastructure beyond the immediate site being provided, despite theadditional 221 homes proposed, which are also part of bigger plan for the Mead Street site thatcould see more than 1200 new homes. Figures produced with the application show that thedevelopers expects very few children to be present in the flats, although it is claimed the privatecourtyard would provide play facilities. The Bristol City calculator indicates that there wouldprobably be between 26 and 87 children living in the development. Details also state that there area number of schools within a radius of a few km, but all the closest ones have no spare capacity,and this development is only likely to make matters worse.

Community Involvement

Sadly, the Statement of Community Involvement is just that - little more than a statement. It quotes

percentages of answers to leading questions designed to elicit apparently positive responses,while making little of any negative concerns expressed. This is not community consultation, anddoes not reach the standards of the City Council guidance.

Conclusions

Conclusions of many of the documents submitted with the proposal amount to little more than theapplicant marking their own homework and have produced hopelessly optimistic outcomes basedon little evidence.

The scheme as presented is so deeply flawed in all respects that planning permission should notbe granted under any circumstances. It would lead to poor health, social, visual , urban and civicproblems and would also be a fire hazard. It is clearly in breach of the Bristol Urban Living SPD aswell as BCS1, BCS2, BCS15, BCS20 and BCS21 and should be refused.

Post navigation

Previous Post:Update on St Lukes Road pedestrian crossing

LATEST POSTS

Objections to development proposal on old Bart Spices siteUpdate on St Lukes Road pedestriancrossingMore wildlife newsFishstock is back!2022-06-15 - Meeting Minutes2022-05-18 - MeetingMinutesSummerland...Bristol Civic Society comments on Mead Street proposalsTalk ofTotterdown Issue 65 - Summer 2022Consultation on Mead Street development brief

UPCOMING EVENTS

CONNECT WITH US

FacebookTwitterEmail

RECENT POSTS

Objections to development proposal on old Bart Spices siteUpdate on St Lukes Road pedestriancrossingMore wildlife newsFishstock is back!2022-06-15 - Meeting Minutes

RECENT COMMENTS

Simon Hobeck on New group - Bristol Against High RiseMatt on New group - Bristol Against HighRisePaul Davis on JUBILEE POOL UNDER THREAT - ACT NOW!Anthony Keates on JUBILEEPOOL UNDER THREAT - ACT NOW!Lyn Long on Local transport planner comments on

University plans

META

Log inEntries feedComments feedWordPress.org

TRESA Community Interest Company No. 6586130 © TRESA 2011

WordPress Theme: Poseidon by ThemeZee.

If anyone was to come to visit the Bristol area, via the train station for instance, theywould likely note that on travelling in to town from the station the colourful rainbow of houses onRichmond street. This multicolour housing is a feature that is not unique to here, but is identifiableas being a feature of Bristol which can also be seen from other places in Bristol as in the view fromthe south side of the water around the Brunel boat looking towards Clifton.

For any out of town developer to try to obscure that view from the people of Bristol with the usualrabbit hutch flats, piled on top of themselves, the design of which not only consistently ignores theneed of the local growing family, but has no concern whatsoever to the decay individuality that isleft in Bristol's architecture to identify us as BRISTOL. All these people care about is money andthe poor designs and unreasonable cost of these places say it all.

My belief of what a local council should be is a body that represents the views of the local peoplewholeheartedly and that does not prioritise those from these copy and paste developers over us.It's easy to see how wrong the whole design concept is from the proposed obscuring of the viewstowards the Totterdown escarpment to high rised blocks that will not fit with the surrounding area.

The idea of the brutal parking space shortage may be considered progress in say ten to twentyyears time but i'd ask everyone in the planning department to consider whether it's acceptable totell people that they not only have to live in substandard housing, but pay through the nose for it,piss off their new neighbours by obscuring an iconic view and then have to pretend that the futureis here and now and they no longer need a car or have the right to store one locally. Other than a

few of them anyway. What sort of design idea is that? We are still in the transitional stage ofcarbon to electric and have a long way to go but this is simply absurd and is an idea borne fromtrying to pack people in too many people in to as tighter place as possible to maximise profit.

I think it would be insulting from a council that has a number of allocated car parking spaces, that Ibelieve are provided free to some councillors and council workers and paid for through counciltaxation as well as these developers, that for all we know are not in the Uk at all, who I suspectstrongly have a higher percentage of four wheel vehicles and somewhere to park them, to getpeople to accept a life style other than their own when it comes to their families housing choices.

We need to stop this. To stop these organisation from stealing our identity from us and to respectthe few remaining flags that identify us from other cities in the Uk and beyond. This needs to beobjected to forcefully and for us as council lead community to explore better options for people thatwish to live in that area. We can be cleverer but this is clearly mindless

Following the updated information provided to support this application, for the avoidanceof doubt, I wish to make clear that this has done nothing to ease the concerns I raised in my earlierresponse in February of the year.

As before, whilst I welcome the regeneration of the area, this proposal is a massive overdevelopment of the site and fails to address many issues. The cityscape analysis is fundamentallyflawed and has no regard to the wider nature of Bristol. Furthermore the proposals conflict withpolicies set by the council itself in regard of scale, siting and density.

Buildings are too high. Will spoil the profile of the area and block views. Moreimportantly likely to be detrimental to residents in nearby buildings

Housing units are too small. Only one main outlook. Issues of daylight levels. Concern about airpollution risks. Concern about evacuation alternatives.

Trees and biodiversity issues very badly impacted already, proposals are inadequate.

Application in present form should not be accepted.

Absolutely hideous design. Looking at the artist's impression (which views it from theother side of the 'banana bridge') it resembles a giant prison.

Far too big for the area ... 5/6 stories should be the absolute maximum. It would block the view ofthe iconic Totterdown Houses ... a view which is frequently used to promote the uniqueness andcharacter of Bristol and one which can be currently seen from Temple Meads Station whenpassengers arrive into Bristol.

Planners would never allow tall buildings to be constructed in front of the 'iconic' Cliftonwoodhouses (viewed from the harbourside) so they should not be permitted to allow such towers to beconstructed in front of the Totterdown escarpment (one rule for one and one for another).

Not enough doctor's surgeries, dentists and schools in the area as it is ... this will make it farworse.

Will increase traffic and parking in an area which is already problematic. Traffic would grind to ahalt during rush hours and new residents (without parking spaces) would try and park in thesurrounding (already crowded) Totterdown streets and/or drive through the area during peaktimes. Just because the developers only propose minimal parking spaces it does not mean that itwill only attract buyers who do not have cars. In reality people with cars will still buy flats there -they will just seek to park elsewhere.

Totterdown lies just outside of the soon to be 'clean air' zone so an increase in cars will make thepollution problem worse, causing knock-on health problems for local residents and making it aneven 'dirtier' air zone than it currently is.

This design needs to be go back to the drawing board .....

This is a short sighted endeavour. I understand the need for housing, but this will hugelydetract from the value of living in the area, which benefits greatly from the escarpment view.

These flats are designed for pure profit no consideration has been taken of the localarea.

The tower blocks are too high and overbearing in the context of existing properties and the locallandscape. The report on overshadowing nearby properties indicates that the proposeddevelopment would overshadow the closest buildings which are within the BedminsterConservation Area, as well as blocking winter sunlight from existing flats across the river.

Comparisons in height with flats across the river fail to acknowledge the immediate context. Theproposed ground+10 storey towers would dominate the local landscape and obscure one of themost iconic views in Bristol, the Totterdown escarpment.

In regards to this development, I would like to quote remarks made by Michael GoveHousing Secretary on Wednesday 11th May 2022. He was speaking in relation to the UK'shousing shortage.

Mr Gove said: "I think it is critically important that even as we seek to improve housing supply, youalso seek to build communities that people love and are proud of."It is no kind of success if, simply to hit a target, the homes that are built are shoddy, in the wrongplace, don't have the infrastructure required and are not contributing to beautiful communities."(ends)

The proposed development as it stands will be neither a community nor beautiful. No one will"love" it nor be "proud" of it, least of all the unfortunate people who end up living there.This development is all about hitting a target and nothing else.Bristol, a self-proclaimed green city building "homes" like this? Proud? We should be utterlyashamed.

It seems Bristol City Council have become obsessed with sponsoring excessively tallugly buildings on multiple sites in and around the city centre.This proposed development ignores a number of the City Council's own development policies.Whilst a well designed riverside housing scheme would be welcome here, the proposeddevelopment is far too dense and the buildings far too high. The townscape analysis included insupport of the application merely serves to show how totally out of context and ham fisted thescheme will look.The quality of the resulting local environment will be very poor and the parking provision islaughable with little or no additional street parking available.The revised scheme appears to have done nothing to respond to comments made during thepublic consultation process. Regrettably this scheme looks like tomorrow's slums in the making!By all means let us have much needed new housing in Bristol but please let us have decentquality buildings which are in scale with their surroundings and in addition provide attractive publicrealm for everyone to enjoy.This application should be refused and the scheme completely re-thought.

High rise buildings are increasingly shown to be not only unsightly- in this case ruiningan iconic and world famous view, known to all visitors to Bristol, but also to be deeply unsuitablefor a world affected by climate crisis. More thoughtful and environmentally friendly low rise,courtyard structure developments as in other European cities are far more suitable and preventoverheating in addition they are more community focused. When south Bristol already suffers fromtransport difficulties such a population dense structure will be unsustainable and lead to evenmore logjams. The local schools and gps are not sufficient either.

Copy of our email to the planning officer sent on 20 July 2022:

Now that the applicant has submitted revised documents, do they plan to submit:

1) A revised AIA & AMS - we need to know which, if any, of the trees that were growing on andaround the site have survived and how they will be protected.2) A tree planting list - the proposal is to plant trees both onsite and offsite in the pavement - howmany, what species and where?3) A revised Biodiversity net gain (BNG) report and calculation - we note that some of theproposed planting will be outside the redline boundary, so be offsite. Needless to say, we willargue for the habitat baselines to be those which existed before the trees were removed, but thiswill need to be offset against any new habitats proposed - hence the need for a new calculation.4) A revised ecological report - what if any habitat survived demolition.5) A Landscape Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) - see below.

Do both the arboricultural and the Nature conservation officers plan to comment on this applicationespecially as it is adjacent to the Avon River SNCI (BC47), the York Rd River Bank ImportantOpen Space and to the Southville Conservation Area?

What do Highways England and Highways have to say about the plan to plant trees on thestreet/A370?

BCC policy on BNG & LEMPS:The latest guidance we have seen from Bristol LPA on the requirements for biodiversity net gain isas follows:

"Ecological mitigation is required to meet the requirements of the National Planning PolicyFramework (NPPF). The National Planning Policy Framework (2019) states in paragraph 170(d)on page 49 that planning decisions should minimise impacts on and provide net gains forbiodiversity. It is recommended that the proposal employs Defra / Natural England's BiodiversityNet Gain (BNG) biodiversity metric 2.0 (as updated) to develop ecological mitigation proposals.The BNG assessment should be undertaken prior to the validation of a future planning applicationand not conditioned. Planning applications submitted to Bristol City Council should demonstrate apositive biodiversity gain when using this metric. Please note that this may require off-sitemitigation to achieve a Biodiversity Net Gain. Applicants should provide full details of their data,measurements and workings used to calculate the percentage BNG. Engagement with theCouncil's pre-application process to inform BNG proposals and the design of ecological mitigationproposals at an early stage is encouraged. The Defra Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) BiodiversityMetric 2.0 includes an off-site module which is fully integrated within the methodology. If a positiveon-site BNG score cannot be achieved, the off-site module should be used as the automatic nextstep to achieve a positive BNG score.

A financial contribution is not an acceptable way forward because it does not calculate biodiversityunits and so will be an arbitrary figure that will be very difficult to calculate or justify.

All BNG submissions should be accompanied by a nature conservation and landscapemanagement plan which addresses features of interest, objectives, management compartmentsand prescriptions, a work schedule including a thirty year annual work plan, resourcing including afinancial budget and ecological monitoring. This should cover a 30 year period.

Please note that if the Environment Bill is passed, a future planning application will be required todemonstrate a mandatory minimum 10% Biodiversity Net Gain as measured using the DefraBiodiversity Metric 2.0 (as amended)."[1]

Save that the relevant paragraph in the NPPF (2021) is now 174 d)[2], that the current biodiversitynet gain metric is BNG 3.1 and that the Environment Act 2021 is now law, and the mandatoryminimum 10% Biodiversity Net Gain will take effect next year, this guidance still applies.

[1] Dr Nick Michael, BCC Nature Conservation Officer - planning application 22/01878/P -Ecological Technical Appendix A Desk Study - 7507.20.039 published asECOLOGICAL_DESK_STUDY-3200493. Appendix A. (see also Appendix 4)

[2]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/

1005759/NPPF_July_2021.pdf

I look forward to hearing from you.

It reflects very badly on the applicants attitude to consultation when a scheme has to berevised during consideration of the application due to adverse public comment which is still notaddressed.Along with all the other concerns about views lost, over shadowing, poor quality design massiveloss of biodiversity, trees already arbitrarily removed, this proposal should be refused because:47% single aspect flats are never inevitable in properly designed schemes and are unacceptablewith contemporary weather extremes and which are forecast to become more so.No contemporary housing scheme should contemplate building a unit without private externalspace.A visitors cycle parking allocation of 20 spaces suggests that of around 360 residents they canonly attract twenty family and friends and that none of the 65 people using the commercial unitsarrive by cycle.Does the application include that the area between the red line and the face of the proposedbuildings be adopted as public highway or does the applicant intend to obstruct most of the publicpedestrian highway?Landscape General Arrangement Plan 596-CTF-XX-XX-DR-L-10000 appears to be the only planshowing the required red lined ownership boundary rather than the presumptuous applicationboundary shown in a broken red line.The important wildlife corridor between the Site of Nature Conservation Interest and Local NatureReserve status New Cut and the railway line and backing onto Victoria Park will be irredeemablybroken by the height and extent of this proposal.

This proposal is far too big for the area. It's pretty soulless and just another huge, uglydevelopment going up in Bristol (just look at the two recent awful eyesores).

I don't see anything about new GP surgeries, schools and where are these potential tenants goingto park? Oh, yeah, all around Totterdown and Victoria Park. These tiny streets are already oversubscribed.

It's such a shame that we have to fight over developments like this. Why can't something like the`whapping wharf' development go on this land? Much smaller in scale and it won't overshadowBuildings on York Road or destroy the lovely Totterdown Escarpment.

This is far too high a development for this sensitive site. The historic site of Bart'sSpices and the lovely terraces of Totterdown mean it must be treated very carefully to enhancewhat is there already.

The revised application makes minimal adjustments to the original application, thereforemy objections remain as previous.

I think the design appearance and heights of the Application inappropriate to thedefining topography and character of this South Bristol area The high rise block design is at oddswith the areas predominately Victorian architecture and would overshadow the neighbourhoodsdistinctive appearance. Recent housing developments have been sensitive to this river valleysituation, broadly following the five storey heights of the existing architecture so as to enhance thenatural features. I think such good practise should be emulated. The large numbers of newresidents proposed to move into this high rise/ density development woud be bound to generatesubstantial new traffic movement into a situation already characterised by excessive commercialand domestic car vehicle gridlock.This busy junction is also a major pedestrian crossing pointutilised by many people including pupils of the nearby St. Mary Redcliffe Shcool. This poseshighway safety , noise and pollution issues.

The revisions to this proposed scheme are minimal and fail to address key concerns.

Building height and location

The tower blocks are too high and overbearing in the context of existing properties and the locallandscape. The report on overshadowing nearby properties indicates that the proposeddevelopment would overshadow the closest buildings which are within the BedminsterConservation Area, as well as blocking winter sunlight from existing flats across the river.

Comparisons in height with flats across the river fail to acknowledge the immediate context. Theproposed ground+10 storey towers would dominate the local landscape and obscure one of themost iconic views in Bristol, the Totterdown escarpment. (The importance of these views isacknowledged in city council planning documents, and a petition requesting that these views areprotected currently has over 5,000 signatures.)

Quality of life of and health impact assessment

47% of the properties are single aspect flats (with others having a minimal second aspect providedby a small window facing sideways onto a recessed balcony). Problems with single aspect homes- including overheating and lack of through ventilation - are well known. These problems are likelyto increase with climate change.

The single aspect flats face each other and are only 18m apart (15m if balconies are included)providing very little privacy. Internally, the flats are served by long, narrow corridors with a singlewindow at one end.

The Internal Daylight Assessment states that many of the flats do not comply with recommendeddaylight targets: 76.4% of rooms achieve recommended Average Daylight Factor (ADF) targets ifkitchens are separated from open plan kitchen-living-dining rooms. The No Sky Line (NSL) resultsindicate that 44.9% of rooms comply with the recommended target for daylight distribution, and54.3% achieve the recommendations for direct sunlight admission. If kitchens are included in theresults, the ADF compliance rate reduces to 58.8%, and 39.1% of rooms meet the NSL criterion."

A change in the design has prevented the flats in one block having access to an alternative meansof escape, which is undesirable.

The Health Impact Assessment fails to identify an air pollution strategy despite the site beingdirectly on a busy road within the Air Quality Management Area. Indeed, the Health ImpactAssessment is not credible, given the known concerns about single-aspect properties, lack ofnatural light, and outdoor air pollution. It is simply not credible to conclude "No adverse effects onresidents' health have been observed. Therefore no mitigation actions are proposed."

Trees and biodiversity

Before this proposal has even been considered by the planning committee, all the establishedtrees, hedges and other vegetation around the periphery of the site have been removed. Claims inthe Ecological Assessment that landscaping and biodiversity would increase by removing all traceof existing trees, shrubs and greenery are not credible.

Parking

The parking proposals are unrealistic. 14 disability standard spaces are allocated, leaving 29spaces for 207 flats plus the employees and customers of the commercial spaces. It should benoted that there is no nearby on-street parking.

Community Involvement

The Statement of Community Involvement indicates: "Key concerns raised were height, densityand views to and from Totterdown." No plausible attempt has been made to address these keyconcerns.

Conclusion

The proposed scheme is in breach of the Bristol Urban Living SPD and the emerging development

brief for the Mead Street area, as well as BCS1, BCS2, BCS15, BCS20 and BCS21 and should berefused.

I see no consideration in this plan for parking and traffic mitigation. The intersection it'sproposed to be built on is so busy already, with cars in standstill traffic during rush hour. How willan additional 244+ residents in that spot contribute to this? There is no infrastructure in theimmediate area to support this increase in residents and traffic. Likewise, how will this impact thealready difficult parking situation in Totterdown? There is hardly enough parking for residents as itis, let alone with hundreds more added to the neighbourhood. I just think this is a poor location forthis development and will add additional strain to an already cramped part of town.

21/06878/F | Mixed-use redevelopment including 221 residential (C3) units and 651sq.m. of commercial floorspace (Class E) on ground floor, together with a new vehicular access offMead Street, cycle and car parking provision, private amenity space, servicing arrangements,landscaping, public realm, and associated works. | Land At Corner Of York Road And St LukesRoad Bedminster Bristol BS3 4ADThe revisions to this proposed scheme are minimal and fail to address key concerns.Building height and locationThe tower blocks are too high and overbearing in the context of existing properties and the locallandscape. The report on overshadowing nearby properties indicates that the proposeddevelopment would overshadow the closest buildings which are within the BedminsterConservation Area, as well as blocking winter sunlight from existing flats across the river.Comparisons in height with flats across the river fail to acknowledge the immediate context. Theproposed ground+10 storey towers would dominate the local landscape and obscure one of themost iconic views in Bristol, the Totterdown escarpment. (The importance of these views isacknowledged in city council planning documents, and a petition requesting that these views areprotected currently has over 5,000 signatures.)Quality of life of and health impact assessment47% of the properties are single aspect flats (with others having a minimal second aspect providedby a small window facing sideways onto a recessed balcony). Problems with single aspect homes- including overheating and lack of through ventilation - are well known. These problems are likelyto increase with climate change.The single aspect flats face each other and are only 18m apart (15m if balconies are included)

providing very little privacy. Internally, the flats are served by long, narrow corridors with a singlewindow at one end. The Internal Daylight Assessment states that many of the flats do not complywith recommended daylight targets: 76.4% of rooms achieve recommended Average DaylightFactor (ADF) targets if kitchens are separated from open plan kitchen-living-dining rooms. The NoSky Line (NSL) results indicate that 44.9% of rooms comply with the recommended target fordaylight distribution, and 54.3% achieve the recommendations for direct sunlight admission. Ifkitchens are included in the results, the ADF compliance rate reduces to 58.8%, and 39.1% ofrooms meet the NSL criterion."A change in the design has prevented the flats in one block having access to an alternative meansof escape, which is undesirable.The Health Impact Assessment fails to identify an air pollution strategy despite the site beingdirectly on a busy road within the Air Quality Management Area. Indeed, the Health ImpactAssessment is not credible, given the known concerns about single-aspect properties, lack ofnatural light, and outdoor air pollution. It is simply not credible to conclude "No adverse effects onresidents' health have been observed. Therefore no mitigation actions are proposed."Trees and biodiversityBefore this proposal has even been considered by the planning committee, all the establishedtrees, hedges and other vegetation around the periphery of the site have been removed. Claims inthe Ecological Assessment that landscaping and biodiversity would increase by removing all traceof existing trees, shrubs and greenery are not credible.ParkingThe parking proposals are unrealistic. 14 disability standard spaces are allocated, leaving 29spaces for 207 flats plus the employees and customers of the commercial spaces. It should benoted that there is no nearby on-street parking.Community InvolvementThe Statement of Community Involvement indicates: "Key concerns raised were height, densityand views to and from Totterdown." No plausible attempt has been made to address these keyconcerns.

ConclusionThe proposed scheme is in breach of the Bristol Urban Living SPD and the emerging developmentbrief for the Mead Street area, as well as BCS1, BCS2, BCS15, BCS20 and BCS21 and should berefused.

I strongly object to another tall building in Bristol, detracting from the cityscape andapparently not forming part of any cohesive plan for high-rise development in suitable areas, butsimply to be stuck up where there is enough space for it irrespective of its impact.Bristol used to be a city of churches. Now it is becoming a city of mediocre modern blocks,relegating it to the level of many other towns and cities which have less to lose.Please think again and show some skill and ingenuity in design and compassion for the place inwhich you are building.

Lacking of parking for amount of flatsSize of property to highNo open space for families in this proposalToo close to main road and junction for residents

I am a long time local resident and a member of TRESA and I support and agree withtheir objections detailed below.

The revisions to this proposed scheme are minimal and fail to address key concerns.

Building height and location

The tower blocks are too high and overbearing in the context of existing properties and the locallandscape. The report on overshadowing nearby properties indicates that the proposeddevelopment would overshadow the closest buildings which are within the BedminsterConservation Area, as well as blocking winter sunlight from existing flats across the river.

Comparisons in height with flats across the river fail to acknowledge the immediate context. Theproposed ground+10 storey towers would dominate the local landscape and obscure one of themost iconic views in Bristol, the Totterdown escarpment. (The importance of these views isacknowledged in city council planning documents, and a petition requesting that these views areprotected currently has over 5,000 signatures.)

Quality of life of and health impact assessment

47% of the properties are single aspect flats (with others having a minimal second aspect providedby a small window facing sideways onto a recessed balcony). Problems with single aspect homes

- including overheating and lack of through ventilation - are well known. These problems are likelyto increase with climate change.

The single aspect flats face each other and are only 18m apart (15m if balconies are included)providing very little privacy. Internally, the flats are served by long, narrow corridors with a singlewindow at one end.

The Internal Daylight Assessment states that many of the flats do not comply with recommendeddaylight targets: 76.4% of rooms achieve recommended Average Daylight Factor (ADF) targets ifkitchens are separated from open plan kitchen-living-dining rooms. The No Sky Line (NSL) resultsindicate that 44.9% of rooms comply with the recommended target for daylight distribution, and54.3% achieve the recommendations for direct sunlight admission. If kitchens are included in theresults, the ADF compliance rate reduces to 58.8%, and 39.1% of rooms meet the NSL criterion."

A change in the design has prevented the flats in one block having access to an alternative meansof escape, which is undesirable.

The Health Impact Assessment fails to identify an air pollution strategy despite the site beingdirectly on a busy road within the Air Quality Management Area. Indeed, the Health ImpactAssessment is not credible, given the known concerns about single-aspect properties, lack ofnatural light, and outdoor air pollution. It is simply not credible to conclude "No adverse effects onresidents' health have been observed. Therefore no mitigation actions are proposed."

Trees and biodiversity

Before this proposal has even been considered by the planning committee, all the establishedtrees, hedges and other vegetation around the periphery of the site have been removed. Claims inthe Ecological Assessment that landscaping and biodiversity would increase by removing all traceof existing trees, shrubs and greenery are not credible.

Parking

The parking proposals are unrealistic. 14 disability standard spaces are allocated, leaving 29spaces for 207 flats plus the employees and customers of the commercial spaces. It should benoted that there is no nearby on-street parking.

Community Involvement

The Statement of Community Involvement indicates: "Key concerns raised were height, densityand views to and from Totterdown." No plausible attempt has been made to address these keyconcerns.

Conclusion

The proposed scheme is in breach of the Bristol Urban Living SPD and the emerging developmentbrief for the Mead Street area, as well as BCS1, BCS2, BCS15, BCS20 and BCS21 and should berefused.

As someone who lives in Totterdown, works in Bedminster, and passes this site mostdays, I feel that the poor quality tower block housing proposed is quite inappropriate for the area,and will overshadow everything nearby.

Therefore are so many things wrong with these proposals it would take years to notethem all.They appear to be the ramblings of extremely greedy and selfish developers who have absolutelyno regards for anyone else or anything in the neighbourhood.Please note my total objection to this planning application. It should be totally thrown out.The developers should also be prosecuted for destroying all the greenery on the site.

I would like to add my concerns about the poor quality of flats proposed on the abovesite, specifically1. the height of the towers which will block the view of Totterdown2. the number of 'back to back', or 'single aspect' flats in the development. This type ofaccommodation was in many places removed as part of slum clearance programmes in the firstpart of the twentieth century, for good reasons.3. I would like to see real evidence of good quality planting of trees and shrubs as well as plans fortheir maintenance.4. The small number of car parking spaces on the site is unrealistic. Even with urban styles ofliving and less car use, the value of the flats will be considerably reduced if car parking is notprovided.

These factors together with the unaffordability of even 'affordable' housing and the probability ofpurchasers buying flats for investment to be rented out, make the likelihood of the flats becoming anew slum very likely.

My objections are the same as previous while reduced in height this is far too high andimposing. It will create dead dark spaces making it unsafe to walk through. It is imposing seeingthe photos of how big this is, looking like a prison or a huge factory, I felt physically sick withanxiety. It should be in keeping with the local area in size and style type. It should not obstruct theview of the colourful houses in totterdown. Boatyard has already gone bust maybe time to hit thepause button and stop this madness bcc?

As a member and director of TRESA, I fully endorse the objection that has beensubmitted by that organisation.In addition, I am surprised that an Environmental Impvact Assessment has not been carried out inrelation to the development.In view of the developments nearby at Paintworks, the Boatyard and the proposed redevelopmentof Broadwalk shopping centre as the "Redcatch Quarter", there will be a significant influx of peoplein this area of Bristol. There seems to be little consideration of the impact on local servicesespecially doctors, dentist and the like.There is a need for housing in Bristol but the communities involved Nedd to have supportingservices. There appears to have been little thought given to the local services infrastructure. Inparticular this development will be within the proposed Clean Air Zone.

Looks like a cheap low-grade tower block with poor-quality dwellings being dashedthrough ahead of a framework being developed for Mead St and the wider Temple Quarter area.Shoddy and cynical.

A revised proposal but has done little to address previous concerns in terms of scaleand massing with other elements of the York rd frontage. The proposal and supporting info makesassumptions about no other development/area that in conflict with the wider area consultation. Thegeneric flats and daylight/views from a proportion of the development t appear to be very Illthought out.

The revisions to this proposed scheme are minimal and fail to address key concerns.

Building height and locationThe tower blocks are too high and overbearing in the context of existing properties and the locallandscape. The report on overshadowing nearby properties indicates that the proposeddevelopment would overshadow the closest buildings which are within the BedminsterConservation Area, as well as blocking winter sunlight from existing flats across the river.Comparisons in height with flats across the river fail to acknowledge the immediate context. Theproposed ground+10 storey towers would dominate the local landscape and obscure one of themost iconic views in Bristol, the Totterdown escarpment. (The importance of these views isacknowledged in city council planning documents, and a petition requesting that these views areprotected currently has over 5,000 signatures.)

Quality of life of and health impact assessment47% of the properties are single aspect flats (with others having a minimal second aspect providedby a small window facing sideways onto a recessed balcony). Problems with single aspect homes- including overheating and lack of through ventilation - are well known. These problems are likelyto increase with climate change.The single aspect flats face each other and are only 18m apart (15m if balconies are included)providing very little privacy. Internally, the flats are served by long, narrow corridors with a singlewindow at one end.The Internal Daylight Assessment states that many of the flats do not comply with recommended

daylight targets: 76.4% of rooms achieve recommended Average Daylight Factor (ADF) targets ifkitchens are separated from open plan kitchen-living-dining rooms. The No Sky Line (NSL) resultsindicate that 44.9% of rooms comply with the recommended target for daylight distribution, and54.3% achieve the recommendations for direct sunlight admission. If kitchens are included in theresults, the ADF compliance rate reduces to 58.8%, and 39.1% of rooms meet the NSL criterion."A change in the design has prevented the flats in one block having access to an alternative meansof escape, which is undesirable.The Health Impact Assessment fails to identify an air pollution strategy despite the site beingdirectly on a busy road within the Air Quality Management Area. Indeed, the Health ImpactAssessment is not credible, given the known concerns about single-aspect properties, lack ofnatural light, and outdoor air pollution.

Trees and biodiversityBefore this proposal has even been considered by the planning committee, all the establishedtrees, hedges and other vegetation around the periphery of the site have been removed. Claims inthe Ecological Assessment that landscaping and biodiversity would increase by removing all traceof existing trees, shrubs and greenery are not credible.

ParkingThe parking proposals are unrealistic. 14 disability standard spaces are allocated, leaving 29spaces for 207 flats plus the employees and customers of the commercial spaces. It should benoted that there is no nearby on-street parking.

Community InvolvementThe Statement of Community Involvement indicates: "Key concerns raised were height, densityand views to and from Totterdown." No attempt has been made to address these key concerns.The applicant indicated a willingness to consider "further biodiversity measures", but went on toclear all established trees, hedges and green infrastructure from the site. This does not inspireconfidence in the sincerity of the statement of community involvement or the accuracy of otherdocuments submitted to justify this scheme.

ConclusionThe proposed scheme is in breach of the Bristol Urban Living SPD and the emerging developmentbrief for the Mead Street area, as well as BCS1, BCS2, BCS15, BCS20 and BCS21 and should berefused.

This is an ugly, overdevelopment of the site, that will ruin the views of Totterdown until itgets demolished. A lower scale, Paintworks/Wapping wharf style development would be bettersuited for the site. The terrace of houses along this road are 5/5 story, and fit in well. The plannedslabs look out of place and will look totally out of place.

Amenity of the AreaThe view of the coloured houses on the hill in Totterdown add to the amenity of the area. Byblocking this view and creating a wall of bricks this feature of the area will be lost forever. Thecoloured houses of Totterdown are what gives the area its charm and uniqueness.

Traffic and parking issuesThere is limited parking spaces for this development and there is no residential parking schemesin Totterdown and Victoria Park so this will have a huge impact on local neighbourhood parkingspaces. This is an already busy junction and the impact of new housing with cars anddeliveries/services to the properties will create more congestion and therefore pollution.

DesignThe design, scale and massing of this development is not in keeping with the character of thesurrounding area. The other houses on York road are four stories high so it does not create asmooth line or continuation of the York Road frontage.

It is an over-bearing, out-of-scale and out of character design in terms of its appearance comparedwith existing development in the vicinity. There has been no attempt in the design to match orblend with existing buildings in the area.

There is very little outdoor space for residents of the development.

Appearance of the developmentThis is an ugly design and is far too dense. It looks like the developer is over-developing the sitefor purposes of making money and not adding to the character or charm of the area.

Loss of a view from a public viewpointThe view of the coloured houses on the escarpment can be seen from many public view pointsacross Bristol. The public view as you cross Langton Street Bridge (the banana bridge) is awelcoming site for Totterdown residents and Bristolians alike. This view has not been consideredby the developer in their 'Visual impact assessment' to highlight the effect of this development onthe visual amenity of the area.

New Design ProposalThe new design proposal only proposes dropping the height of the lowest building by 1 storey andadding a roof terrace. This has not taken on board the feedback of local residents and stillpresents itself as an overbearing out of character design.

The images shown in the developers own 'Visual impact assessment' show quite clearly how theview of the escarpment will be affect by the tall blocks of flats.

Single AspectIn Bristol City Councils Urban Living SPD, adopted by the council in 2018 it states thatdevelopments should:

Maximise opportunities to provide dual aspect units, which improve access to natural light, choiceof views and cross ventilation through units providing greater capacity to address overheating.Adopt building typologies which minimise single aspect units, such as well-designed deck-accessor mansion block typologies.

The revised plans claim that 47% of the proposed flats are now single aspect.

To summarise, I think this proposed development is over dense and too high and would thereforedetract from the amenity of the local area. The view of the Totterdown Escarpment is a well-lovedfeature of this area and as such should be preserved for futures generations to enjoy.

The scale and massing of this development is totally inappropriate in this location.

High rise buildings are not good for residents' mental or physical wellbeing. Risk to life, as seenwith Grenfell and more recent fires in high towers this Summer 2022. The Noise AssessmentReport submitted concludes that many of the flats should have their windows sealed shut, withartificial ventilation, there are also concerns regarding light levels, potential overlooking or a grimview of a blank wall. This type of design is unacceptable by current standards.

Impact with regards to views of the Totterdown escarpment. Views of the Totterdown escarpmentregularly appear in local and national publications as an iconic feature of our city. The HeritageAssessment of the Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone includes the Totterdown escarpment as oneof the principal iconic landmarks in the vicinity of Temple Quarter. Bristol's City Design Teamdescribe the Totterdown escarpment as "an iconic cityscape feature" that requires careful thoughtfor the whole of the Framework area. This view will be wiped out by this huge square mass ofbuilding.

Revised plans do not appear to have taken into account any concerns already expressed - isconsultation just a tick box exercise with no proper consideration being given to serious concernsabout this proposed development? The Statement of Community Involvement is just a statementproduced by the developers PR consultants on what they want to say, and does not meet thestandard required as per Bristol City Council guidance.

Considerable development in the BS3/BS4 area is putting pressure on local services which arealready stretched to breaking point. GPs, Dentists, Schools cannot cope with additional need.

This dense housing scheme is ill thought out, design is of low quality and it is not in keeping withthe local area. Local residents are starting to feel trapped and hemmed in by the number ofdevelopments shooting up around us. We recognise the need for housing but we do not want thissort of soulless monolith which will impact negatively on the existing community and will have littleto offer any new tenants or residents.

This development needs more consideration rather than proposals being pushed through quickly.If Bristol City Council is working on developing a planning strategy for the wider area, then anynew development in this area/Whitehouse Street area needs to be considered as a whole, withresponsible guidelines drawn up to guide any development in addition to full and properconsultation with local residents and businesses.

Policy issues with regards this proposed development:The Bristol Urban Living SPD - Making Successful Places at higher densities indicates that anupper limit of about 120 units/Ha would be appropriate in this 'Inner Urban Area' and makes nomention of commercial activities. According to BCS20, the Totterdown escarpment, one of thehighest density urban areas in Bristol contains 120 dpH. The proposal for more than four times thisamount would clearly be excessive with overcrowding and poor social outcomes resulting.

The Urban Living SPD also states that 'a poorly designed tall building can have a detrimentalimpact on the historic townscape of a city like Bristol' and ' the topography and skyline of a city likeBristol.' As previously mentioned, Bristol's City Design Team describe the Totterdown escarpmentas "an iconic cityscape feature"

The current development proposal is clearly in breach of the Bristol Urban Living SPD as well asBCS1, BCS2, BCS15, BCS20 and BCS21 and should be refused.

Dear Sirs

Planning Application at York Road, ref. 21/06878/F

I understand that revised proposals have been made for this application.

Having had a look at the proposals, I am disappointed to see that there have been very fewsubstantive changes and I wish to continue to object to this proposal:

The design is still poorThe proposals are over-large and over-heightThe proposed housing density is too highInsufficient weight has been given to noise, air quality, community or environmental concerns

Alterations in DesignAlthough there has been a slight reduction in the number of units, from 244 to 221, this hasresulted mainly from reducing the height of 'Block A' nearest to St Lukes Road by a single storey,and by removing a few flats from the opposite boundary, which would never have been viable inthe first place.

Sadly, the towers still loom over the street and their surroundings in an overbearing way. Almost

all public realm has been given over to very tall buildings too close to the boundaries. The overallappearance is blocky and grim. Removing the dark grey metallic cladding by changing it tomatching brick only serves to emphasise the monolithic nature of the blocks as emanating from adystopian Orwellian vision.

The reduction in height of one block by one storey represents a marginal improvement on ascheme which is fundamentally flawed and does little to ease the sense of oppression on nearbybuildings, all of which are lower and some of which are Listed. The remainder of the blocks remainover-tall.

The revised statement on Daylight states that light levels within apartments will be improved overthose previously indicated by changing the paint reflectance. This is not a legitimate improvement.

Impact on OccupantsSingle aspect flats face each other in vast walls only 18m apart but 34m high leaving no privacyfor the prospective residents, particularly as their balconies would be only 15m apart. Internally,the flats are served by dark narrow corridors 30m long with a single window at one end andwindowless lift shafts at the other. A revised statement claims that only 47% of the flats are nowsingle aspect. However, many of the flats claimed to be dual aspect have a single small windowfacing sideways onto a recessed balcony as their only claim to this, and several have as theirsecond aspect the unfortunate blank well created on the Northeast side facing the Royal Mailsorting depot.

I note that design change of introducing this well has also prevented the flats in this block havingaccess to an alternative means of escape, which is undesirable. Single stairs should not be shownwithout additional lobbies as these are, or continuing into the basement floor unchecked as this iscontrary to government guidance and a likely fire hazard.

Building Height and Affect on Surrounding areaThe enormous height of the proposals would dominate the local landscape and obscure one of themost famous and iconic views in Bristol. The submitted view from Temple Meads Approachillustrates this starkly. Other views, although chosen to show the buildings in their best light, clealryillustrate the damaging and overbearing affect on this part of the City, and the obscuration of viewsof the iconic escarpement..

Although submitted drawings do not indicate it, the upper floors would look down upon nearbyhouses which are currently on top of the escarpment as well as those surrounding at lower levels.The buildings would likewise blight the surrounding area and plots of land on Mead Street andYork Road.

On the West side, the building is still 1.5m from the boundary apart from the introduced well.

Assuming the adjacent site were to be developed in a similar fashion, flats would be touchingdistance apart across a man-made crevasse. This is an unacceptable approach, blighting nearbylandowners.

Design statements and elevations seek to draw comparisons in height with existing flats acrossthe river but fail to acknowledge the location of those buildings which are set back from roads in arelatively open landscape rather than being immediately adjacent to major roads.

The design has completely failed to acknowledge the unique position adjacent to the river, a majorroad and pedestrian route as well as the nearby topography. It is bland and anonymous andappears to have been designed in isolation from the City altogether.

Planning StrategyI understand that the City Council is developing a planning strategy for this area in conjunctionwith the Whitehouse Street area, which would hopefully establish some relevant guidelines inconsultation with local residents and businesses. Presumably the current and proposed MeadStreet schemes are designed to jump the gun on this should certainly be refused until a properstrategy for re-development is established.

The Whitehouse Street area has an emerging strategy which includes recommendations onheights of buildings, and there is every reason why the Mead Street planning strategy should dothe same, being a more sensitive site.

Density & Urban Living SPDThe proposed density according to numbers submitted with the application would still be over 500dwellings per Hectare, not including the extensive commercial and servicing areas on lower floors.The Bristol Urban Living SPD - Making Successful Places at higher densities indicates that anupper limit of about 120 units/Ha would be appropriate in this 'Inner Urban Area' and makes nomention of commercial activities. According to BCS20, the Totterdown escarpment, one of thehighest density urban areas in Bristol contains 120 dpH. The proposal for more than 4x this wouldclearly be excessive with overcrowding and poor social outcomes resulting.

The Urban Living SPD also states that 'a poorly designed tall building can have a detrimentalimpact on the historic townscape of a city like Bristol' and ' the topography and skyline of a city likeBristol.' This proposal would do all of that if permitted to proceed.

Light LevelsThe Internal Daylight Assessment indicates that many of the apartments will be miserably darkwith those on the lower levels having low light levels and almost no view of the sky, yet concludesthis would be acceptable. There is also an assumption that the remainder of the site would remainundeveloped, and relies on having surrounds which are single storey to achieve the results that it

does, something that is mostly unlikely to remain, and which is referred to in the Design andAccess Statement.

Changing the chosen paint type in the revised Assessment is unlikely to lead to any real-lifeimprovements.

The report on overshadowing nearby properties indicates that the new development wouldcompletely blight and overshadow the closest buildings which are within the BedminsterConservation Area, as well as blocking winter sunlight from existing flats across the river, yetagain concluding that this will be acceptable.

PollutionThe Health Impact Assessment submitted with the application completely fails to identify an airpollution strategy or address problems beyond identifying that there may be one, despite the sitebeing directly on a busy road within the Air Quality Management Area. The size and bulk of thebuilding would contribute to trapping polluted air within close proximity, exposing pedestrians, roadusers and residents to unacceptable levels of pollutants.

It also concludes that residents at first floor level would be subject to dangerous levels ofatmospheric pollution, and makes no mention of the occupants and visitors to the ground floorcommercial spaces who would also be exposed, including those shown as sitting outside by theside of some of the most heavily polluted roads in the city.

Wind SpeedThe Wind Desktop Appraisal acknowledges that no wind tunnel or CFD study has been done. Itspeculatively uses data from a site 7km away and reduces predicted wind speeds by over 50%.This generic approach is unlikely to produce a correct result as it completely fails to recognise theunique topography of the area and the river valley. The conclusions that there would be littleadverse impact of wind funnelling on the surrounding roads, paved areas and residents arelaughable to anyone familiar with the locality.

The revised appraisal indicates that it will be necessary to keep the existing trees to mitigate windspeeds to near-acceptable levels. It does not state if this refers to the trees already removed fromthe site.

TreesThe Tree Survey locates and classes all existing trees on the site and recommends that all exceptone should be kept, preferably with the surrounding green space. However the proposed schemeremoves every single one so the buildings can be larger. Indeed all trees and other vegetation onthe site have already been removed.

The proposed replacements are not likely to fare well, sited in hard landscaping 2m away from the

11 storey cliff faces of the buildings. Claims in the Ecological Assessment that landscaping andbiodiversity would increase by removing all trace of existing trees , shrubs and greenery are notcredible. No mention is made of bats which are known by residents to inhabit the area and use theriver and escarpment for feeding and as a travel corridor. The proposals are very likely to interferewith current bat transit and roosting.

NoiseThe Noise Assessment Report submitted examines little except the impact of existing noise,mostly traffic, on the new residents, and concludes that many of the flats should have theirwindows sealed shut, with artificial ventilation, though no proposals are made as to how this wouldbe done. This type of design is generally considered unacceptable by current standards. There isno consideration of the considerable impact the residents would have on each other, or othernearby residents, facing a wall of other flats a short distance away with open balconies likely togive rise to considerable disturbance. This type of design is deeply flawed and known to give riseto many complaints. The proposed adjacent seating and café areas are only likely to make mattersworse.

TownscapeThe Heritage Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment praises its own scheme yet somehowmanages to miss the evidence of its own carefully selected and presented photomontages - thatthe scheme represents an awful blot on the landscape viewed from almost any angle and lurksover the nearby city in a threatening manner, blocking or spoiling views of the famous escarpmentfrom almost all angles, and sitting uncomfortably beside the Listed structure of the foot bridge.

SustainabilityThe Sustainability Statement claims great things in terms of energy saving, yet fails to mentionthat buildings above 6 storeys are known to become progressively less efficient and more energyintensive the higher they go while introducing long term maintenance problems.

ParkingThe Transport documents and Design and Access Statements do little to address the parkingproblem thrown up by the development, other than stating that little parking would be required. 14disability standard spaces are allocated to flats leaving 29 spaces for the remaining 207 flats aswell as the commercial spaces. This level is generally considered adequate for visitors to the flats,never mind the residents and staff. Expectations that they would not have motor vehicles areunrealistic and there is no nearby on-street parking at all. The only proposed solution is foroverflow parking on the Totterdown escarpment, which local residents will be able to identify asridiculous due to the non-existence of available spaces.

Waste DisposalThe Operational Waste Strategy is unsatisfactory, requiring tenants to take their segregated wasteup to 10 floors away and relying on building management to place all of the bins in collection

areas. The Strategy is also in direct conflict with the Landscape design as it shows the main binarea collection site exactly on the site of a large raised planter. This anomaly has not beencorrected in the revised design.

InfrastructureThere is no mention of any infrastructure beyond the immediate site being provided, despite theadditional 221 homes proposed, which are also part of bigger plan for the Mead Street site thatcould see more than 1200 new homes. Figures produced with the application show that thedevelopers expects very few children to be present in the flats, although it is claimed the privatecourtyard would provide play facilities. The Bristol City calculator indicates that there wouldprobably be between 26 and 87 children living in the development. Details also state that there area number of schools within a radius of a few km, but all the closest ones have no spare capacity,and this development is only likely to make matters worse.

Community InvolvementSadly, the Statement of Community Involvement is just that - little more than a statement. It quotespercentages of answers to leading questions designed to elicit apparently positive responses,while making little of any negative concerns expressed. This is not community consultation, anddoes not reach the standards of the City Council guidance.

ConclusionsConclusions of many of the documents submitted with the proposal amount to little more than theapplicant marking their own homework and have produced hopelessly optimistic outcomes basedon little evidence. The apparent mark of 10/10 is in reality closer to '2/10 - poor - needs to try muchharder'.

The scheme as presented is so deeply flawed in all respects that planning permission should notbe granted under any circumstances. It would lead to poor health, social, visual , urban and civicproblems and would also be a fire hazard. It is clearly in breach of the Bristol Urban Living SPD aswell as BCS1, BCS2, BCS15, BCS20 and BCS21 and should be refused.

I object to building such large and imposing structures in an area with mostly low-risebuildings. 3-4 floors would be enough, but having 8 floor-high buildings would change forever thebeautiful views of the Totterdown houses, which is a Bristol landmark and should be protected forthe next generations to enjoy as well. Also, we should have more affordable housing to buyinstead of to rent. The whole block is built with the purpose of renting flats out, while people withlow income are forced to look for a place to buy further on the outskirts of the city and have to payhigher costs for their commute. Construct more build to buy affordable housing!

My objection remains as before: this is too high and too dense a proposal. The provisionof a mere 43 parking spaces for 244 residential units plus commercial space is no more than acynical gesture without taking into consideration the impact of those of us who live in thesurrounding streets. The pressure on already-stretched services, the increase of traffic in already-congested roads (there is nowhere else for traffic to go), the claustrophobic effect of high risebuildings will not add to the quality of life of existing residents or, I imagine, those who live in thevery small, compact flats that are proposed. And although some of the units will are designated'affordable' I wonder what that actually means: affordable for who? It is a horrible design with noreference to the surrounding area or architecture. The developers should at least look to thePaintworks development to get some idea of what sensitive design looks like.

Whilst there is undoubtedly a need for housing close to the city centre to reduce theneed for travel and the subsequent pollution, cityscapes that have unique elements need to beprotected if we are to avoid detracting from the built environment and reducing the pleasure andamenity of all those that live therein.Totterdown is such a unique feature and should be protected.In much the same way that it is a planning requirement to protect views too and from listedbuildings, the same principle should apply here.The changes made in the revised design do not answer the many criticisms of the original design.Furthermore the new building in no way matches the streetscape currently in existence. It has noparticular merit to commend it to the Bristol built environment. In other words such a group ofbuildings could be found in practically any city in the world.I do not believe a world in which all cities are the same is the design direction we should be taking.The developers should be required to come up with an appropriately sized 'Bristol style' design.They should bear in mind the words of my old school master who all too often wrote on my report,'Could do better!'In this case MUCH BETTER!!I therefore object to the current proposal.

Too high! Too big! What about schools? What about gp's? What about preserving theheritage of the area? Crazy money making decision with no thinking of residents.

Where the residents going to park? Thereis never enough provide in theses builds, youcan not believe everyone will be carless some units may have 2 or more cars. Are the going toforce the public transport to be better I think not. The mix use if restaurant/retail where thecustomers going to park, in local streets free parking clogging up residential areas even more thanthey already are. Ill thought out Ill consieved money grabbing development. It is already a denselypopulated area and adding to that is absurd even half as many units would be absurd but at leastit maybe more inkeeping of the area. There is no good going to come from this densely packeddevelopment not for future residents and not for the residents in the local area it should be scaledright back to be in keeping with surrounding building and hopefully not over load the infrastructurewe already have.

This is absolutely hideous. It completely ignores the views put forward by resudentconsultations, and looks nothing like any of the "artists impressions" of proposals that I have seen.The high, dense housing does not fit in at all with the other housing in the nearby roads. Itcompletely changes the character of the area. Absolutely awful and I imagine drawn up by peoplewho do not live anywhere near this proposal

The plans look good. This development will help enhance the area and improveconnectivity in the area. Safety will be vastly improved from what is now an inner city industrialestate. Housing is much needed so I support this development. As far as I can see thisdevelopment will not affect the view of the totterdown housing which the local media has hypedup.

The proposal is too high and too dense. It will degrade the area, block the iconic viewsto Totterdown and overshadow the river. There is no thought to making this a pleasing, thoughtfuldesign, it's a 'pack 'em in, build 'em high' moneyaking development with absolutely no thought tothe destruction of the street scene. The terraced houses of York road line the river, facing the cityadmirably, showing respect to their backdrop and, to some degree, respect to the past. We havemuch history to be proud of in Bristol and a good historical architectural record (if you ignore thehorror of the 60s and 70s). This brainwashing of planning in search of ticking off targets must stopnow. This is an overbearing awful design, far too high and dense.

As previously stated, the height of the buildings will obscure the view of the Totterdownescarpment and severely impact the areas aesthetic and cultural appeal.

The proposed new development will also overlook many current residences and the area is simplynot set up for such a large scale development in terms of infrastructure with schools, transport etc.

Still far too high and overlooking nearby residences. Bristol's character is changing forthe worse with continual high-rise developments being thrown up everywhere with no regard to thesurrounding areas.

There is also no provision for the extra parking/traffic required, more schools, doctor's surgeries,anything like that. It strikes me as a simple profit-making enterprise with no consideration for localresidents or the impact on the neighbouring area.

I strongly object to the development on the grounds of its totally inappropriate scalewithin the context of York Road and 'The Cut'.

Three representations clearly highlight the failure of the development to respect the existing scaleand height of surrounding buildings:

- View 3 VP03 Clarence Road Looking east. (HTVIA addendum)- View 4 VP04 York Road Looking northeast (HTVIA addendum)- North West Elevation

The elegant, sweeping curve of York Road is totally destroyed by the overbearing cliff of theproposed development. The height of new buildings should be limited close to the height ofadjacent buildings in York Road (12 metres above Ground) and not 34.79 metres as currentlyproposed.

A sustainable location to build much needed new housing.

However, concerns relate to massing and visual impact (too tall and out of character with the areait sits in), impacts on local car parking (without an RPZ for Totterdown, there is nothing to preventoverspill parking from this (and other future) low car developments in and around Mead Street),and impacts on local services (GPs, schools etc) and amenities, as there is no clear plan for howthese already struggling services will be improved/funded to account for significant increase inlocal population from the development.

I object to this proposal. It doesn't keep in touch with the rest of the buildings nearby. Itlooks like aConcrete eyesore

The proposed block of flats are architecturally substandard; their character and designare of poor quality and clearly prioritise short term profit over investment in the social impact ofarchitecture on its surroundings.

The proposed buildings obscure the Totterdown terraces from the view of citizens and wouldpermanently damage Bristol's cityscape. What is the justification for this?

Again, the proposed number of dwellings and potential occupants bears no relation to theavailable public services in this area: which parks/ swimming pools/ GP surgeries/ dentists/ policestations/hospitals will support the proposed new community?

What scope is there within this development to ensure that current successful businesses, whichservice the community from the proposed development site, can continue to operate in this area?Specifically, there are a number of successful garages and a training school for mechanics thatactively support the community and whose business will be damaged by this development; howwill damage to these businesses, and the impact of their loss on the community who use them, bemitigated in the construction of this development?

I live near the proposed development, about a 15 minute walk from the site.I understand that we need new homes in Bristol but this proposal suggests that the individualhomes will be small, densely populated, out of keeping with existing residential properties andlacking local amenities such as primary schools and medical facililities, as well as few local shopsand parking facilities. The proposed development should house less people and give the residentsmore overall space per household.

Greedy property developers i am sick and tired of seeing flats going up in this city. Ihave lived on york rd for 38 years now and have seen the decline of this area too many flats andno infrastructure. There is already a strain on dr surgeries in tge area. We do not need anymoreappartment blocks in this area its a disgrace. I bet there will be hardly any social housing withinthis block if there is any at all. Disgusting how bcc is allowing this to go ahead when there are over18,000 on the housing register many living in overcrowded living spaces shame on you bcc andshame in the greedy property developers

I object to this proposed development which will destroy the iconic view of theescarpment which are a key attribute of Bristol.The proposed development is far too dense and much too high, even with the new revised plan.The architecture is out of sync with the surrounding area and appears to be yet another developerseeking to cash in on the very real need for housing in Bristol.This is yet another development in BS3. I think we're up to 12,000 now with no new infrastructure.GPs, schools, parking and transport are all under incredible strain but the Council still keep onapproving more dense housing schemes in the area without further provision.Please don't approve this. Go back to the drawing board and provide something more thoughtfuland in keeping with the local area.

We continue to support this development.

I often walk past this land from temple meads and I currently feel very unsafe along this area.Having a redevelopment would mean that there are more people around and the area will becomemore safe and I can walk home later at night.

I have heard a lot of opposition for essentially no reason for this other than wanting to stop thedevelopment of our city (no tall buildings etc.). There is no 'iconic' view in this location - that is acomplete exaggeration. I want Bristol to be a city that competes with the biggest cities in the UK,and we need to continue to develop land that is in the centre (right next to our main railwaystation).

It will help the city, will make me feel more safe, and will ultimately be a good thing for my houseprice too. I see no negatives.

The application is premature given the lack of consulted-master-planning on heightsand land use, amenity etc for the greater area of Mead street and beyond into WhitehouseLane.

The proposed scheme is massively too high and dense and will block historic and important views(of Totterdown etc.) and set a premature and adverse precedent for other development in thisimportant area ahead of said masterplan.

Completely inadequate provision of green space for residents, particularly children.

Carbon-neutrality - inadequate provision

Design quality - exceptionally poor. Another race to the bottom by a very large and dominantscheme

BS3 PLANNING GROUP OBJECTIONContext of this Commentary:Whilst it has maintained continuity through Zoom and Social Media, BS3 Planning Group held itsfirst in-person meeting since the pandemic on 24th May. This objection results from that meetingand earlier experience.As general context to the meeting the Group noted the recent May DCC on 21/02976/F, (on theCoronation Road side of the New Cut) had been presented to committee with what was pre-billedas Zero affordable housing on Viability grounds, when the BS3 Planning Group had made its owncomments on that proposal the year previously at which time there was 20% Affordable content"guaranteed". The group would obviously have been harsher on a zero-affordable content schemeif presented as such at the outset.And also the yet-to-be-read Mead Street Development Brief consultation was now being launchedby BCC/TQEZ, with engagement in June and to close in July 2022.At Mead Street's "Barts Spices" site, members of the group have seen variously;A pre-ap of nine stories or so, criticised earlier as too tall among other disappointments.A Zoom presentation of what would be included in this application (Not a consultation) in which theapplicant seemed dubious about viability of this proposal even at the time of its submission.The subsequent demolition of all the site buildings, all on-site trees and the ground slabs andlandscaping. The group valued local jobs for local people. Not the creation of commutes for thosedisplaced.Cumulatively the group are not impressed to date.

The Group now expresses concerns about height, green space and sustainability in theapplication.HEIGHTSThe heights proposed on the site are unacceptable and unprecedented. What was until the 1950'san integrated community with Work, places of worship, pubs, schools and Victorian two-storeyhousing was bulldozed for a PIWA. Even from the lowest popular viewpoint such as the GII-listedBanana-bridge (Langton Street Bridge) North steps onto Clanage Road the Totterdownescarpment was fully visible and that has remained the case until now.The recently demolished buildings in "Existing Northwest Elevation" drawings were considerablysubservient to the York Road element of Conservation Area housing to the West of St Luke's Rd.Now the first or West tower in the Proposed Northwest Elevation dwarfs these at eight stories. Andthat's the "step-down". The other two towers are of 11 stories. They may be claimed to be lowerthan Richmond Street terrace but from every realistic viewpoint they will tower above the valuedBristol skyline of Totterdown.The group can "just hear" someone "reluctantly supporting this" on the grounds of 100%Affordable Housing, but given the viability wavering about this proposal, we are fearful that one ofseveral undesirable scenarios could play through, including non-development by the applicant,acquisition by a different developer taking the then permitted height but not the use-type (e.g.student living), or some kind of hybrid proposal with vanishing "affordable" elements as we haveseen to the West of here in recent weeks. And also height precedents being taken onward toadjacent and remote plot proposals.Overall we see the application as premature given the lack of consulted-master-planning onheights and land use, amenity etc for the greater area of Mead street and beyond into Whitehouselane.GREENSPACEThe proposal lacks enough greenspace for its own residents. There is nowhere near enough playspace if children are envisaged as occupants. A master-plan might make contingency for thisover-street, but is not guaranteed as yet. But the application jumps the master-planning gun. Meadstreet is still an industrial estate with established redeeming green features in Mead rise streetscene, which will no-doubt also be flattened in due course, and the demolition observed to datemeans there is no retained greenery carried forward on the Bart's site.SUSTAINABILITYThis objection is on degree of aspiration versus actual guaranteed performance. The group do notwant to see a development "working towards" sustainability targets, but rather fully achievingthem. There is a lot of single-aspect living in this scheme for example. And due to the sheerquantum of accommodation above-it, the ground floor is effectively a giant Bin-Store and CycleStore with token other inclusions. The proposal also assumes the adjacent Post-office site will beredeveloped to match its own West-to central footprint. But if this proves not to be the case therecould be serious repercussions in the East tower residences.

With regard to the height of this proposed development and the subsequent impact onviews of the Totterdown escarpment, a petition with regard to heights of buildings in this locationcurrently has 4,639 signatures. The petition asks that "views of the Totterdown escarpment, aniconic feature of our cityscape, are protected from development proposals that wholly or partiallyobscure the panorama of colourful houses on the hilltop."A link to the petition is here: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-iconic-views-of-the-totterdown-escarpment

Views of the Totterdown escarpment regularly appear in local and national publications as aniconic feature of our city. The Heritage Assessment of the Temple Quarter Enterprise Zoneincludes the Totterdown escarpment as one of the principal iconic landmarks in the vicinity ofTemple Quarter. Bristol's City Design Team describe the Totterdown escarpment as "an iconiccityscape feature" that requires careful thought for the whole of the Framework area.

Please, please, not another high rise building in an already densely populated area. Iam in broad agreement with the others who have written to object: the building is far too high -irrespective of its potential to block a much-loved view - and will add to the claustrophobic impactof the high rise buildings in the area both proposed and under construction; there is alreadyconsiderable pressure on the local roads; and amenities such as GP surgeries can barely copewith current populations.

To be 100% affordable is a very positive claim as long as this promise is kept. What would bemore welcome would be the building of social housing.

We desperately need homes in Bristol and the city can't be allowed to suffer because afew people object about coloured houses. We have a real crisis which outweighs a view. Judgingby the plans, the view of the Totterdown houses will not be affected and we cannot expect a nobuilding policy 360 degrees around a few houses. The plans look great and well designed and willhelp in the redevelopment of the area.

URBAN LINKAGE: I support the principle of active frontage on the street and am pleased to see that earlier sketch designs with a podium have been dropped. Much is made of the links between Mead Street and York Road through the landscaped space. While the increased permeability is welcome their importance is over emphasised. This can never be a primary route because the fact is that people travelling north-south in the city have to uses Bath Road or St Lukes Road in order to get to the south of the railway line and have to use Langton Street Bridgeor Bath Bridge to get to the north bank of the river. (It is unfortunate that the St Lukes Road underpassto the railway is such an unpleasant experience for all users and Bath Road is similarly unpleasant forpedestrians and cyclists.)HEIGHT: The Urban Living CPD recommends “Increasing building heights where it can be demonstrated that this helps reinforce the spatial hierarchy of the local and wider context and aid legibility and way-finding” p26. The proposal meets the definition of a tall building (defined as one over30m high) and is well over the definition of ‘amplified building height’ defined as up to 1.5 the prevailing height in areas of uniform height (which York Road is). However the Urban Living CPD also notes on p48 that “a poorly located, poorly designed tall building can have a detrimental impact on the topography and skyline of a city like Bristol” and that “A tall building should not be located where: it hides or masks the topography of the city or it harms valued views from key vantage-points”.It further notes that “Critics cite the high costs involved in their initial build and subsequent maintenance and management, including their higher energy usage compared to mid-rise buildings “. It is my understanding that there are numerous studies that support these criticisms. One might also wish to consider what is involved when future refurbishment is required (as will become necessary for any building). The maintenance of tall buildings is inherently more challenging than for low or mid rise buildings.I consider that the references throughout the Design and Access Statement (DAS) to the developmentas 7 and 10 storey plus ground floor to be very misleading (presumably deliberately so) - the proposals are for 8 and 11 storey development.On page 178 of the DAS highlighting the location of tall buildings St Mary Redcliffe is included. While obviously technically true associating a residential tower block with a church described by Queen Elizabeth I as "the fairest, goodliest, and most famous parish church in England" is somewhat amusing. Even in our secular times church steeples remain significant landmark features in a way thata residential block will never be.This application proposes the construction of blocks of flats which are considerably taller than the nearby housing stock.Whapping Wharf and Finzels Reach are frequently cited as good examples of redevopmet in Bristol. However the current proposals are far more dominant within their context than anything in these two developments not withstanding that they lie within the City Centre area whereas Mead Steet lies outside he Inner City area (within the Inner Urban area). The comparison is therefore somewhat misleading. A space bounded by 6 storey buildings (such as Whapping Wharf) clearly feels very different to a space bounded by 11 storey buildings.Section 4.7 of the DAS the York Road has an image annotated to comment that the three storey MitreHotel ‘imposes dominance’ over the neighbouring buildings. Increased height for social buildings, whether pubs, churches, theatres or civic buildings has a long standing history (as well as mercantile buildings such as banks). It is less clear that different types of residential development should impose dominance on other residential buildings. Note too that the dominance referred to in the photo is an increase of only one storey over the neighbouring properties whereas this planning application is a proposal to first increase by 4 storeys over neighbouring buildings and then rise to 8 storeys above. This is completely inappropriate doubling and near trebling of the prevailing height and is not justified by any precedence.

CITYSCAPE and the TOTTERDOWN ESCARPMENT:In the document Bristol Our Inherited City it states “We have inherited an outstanding legacy of iconic and everyday buildings, structures and landscapes that positively contribute to the economic, environmental and social wellbeing of Bristol. This legacy needs to be stewarded with sensitivity, creativity and innovation to ensure that the benefits it brings continue to be realised into the future” (p3). In the context of Barton Hill it states “Recent residential developments in Barton Hill have sought to reinstate or retain historic streets with new two-three storey terraced houses between the high rise blocks of the 1960s. These new developments like Cotton Mill Lane have created environments that are encouraging longer term residents rather than the high turn over of tenancies inthe former blocks" (p18). Nonetheless the Urban SPD promotes the possibility of tall building providing new city landmarks. In my opinion a landmark should be more than just something that is highly visible. We are in danger of losing one of the key topographical features of Bristol which is the ability to look across the city from side to side which results from the fact the city centre lies in a bowl. From south Bristol looking north we see Clifton Suspension Bridge, the terraces of Clifton and Clifton Wood, Christ Church, Clifton, Cabot Tower, Clifton Cathedral and the Wills Tower etc.. Looking back the other way we see the Talbot Road water tower, Holy Nativity church , St Agnes convent the Totterdown escarpment, the Northern Slopes etc.. Even if we accept that residential towers are appropriate landmarks, by definition they can only be so if their number is restricted. If we keep building new tall buildings they will no longer be landmarks - just visual clutter which detracts from the historic landmarks we can recognise from across the city.Statements in the DAS that the tall buildings are well located and sit comfortably with the surrounding context (7.1) are in my opinion simply nonsense. The proposition that there is an opportunity to reinforce connections to Temple Meads with landmark built form that terminates key vistas" is also, in my attempt, a spurious attempt to try and justify the proposed height.The DAS states (p 179) that “The analysis throughout has made reference to the Totterdown Escarpment to the south, with homes sitting on higher ground. The design team has been particularly mindful to respect the homes in Richmond Terrace whose gardens overlook the city from that higher ground. The final height of the main finger blocks sits below the level of the escarpment, with only blocks two and three set out to full ten storeys. These are respectful heights and do not exceed those prevailing heights set by other local tall buildings such as the 1960s modernist Yeamans House on thenorth side of the River Avon. Whilst noting again this misleading description of an 11 storey building as 10 storeys, the statement that the buildings are below the escarpment level is demonstrably untrue as clearly shown on the sections submitted with the application. These indicate the mean escarpment height as 40m AOD whereas the building is close to 47m AOD (a full two two storeys higher than the escarpment). Paragraph 4.10 of the VIA comments that Totterdown “is known for its Victorian terraced houses that line the escarpment and steep streets. The houses, which are generally three-storeys in height, are often painted in a variety of bright colours and as such form a unique composition along the escarpment, which is visible from different locations within the city. The full length of Totterdown’s escarpment is only visible from specific locations in Bristol including other vantage points, while the most common views of the colourful houses are glimpses of sections of its composition along local streets or from within open spaces in the immediate and wider context”. Given the observation that the views are limited one might expect that greater concern would be given to preserve those that exist. View 2 clearly shows how clear view of a substantial section of the escarpment will be lost due to the proposed development. It can also be seen from this image that a 6 storey building would be below the escarpment when seen from this viewpoint.The proposed View 3 is annotated to suggest that the height of the proposed buildings helps balance the height of Yeaman’s House on the north side of the New Cut. However the comments on the existing view note that “The contrasting elements on the north and south banks of New Cut in the middle ground provide a clear division in townscape character”. I see no reason to remove that contrast. The water provides a natural break which is acknowledged in the Urban Living SPD as a break line between the City centre and Inner Urban designations. Although the annotation comments on how the proposed development will establish a continuous building frontage along York Road it ignores the fact that the change is scale is so great that it creates an abrupt discordance with the heritage assets. Using the tower blocks on the opposite side of the river as a height reference is simply nonsensical. The context of those buildings is completely different. These are tower blocks widely spaced within open ground, a pattern of development which is no longer in favour but is very different to a building of similar height set much closer to adjoining buildings.

This discordance between the proposed development and the existing four storey dwellings is shown even more clearly in View 4 from further along York Road looking east.View 5 illustrates the point made earlier that it is possible to understand the topography of Bristol by looking across it. The view above the trees towards St Andrews and Ashley Down beyond illustrate the bowl like nature of central Bristol. The proposed development breaks the skyline and substantially obscures this view. The annotation to View 6 which suggests that the proposed building can act as a wayfinding device towards the New Cut is spurious. No such device is needed, it really isn’t hard to get to the New Cut from the Station Approach (turn left at the bottom of the approach and you’re there).View 7 is a very distant view of the site. This results in the impact on the escarpment being minimised because the escarpment itself is small within the overall context. However the human eye/brain in reality is able to focus itself on aspects of the view and the view of the escarpment may therefore be more significant that suggested by the 2D image. Although the annotation suggests that Richmond Terrace itself will remain visible the escarpment is clearly sown to be obstructed which removes the context of the terrace. It is the ‘hilltop village’ aspect of Totterdown that makes it so distinctive.

Above is the view from St Michael’s Hill. If we focus on the escarpment it is clear just how much is visible.

This previous photograph illustrates how much is lost by the intrusion of the Redcliffe Estate tower blocks onto the view of the escarpment. Where these towers obscure the escarpment slope the setting of Richmond Terrace is lost. The proposed development will extend that disruption causing further damage to the view.

The above view is taken from the University science buildings complex and again shows how visible the escarpment is from across the city and what a significant feature of the cityscape it is. Not only arethe coloured elevations of Richmond Terrace inherently pleasing but the escarpment creates a break between the city centre and the urban area of south Bristol beyond. Remove the view of the escarpment and that division will be lost.It is interesting to note that views towards south Bristol from many parts of the city include similar landscape breaks, further east there are the slopes of Arnos Vale cemetery and further west the Northern Slopes (all of which can be seen in view 8 of the VIA). In other parts of the city Brandon Hill and troopers Hill are similarly distinctive features. The bowl like nature of Bristol allows these green spaces to be seen from afar as breaks in the built form. If we continue to build high and obscure theseviews we will end up with views of continuous buildings with the loss of one of Bristol’s distinctive features. As an example of the impact of the proposals we can examine a significant pedestrian route from the city centre to Totterdown and Knowle which takes one through Queen Square, past St Mary Redcliffe along the Prewett Street path, through Somerset Square and over Langton Street Bridge. View 9 in the VIA shows the view as one emerges from St Mary Redcliffe church yard.

The above photograph is from alongside the former chapel. As one walks south through Somerset Square the view of the escarpment disappears behind a classroom block and then some trees before reappearing as one emerges onto Clarence Road (as shown in the photograph below).

Almost the full length of the escarpment is now visible. By my estimation less than half of this view willremain visible if the proposed development is allowed to go ahead.The view remains visible as one crosses Langton Street bridge both directly in front and extending away to the east (albeit interrupted by some tree canopies). The applicant has noticeably not include any views of the development from either end of the bridge from which view points the domineering effect of the development will clearly be much more apparent that in the long distance viewpoints chosen.

Not only will the development hide views of the escarpment but even where the escarpment remains visible the excessive height of the proposed buildings will serve to diminish the impact of the escarpment. Clearly that part of Richmond Terrace and the escarpment which lies directly ahead looking down St Luke’s road will remain visible but much of the rest of the view will be lost. The illustration on page 120 of the DAS and image 5.1 of the VIA makes clear how much the view of the Totterdown escarpment will be obscured. The illustration does however downplay just how dominating the building will be as the viewpoint appears to be from somewhere between first and second floor level rather than from street level.There are no views in the VIA showing the impact of the proposal on views of the escarpment from either end of Leighton Street Bridge. It is interesting to note that in the historic photograph included onpage 19 of the DAS and page 14 of the Heritage Townscape Assessment, although the escarpment itself is not visible, the houses of Richmond Terrace are clearly visible above the houses of York Road.CONCLUSION: There are some aspects of these proposals which i welcome but nonetheless I strongly object to this planning application simply because of the quantum of development proposed which far exceeds recommended densities which in turn results in excessive height and consequent harm to the cityscape. A similar proposal restricted to five to six storeys would seem to be appropriate.

I strongly object to new high-rise buildings anywhere in Bristol and certainly not inprominent characterful places as this. This is vandalism on a large scale.

High-rise dwellings are anti-community as shown by the dreadful experiments with tower blocks inthe 1950s please don't let us go around the circle again.

It is entirely possible to solve the housing problem without creating tower blocks and the socialmisery associated with them.

I object to the height of the proposed buildings. To block the escarpment view oftotterdown houses is a travesty. Also the trees and hedges should be protected under TPOs.Provision for more cycling and less cars should be considered.

There is a desperate need for affordable housing in Bristol and as such thisdevelopment should be applauded for offering 100% affordable rented housing.

However it is completely out of keeping with the surrounding area (I am a nearby resident). It risksreplicating all of the obvious planning mistakes that have been made so many times in so manycities in the UK: Build as high as possible, as densely as possible, ignore the consequences onexisting residents, pollution, parking and so on.

It is really disappointing that the failures in planning in other cities have not been heeded in thisproposed development, as they have for most of the development in the Dings and in Paintworks(slightly lower rise and therefore that bit less dense).

If this development was just a few stories less, with just that bit less density, it would be an assetto the city, rather than the potential source of problems that it will most likely become.

I would urge the planning committee to consider that any proposed development should contributeto the general feeling of well-being in an urban environment, alongside it's more utilitarianpurpose. This proposed development, pushing hard up against a congested road, partly obscuringthe sense of open space and skyline will not do that.

Another inappropriate over-development proposed. Road access in that area is alreadyheavily congested. The level of pollution would be greatly heightened causing a dangerousnuisance to residents already in St. Luke's Road and rising up to other Totterdown residents.A more suitable development that is compatible with the St. Luke's Road block would be more inkeeping and provide accomodation in the region.A more sympathetic overview of development in this area is desperately needed.

I believe this proposed development will destroy one of Bristol's most iconic views, theskyline of Totterdown.

Whilst there is absolutely a need for further housing within the City, the proposed housingdevelopment doesn't meet the needs of those without access to housing in Bristol and feels likethe Company making this proposal don't care about the impact their development would have.

Just indicating my agreement with the more detailed objections made by others. Theproposed building is ugly and too high rise to complement the area, can't see it does anything toenhance the character of the area. Quality of housing and adequacy of services seemsquestionable. The proposals could be a lot more ambitious about provision of biodiversity ofplanting and wildlife.

The whole view of the escarpment, from different parts of the city, is such an iconicfeature of Bristol. It welcomes visitors from Temple Meads station and is part of the unique identityof Bristol. To interfere with it is wasting the heritage of the city.The multistory buildings will dominate the space and should be mid-rise not high-rise. Especiallygiven the already difficult parking situation in surrounding areas. The traffic, plus air pollution issomething we should be limiting not encouraging, as anyone who uses Coronation Road will beaware. The level of noise, as the development effectively sits in a basin, will also dramaticallyincrease, to the detriment of community enjoyment of the outdoors. There is a great opportunity tobuild something in Mead St to help the housing problems - but this proposal, cramming so manybuildings in, particularly with the high-rise is not the solution.

I object to this new development for a few reasons.Firstly I see nothing about how this new development, bringing an influx of new residents will besupported by additional amenities. How will local doctors surgeries & schools support thesepeople?I object based on the height of some of these buildings. Disrupting the iconic Bristol skyline, is aridiculous plan.I also object due to the road infrastructure. I've noted a new road will be created to enter theestate, but nothing is stated what will be done to alleviate the additional pressure this will put onthe local roads surrounding the area.

I am not against using brown sites to develop housing, but the negative impact of theheight of this proposal is unnecessary, shortsighted and inconsiderate.

As a local resident, I am extremely proud to live in Totterdown. We are a strong community whoare at the heart of Bristol's creative spirit.

Our annual front room art trail was the founding art trail in bristol with local artists drawing inthousands of visitors from across the city and beyond. With paintwork's joining the area, this hasgrown our reputation as the creative heartland of the city, all of which has developed the profile ofBristol as a thriving creative capital - driving up our employment levels and local economy.

This reputation and related regional developments has had a huge positive impact on tourism forbristol, with the local tourist board, Visitbristol, constantly showcasing this as a key reason to visitwithout coloured houses a core visual representation of the city, enticing a growing flow of tourism.

The iconic view of bristol, especially so close to the railway line, is symbolic of this successfulreputation we've achieved. Blocking the views, is not just aesthetically, bad taste, it reflects amassive dismissal and disregard to the reputation we have built as one of the leading creativecities in the UK.

We can compromise. Build lower housing and keep Bristol's creative heart and soul as visible aspossible for all to see.

This proposal is a shameless attempt by a development company to maximise profits atthe expense of the neighbourhood, the iconic views of the Totterdown escarpment and the urbandensity of the area.

I strongly object to this planning application: the quantum of development proposed far exceedsrecommended densities. This in turn results in excessive height and consequent harm to thecityscape.

While I support developments in the area, I object to building such high buildings whichwould change the views over Totterdown for generations to come. We need to preserve iconicarea in Bristol and have more building designs that integrate harmoniously with their surroundings.

Developments should be in keeping with the local area and sensitive to theirsurroundings. The design is not in keeping with the stylistic context of the local area. It has anegative impact on existing buildings overshadowing the iconic colourful terraced houses that area symbol of Bristol and a part of our identity. This development will adversely effect this site ofcultural value and architectural significance. Much loved by locals and tourists alike there is apotential economic impact if the view of the terraces are blocked and tourists are discouraged fromvisiting the area, with on impact to small local businesses.

I object based on the size and massing of the proposed scheme being grossly inappropriate for the site and blocking key views of the totterdown housing that is such an iconicview for the city (both in terms of historic conservation and tourism and economic value to thecity).

This development will totally obscure and destroy the iconic view of the Totterdownescarpment and there is no decent infrastructure to get increasing numbers of people across theriver into the city centre. No new schools or doctors surgery yet thousands of homes are plannedfor just south of the river. You are destroying BS3!

Scale of building is totally incorrect. It is huge, over-shadowing and dominating theadjacent buildings. It destroys the historic view of Totterdown. There is insufficient open spaceplanned for the residents of the new building. The number of dwellings is too many, withinsufficient infrastructure such as parking and bicycle storage. The type of building is not incharacter with the York Road houses. The plan is little more than a smash and grab of land whichis currently light industrial, trying to squeeze high density,low quality unsuitable housing on here sothat some faceless corporation makes millions. Shameful.

I really feel that there is far to many high rise blocks of flats being built in the Totterdownarea. We are being inundated with dense buildings. I don't think this is necessary. There is flatsbeing erected along by Totterdown bridge. How do the people on the Bath road feel about hugebuildings just across the road from them. Everywhere is being dwarfed by huge high rise flats. Thiswill also block the view of the iconic houses of Totterdown. Also how much more traffic will thisbring into the city.

There will be no views left soon if you keep building on land that should be left as it is,please reconsider building somewhere else and leave our Totterdown views alone

In principle this is a great plan, which makes it even more of a shame that its beenpushed to such ridiculous extremes. The height of the buildings involved are not at all suitable tothe area and block out an iconic landmark view of Bristol. If the height is reduced to a reasonablelevel I will be in full support of this! Mixed use functionality in that area would be a massive benefitto so many local people - please dont ruin a great benefit with such height!

If this was in Clifton no one would approve it blocking out the view of the suspension bridge.Totterdown, its hills, views and colours are one of the things that make us proud to live in Bristol.Blocking that out is like whitewashing the spirit of individuality our city cherishes (and harnesses toour will!).

If it is genuinely the case that a shorter set of buildings would be unprofitable, then build itelsewhere, or build something else in its place. We have already sacrificed too much todevelopers, for too little affordable housing in return.

Whilst I understand the need for housing in bristol, I believe that this will destroy iconand landmark views of bristol. The icon houses on the hill as you come In.

I am aware if the damage the high rises have done as seen in the new temple area where they areblocked sunlight,view and created a screeching wind tunnel.

This building is not for the betterment of bristol, It is taking away it character and making it morefaceless.

I object to the scale and size of this development. The Totterdown escarpment is anIconic view of the city we love.I am absolutely for redevelopment of this site and think there should be non car dependanthousing; however when I showed someone the plans who didn't know where or in what contextthey though I was showing them a plan of a power station.You cannot let such ugly development take place surely.Please reduce the height so we can keep the character and nature of Bristol.

SummaryBristol Civic Society objects strongly to this application. The Society considers that proposals forthe loss of commercial premises should not be considered in the absence of a masterplan for thearea providing for a balanced redevelopment of the area from Bath Road to Bedminster Green.Such a plan should be adopted by the Council after full consultation with residents and otherstakeholders. The proposal itself raises a number of concerns relating to its height, the resultantquality of life for residents and its impact on views, particularly those towards the Totterdownescarpment.

Change of Use.The Society is increasingly concerned that employment generating floorspace in the St Philips andBedminster areas is being redeveloped for residential purposes in the absence of overallstrategies for these areas aiming to achieve a balance of new uses. We agree that the areas areripe for redevelopment but feel strongly that strategies to steer it should be formulated in fullconsultation with residents and other stakeholders before they are adopted by the Council. In themeantime, the Society cannot support the loss of employment generating uses on land defined inthe Local Plan as a Principal Industrial and Warehouse Area.

Height, Massing and Impact on Views.The proposed development comprises an eight storey block adjoining St Lukes Road with twoparallel eleven storey blocks. The block next to St Lukes Road is attached to the parallelEleven storey block with a five storey development. The easternmost block is free standing

separated from its neighbour by an area of public space. The Society is concerned that blocks ofthis height and mass will be harmful to views toward Richmond Street, with its colourful terracedhouses, atop the Totterdown escarpment. This is one of Bristol's important, landmark views.Equally important are views toward the Grade I Listed buildings at Temple Meads Station and thespire of St Mary Redcliffe. A full analysis of the proposals impact on views agreed with the Councilis essential before the application is considered. We are not convinced that the Visual ImpactAssessment adequately addresses these concerns.

Quality of Living Environment.The Society has a number of concerns regarding the potential living environment which wouldresult from this application. Air quality could be compromised by its location at the junction of StLukes Road and the heavily used York Road. The preponderance of single aspect flats is also aconcern. The provision of outdoor amenity space is very sparse for a development of 244dwellings. It is not clear what facilities will result from the development on-site and the site itself isnot convenient for day-to-day shopping requirements and other services. The impact of thisdevelopment on school places in the area also needs to be considered.

Affordable Housing.Notwithstanding our overall objections to this proposal, the Society is supportive of the Council'spush for affordable housing and so we would welcome 100% provision should the Council approvethis application.

I object to the development high rise development as it would severely disrupt and spoilone of the most beautiful views in Bristol.This view is seen as people arrive into Temple Meads and from other areas in the City. It was theview that I first saw when I first came to this city many years ago. The Identity of Bristols colourfulhouses is part of the character of the city and must be preserved.

Building a high building on this site would block this amazing view of the colourfulhouses on the hill. This would be such a shame as such a famous view of Bristol.

Whilst new housing in Bristol is a good thing and need this can not be done at the costof what makes Bristol iconic. The view of the colored houses is know, appreciated and loved mymany people in Bristol and beyond. It is iconic to Bristol, a sign of the city's creativity anduniqueness. It's used in many images, art works and should not be obstructed. Lower thedevelopment to keep the much loved view that is an attraction of our great city.

As a longterm resident of Totterdown I am appalled at the proposal that thisdevelopment be tall enough to obscure one of the most iconic sights in Bristol, not to mention thatit is out of keeping with the area. Visitors to the town without fail comment on the unique view ofthe beautifully painted terraces scattered along the escarpment in upper Totterdown. I can onlyimagine that the developers have no feeling for the value of Bristol's unique character and no ideawhat local people and visitors love about their area.I can see the location is appropriate for developing into housing but not at the expense of thepersonality of its surrounds, and without respecting the nature of the locality and preference of itsinhabitants to preserve the picturesque beauty of the spot & the heart of the area.

High risers are not only an eye sore but will also completely alter the landscape of thisarea. Parking, schools and health care access will be under further pressure when they're alreadyscarce.

High rise will block the view of Totterdown.

This development will block access to one of the iconic views of Bristol i.e the colouredhouses of Totterdown.

For that reason I object to this development, a lower rise development would be more suitable

The height of the block planned for the North-East end of Mead Street is unacceptable.

Whilst the redevelopment of the site is necessary and beneficial, the tower should have no placein the area.

1. Infrastructure: The current population is poorly served by health, transport, and education. Ourlocal GP surgery has recently closed. The dentist no longer takes NHS patients. There are notenough spaces for children in local schools. A permanent stepped increase in local populationwould result in further dilution of these already stretched services. A net-loss for existing andfuture residents. "You will be collectively worse off and bereft of health and education" should besufficient for this development to be denied. The proposed population density exceeds thecouncil's own guidance (Making Successful Places). Bristol buses are a novelty and work on atombola basis. I would love to be naïve enough to make the leap of faith that First would provide afair-priced, punctual, and reliable service bus service through our wonderful city, however they'veso far failed to do this in any of the previous 23 years, so have little confidence this is in theirlimited capability (note the recent reduction in services and increase in fares). And a weaker publictransport infrastructure means more private vehicles.2. Air-pollution will inevitably increase - shoe-horning hundreds of households into a tiny, stackedarea, poorly supported by a terrible public transport infrastructure, will create an unenviable andtoxic troposphere. This weakens the city's aspirations for air-quality and (already breached) centralGovernment and European requirements. It's a significant step in the wrong direction and wouldunreversible. Whilst I have my moments, I am not quite ready to noisily suffocate through the

night.3. Aesthetics: It's easy to make light of Totterdown's 'iconic' arch of colourful houses - I agree it'sno Suspension Bridge (BS8), however it is a popular welcome and farewell to the city. For trainpassengers from the south-west, it's the first thing they see as they pull into Bristol Temple Meads.The familiar face of an old friend, inviting you into their home. For international guests, arrivingfrom the airport and walking down the slope of Temple Meads, it's a rainbow that puts them atease and nudges them into knowing they will have a wonderful time as our guest. It's visible toresidents across the city and marks the south as a destination - not as glamourous or monied asthe north, but open-armed, familiar, and warm. Obscuring this welcome from the bank of the trainstation and elsewhere through the city would be a cultural crime. Replacing this view with afeculent, Rachmanist slum would be a backwards and irreversible step for Bristol.

Except for developers, nobody loves tower-blocks. They're ugly, obtrusive, developed to aninadequate quality, pose physical and mental health risks, are costly to maintain and leaveresidents at the mercy of faceless management companies. It's a terrible idea for would-beresidents, worsens already stretched infrastructure for all residents, is environmentally unsoundand only valuable to the already well-off developers.

I am concerned with the height of the buildings impacting on the iconic view oftotterdown. There is no building of the same height in the surroundings excluding the councilestates that are across the river. The high density of these accommodations could also causefurther traffic problems in a already congested area of the city, as the river crossing infrastructuresare limited.

I strongly object to the current proposal in respect of its proposed height and form whichI consider to be completely inappropriate for the location.

I support the development of new housing on this site but it needs to be designed in conjunctionwith other proposed developments nearby and not in isolation.

Many people have written eloquently, and with expertise, in objection to this planning applicationand I agree with much that has been said. Simply put this development is:

Too highToo densely packedLacks imaginationPoorly designed for the environmentPoorly designed for the mental health of proposed residentsPoorly designed for the physical health of proposed residentsWithout built in changes to the local infrastructure it will have:- a detrimental impact on services - schools, GP services- a detrimental impact on the neighbourhood - traffic, pollution- a detrimental impact on the legacy and history of Totterdown, loss of an iconic view, one seenfrom far across Bristol.

This plot of land has great potential. It should be a place for homes. Homes built to the highest

environmental standards that contribute a positive legacy to the neighbourhood and the peoplewho live there.

This proposal lacks ambition and merit and would be a backward step for Bristol. We can do somuch better.

I think the time for high rise residential buildingssurrounded by windy wasteland spaces is long gone. Surely we have learned by now of thedeleterious social consequences of such structures. It is perfectly possible to build high densitylow rise residential properties and I implore our planners to think again. In addition while Icompletely support the intention to provide substantial additions to our inner city housing provision,and acknowledge that this is a very good site for such, I do nevertheless think this can beachieved without ruining the iconic views into and out of Totterdown.

I understand that this application is at an appeal stage.I would like you to consider the following objections as I believe that the proposed development isfar too dense for the size of the plot and its situation.

The site is part of an area that is currently used solely for commercial purposes and is very closeto the Mead Street Network Rail compound. This is lit all night and is likely to cause disturbancethrough light, noise and traffic to the new homes overlooking Mead Street.

The development will considerably increase traffic to York St, St Lukes Road and Mead St. Thiswill detrimentally affect highway safety, particularly for pedestrians and cylists as the junction atYork Road/St Lukes Road is a part of a corridor for people commuting on foot annd by bike fromKnowle and Totterdown. The current site is empty. It was previously a spice processing unit withvery little traffic.

There is insufficient provision for parking/loading/turning for 244 households.

The proposed buildings are too large, too tall and too densely-arranged for this site. They willblock iconic views of Totterdown from street level and from open spaces either side of the river(New Cut) . Houses on York Road are a maximum of four storeys in this vicnity. The currentbuildings in Mead Street are single and two-storey only.I believe that, within the scheme, there will be overshadowing of homes and overlooking that willprevent privacy. There is a lack of sufficient outdoor space conducive to good mental and physical

health. If we have learned anything from the necessary COVID lockdowns over the last couple ofyears it is that people need sufficient space - for exercise, socialising, or for quiet reflection. It isimperative that we allow this space in people's lives! Many office blocks in central Bristol havebeen converted into student accommodation and small flats with little outside space. Residentshave taken over the only space left to them - in Colston Avenue - for skateboarding. This is vital totheir wellbeing but causes conflict with pedestrians and cyclists in the shared space. Knowing this,we mustn't compound the issue by over-planning on tight sites such as this one in Mead Street.I don't believe that this matches the aspirations of Bristol's Local Plan.

A development of this density will badly affect biodiversity on the site. It is currently bounded byhedgerow adjacent to St Luke's Road and previously had a large (almost unused) carpark,allowing a range of birds and other wildlife. The dense development proposed, with consequentpeople and traffic, will destroy this incidental habitat.

I know my address is not in Bristol, but I lived in Totterdown until I was 20 something.My family home a large 5 bedroomed beautiful house, on Wells Road.Yes it was pulled down, for a flyover that didn't stop in Bristol.We had a real community, after 40 odd years I can still remember all of them.I am sure the people who live in Totterdown now, feel just the same as I do.You made mistakes then, left a shell of what was there. Remember those mistakes, don't makethem again.

Kind Regards

Marie Bussell.

The scheme as drawn is far too tall for the surrounding area completely at odds with themuch lower, simpler, refined Georgian terraces nearby.

By virtue of the depth of the blocks the scheme as drawn creates a massive block of developmentthat appears impenetrable especially when viewed along the approaches of York Road andClarence Road.

A lot of the residential units face directly towards each other, and as such will impinge on theoccupant's privacy. Many of the units facing each other are also single aspect not providing achoice of a view other than looking directly at the neighbours.

The scheme will cause very obvious, definite harm to key views in the area both along the cut andof the Totterdown escarpment.

There is mention of green roofs in the ecology statement as a gain for biodiversity these do notseem to have been put on the buildings or are not clear on the plans

The public realm as designed is far too narrow for the height of the blocks to either side and assuch will not be a pleasant place to spend time, especially if one wants direct sunlight.

This scheme should not be approved.

It's surprising that anyone would even suggest this. The proposal would completelydestroy one of the defining views of the city of Bristol.

It may be a sensible location for some new housing, but the scheme needs to completelyredesigned - not only to preserve the iconic view of Totterdown, but also so that it is in keepingwith the buildings around it on York Rd. Currently it is completely out of scale with its environment.

Bristol has a unique topography and the sort of development proposed here iscompletely unsuitable to it. Totterdown's fine coloured street is an iconic part of the Bristol sceneand it would be vandalism to build dull could-be-anywhere towerblocks in front of it. Such blocksare in any case not what most people want to live in. Families - especially women with smallchildren - need small scale development with gardens. Not more towers. Only developers lovethese, and investment buyers. Please say no to this dull building. And go for more imaginativehigh-density low-impact builds, that's people actually want to live in.

This development would obstruct one of Bristol's most well-recognised and well-lovedviews of the terrace of coloured houses in Totterdown. These echo the views of the terraces ofcoloured houses in Cliftonwood and Clifton above the harbour.New housing is both welcome and necessary but it can be developed without destroying the localcharacter of this area.Please reduce the height of the development in order to preserve this iconic view, one of the bestin Bristol.

WHaM previously contributed to the consultation on this particular development and isconcerned that the scheme displays extremely poor response to context and will decimate thecharacter of the local area.

The building returns site use to residential which is positive, however the number of dwellings isway over what was historically there and is so much taller that it appear grossly out of scale, it isalso in excess of the current levels of neighbouring development.

It would be extremely concerning if the level of density, height and massing were to be repeatedacross all developments in the area. The overall form being somewhat of a caricature of awarehouse form with no real intent to replicate this historical form.

The amount of workspaces being provided is not going to provide the same level of employmentthat is being lost. Inner city workspace is vital to the creation of the local city quoted in theapplication. If the number of local residents is increasing it is only sensible that the number ofworkspaces in that area be scaled appropriately.

We are told that it is low energy and that it is energy efficient. There is a reference to the criteria ofBREEAM but no assessment included within the documents,. Is the scheme to be BREEAMcertified, and performance declared? It seems that there is no real commitment to anythingsignificant in terms of energy performance. New developments ought to have a set level ofperformance that can be verified, and to have a form of post occupancy monitoring, so any

shortfall or successes can be recorded and steps taken if needed. The group was concerned overthe fenestration of the apartments and whether or not overheating was likely. If these are to beaffordable homes then running costs for the development should similarly be limited, to protectfuture occupants from living in homes that are too hot in Summer and too cold in Winter.

The inclusion of planted public realm is good, but it is unclear how much private play space isincluded for families. We are also concerned that the public realm between tall buildings seems tobe too narrow for such a tall enclosure, the flats on either side of this narrow route will be lookingat each other.

The level of green cover seems much lower than that of the existing site. The ecological studiesmake reference to green roofs, but these do not seem in evidence on the plan, instead all theplanting seems limited to the ground level which will be overshadowed for much of the day and notenjoyable as a place to linger. There is also mention of rain gardens but it is not clear where theseare to be found within the scheme. We do not think that the level of planting described in thereports reflects the level of planting shown on the drawings. This is a product of poor design, lessdeep blocks or a wider spacing between them would be an improvement, as it stands the width toheight ratio of the courtyard and route between blocks is to narrow and should warrant a redesign.

Within the visualisations, the varied tone of the brick seems good but the use of stone at lowerlevels is perhaps too much for the character of the area. The choice of metal cladding is not agreat selection and the heights of the areas which are clad is too much to reflect any kind of leadroofing that may have been present historically.

The height is excessive and should not be accepted. We disagree with the visual impact study,from most local view points and especially from Templemeads this development will cause greatharm to the visual landscape of Bristol, and ruin key views of an important landmark, namely theTotterdown escarpment. Views from across the river show it obscuring this key view of Bristolcommonly featured on postcards and other visual imagery of Bristol, and as such must beprotected. The SPD on Urban Living specifically requires tall buildings not to obscure topography,this building ignores this.

The scheme should consider the nature of the escarpment behind in that it is a long object, thatshould be viewed as a long object. The scheme only provides narrow views of the cliff face behindand as such provides an inadequate response to context not enhancing the view but dividing itand preventing the view of it.

As the visualisation study shows, the block appears solid from most views and very different fromthe context. Views along the river show it as deeper than the surroundings revealing animpenetrable masonry mass. The Georgian houses along York Road are among the last Georgianhouses built in Bristol. The context of Terraces in this fashion along the river side is another keyview whose context must be protected.

WHaM does not support this development.

A shocking proposal. So out of keep with the area.

Whilst new housing may be needed the beautiful housing of Totterdown and it's currentviews are why people are attracted to living here.

With these new buildings the beauty of our unique city will become ugly and unwanted. This isn't agood decision.

They look attractive and a huge improvement on what is there already. The variedbuilding heights still allow peeks of Totterdown. We need quality central accommodation and asYork Road is low down I don't believe people's far reaching views will be affected. I canunderstand if this was on top of a hill, but it is down by the river. The most sustainabledevelopment is when inner city brown field sites are used. This type of development discouragescar ownership and is a sustainable solution. A lot of people want to live in this area so it is doubtfulwhether this would contain any more vacant residences than a set of terraced houses. Youngpeople need affordable homes. This looks like a sympathetic development.

The new plan is for an ugly building that will completely destroy the historic view ofTotterdown, it seems profit is being put before the historic skyline of Bristol. This building will makethe area claustrophobic particullay on the water front stretch.

This proposal is completely out of character for the area and will be a blot on the locallandscape not only because of its monolithic imposing 'design' but insofar that it will totally ruin themuch treasured vista of the colourful Totterdown houses that cling rather beautifully along the topof the hill. This proposed development lacks any kind of aesthetic appeal or 'liveability' with asignificant number of dwellings with the single aspect of the flat opposite them.

The proposed plans are not sensitive to the local area and will represent a diminishmentof the unique character of the area. This is particularly concerning given the other developmentsnearby and the impact they will already have on the skyline and quality of life of local residents

The sheer mass and scale of the development is opressive, and would be detrimentalboth to the existing surrounding residential area, and to the poor residents that had the misfortuneto live there, what has been designed is over tall, over populated and will lack any sense of acohesive community.

Air quality would be poor, sited next to two major road arteries, further the mass of buildings wouldreduce light levels and vision to the surrounding area, the oppressive height and proximity ofsurrounding buildings would reduce privacy, adding up to a shattered right to quiet enjoyment ofsurroundings.

Additionally there are insufficient local services, Dentists, Doctors, Schools, to cope with the influx.

The "Village in the city" feel of Totterdown would be ruined by the development.

Agree to some development but nothing of this stature, something more akin to the height of theresidential apparments of Cutters Rw on York Road would be more in keeping, provided they aresuitably spaced

This totter down view is a key part of bristol's identity. I completely object to theproposed plans.

Too highNo amenities.No green space/play area.Not enough social housing.

I have a cafe in Totterdown and although the proposed plans would potentially bringextra commerce to my business, this in NO way compensates for the blatant disregard for theTotterdown escarpment. It's disgusting how developers have no regard for historical landmarks,communities or the stuff that binds us - history. Please at least consider making these buildingsmuch less of a blot on the landscape. You wouldn't get this happening in Clifton, would you? Thinkabout that. What's the difference?

I strongly object to the current proposal for high rise buildings at this location for thefollowing reasons:There is currently a totally inadequate public transport network in place to serve the Totterdowncommunity and this will be put under further strain by this huge increase in residents. This will alsoput further pressure on local amenities such as GP surgeries and schools. The road network is already congested in this area and will be put under further strain by thissignificant increase in residents in such a small area. I expect that this property will not benefit those really in need of social housing but will be sold atgreat profit to private individuals.The planned buildings will ruin an iconic view. We must protect the heritage of the city or it will nolonger be a desirable place to live and work. Cramming people into tiny flats in high rise buildings is not a healthy way to house people. The cityneeds to expand outwards instead. A low rise building at this site would be much moreacceptable.

The development is too tall and will obscure the iconic views of Totterdown. This wouldnot even be considered if this was the coloured houses of Clifton Wood seen from theharbourside. The view of Totterdown is just as valuable and often pictured by artists across ourcity - inspiration is vital to our mental hrealth and artists inspiration and creations.

beyond the cultural and artistic value of the view the development itself is over tall - does no oneremember Grenfell? has limited design value, is not built to human scale - the number of 'units' isexcessive - is any of the accomodation even suitable for families - or just young couples who willhave to move to start families - this does not build communities just dormitories.

What sustainable values are included in the development - energy use? materials? water use? afew trees and dull landscaping included as an after thought do little to the oversall landscape orarea.

This development is another poorly considered overly greedy development at the expense ofcommunity and environment - its over large, not to human scale and with liitle concern to lovalservices or infrastructure which it will negatively impact.

I object on every possible grounds.

I object to this plan on the basis it will ruin our neighbourhood and the iconic totterdownview that can be seen all throughout the city.

I object to this proposal - it does not respond to the context well. It will obscure iconicviews and has generated a lot of anxiety amongst residents.

I object to the building of this development as there is no supporting schools oramenities planned in addition to the dwellings. I believe the new flats will ruin an iconic view of thecolourful rows of houses above the development which is an important part of Bristol's identity andculture. It will also add considerable traffic to the already congested roads in the area putting astrain on the local transport network and parking spaces. I also think this will detrimentally affectroad safety in the area. I believe the development will result in loss of light and overshadowing forlocal residents and have a negative impact on their personal privacy.

The character of Totterdown risks changing beyond recognition and this will be atravesty. It is not only me as a local resident of over 16 years who will be saddened by this, thecoloured houses are also a landmark for Bristol and risk being lost.

This site is also really close to the Avon New Cut and the risk of damage to the nature reserve andall the plant and animal species that use this habitat is significant.

Also any residents in these high rise blocks are likely to lead to an increase in litter, which will endup in the New Cut, damaging an already fragile ecosystem.

This settlement has not been thought through and should not go ahead.

I think blocking the beauty of a iconic Bristol view will take part of the identity of the cityaway with it. It also directly affects the daily lives of those of us who like to take in the views of thecity, whether from the bottom by the river or the top of St. Luke's steps quite a huge number ofpeople's lives on a day to day basis will be changed.

This wouldn't be even considered in Clifton if new houses in any way were going to ruinthe iconic coloured houses

There is no chance that a a block of flats would ever be built in front of the historicsuspension bridge or Royal York Crescent in Clifton. Why is the Totterdown escarpment treateddifferently? The height of the proposed development would obscure one of the few remainingsignificant exemplars of nineteenth century industrial and social development in this area and is ablatant attack on South Bristol's proud working class heritage.

I've been a Bristol resident for the past seven years, and I live close to thisdevelopment. I wish to object to this planning application for several reasons.

The proposals are oversized, bland and feel out of place with the current architecturecharacteristics of the Totterdown, Victoria Park and riverside Bedminster neighbourhoods. Theseproposals, if built, will dominate the south side skyline for the next 40-50 years, which will have amassive impact on the perception of this area of Bristol, just a stone's throw from one of the maingates into the town - Bristol Temple Meads.

The Totterdown escarpment view is a postcard for the City of Bristol and is shared widely on theWorld Wide Web, used to promote the City and attract visitors. This new development will criticallydamage this view and negatively affect how the public views the City.

Parking capacity is scarce and will put even more pressure on public parking spaces in thesurrounding neighbourhoods. The proposed housing density is too high for the area.

In summary, this is a lost opportunity to build something that will have a lasting positive effect inthe area.

Aspects of the proposed development are very out of keeping with the neighbourhood,in particular in relation to buildings being too high.

This application must be amended to reduce the height. Current design obscures theiconic view of Totterdown Escarpment. The development can be much lower and still providemuch needed flats (some of which must be for social rent).

Far too many residential unitsViews will be obstructedAmenities in local area too few - impossible to get doctors appointments at the moment anyway.No NHS dentists accepting new patients. Local primary and secondary schools are oversubscribedNo parking - not all residents will cycle or walk and insufficient provision madeVictoria park open space isn't large enough to accommodate leisure amenities

Summary:

I strongly object to the current proposal in respect of its proposed height and form which I considerto be completely inappropriate for the location.

Whilst in full support of the principle of developing this site and do not object to a change toresidential use as the existing uses contribute little to the wider community, other than theprovision of limited employment which I believe has now been moved out of central Bristol as aresult of the relocation of Bart Spices.

The Mead street/Whitehouse Lane development should be considered as a whole rather thanindividual elements to provide a wider consideration on the impact of the area as a whole and theimpacts of the high rise towers already going up on Bath Road.

To pick on key specifics of the planning application:

- The design is uninspired and adds little to the area and the iconic escarpment.

- The proposal is overly dense and over-height and would dominate the local landscape andobscure the famous and iconic view of the houses on the hill that can be viewed from many keylocations in Bristol

- The proposed housing density is too high and feature single aspect flats leaving little privacy forprospective residents

- Insufficient consideration and weight has been given to noise, air quality, community orenvironmental concerns

- Crime - The Design and Access statement does not provide sufficient regard to the considerationof safety and security in what is already a high crime area including anti social behaviour includingstreet drinking

- Lack of adequate consultation: Neighbours in Richmond Road and Bellevue Terrace were not onthe list of neighbour notifications despite the clear potential for the development to have adetrimental impact on their homes.

Scale and massing:

Of major concern is the impact of the height and form of development on views of the Totterdownescarpment. This is an iconic cityscape feature, and the applicant underplays the detrimentalimpact of their proposal.

- Protection of the view: In response to the acknowledged need to protect views of theescarpment, the applicant states: "the development has a limited impact on views of theescarpment... given the fact that the escarpment is never viewed in its entirety but captured inglimpses from certain key points in the city." This is an outrageous claim and clearly false. The fullescarpment is visible from several points all over Bristol including Brandon Hill, Ashton Court andSt Michael's Hill and this proposed development will be detrimental to one of South Bristol's mosticonic views

- Density: Urban Living SPD suggests optimum densities of 200 units/ha for the city centre and120 units/ha for inner urban areas. This site falls within an urban setting (the SPD takes the riveras the dividing line between the city centre and urban areas) yet the proposal is for 244 dwellingson a site of 0.48/ha. At 508 dwellings/ha the proposed density is therefore more than four timesthe density recommended for inner urban sites and roughly 2 and a half times that suggested for

inner city sites (which this is not). The proposal for more than 4x this would clearly be excessivewith overcrowding, increased crime levels and poor social outcomes resulting.

- The Urban Living SPD also states that 'a poorly designed tall building can have a detrimentalimpact on the historic townscape of a city like Bristol' and ' the topography and skyline of a city likeBristol.' This proposal would do all of that if permitted to proceed.

- The applicant suggests: "When combined with the change in heights of the various blocks thiswill create an interesting silhouette set against the backdrop of the equally interesting TotterdownEscarpment. As this will be the principal elevation to York Road and St Lukes Road it is possiblethat the scheme will act as a memorable waymarker in the streetscape." The 'memorablewaymarker' in the streetscape is in fact the Totterdown escarpment!

- Height: The development is overbearing and the height is at odds with buildings on the other sideof the junction with St Lukes Road. Concerns raised by the City Design team that "the currentdevelopment envelope would have an overbearing effect upon existing 3-storey buildings acrossSt Luke's Road" have not been adequately addressed. The length of York Road, from St LukesRoad to Bedminster roundabout, comprises a terrace of 3-storey buildings, and there is now anopportunity to continue this to Bath Road. To suggest, as the applicant does, that there is'variation in heights and massing' is disingenuous. To justify their inappropriate proposal, theapplicant resorts to referring to Yeaman's House tower block, some distance away on the otherside of the Avon new cut.

Servicing and services in the community:

- Impacts on local facilities and services: Local services are already at stretching point and this isbefore we see the impacts of the neighbouring 'Totterdown Reach' development on Bath Road. Itwas not possible to find information on how the proposal would impact support services such asschools and GPs. This is one reasons why it is unfortunate that the site proposal is comingforward in advance of emerging planning policy as I would hope that such matters will beaddressed within that wider context.

- Waste: Although some detail is given on waste collection I could not find information on servicingfor the retails units. I assume the intention is that the future loading bays in Mead Street will beused by service vehicle as well as refuse vehicles, nonetheless there is clearly a risk that servicevehicles will stop on St Lukes Road (as may customers if the stores are convenience stores).

Design and materials:

- In the DAS it is proposed that the "York Gate Development has an opportunity to positivelycontribute to the new emerging Bristol vernacular that celebrates the vibrant culture of the city".Sadly I don't consider there is an emerging Bristol vernacular, rather Bristol is being populatedwith buildings which could be in any part of the country.

- The report on overshadowing nearby properties indicates that the new development wouldcompletely blight and overshadow the closest buildings which are within the BedminsterConservation Area, as well as blocking winter sunlight from existing flats across the river, yetagain concluding that this will be acceptable.

Health and wellbeing

- Health Impact assessment: The Health Impact Assessment submitted with the applicationcompletely fails to identify an air pollution strategy or address problems beyond identifying thatthere may be one, despite the site being directly on a busy road within the Air QualityManagement Area. The size and bulk of the building would contribute to trapping polluted airwithin close proximity, exposing pedestrians, road users and residents to unacceptable levels ofpollutants.

- The Internal Daylight Assessment indicates that many of the apartments will be miserably darkwith those on the lower levels having low light levels and almost no view of the sky, yet concludesthis would be acceptable. There is also an assumption that the remainder of the site would remainundeveloped, and relies on having surrounds which are single storey to achieve the results that itdoes, something that is mostly unlikely to remain, and which is referred to in the Design andAccess Statement.

- The Noise Assessment Report submitted examines little except the impact of existing noise,mostly traffic, on the new residents, and concludes that many of the flats should have theirwindows sealed shut, with artificial ventilation, though no proposals are made as to how this wouldbe done. This type of design is generally considered unacceptable by current standards. There isno consideration of the considerable impact the residents would have on each other, or other

nearby residents, facing a wall of other flats a short distance away with open balconies likely togive rise to considerable disturbance. This type of design is deeply flawed and known to give riseto many complaints. The proposed adjacent seating and café areas are only likely to make mattersworse.

- The child yield calculator suggests 98 children aged 0-15 will live in the proposed development.Although Victoria Park is in close proximity, this does involve a potentially dangerous walk along aroad that is either congested during 'rush hour' or plagued by excessive speeds (repeatedlyacknowledged in police speed checks). Given the proposed apartments are designed to meet onlyminimal space requirements, we question whether the proposed development will provide goodquality homes for families, whether there is sufficient safe outdoor and public space, and whetherthere is adequate storage space for toys and equipment required by families with children.

Transport and impacts on infrastructure

- Parking: The Transport documents and Design and Access Statements do little to address theparking problem thrown up by the development, other than stating that little parking would berequired. 14 disability standard spaces are allocated to flats leaving 29 spaces for the remaining230 flats and commercial spaces. This would hardly be considered adequate for visitors, nevermind the residents and staff. Expectations that they would not have motor vehicles are unrealisticand there is no nearby onstreet parking at all. The only proposed solution is for overflow parkingon the Totterdown escarpment, which local residents will be able to identify as ridiculous due tothe non-existence of available spaces.

- Traffic: The site of the application is bordered on the north side by the New Cut and on the southside by the railway tracks and then the Totterdown Escarpment. It would be difficult, if notimpossible, to build access roads leading directly to the development from either a southerly ornortherly direction. This means that the site would need to be accessed directly from York Road orfrom St. Lukes Road.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my points.

I object to this application on the main ground that it would spoil the character of thelocality, and ruin the views of the Totterdown ridge from areas to the north. Whilst there are highrise buildings on the northern side of the New Cut, being further away from the ridge these do nothave such a drastic effect on the view than a building on this site. The ridge is an iconic view of thecity, and must be preserved. High rise buildings of this scale are arguably not needed at all, or tothe extent they are, should be zoned in areas where their impact on the cityscape is minimised (egon the eastern side of Temple Meads).Additionally, the design of this building is out of keeping with the local style, and would thereforelook out of keeping, reducing the coherence of an already disparate area, rather than improving itscoherence.There is no doubting the need for additional housing, and therefore I have no objection to thechange of use of the site. The proposed density, and hence scale and impact on the cityscape,however are unacceptable.

I am astonished that this planning application has been submitted to Bristol City Council- it seems to contravene BCC planning policy and is also ridiculous in scale and totally out ofkeeping with the local area. I wish to object to this unsatisfactory planning application for a numberof reasons.

Objections:Scale and height - ludicrous to propose such tall buildings both in terms of impact on the localeand with regards to the imagined tenants/residents.

The proposals are over-large and over-height, and the proposed housing density is too high. TheBristol Urban Living SPD - Making Successful Places at higher densities indicates that an upperlimit of about 120 units/Ha would be appropriate in this 'Inner Urban Area' and makes no mentionof commercial activities. According to BCS20, the Totterdown escarpment, one of the highestdensity urban areas in Bristol, contains 120 dpH. The proposal for more than 4x this would clearlybe excessive with overcrowding and poor social outcomes resulting.

Application does not address issues relating to noise, air quality (a big issue in this location),waste, environmental concerns.

Impact on views into and out of Totterdown - particular note should be made of the 'TotterdownEscarpment'. This is about conserving the heritage and identity of this iconic view from across thecity.

The application goes against Bristol City Council's Site Allocations and Development ManagementPolicies Local Plan, Policy DM26: Local Character and Distinctivenessiv. Retaining, enhancing and creating important views into, out of and through the sitev. Making appropriate use of landmarks and focal features, and preserving or enhancing thesetting of existing landmarks and focal features.

The Totterdown Escarpment is also mentioned as a 'key view' in the City council's Tall buildingssupplement.

Very poor design overall - for those who it is intended will live there and for residents for reasonsgiven. Inappropriate height, density and impact on local infrastructure, resources and community.The bulky towers loom over the street and their surroundings and there are very tall buildings tooclose to the boundaries. The overall appearance is dark, blocky and unattractive.

Lack of consideration for the local community and impact on existing services eg GP surgeries,Schools etc.

Consideration must be given to the number of developments being brought forward at this time - ina hurried manner without proper due care and attention to the impact this will have oncommunities in South Bristol.

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed planning application for the Mead Streetdevelopment.

My objections centre upon density, height of the buildings, impact on South Bristol civic amenitiesand traffic.

In terms of density, the number of flats proposed on the site is way out of proportion with thesurrounding area, and is at a level that has been deemed unsafe or inadvisable for city centreliving. Furthermore, this massive number of flats will undoubtedly have an impact on noise anddisturbance in the local Totterdown area- noise travels very easily in this area as the frequentcomplaints about the noise at Motion nightclub and the alarms at Europcar throughout 2022 andearlier demonstrate.

In terms of height, the developers have made a number of spurious comments about notimpacting the view of the Totterdown escarpment. The developers claim that parts of theescarpment will be visible always- but that is not the point. The entire escarpment is the standoutfeature here- if you can only see parts of it then it just becomes a handful of random colouredhouses rather than a vibrant and vivid vista that is part of South Bristols's unique cultural heritage.Eleven stories is excessively high and completely out of keeping with the mainly 2 storey housesof the area.

In terms of the impact on South Bristol amenities, there is no acknowledgement of the huge impact

this will have on South Bristol schools, GPs, dentists and the like. South Bristol is alreadystruggling to deal with long wait times for doctor appointments, and people are already having tosend children to school out of Bristol, especially for secondary school. St Mary Redcliffe primary isan old Victorian building that is already at capacity with limited possibilities to extend, and anaddition of almost 100 children is impossible to support.

In terms of traffic, I wonder if the developers have ever travelled along coronation road at any timeof the day or early evening. It is choked up and jammed already, and the addition of traffic from244 new apartment would be inconceivable. The proposed developments on the wells road (egclosing off Bellevue Road from Wells Road) would mean there is further excessive traffic on StJohns and St Luke's roads, places which already have a number of concerns regardingpedestrians. We further already have awful air pollution here, as the new low emissions schemethat is starting in October will attest. The lack of car parking spots will only add to this mayhem,narrowing roads further, adding to jams, and blocking emergency access. It is all very wellexpecting that people won't have a car in these apartments, but this is completely wishful thinking-as can be seen if you study how many people in Totterdown, which is just 5 mins further out oftown than the new flats, have a car. Cars may not always be used for commuting in this area, butpeople use a car for other reasons, Including travelling at weekends, visiting surroundingcountryside etc. It would seem likely that residents in these apartments will be even more likely tohave a car, given that they are confined to a small living footprint and a small shared outdoorspace. Public transport in Bristol is still not developed or reliable enough for people to live withouta car; the government's commitment to subsiding fuel and road costs means that owning a car willalways be cheaper and more convenient. As an example, post pandemic findings demonstratethat a) bus ridership is still at 75% while cars are at 100% of previous levels, and that b) buscompanies are increasingly reliant on emergency government handouts rather than long termstrategic planning. This means that the public transport system cannot be relied upon. Similarly,the inflation busting price increases for train travel every year mean that we cannot rely on peoplealways being able to meet these costs and relinquish a relatively low cost car for public transport.

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed planning application for the Mead Streetdevelopment.

My objections centre upon density, height of the buildings, impact on South Bristol civic amenitiesand traffic.

In terms of density, the number of flats proposed on the site is way out of proportion with thesurrounding area, and is at a level that has been deemed unsafe or inadvisable for city centreliving. Furthermore, this massive number of flats will undoubtedly have an impact on noise anddisturbance in the local Totterdown area- noise travels very easily in this area as the frequentcomplaints about the noise at Motion nightclub and the alarms at Europcar throughout 2022 andearlier demonstrate.

In terms of height, the developers have made a number of spurious comments about notimpacting the view of the Totterdown escarpment. The developers claim that parts of theescarpment will be visible always- but that is not the point. The entire escarpment is the standoutfeature here- if you can only see parts of it then it just becomes a handful of random colouredhouses rather than a vibrant and vivid vista that is part of South Bristols's unique cultural heritage.Eleven stories is excessively high and completely out of keeping with the mainly 2 storey housesof the area.

In terms of the impact on South Bristol amenities, there is no acknowledgement of the huge impact

this will have on South Bristol schools, GPs, dentists and the like. South Bristol is alreadystruggling to deal with long wait times for doctor appointments, and people are already having tosend children to school out of Bristol, especially for secondary school. St Mary Redcliffe primary isan old Victorian building that is already at capacity with limited possibilities to extend, and anaddition of almost 100 children is impossible to support.

In terms of traffic, I wonder if the developers have ever travelled along coronation road at any timeof the day or early evening. It is choked up and jammed already, and the addition of traffic from244 new apartment would be inconceivable. The proposed developments on the wells road (egclosing off Bellevue Road from Wells Road) would mean there is further excessive traffic on StJohns and St Luke's roads, places which already have a number of concerns regardingpedestrians. We further already have awful air pollution here, as the new low emissions schemethat is starting in October will attest. The lack of car parking spots will only add to this mayhem,narrowing roads further, adding to jams, and blocking emergency access. It is all very wellexpecting that people won't have a car in these apartments, but this is completely wishful thinking-as can be seen if you study how many people in Totterdown, which is just 5 mins further out oftown than the new flats, have a car. Cars may not always be used for commuting in this area, butpeople use a car for other reasons, Including travelling at weekends, visiting surroundingcountryside etc. It would seem likely that residents in these apartments will be even more likely tohave a car, given that they are confined to a small living footprint and a small shared outdoorspace. Public transport in Bristol is still not developed or reliable enough for people to live withouta car; the government's commitment to subsiding fuel and road costs means that owning a car willalways be cheaper and more convenient. As an example, post pandemic findings demonstratethat a) bus ridership is still at 75% while cars are at 100% of previous levels, and that b) buscompanies are increasingly reliant on emergency government handouts rather than long termstrategic planning. This means that the public transport system cannot be relied upon. Similarly,the inflation busting price increases for train travel every year mean that we cannot rely on peoplealways being able to meet these costs and relinquish a relatively low cost car for public transport.

I'd like to object to this application on the following grounds:

The proposed buildings are far too high for this site and would totally obscure the iconic views ofthe Totterdown escarpment (a partial view simply isn't good enough). 5/6 storeys should be theabsolute maximum for a site like this.

Vehicular access in and out out of Mead Street on to St Luke's Road would add to the congestionand pollution already experienced in this area.

If the proposed development only has a limited number of parking spaces residents will almostcertainly seek to park in Totterdown which would have a huge impact on local residents whoalready experience parking issues.

The impact on local services such as health centres, dentists, schools etc would be drastic if if toomany people move into the area.

In short; a low rise, well-designed development to compliment the view of the escarpment woulddefinitely be welcomed in the area ... not an over-populated monstrosity which would strip the areaof its unique character.

I strongly object to the height of these proposed buildings and to the quantity. It wouldruin an iconic view and make the neighbourhood feel claustrophobic. Flats/houses of max twostoreys should be built instead, and should include social and or/affordable housing. This constantgreed by developers must not continue.

This application would be ruinous. The appearance is almost unbelievablyoverwhelming, especially compared to the low-rise buildings currently on the site. Bristol needsnew homes but not at any price. Preserving beloved views is not the only concern but they have tobe a factor and the Totterdown skyline of colourful terraces is one of Bristol's best-loved and best-known views. It is what visitors to the city see from Temple Meads and cannot lightly be ruined, asthis application would do.Planners should also have regard to the impact on local roads and services of such high-densityhousing, particularly as parking is in such short supply, and account taken of the many other high-density applications already made or expectedly locally - at Totterdown Bridge, at the council-owned site between Totterdown Bridge and Three Lamps, on the former arena site, in St Philipsand elsewhere.Neighbours will suffer noise, disturbance, light pollution and untold disturbance if this application isallowed.

Can we reconsider this application because there is a compromise to be made here.Reduce the height so we don't lose the iconic view for the sake of a few capitalists.

This can be made lower and still provide flats as necessary. All we ask for is courtesy.

Planning Application at York Road, ref. 21/06878/F

We wish to object to this unsatisfactory planning application for a number of reasons:- The design is poor- The proposals are over-large and over-height- The proposed housing density is too high- Insufficient weight has been given to noise, air quality, community or environmental concerns.

Particularly there will be a significant increase in traffic and travel delays as a consequence.- There is not adequate parking.- Loss of privacy to people living on sections of Richmond Street, St Lukes Road and York Road. -Local services and amenities (schools, doctors, dentists etc) are already oversubscribed.- An increase in the level of noise from this development.

This development comes under Southville Ward but doesn't take into account the character of theneighbouring areas especially Totterdown, as well as Windmill Hill and Bedminster/Southville all ofwhich are noted for the colour of it's residential buildings.The design as it exists would obliterate one of the most renowned iconic views of Bristol.

'Of major concern is the impact of the height and form of development on views of the Totterdownescarpment. This is an iconic cityscape feature, and the applicant underplays the detrimentalimpact of their proposal.' TRESA response

It is too dense for a residential development (with some small businesses) and whilst someresearch has been done on the building history of the plot and immediate area, it doesnt showhow it proposes to link with other plans currently under various degrees of structural development,such as the University site by Temple Meads, Catherines Place on Malago Road , furtherproposals to develop along Bath Road all of which will want to access the same facilities egschools and health centres.

There is no evidence on the design that it will adequelty address and improve the alreadycongested road system in the area. It is likely there will be an increase traffic/congestion and airquality . For example, this will seriously impact on the residents of Totterdown as entering LukeRoad is one of two routes off the estate in the mornings for those travelling to work in the north ofthe city and beyond who have no viable alternative to motor vehicle transport, and alreadyfrequently experience frustrating delays. The development is likely to exacerbate the difficulties atthe St Lukes Road/York Road /Mead Street junctions which will have a knock on effect acrossTotterdown estate and Victoria Park residents.

We do think the layout of York Road, and Mead Street need to be reviewed to make a moreeffective road system to meet with the proposal of this development and others in the area.For example make Mead Street the main road and York road between Fowlers and St Lukes Roadjunction a cycle way and pedestrianised walk way/play area.

The proposed design refers to nearby green areas. You have to negotiate a busy junction at YorkRoad and St Lukes Road to access Victoria Park which is already well used and for some,overcrowded. The existing plans are inadequet of green space, unappealing and doesn't allow forsufficient daylight between the structures. The nearby parks will not compensate for this becauseof their already heavy usage.

There is no evidence of a feasibility study regarding traffic, access to esential ammenities as inschools, dentists, doctors and pharmacies as well as a resident's communtiy facilitiy/centre.

It shows no evidence of how the existing wildlife and fauna will be protected. For example, bats,owls, badgers and buzzards are present along the escarpment, rail track and Victoria Park.

The building proposal itself is too dense and dull. Whilst we recognise the urgent need for housing,the residents psychological and physical well-being are imperative and should be at the heart ofthis inner city building development. There is no sufficient evidence of how this development willmeet this.

There is no evidence of how the building proposal will adequetly support green energy initiativesand use of vertical garden designs given the proposed balconies in the proposal.

We fully support the comments made by TRESA's response to the development

To conclude we object to this planning proposal.

This proposal is completely out of kilter with the immediate environment' the buildingsare too large and too high and so entirely block the iconic and protected view of the Totterdownescarpment. The continued obliteration of South Bristol and insertion of inappropriate high rises inthis are must cease and more appropriate designs incorporating much needed infrastructure(schools, GPs, dentists) must be considered.

The proposals are over-large and over-height, and the proposed housing density is too high. TheBristol Urban Living SPD - Making Successful Places at higher densities indicates that an upperlimit of about 120 units/Ha would be appropriate in this 'Inner Urban Area' and makes no mentionof commercial activities. According to BCS20, the Totterdown escarpment, one of the highestdensity urban areas in Bristol, contains 120 dpH. The proposal for more than 4x this would clearlybe excessive with overcrowding and poor social outcomes resulting.Application does not address issues relating to noise, air quality (a big issue in this location),waste, environmental concerns.Impact on views into and out of Totterdown - particular note should be made of the 'TotterdownEscarpment'. This is about conserving the heritage and identity of this iconic view from across thecity.The application goes against Bristol City Council's Site Allocations and Development ManagementPolicies Local Plan, Policy DM26: Local Character and Distinctivenessiv. Retaining, enhancing and creating important views into, out of and through the sitev. Making appropriate use of landmarks and focal features, and preserving or enhancing thesetting of existing landmarks and focal features.

The Totterdown Escarpment is also mentioned as a 'key view' in the City council's Tall buildingssupplement.Very poor design overall - for those who it is intended will live there and for residents for reasonsgiven. Inappropriate height, density and impact on local infrastructure, resources and community.The bulky towers loom over the street and their surroundings and there are very tall buildings tooclose to the boundaries. The overall appearance is dark, blocky and unattractive.Lack of consideration for the local community and impact on existing services eg GP surgeries,Schools etc.Consideration must be given to the number of developments being brought forward at this time - ina hurried manner without proper due care and attention to the impact this will have oncommunities in South Bristol.

Having seen the plans and joined the zoom info session I must object to the idea of a 22storey building on this site. There are numerous buildings going up.in the area and none areanything like this height. Whilst I agree the space is ideal for housing I believe that the eight storyblocks are high enough.From Higham St and Bellevue Terrace areas the height of the tall block would be a massiveintrusion.I also have grave concerns about the lack of school spaces and Gp facilities currently in the area.This must be addressed vefore any further properties are considered

Summary:I strongly object to the current proposal in respect of its proposed height and form which I considerto be completely inappropriate for the location.Whilst in full support of the principle of developing this site and do not object to a change toresidential use as the existing uses contribute little to the wider community, other than theprovision of limited employment which I believe has now been moved out of central Bristol as aresult of the relocation of Bart Spices.The Mead street/Whitehouse Lane development should be considered as a whole rather thanindividual elements to provide a wider consideration on the impact of the area as a whole and theimpacts of the high rise towers already going up on Bath Road.To pick on key specifics of the planning application:

- The design is uninspired and adds little to the area and the iconic escarpment.- This is just one of many proposed developments that are being approached in a piecemeal andfragmented manner and fail to provide a holistic view on the surrounding communities- The proposal is overly dense and over-height and would dominate the local landscape andobscure the famous and iconic view of the houses on the hill that can be viewed from many keylocations in Bristol- The proposed housing density is too high and feature single aspect flats leaving little privacy forprospective residents- Insufficient consideration and weight has been given to noise, air quality, community orenvironmental concerns

- Crime - The Design and Access statement does not provide sufficient regard to the considerationof safety and security in what is already a high crime area including anti social behaviour includingstreet drinking- Lack of adequate consultation: Neighbours in Richmond Road and Bellevue Terrace were not onthe list of neighbour notifications despite the clear potential for the development to have adetrimental impact on their homes.

Scale and massing:Of major concern is the impact of the height and form of development on views of the Totterdownescarpment. This is an iconic cityscape feature, and the applicant underplays the detrimentalimpact of their proposal.- Protection of the view: In response to the acknowledged need to protect views of theescarpment, the applicant states: "the development has a limited impact on views of theescarpment... given the fact that the escarpment is never viewed in its entirety but captured inglimpses from certain key points in the city." This is an outrageous claim and clearly false. The fullescarpment is visible from several points all over Bristol including Brandon Hill, Ashton Court andSt Michael's Hill and this proposed development will be detrimental to one of South Bristol's mosticonic views- Density: Urban Living SPD suggests optimum densities of 200 units/ha for the city centre and120 units/ha for inner urban areas. This site falls within an urban setting (the SPD takes the riveras the dividing line between the city centre and urban areas) yet the proposal is for 244 dwellingson a site of 0.48/ha. At 508 dwellings/ha the proposed density is therefore more than four timesthe density recommended for inner urban sites and roughly 2 and a half times that suggested forinner city sites (which this is not). The proposal for more than 4x this would clearly be excessivewith overcrowding, increased crime levels and poor social outcomes resulting.- The Urban Living SPD also states that 'a poorly designed tall building can have a detrimentalimpact on the historic townscape of a city like Bristol' and ' the topography and skyline of a city likeBristol.' This proposal would do all of that if permitted to proceed.- The applicant suggests: "When combined with the change in heights of the various blocks thiswill create an interesting silhouette set against the backdrop of the equally interesting TotterdownEscarpment. As this will be the principal elevation to York Road and St Lukes Road it is possiblethat the scheme will act as a memorable waymarker in the streetscape." The 'memorablewaymarker' in the streetscape is in fact the Totterdown escarpment!- Height: The development is overbearing and the height is at odds with buildings on the other sideof the junction with St Lukes Road. Concerns raised by the City Design team that "the currentdevelopment envelope would have an overbearing effect upon existing 3-storey buildings acrossSt Luke's Road" have not been adequately addressed. The length of York Road, from St LukesRoad to Bedminster roundabout, comprises a terrace of 3-storey buildings, and there is now anopportunity to continue this to Bath Road. To suggest, as the applicant does, that there is'variation in heights and massing' is disingenuous. To justify their inappropriate proposal, theapplicant resorts to referring to Yeaman's House tower block, some distance away on the otherside of the Avon new cut.

Servicing and services in the community:- Impacts on local facilities and services: Local services are already at stretching point and this isbefore we see the impacts of the neighbouring 'Totterdown Reach' development on Bath Road. Itwas not possible to find information on how the proposal would impact support services such asschools and GPs. This is one reasons why it is unfortunate that the site proposal is comingforward in advance of emerging planning policy as I would hope that such matters will beaddressed within that wider context.- Waste: Although some detail is given on waste collection I could not find information on servicingfor the retails units. I assume the intention is that the future loading bays in Mead Street will beused by service vehicle as well as refuse vehicles, nonetheless there is clearly a risk that servicevehicles will stop on St Lukes Road (as may customers if the stores are convenience stores).

Design and materials:- In the DAS it is proposed that the "York Gate Development has an opportunity to positivelycontribute to the new emerging Bristol vernacular that celebrates the vibrant culture of the city".Sadly I don't consider there is an emerging Bristol vernacular, rather Bristol is being populatedwith buildings which could be in any part of the country.- The report on overshadowing nearby properties indicates that the new development wouldcompletely blight and overshadow the closest buildings which are within the BedminsterConservation Area, as well as blocking winter sunlight from existing flats across the river, yetagain concluding that this will be acceptable.Health and wellbeing- Health Impact assessment: The Health Impact Assessment submitted with the applicationcompletely fails to identify an air pollution strategy or address problems beyond identifying thatthere may be one, despite the site being directly on a busy road within the Air QualityManagement Area. The size and bulk of the building would contribute to trapping polluted airwithin close proximity, exposing pedestrians, road users and residents to unacceptable levels ofpollutants.- The Internal Daylight Assessment indicates that many of the apartments will be miserably darkwith those on the lower levels having low light levels and almost no view of the sky, yet concludesthis would be acceptable. There is also an assumption that the remainder of the site would remainundeveloped, and relies on having surrounds which are single storey to achieve the results that itdoes, something that is mostly unlikely to remain, and which is referred to in the Design andAccess Statement.- The Noise Assessment Report submitted examines little except the impact of existing noise,mostly traffic, on the new residents, and concludes that many of the flats should have theirwindows sealed shut, with artificial ventilation, though no proposals are made as to how this wouldbe done. This type of design is generally considered unacceptable by current standards. There isno consideration of the considerable impact the residents would have on each other, or othernearby residents, facing a wall of other flats a short distance away with open balconies likely togive rise to considerable disturbance. This type of design is deeply flawed and known to give rise

to many complaints. The proposed adjacent seating and café areas are only likely to make mattersworse.

- The child yield calculator suggests 98 children aged 0-15 will live in the proposed development.Although Victoria Park is in close proximity, this does involve a potentially dangerous walk along aroad that is either congested during 'rush hour' or plagued by excessive speeds (repeatedlyacknowledged in police speed checks). Given the proposed apartments are designed to meet onlyminimal space requirements, we question whether the proposed development will provide goodquality homes for families, whether there is sufficient safe outdoor and public space, and whetherthere is adequate storage space for toys and equipment required by families with children.

Transport and impacts on infrastructure- Parking: The Transport documents and Design and Access Statements do little to address theparking problem thrown up by the development, other than stating that little parking would berequired. 14 disability standard spaces are allocated to flats leaving 29 spaces for the remaining230 flats and commercial spaces. This would hardly be considered adequate for visitors, nevermind the residents and staff. Expectations that they would not have motor vehicles are unrealisticand there is no nearby onstreet parking at all. The only proposed solution is for overflow parkingon the Totterdown escarpment, which local residents will be able to identify as ridiculous due tothe non-existence of available spaces.- Traffic: The site of the application is bordered on the north side by the New Cut and on the southside by the railway tracks and then the Totterdown Escarpment. It would be difficult, if notimpossible, to build access roads leading directly to the development from either a southerly ornortherly direction. This means that the site would need to be accessed directly from York Road orfrom St. Lukes Road. The surrounding roads are already hugely congested and slow moving, sothis will continue to choke road and cause gridlock and see increasing levels of pollution.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my points.

It would be a shame if this development happened. The view of the totterdown housesis iconic to Bristol. If they were blocked by this development I feel it would be a hindrance to thearea and strip it of its history. The view of those houses that you get when arriving into Bristol fromtemple meads lets people know that Bristol is a vibrant and fun city .

They development would be a good thing if they didn't build massive tower block buildings there.

Although I support the redevelopment of the industrial land in this area, especially tocreate more much needed housing, I believe that these plans are fundamentally flawed.

The density proposed is far in excess of the Council's own guidance (Bristol Urban Living SPD -Making Successful Places) - this proposal is not for good quality housing. This is furtherdemonstrated by the Internal Daylight Assessment.

The environmental impact has not been properly assessed. All of the existing trees would beremoved, and there's no mention of the animals which currently use the land along the railway lineto travel and feed - including bats and birds of prey. What is the impact on the air quality in an areawhich already impacts negatively on the health of Bristolians?

The loss of the view of the colourful, distinctive houses - a classic feature of Bristol - would impacton sites across the city centre. Although the efforts to use high quality materials for cladding, theywould not make up for the loss of a part of Bristol's history, and would be to the detriment of ourcity.

There is no mention of the impact on local services and amenities, and the impact on traffic andtravel in the area is optimistic.

I am also disappointed that local residents - including Richmond Street, the closest part ofTotterdown to the proposed development - were not included within the consultation zone.

While I agree that the area needs development, there is no major need for a building sohigh that it blocks the iconic and historic view of the Totterdown escarpment.

It is hard to believe that yet more flats , that also obscure an iconic view are about to bebuilt. Ruining our famous colored houses, and obscuring their view also .We have thousands on waiting lists , and we need houses, houses with space for couples, smallfamilies with gardens attached .Terraced houses ,of a density that fits with Totterdown .All these flats will bought up by unscrupulous landlords to be rented out at crazy rents .

The Totterdown Escarpment is one of the most well-known and well-loved sights inBristol. Blocking out sections of this iconic line of houses by placing a number of extremely highstructures in front will destroy the heritage of our city. The colourful row of Victorian houses is aview that cannot be replaced once it is interrupted and blocked out from ground level. We mustprotect the unique qualities of our vibrant city for future generations.

Will destroy Totterdown's Victorian heritage and put ridiculous pressure on southBristol's already poor services and amenities. South Bristol is being treated as a free-for-all fordevelopers - imagine if this was proposed for Bristol Zoo Gardens.

Our city is unique because it has so much green space, wonderful landmarks likeTotterdown, and the feeling of being spacious due to the LACK of high rise flats. If you continue toapprove high rises, presumably because they are being applied for by people who can offer moremoney (and make more money) - we will lose this unique appeal, living conditions will worsen,light levels and views will reduce and we will become just another overcrowded, oppressive city.Do we aspire to be like London or bath? Keep Bristol unique, keep Bristol low rise.

I would like to object to this proposal for a number of reasons.

The height of the proposed development is wildly different to every other building on that side ofYork Road and would tower over the surrounding structures. It's height would also block the iconicview of the colourful houses visible from across the city. These views are synonymous with the cityof Bristol and separate it from being just another city in the country.

From an ecological perspective the development removes a huge number of trees and shrubs thatexist in a semi-natural setting replacing them with a pitiful amount of urban trees that will notestablish in the harsh concrete environment they are planted into. For evidence of this please viewthe trees planted opposite Temple Meads following the recent road adjustments there. Thedevelopment is directly in the path of a bat feeding and travel corridor and there seems to havebeen no appreciation of this whatsoever. In addition the known wildlife that inhabits the area(sparrow hawks, owls, deer, badgers) will be forced out of this part of the city for good.

The traffic and pollution problems on York Road and all around the Three Lamps junction are wellknown so constructing a high density, high rise development like this one located in the middle ofa problem area seems illogical. Parking wise Totterdown residents already face a daily battle topark their vehicles anywhere near their house and this high density development will only add tothese problems.

I completely understand the need for new housing developments in the area and welcome the

building of new property as I myself am renting and struggling to get on the ladder. However acolossal development that reduces the cultural value of the city and reduces the quality of life ofresidents already in the area is not the answer.

The development is too high for the area and ruins the character of the area. Adevelopment which captures the unique, creative character of the city and area - like thePaintworks development- would add much more value to the city & land in the long term.

I think the lack of regard to the existing community with the proposed new high risedevelopments needs to be considered in a lot more depth. The views are being effected thedesigns are poor and run of the mill. I like the existing mix of industrial and residential we do t wantto all travel miles to work. Some very poor decisions are being made in front of our eyes. Pleasereconsider .

I object to this proposal for the following reasons:

The loss of the iconic Totterdown Escarpment View from across the whole city, including fromTemple Meads - an iconic view on arrival into the city.

The lack of consideration of increased traffic and need for parking.

The increased pressure on local schools and GP practices.

The design of the buildings are not aesthetically pleasing nor in keeping with the buildings in thearea.

The density of building is too high and thus there is the possibility of associated social issues.

Worry of increased crime rate as laid out by the official police objections to this proposal.

Far too big and imposing. Blocking one of the city's most iconic views

I object to the proposed development on several grounds:

- Traffic

The junction of York Road and St Luke's Road is currently extremely congested during morningand evening rush hours. Adding a densely populated development at this junction will likelyexacerbate traffic problems and increase pollution levels in the area.

- Parking

There is insufficient allowance for car parking in the proposed development. As any resident of thearea can confirm, provision for parking in the surrounding residential areas is already inadequateso any new development must provide enough parking spaces for all residents and their visitors.

- View of the Totterdown Escarpment

The famous view of the escarpment is intrinsic to the character of the city. Irreversibly blocking thisview with tall, characterless flats is extremely short-sighted if we wish to preserve the soul of ourbeautiful city.

The flats are also completely out of character with the existing dwellings on the York Road side ofthe river.

I don't object to the development of the area in principle, but any proposed development must bein keeping with the area and take into account the resources available.

I would like to wholeheartedly object to the edifice would obscure an iconic andwonderful view of the world famous Totterdown escarpment. The development is over intensiveand in a time when the whole world is suffering as a result of the pandemic we need to preservethings that raise the spirit and gladden the eye. We need beauty in the world more than ever.Communities have come together better than ever before in the last two years and this one is verysolid in their opposition to another attack on physical aspect of the area. It is time to say no.Please preserve what we have and do not destroy one of the finest views in this great city of ours.What next will be proposed that obscure views such as The Clifton Suspension bridge. CabotTower, St. Mary Redcliffe?

Additional pressure on car parking locally unless parking for all flats ? St Luke's is avery busy road for cycling and additional car usage will be problematic to cyclists.

The planned development with high rises is too big and will the destroy views of theiconic Totterdoen escarpment.

Don't destroy a key city view, just to build more soulless flats. Especially withoutimproving the local amenities.

The site does need development, but what is proposed is far too tall, and as previously mentionedwithout improving local services and amenities. It just places an undue strain on the area.Especially when combined with the paintworks and malago redevelopments within a stones throw.

This development would be too high and would block the view of the escarpmentbehind.

I would like to object to the development as currently proposed. I do support the changeof use from industrial to residential, and the creation of much needed housing in the local area.There are high quality examples of this within the local area - Whapping Wharf for example -where sensitive development has created vibrant communities which have contributed to makingBristol a better place to live. The plan for this site does not achieve this, for the following reasons:

Quality of housingI have significant concerns about the quality of housing for future residents:- Density of housing is far in excess of the Urban Living SPD, both for an inner urban site such asthis, and for the city centre - I support optimal density land use, but this isn't it.

- The Internal Daylight Assessment suggests that many of the flats would have low levels ofnatural daylight, unsatisfactory for new housing stock; more than a quarter of living/dining spaceswould not meet the Average Daylight Factor. Why would we consider this to be acceptable forresidents?

- The Health Impact Assessment proposes no solution to the impact on air quality for those livingin the local area, even though it's already in a busy area with high traffic and within the Air QualityManagement Area

Environmental impactGiven the height of the proposed buildings, and the lack of clarity about plans to redevelop the

whole area, I am very concerned about the impact on existing wildlife within the area - includingbats and birds of prey including tawny owls, peregrine falcons and other birds of prey seen fromhomes in Richmond Terrace:

The Ecological Assessment focuses on whether the area for development providesnesting/feeding sites, but does not describe the impact of tall buildings significantly narrowing andincreasing noise, light and wind levels on what is clearly an important travel corridor for nativespecies.

Visual amenityThe proposed buildings would tower over the local area, blocking sunlight from existing housingand dominating views which currently allow views of the colourful Totterdown escarpment fromacross the city. One of the recurring features of the Bristol vernacular are the rows of colourfulhouses that can be seen across the natural bowl of Bristol - Clifton/Hotwells and Totterdown beingtwo fine examples of this. To lose one of these views, inevitable given the proposed height of thebuildings, would be a huge loss to our city.

The Urban Living CPD states that A tall building should not be located where: it hides or masksthe topography of the city or it harms valued views from key vantage-points - this does not meetthat standard.

Community consultation and wider planning considerationsI am surprised that these plans have been put forward before the proposals for the whole MeadStreet/Whitehouse Lane area are shared, losing the opportunity to create a coherent plan whichadds to the local area. Further, I am very surprised that the residents of Richmond Street were notincluded in the consultation area given our proximity to the site.

Local servicesIt is unclear how the impact of a significant increase in residents will be managed in an area wherelocal services (schools, GPs, dentists) are already oversubscribed, and where access to thenearest green space (Victoria Park) is through a dark underpass and without adequate crossingfacilities on a busy road. Considering this development as part of the plan for the whole areawould give an opportunity to properly consider how this could be managed.

I support redevelopment of a rundown industrial area, but this plan does not achieve good enoughquality for future residents, current local residents and for the wider city.

Many excellent points have been raised about this plan's negative impact on an iconiccity view, the unfortunately dense housing and the unnecessary devastation of trees and wildlife.One further point is the misleading descriptions provided by developers. Somewhere it ismentioned that taller blocks at each end of the proposed plan will act as 'bookends'; preserving theview of the skyline. This of course is nonsense, as the impact of the tall blocks will change,depending on which vantage point the skyline is viewed from. Sadly this is not the only example ofthe developer implying that they have considered the plans in the context of the city at large -when in fact they have done no such thing.

This proposal is far too large and intrusive. It will dwarf nearby homes and ruin themuch-valued view of the totterdown escarpment. The height and the scale are overbearing andcompletely out of place.It will bring too much traffic, disruption and pollution both during construction and afterwards.Existing neighbours will be greatly affected, and residents of the new homes would suffer from anover-dense development with too little parking and access to outside space.

This scheme is way too big/tall and will block the iconic Totterdown escarpment,amongst other things. Also there isn't the infrastructure to support that many additional residents(schools, parking to name but a few as per usual they haven't included enough parking. The localinfrastructure will already be stretched especially with all the other huge unnecessary recent'Bedminster (not so) green developments nearby. Instead of putting through planning for so manynew developments, why not encourage redevelopment of all the empty existing office buildingsaround the city. Please stop ruining South Bristol by approving all of these developments that donothing for the existing community, the people that will eventually end up living there or the cityand are purely to make money for the developers.

I've selected Neighbour as commenter type as my home overlooks the proposeddevelopment site yet the council planners do not consider me enough of a neighbour to beincluded on the notification list, nor any of the other residents of Richmond Street, BellevueTerrace or Totterdown steps. This alone is sufficient evidence that this application should berejected as there has been inadequate assessment into the material planning considerations aseach of these locations will be negatively impacted by the proposed development.The proposal will significantly reduce the vista and visual amenity of the Totterdown escarpment;one of the few real iconic images and views of Bristol - known to many as a landmark when theyarrive into Temple Meads station, An example of this view being so iconic that it is the inspirationfor Bristol City's away shirts this season when they wanted a design to encapsulate theuniqueness of the BS3 area.With half of my natural daylight coming from a North facing aspect, this development would causeconsiderable loss of light from overshadowing as well as the resulting loss of privacy fromoverlooking buildings.The proposal itself has inadequate access for vehicles; the Mead Road junction is a considerablebottleneck and any vehicles turning right have to cross the very busy St Lukes Road which, atpeak time, often tails back to St Johns Lane. The road is a key access point for children heading tothe St Mary Redcliffe schools. The absence of parking spaces for the proposed resident numberswill force traffic and parking onto the already jammed streets of Totterdown further increasing therisk of access for emergency vehicles.These streets are difficult enough to navigate with the current resident and car ownership levelsand I have had a number of car scrapes and scratches with drivers leaving the scene with no

details provided.On a technical level, there is no evidence of any assessment on the impact on the flora and faunain the area, nor does the application provide sufficient evidence of any green energy initiatives.Finally, the density proposed is far in excess of the Council's own guidance (Bristol Urban LivingSPD - Making Successful Places) - this proposal is not for good quality housing. This is furtherdemonstrated by the Internal Daylight Assessment.

Bristol is a vibrant city and has unique architecture. The current trend for high risebuildings is surprising and depressing, research has demonstrated that living in high rise buildingsis detrimental to health.There has been no discuss on additionalSchools/doctor surgeries or dentist to accommodate so many new residents, all of these amenitiesare already over subscribed.The proposed buildings will also be an eyesore on the amazing view of Totterdown, this viewbeing used frequently on both tv and film which brings money into the city. I welcome newhousing, but this needs to be done sensitively & not impacting on the beauty of south Bristol.

I strongly oppose this proposal as it will block the iconic Totterdown escarpment view.The view is part of Bristol's history and culture. As I cycle around Bristol my family and I lovelooking at the skyline, and makes us and many residents feel at home. It would be sad to lose thisiconic view and this piece of history.The proposal if altered could create much needed housing without obscuring the skyline/view .

This will destroy the Bristol skyline for current and future generations.

Emotionally:Seeing the iconic colourful Totterdown houses as you arrive into Temple Meads is one oflandmarks that gives Bristol its identity.

Logically:"The central location of the site means it is in close proximity to numerous amenities. This shouldreduce the harmful emissions and traffic congestion associated by long and multiple car journeys."-from the "SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK AND PROPOSALS" p11This is a misleading statement. It will not reduce the "total" emissions. Increasing the population ofthe city will just increase the total emissions of the city. Where is the proof that increasing a city'sresidents will mean fewer journeys from outside of the city (not just commutes, but all servicesetc.). Various studies on the impact to congestion for similar developments show that congestionincreases whenever you raise the average density of either the source or destination.

This is not appropriate at this location - high rise buildings will change the Bristol skylineand especially the Totterdown Escarpment. A high rise building is being built on Bath Road byTottedown Bridge which is not in keeping of this area. No more are required in this area. There arenot enough facilities such as schools, doctors for such a development of this scale.

I object to the development on Mead St due to a number of reasons:1. The iconic view of the Totterdown Escarpment will be lost. This can be seen from all over Bristoland is one of the first things visitors arriving at Bristol Temple Meads see from the stationplatforms. It can be seen from near St Mary Redcliffe, the Cumberland Basin, the harbourside,Cabot Tower, Kingsdown & St Michael's Hill including from the windows of the maternity hospital.etc, etc.This has been recognised in the Council Tall Buildings Supplementary Document as aview that needs to be framed not obscured. See page 22 ofhttps://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/16498915/tall-buildings-spd1-bristol-city-council

2. It is high density without consideration for quality of life and impact on the surroundinginfrastructure. It expects people to use bikes and not own cars. This is unrealistic and so morecongestion & pollution will be caused in an area where pollution is already too high especiallyimpacting on St Mary Redcliffe & Temple School and Redcliffe Nursery & Children's Centre. Andwhere will children who live here go to school?Where will residents register for a dentist or a GP? This area is already lacking enough of theseservices and there seems little thought for those in the plans.

3. There is little support for this from independent organisations. a) The Bristol Civic Society says:With regards to the Constraints and Opportunities shown, the Society feels strongly that: - Views towards St Mary Redcliffe Church from Totterdown should be maintained. - Views towards the Totterdown escarpment (Pylle Hill) should be maintained from parts of Bristol

north and west of the site and from the Langton Street Bridge. - There should be street trees and planting along Mead Street. - The site should connect smoothly with the Whitehouse Street Regeneration Area to the west,providing an active travel route for pedestrians and cyclists. - The scale of development should consider the transition from existing buildings on YorkRd.Additionally, the Society asks the Council whether there will be sufficient places in localprimary schools

b) The Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design & Planning Response isn't at allsupportive and is concerned about safety & security.In the opening section Jason Price says:"I have demonstrated with the above figures that this area has significant crime reporting.Havingread the Design and Access statement and supporting documents I am very concerned that thisapplication fails to document what regard has been paid to the consideration of safety or security,nor does it demonstrate how this will be addressed. This is contrary to the recommendations of theChartered Association of Building Engineers(CABE) and does not satisfy the safety and security requirements of the National Planning PolicyFramework and the Bristol Local Plan, as specified at the bottom of this document."

4. The lack of consultation with nearby residents. The list of properties with which you consulted isextremely minimal. You would have known that the residents of Totterdown would be impacted bythis development yet they were not included. You also didn't include any residents further alongYork Rd than number 144. Or across the river.

5. The lack of thought of being so close to the railway lines too. Residents of Richmond st, CliftonView & St Lukes Crescent already struggle with the train engines running through the night as theysit on the track idling for ages. This keeps people awake and they are above on the hill! Have youthought about the impact of this on those new residents?

Please do not allow this plan to go ahead without considering the real impact of this type ofdevelopment. Yes more housing is needed in Bristol and on brownfield sites but it needs to begood quality housing that provides a good quality of life for its residents, good outdoor privatespace for residents which we all know is extremely important after Covid times. A safeneighbourhood that can provide a good community. And one that doesn't impact on iconic viewsthat both residents of Bristol and visitors to Bristol have enjoyed for years. The colourful houses onthe escarpment are part of what makes Bristol unique. Why cover it up with boring blandoverbearing brown towerblocks and make this city look like every other city? Why not build lowerand keep the historic layering of the Bristol landscape?

Having lived on Richmond Street in Totterdown for 7 years I believe this proposeddevelopment will ultimately be detrimental to the surrounding area and permanently spoil aquintessential Bristol view. Everyone coming into or out of temple meads sees the row of paintedhouses as an instantly recognisable sign of Bristol and these proposed plans would ruin that.

I understand, as a person trying to buy their first home myself, that Bristol needs moreaccommodation and housing opportunities however the sheer scale of this development is way inexcess of what it right in favour of what is profitable.

I don't really understand why you would want to block the classic view of the colourfulhouses in Totterdown. This view is synonymous with Bristol and is the view you are greeted withwhen you arrive in Bristol on the train coming from the South West. Instead it will be replaced withill thought out highrise architecture that isn't in keeping with the area. This development will alsoplace an additional pressure on the local services and amenities. There has already been anadditional development built on the Bath Road, which also blocks the landscape of Totterdown, ishigh-rise and will place additional stress on the local services. There really needs to be be muchmore local consultation, that listens to the local community and how all these developments willimpact on the local area.

I object to this development for a number of reasons including:

-no additional infrastructure (GP practice, dentist, schools etc)-blocking of iconic Totterdown view. Including developing flats taller than flats nearby (e.g. atLuke's road)-no additional parking, increasing pressure for parking in the area.-building on a likely future flood plane, which will lead to subsequent costs for council tax payers inthe future. Not a sustainable or economic approach.

A smaller, more sustainable and considered development would be more appropriate.

I object to this development for a number of reasons.1) the lack of additional infrastructure to support the increase of residents to the local area that thedevelopment will bring e.g no additional parking spaces, no additional school places. Localservices such as the gp won't be able to cope and will be oversubscribed unless additionalinfrastructure is put in place2) lack of additional car parking spaces. This will mean existing residents will suffer or bepenalised through having to pay for residents parking schemes or equivalent. This will adverselyaffect the cost of living3) the new development being rented out at unreasonable prices. The development should beaffordable housing to help with the housing crisis and enable more people to buy their own homesnot a way for private landlords to make a profit4) well-being of the existing local community - the proposed development Blocks the iconic viewsof Totterdown, Richmond street and the colourful houses. This is a travesty for Bristol itself andalso for the existing local residents.5) building on a potential flood plane6) increased traffic (bad for the environment) and will worsen commuter traffic (also bad for theenvironment)!7) ruining Bristol's landscape for tourists and locals alike8) the development should be a much smaller scale in terms of number of residences and in termsof height so that it is in keeping with the existing local surroundings

There are numerous reasons why I believe the proposed development should not goahead, including but not limited to:

- Obliterating the views of Bristol's famous colourful Totterdown housing (despite the claims thatthe tallest aspects of the development would be "mindful of the view" being positioned closer toTemple Meads, it is inarguably not possible to build 900 homes in a high rise building and not spoilthe skyline, such as when viewed from Temple Meads itself)

- Causing an excess of traffic and subsequent air pollution in an increasingly congested citycentre, an issue to the environment and to human health

- Actively going against Bristol City Council's Ecological Emergency Action Plan, which aims toensure that as much green space and re-wilding as possible should occur in the City Centre tohelp the drastic loss of biodiversity Bristol has experienced. Planting individual trees on adevelopment does not counteract the removal of hundreds of trees and shrubs to build the site,particularly as the site itself may act as an important wildlife corridor for bats and other animals.This Action Plan highlights that considered action is paramount to tackle biodiversity loss in thecity centre, and this proposed development does not align with these standards.(https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/5572361/Ecological_Emergency_Action_Plan.pdf/2e98b357-5e7c-d926-3a52-bf602e01d44c?t=1630497102530)

As someone trying to get onto the property ladder myself, I recognise and appreciate the urgent

need for affordable housing - however, packing a 900-home high-rise development complex into asmall, environmentally-important space in the city centre, at the detriment of not only thesurrounding area but Bristol's iconic architecture and the biodiversity of the city, is not the answer.

Please consider the local historic neighborhood and how it will affect views of thisspecial and iconic neighborhood from many vantage points across the city.

I strongly object to the current proposals for the development of Mead Street. Whilst it isgreat to see the intention for flats solely for affordable rent this proposal would not provide goodquality accommodation for this purpose.

I object on the basis of:

Density of accommodation. The proposal is to provide 244 dwellings on such a small site is farabove that suggested by the Urban Living SPD for the area. The developers make much of thefact that the flats will meet minimal space requirements, but these are already very small and lackssufficient storage for anyone to live in on a long-term basis. Should people living in the flats wantto take advantage of plugging into the cycle network (much lauded on the developers website),there will be nowhere for them to store their bikes. The blocks are too close together giving thosewhose windows and balconies face each other no privacy.

Infrastructure. There is already considerable pressure for services in this area. It is already difficultto make a doctor's appointment or find an NHS dentist. All of the secondary schools in Bristol areoversubscribed, and the two closest primary schools were oversubscribed in September 2021. Iwould be hoping that lack of on-site parking and proximity to the centre means there shouldn't betoo much impact on traffic but this isn't a given.

Height of the buildings. The hand-painted pastel drawings on the developers website aredisingenuous. Many of the blocks are shown standing at 3 to 4 storeys when the lowest proposed

is six storey. Two of the blocks are almost double this height. Their proximity to each other meansthey will block out considerable light to those on the lower floors and will provide a monolithicstreet view. Of course as has been extensively pointed out they would also impact the view of theTotterdown escarpment from a variety of spots around the city.

The question is do we want Bristol to be the sort of city that treats those in rented accommodationas second-class citizens - squeezing them in cheek by jowl into tiny flats with no storage andlimited natural light?

It is exciting that we could have decent quality 'affordable' rental property in the area, to replacesome of that sold by the council and housing associations in the past. This proposal isn't it.

Although I agree the area needs to be developed I disagree with the building of towerblocks which will destroy the iconic view of the coloured houses of Richmond Street high up on theTotterdown escarpment. I can see this view from where I live and it is one of the reasons I loveBristol. Coming into Bristol Temple Meads train station this view just says 'Bristol' and is soprecious to so many people. For the residents of Totterdown the view across Bristol is animportant part of their lives. To destroy it would be sacriledge. Skylines like this must bepreserved, especially ones as important as this. Lower rise buildings can still provide muchneeded housing and the quality of life for the residents will be much better than in a block elevenor even 22 stories high. The iconic coloured houses have been represented in paintings andphotographs for many years. They are part of what makes Bristol what it is today and we need tostill be able to see them for years to come.

I agree with more accommodation being built but these are much too high, 5 to 7storeys should be the maximum height so as not to completely disfigure the look of the area. I willabandon my membership of the Labour Party, which I have always belonged to, if this plan goesahead.

The design is too high and too dense. The height should be restricted to below theescarpment - blocking it (even if only at one end, and even if that end is nearest the station) willchange the way Bristol looks from numerous angles, including on arrival into Temple Meads, andwould therefore limit one of the things that makes Bristol recognisable and unique.

This is a classic view of Bristol that can be seen from so many angles- from the trainstation, the cut, st Phillips and all across from Kingsdown. It is just as distinctive and Bristolian asthe coloured houses inHotwells and gives Bristol so much of its distinctiveness. It will be good todevelop the area in question and build the community but please don't destroy this key view of theescarpment. Also the proposal, although it talks of building a community, has very little in it thatwill actually help create a community.

I object to this development as a very close neighbour but also as a resident of thewider city. The development will block the view of Totterdown which is such an iconic viewassociated with very city.

It will also increase traffic and therefore pollution in an already very busy area of the city.

The proposed planning application would not only impact negatively on the residents ofTotterdown, especially Richmond street, but it would also deprive every single person arriving toBristol by train of one of its most iconic views, as well as anyone walking towards Totterdown onthe riverside coming from the city centre.

Our city is unique because it has so much green space, wonderful landmarks likeTotterdown, and the feeling of being spacious due to the LACK of high rise flats. If you continue toapprove high rises, presumably because they are being applied for by people who can offer moremoney (and make more money) - we will lose this unique appeal, living conditions will worsen,light levels and views will reduce and we will become just another overcrowded, oppressive city.Do we aspire to be like London or bath? Keep Bristol unique, keep Bristol low rise.

Will ruin the view of the totterdown escarpment

I object to the building of these flats. Totterdown is a beautiful and iconic part of BristolCity and the houses that this development will block are a key image of the city and our colouredhouses that often draws visitors to Bristol. I live very close to this site and I don't think it should beused to build more unaffordable housing that also ruins a beautiful part of the city.

While I appreciate the need for more housing, this development contains unnecessarilyhigh-rise properties that will severely diminish a historical part of Bristol, will cause privacy issuesfor local residents, and will add to an already overly populated part of the city.

With such a large number of developments here, on Bath Road, on Malago Road, and at KnowleBroadwalk, the Council is creating an unsustainable population density in BS3/4. There are noplans for more facilities - no doctors, no schools, no dentists, no additional infrastructure elementsto support this population.

This application needs to support the people of this area, and not actively take away from them.

URBAN LINKAGE: I support the principle of active frontage on the street and am pleased to see that earlier sketch designs with a podium have been dropped. Much is made of the links between Mead Street and York Road through the landscaped space. While the increased permeability is welcome their importance is over emphasised. This can never be a primary route because the fact is that people travelling north-south in the city have to uses Bath Road or St Lukes Road in order to get to the south of the railway line and have to use Langton Street Bridgeor Bath Bridge to get to the north bank of the river. (It is unfortunate that the St Lukes Road underpassto the railway is such an unpleasant experience for all users and Bath Road is similarly unpleasant forpedestrians and cyclists.)HEIGHT: The Urban Living CPD recommends “Increasing building heights where it can be demonstrated that this helps reinforce the spatial hierarchy of the local and wider context and aid legibility and way-finding” p26. The proposal meets the definition of a tall building (defined as one over30m high) and is well over the definition of ‘amplified building height’ defined as up to 1.5 the prevailing height in areas of uniform height (which York Road is). However the Urban Living CPD also notes on p48 that “a poorly located, poorly designed tall building can have a detrimental impact on the topography and skyline of a city like Bristol” and that “A tall building should not be located where: it hides or masks the topography of the city or it harms valued views from key vantage-points”.It further notes that “Critics cite the high costs involved in their initial build and subsequent maintenance and management, including their higher energy usage compared to mid-rise buildings “. It is my understanding that there are numerous studies that support these criticisms. One might also wish to consider what is involved when future refurbishment is required (as will become necessary for any building). The maintenance of tall buildings is inherently more challenging than for low or mid rise buildings.I consider that the references throughout the Design and Access Statement (DAS) to the developmentas 7 and 10 storey plus ground floor to be very misleading (presumably deliberately so) - the proposals are for 8 and 11 storey development.On page 178 of the DAS highlighting the location of tall buildings St Mary Redcliffe is included. While obviously technically true associating a residential tower block with a church described by Queen Elizabeth I as "the fairest, goodliest, and most famous parish church in England" is somewhat amusing. Even in our secular times church steeples remain significant landmark features in a way thata residential block will never be.This application proposes the construction of blocks of flats which are considerably taller than the nearby housing stock.Whapping Wharf and Finzels Reach are frequently cited as good examples of redevopmet in Bristol. However the current proposals are far more dominant within their context than anything in these two developments not withstanding that they lie within the City Centre area whereas Mead Steet lies outside he Inner City area (within the Inner Urban area). The comparison is therefore somewhat misleading. A space bounded by 6 storey buildings (such as Whapping Wharf) clearly feels very different to a space bounded by 11 storey buildings.Section 4.7 of the DAS the York Road has an image annotated to comment that the three storey MitreHotel ‘imposes dominance’ over the neighbouring buildings. Increased height for social buildings, whether pubs, churches, theatres or civic buildings has a long standing history (as well as mercantile buildings such as banks). It is less clear that different types of residential development should impose dominance on other residential buildings. Note too that the dominance referred to in the photo is an increase of only one storey over the neighbouring properties whereas this planning application is a proposal to first increase by 4 storeys over neighbouring buildings and then rise to 8 storeys above. This is completely inappropriate doubling and near trebling of the prevailing height and is not justified by any precedence.

CITYSCAPE and the TOTTERDOWN ESCARPMENT:In the document Bristol Our Inherited City it states “We have inherited an outstanding legacy of iconic and everyday buildings, structures and landscapes that positively contribute to the economic, environmental and social wellbeing of Bristol. This legacy needs to be stewarded with sensitivity, creativity and innovation to ensure that the benefits it brings continue to be realised into the future” (p3). In the context of Barton Hill it states “Recent residential developments in Barton Hill have sought to reinstate or retain historic streets with new two-three storey terraced houses between the high rise blocks of the 1960s. These new developments like Cotton Mill Lane have created environments that are encouraging longer term residents rather than the high turn over of tenancies inthe former blocks" (p18). Nonetheless the Urban SPD promotes the possibility of tall building providing new city landmarks. In my opinion a landmark should be more than just something that is highly visible. We are in danger of losing one of the key topographical features of Bristol which is the ability to look across the city from side to side which results from the fact the city centre lies in a bowl. From south Bristol looking north we see Clifton Suspension Bridge, the terraces of Clifton and Clifton Wood, Christ Church, Clifton, Cabot Tower, Clifton Cathedral and the Wills Tower etc.. Looking back the other way we see the Talbot Road water tower, Holy Nativity church , St Agnes convent the Totterdown escarpment, the Northern Slopes etc.. Even if we accept that residential towers are appropriate landmarks, by definition they can only be so if their number is restricted. If we keep building new tall buildings they will no longer be landmarks - just visual clutter which detracts from the historic landmarks we can recognise from across the city.Statements in the DAS that the tall buildings are well located and sit comfortably with the surrounding context (7.1) are in my opinion simply nonsense. The proposition that there is an opportunity to reinforce connections to Temple Meads with landmark built form that terminates key vistas" is also, in my attempt, a spurious attempt to try and justify the proposed height.The DAS states (p 179) that “The analysis throughout has made reference to the Totterdown Escarpment to the south, with homes sitting on higher ground. The design team has been particularly mindful to respect the homes in Richmond Terrace whose gardens overlook the city from that higher ground. The final height of the main finger blocks sits below the level of the escarpment, with only blocks two and three set out to full ten storeys. These are respectful heights and do not exceed those prevailing heights set by other local tall buildings such as the 1960s modernist Yeamans House on thenorth side of the River Avon. Whilst noting again this misleading description of an 11 storey building as 10 storeys, the statement that the buildings are below the escarpment level is demonstrably untrue as clearly shown on the sections submitted with the application. These indicate the mean escarpment height as 40m AOD whereas the building is close to 47m AOD (a full two two storeys higher than the escarpment). Paragraph 4.10 of the VIA comments that Totterdown “is known for its Victorian terraced houses that line the escarpment and steep streets. The houses, which are generally three-storeys in height, are often painted in a variety of bright colours and as such form a unique composition along the escarpment, which is visible from different locations within the city. The full length of Totterdown’s escarpment is only visible from specific locations in Bristol including other vantage points, while the most common views of the colourful houses are glimpses of sections of its composition along local streets or from within open spaces in the immediate and wider context”. Given the observation that the views are limited one might expect that greater concern would be given to preserve those that exist. View 2 clearly shows how clear view of a substantial section of the escarpment will be lost due to the proposed development. It can also be seen from this image that a 6 storey building would be below the escarpment when seen from this viewpoint.The proposed View 3 is annotated to suggest that the height of the proposed buildings helps balance the height of Yeaman’s House on the north side of the New Cut. However the comments on the existing view note that “The contrasting elements on the north and south banks of New Cut in the middle ground provide a clear division in townscape character”. I see no reason to remove that contrast. The water provides a natural break which is acknowledged in the Urban Living SPD as a break line between the City centre and Inner Urban designations. Although the annotation comments on how the proposed development will establish a continuous building frontage along York Road it ignores the fact that the change is scale is so great that it creates an abrupt discordance with the heritage assets. Using the tower blocks on the opposite side of the river as a height reference is simply nonsensical. The context of those buildings is completely different. These are tower blocks widely spaced within open ground, a pattern of development which is no longer in favour but is very different to a building of similar height set much closer to adjoining buildings.

This discordance between the proposed development and the existing four storey dwellings is shown even more clearly in View 4 from further along York Road looking east.View 5 illustrates the point made earlier that it is possible to understand the topography of Bristol by looking across it. The view above the trees towards St Andrews and Ashley Down beyond illustrate the bowl like nature of central Bristol. The proposed development breaks the skyline and substantially obscures this view. The annotation to View 6 which suggests that the proposed building can act as a wayfinding device towards the New Cut is spurious. No such device is needed, it really isn’t hard to get to the New Cut from the Station Approach (turn left at the bottom of the approach and you’re there).View 7 is a very distant view of the site. This results in the impact on the escarpment being minimised because the escarpment itself is small within the overall context. However the human eye/brain in reality is able to focus itself on aspects of the view and the view of the escarpment may therefore be more significant that suggested by the 2D image. Although the annotation suggests that Richmond Terrace itself will remain visible the escarpment is clearly sown to be obstructed which removes the context of the terrace. It is the ‘hilltop village’ aspect of Totterdown that makes it so distinctive.

Above is the view from St Michael’s Hill. If we focus on the escarpment it is clear just how much is visible.

This previous photograph illustrates how much is lost by the intrusion of the Redcliffe Estate tower blocks onto the view of the escarpment. Where these towers obscure the escarpment slope the setting of Richmond Terrace is lost. The proposed development will extend that disruption causing further damage to the view.

The above view is taken from the University science buildings complex and again shows how visible the escarpment is from across the city and what a significant feature of the cityscape it is. Not only arethe coloured elevations of Richmond Terrace inherently pleasing but the escarpment creates a break between the city centre and the urban area of south Bristol beyond. Remove the view of the escarpment and that division will be lost.It is interesting to note that views towards south Bristol from many parts of the city include similar landscape breaks, further east there are the slopes of Arnos Vale cemetery and further west the Northern Slopes (all of which can be seen in view 8 of the VIA). In other parts of the city Brandon Hill and troopers Hill are similarly distinctive features. The bowl like nature of Bristol allows these green spaces to be seen from afar as breaks in the built form. If we continue to build high and obscure theseviews we will end up with views of continuous buildings with the loss of one of Bristol’s distinctive features. As an example of the impact of the proposals we can examine a significant pedestrian route from the city centre to Totterdown and Knowle which takes one through Queen Square, past St Mary Redcliffe along the Prewett Street path, through Somerset Square and over Langton Street Bridge. View 9 in the VIA shows the view as one emerges from St Mary Redcliffe church yard.

The above photograph is from alongside the former chapel. As one walks south through Somerset Square the view of the escarpment disappears behind a classroom block and then some trees before reappearing as one emerges onto Clarence Road (as shown in the photograph below).

Almost the full length of the escarpment is now visible. By my estimation less than half of this view willremain visible if the proposed development is allowed to go ahead.The view remains visible as one crosses Langton Street bridge both directly in front and extending away to the east (albeit interrupted by some tree canopies). The applicant has noticeably not include any views of the development from either end of the bridge from which view points the domineering effect of the development will clearly be much more apparent that in the long distance viewpoints chosen.

Not only will the development hide views of the escarpment but even where the escarpment remains visible the excessive height of the proposed buildings will serve to diminish the impact of the escarpment. Clearly that part of Richmond Terrace and the escarpment which lies directly ahead looking down St Luke’s road will remain visible but much of the rest of the view will be lost. The illustration on page 120 of the DAS and image 5.1 of the VIA makes clear how much the view of the Totterdown escarpment will be obscured. The illustration does however downplay just how dominating the building will be as the viewpoint appears to be from somewhere between first and second floor level rather than from street level.There are no views in the VIA showing the impact of the proposal on views of the escarpment from either end of Leighton Street Bridge. It is interesting to note that in the historic photograph included onpage 19 of the DAS and page 14 of the Heritage Townscape Assessment, although the escarpment itself is not visible, the houses of Richmond Terrace are clearly visible above the houses of York Road.CONCLUSION: There are some aspects of these proposals which I welcome but nonetheless I strongly object to this planning application simply because the quantum of development proposed far exceeds recommended densities. This in turn results in excessive height and consequent harm to the cityscape. A similar proposal restricted to possibly a maximum of five to six storeys in a localised area but with height generally restricted to two to three storeys would seem to be appropriate.

As a Totterdown resident I object to the high rise nature of this development, totally outof character with the area's history and reputation. I support a redevelopment as long as there isaffordable housing which really IS affordable and as long as the number of storeys is far less thanproposed; under current plans our skyline will be more or less obliterated. There are currently fartoo many high-rise developments either taking place or proposed for our neighbourhood withoutany social structure -doctors surgeries, schools, transport networks - to support them.

Driving down the M32 or entering Bristol temple meads any body with decent vision willbe drawn to the distinctive Totterdown escarpment - this plan will destroy this view denying themof the same view witnessed by those before them. Bristol needs more housing and there is plentyof land in this vicinity - temple arena area and st Phillips to name a few. This objection is to thescale of the 22 storey flat block proposed the smaller blocks that do not ruin the view from afar arefine.

Please do not destroy what makes my/our city so special.

I object to this application on the following grounds:The tower blocks proposed are out of scale and incongruous with the terraced housing in thesurrounding neighbourhoods of Windmill Hill, Totterdown and Southville, and the immediatelyadjacent houses on York Street.

The height of the proposed blocks is excessive, they will obstruct the views of the iconic andhistoric Richmond St terrace, and the leafy escarpment below (which the Urban Living SPDdesignates as a 'Prominent Green Hillside').

This iconic escarpment and skyline is a spectacle, and Bristol landmark, along with other terraceson the slopes of Bristol it gives Bristol its Genius Locii, which this Council and Mayor are rapidlydestroying.

Terraces of multi coloured houses following the topography are valued and admired by Bristolians,visitors and allegedly by the City Council who state in the ULSPD "A poorly located, poorlydesigned tall building can have a detrimental impact on the topography and skyline of a city likeBristol" and it goes on to say "tall buildings should not be located where: it hides or masks thetopography of the city it harms valued views from key vantage-points it has a detrimental impacton the city's historic environment" . This proposal would do all of that if permitted to proceed.The proposed tall buildings will have a detrimental impact on incidental views of the Totterdownescarpment from around the city and should be rejected, re-evaluated and reduced in scale.

The density of the units proposed, according to numbers submitted with the application wouldexceed 500 dwellings per hectare. The Bristol ULSPD indicates that an upper limit of about 120units/Ha would be appropriate in this 'Inner Urban Area'. According to BCS20, the Totterdownescarpment is one of the highest density urban areas in Bristol at 120 d/Ha ,the proposal is formore than four times this level , this would clearly be excessive with overcrowding and poor socialoutcomes resulting. The local infrastructure of services would be overwhelmed, with no scope tomeet demand.Urban Living SPD (ULSPD) states "Where a cluster of tall buildings are proposed it will beimportant that adequate separation distances are provided in between towers both to limit thelikely cumulative impact of the towers on the micro-climate at ground level, and to avoid thenegative visual impacts of a perceived 'wall of development" ...a wall of development is exactlywhat this application proposes and should be rejected.

The detailed design of these proposed blocks of flats is unattractive they provide no positiveaesthetic to the city. The same architecture and materials can be seen up and down the country,cities are fast becoming clones of each other with the same faceless walls of metal, cladding andglass. Bristol has a unique character generated by its topography, architecture, open spaces andwaterways it needs to be forward thinking, develop styles of architecture that enhance itscityscape. The materials proposed; reconstituted stone, metal panels, white render and corduroybrick, and the way they are arranged result in ugly facades on all elevations creating eyesoresfrom every angle.

The developers claim that an environmental benefit of the site is that the materials will be locallysourced. In this instance what distance is defined as local?... there are no brick works in Bristol.Metal cladding, steel, bricks, concrete are all imported from outside Bristol and even the UK, onlythe suppliers may be located in Bristol. This claim is nothing more than developer's hogwash, theyeven claim that the local sourcing ' enhances the development's design and longevity'...how so?Many new buildings in Bristol are currently constructed with large prefabricated sections of mixedmaterials 'looks- like' brick/render which are assembled elsewhere then bolted to the frame work,not enhancing nor necessarily long lasting. The oak doors listed in the key on elevations areelusive on the drawings and I would like to know which locally sourced Oaks are being used forthe doors, please specify.

The flats just meet the nationally described space standard of 50 sq m for a one bedroom 2person flat. For affordable housing it follows that the single bedroom flats will have to be shared bya couple as a single person would struggle to afford rent of a flat designed for 2 . If the occupantsdo not sleep together the only other place for a bed is in the living/kitchen space, which is whollyunacceptable, and is at variance with the national increase in single person living.

The single aspect flats, the crammed layout of the buildings, contribute to creating grim darkspaces which for some residents will be a money saving endurance test, and for others will feel

like the walls are closing in with no way out, after the elation of having somewhere to live has wornoff. The developer is not creating quality housing for tenants, quite the opposite..small, crampedapartments, accessed along anti social narrow corridors with minimal servicing of waste, storage,recycling, and laundry facilities.. no quality private/secure meeting spaces are created.

The development has a NNW facing frontage which offers little sunlight to the occupants and therear elevation will not receive benefit of SSE aspect due to the Totterdown escarpment. BCCrequest that a scheme should maximise opportunity for daylight of internal spaces and avoidsingle aspect homes which this does not. The flats around the courtyard spaces, will have evenless sunlight especially those on bottom storeys creating dismal conditions for people living in'affordable' rental property, people will not be sitting on sun loungers as suggested in theillustration. The small living spaces coupled with the lack of sunlight will threaten physical andmental health of tenants.

The fire service report clearly states that the increase of housing in tower blocks is 'stretching theircapacity to the limit'... this should be of great concern to all Bristol City Councillors and officers,developments of this scale should be rejected.

The arrangement of blocks and their relationship to the open spaces is devoid of any creativity.The outdoor spaces will be mostly shaded, unuseable spaces. The uninspired planting areas, offerno definition, or character, of space. .. If large tree species are planted they would create moreshade for the lower storeys and if smaller species selected they would not have a significant'greening effect' next to this scale of tower block. It is suggested that 'vertical planting will increasethe ecological merit of the site'- but none is shown.The internal communal bin areas open onto the open spaces, bins will have to be pushed throughthese spaces making them ' service corridors' rather than ambient , social spaces for residents tosocialise or find peace. This arrangement should be rejected and given greater consideration.

The isolated trees in flat amenity grass will struggle with low sunlight levels and the microclimatearound the blocks, they offer minimal amenity value to residents and none to wildlife, disturbancecreated by 244 households would keep all but the bravest seagull or feral pigeon out of the site.So I contest the suggestion of the ecologists that the proposed planting would create wildliferefuges in this scheme.The existing wildlife corridors of the railway line, escarpment , and the river, have been ignored,these should be enhanced and strengthened, and connected with substantial planting through thisdevelopment.No facility for children's play has been provided. Victoria Park offers the only nearby useablerecreational space for dog walking, play and relaxation , this development will add intolerablepressure on the park. BCC should anticipate this and request the developer to: provide moreuseable space in the design; to provide considerable financial aid for ongoing maintenance of thepark for the flat dwellers to use ; and improvements to the access routes to the park from the flats.The police in their comments to this application describe the existing environment as attracting anti

social behaviour, the walk to the park from these proposed flats is treacherous for pedestrians andcyclists under the railway bridge.

The wind modelling was based on a site in Filton, which does not have a nearby escarpment ofthe height or gradient of this site, the wind is lifted over this escarpment as proven by the birds thatuse the air currents. The wind is funnelled by the River and so the site will experience verylocalised conditions. It is suggested that the trees along St Lukes Rd elevation will have a'mitigating effect' to the wind levels at the cafe... how is this so? A street tree has a trunk at seatinglevel and therefore provides minimal protection. The mitigating suggestion for the flats facing theprevailing wind is to have solid balcony balustrades, I would suggest that increased insulation onthis elevation is also added. It is clear that the site's unique location and circumstance has notbeen fully considered and should be a reason to turn down this application.The provision of minimal carparking (0.18/apartment)is well below the projected ratio of caravailability of 0.3, which suggests 81 cars could need parking by residents but only 43 areavailable. Providing less parking than is demanded does not translate into less car ownership. Asthe report states ' If insufficient operational parking is provided some residents are likely to parkon-street in Totterdown where there is generally no restrictions on on-street parking.' 43 spacesare proposed which is only 15% of the maximum standard, a further 14 spaces are disabledspaces which will be used by disabled residents from 14 apartments. The remaining 29 standardparking spaces will therefore serve the remaining 230 apartments at a ratio of only 0.13 spacesper apartment.If the council supports this proposal they are actively encouraging more pressure tobe placed on the streets of Totterdown and Windmill Hill, this is wholly irresponsible andunacceptable. Plus the claim that the development would not have a significant impact on highwaysafety when St Lukes Road /York rd junction is extremely busy and has a major pedestriancrossing for city workers and school students.The proximity to Temple Meads Station will not negate car ownership, train and bus services inBristol do not provide sufficient transport options to make city living tolerable or practical.The development boasts of surrounding good cycle routes however the Bath Road is an accidentwaiting to happen as pedestrians and cyclists have to share the pavement outward bound.Cyclists into the city have to share the bus lane then move to the middle lane of traffic at BathBridge. The cycle path is non existent along York Road from Bath Bridge to Bedminster Bridge,Banana bridge has steps. The number of accidents occurring in the vicinity of the development islikely to increase as no material improvement is proposed for the development. Cyclists andpedestrians along St Lukes Rd have to negotiate the horrors of going under the railway, wherevisibility is restricted and muggings have occurred. This traffic and pedestrian nightmare should belooked at before subjecting more people to it.This is clearly the first phase of developing the entire site along both sides of Mead St andtherefore should no tbe considered in isolation. This development should not be approved and notbe allowed to set a precedent to develop the site with ever increasing high blocks. Starting withaffordable rental housing is clearly a ploy to reduce objections (affordable housing is notobjectionable ) before future applications are made for higher blocks of unaffordable housing.There is no mention that the 'affordable' rents are a condition for the life of the building therefore it

gives no security for provision of affordable housing in the area.For Councillors and Council Officers to support this development is beyond comprehension.. itneeds to be rejected and re submitted after proper consultation with all local users and the widerpopulation of Bristol who enjoy the elevated cityscape of the Totterdown escarpment, with a moreconsiderate application in scale, density and layout for the future residents.

There are many reasons why this shouldn't happen but the main one is the roadinfrastructure is not fit for purpose around temple meads AS IT IS NOW. Adding all these newhomes and cars on this site is completely ludicrous, let alone would destroy one of the best knownviews of Bristol! And in the clean air zone too! It doesn't make any sense.

I strongly object to this application for the following reasons:The impact on environment - The area is already overcrowded with an extortionate number ofdevelopments which will have a detrimental effect on what is being referred to as 'Clean Air' - theaddition of this construction will impact the environment both during the construction and thereafterbecause of the increase in the number of cars such a vast development will bring - this is an areathat suffers with gridlock on a daily basis (as a sufferer of asthma the impact on walking locally isalready felt)This is an area that does not have the infrastructure capability to cope with the impact of anotherlarge-scale development. It is naive to take the view that the residents will walk/cycle into the citycentre when no doubt the residents of this development will have visitors to their homes and willalso have ambitions to travel beyond the local area to other parts of Bristol and the UK in whichthey will need a vehicle beyond the provision of public transport - the number of parking spacesare not sufficient enough to cater for all residents and visitors without further impacting a denselypopulated area. Such a development will therefore put strain on an area that is struggling withresidents searching for parking.The local infrastructure does not have the capacity to cope with the impact on schools, NHSprovisions such as GP's Dentist etc - this is already a very highly populated areaSuch a sizeable construction will impact the historic Totterdown skyline which is an importantfeature of Bristol, the continual desire by developers to build high-rise to achieve the highestnumber of occupants and profits with a disregard to Bristol's history is already prevalent in thisarea

I am not objecting to the increase/need of additional properties, however at least keep them to theoriginal/historical local vernacular and look to build houses rather than a monstrous high-risebuilding.

Planning Application at York Road, ref. 21/06878/FI wish to object to this unsatisfactory planning application for a number of reasons:- The design is poor- The proposals are over-large and over-height- The proposed housing density is too high- Insufficient weight has been given to noise, air quality, community or environmental concerns

The bulky towers loom over the street and their surroundings in an unfortunate way. Almost allpublic realm has been given over to very tall buildings too close to the boundaries. The overallappearance is blocky and grim, and adding upper floors of dark grey metallic cladding has nothelped.

Single aspect flats face each other in vast walls only 18m apart leaving no privacy for theprospective residents, particularly as their balconies would be only 14m apart. Internally, the flatsare served by dark narrow corridors 30m long with a single window at one end and windowless liftshafts at the other.

The enormous height of the proposals would dominate the local landscape and obscure one of themost famous and iconic views in Bristol. Although submitted drawings do not indicate it, the upperfloors would look down upon nearby houses which are currently on top of a high escarpment. The

buildings would likewise blight the surrounding area and plots of land.

On the West side, the building has been shown 1.5m from the boundary with a façade filled withsingle aspect flats. Assuming the adjacent site were to be developed in a similar fashion, flatswould be touching distance apart across a man-made canyon. This is an unacceptable approach,blighting nearby landowners with gross overlooking problems, quite part from the associated firerisk due to the effective exposed areas on this side.

The design has completely failed to acknowledge the unique position adjacent to the river, a majorroad and pedestrian route as well as the nearby topography. It is bland and anonymous andappears to have been designed in isolation from the City altogether.

I understand that the City Council is developing a planning strategy for this area in conjunctionwith the Whitehouse Street area, which would hopefully establish some relevant guidelines inconsultation with local residents and businesses. Presumably the current and proposed MeadStreet schemes are designed to jump the gun on this should certainly be refused until a properstrategy for re-development is established.

The proposed density according to numbers submitted with the application would be over 500dwellings per hectare, not including the extensive commercial and servicing areas on lower floors.The Bristol Urban Living SPD - Making Successful Places at higher densities indicates that anupper limit of about 120 units/Ha would be appropriate in this 'Inner Urban Area' and makes nomention of commercial activities. According to BCS20, the Totterdown escarpment, one of thehighest density urban areas in Bristol contains 120 dpH. The proposal for more than 4x this wouldclearly be excessive with overcrowding and poor social outcomes resulting.

The Urban Living SPD also states that 'a poorly designed tall building can have a detrimentalimpact on the historic townscape of a city like Bristol' and ' the topography and skyline of a city likeBristol.' This proposal would do all of that if permitted to proceed.

The Internal Daylight Assessment indicates that many of the apartments will be miserably darkwith those on the lower levels having low light levels and almost no view of the sky, yet concludesthis would be acceptable. There is also an assumption that the remainder of the site would remainundeveloped, and relies on having surrounds which are single storey to achieve the results that itdoes, something that is mostly unlikely to remain, and which is referred to in the Design andAccess Statement.

The report on overshadowing nearby properties indicates that the new development wouldcompletely blight and overshadow the closest buildings which are within the BedminsterConservation Area, as well as blocking winter sunlight from existing flats across the river, yetagain concluding that this will be acceptable.

The Health Impact Assessment submitted with the application completely fails to identify an airpollution strategy or address problems beyond identifying that there may be one, despite the sitebeing directly on a busy road within the Air Quality Management Area. The size and bulk of thebuilding would contribute to trapping polluted air within close proximity, exposing pedestrians, roadusers and residents to unacceptable levels of pollutants.

The Wind Desktop Appraisal acknowledges that no wind tunnel or CFD study has been done. Itspeculatively uses data from a site 7km away and reduces predicted wind speeds by over 50%.This generic approach is unlikely to produce a correct result as it completely fails to recognise theunique topography of the area and the river valley. The conclusions that there would be littleadverse impact of wind funnelling on the surrounding roads, paved areas and residents arelaughable to anyone familiar with the locality.

The Tree Survey locates and classes all existing trees on the site and recommends that all exceptone should be kept, preferably with the surrounding green space. However the proposed schemeremoves every single one so the buildings can be larger. The proposed replacements are notlikely to fare well, sited in hard landscaping 2m away from the 11 storey cliff faces of the buildings.Claims in the Ecological Assessment that landscaping and biodiversity would increase byremoving all trace of existing trees, shrubs and greenery are not credible. No mention is made ofbats which are known by residents to inhabit the area and use the river and escarpment forfeeding and as a travel corridor. The proposals are very likely to interfere with current bat transitand roosting.

The Noise Assessment Report submitted examines little except the impact of existing noise,mostly traffic, on the new residents, and concludes that many of the flats should have theirwindows sealed shut, with artificial ventilation, though no proposals are made as to how this wouldbe done. This type of design is generally considered unacceptable by current standards. There isno consideration of the considerable impact the residents would have on each other, or othernearby residents, facing a wall of other flats a short distance away with open balconies likely togive rise to considerable disturbance. This type of design is deeply flawed and known to give riseto many complaints. The proposed adjacent seating and café areas are only likely to make mattersworse.

The Heritage Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment praises its own scheme yet somehowmanages to miss the evidence of its own carefully selected and presented photomontages - thatthe scheme represents an awful blot on the landscape viewed from almost any angle and lurksover the nearby city in a threatening manner, blocking or spoiling views of the famous escarpmentfrom almost all angles, and sitting uncomfortably beside the Listed structure of the foot bridge.

The Sustainability Statement claims great things in terms of energy saving, yet fails to mentionthat buildings above 6 storeys are known to become progressively less efficient and more energyintensive the higher they go while introducing long term maintenance problems.

The Transport documents and Design and Access Statements do little to address the parkingproblem thrown up by the development, other than stating that little parking would be required. 14disability standard spaces are allocated to flats leaving 29 spaces for the remaining 230 flats andcommercial spaces. This would hardly be considered adequate for visitors, never mind theresidents and staff. Expectations that they would not have motor vehicles are unrealistic and thereis no nearby on-street parking at all. The only proposed solution is for overflow parking on theTotterdown escarpment, which local residents will be able to identify as ridiculous due to the non-existence of available spaces.

Sadly, the Statement of Community Involvement is just that - little more than a statement. It quotespercentages of answers to leading questions designed to elicit apparently positive responses,while making little of any negative concerns expressed. This is not community consultation.

The Operational Waste Strategy is unsatisfactory, requiring tenants to take their segregated wasteup to 10 floors away and relying on building management to place all of the bins in collectionareas. The Strategy is also in direct conflict with the Landscape design as it shows the main binarea collection site exactly on the site of a large raised planter.

Conclusions of many of the documents submitted with the proposal amount to little more than theapplicant marking their own homework and have produced hopelessly optimistic outcomes basedon little evidence. The apparent mark of 10/10 is in reality closer to '2/10 - poor - needs to try muchharder'. One of the most disappointing aspects of the submission is that the freeholders of the siteare Bristol City Council. Every person in the City has a right to expect better.

The scheme as presented is so deeply flawed in all respects that planning permission should notbe granted under any circumstances. It would lead to poor health, social, visual , urban and civicproblems and would also be a fire hazard. It is clearly in breach of the Bristol Urban Living SPD aswell as BCS1, BCS2, BCS15, BCS20 and BCS21 and should be refused.

Hi, the little coloured houses on the hills around Bristol are iconic. They are depicted inmurals, paintings, screen prints, post cards.. to build a tall building that obscures it would be awful.

I'm not opposed to the development, just the HEIGHT of the proposed blocks. High rises are suchan eyesore and surely a thing of the past? Low rises are much nicer and more suitable to the area.

Where are all of the extra people going to park their cars? Where will their children go to school?Local schools are full and my friend who lives on the escarpment sends her child to school inAshton.

This (over)-development would ruin an iconic view of Bristol that is appreciated by bothresidents and the millions of visitors arriving at Temple meads station each year. The plans needto go back to the drawing board to be massively scaled back: sensitively designed 3-4 storiesmaximum residential buildings would be appropriate for this site. Please don't be so greedy.

I wish to object to this planning application and support the comments made by TRESA,the local community organisation.I am especially concerned about the proposed heights of the buildings. 6 floors would seem to bequite high enough both in terms of the impact on the surrounding area but also for the impact onthe people living in them. I am also concerned about the lack of facilities for the extra populationand impact on the existing ones of such a development. The roads nearby are all main/busy roadsfor children to use to get to the park or school. There are already huge pressures on local GPsurgeries, schools etc with the population as it is without it increasing by a large amount.

I wish to object to the above planning application for the following reasons:-The design appearance is poor and inconsistent with surrounding historic architecture and themore recent York Road /St. Luke's Road developments.These carefully incorporate a scale, height and materials appropriate to the feel and specialenvironmental features of the location.The proposed lay-out is too dense, too high and would establish an unwelcome precedent forblocking out defining views of Bristol from Totterdown and those of the localitie's iconictopographic street-scapes enjoyed from public spaces across the city.The application's excessive height would create overlooking and a loss of privacy on a large scaleacross both the local valley communities including York Road, Yeaman House, St. Luke's Roadand Totterdown.The scale and density of the application and associated large numbers of incoming people wouldbe detrimental to the environment. The junction situation already suffers from heavy trafficmovement and congestion. It is also a strategic pedestrian crossing point utilized by largenumbers of people including pupils from nearby St. Mary Redcliff school. Further impactassessment needs to be undertaken on the application's substantial new traffic generation withreference to air pollution, noise nuisance, road safety, emergency vehicle access, site access,parking, loading, turning.If unopposed the application would establish an unwelcome precedent marking the incrementalobliteration of the expansive city-wide views so valued by the communities of Totterdown andthose of the location's iconic topographic housing enjoyed from public spaces across the city. Thearrangement of Totterdown's escarpment housing is definitive of this South Bristol district,

contributing significantly towards the historic urban fabric and character of Bristol. The Totterdownskyline is a defining landmark for those arriving at Temple Meads station. This visual amenity mustbe preserved and not discarded in favour of the excessive height and relentless regularity of thisapplication.

I object to the planning application because the proposal is over dense with over 500 dwellings perhectare.Setting such a high and unrealistic density for this project has produced a solution which isevidently over tall and over bearing for the site and would be a blight on the development of theMead Street area as a whole .120 dwellings per hectare for this inner urban area would be a realistic figure as set out in BCCUrban Living SPD, a comprehensive document which should be used to measure the manyshortcomings of this application.

There's an opportunity here for Bristol City planning department to draw up a masterplan for thearea and demand a well designed, attractive midrise housing scheme to form a coherentdevelopment from St Lukes Road to the Wells Road.This site is better suited to a mid rise development which should engage with its urban and historiccontext . We see none of this with this proposal with its overbearing massing adjacent to theBedminster Conservation Area and tall blocks dominating the skyline and obscuring the iconicescarpment above the site.

This development of superdense housing with single aspect flats to minimum size standards withpoor natural lighting and potentially windswept cavernous external amenity spaces between thetwin towers, an arrangement discouraged in the Urban Living SPD , does not bode well for thehealth and wellbeing of the inhabitants.

The Urban Living SPD highlights the potential negative effects of poor quality accommodation athigher densities and yet the Health and Impact Assessment submitted for the design of thissuperdensity scheme is only a Rapid Mini desk top exercise - yet another box ticking exercise onthis submission which does not analyse the design objectively.

Housing development design errors of the past are well documented. This ill-consideredsuperdense design is a backward step in housing provision and likely to result in the slums of thefuture.

This scheme should be refused.

There are multiple aspects which been clearly overlooked/disregarded with regards tothis proposalFirstly, the height of the tower block will spoil an iconic view of Bristol. This is view is not simply anice to have, but is a cultural part of Bristol. Of all places to build a high rise, why would such aplace be chosen?There is another major development being planned nearby on east street, this will turn the areainto an industrial horror for years.There is not sufficient parking spaces planned which will lead into further increased congestion inthe nearby areas of totterdown (unless a RPZ is introduced! There is already commuter parkingtaking up limited space)There will be further strain on local amenities and GPs (where it is already extremely difficult togain access to)

The height of this development is out of proportion to the surrounding area. It willobscure the Totterdown view which gives character to Bristols landscape.I also believe the density of the development will cause further congestion around the alreadybusy Temple Meads area.

I would like to object to this planning application for a number of reasons.Firstly due to the traffic that will be generated by the new development.Secondly the design and appearance of the development and the loss of the iconic views of theTotterdown escarpment.Thirdly Road access onto roads that are already often gridlocked.Fourthly availability of places in local schools and GP surgeries.

This proposal is one of three high density, high rise developments in planning orunderway in the area, with the other two located next to and opposite totterdown bridge. Theimpact of these developments on the local area has not been felt yet, and it is reckless to continueto push the planning on each of them through in isolation. There is potential for a huge impact onthe transport network, the local community and local businesses which can be mitigated to anextent if planning were staggered to learn from each one. I strongly recommend delaying in orderto learn from each development.

While I recognise the need for more housing, the deployment of a high rise in this area willmassively, and negatively impact the views of totterdown, and from totterdown. These views areiconic and the proposed development (and variants of) has little visual merit to justify blockingthese views.The proposed density of properties and low parking provision will likely over burden the streetsaround totterdown and Victoria park as residents look to park their cars, as well as put significantpressure on the road network in the area.

This development proposal is too tall and should not be allowed to obscure the iconicview of the Totterdown escarpment.

Higher density housing can be achieved with lower-rise buildings and should be here. The areashould be mixed use and include houses as well as flats so that a proper varied community candevelop. There should also be provision for amenities including doctors, schools and communityfacilities to reduce pressure on those already in the area that are oversubscribed/overstretched.

The focus on active travel to and from the site is welcome but needs to be continued outside of thedevelopment to be successful (e.g. Bath Road, St John's Lane). Otherwise, vehicles will be parkedin neighbouring areas and motor traffic will be intolerable.

Of all the aggressive and shameless development proposals threatening Bedminsterand south Bristol, this one really takes the biscuit. The scale of high-rise towers on the oppositeside of the New Cut should not be taken as any meaningful precedent, rather, the scheme shouldtake account of the site's is low lying and low density nature, which allows the iconic townscapefeature of the Totterdown escarpment to be appreciated. The site is also just a few metres fromthe Bedminster Conservation Area, where the character is defined by late Georgian townscape ofthree-storey townhouses; as is Richmond Street immediately south. This townscape is not justvisible in convenient 'channelled views' as the supporting documents would suggest. Rather, itprovides a built backcloth that is of value to local character and one that is appreciated fromnumerous locations, including approaching the city by train. The proposals would serve to create abland, dominating and totally uncharacteristic corner rather than an inviting gateway into the city.The visual impact will destroy an iconic cityscape from numerous vantages and be totallyuncharacteristic. How can the final design of three huge blocks have come from any meaningfulreflection of local context or the area? To say, as the DAS does, that the scheme will be part of the'new emerging Bristol vernacular' is just patronising nonsense. With over 80% of theaccommodation providing 1 & 2 bedroom flats this will not be for the people of Bristol nor providethe types of homes the city really needs. A Brownfield site shouldn't be seen as a green light forvulture developers but as a genuine opportunity to provide good quality housing, lifetime homesand good design. Bristol should move away from its principles of development at all cost and stopputting housing numbers over quality placemaking.

I object fully due to the height of the buildings which will obstruct the iconic view of thecoloured housing in Totterdown. If the same building was proposed in Clifton there is no way thatthe view would be allowed to be obstructed in the same way.

I also object based on the density of housing, there are no school places or doctors surgery placesas it is.

Traffic is also an issue. Wells Road, York Road and St Luke's are already at a standstill for longperiods every day.

Classified: RMG – Public

week. A fleet of delivery vans is based at the site, but it also handles larger delivery lorries, with

operational duties including the unloading of mail from 7.5 tonne and 10 tonne lorries that are based off

site. Vehicle movements generally take place between the hours of 05:00 and 20:00 but they could

occur at any time throughout the day or night.

Residential Amenity The applicant and their consultant team have kindly consulted with Royal Mail prior to submission of the application. Royal Mail does not object to the proposed development, however Royal Mail has concerns regarding noise generated from its ongoing operations and the potential for associated complaints from new residents of the planned development.

Across its national estate, Royal Mail is concerned about noise complaints from residents who have moved into new developments adjoining their operational sites. These complaints largely result from the loading and unloading of mail, as well as vehicular movements to and from its sites in the early hours of the morning. In some cases, these complaints can result in environmental health sanctions being levied at Royal Mail, potentially leading to restrictions on the use of sites. This in turn could inadvertently result in Royal Mail breaching its statutory obligations. The ability therefore for Royal Mail to operate outside of the normal working day is critical to Royal Mail’s business.

Representation

It is therefore essential for Royal Mail to monitor and respond to any planning application that could detrimentally impact on the effective operation of any of Royal Mail’s operational sites and prejudice its ability to meet its statutory duty to collect and deliver letters six days a week to every address in the UK. Of key consideration to this application is paragraph 170 of the NPPF, which seeks to prevent new development from being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of noise pollution. The proposed development should also be in accordance with NPPF paragraph 182, which states that existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business could have a significant adverse effect on new development in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has completed. National PPG further states that the potential effect of a new residential development being located close to an existing business that gives rise to noise should be carefully considered. This is because existing noise levels from the business, even if intermittent, may be regarded as unacceptable by the new residents and subject to enforcement action. To help avoid such instances, it is made clear that appropriate mitigation should be considered, including optimising the sound insulation provided by the new development’s building envelope and designing the development to reduce the impact of noise from the local environment. It is recognised that the application is accompanied by a Noise Assessment Report (York Gate, December 2021). The Assessment rightly considers noise generated from the Royal Mail Bristol South East DO including noise associated from the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles. The Report concludes that specific mitigation measures including the appropriate design of façade elements, and a ventilation strategy are necessary in order to achieve suitable internal acoustic levels for future residents. Accordingly, Royal Mail request that the Local Planning Authority secure appropriate mitigation to safeguard residential amenity including those measures recommended in the applicants Noise Report. Construction

Classified: RMG – Public

The proposal comprises new build development which is located in very close proximity to the boundary of the DO. This is likely to create some operational issues for Royal Mail during the construction of the proposed development. It is therefore very important that the construction of the proposed development is carefully managed through an enforced Construction Management Plan, which ensures that there is no obstruction to the access and free movement of Royal Mail vehicles during the construction period. It is therefore respectfully requested that a pre-commencement condition is attached to any grant of planning permission requiring that a Construction Management Plan, including details of contractor car parking, is submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. We would request that Royal Mail are consulted with upon submission of the Construction Management Plan and provided the opportunity to comment prior to the application being determined. Conclusions Our representations set out Royal Mails concerns relating to the Mixed-Use redevelopment of 244 residential units and 655 sq.m of commercial floor space at the corner of York Road and St Lukes Road. These concerns relate to the impact on residential amenity of future occupants due to the existing noise generated by the DO. It is therefore requested that the Local Planning Authority carefully considers the local noise environment and the operation of the Royal Mail DO in assessing the application and that it secures appropriate mitigation to safeguard residential amenity including those measures recommended in the applicants Noise Report. We also request that a Construction Management Plan condition is attached to any grant of planning permission to ensure there will be no adverse impact on Royal Mail and their operations at the DO during the construction period. We would ask that Royal Mail, via Cushman & Wakefield, is made aware of any further information submitted by the applicant with adequate time provided for further review and comment ahead of any decision being made by the council. The measures and actions requested in this letter will protect the ability of Royal Mail to continue to effectively operate from the DO and meet their statutory Universal Service requirements. I trust that the above letter of representation is clear and comprehensive, however please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries you wish to discuss.

Yours faithfully

Isabelle Leekam Planning Consultant, Cushman and Wakefield

Building is too high and will be out of place with the surrounding area. Will be nothingbut an eyesore.

Inaccurate portrail of street view - Insufficient parking - Sets an unpleasant presidencefor building heights in the area.

The view across the site from the north west with the Totterdown Skyline in the background shownhigher than the flats will only be seen by seagulls. The reality is that from most view points theTotterdown skyline will be totally obliterated by the 11 stories of the new flats

Please reduce the height by at least 4 floors on the 11 storey blocks and 2 and 1 storeys from thelower blocks.

Reducing the number of storeys will reduce the number of flats - this will benefit the poor parkingprovision situation. Allowing one space per 5 flats is grossly insufficient. the average carownership per household is around 1. Where are the other 200 cars going to park? My daughterand son in law live nearby and their street is already regularly used for parking by Royal Mail staff.

Include a second floor of parking in the development.

Buildings of this height simply don't exist in this part of Bristol. The shadowing and density ofpopulation they create do not enhance the environment. This is a busy noisy traffic laden cornerwhere the quality of life of the new residents will be poor.Building so close to the main road is an undesirable trait.

This is an iconic landscape of Bristol. Its important to defend our communities andheritage and allow traditional to be part of all of us. We propose a review of the planningapplication as this threatens the very essence of living in Bristol - these urban spaces hold andpreserve history. They belong to the people who have lived here before and new commers whoare just getting to know the city.

The lack of consideration to local infrastructure is shocking. In an area where schoolsare already oversubscribed, that the developers have not even accounted for this is unacceptable.Moreover, I would like confirmation of the parking facilities which will be made available to theresidents of the horrendously large development. Totterdown already struggles with parkingissues, this will add to it. Furthermore, I would like to address the traffic issues. St. Lukes Crescentfrom York Rd to St John's Lane is already at capacity with rush hour traffic. As a cyclist, I oftenhave to queue in traffic in what is already a road not fit for purpose and now Bristol City Councilare not only not addressing the unsafe nature of this road, used by hundreds of children walking toschool every day, but considering an application which will see hundreds (at the least), adding tothe strain. I whole heartedly object to any development which puts the current residents at risk ofyet more heavy traffic which will make crossing from their homes to Victoria Park more difficult.

I cannot ignore the impact of the loss of one of the city's most iconic views. Bristol has and shouldalways be known for its colourful skyline. It sets it apart from so many other UK cities. Thisdevelopment will wipe out that view and turn Bristol into yet another generic UK city.

We are now in the midst of a huge apartment block crisis, one in which developers have built highrise city blocks from unsafe material with little to no regard of the safety or financial implications ofthe residents. We are trying to ensure that the right people are responsible for rectifying thewrongs which caused the Grenfell Tower disaster. This issue is still ongoing and as such, forBristol City Council to give planning permission for yet another high rise, overpopulated set ofapartments to go ahead, is, I believe, irresponsible.

I disagree whole heartedly with the proposals submitted!

This is just too huge. It seems poorly designed with little regard for the quality of life ofits residents. Packing people into blocks is not a good answer to the housing crisis. Developersneed to apply more thought to making places and follow through with building places to live - notjust to sleep.

"In a city such as Bristol, which is characterised in many places by its steeply slopinghillsides, it is important that the local topography of any site is recognised and respected in theformulation of a development proposal." RESPONDING TO LOCAL CHARACTER BRISTOLLOCAL PLAN POLICY ADVICE NOTE 15 - A DESIGN GUIDE - March 1998This is not any lesstrue in 2021. The Totterdown escarpment is one of the iconic views of Bristol, a selling point thatcan be seen from many locations across the city and it greets people arriving at Temple Meads. Itis used in Bristol and West Country related materials and advertising (e.g. recently Bristol CityFootball Club) because it is such a well known view.The proposed development on Mead Street istoo big, too high, too dense and will obstruct the view of the escarpment. Although submitteddrawings do not indicate it, the upper floors would look down upon nearby houses which arecurrently on top of a high escarpment. The buildings would likewise blight the surrounding areaand plots of land.The proposed buildings loom dominate the street and their surroundings in alooming way. Single aspect flats will face each other with only 18m between them, leaving noprivacy for the prospective residents.The design of the proposed development is boring, dark andanonymous; not in sympathy with the local or the city at large. It has no flair, no character, which isa massive missed opportunity in our city known for its creativity and strong sense of self.Residential spaces should embody this as well to enable future residents to develop a strongconnection with this wonderful city. The Bristol Urban Living SPD - Making Successful Places athigher densities indicates that an upper limit of about 120 units/Ha would be appropriate in this'Inner Urban Area' and makes no mention of commercial activities. According to BCS20, theTotterdown escarpment, one of the highest density urban areas in Bristol contains 120 dpH. Theproposal for more than 4x this would clearly be excessive with overcrowding and poor social

outcomes resulting. The Urban Living SPD also states that 'a poorly designed tall building canhave a detrimental impact on the historic townscape of a city like Bristol' and ' the topography andskyline of a city like Bristol.' This proposal would do all of that if permitted to proceed.I am also concerned about wind tunnel and air trapping issues between the proposed blocks,especially in view of Bath Bridge roundabout which is a major artery and through route and therailway. This part of the rail network carries all trains going to and coming in from the South West,they are diesel trains with air pollution to match. At night freight trains also run, and it is likely thiswill increase with the continued drive to take freight off roads. The Noise Assessment Reportsubmitted examines little except the impact of existing noise, mostly traffic, on the new residents,and concludes that many of the flats should have their windows sealed shut, with artificialventilation, though no proposals are made as to how this would be done. This type of design isgenerally considered unacceptable by current standards. There is no consideration of theconsiderable impact the residents would have on each other, or other nearby residents, facing awall of other flats a short distance away with open balconies likely to give rise to considerabledisturbance. This type of design is deeply flawed and known to give rise to many complaints.The consultation process has been a joke so far - the materials made available show thedevelopment from unrealistic angles and the questionnaire is full of generalised and leadingquestions, designed to get positive replies.With regard the planning application process,Totterdown residents were not included in the neighbour letter distribution lists. I sincerely hopethat the ongoing planning processes for this area and other nearby areas slated to be developed(e.g. Whitehouse street) will include all local residents.

We object to this proposal on the following grounds:

- Its design and density exceeds the City Council's own recommendations.- The tall buildings that bookend the development obscure and detract from the 'key views'* of theescarpment of Totterdown from across the city.- Recommendations in the appraisal* on spoiled views by tower blocks state 'Encourage theappropriate redevelopment that better responds to local character and resist development of over-scaled buildings that affect the context of heritage assets or significant landmarks through theplanning process'. Clearly that has been ignored here.- Its size and scale will dominate the adjacent existing housing in the Bedminster ConservationArea along York Road and in St Lukes Road.- There will be a significant increase in traffic.- There is not adequate parking.- Loss of privacy to people living on sections of Richmond Street, St Lukes Road and York Road.- Local services and amenities (schools, doctors, dentists etc) are already oversubscribed.- An increase in the level of noise from this development.

*as defined in Bedminster Conservation Area Character Appraisal adopted by the City Council on12 December 2013.

I think this would be an awful thing to happen and would ruin part of bristol iconic views.Having views and well know architecture even if it's just a row of terrace housing adds culture tobristol. Think of all the paintings and imagery of these houses that are an advert for bristol, it maybe a reason for tourism which helps the bristol economy.It would be outrageous and not thoughtful if it was to go ahead. I strongly disagree with thisplanning proposal.

I live in Brislington and walk daily down Bath Road to Temple Quarter for work and Ilove the quirkiness of the Bristol horizon. The proposed development as currently designed withtower blocks will jeopardize the iconic view of colourful houses, which is a symbol of Bristol andattracts tourism.

Perhaps the land could be repurposed for terraced houses offering much needed garden space tonew families and residents. It could even be new colourful houses! I appreciate the council has atarget to build X number of houses and blocks would meet the local government target, but thisposes at risk to the quality of living, it's not the community's target and would cost you an election.There are tower blocks currently being delivered in Bath Road in any case and we don't needmore eyesores.

I firmly believe that the proposal as it stands must be reconsidered to respect the views and fit theTotterdown environment.

I support the area being developed but this is too high and far too dense for the site andis totally out of sympathy with the surroundings. It could have been plonked down anywhere.

Height, massing and design is all out of proportion to the area.11 storeys is oppressive and will overwhelm the locality where nothing is higher than 3 storeys.

The proposed development represents over development of a restricted site with a height which isinappropriate in this location. Yes, redevelop the area but not at any cost. In line with governmentplanning policy, we should have "the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildingsand places".

Dear Sirs

Planning Application at York Road, ref. 21/06878/F

I wish to object to this unsatisfactory planning application for a number of reasons:

The proposals are over-large and over-height. The proposed housing density is too high. Thebulky towers loom over the street and their surroundings. The enormous height of the proposalswould dominate the local landscape and obscure one of the most famous and iconic views inBristol.

Although submitted drawings do not indicate it, the upperfloors would look down upon nearby houses which are currently on top of a high escarpment.

On the West side, the building has been shown 1.5m from the boundary with a facade filled withsingle aspect flats leaving no privacy for the prospective residents.

Assuming the adjacent site were to be developed in a similar fashion, flats would be touchingdistance apart across a man-made canyon. This is an unacceptable approach, blighting nearbylandowners with gross overlooking problems, quite part from the associated fire risk due to theeffective exposed areas on this side.

The design has completely failed to acknowledge the unique position adjacent to the river, a majorroad and pedestrian route as well as the nearby topography.

The proposed density according to numbers submitted with the application would be over 500dwellings per Hectare, not including the extensive commercial and servicing areas on lower floors.

The Bristol Urban Living SPD - Making Successful Places at higher densities indicates that anupper limit of about 120 units/Ha would be appropriate in this 'Inner Urban Area' and makes nomention of commercial activities.

According to BCS20, the Totterdown escarpment, one of thehighest density urban areas in Bristol contains 120 dpH. The proposal for more than 4x this wouldclearly be excessive with overcrowding and poor social outcomes resulting.

The Urban Living SPD also states that 'a poorly designed tall building can have a detrimentalimpact on the historic townscape of a city like Bristol' and ' the topography and skyline of a city likeBristol.' This proposal would do all of that if permitted to proceed.

The size and bulk of the building would contribute to trapping polluted air within close proximity,exposing pedestrians, roadusers and residents to unacceptable levels of pollutants.

In short the proposals, as submitted, would have a dehumanising effect because of their heightand density. Anyone familiar with the Redcliffe flats on the other side of the river will know that no-one spends time on the grass areas below these buildings because their height and overbearingnature creates an oppressive atmosphere to anyone below.

I would like to object to the proposals outlined in this application. Fundamentally Idisagree with high rise elements of this development. While housing is welcome and needed highrise is not the solution as the disadvantages highlighted by the example of Grenfell Tower stand asan extreme instance. The fact that certain 'landmark' tall buildings have been approved should notbe licence for a blanket approach which will destroy the character of the City in general and inparticular obliterate the iconic view of Totterdown which is a vista prized by locals and visitors tothe City alike. The proposals have merit but overall public space is limited and the work spaces donot replace those lost. Again, given the proposed population density, there is no attention given tothe availability of local services such as doctors etc. Individual developers do not seem to addressthis or to signpost to wider strategic proposals for the area. As a redevelopment of an existingowned plot of land, values should not be the same as a new purchase. The proposals seem drivenby profit maximisation rather than something in keeping with the local area. On this basis, I havesome objections to the proposals as outlined.

An excerpt from Bristol City Council's RESPONDING TO LOCAL CHARACTERBRISTOL LOCAL PLANPOLICY ADVICE NOTE 15 - A DESIGN GUIDE -March 1998In a city such as Bristol, which is characterised in many places by its steeply sloping hillsides, it isimportant that the local topography of any site is recognised and respected in the formulation of adevelopment proposal.

I wish to fully object based on three reasons:1. Visual Amenity: The applicants have carried out a 'HERITAGE, TOWNSCAPE AND VISUALIMPACT ASSESSMENT' which has selected some key views that they deem important, howeverit is evident from their report they have omitted the key view from the Langton Street Bridgelooking towards the colourful houses of the Totterdown escarpment. Needless to say these iconicviews will be completely destroyed with the proposed buildings.2. Layout and density: The height of the proposed buildings is far too large and is obviously drivenby the applicants desire to make the maximum profit from the site as opposed to a more sensibleapproach which is keeping with the heritage architecture of Bristol.3. Parking: The proposal only allows for 43 parking spaces for a total of 245 residential flats ofwhich 14 spaces are for disabled only parking leaving 29 parking places. While it is commendableto try to encourage less car use, the unfortunate truth is that all of the current non resident parkingareas such as Totterdown which are already at capacity will be the overflow for this development.Given the above I would argue that the proposed development is far too big for the site and shouldbe reduced in height and density, which would help address all three concerns.

Concerns for choosing to exceed 6-8 stories as part of our historic new cut/ riversidelocation.

Would ask that the iconic skyline of totterdowns colourful (and high density) current housing is notoverwhelmed.

As an area with high density existing housing to ensure all necessary community resources areaddressed. And that a greater proportion of nearby spaces become protected for further highdensity accommodation to offset the level of massing and prevent reselling of land to then havegreater density of plans submitted.

Mead street is current location for postal counter services and no easy alternative for most ofsouth bristol. Please ensure continued access and 30min free waiting time.

As exceeding the SDP to ensure the commercial space is maintained,

As vehicle parking will be limited to ensure provision for shareable resources and future proofing,please avoid selling parking spaces with 200 year leases! And maintain flexibility for future needs(mobility scooters, shareable bike, electric scooters, delivery options, car clubs etc)

To landscape the open public outdoor space to allow for community engagement, social contactand ownership of projects (veg growing, seating, eating together,)

Ensure waste managment and access needs will be resilient to city life, rodent proof, avoid smells,option for bulky waste collection/ Christmas trees etc.

For residents well-being to have access to to play facilities with in 5 min walk in the corner of thepark nearest the site preferable suitable pedestrian/ cycle route with safe toucan crossing.

For the standard of bike storage to be of high security standards allowing whole frame locking inbike shed.

Not a fan of building over 8 stories and with preferably 80% at less than 6 and some gabled/sawtoothed roof designs but this seams to be a fundamental point of disagreement with currentcouncil planning position.

I object to the development on the grounds of the proposed height of the building andthe resulting impact on the local environment. There are multiple-story buildings currently beingconstructed in the area which dwarf existing buildings and crowd the landscape. The currentplanning proposal adds an unwelcome expansion of high-rise developments. Not would this bedetrimental to the aesthetics of the area, the pressure on resources such as schools, GPsurgeries, and the already crowded road systems with the resultant pollution impacts on thequality of life for local residents. Clearly there is a need for more housing, and I support this, butsqueezing in small dwellings in high rise building after high rise building within a very limited spacewill have negative effects on the wellbeing of the local inhabitants.

I object to this development as it will greatly alter the aesthetics of the location. It willnegatively impact the beautiful and iconic Totterdown view in Bristol. I'm also concerned by theincreased traffic this will bring to York road, which is already very congested during rush hour. Theintersection on York road next to this site is already very busy and congested during the best oftimes. This increase in residents and visitors to this site will create even more congestion on theseintersections.

Primarily the roads in the area already struggle with the number of cars particularlyduring commuting hours. In particular the York Road junction by the proposed site is almost alwaygridlocked spring the morning.Second to this is the parking situation. Totterdown especially suffers from non centre residentsparking during the day. With prayer times at the mosque plus more people working from homethere is less and less parking for full time residents.Subjectively I believe that the colourful houses along the hill in Totterdown are an iconic view inBristol. They're one of the first things visitors see when leaving Temple Meads. To block that viewthat has been there since the 1800s with yet another aesthetically uninspiring block of flats isdissapointing to say the least.

Believe a development of this size would have detrimental effect on local services. If theapplication included a new doctors surgery and a school it would be more welcome. I also feel thehigh rise nature of part of this development dramatically affect one of Bristol's most iconic vistas ofPylle Hill, losing this as a visual amenity, a limit on height like that seen at Wapping Wharf wouldseem more appropriate. I believe this would also have a detrimental impact on road access andtraffic generation.

I strongly object to the size and scale of this proposed development. Although I supportthe need for new housing locally, there are numerous reasons why this particular area is not fit forthe amount of new housing proposed, reasons which the council should already be aware of: alack of local resources, air pollution exceeding legal limits, and not least the blocking of a locallandmark. This area already has a significant issues with overcrowding - there is not enoughparking, primary or secondary school places, and other essential resources for local people - localdoctors surgeries are already over-stretched and new NHS dentist places are simply not availablelocally. Levels of air pollution at the nearby three lamps junction are already at dangerous levels(exceeding legal limits) making this new proposed development ill advised and particularlydangerous for children. I assume the need in Bristol for new housing is however greatest forfamilies with children. What is the plan to address all of these issues before building hundredsmore flats? The view of Totterdown's coloured houses is an iconic feature of Bristol, and a localattraction which would be blocked by the size of the proposed development.

TRESA strongly objects to this application on the following grounds:CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATIONThe reference to public engagement, which includes discussion with TRESAcic, only lists positivecomments about redevelopment of the area and fails to acknowledge concerns, repeatedly raised,about the height of buildings.Neighbours in Richmond Road and Bellevue Terrace were not on the list of neighbour notificationsdespite the potential for the development to have a detrimental impact on their homes.SCALE AND MASSINGOf major concern is the impact of the height and form of development on views of the Totterdownescarpment. This is an iconic cityscape feature, and the applicant underplays the detrimentalimpact of their proposal.In response to the acknowledged need to protect views of the escarpment, the applicant states:"the development has a limited impact on views of the escarpment... given the fact that theescarpment is never viewed in its entirety but captured in glimpses from certain key points in thecity." This is simply untrue. The full panorama is visible from several points and this proposeddevelopment will be detrimental to one of South Bristol's most iconic views.The applicant's own illustrations show clearly that 6-storeys, with interest at roof level, would havethe potential to complement current views. TRESA strongly objects to anything higher than 6-storeys in this location.The applicant suggests: "When combined with the change in heights of the various blocks this willcreate an interesting silhouette set against the backdrop of the equally interesting TotterdownEscarpment. As this will be the principal elevation to York Road and St Lukes Road it is possible

that the scheme will act as a memorable waymarker in the streetscape." We would remind theapplicant that the 'memorable waymarker' in the streetscape is the Totterdown escarpment.The development is overbearing and the height is at odds with buildings on the other side of thejunction with St Lukes Road. Concerns raised by the City Design team that "the currentdevelopment envelope would have an overbearing effect upon existing 3-storey buildings acrossSt Luke's Road" have not been adequately addressed. The length of York Road, from St LukesRoad to Bedminster roundabout, comprises a terrace of 3-storey buildings, and there is now anopportunity to continue this to Bath Road. To suggest, as the applicant does, that there is'variation in heights and massing' is disingenuous. To justify their inappropriate proposal, theapplicant resorts to referring to Yoeman's House tower block, some distance away on the otherside of the Avon new cut.SINGLE ASPECT HOMESWe share the concerns of the City Design team about the excessive proportion of single aspecthomes (56%). We believe this to be evidence that the developer is prioritising profit over the well-being of those living in the proposed development.CHILD YIELDThe child yield calculator suggests 98 children aged 0-15 will live in the proposed development.Although Victoria Park is in close proximity, this does involve a potentially dangerous walk along aroad that is either congested during 'rush hour' or plagued by excessive speeds (repeatedlyacknowledged in police speed checks). Given the proposed apartments are designed to meet onlyminimal space requirements, we question whether the proposed development will provide goodquality homes for families, whether there is sufficient safe outdoor and public space, and whetherthere is adequate storage space for toys and equipment required by families with children.We are unclear if the applicant has made a mistake in the Design and Access statement whichstates: "We have used the Child Yield calculator provided in Bristol City Council's Urban LivingSPD...The tables show that 19 children under the age of 4 are expected to live in the newdevelopment." However, the Child Yield calculator actually estimates 50 children under the age of4 will live in the development. This needs to be checked.

Strongly object to any development above 6 storeys, as, above this height any newbuilding will obscure or spoil current iconic views.

Also not convinced enough provision has been proposed for the extra infrastructure and facilitiesrequired to cater for the increase in population of existing residential area.

Building too tall. Will obstruct views. Traffic is already a problem in this area. How muchwill this worsen with an additional >200 units? What additional road-planning, traffic measures,and public transport will be put in place to address this?

I wish to object to this planning application due to the proposed mass and density whichfar exceeds the local plan and supplementary guidance documents.

--Density--This proposal suggests 244 dwelling units across a site of 0.48 hectares. This has a density of488units per hectare.This location is in the "Inner urban area" and not the city centre (as defined in the local plan andurban living SPD). The target density for this area is 120 units / ha. This development is four timesover the target density.

--Massing--The prevailing height for this area is three to four storey development along York Road. Thisproposed development is totally out of keeping with this streetscape as the proposals are fourtimes greater than the prevailing height. This application even compares itself to the ugly towerblock over the river to look for some justification.

The SPD includes several guidance questions to evaluate a proposal. This one fails at question1.1 - "Has the scheme adopted an approach to urban intensification which is broadly consistentwith its setting?" - No, it has not.

--Damage to view --The Totterdown escarpment is a key vista for the city. it is iconic and distinctive. This proposal will

obscure that beautiful view.SPD Question 3.2 "Does the scheme make a positive contribution to the long range, mid rangeand immediate views to it?". no, this does not - It actively damages a valued part of the city views.

-- Single aspect units --Many of the proposed units appear to be single aspect. This does not make for nice places to live.Research into urban design frequently shows that dual aspect is required for nice dwellings. Alongwith some small sized units, these do not appear to be nice places to live.

-- Provision for children --A development of this size should offer more provision for children to play. Victoria park is asizeable area but the route to get there is definitely not suitable for younger children. it is bothhighly polluted and susceptible to dangerous driving.This proposal will make rabbit hutch apartments that are not pleasant for children.

--What is welcome --Some aspects of this scheme are commendable, including the buisnesses at ground level, thegreen walk ways between mead st and York Road, and the roof shape and materials appearsreasonable (not a single monolith such as Totterdown bridge, or at Castle Park). if this designcould be scaled down to a maximum of six storeys it would be welcomed.

1. Excessive height of proposed development - it should be limited to 6 storeys to avoidpermanent loss of views of Totterdown escarpment, which is widely visible from areas of the citylying to the north, east, and west of the site.

2. Excessive proportion (56%) are single-aspect homes. Two relevant issues here:-a) Daylight is of critical importance to the health and welfare of occupants of a dwelling,particularly children.

b) Single aspect homes may require higher reliance on electricity. In the USA, electric lighting inbuildings consumes some 15% of all electricity generated. How does this fit in with Bristol'scommitment to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030?

See this from the Journal of the American Institute of Architects:

'Daylighting has been touted for its many aesthetic and health benefits by designers andresearchers alike. Scientists at the Lighting Research Center (LRC), in Troy, N.Y., for example,have reported that daylit environments increase occupant productivity and comfort, and providethe mental and visual stimulation necessary to regulate human circadian rhythms.

Utilizing natural light can lead to substantial energy savings. Electric lighting in buildings consumesmore than 15 percent of all electricity generated in the United States, according to the U.S.Department of Energy and the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Spaces outfitted with

daylight-sensing controls can reduce the energy used for electric lighting by 20 percent to 60percent, according to the studies "Photoelectric Control: The Effectiveness of Techniques toReduce Switching Frequency" (2001) and "Summertime Performance of an Automated Lightingand Blinds Control System" (2002), both of which are published in the journal Lighting Research &Technology; and "The New York Times Headquarters Daylighting Mockup: MonitoredPerformance of the Daylighting Control System" (2006), which was published in the journal Energyand Buildings.'

I feel deep concern for the scale of buildings being proposed and how the influx of sucha vast number of people can be accommodated in such a small area. Endless researchdemonstrates that communities develop and thrive when lives are lived at a human scale andwhere people connect because they get to know each other as neighbours who cross paths on aregular basis. Stacking people on top of one another in vast blocks of steel, glass and concrete isa recipe for disaster, let alone the lack of infrastructure to adequately meet the needs of so manynew dwellings. All the local schools and doctor's surgeries are over-subscribed, the junction atMead Street is already a nightmare, the environmental impact will be collosal and surely we aremeant to be considering the well-being of the planet above all else? There are numerous localareas that need redeveloping and that are on a human scale - the old Peugot garage site acrossthe river to name but one - and there are so many empty offices that will never be filled in theTemple Way area that could be converted into flats yet somehow they are left empty. It seemsthere is corruption at the core of this proposal and the real needs of people and communities isbeing ignored. Listen to the outpouring of grief at the proposed destruction of this beautiful arc ofcolour that greets visitors to our historic city from so many viewpoints and start thinking of peoplebefore profit PLEASE!

I feel deep concern for the scale of buildings being proposed and how the influx of sucha vast number of people can be accommodated in such a small area. Endless researchdemonstrates that communities develop and thrive when lives are lived at a human scale andwhere people connect because they get to know each other as neighbours who cross paths on aregular basis. Stacking people on top of one another in vast blocks of steel, glass and concrete isa recipe for disaster, let alone the lack of infrastructure to adequately meet the needs of so manynew dwellings. All the local schools and doctor's surgeries are over-subscribed, the junction atMead Street is already a nightmare, the environmental impact will be collosal and surely we aremeant to be considering the well-being of the planet above all else? There are numerous localareas that need redeveloping and that are on a human scale - the old Peugot garage site acrossthe river to name but one - and there are so many empty offices that will never be filled in theTemple Way area that could be converted into flats yet somehow they are left empty. It seemsthere is corruption at the core of this proposal and the real needs of people and communities isbeing ignored. Listen to the outpouring of grief at the proposed destruction of this beautiful arc ofcolour that greets visitors to our historic city from so many viewpoints and start thinking of peoplebefore profit PLEASE!

Given the development illustrations, I'm very concerned that views of Bristol's iconicTotterdown Escarpment will be significantly obstructed by another bland, modern, high-riseresidential building. Surely more effort can be made to preserve one of the visual quirks that madeBristol such a unique city and a pleasant, desirable place to live?

I object to this proposed development because of its design and super density at over500 dwellings per hectare. This far exceeds the Bristol City Council's recommendations set out inUrban Living SPD of 120 dph for this urban setting. This over dense development on this particularsite has generated excessively tallblocks of buildings which not only obscure and detract from the iconic escarpment of Totterdownbut which are also entirely out of keeping with the size and scale of adjacent existing housing inthe Bedminster Conservation Area along York Road.

It is appalling that the view of Richmond Street is at risk due to this application. Theview is an iconic Bristolian image that is very commonly associated with the city. It would affect notonly residents but the wildlife in the embankment. The "community involvement" has not includeda consultation of the residents of of these streets and I believe there would be a strong sharedbelief that this development would be a great disappointment and a mistake.

This development appears to be tall enough that the iconic view of the Totterdownescarpment and the coloured houses on top of it will be obscured. This is a conservation issue asthis view is part of the culture of the city and is an iconic cityscape feature.Therefore the development should be low enough not to obscure this view.

As a resident of Totterdown, I am concerned that the height of these blocks will destroywas is an iconic image of Bristol - the escarpment in Totterdown. Though it would bring new andwell needed shops in to the area, there has been no provision for services (education, health) andthe height of the buildings are not inkeeping with the general surroundings.

The proposed development is for over-dense housing in very tall blocks of buildings .Developments like this are not welcome as they are completely out of keeping in an area ofindividual housing . In addition the height of the buildings will obscure and detract from the iconicview of the escarpment of Totterdown, for which Bristol is well known. There is also no provisionfor extra public health and emergency services which such dense housing will necessitate. It willalso bring much extra traffic and pollution to an area which has poor public transport provision.

Although I am not against the sensitive development of this area I strongly object to theproposal in its current form. The height of the high rises block an iconic view of Bristol, theTotterdown escarpment. This view towards Totterdown should be kept, in full from all vantagepoints, at all costs and no plans that block any part of it should be considered. Bristol is renownedfor it's colourful communities and Totterdown's escarpment is a wonderful first view of Bristol asyou arrive at Temple Meads.

The current proposal feels very much led by profit, rather than considering the needs of peoplewho will move into the development.

The development will also have a huge impact on traffic in an already congested area, as well asbeing a huge strain on other existing amenities such as schooling and health services.

Height of the development and its impact on views both of the totterdown escarpmentand also from Totterdown toward st Mary Redcliffe and Bristol temple meads. Buildings aresignificantly taller than existing adjacent housing and houses on Totterdown hill and the height andposition hasn't been considered in conjunction with other developments proposed on the otherside of Mead street. Proposed parking space allocation (40 spaces for 244 dwellings) appears lowand is likely to have knock on impacts on surrounding areas.

The scale of the tallest building in the development is at odds with both the others withinit, and the surrounding built environment.Not only will it obscure the venue of the iconic totterdown houses behind it, but there is simply noreason for such a large high-rise to be built. It is profiteering, pure and simple. I strongly object tothis planning proposal.

I am concerned about the implications that this application could have for traffic andparking in the wider area, specifically Totterdown.1. Traffic - The site of the application is bordered on the north side by the New Cut and on thesouth side by the railway tracks and then the Totterdown Escarpment. It would be difficult, if notimpossible, to build access roads leading directly to the development from either a southerly ornortherly direction. This means that the site would need to be accessed directly from York Road orfrom St. Lukes Road.a) York Road is bordered at either end by busy Roundabouts on the Bath Road and East StreetRespectively. Any traffic coming from the North, South or West would need to get onto York Rd.b) St.Lukes Rd would give access from the South, but passes under a railway bridge, which, inpractical terms only permits on-way traffic.I think that by putting that many residents in that spot, many of whom will inevitably have one ormore cars in their household, would cause serious traffic issues on the access roads, specificallybacking up to the Bath Road and also Coronation Road. You may argue that these householdscould commute to work on foot, if they work in the City Centre, but that is a big assumption, anddoes not account for their use of cars for other journeys, e.g. school or shopping runs.You could also argue that it would be possible to limit the attractiveness of the site to car-owninghouseholds by providing insufficient parking space for all the residents; this seems to be a trend inrecent developments. This would lead, I believe, to the next problem.b) Parking. I live in Totterdown, but as a Landlord, I own 2 properties in the city (addresses can beprovided), that are apartments in new developments. In both cases, insufficient parking wasprovided for all residents. This has created problems within the developments themselves with

"rogue" parking, leading to disputes among the residents, which have been reported to me by thetenants, and also increased parking in the surrounding roads, which have again caused conflictwith the residents of those roads. This type of parking may well be exacerbated, ironically, by thefact that the residents of such a development do not commute to work: they can leave their carsparked in the local area for days at a time. The street where I live, Bellevue Terrace, does nothave an RPZ. I am fortunate in that I have a private parking space, nevertheless, the narrowstreets adjoining mine are fully parked during normal working hours, suggesting that the areamight be an unofficial park-and-ride for Temple Meads Station and the City Centre. Were there asignificant population inflow into the area, not just the Bart Spices site, but the as-yet-not-submitted Mead Street application, which I understand is another 900 homes, parking in theTotterdown area, if unregulated, could become a significant problem.In conclusion, I do not believe the site has the supporting infrastructure to cater for the prospectiveresidents, and also I do not believe that it can be provided, due to the physical barriers to accessthat cannot be overcome. This, I believe, would be a problem not only for the prospectiveresidents, but also for the residents of the immediately surrounding areas, who will have tocontend with a much larger volume of traffic and parking in an already-congested neighbourhood.Two other related points I'd like to add1. If your answer to discouraging traffic around the development were to be to impose aULEZ/Congestion Zone, this could just mean backing up the traffic and parking problems onto theWells Road.2. One way you could partially mitigate the problems would be to restructure the Three Lampsjunction, making it possible to turn right onto the Bath Road form the Wells Road, thereby notforcing traffic down to Temple Meads, that doesn't want go there. As an addition, thoughpresumably very expensive, build a flyover from the 3 Lamps directly into Temple Gate.

I completely object to this proposal.

It is ill-considered, detrimental to the area and to the character of Bristol, and will place yet anotherugly tower block in place of what could be a useful low-level development.

Read the comments - no-one wants these here.

Whilst I am not against change, and housing is needed, I feel that so much of old Bristolis under threat of disappearing if not in reality then being hidden and not enjoyed anymore. Weshould be preserving what makes our beautiful quirky city stand out. Bristol is a unique place, builton hills. It's diversity should be recognised and celebrated, not hidden behind such buildings.Maybe a plan could be submitted with fewer stories, so that these lovely views of Totterdowncould be preserved.

Objecting to this isn't nimby backward-looking 'ooh it's a nice view' thoughts.

It's because Bristol is special because of the relative lack of high-rise. I know the mayor isobsessed with it, but it is not the answer to create big walls within our city that block your view tothe countryside and make you feel claustrophobic and hemmed-in. We know how important thisfeeling of being able to breathe in these covid times is. We cannot leave our houses to see thegreen and the space but we can see it, and that is so important. I had a bird of prey in my gardenthe other day; this won't happen if we become too built-up and push nature away.

Similarly, the new places we build need space and gardens and light. We need to change ourfocus from cramming as many people in as possible, to creating communities and places thatblend with the city. I doubt you will listen, and those of you reading this probably live in the countryanyway.

If you make the city too stressful and enclosed, people won't come here/stay here. People canwork anywhere these days. They stay for the culture and the community. If you don't foster thosethings, and instead go for the money, you will be found out, a the same time ruining a special city.

My heart lifts when I come in by train to Bristol and see that beautiful row of paintedhouses, and my heart sinks at the sight of all the high rise going up in Bristol. I am all for peoplehaving affordable housing but see very little evidence of this in this initiative to build high.

It would be awful to lose one of the most iconic views in Bristol

Yet another huge, high density residential development in South Bristol. With limitedaccess to the north side of the river, traffic jams are already an issue. With all of the proposed andsigned off tower blocks this will only exacerbate the problem. The iconic views of Totterdown arebeing painted over with ugly buildings. The Bristol planning office seem hell-bent on changing theskyline of South Bristol for the worse.

The existing buildings that face the city on the escarpment above the proposed building site areiconic and one of the classic Bristol views.Bristol is an important city culturally and aesthetically in the South West and any changes in thelook of the area in Totterdown need to be carefully thought out. The flats that were built nearby onSt. Luke's Road have been done tastefully and complement the existing housing. This is not thecase with the proposal for high-rise, over-crowded flats where Bart Spices used to be.The iconic Totterdown view would be obliterated and the current aspect destroyed.It also seems that the flats would mean people living cheek by jowl with not enough thought paidto the main roads on both sides of the river at that point and the pollution now generated by trafficon those roads. This would impact any residents. There is a well-known canyon effect in the areawhich funnels any polluted air along the river and the valley at that point. This effect also has agreat impact on noise and would undoubtedly create an un-wanted noise nuisance for the currentand any new residents in the area.The fact that the City Council did not see fit to ask the opinion of those who would be affected bythis proposal is an indictment upon them. Surely this would normally be the correct procedure?The Green Party did a house-to-house leaflet delivery and spoke to residents recently, which wasof benefit.People need housing but this is not the way to do it. There are many skilled urban developmentcompanies and architects who could be consulted alongside current residents of the area in orderto arrive at a suitable plan that maintains the unique Totterdown vista whilst providing housing for

those that need it. In saying that, it is not clear that this housing is for people in need and not just amoney-making enterprise for some....?I object in the strongest terms to the current proposal.

Helen Roberts

I have been a Totterdown resident for more than twenty-five years. I am a member ofTRESA and I fully support the view that while it is acceptable to develop this piece of land, anydevelopment in excess of six storeys will impact negatively on Totterdown's iconic skyline.I object strongly to this application in it's current form.

Homes and housing are important and required in Bristol. The scale of redevelopmentneeds to be sustainable and in harmony with the surrounding environment at least, or animprovement of the surroundings. This application and another one about to follow are not up tothe required environmental planning standards it seems to me mainly due to the obstruction due totheir height. I therefore object to this application as it stands.

I am writing in objection to the proposals for mead street on the following grounds

1. Ruin iconic view, that is a bristol landmark and is of such importance it should be listed2. High rise, high density housing increases risk of crime, and this was studied overwhelmingly inthe past. It can create pockets and areas of social deprivation3. The area does not have the infastructure, Doctors, Schools, Public transport. People struggle toget a GP appointment, and schools are already oversubscribed4. Too many dwellings and no parking this would mean that people would park in local areas.5. Not in keeping with historic buildings in the area.

I think it would be a terrible thing if this proposal was allowed at its current scale, which would hidethe view of the colourful houses in totterdown. This is a Bristol icon, it should really be listed. It isthe first thing that people see when coming into the city via train. Its vista is clearly seen frommany parts of the city, it is a place that says 'home' to a lot of people who live here. This viewshould never be covered by high rise buildings. It is too important to the city of Bristol.

I think that this vista and viewpoint, is so important to our city, that it needs to be preserved. Newhousing, needs to be reduced in scale, so that the iconic bristol houses are retained as aviewpoint.

Having looked at the proposed buildings and talked to the architects I have to object tosome of the plans put forward.The height of these flats and others that have been proposed will completely remove views fromthe city and Temple Meads station of the iconic Totterdown escarpment which has been there forover 150 years.There will be a certain loss of privacy to the houses on Richmond Street from the upper floors.Such dense housing will need amenities that do not exist at present. The local schools anddoctors surgeries are already over subscribed. St Mary Redcliffe and Temple secondary doesn'ttake most of the local children as it is.Where are all these people going to park their cars? I understand there will be 40 spaces for 244flats.Are there going to be adequate cycle routes if you don't want people to drive? For instancecreating a cycle path across the yellow bridge,.I imagine with all these new homes there will be a lot more noise generated, especially if there areplans for community facilities.I think if they were low rise up to 5 stories with lots of green space it would be much preferable tothe 12 stories that are planned.

Infrastructure not fit for supporting extra traffic and parking spaces. Traffic is alreadyhorrendous around temple meads and we cannot fit any more in especially after the clean air zonecomes into effect. And the totterdown viesta is one of the most recognised view of Bristol!

Too intrusive, too high, not appropriate in the area, obstructing views from neighbouringhousing

More hideous tower blocks that are destroying views in our city.

How can you build high rise flats obscuring the beauty of Totterdown. (An area that hasalready been destroyed in the past by poor planning and unsuccessful schemes!).

Please protect the views of lovely Totterdown from both Temple Meads and Redcliff. Ido not object to the plans of housing full stop but this could be done with medium riseaccommodation which does not block views.

The traffic trying to leave Totterdown on to the roundabout and along York Road will beappalling. It's already bad in the morning. Air quality will decrease because of cars idling in trafficjams. The iconic view of houses will be lost.

Whilst increasing the amount of residential properties is essential, the building of theseflats pose a significant risk to a famous Bristol landmark. The colourful totterdown houses, visiblefrom the station should not be hidden by new development. This is why I am objecting to thisproposal.

This development is truly truly unbelievable how can you actually even consider buildingsomething this high and blocking out beautiful Victorian buildings that epitomise what Totterdownis all about. Why would you build them so high?Why does this development have to be so large???Surely history counts for something!!

I am horrified by this building application for York road to build multi storeyaccommodation blocks and I object for numerous reasons including that this historic view of theTotterdown houses that are visible from many points in the city, which has been used as an iconicimage synonymous with Bristol will no longer be visible! The famous row of Totterdown housesare used as a symbol of Bristol's colourful culture is seen on clothing, art prints and as symbols forall manner of businesses along with Bristol City Council. To loose this iconic view to build yet morehalf empty luxury flats would be a travesty.I also object to the application because of traffic congestion which is already horrendous betweenthe wells road and temple meads without an enormous development causing obstruction andmore gridlock in the area, increasing pollution, not to mention construction noise.I further object on the grounds that the area where the development is proposed is a thoroughfarefor wild animals such as badgers, foxes,frogs, newts, hedgehogs, birds snd insects.. I live onVernon street which has a green space that backs onto the undeveloped grassy and brackenbanks provide much needed safety for these animals between the river, roads and railway lines.Surely environmentally speaking with a changing climate and nature being pushed to its limit, anypicket of wild land that helps our wildlife should be grounds enough to vote against such adevelopment.I also object on the grounds that there has been enormous building developments in Totterdownon the Bath road near where the Wells road joins it ongoing with more proposals for furtherbuilding developments in the area.I didn't move to a Totterdown to be surrounded by multi storey flats and if this proposal issuccessful there'll be three huge developments in a ridiculously small radius. I also want to object

on the grounds that the development would block out the vistas currently enjoyed by Totterdownresidents for decades. The shadow from such a monstrosity would also block out light and directsunlight to many residents.Another reason I must object would be the loss of the very busy and much relied on petrol stationon York road. This would mean that the closest petrol station for Totterdown residents would byAsda in Bedminster or Sainsbury's near Sandy park road. I dread to think about the impact thiswould have not only on congestion but ecologically speaking with residents having to drive furtherafield to get petrol.As a Totterdown resident of twelve years I implore the council to not green light such a disasterousdevelopment which will destroy one of the most recognisable and iconic symbols of Bristol.

The building obstruct a welcoming veiw of totterdown that has been seen by people forgenerations. This would impact the cultural identity of the area negatively to say the least. It alsocould set a precedent which could lead to developers building in an unsympathetic way to localareas landmarks and detract from the rich and obscure beauty that bristol has.

I grew up in the area and would see that veiw on a daily basis, it always made me smile and feelpositive, I think it would be a tremendous shame to take that away needlessly from people.

Appalling design that totally dominates the area and skyline. More suitable for theMoscow suburbs. What are people trying to turn Bristol into? Terrible decisions on Castle Parkand now this monstrosity.Should be flatly rejected in favour of something more low rise. Bristol is losing all its character andbeing some awful mix of buildings with no architectural appeal or merit. If this goes through it willjust add to the the long list of terrible decisions by the planning department and shame on you inthat case.

This build will obscure the view of the coloured Totterdown house which are iconic toBristol.

Hello,

I am hugely concerned about this planning application.

You are proposing to put a very large number of flats into an already densely populated area.

We live in the local area. I drop my son at 7.30am in the morning at Mama Bears Nursery on theWells Road. It takes me at least 10 minutes to drive from their to the Three Lamps Junctions - aroute which can be walked in 4 minutes. Hopefully this gives you a sense of how bad the trafficproblem is without the additional new flats. Even if 50% of the flats have cars it will hugely impacton the city's pollution and traffic issue.

Also where will the cars park? Therefore they will have to park on Totterdown's already crowdedroads.

The proposed density according to numbers submitted with the application would be over 500dwellings per Hectare, not including the extensive commercial and servicing areas on lower floors.There are not currently enough resources in the area - you struggle to get a doctors appointment,not enough spaces at local schools - this problem will only get worse.

It is clearly in breach of the Bristol Urban Living SPD as well as BCS1, BCS2, BCS15, BCS20 andBCS21 and should be refused.

thank you

ShelleyComing out of the train station and looking up at the Totterdown skyline is one of Bristol's iconicviews - if you are looking at sustaining tourism then you are going to be ruining this iconic view.This wouldn't even be a discussion if this was in Cliftonwoods - you would not consider blockingthose houses - yet South Bristol is constantly overlooked by the council.

For people who live on the escarpment - a 21 storey building will be looking directly into theirbedrooms therefore encroaching on privacy.

There several new developments being looked at - potentially four in the area, the one where thePeugeot garage was and one by Temple meads. In total an additional 2000 flats. Who is looking atthis centrally and being joined up in their thinking.

I wish to object to this application. The design is poor and not in keeping with the area.

The view of the row of houses (Richmond street) is an iconic city site - it has inspired manyartworks over the decades, many pictures of Bristol - and even the most recent 'away kit' of BristolCity football team. To destroy this view is not something that should be considered. This should bea listed site - or rather the view towards the colourful houses on the skyline from Temple Meadsand the city (from many vantage points) should be. To interrupt such an iconic view is detrimentaland very poor planning. It is significant that when the skyline of houses was extended with newhouses in Bellevue Terrace in 2014, the design complemented the existing row by echoing thestyle of the existing houses very closely indeed.

Tall towers in close proximity to each other create wind tunnels and contribute to poor air quality -you need only walk or cycle through some of the new Temple Quay developments to witness thiseffect. Here you can also see the effect of small, 'green' spaces placed between over-highbuildings. They are poorly used, create no sense of community, provide no sanctuary for wildlife orfor humans. In the 'Zone' in nearby BS2 for example, benches remain un-sat upon and table-tennis tables unused. This plan would create worse problems as buildings are much higher,blocking the sun and the views. Most public space in this proposal is filled with very tall buildingsvery close to the boundaries.

Some of the drawings submitted are very misleading. There is little point in a picture which showsthe site from a drone's perspective which undermines our understanding. We need to understand

the human views people will have from existing houses or notable city vantage points such asTemple Meads.

It is unbelievable that some nearby residents - for example residents of Richmond street andBellevue Terrace - have not been included in consultation. The 'statement of communityinvolvement' has not actually... involved the community. Hmm.

There is an abundance of wildlife in the area - especially along the railway embankment. Owls,bats, badgers, sparrow hawks, foxes - even deer have been spotted. Hugely dense housing wouldcertainly affect this. Has an impact study been completed to understand what the developmentwould do to local wildlife? The plans recommend destroying every single tree for example. Manyare sizeable and cannot easily be replaced with trees planted amongst tall buildings. 'City treesare like street kids - isolated and struggling against the odds without strong roots' says PeterWohllenben, author of the best-selling and hugely influential 'The Hidden Life of Trees'.

Is the design part of any wider development strategy? It would be good to see some guidelinesaround this. The council's 'Bristol Urban Living SPD - Making Successful Places at higherdensities' document indicates that a maximum of about 120 living units per hectare is appropriatefor an 'Inner Urban Area'. This proposal would result in is more than 4 times that maximum.

As it stands, the scheme looks awful, destroys iconic views, decimates wildlife, impacts on airquality - and would provide very poor quality living.

In general I support the proposal to provide affordable housing on this site. However, Iobject to the building heights. These have a negative impact on the skyline - the view of theTotterdown escarpment. These tall buildings do not create human scale neighbourhoods.

The height of the buildings means that there will be an overlooking and loss of privacy for peopleliving opposite on st Lukes Road and also into properties on the Totterdown escarpment

In keeping with the One City strategy why is the energy efficiency standard for the build notpassive house?

The volume of new homes with this and other local developments will require significant additionalprovision of schools, GPs, public transport. This does not appear to be being addressed?

Dear Sirs Planning Application at York Road, ref. 21/06878/FI wish to object to this unsatisfactory planning application for a number of reasons:The proposals are over-large and over-heightThe proposed housing density is too highThe design is poorInsufficient weight has been given to noise, air quality, community or environmental concerns,traffic flow, parking, social services provision.

The towers are bulky, taking up almost the total footprint of the land, on the West façade of singleaspect flats being only 1.5m from the boundary. Assuming adjacent plots are developed in thesame manner, these flats would be within 3m of other flats giving no privacy, across a man madecanyon. In other areas single aspect flats are only 18m apart -giving little more privacy. This isunacceptable - not giving due attention to the mental health of prospective tenants, not to mentionthe fire risk and gross overlooking issues for nearby landowners.

The enormous height of the proposed developments means the upper floors will overlook nearbyhomes which are currently on top of a high escarpment. The planning proposal has not taken intoaccount its position along the river and proximity to one of the most iconic views in Bristol. TheHeritage Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment praises its own scheme yet somehowmanages to miss the evidence of its own carefully selected and presented photomontages - thatthe scheme represents an awful blot on the landscape viewed from almost any angle and lurksover the nearby city in an overbearing manner, blocking or spoiling views of the famous

escarpment from almost all angles.

The Bristol Urban Living SPD also states that 'a poorly designed tall building can have adetrimental impact on the historic townscape of a city like Bristol' and ' the topography and skylineof a city like Bristol.' This proposal would do all of that if permitted to proceed.

The design of the buildings is dull, blocky and without any inspiration and will not add in any wayto the architectural landscape of the area. This proposal should be tied into wider redevelopmentplans for the Whitehouse Street area so the new development area has a more distinctiveplanning strategy, with relevant consultation of all local residents and businesses. The presentproposal seems like build high, build boring without any sense of integration into the long-termdevelopment for the area.

The planning proposal is excessively dense. Which may represent maximum developers profit, butnot a sustainable long term approach.The proposed density according to numbers submitted withthe application would be over 500 dwellings per Hectare, not including the extensive commercialand servicing areas on lower floors. The Bristol Urban Living SPD - Making Successful Places athigher densities indicates that an upper limit of about 120 units/Ha would be appropriate in this'Inner Urban Area' and makes no mention of commercial activities. According to BCS20, theTotterdown escarpment, one of the highest density urban areas in Bristol contains 120 dpH. Theproposal for more than 4x this would clearly be excessive with overcrowding and poor socialoutcomes resulting.

This density of housing, would also present unsustainable pressures on local medical services aswell as education in local schools - which are already heavily over-subscribed. Victoria Park is anessential greenspace for all local residents and it is key that extra greenspace should be createdalongside the new development, rather than just expect the Park to get ever busier. However withthe buildings taking up maximum footprints, and the removal of the all existing trees, nogreenspace creation has been seriously considered.

The council should reject the density of housing also along grounds of additional parking pressure.Furthermore the extra traffic flow which would result would create even more jams within theexisting congested junctions where traffic already backs up along St Luke's Road often all the wayto St Johns Lane, and Bath Road - if the Mead road exit were to be created.The extra traffic would also add to air pollution.

The Health Impact Assessment submitted with the application completely fails to identify an airpollution strategy or address problems beyond identifying that there may be one, despite the sitebeing directly on a busy road within the Air Quality Management Area. The size and bulk of thebuilding would contribute to trapping polluted air within close proximity, exposing pedestrians, roadusers and residents to unacceptable levels of pollutants.

The Wind Desktop Appraisal acknowledges that no wind tunnel or CFD study has been done. Itspeculatively uses data from a site 7km away and reduces predicted wind speeds by over 50%.This generic approach is unlikely to produce a correct result as it completely fails to recognise theunique topography of the area and the river valley. The conclusions that there would be littleadverse impact of wind funnelling on the surrounding roads, paved areas and residents arelaughable to anyone familiar with the locality.

The Tree Survey locates and classes all existing trees on the site and recommends that all exceptone should be kept, preferably with the surrounding green space. However the proposed schemeremoves every single one so the buildings can be larger. The proposed replacements are notlikely to fare well, sited in hard landscaping 2m away from the 11 storey cliff faces of the buildings.Claims in the Ecological Assessment that landscaping and biodiversity would increase byremoving all trace of existing trees, shrubs and greenery are not credible. No mention is made ofbats which are known by residents to inhabit the area and use the river and escarpment forfeeding and as a travel corridor. The proposals are very likely to interfere with current bat transitand roosting.

The Noise Assessment Report submitted examines little except the impact of existing noise,mostly traffic, on the new residents, and concludes that many of the flats should have theirwindows sealed shut, with artificial ventilation, though no proposals are made as to how this wouldbe done. This type of design is generally considered unacceptable by current standards. There isno consideration of the considerable impact the residents would have on each other, or othernearby residents, facing a wall of other flats a short distance away with open balconies likely togive rise to considerable disturbance. This type of design is deeply flawed and known to give riseto many complaints. The proposed adjacent seating and café areas are only likely to make mattersworse.

Sadly, the Statement of Community Involvement is just that - little more than a statement. It quotespercentages of answers to leading questions designed to elicit apparently positive responses,while making little of any negative concerns expressed. This is not community consultation.Conclusions of many of the documents submitted with the proposal amount to little more than theapplicant marking their own homework and have produced hopelessly optimistic outcomes basedon little evidence. The apparent mark of 10/10 is in reality closer to '2/10 - poor - needs to try muchharder'.

The scheme as presented would therefore lead to poor health, social, visual , urban and civicproblems and would also be a fire hazard. It is clearly in breach of the Bristol Urban Living SPD aswell as BCS1, BCS2, BCS15, BCS20 and BCS21 and should be refused.

The 11 storey height of part of the development is too high for the location. Blockingviews to a long held view of Totterdown, part of the cultural fabric of Bristol. Also concerns overthe lack of amenity and the Consideration of the other 2 large planned developments, next to thisand opposite in the old car garage site. Services should be provided.

As a local resident I would like to strongly object to this application. The view of theTotterdown escarpment would be severely impacted from this development and the local areawould be negatively effected.

This development would seriously impact the property prices in the area as the view from theescarpment area (Pyle Hill, Bellevue island, Richmond Street etc) would be blocked and the viewto this area from the city - the iconic coloured houses looks like it would be completely obscured.

The local area and its infrastructure, schools, buses, shops etc are not set up for a development ofthis magnitude and the volume of cars and people it would be bring into the area is not sensible.

Also, the size of the development and associated demolition works would mean a prolongedperiod of noise, dust and general inconvenience for all local residents.

I strongly object to this development.

I object to this project on the grounds of overly intensive development. An 8 storybuilding here is intrusive and overbearing, and blocks views across the city.

I live in Totterdown & there's a lot of moaning about the view being lost. Tge view of amotorbike dealership & a factory. Id rather see places for people to live, some more trees (propertrees not architect trees) & a cycle route. Crack on.

There's so much about this that is good in principal - mixed use, low car, 100%affordable and 15 minute neighbourhood theory but it's tempting to think those elements are beingtrumpeted to soften the blow of the much bigger development planned around it. Plus everyonethinks it's too high and they're right.

I fully support the redevelopment of this site from commercial to back to residential and mixed use.I'd like to see a much bigger commitment to mixed use, a real indication of learning from howplaces have done it successfully in real life and not just box ticking with the bog standard glassfronted ground floor units that fail to create the sense of community and place that we'd all like tosee. A Sainsbury's Local and a Topps Tiles is not a good look. How are the developer's planningto create and nurture this crucial aspect?

I fully support 100% affordable but would like to see the council build some genuine social housinghere as well. Until you do this that long housing list will remain unaffected by new builds anddevelopment. People are rightly suspicious about who these properties are for and are tired ofbeing gaslit about how much we need them to eleviate the housing crisis.

I applaud the central concept of a 15 minute neighbourhood but the site is surrounded by apolluted and dangerous dual carriage way that is hostile to any attempt to go anywhere. Currentlythere is no provision for continuous safe, and convenient movement by bike or foot to and fromthis site. I'd like to see much more commitment to how people are going to get in and out of thisdevelopment without a car. Is minimum car parking still a thing? If not - just take it away - it's right

by the train station, you couldn't ask for a better car free site. Ten club cars and plenty of bikehangars please and while you're at it a new foot bridge over the river.

The design is odd and weirdly busy, I'm not sure it knows what it is - and I struggled to find any ofthe plans in colour. I'd love to have seen an extension of Totterdown into this area that will helpwith the flow of the view / the sense of place. In it's current form I don't think it impacts well onBristol's most iconic neighbourhood and its more likely to make people going past ask 'what's thatweird building'?

The building is far too tall. You know it's too tall. The developers know it's too tall. Lots of peoplewould support more development if you didn't all just insist on things that are too tall. I mean rightin the front of Totterdown and on the river, really? Half it and maybe you won't get 100 objections.

As usual the green space around it is poor - no true sense of greenery or havens to get away,nooks or crannies. Just the usual treeless bit of grass with a few benches.

so a solid 5/10 - good attempt but please do better. This site is an important gateway to Bristol -the first impression of Bristol for many - don't mess it up.

Dear Sirs

Planning Application at York Road, ref. 21/06878/F

I wish to object to this unsatisfactory planning application for a number of reasons:

The design is poorThe proposals are over-large and over-heightThe proposed housing density is too highInsufficient weight has been given to noise, air quality, community or environmental concerns

The bulky towers loom over the street and their surroundings in an unfortunate way. Almost allpublic realm has been given over to very tall buildings too close to the boundaries.Single aspect flats face each other in vast walls only 18m apart leaving no privacy for theprospective residents. The overall appearance is blocky and grim, and adding upper floors of darkgrey metallic cladding has not helped.

The enormous height of the proposals would dominate the local landscape and obscure one of themost famous and iconic views in Bristol. Although submitted drawings do not indicate it, the upperfloors would look down upon nearby houses which are currently on top of a high escarpment. Thebuildings would likewise blight the surrounding area and plots of land.

On the West side, the building has been shown 1.5m from the boundary with a facade filled withsingle aspect flats. Assuming the adjacent site were to be developed in a similar fashion, flatswould be touching distance apart across a man-made canyon. This is an unacceptable approach,blighting nearby landowners with gross overlooking problems, quite part from the associated firerisk due to the effective exposed areas on this side.

The design has completely failed to acknowledge the unique position adjacent to the river, a majorroad and pedestrian route as well as the nearby topography. It is bland and anonymous andappears to ave been designed in isolation from the City altogether.

I understand that the City Council is developing a planning strategy for this area in conjunctionwith the Whitehouse Street area, which would hopefully establish some relevant guidelines inconsultation with local residents and businesses. Presumably the current and proposed MeadStreet schemes are designed to jump the gun on this should certainly be refused until a properstrategy for re-development is established.

The proposed density according to numbers submitted with the application would be over 500dwellings per Hectare, not including the extensive commercial and servicing areas on lower floors.The Bristol Urban Living SPD - Making Successful Places at higher densities indicates that anupper limit of about 120 units/Ha would be appropriate in this 'Inner Urban Area' and makes nomention of commercial activities. According to BCS20, the Totterdown escarpment, one of thehighest density urban areas in Bristol contains 120 dpH. The proposal for more than 4x this wouldclearly be excessive with overcrowding and poor social outcomes resulting.

The Urban Living SPD also states that 'a poorly designed tall building can have a detrimentalimpact on the historic townscape of a city like Bristol' and ' the topography and skyline of a city likeBristol.' This proposal would do all of that if permitted to proceed.

The Health Impact Assessment submitted with the application completely fails to identify an airpollution strategy or address problems beyond identifying that there may be one, despite the sitebeing directly on a busy road within the Air Quality Management Area. The size and bulk of thebuilding would contribute to trapping polluted air within close proximity, exposing pedestrians, roadusers and residents to unacceptable levels of pollutants.

The Wind Desktop Appraisal acknowledges that no wind tunnel or CFD study has been done. Itspeculatively uses data from a site 7km away and reduces predicted wind speeds by over 50%.This generic approach is unlikely to produce a correct result as it completely fails to recognise theunique topography of the area and the river valley. The conclusions that there would be littleadverse impact of wind funnelling on the surrounding roads, paved areas and residents arelaughable to anyone familiar with the locality.

The Tree Survey locates and classes all existing trees on the site and recommends that allexxcept one should be kept, preferably with the surrounding green space. However the proposedscheme removes every single one so the buildings can be larger. The proposed replacements arenot likely to fare well, sited in hard landscaping 2m away from the 11 storey cliff faces of thebuildings. Claims in the Ecological Assessment that landscaping and biodiversity would increaseby removing all trace of existing trees , shrubs and greenery are not credible. No mention is madeof bats which are known by residents to inhabit the area and use the river and escarpment forfeeding and as a travel corridor. The proposals are very likely to interfere with current bat transitand roosting.

The Noise Assessment Report submitted examines little except the impact of existing noise,mostly traffic, on the new residents, and concludes that many of the flats should have theirwindows sealed shut, with artificial ventilation, though no proposals are made as to how this wouldbe done. This type of design is generally considered unacceptable by current standards. There isno consideration of the considerable impact the residents would have on each other, or othernearby residents, facing a wall of other flats a short distance away with open balconies likely togive rise to considerable disturbance. This type of design is deeply flawed and known to give riseto many complaints. The proposed adjacent seating and café areas are only likely to make mattersworse.

The Heritage Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment praises its own scheme yet somehowmanages to miss the evidence of its own carefully selected and presented photomontages - thatthe scheme represents an awful blot on the landscape viewed from almost any angle and lurksover the nearby city in a threatening manner, blocking or spoiling views of the famous escarpmentfrom almost all angles.

Sadly, the Statement of Community Involvement is just that - little more than a statement. It quotespercentages of answers to leading questions designed to elicit apparently positive responses,while making little of any negative concerns expressed. This is not community consultation.

Conclusions of many of the documents submitted with the proposal amount to little more than theapplicant marking their own homework and have produced hopelessly optimistic outcomes basedon little evidence. The apparent mark of 10/10 is in reality closer to '2/10 - poor - needs to try muchharder'.

The scheme as presented would therefore lead to poor health, social, visual , urban and civicproblems and would also be a fire hazard. It is clearly in breach of the Bristol Urban Living SPD aswell as BCS1, BCS2, BCS15, BCS20 and BCS21 and should be refused.

I echo the feelings of many in our area that redevelopment of the area *should* beencouraged. We need houses & there is a potential for really positive changes, alongside thepositive surprise of this being 100% affordable/social.. BUT...

The scale is an absolute afront - it is in no way in keeping with the area or the important/historicview of Pylle Hill from the Northern side of the New Cut. The plans are monstrous and whollyunsuitable.

Alongside this there is the fact that, by allowing the applications to be put in piece by piece, theindividual developers get to largely sidestep the issues of infrastructure both in terms of alreadycreaking roads (St.Luke's Rd is especially unpleasant - either entirely clogged or a race track) andall the services like schools, doctors, etc.

Unfortunately, this sort of approach to development seems to be par for the course. It sellseveryone short, just for a quick buck & the belief that the city is 'getting things done' (groan).

Come back with plans that are suitable and you will find residents supportive, but these plans arein no way appropriate.

I fully understand the need for more housing but I really object to this proposal, ongrounds of scale, height, the impact on the local infrastructure, which doesn't appear to have beentaken into account (density of people impacting on noise/traffic/parking/local health provision etc)and the effect on the sky line of Totterdown,There's so much high density/high impact planning in this area at the moment (Bath Rd, Mead St,proposed development around Bart Spice) with so little deeper consideration of the wider impacton the area. I think these plans seriously need to be re considered.

I object to the application in its current form. Whilst I applaud the intent of creatingaffordable housing in the area and the general design. I believe that not enough consideration hasbeen given to the view of Totterdown and the impact that will be had on the current infrastructuree.g. traffic density, parking, schools and surgeries.

I strongly object to those plans. They will put the sight of a soulless new development infront of the iconic Totterdown escarpment view. I think that this will rather be an eyesore whichcould be in any city to be honest and taking away the view of a very Bristolian landmark.

Too high, will block views, and ruin the iconic view of totterdown also where will theypark their cars. Will there be enough amenities like schools, doctors etc.

I object to the height of the development. The escarpment of coloured houses in townare a Bristolian legacy. It would be a crying shame if this view was blocked for houses that areinevitably going to push house prices in the area up further than they already are. We needaffordable housing that fits with the local area, not high rise blocks bringing more cars into an areawith poor public transport links and so potentially increasing pollution and parking issues.

Bedminster conservation area character appraisal 2013 and it states on p25 1.3 keyviews and landmarks include Totterdown escarpment.The aim of the appraisal was ' to preserve and encourage the enhancement of view through theplanning process'.How is this scheme acceptable and inline with the above aim?To add, if an individual smaller property typical to the area were to apply for planning above theexisting building heights, would they be acceptable, assumed not, so how is this scheme evenbeing considered?

I am saddened by the new proposal of flats , the iconic view of Totterdown colourfulhouses will be lost forever. One of Bristols famous landmarks, caught on canvas by many artists!Also why are flats on a major city road being proposed for families? There will not be adequateamenities eg schools, doctors surgeries already over subscribed in the local area.Families need clean fresh air , young lungs should not be exposed to high levels of traffic fumes !!!There has been one infant fatality in London due to traffic pollution , countless asthmatics .Surely Bristol city council should be planning housing for families in greener areas on the cityoutskirts with facilities and provide a better bus system!!Leave the flats to single people or couples starting out ! These flats are not for sale only to rent,?why can't young people be offered the chance to buy affordably??I strongly object to these proposals for all the above reasons , the height should be in keeping withexisting surrounding buildings ,there should be sympathetically reduced!I am also appalled that more information has not been provided locally in Totterdown , it would beappreciated if that could be looked intoYours sincerelyTina Shearer

There appears to be very little attention paid to ecological build here - ground sourceheat pumps, solar panels? How will these buildings be heated? Parking provision is negligible sothis will impact surrounding streets eg Totterdown which is already very stressed andovercrowded. Feels as if Totterdown is being hemmed in by big developments on all sides - BathRd flats, Broadwalk another 800, and Mead St developments way too high and dense for thisarea. Iconic views will be obliterated not preserved, and the nature of this area irrevocablychanged.

I feel very strongly that the proposed development is too dense, too high, lacks servicesand blocks an iconic view.I support the need for housing and I think that this is an appropriate site, BUT I feel very stronglythat a 22+G and 11+G building would spoil the whole development as they would dominate it.I approve of separate buildings of differing heights, but am concerned by the wording that theheights are draft and could change. I would be very happy to see them lower, but would certainlynot wish to see them any higher.I am not a NIMBY as I am aware of the shortage of homes, but do not believe that high rise blocksgive a good quality of life for those who live in them.People arriving by train to Bristol are met with one of its' iconic views and I believe that a lowernewer development would enhance this and show the old integrating with the new, which is whatnew developments should do, not destroy the old.Chris

This appears to be part of an ongoing project to give Bristol an imposing skyline oftowerblocks. Not only is it very at odds with the character of Bedminster and will add to theworrying gentrification of the area, but it will also interfere with views of Totterdown and VictoriaPark, which are iconic and valuable to Bristol.

Please don't allow small numbers of objections and special interest groups derail muchneeded accommodation at affordable prices, we have a housing crises that needs to be dealt with,young families and low income workers must be helped onto the ladder for a bright vibrant futurefor the area, if that means a few sight lines disappear then so be it.

Buildings of this height area unacceptable in the Windmill Hill/Bedminster area. They donot fit with the character of the area and set a bad precedent that may destroy the views fromVictoria Park and Windmill Hill across the city that are enjoyed by all local residents. They also goagainst Bristol Council's own rules on what is acceptable in this part of the city.

It is such a fantastic idea, giving Bristol a modern character and increasing the amountof residential properties due to increase demand of people looking forward to leave here.The building appearance as seen on the application looks very attractive mixing traditional fassadematerials with a modern green look giving the area a nice welcoming front. Looking forward to seeit done.Regards

The buildings are too tall. The iconic image of Totterdown will be impaired from severalpublic spaces in North and South Bristol including including Temple Meads station.

The blocks are too close together unlike the nearby Redcliffe flats which have sizeable space inbetween the buildings.

The population density will be too high. There are not enough medical and educational services tosupport what will be a significant percentage increase in the local population.

There will be a significant increase in traffic which will intensify with the enforcement of the CleanAir Zone next year. There is not adequate parking.

I have no problem with development of the site but scale is an issue. I feel that thedevelopment does not fit with the surrounding area considering the surrounding area it is far toTall, yes the other side of the river there are tall flat buildings but the other side no builds areanywhere near that tall. I fell it blocks the iconic view of Totterdown houses. I also worry aboutamount of cars that it will no doubt bring to the areas surrounding roads, which are already bustingat the seams with the families and people already living around the area and adding to it as I am inno doubt there will not be enough provision for parking. This is sadly a case of developers trying tomake as much money by cramming to many people into a small space.

The development is out of proportion to the area. As a former resident of RichmondStreet which overlooks the site I'm astounded that the residents of it and St Luke's crescent werenot on the consultation list for the planning application.

This is going to fundamentally change one of Bristols historic rows of colourful houses which is atourist attraction. The view from the platform at Temple Meads which greets visitors will be blockedby the development.

The proposed plan is not the same height as other developments on that side of the new cut. Noattempt has been made to blend the design in with the local surroundings as they did when theyrenovated Yeamans House.

I don't have a problem with this area being redeveloped , I am now old enough toremember when the remains of the shops and houses in the area were still standing. We do needmore housing, but why does it always have to be drab tower blocks. I know the current Mayor istrying to make Bristol look like a mini America but you can fit a lot more housing in to an area ifplan it correctly, here is a link to a really interesting planning guide to help youhttp://www.createstreets.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Councillors-guide-August-2015.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2lzFleK6fsIW1rg5BmlPcM3vHjC4FKrEAoA8nXLMPWkYCmugujtwLKWJgThe current plans are too high again, 5 or 6 floors would be ok. I like the plans for retail/cafes, butwhere are the Doctors surgeries and dentists a development of this size and nearby WhitehouseSt will increase the need for these facilities, if you planned it as a community instead of a cash cowfor developers, you might get more support.Like the rest of the concrete canyon designs I expect itwill get waived through, really depressing all round.

The height of these buildings is completely out of character for the area and will blockthe iconic view of the colourful totterdown houses, something that brings tourists to Bristol.Also the rampant building of housing is not supported by any additional provision of public servicessuch as GP surgeries or schools, meaning extra strain on already stretched providers.

I love the idea of investment into what is currently a run down, unsafe and completelyunattractive area. I think those opposed are doing so because they are so against any kind ofchange they would prefer to have a run down city centre than have investment.

Most city centres in the world have a built up centre, and opposing on these grounds soundscompletely unreasonable to me. I am excited for my local area to have more investment andbecome a safer area for my family.

I strongly object to the size and scale of this proposed development. It will further erodethe view of Totterdown's coloured houses - an iconic feature of Bristol, already being threatenedby other proposals/ buildings close by and along the Bath Road. I agree with the drive for morehousing but not at any cost. It is my belief that the council needs to tell ALL developers that theirdesigns need to pay more attention to their surroundings, make them more sympathetic to whatalready exists and make it plain that the landmark Totterdown escarpment must be conserved. . .

I have lived in Totterdown for over 25 years and have seen it recover from thedestruction inflicted on the neighbourhood in the mid 20th century. It is now an icon of our beautifulcity, often described as the 'rainbowhood' due to all of the pretty coloured houses. Thisdevelopment will block most of the view of Totterdown from the city and spoil one of the views thatattracts so many visitors to our city. I simply do not understand the current obsession with towerblocks. I am not against development in this area of the city but I think we need to take a moresensible approach to what the development entails. If all of the buildings within this developmentwere worth of a maximum of 8 storeys or less I would have no issue with this. However this is fartoo tall for our part of the city and sadly I must object to it.

The Bristol City Council Bedminster conservation area character appraisal 2013 stateson p25 1.3 key views and landmarks include the Totterdown escarpment.The aim of the appraisal was ' to preserve and encourage the enhancement of view through theplanning process'

Whilst I support the development of the site I object to the density and height of thisproposal.

The infrastructure is not there to enable a 15 minute community for current residents and addingthis many new homes will increase pressure on what we currently have. Investment is needed inschools, roads, health practices, parking etc.

Bristol is also known for the coloured houses on the hill. Obscuring the view of these with high riseapartments will destroy the heritage of this great city.

New housing is necessary so I don't object to the development but there must beconsideration of the additional amenities and infrastructure required to sustain a new developmentin this location.Will there be sufficient parking space for commercial and residential properties?What about the impact on demand for health services/education?What efforts are being made in design of the new complex so it blends into the area and doesn'timpact negatively on the skyline?I would like to know more about these questions and see some evidence of what is being done toavoid increasing the demand on services / transport etc

I cannot object strongly enough at how horrified I am at the sheer size of this proposal.To build such high levels of flats that will completely dominate this small residential area is whollyunnecessary. How can it even be considered as a proposal to be this high?It will completely block and dominate the view of the city from our lovely Georgian street famousfor its wonderful views of the city skyline.. And in turn also block our iconic colourful street frombeing seen!While I understand that further housing may need to be build please try to have it in keeping withthe area it's being proposed to. Not dominating small residential houses. This isn't London orwhapping warf?! Please can there be a compromise whereby a reasonable proposal is submittedthat doesn't interfere with our iconic skyline or view that have been here for so long and such anendearing part of Bristol.

We have lived in Totterdown for 20 years.

I object to the height of the buildings being proposed, the lack of school places in the area bothprimary and secondary and the lack of provision for car parking.

Please ensure that the iconic view of the houses on Richmond Street is not lost to the city. Thereis a huge amount of space to build so keep the buildings smaller.

Primary schools and secondary schools in the area are all oversubscribed and there are hugetraffic and parking problems in this part of Bristol. Please ensure that these issues are addressedas part of any plans for development. Bearing in mind the 2000 units already agreed forBedminster and the development on Bath Road and in Paintworks where developments are inprogress.

Once again multistorey flats to be this side of ghe city with a lack of infrastructure(schools, gp surgeries etc). Views obliterated for those in Totterdown and lack of parking. It is awell known fact that high rise living is detrimental to people's mental health.

Bristol City Council have failed to consult with the residents of the Totterdownescarpment - particularly those on Richmond Street whose properties will be overlooked by thesebuildings and whose views will be altered considerably by these proposals.

This scheme seems to be going through quietly on the nod because the residents of the neareststreet who would be impacted the most have been overlooked and not notified by a mail drop norletter drop by the council.

There has been better resident engagement with the neighbouring Whitehouse Streetdevelopment (again ignoring the residents of the neighbouring Pylle Hill) that has resulted inrecommendations and a Manifesto for the development on that area, but nothing of the sort on thearea with iconic views and many more local residents affected by the proposals.

I would like to support the project because it's giving back some life to the area and itsgood to have some businesses there however, the tall building with over 20 stories is completelydisconnected with the surrounding. It is way too tall for what it's mainly two storey houses aroundit. The suggestion shows complete disregard for the area where it's going to be built.

I support building on brown field sites. But OPPOSE this high rise development. It willdetract from the historic character of that area. There would be an impact on use of green spacesin bedminster particularly Victoria park in combination with other planning applications of a similarnature along the malago in south Bristol . Make it 3 storeys MAX the same as other propertiesalong that road.

Too large for the area. We need more doctors surgery's . What we have at the presenttime can't cope. Also schools

In building a substantial number of flats in this location, the developers will bedestroying an iconic and much loved view of Bristol- that of a row of pretty colourful houses on ahill. It's the famous view that you can see when you sit on a train at temple meads, and isreflective of the unique and quirky soul of the city.In addition, traffic in this area is already a pain point. The traffic down St Luke's Road is constant,sometimes backing down St. John's Lane, and when there isn't traffic cars are speeding noisilydown the road. Adding more housing, and more cars, will only worsen the situation. The trafficjunction of St Luke's Road and York Road is frustrating, and isn't helped by the huge amount ofcars coming down the Wells Road and Bath Road. Building more accommodation in this locationseems irresponsible given the implications on the surrounding areas.If the buildings were reduced in height, and the number of flats reduced, this would cause less of adisruption to the area.

There are a lot of applications in for South Bristol for high rise buildings. I don't believelots of high rises create a sense of community that people will really want to live in, and I can't seethe addition of amenities etc to support this new community (schools, doctors etc). It is also hardto see how this block of dense flats will add to the community already here. I am not against newhouses but i would like to see low rise, affordable and a mix of family homes with links andamenities to integrate better with existing our community.

Why damage such a beautiful skyline so much other places available to build newshomes.We do not need this here,ruining forever family homes of the great amazing views they havepeople settled here because of the neighbourhood and beautiful scenery and skylines. Findanother piece if land to build on please.

Until you can adequately provide sufficient infrastructure for existing south Bristolresidents we do not support more high rise developments- if this site is available for developmentit should be used for a much needed primary school, doctors and dentist etc to serve existingresidents plus all those extra residents from other local developments that also fail to factor in anyof these needs. The naive belief that this volume of housing won't bring with it residents with carsis also short sighted. What is needed are family homes not tiny flats in high rise blocks - have welearnt nothing about the quality of life for people in high rise blocks. Developments of this size areout of keeping with the area and would vastly overshadow neighbouring homes. You are alsochoosing to build on some of the busiest roads which I can't imagine being a very healthydevelopment to live in

Too many monstrosities of this height and magnitude planned for the vicinity.

Not in keeping with the history and architecture associated with the area and detrimental to theaesthetics of Temple Meads Station, Bath Bridge and views towards Totterdown.

Also what provision is being made so as current services, doctors, dentists, schools etc canfacilitate the proposed increase in habitation?

I oppose this development on the grounds of creating high-occupancy dwellings with noexpansion of surrounding public services and infrastructure. Children in this area already struggleto access school places, needing to travel huge distances to Secondary schools. There are no busroutes that serve this area, no GP surgeries, no dentists, no parking. It will increase an area ofextremely heavy road congestion with more cars. It will obscure the iconic landscape ofTotterdown.

I absolutely vehemently object to the building of high rised blocks at this site. It willutterly ruin what all Bristolians have come to recognise as an iconic city landmark IE theTotterdown skyline as viewed from the north. It's also an appalling place to build residentialapartments because it's immediately on top of a high pollution area. It will be impossible to provideparking for the high number of residents and put further strain on stretched local infrastructuresuch as school and doctors surgery places. Do not build here.

The flats are too high and will obscure an iconic Bristol view - the Totterdownescarpment.I also query whether there is any meaningful support in local amenities- doctors, transport links,parking etc.I am very concerned at the height and density of the developments going up all over south Bristol.

It seems ridiculous to be putting up blocks of flats in this day and age especially with theinner city traffic issues, no parking and a bus service that is a regular and doesn't go all the placesthat are needed.The infrastructure of Bristol is not adequate for even more high-rise developments like those inBedminster where there will be 2000 more people and the ridiculous high-rise flats on Bath Roadwhich are already obscuring the beautiful skyline.I oppose the height of this new application I would suggest that you keep in line with the rest of thearea rising to 4 or five stories max with minimum 30% affordable Homes.

This proposal is over dense and has too many units for the location.The visual impact it will have on the view to the Totterdown multi coloured house will take awat akey part of Bristols identity.The 10 storey height seems excessive and totally out ofkeeping with the historic context of the site, and views as previously mentioned.Local schools are hugely oversubscribed whilsttraffic and parking is currently a massive problem for local residents.I understand the need to develop the area, and an positive over the affordable rental brief, but feelstrongly that 5 stories is the maximum this site should be built up to.

The visual impact and density of the proposal also needs to be considered in line withother developments in the surrounding area; the existing student towers on temple island area,plus planned development there. the university campus etc and the pre-app proposals for thesame overall site. A huge wall of developments piece meal like this, considered alone could havea significant negative impact on the visual amenity of the totterdown escarpment but alsosignificantly add to a huge monolithic wall of development either side of the bath road. Anydevelopment here should consider the total developments - a considerable pressure on both thelimited road network (eg st Luke's road).

This development will block the iconic views of of the Totterdown houses both from Citycentre - Prince Street Bridge and from the Bananaa Bridge as well as from Temple Meads. It willalso create massive challenges to the infrastructure of this part of the city. Schools admissions areoversubscribed for both the local primary and secondary and nursery school in Redcliffe. Wherewill the residents send their children? 11+ stories on this site creates a very high densitydevelopment that will be overbearing and out of character for this area. Lack of adequate parkingwill impact on all the neighbouring residential streets that already have exceeded capacity.

Little attempt to engage local Pylle Hill / Totterdown residents by either the city council or thedevelopers of this scheme. It will affect views of St Mary Redcliffe Church for residents ofRichmond Street and create additional pressure on local resources,, parking and infrastructure.

I strongly object to the proposed height of the towerblock and overall density of this scheme andwould ask that the council limits the proposed development to a maximum height of 6 stories inorder to preserve views of the escarpment on the hill.

I am concerned about how dense this development will be and the impact it will have onthe view to the Totterdown houses. The 10 storey height seems a little excessive and totally out ofkeeping within the historic context of the site. Local schools are hugely oversubscribed whilsttraffic and parking is currently a massive problem for local residents.

Whilst I am in favour for developing the area, I don't believe a drive for high rise building is theright path to take. The city doesn't not need any more bland soulless high rise buildings crowdingout our historic city.

Having looked at the plans for this proposed development I have the following concerns:

I think the proposed plan for flats is too dense and far too high at 10 floors high.It is also out of character with any other buildings on this side of York Road.

The height of the flats will destroy the iconic view of the colourful Totterdown houses on theescarpment/hill.

There is also a lack of places at local schools for local children already without a possible extraintake of children in the area. For example my daughter applied to St Mary Redcliffe but did notget in and has to travel to Ashton Park School.

There is only a small amount of parking spaces allocated for the flats and parking is already hardto find in this area