I have looked through the plans and have the following comments, queries to raiseplease:

1. I would like clarification on what will replace the boundary created by demolishing the currentgarage.2. The document 1949.131 Shadowing Diagrams 21st June Summer Solstice shows twoadditional trees which will I believe overhang the rear of the garden of 12 Stoke Grove, therebydecreasing the amount of available light both to the garden and the property. I cannot howeversee these trees in the arboricultural report. I would like clarification and to understand more theimpact of reduction of light to the garden and the property at 12 Stoke Grove overall, as well as thelong terms impact of the roots of said trees on the garden at 12 Stoke Grove. I would also like tounderstand the plan for the longer term maintenance of any overhanging branches.3. Clearly the design of the house is out of keeping with those in the surrounding area, which is aconcern.

4. I am unclear from the proposal of the impact on light reduction to the main structure of 12 StokeGrove, so would welcome clarity on the impact. It is clear it will be reduced, which is a concern.5. It is I believe real pity to lose such a significant amount of green space by building in the gardenas it complements well the character of the house and the surrounding area and contributes to thelocal environment6. The road junction at the front of the house is already on a dangerous bend, this property willadd to the congestion and danger of that part of the street.

I have concerns about the proposed property.- I am concerned about the impact on the local wildlife. There have been multiple badger tracksthroughout our garden leading into the garden of the property and I have concerns their habitatwould be negatively impacted- the position of the current driveway changing to the rear of number 9 has the potential to affectboth noise and air pollution within our garden and I feel it is of detriment to the garden of number 9to then convert this into a driveway- the garden is currently rather special and rare in the area and therefore I feel it should beprotected and maintained- the negative impact it will have on the amenities on our neighbour number 18 Coniston Avenue ishuge. The reduction in light showed by the plans is so substantial that I think this alone is reasonfor significant concern.

We wish to make the following comments on the proposals:

We are generally opposed to the proposed development at 9 Abbey Road. The following sets outvarious points for this position:

The majority of houses in the neighbourhood are family-sized homes, having 3 or more bedrooms(90.6%). Policy BCS18 expects developments to contribute toward mixed and balancedcommunities. The proposal has 4 bedrooms, hence it would not contribute positively to the mixand balance of the community, as there is already an overprovision of 3 and 4 bedroom sizeddwellings. The test of BCS18 has therefore not been fulfilled.

As well as the proposal's location, the appearance has not been designed with short views at thecorner in mind, as the risk of this proposal is the corner of Abbey Road could look awkward,cramped and overdeveloped, contrary to policies BCS21, DM 21, DM26 and DM29.

The proposal does not respect the surrounding buildings, and due to oversized nature, does notrespond appropriately to the height, scale, massing, shape, form and proportion of existingbuildings, building lines and set-backs from the street, skylines and roofscapes.

The proposal does not accord with Policy DM26 Development as the proposal fails to take theopportunities available to improve the character and quality of the area and the way it functions.

Backland development is expected to be subservient in height, scale, mass and form to thesurrounding frontage buildings. The proposal does not do this due to its scale, we cannot see howa four bedroom house can be subservient to a 4 bedroom house. It also has a huge over

exaggerated area of roofing which is going to be very dominant and ugly, and will make the housefeel even even larger.I also note the proposed house has a an area of 106m2 which is greater than the housessurrounding it with the exception of the house currently at number 9. It simply seems way to big.(I note that the plan on page 59 of the design and access statement suggests the new houseoccupies just 8% of the site. It is in fact 16.5% of the new proposed site.)

The house is poorly designed with a bland frontage and an oversized roof does not improve thecharacter of the area. The removal of trees to shoehorn in a driveway inappropriately changes thecharacter of the area negatively.

The current open feel of the area will be substantially reduced as a result of this house being built,particularly with removal of trees. The house will in our opinion be clearly visible and will take awaythis open 'green' feel, and is going to make the corner area of Abbey Road cramped, awkward andfar more urban than it currently is.

The driveway for the new house is cramped as it is on a corner coming out right next the drivewayto 7 Abbey Road. Cars approaching from either way have poor visibility around the corner, andadding a new additional driveway with the cars that occupants of the new large house will nodoubt own, would make the corner tighter and unreasonably busy. In addition there will besubstantial traffic for the construction of the new dwelling going in and out of this driveway formany months.

Driving in and out of our driveway is likely to be made considerably more dangerous with theincreased traffic coming out, which exits directly in front of the driveway to our house at number 7.We are therefore very concerned of the increased risk of accidents.

I note this latest proposal suggests they will cut back the hedge at the front of the property where itborders number 7. This is not likely to make any difference to the visibility, and may just result inthe hedge being needlessly damaged - it does not seem a thick enough hedge to be thinned inany case.

An additional large house, even with some off street parking, will inevitably result in more trafficplus more cars parking on the street (most large households have several cars these days).Parking in this corner is already busy, and more cars trying to park will make this worse, which inturn is likely to cause more dangerous situations on this busy bend.

I note that there is a badger run across the plot which is still active and used by badgers. The opennatural state of the site also attracts a lot of wildlife which is very welcome within the urban area inwhich we live. Building a house of this size on this site will clearly have an impact on this wildlife.

The government has recently published amendments to the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF). This includes the following new paragraph (p131), which I set out verbatim below:

131. Trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments, andcan also help mitigate and adapt to climate change. Planning policies and decisions should ensurethat new streets are tree-lined, that opportunities are taken to incorporate trees elsewhere indevelopments (such as parks and community orchards), that appropriate measures are in place tosecure the long-term maintenance of newly-planted trees, and that existing trees are retainedwherever possible. Applicants and local planning authorities should work with highways officersand tree officers to ensure that the right trees are planted in the right places, and solutions arefound that are compatible with highways standards and the needs of different users.

This paragraph seems to be indicating that retention of trees is a priority, but this application failsdo this. Not only will the extensive removal of trees alter the character of the area but will reducethe tree-lining of the road which is contrary to the guidance published by Government last week.

As per our previous objection to the last submission for 9 Abbey Road in 2021 we objectto this planning request for a number of reasons:

1. There will be a significant increase in the risk of pedestrian and vehicle accidents as access tothe proposed home is on a blind corner of Abbey Road. This is already a very dangerous benddue to the amount of traffic which cuts through this route. It is also a path used by many childrenon their way to school. With extra vehicles for another home on this corner, the risk worsens.2. The proposal is to build a large property in the garden of the large Victorian house, one which iscompletely out of character with the style of surrounding houses which are mainly 1930's semi-detached homes or Victorian semi's.3. The plans show a highly unusual design with a large roof area to the front coming down to firstfloor level. Whilst a matter of taste, this would be seen from the road and surrounding houses andfor most would be considered highly unattractive.4. This garden is currently used by Badgers and many other wild creatures with much of this beingdisrupted or destroyed.5. There are a number of mature trees which would be negatively affected. Furthermore, if builtand then sold, there is a high chance that the large trees to the south west of the property wouldthen be removed to create more sunlight in the garden and property. This would be bad for theenvironment and affect privacy in 19 Coniston Avenue (and other properties).6. There are already a large abundance of substantial properties in this area.7. This appears to be 'garden grabbing' exercise, a term used for trying to make money fromcarving off sections of a garden with little consideration being given to the impact on surroundingneighbours or to the ecology of the area. (It should be noted that the current owner lived in themain house for many decades, enjoying the garden, the nature and the wildlife of the garden (asdid her family). Only now that the elderly lady has had to move out of the main home are her

grown up children looking to make money from building the proposed property i.e. when it wouldhave affected them / their mother, they didn't consider building on the site of the main house).8. The main property at 9 Abbey Road, is a splendid, and relatively unique example of a largedetached Victorian home. It has much history and sits comfortably in its grounds. Allowing aproperty to be built in the garden will make the main property dis-proportionate to its grounds.9. The property will seriously encroach on number 18 Coniston Avenue, as the proposed buildingis within only a few feet of their garden. As 18 Coniston Avenue has a relatively shallow garden,the proposed house will block light, severely reduce privacy and be overbearing.

We object to This planning application for the following reasons.

1. we are concerned regarding the safety on the pavement and Road surrounding the newbuilding. The increased amount of cars from the new house entering Abbey Road from an alreadysharp corner will increase the risk of accidents.2. The character of the new building is completely out of sync of the surrounding buildings.3. The planning application is in filling green space which is important for local wildlife includinglocal badgers. There will be loss of trees.4. The houses at the end of Coniston Avenue will be affected significantly by this new buildingbacking right onto their gardens.

See my previous comment. This was supposed to be submitted as object but due to acomputer glitch it submitted as neutral.

Having reviewed the documents related to this latest proposal and application forplanning permission for a new building on this site, i am still clearly left with two significant issuesand concerns about the proposal.1) That of increased traffic and potential hazards, particularly to children, caused by extramovement in and out of the site, and likely at least 2 cars, if not more for such a large house.2) The clear impact that the building will have on the immediate local ecology. The ecology reportclearly demonstrates the presence of badgers in this immediate vicinity and estimates the buildingto be within 30m of a set and in my opinion, very likely to disturb this natural habitat in the existinggarden of No. 9 and surrounding gardens.

These concerns are an extension and in some cases a repeat of my initial objection to the firstapplication for building on this site.

I thought Bristol had a Planning Policy about garden grabbing. But that is for othersbetter versed in the implementation of the policies than I.I am pleased to see that the Arboricultural report mentions the Tree Replacement Standard. Iwould encourage the Tree Officer to seek as many replacement trees as possible, measurementspermitting. Whilst it is rightly called mitigation, it takes many years for mitigation effects to bearfruit, as it were, so as many trees as possible with small crowns striving towards that target, thebetter.