Application Details
Council | BCC |
---|---|
Reference | 22/01221/F |
Address | St Christophers School Westbury Park Bristol BS6 7JE
Street View |
Ward |
|
Proposal | Proposed development of the site including, internal and external alterations of Listed House building and conversion of lodges fronting Westbury Park; demolition of buildings and the erection of new buildings to provide an integrated Retirement Community (Class C2) for older people; together with landscaping, car parking, refuse and other associated works (major). |
Validated | 2022-03-01 |
Type | Full Planning |
Status | Decided |
Neighbour Consultation Expiry | 2023-03-16 |
Standard Consultation Expiry | 2023-03-02 |
Determination Deadline | 2022-05-31 |
Decision | REFUSED |
Decision Issued | 2023-09-01 |
BCC Planning Portal | on Planning Portal |
Public Comments | Supporters: 24 Objectors: 1301 Unstated: 31 Total: 1356 |
No. of Page Views | 0 |
Comment analysis | Date of Submission |
Nearby Trees | Within 200m |
BTF response:
OBJECT
We have submitted our comments - https://bristoltreeforum.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/btf-comments-on-application.pdf
Email sent 15 March 2022:
"Dear Sirs,
We are reviewing this application and note that there is no Biodiversity survey or report has been published.
Given the location of the site - adjacent to the Clifton and Durdham Down SNCI - this evidence ought to have been provided as required by the Planning Application Requirements Local List 1st December 2017:
The application should not have been validated or allowed to proceed without one.
If this information has indeed been provided, please send us copies of the evidence and ensure that it is published on the planning portal. Please ensure that the Biodiversity Metric calculation is also provided in a .xlsm format."
See the EIA decision - none required - https://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=R80BKDDN0DG00
Public Comments
on 2023-06-21
refuses to consider inclusion of any affordable housing (which should be 40% forthis site as it is the Inner Urban Area). It follows that this planning proposal isclearly not addressing the fundamental housing issue which the Bristol CoreStrategy seeks to resolve.
Does it address the “significant need for housing for older people in Bristol”? NO
● Again, these properties are simply not affordable for the majority of older peoplein Bristol.
● At the time of writing, within a few hundred metres of the development there arecurrently 3 retirement flats for sale at £395k to £475k at Carfax Court. There are 4properties for sale at The Vincent, £460,000 to £1.25 million, some of which havenot sold since that development was opened in July 2020. There are alsosupported living flats available at Abbeyfields on Redland Road. There are 21extra care properties for sale at St Monica's Trust, some just a short stroll acrossthe Downs.
● The supply of upper-end retirement living already appears to exceed demand –there is no need to add to this, and this scheme simply will not address the needfor affordable housing for the elderly.
● It is worth noting this development is not considered part of BCC’s officialExtraCare Housing (ECH) programme and BCC will not be getting referral rights toany of the flats. This proposal is, in fact, surplus to BCC’s projection of extra careprovision.
Does it free up family sized homes in the city? NO
● Very few Bristolians will be able to afford to live in this luxury development. Theapplicants obviously share this concern; in their proposed planning agreementthey suggest that property sales should be restricted to Bristol City residents foronly 3 months from release. This is a ludicrously short period of time andsuggests that the applicants are not interested in helping to address the pressinghousing needs Bristol now faces.
● The developers’ viability study calculates sales on the basis of 24 units being soldoff plan then unit sales at a rate of 2 per month. Therefore on the developers ownevidence (assuming for the purposes of this calculation that the report isaccurate) they appear to be anticipating selling only 30 units to Bristolians! Butbased on the above figures, we believe it is likely to be much lower than this.
● So:o There is no guarantee that any significant number of units will be sold to
Bristolianso For the few which are, they will not release properties that are affordable for
most families in Bristol, and will do little to address the housing situation in thecity
o In fact, it is likely that most purchasers will be down-sizing to move to Bristolfrom the more affluent areas of the UK.
Does it open a previously inaccessible, inhospitable, and now derelict site and providepublic access to a listed building? NO
● The previous occupant of the site was, until 2020, a once thriving residentialschool for children with severe learning difficulties, who are some of our mostvulnerable and in-need citizens. The St Christopher’s School was highly integratedinto the local community and it was never seen as inhospitable – the contrary isthe case. The site was regularly opened for garden parties, festivals andconcerts to which all Westbury Park residents were welcomed.
● The site is currently occupied by around 100 residents - providing affordablerental for low income people and an income to the applicant. It is ourunderstanding that those residents, who are becoming part of the community,really enjoy living on such a beautiful site - appreciate its nature & wildlife andoften use the grounds for outdoor gatherings and parties. The site is also used asa COVID vaccination centre, the grounds and hall have been used by a scoutgroup and the applicant themselves has made much of opening up the grounds tothe public and community groups2 in its current state. All these meanwhile useswould cease should any development be permitted.
● One can therefore conclude that the site is currently adequately hospitable,accessible and in a suitable enough state to charge rent for and allow publicaccess to.
● We draw your attention to the applicant’s assertion they would be;“Undertaking key maintenance and preservation works to a listed building(Grace House) that is in disrepair, with water ingress and deterioratingbuilding fabric, and with no viable use, will fall into disrepair;”
If this important heritage asset, or the villas at the front, are now in disrepair or,indeed the site is derelict, it is only due to recent neglect which it is thepurchaser’s responsibility to address. As owners of this Grade II listed building,they have a legal duty to ensure that the asset does not fall into disrepair. Thethreatened non-maintenance of a listed building should not be used as abargaining tool to gain planning consent. This remarkable building should belooked after and cared for regardless of whether additional development isgranted.
● Furthermore, this listed asset does not need to be further damaged by theproposed over-development - it faces greater long term, irreversible andpermanent threat of damage from the current proposals to overcrowd andoverbear its setting. It should be noted that both Historic England and Bristol CityCouncil’s Conservation Officers have stated that the proposed development wouldcause irreversible harm to the setting of this Grade II listed building.
● The applicant claims to be “providing public access to a listed building (GraceHouse) that has not been accessible to the community in its history”. This isfactually incorrect and reveals that the applicant has done no proper research intothe history of the building or the site - a quick glance at Google would havesufficed to establish the truth.
o In reality, Grace House was used, not only by Bristol’s SEND communitythroughout its entire history and until its closure in 2020 - including the
2 https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/former-st-christophers-school-site-7045317
children, their families, their friends, teaching, care and volunteer staff, butalso by the local community for annual festivals, concerts, exhibitions,shows, exercise classes (there was once even a library and many peoplewho grew up in Westbury Park remember learning to ride a bike in thegrounds around Grace House!).
o The wider community across Bristol regularly had access too, for exampleas a centre for conferences on the specialised SEND education that StChristopher’s provided, among other events. A city-wide volunteer schemeran with workers from Lloyds and Axa offices on a day release volunteerprogramme, visiting the site regularly to help out in a number of ways.Other schools across Bristol also held reciprocal visit programmes andused the swimming pool adjacent to Grace House. The school receivedroyal patronage and visits by civic dignitaries like the Lord Mayor of Bristoland the current Duke of Edinburgh.
o Until very recent, and understandable, safeguarding guidelines made publicaccess more regulated, the site was actively used by multiplecommunities. The above quoted statement from the rebuttal reveals a highlevel of ignorance regarding the legacy of St Christopher’s School.
● No commitment has been provided relating to any future public access to thelisted building. The applicant has defined no specifics about any facilities whichmay be made available, or the proposed nature of that access - it is all vaguesuggestions, with no guarantees or defined conditions that any significant ormeaningful access will exist. In practice, it is difficult to believe that the(estimated 200) residents of this luxury development would be happy to competewith members of the general public for use of facilities paid for by their servicecharge. Nor that public access would be or remain financially viable. For example,a retirement complex within a mile of St Christopher’s, The Vincent, has arestaurant that is ostensibly open to the public. The most recent owner of therestaurant has had to close (May 2023) because he can't make the business work.It's the third iteration of the restaurant in as many years.
Does it preserve Grace House and refurbish and conserve the existing villas? Notuniquely
● Any sensitive development of these villas should do this, but it does not requirethe effective destruction of the backland in order to do so.
Does it allow public access through the site for people to use and enjoy? NO – notguaranteed, and likely to be impractical
● We are not aware of any conditions, or clear level of commitment, to providingpublic access to the site. Plans have previously indicated that pedestrian accessto the site will be “Controlled residents access only (fob access 24hrs)”. Weunderstood that this was for two reasons:
o There will be a large number of elderly residents, some of whom are likelyto be vulnerable dementia patients, which is likely to restrict public access.
o To reduce safety concerns from residents of The Glen about increasedpublic footfall.
● It is not clear if – or why – the applicant would have changed their mind on thispoint, but either way there is currently no firm definition of, or commitment to,public access.
● We believe there are inherent complications and impracticalities in allowingsignificant or meaningful public access into private care/retirement communities.With this proposal in particular , there is a distinct lack of clarity about how thiswould work in reality. How, with a site full of potentially vulnerable elderly withcare needs, multiple proposed access points and 24 hour vehicular usage, wouldthis public access work?
● Critically, the Bristol Crime Reduction Unit (objection dated 3/1/23) raised safetyconcerns about the site access, specifically stating:
“This development does have 6 access points which for a development of thissize is extremely permeable. I continue to be concerned that if not adequatelyaccess controlled, with robust boundary treatments, disproportionate levels ofanti-social behaviour and criminality similar to those we are now seeing on thedevelopment at the site of the old Bristol General Hospital, which also hasexcessively high permeability from a safety and security perspective, will beexperienced by residents.”
● Research work carried out by SCAN among other extra care facilities in Bristol,highlights a number of issues that are not dealt with or explained in the currentapplication; these would suggest the ‘openness’ and ‘access’ that the applicantclaims to be promising in theory would be entirely impractical in reality. We found:
o The majority of ECHs (Extra Care Homes) in Bristol we spoke to are NOTopen to general public access during the day without a key fob, doorbellentry or manned reception due to safety and security reasons for theresidents. Doors are generally alarmed in the evening and at night.Residents are free to come and go as they wish, unlike a care home, butpublic access is tightly controlled.
o Visitors are welcome but they are usually granted access by the residents.Some ECHs allow family members to have personal key fobs.
o The general public would not generally be allowed into the private areaslike the gardens or those that are maintained and funded by residents fees.
o Extra care complexes that have a salon or rooms that are bookable bynon-residents usually have a system of pre-arranged visits/advancebooking and/or entry is controlled via one entrance only/key fob.
o If there is a community element that is open to the general public e.g. acafe , it seems usual practice to have only ONE entrance to that facility forthe public meaning they cannot access the other parts of the complexfreely. Most of the ECHs we spoke to have completely different accesspoints for the public and private realm - with very clear delineationbetween the two. For example, the communal gardens or residents-only
areas are only reachable through locked/key fob access doors off thepublic/cafe area. One care manager told our researchers that it would be“quite difficult” to manage public access in the absence of 24 hourcontrolled entry because of the vulnerability of some of the residents.
● The current proposals for this site do not address this fundamental conflictbetween the public and private realms within the design, and there is noexplanation as to how this would work in practice. It follows that the commitmentto genuine public access is entirely unconvincing. This is particularly the case forthe proposed ‘communal hub’ in Grace House and the spa that the applicantmaintains would be openly accessible and embedded in the wider community. Theplans submitted show these buildings would have to be accessed by individualsbeing able to freely cross the site from either Etloe Road or Westbury Park - andthere is no delineation between resident (private) and non-resident (public) areas.These multiple shared entrances between the public and the residents alsoincrease the risk of ‘tailgating’. This demonstrable lack of detail and forethoughtindicates either that the applicant has failed to appreciate the practicable, workingaspects of public access to an extra care facility on this particular site (and thatthe promise of openness is merely included to make their application seem moreappealing), or that they will be forced to limit or erase public access to the sitewhen they realise that public access is not, in fact, possible because of theconstraints we outline above.
Does it provide community benefit from the new “Urban Village Hall”? NO
● The applicant raises the possibility of North Lodge, described as a so-calledUrban Village Hall, delivering a community benefit (for clarity the plans for NorthLodge provide for a number of small workshop style rooms rather than a ‘hall’ assuch). We understand that these rooms may be available for a limited number ofhours a week. In reality, shared use between the residents and other potentialusers, particularly use by more vulnerable groups, like the nearby primary school,creates formidable access, staffing and safeguarding challenges. In his objectionto the planning application the Head Teacher of the local primary school indicatedhis dissatisfaction with the proposals for North Lodge and expressed his seriousconcerns about safeguarding issues. Again, there is a distinct lack of detail andno firm guarantee that North Lodge, as it is locally known, would ever be genuinelyor significantly open to the public. There is also concern that this offer could bewithdrawn at any point by the landowner, should problems arise.
● The roads directly bordering the site contain 3 school/Church halls, which alreadyprovide easily accessible and well-used community meeting rooms. The newmeeting rooms proposed by the applicant would take business away from theexisting church and schools, which are charities and rely on rental income.Moreover, this proposal would increase visitor traffic and parking demand in TheGlen (the proposed access point), which is a narrow cul-de-sac, and this wouldhave an adverse impact on road safety. These points suggest that the proposed‘Urban Village Hall’ would damage the local community, and would not offer anybenefits whatsoever.
● In summary, this suggestion from the applicant, despite being wrapped up as a‘gift’, simply exemplifies their complete failure to understand or address the actualneeds and priorities of our local community. No weight should be attached to thisempty, unwanted promise.
Does it deliver benefits to the physical and mental well being of future residents? NO
● As above, the local market for luxury retirement developments is saturated. Thisis clearly not the right location for another luxury retirement complex.
Does it deliver economic benefits including increased local spending and jobcreation? NO
● The increased local spending will not be significantly more than a development ofa much more acceptable density, and probably less than a development thatincluded provision for young people and families. On the other hand, it doesdeliver an unwanted increase in demands on local health services, which arealready stretched, and increased parking pressures on an area which is alreadyseen as unsafe due to the existing excess demand.
Does it “result in savings to the NHS”? NO
● The adverse impact of introducing over 200 frail elderly on the health and socialcare system of Bristol needs to be considered. Bristol hospitals have been someof the worst in the country for A&E waiting times and have large numbers ofelderly patients awaiting discharge. At least one GP surgery local to the site hasclosed (Helios practice Spring 2022) and others are struggling to meet demandgenerated by increasingly complex patient needs.
● When the evidence quoted by the applicants 3 about the potential benefits of theproposed scheme on health and social care utilisation is scrutinised in detail, itdoes not substantiate the claims made by the developer with regard to areduction in health service utilisation. Indeed, rather than being 'beneficial' as thedevelopers suggest, the addition of several hundred frail elderly people into anarea with overstretched GP, community and secondary care services will beentirely detrimental. It will result in increased pressure on services and reducedquality of care and quality of life for other local residents who need this supportfrom the NHS and social care.
● In summary, Professor Sarah Purdy, Pro Vice-Chancellor for Student Experience, aProfessor of Primary Care and a practising GP, found that the "research"4 quoted
4 https://www.extracare.org.uk/media/1169231/full-report-final.pdf
3 Housing Need Reporthttps://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/files/79231D5B6812A2BECEA6B6F5B0BEE9BC/pdf/22_01221_F-HOUSING_NEED_REPORT-3162631.pdf
does not substantiate the claims made in the planning submission. This isbecause the early promising data from 2015 was not confirmed by the full study.In effect, the final report suggested there was no reduction in healthcare costs orhospital stays for Extra Care residents as opposed to the control group and nodecrease in planned nurse or GP visits but actually as a significant increase inplanned nurse visits. 5 Professor Purdy shows how the applicants have quotedselectively from the cited research, and have completely ignored the actual finalfindings.
Does it provide environmental benefits? NO
● Certainly not once the considerable environmental damage through loss of treesand green space is taken into consideration (See Section 7 below).
2) HERITAGE & HERITAGE BALANCE
Does it “preserve or enhance the designated heritage assets”? NO
We believe this scheme will cause permanent damage to the heritage assets within aconservation area. The proposed buildings would be built in very close proximity toGrace House and adjacent homes in Bayswater Avenue, The Glen and Royal AlbertRoad, compromising them for years to come. It is an irreversible and irretrievableposition and for that reason we consider the harm to be PERMANENT and thereforeat the top end of the scale.
We respectfully ask you to consider that this proposal constitutes ‘substantial’ (ratherthan ‘less than substantial’) harm to the designated conservation area and theheritage buildings, and amend the report accordingly to strengthen this reason forrefusal.
Do the alleged public benefits and heritage harm justify the size of the proposals?NO
The applicant's rebuttal states that: “The comments of the conservation officer,reported at paragraph 90 of the CR, that state that alternative forms of developmentmay achieve similar public benefits are misleading and factually incorrect”.
This is in itself a factually incorrect statement. Although a potential, viable alternativescheme that delivers equal or more public benefit may not necessarily be consideredwithin the planning process, it may well be the expert opinion of the ConservationOfficer, with extensive knowledge of heritage sites, that they are correct in theirassumption that an alternative form of development would achieve similar, or even
5 Please see attached addendum for full analysis by Professor Purdy.
more, public benefit. It is not introducing another test, it is merely stating the expertopinion of the Conservation Officer.
In addition, to challenge the statement that “a smaller scheme could achieve similarpublic benefits” is without foundation..
A smaller, less harmful, scheme may achieve even more public benefit preciselybecause of its reduced size along with multiple other reasons:
● If it is a smaller scheme with fewer housing units it would cause less crowdingand permanent damage to Grace House or the backland setting.
● If some of those units are affordable housing units rather than luxury housingunits, more weight would need to be given to the increased and preferablepublic benefit this provides.
● A smaller scheme that doesn't need communal facilities to justify a high costmonthly maintenance fee, and no need for a ‘care hub’, could make differentuse of Grace House, for example, returning it to SEND use, and therebyproviding enormous public benefit that does not exist in the current proposals.
Furthermore, the applicant maintains that an Independent Retirement Communityneeds to be of a certain scale to achieve the economies of scale necessary to deliverthe care, support, and welfare facilities that are required by a facility of this type. ButSCAN produced a viability assessment (using the applicant’s own base figures)showing that there could be a profitable development with substantially lowerdensity.6
3) DENSITY AND OVERDEVELOPMENTThe Committee Report Rebuttal demonstrates, not for the first time, that theapplicant either: 1) Does not yet know how to calculate residential density figures fordevelopments in the UK, or 2) Prefers to try to mislead Bristol City Council planningofficers by making the absurd claim that the entire site is developable land. Theyclaim that the density of their proposal is 60 dwellings per hectare (dph), a trulyludicrous suggestion. The density proposed is, as the letter submitted by theWestbury Park Community Association (WPCA) to Alex Hawtin earlier this monthdemonstrates, an astonishing 160 dph.
Any independent professional assessment of the actual density proposed by theapplicant would be bound to conclude that this planning application proposes a trulymassive overdevelopment of the site.
For the developers to arrive at their density figure they have assumed that the entirearea of the site is available for development. This is ‘fantasy land’ planning. Itassumes that it is fine to demolish Grace House, the Grade II listed building that liesat the heart of the site, as well as the fine Victorian lodges fronting Westbury Park.As any first-year city planning student will know, to calculate the residential density of
6 SCAN COMMENT ON FINANCIAL VIABILITY ASSESSMENT - OBJECTIONhttps://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/files/6A74DAB152B90107F10C1F6498F60811/pdf/22_01221_F-SCAN_COMMENT_ON_FINANCIAL_VIABILITY_ASSESSMENT_-_OBJECTION-3258954.pdf
a proposed development, it is vital to establish with care and precision the actualextent of ‘the developable land’. This is particularly important in Conservation Areas.
As the WPCA letter makes clear in detail the developable land is, by the applicant’sown admission, one that is approximately 50% of the back land site, say 0.57 hectare.This results in a proposed density of 160 dph. This is way over the level of densitythat BCC would be willing to accept anywhere in the ‘Inner Urban Area’, and certainlynot within a Conservation Area.
As well as proposing entirely false figures relating to the residential density of theirproposals, the applicant has ignored the advice provided by Secretary of StateMichael Gove in the letter he issued to all planning authorities in December 2022when he stated that: ‘… all development that is not well designed should be refused,especially where it fails to reflect local design policies…’
4) HIGHWAYSThe applicant claims that the officers have not indicated the number of parkingspaces that they consider appropriate.
However, the TDM has referred to the Design Principles for Extra Care Housing (3rdedition) June 2020 which sets out that “Parking standards will need to be negotiatedwith the planning/highways authority as there are often no defined standards for‘housing with care’” and stated that they agree with this.
SCAN has previously presented an analysis of a reasonable (not worst case) numberof required spaces, based on independent government/academic research, andexpert advice previously used by PINS. Our analysis is available on the PlanningPortal, but to summarise, we identified the following requirements7:
Residents’ spaces 732 car-club + 1 mini-bus 3Staff (including carers) 30Residents’ visitors 15Visitors to Urban Village Hall and other publicfacilities 5TOTAL Required Spaces 126
The safety impact of any overspill parking on the local area, given the existing highdemand, is hopefully now universally acknowledged. For this reason it is crucial thatthe applicant bases their parking provision on an objective assessment of the likelydemand for parking, for this development, at this location, rather than continuallyreferring to the parking provision at other sites which are not comparable in terms ofdemographics, occupancy, or location. Very obviously - the number of spaces
7 Detail provided in SCAN statement on portal dated 3/1/23; with staff numbers updated (due to furtherinformation provided in the applicant’s Technical Note 2) in SCAN document on portal dated 22/2/23
provided at other sites (which may rely on their surrounding roads to eitheraccommodate or prohibit overspill) does nothing to determine the amount of parkingspaces needed to prevent any overspill at this particular development.
The applicant has access to the same publicly available research sources that wehave used, and it is difficult to understand why they have not used this data to comeup with needs-based estimates, which could form the basis of a sensibleconversation with BCC as to the number of parking spaces needed to reduce the riskof overspill to an acceptable level.
We also note that in the Committee Report, the conclusion regarding the C2 or C3classification was summarised as “Whilst it is recognised that there are aspects ofthe development which could reasonably be argued to constitute a C3 classification,overall it is considered to be a finely balanced judgement which reflects thecomplexity of this issue at a national level and the inconsistency of decision makersto date.”
It is therefore reasonable to consider the amount of parking that would be providedunder a C3 classification. This is defined as:
One bed house/flat: one space per dwellingTwo bed house/flat: 1.25 spaces per dwelling
Based on 104 x 2-bedroom and 12 x 1-bedroom units, C3 parking standards wouldallow for 142 spaces.
In fact, 142 spaces would be a good estimate of what may be needed to fullymitigate any risk of overspill, given the combined nature of the accommodation –where mobile (and wealthy) residents are likely to retain their cars, less mobileresidents may rely on being driven by their partners, and where there is also a needfor on-site staff. Our own reduced estimate of 126 spaces was calculated as agenuine attempt to provide a balanced, rather than worst-case, estimate, and we areall too aware that it will not fully remove the risk of overspill.
For the above reasons we believe that it is clear that the development will result inoverspill which cannot safely be accommodated by the surrounding roads, thereforeas the applicant has failed to demonstrate safe highways conditions, the scheme isunacceptable and the application should be refused on these grounds.
5) SUSTAINABILITY &6) OVERHEATING
Does it deliver sustainable buildings compliant with Bristol City Policy? NO
● The Committee Report already demonstrates that the buildings lack resilience toclimate change and failure to comply with basic council policy for sustainableconstruction. We support the reasons for refusal on lack of sustainability andhighlight two further areas that officers may wish to additionally record to supportthis refusal.
i) Living conditions for future residents (para 202 of the CR)
“It is considered that the proposed development, by nature of the proximity of Villa A toKenwith Lodge, and the interrelationship between Villa C and Villa D would result in anunacceptable living environment for future occupiers.”This paragraph shows an obvious conflict with local planning policy and SPD1 and isa clear additional reason for refusal.
ii) CO2 emissions (para 222)
“The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed development would reduce carbondioxide emissions from residual energy use in the buildings by at least 20%, and insteadprovided figures against Target Emission Rate (TER) as set out in Building Regulations.
It is clear that the developers have failed to comply with the council’s basicsustainability policies which are critical to Bristol’s climate emergency with regard tocarbon dioxide emissions as well as the overheating issue. It is not acceptable tomake such crucial assessments ‘post planning’ as suggested by the applicant (para223) and demonstrates a lack of commitment and willingness on behalf of theapplicant to comply with basic climate change proof requirements for new buildconstruction.
7) TREESDoes it deliver a biodiversity net gain with regard to our urban trees? NO
● We note a ruthless approach has been taken to remove mature trees and squeezein as much development as possible. This is simply unacceptable in aconservation area when we have a climate emergency and does not constitutethe elements of good design.
● There are 121 trees, many of them mature and spectacular, growing on theproposed development site. 40 of these will be removed to facilitate theapplicant’s plans. Under DM17 and BTRS, 104 replacement trees will need to beplanted.
● The applicant has used BNG 3.0, a flawed and outdated version of NaturalEngland’s Biodiversity Metric, which does not work when calculating the habitatvalue of the trees on the site. The flaws were corrected with the publication ofBNG 3.1 & BNG 4.0, which offer the only viable approach to a proper valuation ofUrban tree habitat. Therefore the applicant’s Urban tree habitat calculation cannotbe relied on because they use this unworkable table. This is why we say that theapplicant’s proposals will result in a net loss of biodiversity of at least 8.60%(assuming a zero net gain is applied).
● The developers "promise" that they will plant 104 trees within a 1-mile radius ofthe development site. Further, they claim that all of these will be planted in openground. There are currently 15 tree planting sites available in hard standing withinone mile, and zero sites for planting in open ground. Therefore, it is not possiblefor this development to comply with DM17. This application should be refused onthe basis that it does not comply with DM17,and therefore BCS9, and that paying
a fee to the council is not an alternative to proper mitigation of the loss of treeson the site.
● If it is the case that the policy document (in this case DM17) is contradicted bythe implementation document (in this case the Planning Obligations SPD),regulations state that it is the policy which must apply. In the majority of planningapplications, developers apply this “ruse” to avoid their obligations to replace losttrees. If we do not want to lose what remains of our natural environment, it shouldbe made clear to developers that this is not acceptable, preferably atpre-application, but if necessary at committee, by refusing planning permission.
8) OTHER COMMENTS
1. In the final section of their rebuttal document, the applicant makes thefollowing points:
a. “At paragraph 30, the CR notes that some comments have been made about thequality of public consultation and that it was misleading, but makes no furthercomment on this. The CR should acknowledge that as a matter of fact, and asset out in the Statement of Community Engagement, a great deal of publicconsultation has been undertaken, and that perceptions on the consultationcarried out is not relevant to the consideration of this planning application.”
Is the applicant really saying that the honesty and effectiveness of the communityconsultation is completely irrelevant provided that they can “tick a box” to say thatthey have done it? This could certainly explain a lot about their approach to it! It issuch a shame that they have taken this cynical approach, wasting all our time,instead of actually listening, and really trying to understand our priorities andconcerns and to address these as much as possible.
b. “Paragraph 149 of the CR says that services and facilities would not be availableto the general public. This is incorrect, and the planning application makes itclear that the firm intention is to embed the community into the wider localcommunity and encourage integration and the wider use of the ‘clubhouse’within the Listed Grace House for example.”
As covered above, no clear definition has ever been provided about what would bemade available to the general public, under what terms or restrictions, with nosuggestion to make this a binding commitment covered by a formal condition. Assuch, we understand why the CR cannot rely on this vague “intention”.
2. The applicant has been quick to allege mistakes within the CommitteeReport - whether justified or not - but fails to acknowledge their own litany of errors,
omissions, misleading images and information, lack of proper consultation andbasic technical miscalculations in their own application and the effect this has had.
In addition, the submission of a vast number of lengthy documents, subsequentalterations, in multiple addenda, often to clarify information that was missing in thefirst place or to offer insultingly minor and insignificant revisions - all of which add upto a complicated and ever changing picture - inevitably result in confusion, puttingunnecessary workload pressures on hard working planning officers.
Below are just some of the errors that we would like to highlight and to quote theapplicant back at themselves - this is a “long list that could run on for pages”. Whilstindividually many of these discrepancies may appear minor in nature, accumulativelythey show a disregard by the applicant to present the community with accuratefactual information surrounding their scheme. Some examples of errors/omissionsare taken from comments made in the statutory reports about the elements lackingin the application. Others are taken directly from the application itself.
1) FLOOD RISK MANAGER8 REPORT - “not enough information provided” “notincluded a detailed….Strategy” etc
2) SITE WIDE Service Strategy REPORT Discrepancy between the ‘plant’ planson the Site Wide Services Strategy 9 and the third iteration of the spa building10- unclear and conflicting drawings
3) SUSTAINABLE CITY TEAM REPORT11 - no information provided onoverheating, issues of blinds not addressed, energy statement referenceincorrect policy, baseline for existing buildings needs to be updated
4) CRIME REDUCTION UNIT REPORT12 - “the submission fails to provideinformation on the construction and security of staff cycle storage”, theapplication has a “lack of documentation around management, CCTV andlighting plans”.
12 Crime Reduction Unithttps://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/files/590A5F862763B3205958E70504BD5F0F/pdf/22_01221_F-CRIME_REDUCTION_UNIT-3371802.pdf
11 Sustainable City Tram Reporthttps://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/files/8E42048CBA5421B16EAD7E5704A08ECE/pdf/22_01221_F-SUSTAINABLE_CITY_TEAM-3405821.pdf
10 Spa and Service Area planshttps://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/files/75C6710D5066579C288A7F9B395B7FF3/pdf/22_01221_F-SPA_AND_SERVICE_AREA-3442522.pdf
9 SITE wide M and E Strategyhttps://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/files/37F1B58B2CAC222EC303282B6109192A/pdf/22_01221_F-SITE_WIDE_M_E_STRATEGY-3442528.pdf
8 Flood Risk Manager reporthttps://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/files/1FD3DDDBADA82FF8F04F21D358F263F1/pdf/22_01221_F-FLOOD_RISK_MANAGER-3372412.pdf
5) TDM REPORT13 - Parking Survey needs to be redone to make it more accurate,contradictions in statements about the staff/resident minibus, more accurateparking survey needed.
6) Height of H01 Cottages in site section drawing 2006 rev A - Duringconsultation with the developer these were described to us as single storeywith accommodation in the roof. The rooftops now line up with the top of a1930s house so are more like a townhouse with two full storeys and a roofabove, and will be significantly higher than the current single storey building.
7) Site section drawing 2006 – The top of roofline of the H01 cottages has beenobscured by tree branches to disguise their height. In fact, there is no tree thatcan obscure the front of these cottages, so the view is misleading andincorrect.
8) 2006 site section – this section is still showing the two very large trees tree 52and tree 65 which elsewhere in the proposal says are to be removed for sewerworks. The inclusion of these trees makes the scene deceptively green, andthis error was pointed out in the first consultation, however, has not beenremedied.
9) Landscape addendum – Shows the ground as level between the rear boundaryof the proposed ‘Cottages’ and the rear of 15/16/17 The Glen. This isincorrect, with there being a change in ground level, with the proposedcottages being higher.
CONCLUSION
In our view, the applicant’s rebuttal is inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair - it is entirelywithout merit and nothing more than a desperate eleventh hour attack on hardworking city council officers who have spent the best part of two years providing theapplicant with wise and helpful advice on how to develop this site in a sensitive andappropriate way; advice that the applicant has chosen to ignore.
The applicant has consistently failed to provide sufficient, accurate, up to date anddetailed information when requested, and appears to be hell bent on maximisinghousing units and profit for shareholders over heritage, environment, sustainabilityand the delivery of social wellbeing to the community of Bristol. It is startling to seethat the applicant has the audacity to claim this application will deliver ‘publicbenefit’ when the reverse is the case. In reality this application rides roughshod overa whole range of Bristol City Council policies, our community and our city.
13 TDM reporthttps://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/files/6CFA0FE46BE471B665157F4CAE415167/pdf/22_01221_F-TRANSPORT_DEVELOPMENT_MANAGEMENT-3464247.pdf
on 2023-06-21
RAPLEYS LLP | 2
rapleys.com
0370 777 6292
Heritage and the Heritage Balance
The applicant has brought into question the decision-making process and asks why the generic benefits which
all developments generate are not included in the weighing up of the heritage pros and cons. The impact on
heritage was deemed to be ‘less than substantial harm’ meaning the applicant is correct in their statement that
the wider public benefits of the scheme need to be considered when making decisions on heritage balance.
We believe that whilst every benefit to the surrounding community is not individually listed within this section of
the report, this does not imply that they are not considered elsewhere in the CR. The applicant’s rebuttal appears
to have missed several of the benefits of this scheme being discussed along with their respective drawbacks –
for example, the creation of purpose-built housing for the elderly, a sector which currently has very high demand,
and the knock-on effect of freeing up family homes for the next generation of buyers (Paragraph 151 and 160).
However, the applicant has also included within their extensive list of wider societal and environmental benefits
some elements of policy compliance which should not give weight to the wider benefit argument. For example,
working within EU timber regulations or preventing the use of asbestos products in construction – both of which
are mandated by UK legislation. These benefits are not a direct result of a well-designed scheme they are secured
by existing legislation and therefore should be discounted from the heritage harm / public benefit discussion.
The purported public benefits of the proposal are made clear throughout the CR, for example providing the
opportunity for the transition of elderly people into the area - which was concluded to be an overall benefit when
weighed up to its drawbacks of securing the future use of Grace House as a listed building. There are numerous
examples of a fair evaluation throughout the CR and to imply that none of these topics were considered when
deciding on the heritage balance lacks evidence.
NPPF paragraph 200 is most pertinent, stipulating that; ‘any loss of, or harm to the significance of a designated
heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.’ This policy provision necessitates the evaluation
of all appropriate wider benefits, which must be taken into account before deciding whether a case for any harm
or loss of significance of a heritage asset has been successfully made.
In this instance, the issues taken into account by the officer include the lack of a 5-year land supply in Bristol, the
delivery of much needed homes and the associated benefits of development, all of which are listed throughout
the CR. However, such benefits are tempered by the heritage harm the proposal causes to the listed building, its
setting, and the wider conservation area it sits in. In this case the conservation officer has deemed that there is
not ‘clear and convincing justification’ for the proposed harm to heritage assets.
In paragraph 197(c) NPPF it is stated that in determining applications of proposals effecting Heritage Assets, three
points should be considered.
(a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting
them to viable uses consistent with their conservation.
(b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable
communities including their economic vitality; and
RAPLEYS LLP | 3
rapleys.com
0370 777 6292
(c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and
distinctiveness.
The applicant takes issue of a ‘critical flaw’ with flat Block B being referred to as 6-story unit. According to the
applicant this renders the CR’s decision unbalanced due to incorrect information being identified by the officer.
However using the criteria above, a 5-story block would have a similar negative effect on the surroundings of a
listed building within a conservation area and the local character and distinctiveness of the wider area. This would
entail a potential failure to positively address two of the three criteria.
Density and Overdevelopment
The applicant’s rebuttal stated.
“Sections in both the Design and Access Statement and Planning Statement explain why the
proposal is not “high density”, so it is concerning that this has been missed or ignored.”
In contrast, the word density is not mentioned once within the Design and Access Addendum with the most
relevant section regarding this being the Reduction in Scale and Massing, which only addresses the changes in
the latest submission showing a reduction of 1 story from a block of flats along with 2 houses becoming
bungalows as changes to respond to the first set of consultee comments.
Whilst this is a step in the right direction, it is still a long way from the preservation of the setting of Grace House.
However, it is not just a matter of density but also the grain, orientation, and overall architectural design of the
scheme as a whole, which has a direct baring when considering whether the proposal constitutes
overdevelopment. It is a combination of these factors which makes the blocks of flats stand out greatly when
compared with the mostly 2/3 story Georgian terrace vernacular of the local area. This scale and mass is in direct
conflict with DM27, which enforces that developments should be appropriate to the immediate context, site
constraints and character of adjoining streets.
Ultimately, the proposal in these terms is contrary to multiple Development Management Policies in respect of
design matters, notably; BCS21, BCS22, DM27, DM31.
Highways
The rebuttal asserts that the applicant has received no tangible information on the level of under provision of
parking they have provided. However, within the CR the officer highlights that the development would likely cause
overspill parking and the surrounding streets already suffer from parking stress, due to sitting on the boundary
of the city centres residents parking scheme, adding further strain from commuters. Due to these concerns,
Transport Development Management (TDM) consider it necessary to reference the below in their consultee
response.
“Design Principles for Extra Care Housing (3rd edition) June 2020 sets out that “Parking
standards will need to be negotiated with the planning/highways authority as there are often
no defined standards for ‘housing with care’”. TDM maintain this view.” This is in addition to the
highways consultee comments, which make clear how the local council wish to resolve this
RAPLEYS LLP | 4
rapleys.com
0370 777 6292
issue, through open dialogue as opposed to being provided with multiple sympathetic parking
need metrics.
TDM note within their consultee response that the calculations made whilst presuming this development fell into
use class C2 are not felt to be appropriate. They justify this position by outlining that there are key differences
between the transport needs of a typical C2 development such as a care / nursing home and the ‘retirement
community’ being proposed by the applicant.
The main difference in the opinion of TDM is that a much larger percentage of ‘retirement community’ residents
are likely to be engaging in more active lifestyles than someone in a care home, thus, they will typically retain a
greater reliance on the private vehicle in day-to-day life than would be expected of a typical C2 use. As such,
this is likely to give rise to an increased level of on-site parking to ensure that the proposal does not give rise to
discernible harm to the existing highway network.
In addition to the above, if the applicant was still in need of a quantitative example of the amount of parking which
could be acceptable, the example offered in the CR implied that the proposed parking provision of 0.56 parking
spaces per dwelling is some way short when assessed comparatively to another similar scheme within the area
which offered approximately 1 parking space per dwelling.
Whilst the officer has not offered an determinative number of spaces that the applicant is required to provide for,
a ballpark and eminently reasonable comparative, which is considerably higher than the applicant’s provision, has
been clarified through ongoing dialogue. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that
their proposal is acceptable in planning terms, and it is clear in this case that this threshold has not been met in
respect of highway considerations.
Sustainability
The applicant asserts that there is no requirement for their application to provide an Overheating Assessment as
this is not expressly referenced within policy BCS13. This position does not withstand scrutiny. Policy BCS13,
expressly states that developments should contribute to both mitigating and adapting to climate change:
Developments should contribute to both mitigating and adapting to climate change, and to
meeting targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Development should adapt to climate change through measures including:
• Site layouts and approaches to design and construction which provide resilience to climate
change.
A demonstration, through the provision of a Thermal Comfort Assessment, that a new development will not
overheat when assessed against the standard TM59 climate scenarios (2020, 2050, 2080) quite clearly falls
within this remit.
In addition. Part 3 of the Bristol Urban Living SPD offers assistance to officers when making decisions on
developments of approximately 30 meters or higher. Villas B, C and D are all of the appropriate height to trigger
assessment via this adopted Development Plan document. Q3.7 (b) of the SPD states:
RAPLEYS LLP | 5
rapleys.com
0370 777 6292
Minimising excess solar gain that could lead to overheating risk through use of external shading
and careful consideration of façade design. Thermal Comfort Assessments (following CIBSE
guidance or similar) should be prepared to demonstrate that the building will not overheat in
current or future climate change scenarios, accounting for the urban heat island effect where
relevant.
In tandem, BCS13 and the Urban Living SPD patently make clear that considerations of thermal comfort within
new development is a material consideration in the determination of a planning application. The applicant’s
complete failure to provide such evidence to provide officers comfort that the development will be able to adapt
and mitigate to climate change provides officers with a clear policy conflict which in itself is sufficient to
recommend refusal – as they have done so.
Whilst the applicant’s agent makes reference to the ‘sustainability credentials’ and commitment of the applicant,
ultimately, these statements provide no determinative, or evidence based detail to confirm that their proposal is
compliant with BCS13.
Trees
The loss of trees T52 and T65 is contrary to both policies DM17 and BCS9. Both trees, as per the applicant’s
schedule submitted with their application fall into Category A and both are also under the protection of a TPO.
BCS9 states the following:
Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new
development. Loss of green infrastructure will only be acceptable where it is allowed for as
part of an adopted Development Plan Document or is necessary, on balance, to achieve the
policy aims of the Core Strategy. Appropriate mitigation of the lost green infrastructure assets
will be required
Policy DM17 states:
All new development should integrate important existing trees.
Where tree loss or damage is essential to allow for appropriate development, replacement trees
of an appropriate species should be provided, in accordance with the tree compensation
standard below:
Due to the development resulting in the loss of two trees of ‘greater importance’ the scheme submitted by the
applicant cannot, by definition have integrated these green infrastructure assets into the development, as
required by both BCS9 and DM17. The acceptability of replacement trees in lieu of the existing can only be
considered acceptable in principle if they are of the view that the development is ‘appropriate’ in the first instance.
Having come to the respective conclusions in respect of design, heritage and adapting to climate change, it is
logical to conclude that officers do not consider that the scheme proposed is ‘appropriate’ and therefore,
replacement tree planting to the schedule set out within DM17 do not remedy the loss of the existing Grade A
trees on-site.
RAPLEYS LLP | 6
rapleys.com
0370 777 6292
Yours faithfully,
Rapleys LLP
19.06.2023
on 2023-05-19 OBJECT
Loss of far to many mature trees.
on 2023-05-19 OBJECT
Loss of far to many mature trees.
on 2023-05-03 OBJECT
Application 22/01221/F – Response from SCAN to “Technical Note 4”
We would certainly welcome the Council considering whether a CPZ could be implemented, but for
the above reasons it does not appear a likely or realistic solution. We made the applicant aware of
this situation more than a year ago, so unfortunately their offer to support it appears to be another
empty gesture.
More fundamentally, we are sure that the decision on this application must be based on the current
known road environment; the applicant should not suggest that some hypothetical and highly
unlikely future road changes by Bristol City Council could reduce their responsibility to provide
sufficient on-site parking to avoid overspill.
Section 4 – Fire Access
The applicant continues to ignore the comments about access from The Glen which have been raised
many times. As well as encouraging the use of The Glen and Belvedere Road for overflow parking, we
have also commented on the other impacts of the new access, most recently in SCAN’s response to
Technical Note 3, in which we stated:
“The applicant has still not stated how many on-street parking spaces would need to be removed from
The Glen (or indeed other roads) to implement their plans, worsening the existing parking stresses in
this area. Simply showing an updated road-sweep diagram with the new yellow line and one parked
car (page 12) does not do this (although it does show that a fire engine would hit the parked car, as
well as leaving insufficient room for parked cars on the other side).”
This issue remains outstanding; we cannot understand why the applicant does not produce a clear
statement about the number of on-street parking spaces which would need to be removed to
implement their current plans.
Furthermore, their new diagrams on Page 4 show the proposed route within the car park to allow
the fire engine to turn and it is noted that this would need 2 previously allocated parking spaces to
be removed and the space kept clear. However, it is obvious from the diagrams that if anyone did
park in either of the vacant spaces – or in fact, parked even slightly badly in any of the other spaces –
the fire engine would not be able to access or turn. Maintaining sufficient clear space to enable the
fire engine to turn appears unenforceable.
Finally, while the applicant states in paragraph 4.1 that their fire consultant has confirmed that
access is required from The Glen, this is also said to be based on the existing layout. We continue to
maintain that if there was an internal route through the site enabling a fire engine to reach the rear
section from the front entrance, access would not be required from The Glen.
Note on the On-Site Parking Allocation
As an aside, it is very difficult to tell from any of the applicant’s plans exactly where each of the
purported 65 parking spaces is located – we have certainly not been able to count all 65. May we
suggest that BCC asks for a plan which clearly shows the location of each space, so that these can be
confirmed.
on 2023-03-28 OBJECT
ST. CHRISTOPHER'S SQUARE: APPLICATION NUMBER 22/01221/FOBJECTION TO THE URBAN LIVING SPD RESPONSES
Preface
This objection relates to the note submitted by the applicant in response to questions asked by theCity Council's City Design team. What follows below first sets out a single, overall picture of issuesof character and design in relation to the planning application. Points from that are then picked upin comments on the responses by the applicant to the questions asked by City Design that relateto the Urban Living SPD.
Although I have helped with contributions to other objections on behalf of the Westbury ParkCommunity Association (WPCA) and am a resident of the area, this is a personal objectionbecause it focuses solely on aspects of character and design which are my specific area ofprofessional expertise. Over many years I have contributed nationally to many aspects ofarchitectural design, especially about designing in character. I have played a role in particular inthe development of community-based Character Assessment and Design Statements, all builtaround the now nationally accepted theme of 'Local Distinctiveness' which I played a major role inintroducing into the planning system. In relation to character assessment, I led the group of localpeople who produced the 'Westbury Park Character Assessment and Design Statement'. This isnow a material consideration for Bristol City Council.
1 POLICY CONTEXT
1.1 National Planning Policy Framework
1.1.1 The current version of the NPPF (2021) states, inter alia, that:
"Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments ..... are sympathetic to localcharacter and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting ..." (para130)." Development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflectlocal design policies and government guidance on design, taking into account any local designguidance" (para. 134).
1.1.2 As this objection will make clear, the proposals are, in almost all ways, not "sympathetic tolocal character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting".For this reason alone the application should be refused.
1.1.3 Though linked more to community engagement (on which the WPCA has submitted aseparate objection) the NPPF makes clear the importance of engagement in ensuring good qualitydesign, as follows:
"Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to liveand work and helps make development acceptable to communities. Being clear about designexpectations, and how these will be tested, is essential for achieving this. So too is effectiveengagement between applicants, communities, local planning authorities and other intereststhroughout the process" (para. 126). "Design policies should be developed with local communitiesso they reflect local aspirations, and are grounded in an understanding and evaluation of eacharea's defining characteristics. Neighbourhood planning groups can play an important role inidentifying the special qualities of each area and explaining how this should be reflected indevelopment" (para.127). "Applicants should work closely with those affected by their proposals toevolve designs that take account of the views of the community. Applications that can demonstrateearly, proactive and effective engagement with the community should be looked on morefavourably than those that cannot" (para.132).
1.1.4 Engagement with communities is seen as critically important in the NPPF as above in orderto deliver high quality and especially locally distinctive design. How this has been addressed inrelation to the above application was the subject of an earlier objection by the WPCA in which itwas made clear exactly why what was done was appallingly inadequate, for example by totallyfailing to "take account of the views of the community".
1.2 National Design Guide and National Model Design Code
1.2.1 These two documents are referred to in, and supplement, the NPPF as above. They build in
particular on the work of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission (to which I contributed)and its final report. Both documents place great emphasis on starting work on any design bystudying, describing and analysing the local character of any site - in part by talking to local people- and using this to prompt design approaches.
1.3 Bristol City Council Urban Living SPD
1.3.1 This is the key document about character and design for Bristol and therefore for the St.Christopher's site. It includes a number of criteria about character and design which largelyshaped the questions to which the applicant has now responded (though this is not explained inany way in the submitted document). The questions and the applicant's responses are addressedlater.
2 CHARACTER CONTEXT
2.1 In relation to the St. Christopher's site, the Westbury Park Character Assessment and DesignStatement places it in 'Character Area1: Westbury Park Frontage' (p.25). The word 'frontage' iscrucial because all the properties in Character Area 1 front onto the road and onto The Downs andtherefore contribute to the high quality character of the Downs edge that led in part to the creationof The Downs Conservation Area. Properties to the north of the site form a strip of nothing morethan front garden/house/back garden development and that was also the case, according to a planof 1835, for the Lodges along the front of the St. Christopher's site. It was only later that the landto the rear of the original back gardens became slowly incorporated into the frontage land tocreate the full site which is the subject of the current application.
2.2 As in all the remainder of Westbury Park, the development that took place before the FirstWorld War is of two storey houses, if sometimes with rooms in the attic. That includes CharacterAreas 2 and 4 - those that bound the site on three sides. The core assumption would therefore bethat development on what is clearly the backland behind the Lodges along Westbury Park shouldalso be of mainly two storeys. This point is reinforced in the applicant's Design and AccessStatement which draws on the detailed architectural vocabulary of not just Areas 1 but also Areas2 and 4.
2.3 It may seem to be a smaller point, but the Westbury Park Character Assessment and DesignStatement also highlights the importance of street trees to the environmental quality of Area 4 inparticular and that quality is very much reinforced by visually 'borrowing', at an important junction,the copse of trees in the north east corner of the St. Christopher's site. This is a significant copseof often tall trees, mainly conifers, important because it is more than just a line of street trees.
2.4 The applicant's Design and Access Statement ignores the crucial point about what areessentially two different characters to the St. Christopher's site - the frontage Lodges (and theirfront gardens and original back gardens) and the backland area. This key difference has
implications for the form as well as the density of the proposed development.
3 THE FORM OF DEVELOPMENT
3.1 Following on the argument about the site having two very different character areas, importantpoints can be made about the general design model that development should therefore take onthe backland in particular. The obvious suggestion is that it should be of 2 storey 'streets' as inAreas 2 and 4. This could be 2 storeys plus rooms in the attic as a third storey - which I will call2+1 - and there might even be parts of the site where 3+1 might be appropriate, in principle atleast. The proposals do in fact include nine 2 storey properties to the east and south of the site.
3.2 It would have been good to continue this 2/3 storey design model across the backland area,which would have helped with the relationship to Grace House, but this would not have beenappropriate for two reasons. First, not all buildings could be 2 storey and anything of 2+1 or 3+1scale would have had to be in single storey apartments necessitating lifts for every 'house'. Thatwould no doubt be unviable. Secondly, the result would have been far fewer apartments,presumably also prejudicing viability.
3.3 One other model was suggested in the pre-aplication work by the previous site owners - asingle, monolithic, care home style building. That would have been totally inappropriate in such asensitive setting in a Conservation Area.
3.4 The basic model that the applicants chose to adopt was therefore one of 'villas' to relate ingeneral, as they argued, to the villas (called Lodges) along the Westbury Park Frontage. TheNPPF makes clear that, while local character needs to be respected, there will always becircumstances where blindly following this would be inappropriate. This site is one of thosesituations, so it might seem that a villas model would be appropriate.
3.5 Unfortunately, the applicants chose a completely inappropriate, version of a villas model.When the operators of the earlier St. Christopher's School wished to add new buildings to whathad at one time been a large open garden at the rear of the Lodges, they used the entirelyappropriate model of 'buildings in a landscape' rather than clustering them all together in the formused along Westbury Park. That 'buildings in a landscape' approach on this occasion would alsohave ensured compliance with two of the City Council's key criteria - making backlanddevelopment "subservient" to Character Areas 2 and 4 and putting forward a design that is"landscape-led", as well as helping to establish an appropriate relationship with Grace House
3.6 Though 'buildings in a landscape'(in this case villas) is not easy to define, there are two criteriacommonly used to assess it:
1. Spaces between habitable rooms in the villas should be a considerable distance apart, certainlymore than the usual criteria used by local authorities of 20, sometimes 25, metres. The applicants
might argue that in some cases the Westbury Park Lodges are closer than 20 metres, but thosebuildings are in a formal, linear, urban design relationship and there are no habitable roomwindows (or balconies) on the flanks to the Lodges.2. Distances between buildings should be such that rooms in any of the buildings would not be inshadow at any time of the year from other buildings during the normally applied 9am to 6pm times.
3.7 There are therefore several results from the applicant's choice to use their version of a villasmodel - which is in fact a distorted version of the 'buildings in a landscape' model - that I, localpeople and the City Council would prefer and which would meet government standards of gooddesign. The key results of that choice are as follows:
1. In the absence of features of the land, landscape and surrounding buildings - especially GraceHouse - that might guide the location of the proposed villas, the oddly informal disposition of thevillas is completely meaningless except as a way to cram in the maximum number of apartments.2. The villas, at 5, 4 and 3 storeys, are too high in relation to the surrounding properties - certainlynot subservient - and especially too high and far too close to the Grade II Listed Grace House.3. The villas are also far too close to each other. In many cases the distances between habitablerooms and balconies (etc.) is as little as 10 metres. This is totally unacceptable. (In a recent courtcase it was determined that a distance of 34 metres between a balcony and a habitable room wasinadequate.)4. The proximity of the villas to each other also results in frequent shading of habitable rooms asillustrated by the applicant's earlier shadow diagram.5. The layout cannot in any way be described as "landscape-led" as the City Council require andas I and local people would support. The landscape design team have done a good job atsuggesting the landscape qualities of the different areas but those areas are no more, as used tobe said, than SLOAP - Space Left Over After Planning!
3.8 Spurious arguments have been put forward by the applicants to support their basic model forthe villas in the backland, almost certainly aimed at maximising apartment numbers. The result is alayout in terms of the number of villas, their heights and their proximity to other buildings that istotally inappropriate in character and design terms to this site.
3.9 Finally in this section, a comment is necessary on the proposed "Woodland Glade Cottage". Aglade is "an open space in a forest or wood". That just about qualifies here for the area to becleared after any demolition of the swimming pool. However, it is unbelievably ridiculous to thenpropose filling that new glade with a building that would be so entirely surrounded by trees, manyof them conifers, that nothing more than, at best, dappled sunlight would ever reach a singlewindow. And to then have the audacity to submit a shadow diagram that suggests that light wouldreach the property is disgraceful and unprofessional.3.10 Whatever proceeds from here on, the "Woodland Glade Cottage" must be removed from thescheme.
4 DESIGN DETAILS
4.1 I have little to say about the specific architectural designs proposed. The designs for theconversions of the Lodges appear appropriate as does the design of the 2 storey cottages.Various attempts have been made to suggest that features of the villas - for example the set-backfor the entrance areas - relate to features of the villas along Westbury Park to the north of the site.That is based on the seriously flawed assumption that people draw visual parallels based on flatelevations as on design drawings. They do not. As research has shown, people only rarely pick upparallels in form and then only on the basis of their experience when walking past not standingstill. Given that, as above, the villas form was chosen (if wrongly) to relate to the Lodges ratherthan to the more general local character, and that the villas are basically very contemporary indesign (which I do not query), arguing for parallels was a total and unnecessary waste of space inthe Design and Access Statement.
4.2 This attempt to argue the unnecessary has resulted in the recent submission of proposals toadd 'fins' to Villa B to supposedly relate better in design terms to the 'fins' on Grace House. This isridiculous and hints at desperation.
5 THE DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT
5.1 I contributed to the earlier objection by the WPCA about overdevelopment of the site. In thatobjection, the point was made (paras. 4.1 to 4.9), that the site is in two distinct and, in characterterms, very different parts, as elaborated more fully above. It is stated in that earlier objection to bemisleading for the applicants to calculate a single density for the whole site - it should be based ondensities for the two different character areas. It is also argued that standard practice wouldcalculate the proposed density for the backland area of the site not for the site as a whole but inrelation to some agreed net developable area NDA) to which the density would then be applied.That NDA would therefore exclude the copse to the north east and Grace House and an area thatrelates its setting. A drawing to show this was in fact produced by the applicant's own architects,supported by the community at consultation events, included in the WPCA's initial objection butthen ignored.
5.2 It was further suggested in the earlier objection that, using the points above, the density on thebackland area could in fact be as much as 195dph, above the City Council's standards for thisarea and especially for a site in a Conservation Area.
5.3 Most importantly, in the completely understood context of our country's, indeed our own city's,need to maximise land for housing, serious note must be taken of a letter (December 2022) fromthe Secretary of State to local authorities which states that "developments that are not well-designed should be refused planning permission and housing targets should not be used as ajustification to grant them permission". This latter point is crucial in relation to all of the above.
5.3 The applicant's use of the maximising previously developed land and hence density argumentcannot be given any weight at all in this specific context.
6 APPLICANT RESPONSES TO THE URBAN LIVING QUESTIONS
I wish to avoid a full repeat of the questions and the applicant's responses to them so willcomment question by question (as numbered by City Design) with minimal reference to theapplicant's text (annotated with a C for my comments). Some questions are not relevant to thisobjection, as noted at the end.
6.1 Q1.1: Has the scheme adopted an approach to urban intensification which is broadlyconsistent with its setting?
6.2 C: The applicant's text argues that the City Council's ambition for 'urban intensification'suggests that an appropriate density for development on the site would be 120dph. They furthersuggest that, across the 5 acres of the site, their design "represents 58dph". As pointed out inSection 5 above, it is entirely inappropriate to calculate a single density for a site with twofundamentally different parts, especially when the very low density frontage part of the site hassuch a dramatic effect in lowering the overall density. In addition, the applicants make no mentionof the fact that much of the backland part of the site is completely undevelopable (withoutdemolishing Grace House and the copse to the north east), therefore suggesting the need for anet developable area approach. As above that makes the density on the backland close to195dph, totally inappropriate and unsupportable for this area and site.
6.3 Q1.2: Does the scheme contribute towards creating a vibrant and equitable neighbourhood?
6.4 C: This is more fully addressed in other objections by the WPCA and others but, in terms ofthe contribution to community vitality as a factor in good design, the inclusion of facilities and theopenness of the site is valued. However, those other objections have pointed out that WestburyPark is already extremely well supplied with facilities such as cafes (ours is already a nationalexamplar of a 15/20 minute neighbourhood in all senses) and the proposed "urban village hall" issimply not needed.
6.5 Q1.3: Does the scheme respond positively to either the existing context, or in areasundergoing significant change, an emerging context?
6.6 C: The inadequacy of the applicant's response to this question is clear from all that is coveredin the sections above. It is particularly galling that the applicants note that "the existing sitecomprises of a number of individual buildings set within the landscape", i.e. it is 'buildings in thelandscape', yet they still fail to be aware that their dramatic overdevelopment of five large villas inthis backland area fails completely to pick up on this form of character.
6.7 Q1.4: Does the scheme provide people-friendly streets and spaces?
6.8 C: First of all, a contradiction. The applicant's text in response to Q1.3 states that the site "isfully accessible throughout" but the text for the response to this question states that "there areparts of the design that are accessible to the wider community"! Ignoring for a moment the lack ofspace between the proposed villas and the separation between the various landscaped areas, Iaccept that the scheme would deliver on this issue.
6.9 Q1.5: Does the scheme deliver a comfortable microclimate for its occupants, neighbours andpassers-by?
6.10 C: Given current ideas about resilience to climate change, the applicants appear to bearguing that almost completely filling the backland with buildings creates lots of areas well shadedfrom the sun! That is, however, spurious because an appropriate 'buildings in the landscape'approach, complemented by a high level of tree provision and hence tree cover, would achieve theresilience aim even better and more appropriately both in general and for this particular site. Theremay also be issues of wind canyons around and between the proposed villas.
Q1.6: Has access, car parking and servicing been efficiently and creatively integrated intothe scheme?
6.11 C: Parking is not strictly a character and design issue. However, the obvious andconsiderable pressures to maximise the number of units on the site has resulted in a serious lackof space on site for parking and, as other objections have shown clearly, one result of this wouldbe some residents having to park their cars in nearby streets. That in itself would be damaging tothe character of surrounding areas. A lower quantum of buildings on the backland would result in abetter and more locally appropriate design and, in so doing, accommodate - as it surely should -enough space on the site itself for all residents, staff and visitor parking needs.
6.12 Q2.2: Does the scheme provide practical, attractive and easily accessible communal amenityspace that meets the needs of its target resident profile?
6.13 C: What is proposed is good, mainly for the future residents, although that comment must beconsidered in light of the comments above (6.4) about the unproven need in the area for furthercafes etc. (and the urban village hall not mentioned here by the applicants).
6.14 Q2.3: Does the scheme provide sufficient private outdoor space?
6.15 C: The balconies are small and many will be overlooked from nearby properties (see 3.7.3above) to the point that people may well regard them as unusable.
6.16 Q2.4: Does the scheme create attractive, well designed and well maintained private outdoor
spaces?
6.17 C: See 6.14 above.
6.18 Q2.5: Does the scheme creatively integrate children's play?
6.19 C: This may not seem relevant given the age profile of likely residents but the applicants havestated on several occasions a wish to work with the adjacent Primary School and engage childrenon the site in activities such as food growing. This is very much to be supported but it is not clearwhether the detailed design is appropriate for this.
6.20 Questions Q2.1, Q2.6, Q2.7 and Q2.8 are not relevant to this objection about overallcharacter and design.7 CONCLUSIONS
7.1 The applicants appear to have imagined that their responses to the City Design team'squestions would help their case. Unfortunately, their responses only serve to highlight even furtherthe inadequacies of their proposals.
7.2 I object to the proposals on character and design terms because the applicants have been'economical with the truth' on aspects such as the model chosen to supposedly justifyinappropriate amounts of development on the backland and misleading calculations of density,and fundamental mistakes such as the heights of the proposed villas and their proximity to eachother. Other inadequacies are covered in the full text above and all of these points lead to theinevitable conclusion that these proposals should not secure planning permission.
on 2023-03-15 OBJECT
Westbury Park Community Association have previously made two submissions relatingto the proposed low provision of on-site parking and the adverse impact that this would have onsurrounding local roads which are already at full parking capacity. This further submission is beingmade in response to the applicant's response, as set out in Technical Note 3, to the parkingcomments dated 13th February made by the City Council's Transport Development Management(TDM)Team.
In our previous submissions we estimated that the site parking requirement would be of the orderof between 86 and 101 with residents requiring at least 58 spaces, staff requiring between 16 - 22spaces and visitors requiring 12 - 15 spaces. These estimates now look to be on the low side onthe basis of new information that has more recently been provided by the applicant relating to staffparking requirements and the resident parking figures contained in the unpublished studycommissioned by McCarthy and Stone and referred to in paragraph 5.13 of the Technical Note
Staff numbers provided by the applicant suggest that 23 spaces are required for employed staff(TDM reference below paragraph 5.18 in the Technical Note). This figure is higher than thatpreviously stated by the applicant and higher than the original WPCA estimate of staff parkingrequirements.
The applicant incorrectly uses the BCC parking standard for resident care homes to determine thenumber of spaces required for visitors in an independent living scheme - an altogether differenttype of development. However, the derived figure of 19 spaces might still be considered a
reasonable assessment of the number of spaces that will be needed to accommodate healthprofessionals and staff plus private visitors.
It is with regard to the parking needs of residents that the applicants calculations can be mostquestioned with the technical note concluding in paragraph 5.25 that just 24 spaces will berequired for residents. With almost all the proposed units comprising two bedrooms aa many as200 residents could be living on the site. Does the applicant really believe that 24 dedicatedspaces for up to 200 residents will be sufficient - a ratio of just 0.12 spaces to residents. Thisfigure is totally at odds with the evidence we and SCAN have previously presented on carownership figures in comparative schemes, is less than in most of the questionable examples ofcomparative schemes previously cited by the applicant and is clearly at odds with the analysispresented in the Technical Note in paragraphs 5.13 and 5.14 relating to the McCarthy and Stoneschemes where car ownership is calculated to be 41.3%.
Paragraph 5.14 states that 48 spaces would be required at St. Christopher's by applying the 41.3% figure to the 116 units. How this figure morphs into the resident parking figure of 24 inparagraph 5.25 is not made clear - it looks like a simple arithmetic adjustment to accommodate theincreased levels of staff and visitor parking requirements while keeping the total number of spacesat 65.
Even the 48 spaces figure is inaccurate as it has been calculated by reference to the number ofunits rather than the total number of residents. The figure would be as high as 80 spaces if appliedto the number of residents (possibly as many as 200 residents). Given the projected age profile ofresidents at St. Christopher's compared with McCarthy and Stone schemes a provision in therange 60 - 70 spaces might be sufficient to satisfy the demand for parking spaces from residents..
Paragraph 5.14 also contains the statement that only 10% of residents drove regularly butapplying the figures cited in the previous paragraph (139 out of 390 residents reported that theydrove regularly) the correct figure is 35%.
Making sense of all the calculations (and miscalculations) of the parking needs of residents, staffand visitors and reaching a robust estimation of the total parking requirement is not easy but onthe basis of estimates previously made by the Community Association and the new information setout in Technical Note 3 we now believe that a total in the range 100 - 110 spaces would berequired to minimise the risk of overspill parking on surrounding roads.
on 2023-03-15 OBJECT
rented properties, with a majority of 1-bedroomed apartments and studios1. Most of them are owned
by Housing 21, a Housing Association describing themselves as a “provider of Retirement Living and
Extra Care for older people of modest means.” This is not the St Christopher's target market.
The data referenced also shows that for the majority of sites there is no alternative parking close to
the scheme. Evidently, if developments have limited on-site parking, in areas where there is no other
parking available, then it is self-determining that occupancy is restricted to residents who don’t have
cars! Unfortunately, this will not be the case at St Christopher’s.
The applicant also refers, in 5.14, to an unpublished study produced by another developer in 2010. As
this study was unable to be published, it is not possible to determine the nature of the accommodation
and locations, or the means of selection of survey participants, so its validity as a comparison is limited
to say the least. However, the referenced HLIN document noted (Page 19) that half the respondents
were over the age of 85, and fewer than 10% were under the age of 75. This selected profile cannot
expect to be replicated at St Christophers.
And finally, the sites selected from TRICS (referenced in 5.32) are almost exclusively social rented,
primarily 1-bedroomed apartments, owned by Housing 21 and other charitable housing trusts.2
There is an obvious and fundamental flaw in basing the number of parking spaces on that provided at
other sites: in that it is not possible to know whether the number of spaces at other sites is actually
sufficient to avoid overspill in those locations (ie, whether residents may actually use other available
parking close-by, or alternatively whether the location itself prevents overspill), and therefore other
sites’ figures cannot simply be extrapolated to suggest that they will be sufficient to prevent overspill
at St Christopher’s.
However, if comparisons are to be made, it is almost unbelievable that the applicant continues to refer
almost exclusively to comparison sites with such a demonstrably different demographic from their
target market. At the same time, they dismiss out of hand the data from The Vincent and Westbury
Fields which, although not identical to St Christopher’s, are considerably more similar than the
comparison sites they choose to use.
We are sure that the applicant must be aware that most of their affluent target market will be deterred
by being told they cannot bring a car (in fact, they acknowledge in 5.2 that marketing the similarly
priced apartments at The Vincent has been dependent on offering on-site parking). The only potential
reason for their lack of concern must be that they expect to be able to tell potential purchasers that
there is free parking available on the roads surrounding the site.
If the applicant does need help determining the parking needs of their target market, we refer them
to the 2018 ONS dataset referenced in our original statement, which shows that 89% of retired couples
(with private income) own one, two or more cars.
We trust that BCC will continue to consider the fundamental question of the likely levels of car
ownership of residents at St Christophers. Given the key features:
● a target demographic who can afford properties with an average price of £740,000
● primarily 2-bed apartments and houses
● likely large proportion of couples, where only one needs to be over the age of 65
● a location where there is free/unrestricted parking on the surrounding roads
there is obviously a high likelihood that purchasers will choose to keep their cars, on the basis that if
they don’t get an on-site space, they can park close-by. Why wouldn’t they?
1 See Appendix for detailed data and references 2 See Appendix for detailed data and references
Staff Parking
The applicant continues to ignore independent research, seen as reliable by a PINS-selected
independent adviser on retirement living, showing there is an average of 12 hours care per week per
resident in extra care accommodation. They prefer to refer to their minimal requirement of 2 hours
(and imply a maximum average of 4), in the face of all common sense, since a selling point of the
development is the ability to increase the amount of care as the residents’ needs change, up to 24-
hours as required. They also ignore the likely peak hours for care which would result in higher numbers
of staff on site at those times.
Public Visitors to Community Facilities
The applicant still does not consider the parking needs for public visitors, despite promising community
access to a range of on-site facilities, preferring to hope that “most users would walk or cycle”.
Unfortunately local travel patterns show that this is simply not the case, much as we would like it to
be. With no parking on site, visitors to the “Urban Village Hall” and other facilities are most likely to
try to park in the closest place to the entrance on The Glen.
Lack of Capacity on Surrounding Roads
It is now well-established that there is no capacity for the neighbouring roads to safely absorb any
overspill. It is frankly bizarre that the applicant continues to ignore or dismiss all evidence referred to
by the TDM – as well as what must be their own knowledge of the location – relying instead on surveys
undertaken between 10pm and midnight to suggest availability of parking spaces. It is even odder that
they also refer to a separate local survey (undertaken during the 2020 lockdown, in the absence of
commuter traffic) which was submitted as part of a recent appeal, ignore all other related information,
and then consider it valid to use this to draw a completely different conclusion to that reached by
either BCC or PINS.
As noted before, the applicant is ultimately unable to control the three key factors affecting the parking
demand, which are the number of residents wishing to retain cars, the amount of care which residents
will choose to use, and the number of visitors driving to the site. Basing the on-site parking on
optimistic and speculative hopes, such as are peppered through this technical note, as well as on
unrealistic comparisons, would mean that by the time the on-site parking is shown to be insufficient,
it will be too late to increase this, and the neighbouring roads will have to suffer the consequences
indefinitely.
Access
The applicant has still not stated how many on-street parking spaces would need to be removed from
The Glen (or indeed other roads) to implement their plans, worsening the existing parking stresses in
this area. Simply showing an updated road-sweep diagram with the new yellow line and one parked
car (page 12) does not do this (although it does show that a fire engine would hit the parked car, as
well as leaving insufficient room for parked cars on the other side).
They continue to ignore the impact on The Glen of providing the only vehicular access point to the
entire rear of the site, which will encourage its use as a drop-off/pick-up point, as well as for parking
for residents (and their visitors) of the closest blocks.
They dismiss the evidence related to the existing problems in The Glen and Belvedere Road, missing
the point that this demonstrates the challenges already faced by these roads, which the new access
point can only make even worse. It is genuinely disappointing that the applicant has so little concern
about causing detrimental impact to the site’s closest neighbours.
Summary
To recap, we have tried to keep this statement as short as reasonably possible and have therefore not
listed all the detailed issues in the applicant’s Technical Note. We hope it suffices to reiterate that the
applicant has said nothing which adequately addresses either the TDM’s comments or the concerns
raised in our earlier statements, which therefore remain. We have provided evidenced estimates in
our earlier statements showing that, for the proposed number of apartments, at least 126 spaces are
likely to be required to reduce the risk of overspill on to surrounding roads.
We have also raised concerns about the over-concentration of units on site; it should go without saying
that by substantially reducing the number of units the developer would also be able to reduce the
parking demands and the risk of overspill.
Appendix – Comparison sites referred to by the applicant
The following sites were referred to by the applicant in Technical Note 3 and have been checked by us
to identify whether or not they are comparable to St Christophers.
1) Sites referenced in paragraph 5.15 of Technical Statement 3: These are identified on page 20
of the document entitled “Better planning for car ownership and well-being in old age”
produced by Housing Learning & Improvement Network in 2016, and shown in the
corresponding footnote (75) at:
http://planning.northwarks.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=26
5515
Marigold Court, Gateshead – Housing 21
Willowbank, Cambridge
Cedar Court, South East London – Housing 21
Lonsdale Court, Cumbria – Housing 21
Staveley Court, Bradford – Housing 21
Brookside House - Ash Grange, Liverpool – Housing 21
Hillside Court, Bristol – Housing 21
Fountain Court, Gateshead – Housing 21
Priory Court, Gateshead – Housing 21
Winton Court, Gateshead – Housing 21
Hill View Manor, Knaresborough
Cedar Court, Scarborough
The Orchards, Northallerton
2) Sites referenced in 5.32 and shown on pages 45 – 46 of Technical Statement 3:
BR-03-O-01 Bluebell Gardens, Holloway Road, Bristol – Housing 21
BR-03-O-02 Hillside Court, Meg Thatchers Gardens, Bristol – Housing 21
CB-03-O-01 Woodlands, Bridge Lane, Penrith
KC-03-O-01 Bradstow Court, Rumfields Road, Broadstairs – Housing 21
KC-03-O-02 Joseph Hadlum Court, Eastern Avenue, Ashford – Housing 21
NG-03-O-01 Lark Hill Village, New Rise, Nottingham, Clifton
NS-03-O-01 Diamond Court, Diamond Batch, Weston Super Mare – Housing 21
OX-03-O-01 Stanbridge House, Ruskin Road, Banbury – Housing 21
SC-03-O-01 Mayford Grange, Westfield Road, Woking
TB-03-O-01 St Marychurch Road, Torquay
Information about these sites which is referred to above was found in:
● The Housing 21 website https://www.housing21.org.uk (for those identified as Housing 21)
● Individual websites of other developments
● Website https://housingcare.org
● http://planning.northwarks.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=26
5515
on 2023-03-09 OBJECT
Dear Madame/Sir,
As a resident of the area concerned, I would like to urge the Committee to reject thedevelopment plans, which are clearly very unpopular, and quite incongruous. The scaleand height of the buildings is far too large. Additionally there needs to be far fewerretirement flats to allow better provision for the special needs school as originallyintended.Thank you for listening and acting accordingly. Yours sincerely,
on 2023-03-09 OBJECT
Dear Sirs, In response to the latest revisions referred to in your email 23/02/2023 pleasenote my comments as follows:I refer to my original objections which still stand - little or no change to the Developer'sProposals confirms the fact that they are still not listening to our concerns or thoseexpressed by neighbours, local residents and the wider community. Many times I havecommented on the 'overlooking', 'over-powering' and 'over-shadowing ' of our propertyfrom every proposed adjacent unit and dwelling. Multiple windows and balconies lookdirectly into our habitable rooms and garden resulting in a complete 'invasion of privacy'.How can this proposal possibly be considered in a conservation area?I refer to the fact that there are no 'eye height sight lines' (ref Drg No 2008 and 2009)shown from the 'Top Floor Juliet Balconies' of villas C and D into our garden. One canonly assume it is not in the Developer's interest because this would add further to theunacceptable 'loss of privacy' created by the heights of these unitsThe revised 'Cross Sectional Drawing' No 2009 rev B, dated 20/02/03 shows the roofheights of 'Cottages H01' higher than the roof of 15 The Glen. We were assured at theconsultation stage that these 'so called cottages' would be no more than single storeywith possible accommodation in the roof. Repeated errors and revisions to drawingsrelevant to the H01 cottages and position of trees etc confirms that the Developerscannot be relied on to present a clear and accurate picture.Yet again I urge you to refuse these outrageous and unacceptable proposals.
on 2023-03-09 OBJECT
I still consider the use of this site for a " Luxury Retirement Village"as
totally inappropriate with such a negative impact in so many ways andwould
hope it can be rejected.
Having received notification of the latest minor amendments to theplans,
I note there has been no mention of any changes in consideration of the
residential amenity of the Royal Albert Road residences adjacent to the
boundary wall at the rear of Grace House.
Grace House was built as a teaching unit and with respect for theresidents
was only used at school times on weekdays, leaving the residentialproperties
with peace and privacy in the evenings and weekends.
Without any restrictions to the glazing of the upper floor rear windowsof
Grace House the Royal Albert Road residences will lose all privacy inthe
properties and gardens.
Also, with the planned construction of all the machinery to serviceGrace House
sited adjacent to the garden walls there will be possible 24 hour noisepollution
(vibration, smell etc).
The result of this plan will result in a totally negative impact on the
residential amenity of these properties which has been enjoyed for 140years.
on 2023-03-09 OBJECT
on 2023-03-09 OBJECT
Thank you for letting me know about the 'revised details' the developers havesubmitted.
These details can be readily summarised by the phrase 'Lipstick on a pig'.
It is not my intention to be unkind to pigs. Rather I use this phrase as it summarises in four wordsall that is wrong with this truly pointless submission from the developers. Lipstick on a pig meansmaking superficial or cosmetic changes to a proposal in a futile effort to disguise its fundamentalfailings. I would emphasise, in this context, the word futile.
On the plus side, by producing these 'revised details', the developers have revealed, for the firsttime in eighteen months, that many of the homes neighbouring the site are located on land that isat a much lower level than the site level. Local citizens were already deeply alarmed by theproposal to build ludicrously large blocks of entirely inappropriate flats in the middle of adesignated Conservation Area. Now they know that the proposals are actually far worse than theyhad previously imagined.
The cross-sections of the site reveal that the buildings proposed would impose an entirelyunacceptable loss of privacy and amenity on residents living in Bayswater Avenue, The Glen,Westbury Park, and Royal Albert Road. These truly massive blocks of flats would tower over localhomes and gardens and do irreversible harm to the local townscape and the historic heritage ofWestbury Park.
The views of Historic England
It is gratifying to record that Historic England, the independent national heritage body set up by theBritish Government to protect the historic environment of England, has noticed how unacceptablethis development proposal is. They have now indicated, for the third time, that the developer'sproposals would be 'harmful' to the Conservation Area as well as to the setting of Grace House,the Grade II listed building, which is a key feature of the site. Their objections to this misguidedproposal were made on: 12/4/22; 19/12/22; and 24/2/23. They could be forgiven for becomingimpatient at having to say the same thing to these developers' time and time again.
Anyone familiar with city planning practice will know that just one message from Historic Englandsaying that a proposal is 'harmful' means the scheme so mentioned is already in deep trouble. Toreceive a second 'harmful' message indicates a startling failure on the part of the developerconcerned to show any understanding of the critical importance of the views expressed by HistoricEngland in decision making relating to planning applications. A third 'harmful' message fromHistoric England (which is very rare) means that, should the developer decide to appeal againstrefusal of planning permission by Bristol City Council, the local authority will be able to explain tothe Planning Inspectorate that the developer has ignored a remarkable 'Three in a row' set ofwarnings from Historic England. This track record, demonstrating an astonishing failure to listen tothe experts charged with caring for the historic environment of England, will mean that a refusal ofpermission by Bristol City Council would be certain to be upheld by the Planning Inspectorate (ifthe developers decide to appeal).
The developers have known how awful the impact of their scheme would be on Westbury Parksince 2021, when their proposals were roundly rejected by residents and other stakeholders atvarious public meetings.
I lend my full support to the objection to the 'revised details' submitted by SCAN.
In closing I would like to offer a few comments on the flawed design philosophy presented by PRPArchitects in the 'revised details' submitted by the developer.
The flawed design philosophy presented by PRP Architects
PRP is the architectural firm working for the FORE Partnership, the developers behind thismisguided planning application. The drawings provided in the 'revised details' have been preparedby PRP. It seems clear that the design work that PRP has done over the last eighteen months onthe St Christopher's School project is so bad that their architectural reputation would now appearto be threatened.
Private Eye, the long-established satirical magazine, has a section called Pseud's Corner in which
they publish examples of pretentious, pseudo-intellectual quotations. It seems clear that the textwritten by PRP Architects in the 'Sketch Elevation Villas A and B - Response to Grace House'(January 2023) presentation would qualify for early publication in this column.
For those unfamiliar with the details, Grace House, a fine Grade II listed building, which lies at theheart of the site, is an impressive example of brutalist architecture. Brutalist buildings, whichemerged in the 1950s (Grace House was built in 1966), are characterised by designs thatshowcase the bare buildings and structural elements - they eschew decorative design anddelicacy.
This seems to have escaped the attention of PRP architects. They open their presentation of'Sketch Elevation Villas A and B - Response to Grace house' by suggesting that their design aimsto respect this fine building as follows: 'A key thought was to translate the "delicacy andfenestration tallness" of the listed building'. (Slide 2)
This is followed by a claim that Villas A and B are designed to 'translate the delicacy of the listedbuilding into key moments of the proposed architecture'. (Slide 3)
This text is clearly well above the 'Private Eye Pseud's Corner' level of nonsense on three counts.
First, Villas A and B are not actually villas at all, they are multi-storey blocks of flats (4 and 5storeys high respectively). The St Christopher's Action Network (SCAN) pointed this out to PRPArchitects in a meeting in November 2021, and it is quite remarkable that they have not revisedtheir drawings to reflect this incontestable statement of fact. The OED defines a villa as: 1) Acountry residence, or 2) A detached or semi-detached house in a residential district.
Astonishingly, PRP Architects continue, without any justification, to falsely claim that the huge andvery bulky blocks of flats that dominate their designs are 'villas'. This is demonstrably not the case,and the continued use of the word 'villa' by PRP Architects is offensive. It represents a clear anddeliberate attempt to mislead people looking at the drawings.
Second, the suggestion that these truly massive and overbearing blocks of flats are designed to'translate the delicacy' of anything at all is utterly ludicrous.
Third, 'moments' are short periods of time, whereas architecture is designed to last for decades.Why PRP refers to 'moments' is for them to explain.
In Slide 5 we are told that the revised elevations that they have prepared create 'a rhythm acrossthe façade and references the bladed fins and recessed brick panels seen on Grace House'. Asthe presentation goes forward the architects become even more detached from reality.
The text on Slide 6 states that their design creates a 'proportional element' that is repeated
between the listed building and the new architecture. This is demonstrably not the case.
The scheme they have proposed envisages startlingly large blocks of dumpy flats slap up againstGrace House, the highly prized Grade II listed building. This proposal is, then, not at all'proportional'. It would destroy entirely the context for this important listed building. This is not justa personal view. Design West (the independent advice service provided by architects and urbandesigners in the South-West) said this more than once in their detailed submissions to thedevelopers.
If the architects really respected this important listed building, they would bring forward proposalsin which every building on this site would be below, possibly well below, the height of GraceHouse.
As the local community has explained, on many occasions, an acceptable scheme for this siteneeds to be landscape-led, and any new buildings need to be subservient to Grace House and thesurrounding 2-storey properties in Westbury Park.
on 2023-03-08 OBJECT
St Christopher's redevelopment plan Westbury Park
My view on this is the same as the majority of objections voiced already re parking,wildlife and the scale of the plans.
I want to add that here in our house on we cannot trim or chop any treedown in either our front or back garden without permission.
This was all to preserve the Downs Conservation Area.
If this development is approved, it beggars belief that we had to do this as a but that a proposed development on this scale is even
being considered. It's breaking all of the rules that have been put in place and enforcedso rigorously over the years to stop exactly this type of proposal.
on 2023-03-07 OBJECT
In response to your recent email, and the revision to some aspects of the proposals:
We note the minor revision regarding the windows of the so-called “cottages”(houses) along the Bayswater Avenue boundary.
We note there are factual inaccuracies within the drawings which undermine thecredibility of the rest of the plans - in particular the house numbering is wrongand the indication of the wall heights on the boundary are misrepresented.
We highlight in particular the fact that only one of the proposed row of fourhouses facing the rear gardens on Bayswater Avenue has the adjusted windowangle and another has had a first floor window removed.
While we welcome these changes on behalf of our neighbours, we also see thisas an admission that these two end houses are way too close to neighbouringproperties in the first place, if such measures are needed.
We also note that the change of the angled window actually results in increasedoverlooking
- see screenshots of images below. In all, the windows on three ofthe four houses in this row will
We note while the window aspects of the houses facing numberhave been amended/removed, the remaining windows on two of the
houses Considering the distances between the proposed houses and both
are equal, it's confusing why only certainwindows in the row of houses have been removed or angled. They have all beenadjusted on the side facing block B to reflect the extreme proximity on thatwestern side.
See screenshot below:
We maintain that even minor adjustments like angled (or evenobscured/removed) windows still fail to deal with the unacceptableproximity between the proposed houses Ifsuch measures as angling/obscuring or removing first floor windows are needed,then this is a clear indication and acknowledgement that the houses along thisboundary wall are unacceptably close in the first place. Also no amount ofangling or removal of windows improves the shadowing impact which remainsunacceptable, particularly bearing in mind the ground level height difference andthe effective 3 storey height (when considered also with pitched roof) of theproposed houses.
We conclude that not only does the proximity of these proposed houses and their remain unacceptable,
but that these minor adjustments fail to deal with the fundamental problems ofthis application as previously mentioned in our earlier objections.
These proposals continue to be an excessive, insensitive and inappropriateoverdevelopment of the entire site that will cause significant harm by failing toprotect & respect the site's unique environment, heritage and SEND legacy.
Therefore, we strongly object to these proposals.
Please confirm receipt of this email.
Finally, we would like to thank Paul Chick for his recent visit to our property and fortaking the time and effort to understand the geography of the site.
With grateful thanks
on 2023-03-07 OBJECT
detailed wording of the reasons for refusal would become central to the PlanningInspectorate’s consideration of this planning application. It is essential that the reasons ofrefusal ensure that any appeal would be doomed to failure.
We thank you for considering the points raised above.
Sincerely,
The team at SCAN
on 2023-03-07 OBJECT
The recent revisions to this planning application are trivial and irrelevant. This feels verymuch like an 'abuse of process' with minor alterations that in no way address the issues raised bythe public and local community in the huge number of objections submitted. Such revisions in noway negate my previous two objections primarily on the basis of size, scale, height, character,traffic and parking, loss of mature trees, biodiversity and loss of SEND provision. This applicationshould be refused and refused in such a way that appeal is pointless.
on 2023-03-07 OBJECT
The changes details in these revised proposals are minimal and have not in any wayaddressed the concerns and objections detailed in the huge numbers of public objections. I sharethe views recently submitted by SCAN.
on 2023-03-06 OBJECT
The comments we submit are necessarily focused on how the developmentwill directly affect us and are therefore somewhat negative in tone. However,as an introduction we appreciate the site needs to be redeveloped andsupport this in principle. While we therefore support the retention andconversion of the Westbury Park villas; the retention and conversion of thelisted Grace House and the opportunity that presents itself for somedemolition and new building this must be undertaken with due respect to thecharacter and appearance of the Conservation Area and the area moregenerally and the character and setting of Grace House; involve the retention(and safeguarding) of all important trees (whether the subject of a currentTPO or not) and must cause no harm to, and potentially improve, theresidential amenity of all local residents.
Within this context our first substantive comment is that the informationdisplayed at the consultation event was to a large extent indicative andtherefore vague. While the proposals have positively developed since theinitial consultation and no doubt will develop further it was genuinely difficult tounderstand what the key elements of the current proposal were. While thoseconsultants at the event, presenting on behalf of the developers wherehelpful, some questions could not be answered definitively and some left keyissues unresolved.
In the above context, our view is that describing the development as an“integrated retirement community” is vague and does not hide the fact thatwhat is proposed is simply a residential re-development. Alongside this therewas of course no reference to on-site affordable housing provision. At thisstage and while the price and management costs of the eventualaccommodation and services may dictate who can afford to live at the site, weassume that the City Council will insist on the provision of a substantialproportion of affordable housing. We also assume that as the site was boughton the open market with full knowledge of the physical and planning policycontext that no credible viability argument could be mounted against theprovision of a policy compliant percentage and mix of affordable housing. Indue course we would therefore be very interested in the form and location ofthis on the site.
The quantum of development was also unclear on the presentation boardsalthough we were separately advised that the total development was 120units (25 via conversion and 95 via new build) with “approximately” 65 parkingspaces. Also, apart from via two indicative and unscaled sections, there wasvery little detail on the scale of the buildings and their external appearance.The relevant boards looked like they had subsequently been marked in penwith storey heights noted as ranging from 4-6 storeys with 2 storey “cottages”and the conversion of the existing Villas. The nature of the use and thequantum and mix of development obviously also affects car parking and againit was unclear, with the use class undefined, how the “approximately” 65parking spaces referred to were derived. Also, the issue of public access wasalso somewhat unclear. While we support the public (or bookable) use of anyfacilities to be provided within Grace House we object to any east – westpublic vehicular or pedestrian through route, which would have the potential toadversely impact our residential amenity. Consequently, we object to theretention and upgrading of the existing access to Etloe Road / BayswaterAvenue and request that this be permanently abandoned / appropriatelyclosed.
on 2023-03-06 OBJECT
All my previous comment and objections remain and these are additional commentsrelated to the letter I recieved notifying me of revised details, dated 23 February 2023The new information on site cross sections in drawing number 2009 ( 3403944 ) show what wasfeared but conveniently not shown in earlier site cross sections, 2009 (3357517). Due to gradientsacross the site, the proposed cottages H01 and H02 are a further 2m higher than the initialdrawings suggested, than the houses in the Glen and in Bayswater Avenue. The impact fromoverlooking of our property from the even the supposedly low build cottages is much worse thanpreviously expected.Site section 2006 (3404270) 20/2/23 revision B - The comment about a tree incorrectly obscuringthe roofline of the HO1 cottages relates to a tree that is situated behind the cottages but shows thelower edge of the canopy partially obscuring the roof line of the cottage, when the cottage is notactually situated under the canopy of the tree, hence misleading. The reply from the developer thatthere are proposed trees which would achieve this effect at maturity is incorrect.The site section 2006 still shows a large tree (twice the height of the house) behind 15 The Glenthat partially obscures the cottages. The reply from the developer that there are 'mature treesbeyond' that obscure the cottages is incorrect, as the tree must be situated between 15 the Glenand the cottages to partially obscure the cottages.Small corrections to the many errors in the drawings and adding a few privacy screens to buildingsthat are way out of proportion with the location is a massive under appreciation of the negativeimpact on a conservation area of the proposed buildings. This recently disclosed information thatthe buildings will be relatively 2 m higher than the plans suggested is unacceptable. The visualimpact assessment section 10.8 already says the impact of the taller buildings is Moderate to
Moderate Substantial (adverse). I am concerned the lack of detail in the information supplied ishiding many other undesirable features of this development as regards the immediate neighbours,so I urge the planning officers to reject this opportunist proposal.
on 2023-03-04 OBJECT
I note the latest changes by the developers, dated 21/22 Feb 2023.I feel these latest changes are only tweaks at the edges of a totally inappropriate suggestion forthe site. My previous objections still stand. These were on the grounds of:- Inappropriate overdevelopment of the site- Proposed buildings over-dominant to those around them- Insensitivity to the historic surroundings of the Westbury Park area and the Downs Conservationarea
- Loss of mature trees- Insufficient parking provision- Extra traffic congestion and road safety issues on surrounding roads- Privacy issues for neighbours.
SJ
on 2023-03-04 OBJECT
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:I note the latest changes by the developers, dated 21/22 Feb 2023.
I feel these latest changes are only tweaks at the edges of a totally inappropriate suggestion for
the site. My previous objections still stand. These were on the grounds of:
- Inappropriate overdevelopment of the site
- Proposed buildings over-dominant to those around them
- Insensitivity to the historic surroundings of the Westbury Park area and the Downs Conservation
area
- Loss of mature trees
- Insufficient parking provision
- Extra traffic congestion and road safety issues on surrounding roads
- Privacy issues for neighbours.
on 2023-03-03
I have checked the recent revised application as it has very little changed since I firstvoiced my objections on the grounds of overdevelop site buildings, too high, not inkeeping with the surrounding area so my objection still stands on all of the above.
on 2023-03-02 OBJECT
The minor changes to the plans do nothing to address my concerns about thedevelopment.I reiterate: lack of parking, traffic congestion, damage to trees, privacy issues, lack of affordablehousing .Bristol and the whole country is crying out for accommodation for mentally challenged people forwhich this site has proved ideal.The council should heed the objections.Sincerely,Gillian NadenMarch 2nd 2023
on 2023-03-02 OBJECT
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:The minor changes to the plans do nothing to address my concerns about the
development.
I reiterate: lack of parking, traffic congestion, damage to trees, privacy issues, lack of affordable
housing .
Bristol and the whole country is crying out for accommodation for mentally challenged people for
which this site has proved ideal.
The council should heed the objections.
Sincerely,
March 2nd 2023
on 2023-02-27 SUPPORT
I have received an a mail concerning further minor amendments to the plans. Theseonly seem to impact on those directly overlooked. It is worrying that they indicate previous planswere inaccurate.My comments remain unchanged
on 2023-02-23 OBJECT
Proposed St. Christopher's Square DevelopmentFurther Submission by Westbury Park Community Association
I am making this further objection on behalf of Westbury Park Community Association in responseto the note produced by KTC Transport Consultants and posted on the Planning Portal on 10thFebruary as "TECHNICAL NOTE 2.0 - HIGHWAY INFORMATION".
The technical note comprises a further assessment of (i) resident parking needs, drawing on apaper written by Churchill Retirement Living and (ii) staff levels and staff parking requirements.
We note that there is still no attempt by the transport consultants to assess the parking needs ofvisitors, an oversight that we pointed out in our previous submissions. We estimated that between12 and 15 spaces would be required for visitors in addition to spaces required for residents andstaff.
Turning to the information and arguments set out in the technical note :-
Resident ParkingThe applicant's revised Transport Statement submitted in December 2022 included reference toparking provision in a number of independent living schemes elsewhere in England in an attemptto demonstrate that the 65 spaces provision at St. Christopher's was sufficient to meet parkingspace requirements. We researched each of the four schemes referenced and found so many
basic differences between them and the St. Christopher's scheme as to make the comparisonsmeaningless. Once again we are having to query a new argument made on behalf of the applicantrelating to parking requirements, this time drawing on a paper produced by Churchill RetirementLiving in 2012.
As the paper produced by Churchill Retirement Living is nine years old it seems that the transportconsultant acting for the applicant has had to search long and hard to find any supportingevidence of low parking provision in an independent living scheme.
The Churchill paper maintained that a third of residents owned a vehicle at the time of initialoccupation: applying this ratio to the St. Christopher's scheme the transport consultant argues thatthe scheme would require 39 spaces for residents.
We believe that using the Churchill Retirement Living paper as a guide to assessing parkingrequirements at St. Christopher's is unsound for a number of reasons. In a random search ofretirement properties managed by Churchill Retirement Living we found that:-
(i) The actual ratio of parking spaces reserved for residents as a proportion of total units was not0.33 but grouped around the 0.5 mark. Applying this ratio to St. Christophers would mean that 58spaces would be required just for residents.
(ii) Most of the researched schemes were in locations where there is likely to be on-street parkingavailable nearby for staff, visitors and residents - this is clearly not the case with St. Christopher's.
(iii) The Churchill schemes comprised a much higher of one bed units (60%-70%) than isproposed at St. Christopher's (9%) so that occupancy rates per unit would be significantly higherat St. Christopher's. More residents per unit average will mean higher car owners and a higherneed for parking spaces compared with the Churchill Retirement schemes.
Staff LevelsThe technical note acknowledges that the staff levels indicated in the technical note aresignificantly higher than those stated in the Transport Statement (which raises questions about thecredibility of the Transport Statement). It is re-assuring that this new technical note accepts that upto 23 spaces will be required for staff - a figure broadly in line with the estimate made in thesubmission on parking made by the Community Association in April 2022 (see below).
ConclusionWe estimated in our April 2022 objection on the original proposals that the site parkingrequirement will be of the order of between 86 and 101 with residents requiring at least 58 spaces(a 50% requirement), staff requiring between 16 - 22 spaces and visitors requiring 12 - 15 spaces.The information set out in the technical note regarding staff levels / parking requirements and theresearch we have conducted on resident parking spaces provided in Churchill Retirement Living
schemes suggests that our parking estimates for the proposed St. Christopher's scheme aresound. Our figures also include visitor parking estimates which the applicant has still not attemptedto provide.
We therefore continue to object to the application on the grounds that the proposed on site parkingprovision will be inadequate and will result in overspill parking in surrounding roads that arealready at full parking capacity.
on 2023-02-22 OBJECT
3. The Churchill recommendations only claim to relate to their own sites, which have different
location criteria from St Christophers:
• The paper refers to a number of essential criteria for their sites, not all of which apply to the
St Christophers site (eg the need to be located within half a mile of the town centre or close
to GPs and other healthcare facilities, neither of which apply to St Christophers);
• Churchill’s own planning applications show that they choose locations where other parking is
also available close-by to pick up any overspill. For example, in the submitted Planning
Statements for both Trewin Lodge (Yate) and Riverain Lodge (Taunton), it is stated:
o 6.42: The provision of [29/37] parking spaces for the retirement housing is considered
to be appropriate given the location of the site and its proximity to alternative
parking facilities;
• This condition is not true of the St Christophers location, which is surrounded by heavily over-
subscribed residential parking; if residents who do not get an on-site space choose to leave
their cars on the surrounding roads, it will severely increase the existing over-demand, and
resulting road safety issues, in the locality.
4. The Churchill paper’s suggested ratio of parking spaces to units is not actually applied to their own
sites, demonstrating even Churchill’s knowledge that this is insufficient for most developments.
In fact, if Churchill’s actual data is extrapolated to the St Christophers site (once adjusted for the
different split of 1- and 2-bedroomed apartments), this would result in 82 spaces being required
for St Christophers rather than the 39 presented in the Technical Note:
• The following table shows just a few of the Churchill developments, where the parking spaces
per unit is significantly more than the paper suggests:
Development Year of opening
No of units Parking Spaces
Parking spaces per unit
Riverain Lodge Taunton 2022 72 37 0.52
Edinburgh Lodge Orpington 2022 27 14 0.52
Lord Roseberry Lodge Epsom 2011 31 16 0.52
Trewin Lodge Yate 2019 62 29 0.47
Mulberry Lodge Emsworth 2010 30 14 0.47
Park View Lodge Faversham 2007 36 17 0.47
• Furthermore, as explained in paragraph 2, the number of residents (and hence cars) is more
closely related to the number of bedrooms than the number of units. The following table
shows the ratio of parking spaces per bedroom at Churchill sites (calculated for those of the
above sites where the split between 1- and 2-bed apartments is publicly available):
Development Parking Spaces
No of 1-bed No of 2-bed
No of bedrooms
Parking spaces per bedroom
Riverain Lodge 37 46 26 98 0.37
Trewin Lodge 29 42 20 84 0.34
Edinburgh Lodge 14 17 10 37 0.38
• St Christophers contains 105 2-bedroom and 11 1-bedroom apartments, totalling 221
bedrooms. Applying the median 0.37 spaces per bedroom to St Christophers would result in
82 parking spaces being provided for residents parking, considerably more than the 39 the
applicant suggests;
• However, for the reasons given in paragraphs 2 and 3 above, more spaces would still be
required for St Christophers than the 82 indicated by a simple extrapolation from the Churchill
data; ie, the different demographics of the residents, and the constraints of the St
Christophers location, would require a higher level of parking provision than at the above
Churchill locations, in order to avoid relying on overflow parking in surrounding streets.
5. The above points demonstrate that the applicant has still not provided any recent, reliable or
independent research indicating the actual parking needs of residents, but is simply relying on
unvalidated and uncomparable claims made by a similar private developer 10 years ago.
On the contrary, the figures provided by SCAN (including 88 spaces for residents and their visitors)
were based on data provided by the Office for National Statistics in 2018 (see section 1.3.1 of
“Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds”).
6. We are grateful that the applicant has now provided more detail of their staffing requirements.
However, their day-time staff figures indicate only 10-12 staff for care/wellness (with 2 -4 at
night), which is almost certainly too low to provide the likely levels of care.
• This figure includes “a clinical manager, wellness manager, RGNs, physios, carers etc”.
Excluding the two management roles, this suggests a maximum of 10 personal-care related
staff on site during the day and 4 at night. This would provide a maximum of 1,344 hours of
care per week;
• The number of residents is estimated as at least 174 (based on at least 50% of the flats being
occupied by two people). Therefore the number of care staff suggested by the applicant would
provide (at maximum) 7.7 hours of care per resident per week.
• It is not clear how the applicant has determined this figure, and it should be noted that this is
not in their control, as residents are obviously entitled to ask for as much care as they need.
However, SCAN provided independent research (which has also been used by PINS for
determining Appeal Ref: APP/F0114/W/21/3268794) showing that “any extra care housing
scheme for older people should be based on an average of 12 hours per resident of care and
support per week” which would require a total of at least 2,088 care hours per week.
• Furthermore, care needs are not spread evenly across the day-time hours – there are peak
demands in the morning and evening hours for assisting people to get up and prepare for bed.
Allowing for this, and a lower presence over-night, would suggest an estimated 29 carers on
site during peak hours – 19 more than suggested by the applicant. (See SCAN’s statement
“Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds” for further information on how our figure was
calculated.)
7. The Technical Note also omits to refer to any other parking needs for the site:
• The applicant is still ignoring the parking needs for visitors to the Urban Village Hall and other
facilities which they are promoting as available for public use;
• The applicant has previously also referred to 3 spaces being required for car-club cars and the
mini-bus, which they have made no allowance for in the Technical Note.
Conclusions and Updated Estimates
For the above reasons, SCAN maintains that the proposed on-site parking allowance of 65 spaces is
demonstrably insufficient for all needs.
In our statement “Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds” we suggested a minimum parking
requirement of 115 spaces.
In the previous absence of detailed staffing information from the applicant, this figure was based on
an estimate of only 8 non-care related staff being on site during day-time hours. However, the
Technical Note now shows that there will be up to 25 non-care related staff on site during day-time
hours, leading to a total of 54 staff on-site during peak hours.
We also appreciate the applicant providing census data showing 57% of residents travelling to work
by car. We did not previously have access to this, so had under-estimated this proportion at 50%.
Adjusting our own estimating basis to take account of this further information means the requirement
for staff parking spaces increases from 19 to 30, leading to an updated total requirement of at least
126 parking spaces.
We maintain that this is a reasonable minimum for the site and trust that Bristol City Council will
recognise that the applicant’s estimates are not reliable, by taking full consideration of the information
provided in this and our earlier full statement “Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds”,
emphasising that this is all based on independent and verifiable research.
It should be recognised that parking needs are largely driven by factors which are outside the
applicant’s control – ie, the number of residents choosing to keep their cars and the amount of care
which the residents will require. If these increase above the applicant’s hopeful estimates, there will
be unpreventable overspill on to surrounding roads, which demonstrably cannot safely absorb this.
By the time this is proved to be the case, it will be too late to force the applicant to address the issue
by adding more parking.
It is therefore essential not to under-estimate the parking needs at this stage, by accepting over-
optimistic estimates provided by private developers, who have an interest in minimising the
development space lost to on-site parking, leaving the local residents to suffer the future
consequences.
on 2023-02-17 OBJECT
I would like to voice some serious concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment ofSt Christopher's School site Westbury Park.I manage Jonathan House, 19 Bayswater Avenue which is a Freeways residential house for 7adults with a learning disability. Our small back garden has a very tall stone boundary wall whichforms the gable end wall to one of the St Christopher's buildings (North House). My concerns are:During the construction phase the individuals we support will be negatively impacted by noise anddisruption of building work to the garden wall, which will impact for several months/years. It is likelythat the wall will need to be rebuilt and/or adapted to accommodate the new build which couldmean the loss of the use of some/ most of our small garden. The garden is in constant usethroughout the year therefore the impact will be significant and negative on their wellbeing. Someof the individuals who live at Jonathan house are very noise sensitive and at times find living nextto a school difficult therefore additional noise from the extensive building work will worsen thissituation.After the construction phase the height of the new buildings will impact on the quality of life for theresidents at Jonathan House - we are presently not over looked and therefore enjoy privacy andseclusion which is suitable for its purpose. I feel that the proposed height of the new building willhave a significant and detrimental effect our resident's livesFreeways, to date, has not had any contact from the property developers to explain any possibleimpact to the garden wall given the garden wall is covered by Party Wall Act.
on 2023-02-09 OBJECT
2
• The proposal included no affordable housing and was not supported by an unredacted Viability Appraisal to justify such lack of provision, which is contrary to the adopted Development Plan.
The stated reasoning for the lack of provision was not consistent with adopted policies or adopted supplementary planning guidance.
AMENDED PACKAGE AND SCHEME CHANGES
Following the feedback received during the formal consultation period, on the 1st December 2023, a revised application package of amended plans, supporting documents and information has been submitted by the FORE Partnership (and their associates) for the development of the site. A summary of the main changes is provided below:
• A reduction in the number of units proposed from 122 (as submitted) to 116 units, by virtue of the removal of 6 proposed units, as described below;
• A reduction in the height of villa B from 6 storeys to 5 storeys, resulting in a net loss of 5 proposed units, and lowering all villa height by 300m;
• Minor changes to the footprint and positioning (in some cases) of villas A, B, C and D;
• Replacing the 2 most northerly cottages toward the north east corner of the site with one single storey unit, resulting in the net loss of 1 proposed unit;
• Amending the façade treatment of proposed villas to reduce the visual bulk of the mansard roofs, using red brick rather than of buff, and revised window designs;
• A re-design of the landscape proposals increasing the amount of soft landscaping, particularly around Grace House;
• Removing the proposed spa extension to Grace House and relocating it along the north site boundary; and
• Maintain the current arrangement of the access from Etloe Road as serving the Western Power Distribution substation only, and instead proposing limited parking accessible via The Glen.
Unfortunately, the revised application package is still considered to be an inadequate response to the significant concerns raised over the original scheme and fails to amount to any measurable improvement. Given the extraordinary level of opposition to the original application, submitted in March 2022 and a lengthy PPA process, it is disappointing to discover that the changes the developers now propose are so modest.
The revised application demonstrates an unwillingness on the part of the developers to respond positively to the concerns that have been set out in over 620 objections to the original planning application. Since the submission of the revised application, the number of objections has risen to 1254. In percentage terms this amounts to 97.4% of all public comments with just 1.3% in support and 1.3% neutral.
Furthermore, the revised proposals continue to directly conflict with a significant number of adopted and long-established Bristol City Council (BCC) planning policies. The SCAN Group therefore maintain their strong objection to the proposal for the reasons outlined in the following sections.
IMPACT ON HERITAGE ASSETS
3
S66 of Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 prescribes a general duty on Local Planning Authorities in the exercise of their planning functions regarding listed buildings. ‘Special regard’ must be paid to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
Similarly, S72 prescribes a general duty in respect of Conservation Areas, which are also designated heritage assets. ‘In this instance, legislation requires that “special attention” should be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area’.
These legislative requirements are mandatory, not discretionary. The Local Planning Authority has a statutory duty to pay special attention and regard to preserving or enhancing heritage assets within an application for development.
For clarity, the Case Law referenced in SCAN’s initial objection letter has been replicated below. This is relevant in identifying the importance of heritage considerations and provides an interpretation of how the duties should be applied. In particular:
Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v E.Northants DC, English Heritage, National Trust & SSCLG [2014] EWCA Civ 137
The judgment in Barnwell Manor emphasised that “there is a need to give considerable importance and weight to any harm…when carrying out the planning balance”.
R (on the application of) Forge Field Society & Others v Sevenoaks DC & Interested Parties [2014] EWHC 1895 (Admin)
Forge Fields reiterated Barnwell Manor’s approach, finding that the statutory duty imposed under section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their settings requires that ‘considerable weight’ must be accorded to any harm to listed buildings or their settings. The judgment concluded:
‘The presumption is a statutory one. It is not irrebuttable. It can be outweighed by material considerations powerful enough to do so. But an authority can only properly strike the right balance between harm to a heritage asset on the one hand and planning benefits on the other if it is conscious of the statutory presumption in favour of preservation…’
Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Local Planning Authority to afford considerable importance and weight to heritage impacts when considering the applications at St. Christopher’s.
As part of the revised application package, Heritage & Planning Statement Addendum’s have been submitted, providing an overview of the revised scheme. Whilst the Addendum Heritage Assessment notes that the revised scheme is improved and results in less heritage harm overall, the same overall conclusion is maintained that the proposed development will result in ‘less than substantial harm’, at the lower end of the spectrum, to the grade II Listed Grace House and ‘no harm’ to the overall significance of the Downs Conservation Area.
The addendum notes that it is important to recognise the extent of this harm has been reduced, identifying a number of improvements compared to the originally submitted scheme. The Planning Statement Addendum maintains that approach to how the planning balance should be undertaken, set out in paragraphs 8.1 to 8.7 of the original Planning Statement remains appropriate.
In essence it is the applicant’s claim that the public benefits set out in paragraphs 8.8 of the original Planning Statement will all remain, but the heritage harm of the revised proposals is reduced, and, accordingly, the public benefits are now considered to outweigh the heritage harm. This conclusion is contended by SCAN, as explained below.
4
Harm to Downs Conservation Area
Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the 1990 Act) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.
The revised application reduces the number of new housing units from 122 to 116. This amounts to a 5% reduction, a minor adjustment, one that does almost nothing to respond to the hundreds of objections stating that the scale, massing, and height of the proposed blocks of flats are entirely out of keeping with the scale and form of the adjacent, largely 2-storey, housing of Westbury Park.
Furthermore, only one block has been reduced by a single-storey, and one other by merely 300mm (the height of a ruler and almost indiscernible). Four large blocks of flats up to five stories high will remain which, along with the houses on site, are too close together, too close to neighbouring properties, and completely out of character with the Conservation Area, dominating nearby two-storey homes and stifling the Grade II Listed Grace House that lies at the heart of the site.
Such significant proposals and change to the Conservation Area cannot reasonably be considered as ‘no harm’.
It is far closer to substantial harm. Most of the other proposed revisions consist of minor cosmetic changes to the external envelopes of the proposed blocks, including slight adjustments to façade colour, design and fenestration, having little impact on the scale of the scheme, which will still dominate the site.
The LPA asked for a ‘landscape-led’ scheme; however, it is clear upon review of the revised Landscaping Plan that large apartment blocks and houses still dominate the site, leaving minimal green space, with any discernible change to landscaping and greenery a result of tinkering around the edges of the site.
Whilst these revisions to the proposal can be considered slightly positive in nature, they do not reduce the heritage harm caused to a remotely justifiable level. It is self-evident that the scheme remains overwhelming, overbearing and densely populated, and that the distinctive character of the local townscape would be very seriously and permanently damaged if this revised scheme were to be permitted.
Historic England objected to the original planning application on precisely the same grounds as the ones set out by SCAN. In their formal objection (submitted on 12/4/22) they also drew attention to Section 72(1) of the 1990 Act and stated that the proposals do not preserve or enhance the character of the Downs Conservation Area:
‘This is a high-density scheme that we consider to be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. We believe that the site is capable of being redeveloped in a manner that responds positively to the setting of Grace House, while delivering a layout, massing and design that is clearly more contextual than that currently proposed’ (Historic England objection, 12/4/22 p.3).
In their comments on the revised planning application (submitted on 22/12/22) Historic England indicate that the concerns they expressed relating to the original application have not been adequately addressed. In short, Historic England continues to take the view that this revised scheme will be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. This clear professional guidance from the national authority responsible for protecting the historic environment of England, suggests that BCC should reject this planning application summarily.
As stated in Michael Gove’s (SoS) recent open letter to Council’s on December 5th 2022, ‘local authorities will not be expected to build developments at densities that would be wholly out of
5
character with existing areas or which would lead to a significant change of character, for example new blocks of high rise flats which are entirely inappropriate in low-rise neighbourhood’.
Fundamentally, because the revised planning application continues to envisage an entirely unacceptable level of over development of this sensitive site, it would not ‘preserve’ or ‘enhance’ the character of the Downs Conservation Area at all. On the contrary it would do irreversible harm, for which no reasonable justification has been provided.
Again, and notwithstanding the above position, SCAN consider that ‘less than substantial harm’ is at a higher degree than as stated within the submission, principally due to the quantity, height, mass, and bulk of new buildings proposed in the Conservation Area, which will be an intrusive and unwelcome addition to the built fabric within The Downs Conservation Area. On this basis, the level of justification required, in accordance with NPPF 200, is at an even higher scale than what is already absent from the application.
Harm to Listed Buildings
Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 prescribes a duty on local planning authorities in the exercise of their planning functions regarding listed buildings. This requires planning authorities to pay ‘special regard’ to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting.
BCC’s Conservation and Urban Design Officers were extremely critical of the original scheme. In their statement (dated 24/2/22) they concluded that: ‘…the building scale, form, massing, grain and landscape of the proposed development indicates the current proposals are unacceptable in their current form’.
Given that the revised planning application is very similar indeed in building scale, form, and massing to the original application, it is reasonable to expect that the BCC Conservation and Urban Design are likely to conclude that the revised application remains unacceptable, as per the as the original application.
As previously stated, Historic England considers this high-density scheme ‘to be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area’. They point out that the excessive density of the proposals will have a damaging impact on the heritage assets of the site.
The impact of this scheme on Grace House, a Grade II listed building, should be highlighted as it continues to be entirely unacceptable. Visualisations of the impact of this proposal on the setting of Grace House, provided by SCAN, show, and this fact cannot be contested, that if this scheme is permitted, Grace House will be surrounded by tall blocks of flats, including one 5-storeys high, that are unreasonably close to the heritage asset.
Whilst the revised planning application makes some minor adjustments to improve the setting of Grace House, such as the removal of the spa extension, the adjacent blocks will still dominate the 2/3 storey Listed Building of St. Christopher’s causing irreversible harm to the building itself, its setting and significance - NPPF para 199 and 200 show any harm should be afforded great weight.
It is clear upon review of the revised application package that, whilst the Heritage Addendum has provided a response to the numerous concerns raised through consultee responses, the fundamental issues of height, mass, bulk and proximity highlighted have not been addressed. There remains no satisfactory assessment of the impact of such large blocks of flats set in close proximity to the listed building.
Accordingly, SCAN consider that the proposals will cause ‘less than substantial harm’, towards the upper end of the spectrum of this classification. The revised planning application shows no understanding, at all, of the importance of protecting the heritage assets of this remarkable site.
6
This fundamental weakness, in and of itself, provides grounds for the outright rejection of this planning application.
The term ‘less than substantial harm’, derives from the NPPF and does not indicate that such harm is of low importance. Quite the reverse is true, as explained in case law identified above, which is reflected within NPPF para 199.
In Paragraph 18 of the Heritage Addendum, in responding to the comments received from BCC Conservation Officer’s the applicant recognises the ‘Barnwell’ decision in that the finding of harm to a designated asset gives rise to a strong presumption against the granting of planning permission, further referencing ‘Forge Fields’ in that: “The presumption is a statutory one. It is not irrebuttable. It can be outweighed by material considerations powerful enough to do so”. It is clear in this instance, that the harm caused to the heritage assets is far greater than that stated by the applicant, and not outweighed by any material considerations powerful enough to do so.
In conclusion, the proposals are clearly contrary to Policies BCS22 and DM31. The proposal will result in an unacceptable level of heritage harm to designated heritage assets, which has not been adequately justified, which do not conserve or enhance the assets themselves nor their settings.
LOSS OF SEND SCHOOL PROVISION
At the moment there are no replacement school places on site to make up for the loss of the vital community asset. The Planning Statement Addendum notes that work is ongoing to investigate the feasibility to make space within the development available for the provision of SEND spaces, however, this vague offer amounts to the possible occasional and shared use of a room within what is described as an ‘Urban Village Hall’.
Expert Advice received has informed SCAN that this arrangement would not work from a safeguarding perspective and is not the significant SEND provision which Bristol desperately needs, undermining the legacy of St. Christopher’s which served the city’s vulnerable children for more than 70 years. It should be noted that the current lawful use of this land is, then, as a school for children with special educational needs.
Bristol City Council explained this background to the applicant in 2021 and, in formal Pre-Application guidance provided to the applicant (8/11/21), the council stated that there would be ‘a need for an ongoing Education/Community use of this site’ for special education needs. The BCC guidance went on to state:
‘As the site was formerly in educational use, it will be essential for you to fully explore the potential for SEND provision in your proposals’.
The applicant has completely failed to respond to this formal demand from the city council. The developer has, instead, set aside this clear guidance and attempted to argue, in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary, that there is no need for any SEND provision on this site. They arranged for a planning consultant, based in London, to write a report to justify this claim. Upon examination this report was roundly criticised by the Council’s Specialist Places Team (See Jessica Taylor letter attached), who highlighted numerous significant flaws in the data presented, emphasising that the findings of the report could not be used with any certainty.
In practice, there is a very serious and evidenced shortfall in provision within Bristol. The level of SEND need within Bristol has increased by 16% within the last year, compared to 10% nationally and 6% within neighbouring planning authorities. Bristol City Council readily acknowledges this under provision, with councillors at a recent cabinet meeting (06/12/22) deciding to approve a tender process for an education provider to deliver 30 SEND placements for children with complex needs (to be delivered by an INMSS - independent and non-maintained special school) at a cost of £10m+.
7
It is unclear, however, whether these placements are intended to be residential or day care, with many children previously attending St. Christopher’s requiring around the clock residential care. SCAN are of the understanding that currently there is no remaining residential care for children with complex special needs within Bristol. The below extract from the meeting demonstrates the severity of the existing situation, highlighting the need to provide SEND spaces to young people in Bristol who currently have ‘no other offer’:
‘Whilst it is understood that it is proposed to bring children who are already receiving education, outside of Bristol back into the area and that it may reduce more costly out of 7 area spend on alternative provision, it is also offer school places to some young people who have no other offer. On this basis this may not substitute existing spend and there is a risk additional cost pressures on the High Needs Block. This contract will therefore need to substitute existing high needs spending or will create an additional further budget pressure on £10.5m.’
The growing SEND demand, specifically that of the ‘High Needs’ children previously served by St. Christophers, is further evidenced by the increased allocation (10% increase) to ‘High Needs’ block funding at the last Bristol Schools Forum Meeting (29/12/22). Despite this additional funding, the High Needs block continues to be under significant pressure, with the current spending levels in 2022/2023 indicating the increased allocation in 2023/2034 will not cover current year forecast shortfalls and will not provide any additional funding for historic deficits. The same document from the Bristol Schools Forum Meeting advocates a target of 450 additional SEND places in Bristol by 2024.
The current situation is such that, as revealed in the Bristol Post (18/01/23), the Government has ordered Bristol City Council to fix its “fractured relationship” with parents of children with special educational needs (SEND). City Hall bosses are finalising an “accelerated progress plan”, which needs to be submitted to the Department for Education (DfE) by February 1st (2023), following a re-inspection by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in October.
(https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/government-orders-bristol-city-council-8042842)
In the revised planning application, the applicant claims to be providing space, in a so-called ‘Urban Village Hall’, to be used by local children, ‘including those with special education needs’. This suggestion has not been agreed or discussed with Westbury Park Primary School, who have made it clear that such an offer would not be feasible on safeguarding or health & safety grounds. Whilst it may have been discussed with specialist education experts at Bristol City Council, as demonstrated in the accompanying email by Jessica Taylor (Council’s Specialist Places Team), there is still variance between BCC and the applicant in regard to SEND provision.
Simply put, no formal offer has materialised or more importantly been agreed upon, yet the above proposal is included in the revised planning application to give the false impression that, in relation to SEND needs, the applicant has listened to the council. In practice, this proposal is hollow.
SCAN has conducted an analysis of the 630 objections submitted to the original planning application. This analysis shows that 132 (21%) of the objections complain about the absence of provision for SEND children. Given that the original planning application did not refer to SEND at all, these 132 objections show that many people in Bristol have a very high level of awareness of the important role this site can play in meeting the needs of Bristol children with disabilities. It is disappointing that the FORE partnership (and their associates) has chosen to ignore the major public policy concern relating to SEND provision in Bristol.
Ultimately, the applicant has still not demonstrated that there is no longer a need to provide a SEND use on the site. In fact, evidence points towards an urgent need to expand SEND provision within Bristol. The opportunity to re-use the existing premises or re-building should therefore be afforded substantial weight.
8
Consequently, the applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Development Plan Policies BCS12 & DM5 regarding the protection of community facilities and therefore there is an in-principle policy conflict.
LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The applicant has argued, for over a year now, that the Land Use Class for their scheme is C2 (residential institution) rather than C3 (residential dwelling). The Planning Statement Addendum notes that following confirmation from the council that the proposed development falls into Class C2, the application has been absolved from providing affordable housing on site.
In practice, there is ambiguity in UK planning law. When it comes to ‘integrated care’ projects that deliver both housing and social care, it is not always easy to distinguish between the C2 and C3 Use Classes. It is the case that so-called ‘extra care’ schemes in different parts of the country have blurred the boundary between these two Use Classes.
However, even though BCC have accepted the applicant’s claim that their scheme is Use Class C2, this does not necessarily absolve the developers of their responsibility to provide affordable housing on the St Christopher’s School site. The relevant legal finding here is the decision of the High Court (24/8/20) in the ‘Rectory Homes Limited v SSHCLG and Oxfordshire District Council’ dispute. The High Court found that ‘extra care developments within Use Class C2 are not exempt from providing affordable housing solely by virtue of falling within that use class’.
Therefore, it is SCAN’s contention that the application is still subject to Policy BCS17 (Affordable Housing Provision) of the Bristol Core Strategy (2011), requiring the applicant to arrange for 40% of the housing in their scheme to be affordable. BCC guidance requires developers (see the Affordable Housing Practice Note 2018) to ‘provide affordable homes on site without any public subsidy in line with the Council’s affordable housing policy’.
Moreover, the application provides no explanation of why the model of care proposed cannot cap the service charge on 40% of the new homes. Doing so may enable the scheme to meet the 40% affordable housing target. The applicant claims that the scheme will not be financially viable if affordable housing is included. However, this claim relating to financial viability is inaccurate.
The applicant was required to provide a Financial Viability Assessment (FVA) within the original submission package in March 2022, however, failed to do this. Following numerous requests, an FVA was provided in June 2022, of which SCAN provided a detailed review, submitting comments on it to the BCC Planning Portal on 12/7/22. The SCAN review shows that the submitted FVA, contains some significant flaws. In essence, the developer’s FVA claimed to show a deficit of £1.9 million on the scheme. However, the SCAN report demonstrates that this is not at all the case. Even if conservative figures are inputted to the FVA calculations, the evidence shows that the scheme proposed by the applicant in the original planning application would be expected to generate a surplus of £5.3 million (or more).
Most importantly, the SCAN financial viability assessment shows that it is perfectly possible to deliver a financially successful scheme with far fewer new housing units on this site than the developers claim. Fundamentally, this revised application package has not made it clear or provided any justification why even within a C2 category they should be excluded from Bristol City Council policy requirements to provide affordable housing. The application therefore fails to meet the requirements of Policy BCS17 and should be refused accordingly.
9
OTHER STATED CONCERNS
Alleged community ‘benefits’
SCAN would also like raise objections against the developers' claim to be offering ‘community benefit’, with there being scant detail or evidence of this within the proposed application package and less evidence still that their claimed "benefits" - e.g., of a cafe which would be open to the 9 public, and meeting rooms which could be used for community events - are either needed or wanted by the community.
SCAN Group would like to make it clear that these vague, unspecific offerings in no way compensate for the very serious and concerning issues that are still outstanding as outlined above. There has been no meaningful discussion with the community about their real priorities and needs; consequently, what the developers seem to be offering is not seen as needed or even particularly beneficial.
Westbury Park already has a multitude of popular and well supported cafes, often run by people living locally - therefore another cafe on site does not meet a ‘need’ in the community. Similarly, there are also plenty of meeting rooms within the churches and schools in Westbury Park - and these charities rely heavily on rental income as revenue. Furthermore, the most useful community asset currently on the St Christopher's site is the large hall. This is the only part of the site that has had any genuine community use recently and it would be far more beneficial to retain this but sadly, this is set to be destroyed.
Lastly, the distinction between the public and private realm is still undefined, and there is a lack of clarity or detail about access arrangements the community would actually have once the development is completed and the reality of 200+ vulnerable elderly adults moving in becomes clear.
Vagaries and omissions of detail within the application package
Another objection raised by SCAN Group relates to the litany of errors, omissions of detail and misleading information contained within the application package, as well the lack of proper consultation during the process. Whilst individually many of these discrepancies may appear minor in nature, accumulatively they show a disregard by the applicant to present the community with basic factual information surrounding the scheme. Several examples of which are provided below:
• Height of H01 Cottages in site section drawing 2006 rev A - During consultation with the developer these were described to us as single storey with accommodation in the roof. The rooftops now line up with the top of a 1930s house so are more like a townhouse with two full storeys and a roof above, and will be significantly higher than the current single storey building.
• Site section drawing 2006 – The top of roofline of the H01 cottages has been obscured by tree branches to disguise their height. In fact, there is no tree that can obscure the front of these cottages, so the view is misleading and incorrect.
• 2006 site section – this section is still showing the two very large trees tree 52 and tree 65 which elsewhere in the proposal says are to be removed for sewer works. The inclusion of these trees makes the scene deceptively green, and this error was pointed out in the first consultation, however, has not been remedied.
• Landscape addendum – Shows the ground as level between the rear boundary of the proposed Cottages and the rear of 15/16/17 The Glen. This is incorrect, with there being a change in ground level, with the proposed cottages being higher.
10
Highways impacts
It should be noted that the scope of this letter does not contain the full extent of concerns held by SCAN in regard to the submitted application. SCAN maintain the concerns raised in their previous representations to the original application package regarding highways impacts, however, to be succinct, these have been addressed in separate submission which should be read in conjunction with this letter, notably:
• Updated Objection from SCAN on Highways Grounds Document
SCAN would also like to refer the LPA to the recent Appeal decision ref. APP/Z0116/W/22/3299847 relating to Belvedere Road, one of the roads next to the neighbouring site. The appeal, which resulted in an increased parking demand of only an estimated 4 cars, was rejected by PINS on the 30th January 2023 due to the effect on ‘highway safety and congestion, having regard to on-street parking in the locality’.
The following commentary from the Inspector’s Report is relevant in this instance:
"there is no dispute that on-street parking in the area is at a premium with a high level of demand" and that the proposal "would result in additional demand for parking, exacerbating the existing problems. This would risk further vehicles blocking footways and dropped kerbs...[and] would result in conflict with moving vehicles and risk the highway safety of road users."
The issues with parking referred to by the Inspector within this appeal demonstrably exist throughout the whole area neighbouring the St Christopher’s site. It is therefore SCAN’s contention that the Inspector's Appeal decision should be given weight in the determination of the proposed scheme, which will likely result in an increased demand of at least 50 cars and thus should be similarly rejected.
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
This formal representation has been prepared by Rapleys LLP for and on behalf of St. Christopher’s Action Network (SCAN) and has been provided in response to the revised application package submitted on the 1st December 2022 pertinent to planning application ref: 22/01221/F.
Unfortunately, the revised application package forms a completely inadequate response to the significant concerns raised over the original scheme and fails to amount to any measurable improvement.
The revised application has demonstrated an unwillingness on the part of the developers to respond to the feedback received from BCC internal consultees and Historic England, as well as the serious concerns raised in over 1250 objections. None of the concerns raised by SCAN in their original objection have been satisfactorily addressed, with the application remaining inappropriate for the following reasons:
• The proposed scale, mass and bulk of the proposals remain wholly inappropriate within this sensitive heritage context and will give rise to a high level of unacceptable impacts on heritage assets and townscape;
• The applicant has not demonstrated that there is no longer a need to provide a SEND use and continues to disregard the increasing need for SEND accommodation in Bristol, therefore failing to satisfy the requirements of BCS12 and DM5;
11
• The extent of tree loss proposed remains inappropriate, particularly so in terms of high-quality individual specimens which make a valued contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area;
• The proposal remains inappropriate in transport and highway terms, owing to insufficient on-site parking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements, which will increase the road safety risks in an area where there is already a significant concern;
• The proposal includes no affordable housing, which is contrary to the adopted development plan. Upon review, the submitted Viability Appraisal to justify such lack of provision is not considered to be reliable, with the stated reasoning for the lack of provision in conflict with adopted policies and adopted supplementary planning guidance;
• The alleged community benefits are not proved to be either needed or wanted by the community and in no way compensate for the very serious and concerning issues that are still outstanding; and
• The application package is littered with vagaries and omissions of detail, showing disregard to present the community with basic factual information surrounding the scheme.
For these reasons, it is considered that the submitted application should be summarily refused by the Local Planning Authority.
Yours faithfully,
Rapleys LLP
on 2023-02-09 OBJECT
consultees and statutory bodies. Astonishingly, the FORE Partnership has not even bothered to consultthe community about these amended plans. This unwillingness to fully engage in a meaningful way iscompletely unacceptable as well as deeply frustrating, given the time and effort people have spent overthe last year communicating, time and time again, with the applicant about their views. It is also worthnoting that the application itself is littered with errors and misleading information; many of which someof our members have pointed out but which have failed to be addressed. Much like the flawed andbiased consultation process, this approach shows a blatant disregard for the community.
This planning application must be robustly refused by Bristol City Council for the following six reasons.
1) Harm to the heritage of Westbury Park
The proposed scale, mass and bulk of the proposals remain wholly unacceptable & inappropriate withinthis designated Conservation Area. The scheme would cause irreversible harm to the heritage assetsand townscape of Westbury Park. There is a statutory duty for the local authority to protect our city’sheritage.
2) Loss of SEND provision
The applicant has entirely failed to demonstrate that there is no longer a need to provide services forchildren with special educational needs on this site. The applicant has ignored Bristol City Councilguidance and continues to disregard the increasing need for SEND accommodation in Bristol, and withno firm offer of replacement provision, is therefore failing to satisfy the requirements of BCS12 and DM5.
3) Damage to the environment and to biodiversity
The extent of tree loss proposed remains utterly unacceptable, particularly so given the many very, highquality mature trees on the site. These trees make a highly valued contribution to the character andappearance of the neighbourhood, and they also contribute to the biodiversity of the DownsConservation Area.
4) Road Safety Risk
The proposal remains inappropriate in transport and highway terms, owing to insufficient on-siteparking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements, which will increase the road safetyrisks in an area where there is already a significant concern. Please refer to our separate objectionsetting out our concerns purely on Highways grounds.
5) Lack of Affordable Housing
The proposal includes no affordable housing, which is contrary to the aims of the city council, theadopted development plan and national policy. We have reviewed the Financial Viability Assessment(submitted five months late by the developers, in July 2022). This purports to justify such lack ofprovision on the grounds that this would make the scheme ‘technically unviable’. This is demonstrablynot the case. The stated reasoning for not providing affordable housing is flawed and does not stand upto scrutiny.
6) False claims about alleged ‘community benefit’
There has been no discussion with the community about their real priorities and needs and, therefore,there is no evidence to support the claims made by the developer that the so-called ‘benefits’ of a cafeand/or meeting rooms are either needed or wanted by the community. It is our contention that theproposed scheme does not deliver genuine benefit to the community. It is reasonable to ask, if thescheme is delivering ‘community benefits’; why are more than 97% of the formal comments on thescheme opposing this application?
In conclusion
This revised planning application does not comply with multiple core Bristol City Council policies, nor ourown Community Planning Principles drawn up jointly with the Westbury Park Community Association,and submitted to Bristol Council on 3/11/21. These wise principles for the development of the site areentirely in line with established Bristol City Council planning policies, and were included in the PreApplication guidance given to the developer by Paul Chick on behalf of the council on 8/11/21.
We urge the councillors to recognise the validity of our concerns, which are based on wellestablished council policy and to indicate that this application should be robustly refused.
We would like to stress our belief that the application should be refused on all the grounds that wehave laid out and the refusal should be extensive, detailed and specific. We hope this would helpavoid future applications wasting both the council and community’s time and resources due toonly making minimal changes, as well as being vitally important to ensure that any furtherproposals for this site, by this developer or any other, appropriately reflect the constraints of the siteand comply with all established Bristol City Council Policies.
With many thanksThe Team at SCAN
on 2023-02-03 OBJECT
This is to add some new information to my earlier objection.
I would like to note the result of Appeal Ref APP/Z0116/W/22/3299847 (BCC application reference22/01529/F) relating to Belvedere Road, one of the roads neighbouring the site, directly adjoiningThe Glen. This shows that an application resulting in an increased parking demand of only anestimated 4 - 5 cars was rejected by PINS on 30th January 2023, due to the effect on "highwaysafety and congestion, having regard to on-street parking in the locality".
The Inspector particularly commented that "there is no dispute that on-street parking in the area isat a premium with a high level of demand" and that the proposal "would result in additionaldemand for parking, exacerbating the existing problems. This would risk further vehicles blockingfootways and dropped kerbs...[and] would result in conflict with moving vehicles and risk thehighway safety of road users."
As SCAN and many residents have raised, the proposed new access to St Christophers from TheGlen cannot help but increase the parking demands on The Glen and the adjacent BelvedereRoad, due to:
- Likely usage by residents, visitors and staff of St Christophers, in light of the insufficient on-siteparking. This is particularly likely for users of Block D, as most of the limited on-site parking iseven stated by the applicant to be "a long distance from their front door" (Planning StatementAddendum 4.52) so it would be closer, cheaper and more convenient for them to park on The
Glen, easily accessed through the pedestrian gate
- Likely usage by visitors to the Urban Village Hall, which borders The Glen and has no on-siteparking, encouraging visitors to try to park in The Glen and walk through the pedestrian gate
- Removal of some existing on-street parking spaces to allow access to the site for cars andemergency vehicles, reducing the number of available spaces.
The existing over-demand for parking in this locality, and the resulting road safety risks, have beenraised and evidenced in many objections, and the recent Appeal shows that these concerns havealso been witnessed and endorsed by the Planning Inspector.
Furthermore, the issues with parking referred to by the Inspector demonstrably exist throughoutthe whole area neighbouring the St Christophers site, which clearly is unable to absorb theoverspill parking from St Christophers without impacting road safety, as further evidenced insubmissions from SCAN and other residents.
In summary, it should be clear that the issues raised by the Planning Inspector relating to thisearlier application would equally apply to:
- Additional parking demand placed on The Glen and Belvedere Road due to the new access pointfrom The Glen
- Additional parking demand (estimated as at least 50 cars at peak times) placed on allsurrounding roads due to the insufficient on-site parking
and PINS' dismissal of Appeal APP/Z0116/W/22/3299847 evidently supports that these are validgrounds for refusing this application.
on 2023-01-13 OBJECT
on 2023-01-13 OBJECT
on 2023-01-10 OBJECT
This site has been specialist education provision for children and young people withSEND for decades. The proposals from this developer tell us that this legacy is currently'ongoing to investigate the feasibility to make the space within the Urban Village Hall available forthe provision of SEND spaces, or, if that is not possible, a proportional financial contribution forSEND places in North Bristol, secured via a S106 Agreement'SEND provision is by definition in need of being fully understood by the designers in order to meetthe needs of those attending. The statement, apparently updated, does not provide me withconfidence that the needs of the children are being considered as central to the proposals. SENDprovision can only be effective when these needs are central, this is further backed up in thestatement involving S106 funds for off-site provision - this developer is not interested in providingSEND provision.SEND is this council's largest budget deficit year on year with much caused by the need for out-of-area provision - our children need more specialist provision, not less. If SEND provision is lostfrom this geographical location now it will never return. Children and their families need localprovision in their communities not somewhere in 'North Bristol' as the developer states.I refer the committee to the comments made by the Education officer that describes the claimsmade by the developer as demonstrating a 'limited understanding of SEND' that there are 'seriouserrors in the data' used by the developer in relation to SEND needs of Bristol's children that thedeveloper makes 'incorrect statements', that 'Table 2 is incorrect', that whole sections of the reportare 'wholly inaccurate' and 'incorrect'.
I also object to the 0% of affordable housing proposed. This developer quotes an apparent letter
from the council agreeing that 0% is needed. As a member of that council I disagree that anydevelopment can be permissible without affordable housing to at least that required in policy.
on 2023-01-09 OBJECT
Whilst I agree with the repurposing of the site to 'high density' retirement flats (better forthem to move from large properties so that these can be recycled to families), I see no realevidence that there is any effort to encourage use of public transport, etc.
Due to this (and staff need for parking - same reason), the already severe parking issues aroundWP will be further accentuated. The developers need to work with BCC/WoECA & car rentalcompanies to ensure;
i) bus frequency guaranteed/improved (2 & 2a?) into town/Cribbsii) multiple short-term car hire slots on the siteiii) a resident's parking scheme setup - across 24hrs period.
on 2023-01-09 OBJECT
wall is jointly owned and we have had no request to do any work to it) andpropsals for the planting of small trees against this boundary. Without sectionsthere is no clear indication of whether merely retaining the existing wall willindeed be at all adequate to maintain and provide adequate private amenity.
In the revised proposal dated 1 December the proposed Cottages (H02) havemerely been moved slightly (2m) along parallel to the boundary but are still fartoo close resulting in a significant adverse impact on our outlook and a whollyunacceptable physical relationship resulting in mutually unacceptableoverlooking and overshadowing. Also, the provision of active public gardenspaces directly on our boundaries will compound the above by reason ofnoise and general disturbance.
Our back garden at No. 25 is very shallow with its principal private amenityspace being to the North. Nos. 23 and 21 have more typical back gardens butNo. 23’s is still shallow. Our gardens are approximately 1 to 2m below thelevel of the application site such that our garden walls are part retaining.
All three properties (No. 21, 23 & 25) are typical two storey but all also haveroof space accommodation and dormer rear elevation windows. All three ofour properties have ground floor kitchen and living accommodation and firstand second floor rear bedrooms. These first and second floor bedrooms havedirect line of sight down into and over the application site.
Our current outlook is pleasant with open areas and significant trees andrelated wildlife interest. At the present time there is no unacceptable windowto window overlooking or overshowing and our gardens are private.
The proposed “Cottages” (H02) are two storey, but despite our previouscomments, we still do not know at what level they are proposed. If we assumethey are built at ground level then they will have a dpc between 1 and 2mhigher than our properties. As we state above we cannot see any directlyrelated section(s) to accurately illustrate the relationship.
The “Cottages” H02 have not moved away from our property and therefore,our measurement of “back to back” and window to window distances scaledfrom the submitted Proposed Ground Layout plans are unchanged:-
15m from northernmost plot of H02 terrace rear elevation to gardenboundary of No. 25 and between 16.5 and 17.5m to rear elevation;
A 10.5m garden depth and a distance of 15.5m from the rear elevationof H02 terrace to the rear kitchen of No. 23 and 20m and 21m to therear elevation;
An 8m garden depth and a 21.5m distance to the rear elevation of No.21.
The above distances are reflective of the oblique relationship of both theproposed and the existing development to the dividing boundary. Thedistances demonstrate that the development is far too close even if this werea flat site with a standard 1.8m boundary and a parallel relationship. However,the application site is higher that the ground level in Nos. 21-25; therelationship is oblique and we all have second floor roof accommodation. Wedisagree with the Addendum Planning Statement 4.25 opinion that “…this was
acceptable as submitted.” Even with the addition of obscured glazing our sideand rear private amenity areas will be severely overlooked; there will besevere overlooking to and from rear elevation windows; the new rear gardenswill be severely overlooked by our first and second floor bedroom windowsand we will all be overshadowed by the proposed “Cottages”.
The provision of “active public areas” on our boundaries will also add noiseand disturbance particularly for Nos. 25 and 21 and the scale of developmentand proposed small trees immediately on the boundary willresult in overshowing. The submitted report says that the development iscompliant with BRE Guidelines and that there is thus no unacceptableovershowing / loss of light. We do not see the evidence to support this. Indeedin the submitted Daylight & Sunlight Report (28 November 2022) Appendix 2shows significant (30-50%) reduction in both summer and winter daylight intoour main living areas of No. 25 and a reduction in sunlight and daylight to allthe windows in Nos. 23 (NB: there are still no figures published for No. 21).
On the basis of the above and as many people and SCAN and WPCA havesaid the proposal is an “overdevelopment” with too much and too highdevelopment too close to the site boundaries. While we accept and havepreviosly stated that we do not oppose redevelopment in principle, inaccordance with both National and Local Policy this must be done while bothdelivering acceptable and protecting existing residential amenity.
The developers pre-application consultation and response to the originalproposal has turned out to be a sham with promised quality and applicationdetail not forthcoming. This manifests itself in the lack of level and sectiondetail submitted and the hollow words in supporting reports, acknowledgingadverse impact but concluding that this is the best that can be done and istherefore acceptable.
We do not agree that the impacts, whilst reduced, are either acceptable oroutweighed by the socio-economic benefits potentially delivered byredevelopment.
Bristol Core Strategy Policy BCS21 states that development will be expectedto, “Safeguard the amenity of existing development and create a high-qualityenvironment for future occupiers.”
Paragraph 4.21.13 of the plan supporting Policy BCS21 then states, “A highquality built environment should consider the amenity of both existing andfuture development. Consideration should be given to matters of privacy,outlook, natural lighting, ventilation and indoor and outdoor space.”
Bristol Development Management Policy DM26 states in relation to Infilldevelopment that proposals will be expected to have regard to, “..theprevailing character and quality of the surrounding townscape….Infilldevelopments on return frontages should be compatible with the opencharacter of corner sites and be subservient in height, scale and massing tothe primary frontage building” In relation to “backland” development it statesthat development, “..will be expected to be subservient in height, scale, massand form to the surrounding frontage buildings. It should not prejudice theopportunity to develop the adjoining land of similar potential nor should the
proposed access arrangements cause adverse impacts to the character andappearance, safety or amenity of the existing frontage development.”
Policy DM27 states that development “…will be expected to….enable existingand proposed development to achieve appropriate levels of privacy, outlookand daylight; and policy DM29, interestingly referenced in the residentialamenity section of the Planning Statement but not more formally in thePlanning Policy section, states that development, “will be expectedto…..ensure that existing and proposed development achieves appropriatelevels of privacy, outlook and daylight”.
Overarching local policy is consistent with guidance in the NPPF whichchampions “good design” and states at paragraph 130 that, “Planningpolicies and decisions should ensure that developments: create places thatare safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being,with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.”
On the basis of our review we conclude that the revised proposal is still a poorresponse to site context and an overdevelopment. This manifests itself incritical adverse impact on our residential amenity by reason of direct andperceived overlooking both to private gardens and by reason of direct windowto window distances; overshadowing and the additional harm caused byreason of the location of quasi public spaces immediately on our boundaries.
These direct future impacts are compounded by the loss of existing trees andthe erosion of the residential amenity and outlook we currently enjoy.
The revised proposal lacks detail and on that basis we reserve our position toreview and comment again on any additional information provided. Howeveron the basis of the revised application submitted on 1 December assubmitted we consider that it is by reason of adverse residential amenityimpact contrary to prevailing planning policy and should be refused onthis basis alone.
Yours sincerely
Appendix A: letter to FORE Partnership 22 December 2021
Appendix B: Consultation response – OBJECTION – 16 May 2022
22nd December 2021
FORE Partnership
Reference: St Christopher’s Public Consultation
Following our attendance at the St Christopher’s Public consultation. We theresidents of have grouped together toprovide a single shared response to the consultation.
These are independent of any comments you may receive at this stage fromthe WPCA and SCAN groups. Notwithstanding, we are aware of the 6“principles” agreed by WPCA and SCAN and we support these.
• RESPECT THE LOCAL HISTORY AND CONTEXT: Recognise thetwo distinct parts of the site – enhance and protect the villas at thefront, and ensure that development in the rear land, behind the villas,reflects the scale and character of the 2-storey housing in adjacentstreets.
• DO NOT MAKE OUR TRAFFIC AND PARKING ANY WORSE:Ensure that any development will not lead to any additional traffic orparking in surrounding streets - road safety must be prioritised.
• RESPECT OUR HOMES: Safeguard the privacy of propertiessurrounding the site - no new buildings should be taller than existingbuildings in the rear land.
• BE GENUINELY GREEN: There should be a net gain in biodiversity;protecting existing trees, landscape and wildlife. Plans must respond tothe current global climate and ecological emergencies.
• DO NOT OVERDEVELOP THE SITE: This largely green space shouldnot be overdeveloped but should maintain and enhance the unique andspecial character of Westbury Park, which is a designatedConservation Area.
• KEEP OUR CHILDREN SAFE: Recognise that, in the interests ofpublic safety, there should be no access to the site from BayswaterAvenue or The Glen.
Thank you for undertaking this pre-application consultation and we appreciatethe time, effort and cost associated with running such events. However, ourrepresentations submitted now are Without Prejudice to any comments wemay make to the submitted Planning and Listed Building Consent applicationsin due course.
The comments we submit are necessarily focused on how the developmentwill directly affect us and are therefore somewhat negative in tone. However,as an introduction we appreciate the site needs to be redeveloped andsupport this in principle. While we therefore support the retention andconversion of the Westbury Park villas; the retention and conversion of thelisted Grace House and the opportunity that presents itself for somedemolition and new building this must be undertaken with due respect to thecharacter and appearance of the Conservation Area and the area moregenerally and the character and setting of Grace House; involve the retention(and safeguarding) of all important trees (whether the subject of a currentTPO or not) and must cause no harm to, and potentially improve, theresidential amenity of all local residents.
Within this context our first substantive comment is that the informationdisplayed at the consultation event was to a large extent indicative andtherefore vague. While the proposals have positively developed since theinitial consultation and no doubt will develop further it was genuinely difficult tounderstand what the key elements of the current proposal were. While thoseconsultants at the event, presenting on behalf of the developers wherehelpful, some questions could not be answered definitively and some left keyissues unresolved.
In the above context, our view is that describing the development as an“integrated retirement community” is vague and does not hide the fact thatwhat is proposed is simply a residential re-development. Alongside this therewas of course no reference to on-site affordable housing provision. At thisstage and while the price and management costs of the eventualaccommodation and services may dictate who can afford to live at the site, weassume that the City Council will insist on the provision of a substantialproportion of affordable housing. We also assume that as the site was boughton the open market with full knowledge of the physical and planning policycontext that no credible viability argument could be mounted against theprovision of a policy compliant percentage and mix of affordable housing. Indue course we would therefore be very interested in the form and location ofthis on the site.
The quantum of development was also unclear on the presentation boardsalthough we were separately advised that the total development was 120units (25 via conversion and 95 via new build) with “approximately” 65 parkingspaces. Also, apart from via two indicative and unscaled sections, there wasvery little detail on the scale of the buildings and their external appearance.The relevant boards looked like they had subsequently been marked in penwith storey heights noted as ranging from 4-6 storeys with 2 storey “cottages”and the conversion of the existing Villas. The nature of the use and thequantum and mix of development obviously also affects car parking and againit was unclear, with the use class undefined, how the “approximately” 65parking spaces referred to were derived. Also, the issue of public access wasalso somewhat unclear. While we support the public (or bookable) use of anyfacilities to be provided within Grace House we object to any east – westpublic vehicular or pedestrian through route, which would have the potential toadversely impact our residential amenity. Consequently, we object to theretention and upgrading of the existing access to Etloe Road / BayswaterAvenue and request that this be permanently abandoned / appropriatelyclosed.
Only “approximately” 65 parking spaces are referred to and there was nobreakdown between allocated residents parking, visitors or staff or servicevehicle parking. Only 65 parking spaces for 120 apartments is approximatelyhalf the maximum standard required by the Council (if all the units were 1 bed)and this does seem woefully inadequate even allowing for the potential ageprofile and sustainable location of the site. If on site parking is in any wayinadequate to serve this housing development; if the existing Etloe Road /Bayswater Avenue access is retained and upgraded or if a “public” throughpedestrian / cycle or vehicular access is proposed, then there will besignificant direct and indirect highway, residential amenity and security impactfor us and the other local residents.
All existing trees of any merit (whether TPOd or not) must be retained andprotected from harm immediately and in the long term. The trees are visuallyand environmentally important to the character and appearance of the area;biodiversity and existing residential amenity. This will also assist the “net zero”claims; bio-diversity gain requirements and sustainability generally.
We welcome the proposed restoration of the old cottage maintaining itscurrent footprint and form and proposed use by the community.
The plans displayed showed two terraces of “cottages” facing the rear of ourhomes but the only other detail provided was that gleaned from the indicativesection, which appeared to show a two storey scale with rear gable design(perhaps taking a reference from the dwellings on Royal Albert Road). Wehave assumed that these “cottages” are indeed single dwellings rather than acollection of apartments. We support a two storey design approach and wouldpromote that across the whole site in the interests of our and other residentsresidential amenity; the character and appearance of the Conservation Areaand the setting of Grace House. However, land levels are not clear and therear gables of these dwellings appeared to be not as wide and of a steeperpitch that those that exist along Royal Albert Road, therefore removing anyclaim that they are a design reference, and have windows shown implyingroof space accommodation.
Related to the above is the distance these properties are from the siteboundary and the rear elevations of our homes. The existing relationship isnot typical in that the boundary is at an angle and this is not reflected in thelayout. We haven’t been presented with scaled plans; accurate cross sectionsor elevations drawings but our estimate is that the proposed rear gardens areall less than 10m deep and that in some cases the rear elevation to elevationdistance may be as short as only 12m. This would clearly and obviously bewholly unacceptable for us and the residents in any new properties. Thiswould be further compounded if second floor roofspace accommodation wasalso proposed and is also in addition to our significant objection to the loss oftrees in this north eastern part of the site.
While the two storey scale of development proposed by these “cottages” issupported in principle any such accommodation must be sited sympatheticallyto the existing trees and sufficiently distant from our properties (having regardto their scale and orientation) such that reasonable landscaping can beaccommodated and our privacy and general residential amenity is unaffectedby reason of overlooking, overshadowing, noise or light spill.
The siting and orientation of these two blocks of proposed dwellings meansthat our existing verdant outlook is removed; we are significantly overlookedand are at real risk of being significantly overshadowed by development soclose to the sites eastern boundary.
We would be grateful if you could consider the above and thereforereconsider your proposals. We would be happy to review any revised plan youmay prepare but would ask that these be clear in respect of tree removal andnew landscaping, accompanied by appropriate existing topographicalinformation; be drawn to scale and be clearly marked with proposed levelsand dimensions.
Yours sincerely
16 May 2022
Development Management
Bristol City Council,
City Hall,
PO Box 3399,
Bristol
BS1 9NE
FAO Paul Chick
Planning Application 22/01221/FSt Christopher’s, Westbury Park
We refer to the above and Object to the proposals. Whilst we think the siteneeds to be developed, this letter specifically addresses our residentialamenity we also support the WPCA and SCAN objections both in principleand in detail.
We took part in the pre-application public consultation and previolusly wrotewith our neighbours to the Fore Partnership on the 22 December 2021. Forinformation we attach a copy of this letter as Appendix 1 and do not thereforerepeat its contents. This letter is quoted in the Statement of CommunityInvolvement (SOCI pages 192/193) but the objections set out in that letterhave unfortunately not been satisfactorily addressed.
The application is vague in parts and lacks detail especially in relation toproposed land levels and relevant cross sections. This information waspromised to local residents during the consultation process (see SOCI page79) and while some further information was published with the final round ofpublic consultation (December 2022 e.g Site Section C-C, stated distancesand some level information) this has not been revised and submitted with theformal application. Without reasonably accessible levels information andaccurate cross sections it it is difficult to fully assess the relationship of theproposed “Cottages” (H02 and H03) to our properties and visa versa. As aspecific point we cannot see any section drawings through the proposedCottages to our properties that accurately reflects the differing land levels and“back to back” distances. We estimate that the land within the site is between1 and 2m higher than our garden levels (but there are no proposed land anddpc levels readily apparent on the submitted plans).
It is also unclear where the boundary is between “private” rear gardens and“”active semi public” spaces and how such “active semi public” spaces would
be managed (see Desifgn and Access Statement (DAS) pages 61, 95 and106). Also, there is a note on the Landscaping Masterplan drawing simplystating that our existing rear garden stone boundary wall will be retained andmade good (NB: this wall is miss described as a 2m high brick wall on thetopographical survey embedded as an Appendix in the Drainage StrategyReport. Also this wall is jointly owned and we have had no request to do anywork to it) and propsals for the planting of small trees against this boundary.Without sections there is no clear indication of whether merely retaining theexisting wall will indeed be at all adequate to maintain and provide adequateprivate amenity.
The documents submitted acknowledge that the boundary to BayswaterAvenue is “sensitive” (DAS page 42) and that design constraints are imposedby existing development (page 43). This is indeed well illustrated by an aerialphotograph in the DAS (page 38); the fourth picture on page 40 and the fourthVerified Image. The Verified image clearly illustartes how close and dominantthe Cottages will be to our properties and in the image, combined with theblock beyond, how grossly overlooking, overbearing and contrasting they willbe particularly to the private side garden of No. 25 but also to all the rearelevations and indeed the public street itself.
Since the Consultation Event the proposed Cottages (H02) have merely beenslightly angled away from the boundary but both blocks are still far too closeresulting in a significant adverse impact on our outlook and a whollyunacceptable physical relationship resulting in mutually unacceptableoverlooking and overshadowing. Also, the provision of active public publicgarden spaces directly on our boundaries will compound the above by reasonof noise and general disturbance.
Our back garden at No. 25 is very shallow with its principal private amenityspace being to the North. Nos. 23 and 21 have more typical back gardens butNo. 23’s is still shallow. Our gardens are approximately 1 to 2m below thelevel of the application site such that our garden walls are part retaining.
All three properties are typical two storey (it is not clear whether this isacknowldeged – see DAS page 41) but all also have roof spaceaccommodation and dormer rear elevation windows. All three of ourproperties have grond floor kitchen and living accommodation and first andsecond floor rear bedrooms. These first and second floor bedrooms havedirect line of sight down into and over the application site.
Our current outlook is pleasant with open areas and significant trees andrelated wildlife interest. At the present time there is no unacceptable windowto window overlooking or overshowing and our gardens are private.
The proposed “Cottages” are two storey but we currently do not know at whatlevel they are proposed. If we assume they are built at ground level then theywill have a dpc between 1 and 2m higher than our properties. As we stateabove we cannot see any directly related section(s) to accurately illustrate therelationship. The SOCI in this respect makes reference only to “increasingdistances” (page 45) and “respected and preserved as much as possible”(page 50 our undelyning). The DAS at page 59 states, “The heights of theproposed cottages are lower than the existing heights in Bayswater Avenueand The Glen.”, but again the actual heights are not illustrated having regard
to existing ground levels. (NB: this is also not consistent with the previouslypublished Section C-C, which shows the “Cottages” at the same height as ourproperties even allowing for the garden level differences.) The PlanningStatement at para 6.47 states, “…significant overlooking or overshaowingdoes not occur…” and “…buildings have been re-orinetated to seek to reduceimpacts on neighbours.” (again our underlyning). The language used is notbased on stated distances and acknwowledges harm but considers it areasonable impact.
Our measurement of “back to back” and window to window distances scaledform the submitted Proposed Ground Layout plan are:-
• Between 8.5 and 9.5m from rear elevation of H03 semi-pair to gardenboundary of No. 25 and a 15m angled view from rear elevation to side(north) elevation of No. 25;
• 15m from northernmost plot of H02 terrace rear elevation to gardenboundary of No. 25 and between 16.5 and 17.5m to rear elevation;
• A 10.5m garden depth and a distance of 15.5m from the rear elevationof H02 terrace to the rear kitchen of No. 23 and 20m and 21m to therear elevation;
• An 8m garden depth and a 21.5m distance to the rear elevation of No.21.
The above distances are reflective of the oblique relationship of both theproposed and the existing development to the dividing boundary. Thedistances demonstrate that the development is far too close even if this werea flat site with a standard 1.8m boundary and a parallel relationship. However,the application site is higher that the ground level in Nos. 21-25; therelationship is oblique and we all have second floor roof accommodation. Wedisagree with the Planning Statement that “…proposed offset distances areconsidered to be acceptable and would not cause an unacceptable loss oflight or amenity to surrounding neighbours” (para 6.47). Our side and rearprivate amenity areas will be severely overlooked; there will be severeoverlooking to and from rear elevation windows; the new rear gardens will beseverely overlooked by our first and second floor bedroom windows and wewill all be overshdowed by the proposed “Cottages”.
The provision of “active public areas” on our boundaries will also add noiseand disturbance particularly for Nos. 25 and 21 and the scale of developmentand proposed small trees immediately on the boundary willresult in overshowing. The submitted report says that the development iscompliant with BRE Guidelines and that there is thus no unacceptableovershowing / loss of light. We do not see the evidence to support this. Indeedin the submitted Daylight & Sunlight Report (22 February 2022) drawings2613 03-01, 02 and 03 (Appendix 1) do appear to show significantovershadowing to at least the side garden of No. 25. Also, in the publishedfigures (Appendix 2) there is a noted reduction in sunlight and daylight to allthe windows in Nos. 25 and 23 (NB: there are no figures published for No.21). Then in Appendix 4 there is no reference at all to Nos. 21-25.
On the basis of the above and as many people and SCAN and WPCA havesaid the proposal is an “overdevelopment” with too much and too highdevelopment too close to the site boundaries. While we accept and havepreviosly stated that we do not oppose redevelopment in principle, in
accordance with both National and Local Policy this must be done while bothdelivering acceptable and protecting existing residential amenity.
The developers pre-application consultation has turned out to be a sham withpromised quality and application detail not forthecoming. This manifests itselfin the lack of level and section detail submitted and the hollow words insupporting reports, acknowledging adverse impact but concluding that this isthe best that can be done and is therefore acceptable.
We do not agree that the impacts are either accepotable or ourtweighed bythe socio-economic benefits potentially delivered by redevelopment.
Bristol Core Strategy Policy BCS21 states that development will be expectedto, “Safeguard the amenity of existing development and create a high-qualityenvironment for future occupiers.”
Paragraph 4.21.13 of the plan supporting Policy BCS21 then states, “A highquality built environment should consider the amenity of both existing andfuture development. Consideration should be given to matters of privacy,outlook, natural lighting, ventilation and indoor and outdoor space.”
Bristol Development Management Polciy DM26 states in relation to Infilldevelopment that proposals will be expected to have regard to, “..theprevailing character and quality of the surrounding townscape….Infilldevelopments on return frontages should be compatible with the opencharacter of corner sites and be subservient in height, scale and massing tothe primary frontage building” In relation to “backland” development it statesthat development, “..will be expected to be subservient in height, scale, massand form to the surrounding frontage buildings. It should not prejudice theopportunity to develop the adjoining land of similar potential nor should theproposed access arrangements cause adverse impacts to the character andappearance, safety or amenity of the existing frontage development.”
Policy DM27 states that development “…will be expected to….enable existingand proposed development to achieve appropriate levels of privacy, outlookand daylight; and policy DM29, interestingly referenced in the residentialamenity section of the Planning Statement but not more formally in thePlanning Policy section, states that development, “will be expectedto…..ensure that existing and proposed development achieves appropriatelevels of privacy, outlook and daylight”.
Overarching local policy is consistent with guidance in the NPPF whichchampions “good design” and states at paragraph 130 that, “Planningpolicies and decisions should ensure that developments: create places thatare safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being,with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.”
On the basis of our review we conclude that the development is indeed a poorresponse to site context and an overdevelopment. This manifests itself incritical adverse impact on our residential amenity by reason of direct andperceived overlooking both to private gardens and by reason of direct windowto window distances; overshadowing and the additional harm caused byreason of the location of quasi public spaces immediately on our boundaries.
These direct future impacts are compounded by the loss of existing trees andthe erosion of the residential amenity and outlook we currently enjoy.
The proposal lacks detail and on that basis we reserve our position to reviewand comment again on any additional information provided. However on thebasis of the application as submitted we consider that it is by reason ofadverse residential amenity impact contrary to prevailing planningpolicy and should be refused on this basis alone.
Yours sincerely
Appendix 1: letter to FORE Partnership 22 December 2021
on 2023-01-09 OBJECT
106). Also, there is a note on the Landscaping Masterplan drawing simplystating that our existing rear garden stone boundary wall will be retained andmade good (NB: this wall is mis-described as a 2m high brick wall on thetopographical survey embedded as an Appendix in the Drainage StrategyReport. Also this wall is jointly owned and we have had no request to do anywork to it) and propsals for the planting of small trees against this boundary.Without sections there is no clear indication of whether merely retaining theexisting wall will indeed be at all adequate to maintain and provide adequateprivate amenity.
The documents submitted acknowledge that the boundary to BayswaterAvenue is “sensitive” (DAS page 42) and that design constraints are imposedby existing development (page 43). This is indeed well illustrated by an aerialphotograph in the DAS (page 38); the fourth picture on page 40 and thefourth Verified Image. The Verified image clearly illustartes how close anddominant the Cottages will be to our properties and in the image, combinedwith the block beyond, how grossly overlooking, overbearing and contrastingthey will be to the private gardens of No. 21, 23 and 25 but also to all the rearelevations and indeed the public street itself.
Since the Consultation Event the proposed Cottages (H02) have merely beenslightly angled away from the boundary but both blocks are still far too closeresulting in a significant adverse impact on our outlook and a whollyunacceptable physical relationship resulting in mutually unacceptableoverlooking and overshadowing. Also, the provision of active public publicgarden spaces directly on our boundaries will compound the above by reasonof noise and general disturbance.
No. 25 has a very shallow back garden with its principal private amenity spacebeing to the North. Nos. 23 and 21 have more typical back gardens but No.23’s is still shallow. Our gardens are approximately 1 to 2m below the level ofthe application site such that our garden walls are part retaining.
All three properties are typical two storey (it is not clear whether this isacknowldeged – see DAS page 41) but all also have roof spaceaccommodation and dormer rear elevation windows. All three of ourproperties have ground floor kitchen and living accommodation and first andsecond floor rear bedrooms. These first and second floor bedrooms havedirect line of sight down into and over the application site.
Our current outlook is pleasant with open areas and significant trees andrelated wildlife interest. At the present time there is no unacceptable windowto window overlooking or overshowing and our gardens are private.
The proposed “Cottages” are two storey but we currently do not know at whatlevel they are proposed. If we assume they are built at ground level then theywill have a dpc between 1 and 2m higher than our properties. As we stateabove we cannot see any directly related section(s) to accurately illustrate therelationship. The SOCI in this respect makes reference only to “increasingdistances” (page 45) and “respected and preserved as much as possible”(page 50 our undelyning). The DAS at page 59 states, “The heights of theproposed cottages are lower than the existing heights in Bayswater Avenueand The Glen.”, but again the actual heights are not illustrated having regardto existing ground levels. (NB: this is also not consistent with the previously
published Section C-C, which shows the “Cottages” at the same height as ourproperties even allowing for the garden level differences.) The PlanningStatement at para 6.47 states, “…significant overlooking or overshaowingdoes not occur…” and “…buildings have been re-orinetated to seek to reduceimpacts on neighbours.” (again our underlyning). The language used is notbased on stated distances and acknwowledges harm but considers it areasonable impact.
Our measurement of “back to back” and window to window distances scaledform the submitted Proposed Ground Layout plan are:-
• Between 8.5 and 9.5m from rear elevation of H03 semi-pair to gardenboundary of No. 25 and a 15m angled view from rear elevation to side(north) elevation of No. 25;
• 15m from northernmost plot of H02 terrace rear elevation to gardenboundary of No. 25 and between 16.5 and 17.5m to rear elevation;
• A 10.5m garden depth and a distance of 15.5m from the rear elevationof H02 terrace to the rear kitchen of No. 23 and 20m and 21m to therear elevation;
• An 8m garden depth and a 21.5m distance to the rear elevation of No.21.
The above distances are reflective of the oblique relationship of both theproposed and the existing development to the dividing boundary. Thedistances demonstrate that the development is far too close even if this werea flat site with a standard 1.8m boundary and a parallel relationship. However,the application site is higher that the ground level in Nos. 21-25; therelationship is oblique and we all have second floor roof accommodation. Wedisagree with the Planning Statement that “…proposed offset distances areconsidered to be acceptable and would not cause an unacceptable loss oflight or amenity to surrounding neighbours” (para 6.47). Our side and rearprivate amenity areas will be severely overlooked; there will be severeoverlooking to and from rear elevation windows; the new rear gardens will beseverely overlooked by our first and second floor bedroom windows and wewill all be overshdowed by the proposed “Cottages”.
The provision of “active public areas” on our boundaries will also add noiseand disturbance particularly for Nos. 25 and 21 and the scale of developmentand proposed small trees immediately on the boundary willresult in overshadowing. The submitted report says that the development iscompliant with BRE Guidelines and that there is thus no unacceptableovershadwing / loss of light. We do not see the evidence to support this.Indeed in the submitted Daylight & Sunlight Report (22 February 2022)drawings 2613 03-01, 02 and 03 (Appendix 1) do appear to show significantovershadowing to at least the side garden of No. 25. Also, in the publishedfigures (Appendix 2) there is a noted reduction in sunlight and daylight to allthe windows in Nos. 25 and 23 (NB: there are no figures published for No.21). Then in Appendix 4 there is no reference at all to Nos. 21-25.
Specifically relating to the proposed restoration of ‘North House’ (also referredto as ‘the old cottage’), this building is located directly upon the rear boundaryof No 21 Bayswater Avenue. We support the initiative to restore this buidingback to a safe and usable condition in-keeping with the style of the localconservation area, but only if there is no increase to the outside envelope
of this building, no loss of privacy due to overlooking and no potentialdisturbance from the proposed use of this building at such close proximity(less than 1 metre) to our small and currently very private garden. During thedevelopers pre-application consultation it was verbally confirmed twice thatthere would be no increase to the envelope of the ‘North House’ / OldCottage, but we have not seen any written confirmation of this. We insist thatno restoration work shall commence on our shared boundary wall, nor theparts of North House that integrate with our shared boundary, without ourprior consent.
On the basis of the above and as many people and SCAN and WPCA havesaid the proposal is an “overdevelopment” with too much and too highdevelopment too close to the site boundaries. While we accept and havepreviosly stated that we do not oppose redevelopment in principle, inaccordance with both National and Local Policy this must be done while bothdelivering acceptable and protecting existing residential amenity.
The developers pre-application consultation has turned out to be a sham withpromised quality and application detail not forthecoming. This manifests itselfin the lack of level and section detail submitted and the hollow words insupporting reports, acknowledging adverse impact but concluding that this isthe best that can be done and is therefore acceptable.
We do not agree that the impacts are either accepotable or ourtweighed bythe socio-economic benefits potentially delivered by redevelopment.
Bristol Core Strategy Policy BCS21 states that development will be expectedto, “Safeguard the amenity of existing development and create a high-qualityenvironment for future occupiers.”
Paragraph 4.21.13 of the plan supporting Policy BCS21 then states, “A highquality built environment should consider the amenity of both existing andfuture development. Consideration should be given to matters of privacy,outlook, natural lighting, ventilation and indoor and outdoor space.”
Bristol Development Management Polciy DM26 states in relation to Infilldevelopment that proposals will be expected to have regard to, “..theprevailing character and quality of the surrounding townscape….Infilldevelopments on return frontages should be compatible with the opencharacter of corner sites and be subservient in height, scale and massing tothe primary frontage building” In relation to “backland” development it statesthat development, “..will be expected to be subservient in height, scale, massand form to the surrounding frontage buildings. It should not prejudice theopportunity to develop the adjoining land of similar potential nor should theproposed access arrangements cause adverse impacts to the character andappearance, safety or amenity of the existing frontage development.”
Policy DM27 states that development “…will be expected to….enable existingand proposed development to achieve appropriate levels of privacy, outlookand daylight; and policy DM29, interestingly referenced in the residentialamenity section of the Planning Statement but not more formally in thePlanning Policy section, states that development, “will be expectedto…..ensure that existing and proposed development achieves appropriatelevels of privacy, outlook and daylight”.
Overarching local policy is consistent with guidance in the NPPF whichchampions “good design” and states at paragraph 130 that, “Planningpolicies and decisions should ensure that developments: create places thatare safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being,with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.”
On the basis of our review we conclude that the development is indeed a poorresponse to site context and an overdevelopment. This manifests itself incritical adverse impact on our residential amenity by reason of direct andperceived overlooking both to private gardens and by reason of direct windowto window distances and significant overshadowing.
These direct future impacts are compounded by the loss of existing trees andthe erosion of the residential amenity and outlook we currently enjoy.
The proposal lacks detail and on that basis we reserve our position to reviewand comment again on any additional information provided. However on thebasis of the application as submitted we consider that it is by reason ofadverse residential amenity impact contrary to prevailing planningpolicy and should be refused on this basis alone.
Yours sincerely
Appendix 1: letter to FORE Partnership 22 December 2021
22nd December 2021
FORE Partnership
Reference: St Christopher’s Public Consultation
Following our attendance at the St Christopher’s Public consultation. We the residents ofNos 21, 23 and 25 Bayswater Avenue have grouped together to provide a single sharedresponse to the consultation.
These are independent of any comments you may receive at this stage from the WPCAand SCAN groups. Notwithstanding, we are aware of the 6 “principles” agreed by WPCAand SCAN and we support these.
• RESPECT THE LOCAL HISTORY AND CONTEXT: Recognise the two distinctparts of the site – enhance and protect the villas at the front, and ensure that developmentin the rear land, behind the villas, reflects the scale and character of the 2-storey housingin adjacent streets.
• DO NOT MAKE OUR TRAFFIC AND PARKING ANY WORSE: Ensure that anydevelopment will not lead to any additional traffic or parking in surrounding streets - roadsafety must be prioritised.
• RESPECT OUR HOMES: Safeguard the privacy of properties surrounding the site- no new buildings should be taller than existing buildings in the rear land.
• BE GENUINELY GREEN: There should be a net gain in biodiversity; protectingexisting trees, landscape and wildlife. Plans must respond to the current global climateand ecological emergencies.
• DO NOT OVERDEVELOP THE SITE: This largely green space should not beoverdeveloped but should maintain and enhance the unique and special character ofWestbury Park, which is a designated Conservation Area.
• KEEP OUR CHILDREN SAFE: Recognise that, in the interests of public safety,there should be no access to the site from Bayswater Avenue or The Glen.
Thank you for undertaking this pre-application consultation and we appreciate the time,effort and cost associated with running such events. However, our representationssubmitted now are Without Prejudice to any comments we may make to the submittedPlanning and Listed Building Consent applications in due course.
The comments we submit are necessarily focused on how the development will directlyaffect us and are therefore somewhat negative in tone. However, as an introduction weappreciate the site needs to be redeveloped and support this in principle. While wetherefore support the retention and conversion of the Westbury Park villas; the retentionand conversion of the listed Grace House and the opportunity that presents itself for somedemolition and new building this must be undertaken with due respect to the characterand appearance of the Conservation Area and the area more generally and the characterand setting of Grace House; involve the retention (and safeguarding) of all important trees(whether the subject of a current TPO or not) and must cause no harm to, and potentiallyimprove, the residential amenity of all local residents.
Within this context our first substantive comment is that the information displayed at theconsultation event was to a large extent indicative and therefore vague. While theproposals have positively developed since the initial consultation and no doubt willdevelop further it was genuinely difficult to understand what the key elements of thecurrent proposal were. While those consultants at the event, presenting on behalf of thedevelopers where helpful, some questions could not be answered definitively and someleft key issues unresolved.
In the above context, our view is that describing the development as an “integratedretirement community” is vague and does not hide the fact that what is proposed is simplya residential re-development. Alongside this there was of course no reference to on-siteaffordable housing provision. At this stage and while the price and management costs ofthe eventual accommodation and services may dictate who can afford to live at the site,we assume that the City Council will insist on the provision of a substantial proportion ofaffordable housing. We also assume that as the site was bought on the open market withfull knowledge of the physical and planning policy context that no credible viabilityargument could be mounted against the provision of a policy compliant percentage andmix of affordable housing. In due course we would therefore be very interested in the formand location of this on the site.
The quantum of development was also unclear on the presentation boards although wewere separately advised that the total development was 120 units (25 via conversion and95 via new build) with “approximately” 65 parking spaces. Also, apart from via twoindicative and unscaled sections, there was very little detail on the scale of the buildingsand their external appearance. The relevant boards looked like they had subsequentlybeen marked in pen with storey heights noted as ranging from 4-6 storeys with 2 storey“cottages” and the conversion of the existing Villas. The nature of the use and the quantumand mix of development obviously also affects car parking and again it was unclear, withthe use class undefined, how the “approximately” 65 parking spaces referred to werederived. Also, the issue of public access was also somewhat unclear. While we supportthe public (or bookable) use of any facilities to be provided within Grace House we objectto any east – west public vehicular or pedestrian through route, which would have thepotential to adversely impact our residential amenity.
Consequently, we object to the retention and upgrading of the existing access to EtloeRoad / Bayswater Avenue and request that this be permanently abandoned / appropriatelyclosed.
Only “approximately” 65 parking spaces are referred to and there was no breakdownbetween allocated residents parking, visitors or staff or service vehicle parking. Only 65parking spaces for 120 apartments is approximately half the maximum standard requiredby the Council (if all the units were 1 bed) and this does seem woefully inadequate evenallowing for the potential age profile and sustainable location of the site. If on site parkingis in any way inadequate to serve this housing development; if the existing Etloe Road /Bayswater Avenue access is retained and upgraded or if a “public” through pedestrian /cycle or vehicular access is proposed, then there will be significant direct and indirecthighway, residential amenity and security impact for us and the other local residents.
All existing trees of any merit (whether TPOd or not) must be retained and protected fromharm immediately and in the long term. The trees are visually and environmentallyimportant to the character and appearance of the area; biodiversity and existing residentialamenity. This will also assist the “net zero” claims; bio-diversity gain requirements andsustainability generally.
We welcome the proposed restoration of the old cottage maintaining its current footprintand form and proposed use by the community.
The plans displayed showed two terraces of “cottages” facing the rear of our homes butthe only other detail provided was that gleaned from the indicative section, which appearedto show a two storey scale with rear gable design (perhaps taking a reference from thedwellings on Royal Albert Road). We have assumed that these “cottages” are indeedsingle dwellings rather than a collection of apartments. We support a two storey designapproach and would promote that across the whole site in the interests of our and otherresidents residential amenity; the character and appearance of the Conservation Area andthe setting of Grace House. However, land levels are not clear and the rear gables ofthese dwellings appeared to be not as wide and of a steeper pitch that those that existalong Royal Albert Road, therefore removing any claim that they are a design reference,and have windows shown implying roof space accommodation.
Related to the above is the distance these properties are from the site boundary and therear elevations of our homes. The existing relationship is not typical in that the boundaryis at an angle and this is not reflected in the layout. We haven’t been presented with scaledplans; accurate cross sections or elevations drawings but our estimate is that the proposedrear gardens are all less than 10m deep and that in some cases the rear elevation toelevation distance may be as short as only 12m. This would clearly and obviously bewholly unacceptable for us and the residents in any new properties. This would be furthercompounded if second floor roofspace accommodation was also proposed and is also inaddition to our significant objection to the loss of trees in this north eastern part of the site.
While the two storey scale of development proposed by these “cottages” is supported inprinciple any such accommodation must be sited sympathetically to the existing trees andsufficiently distant from our properties (having regard to their scale and orientation) suchthat reasonable landscaping can be accommodated and our privacy and generalresidential amenity is unaffected by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, noise or lightspill.
The siting and orientation of these two blocks of proposed dwellings means that ourexisting verdant outlook is removed; we are significantly overlooked and are at real risk ofbeing significantly overshadowed by development so close to the sites eastern boundary.
We would be grateful if you could consider the above and therefore reconsider yourproposals. We would be happy to review any revised plan you may prepare but would askthat these be clear in respect of tree removal and new landscaping, accompanied byappropriate existing topographical information; be drawn to scale and be clearly markedwith proposed levels and dimensions.
Yours sincerely
on 2023-01-09 OBJECT
I support the redevelopment of the school but not on this scale. The buildings are toohigh, there are too many dwellings and not nearly enough parking spaces for the residents. Thestreets in this location are too narrow to cope with the traffic that will be generated and the impacton the local wildlife will be too great.
on 2023-01-09 OBJECT
The proposed buildings are too high for the site.
Local street parking will be terribly impacted as a result of less than a fifth of the necessary carparking spaces being provided. It is already near impossible for visitors and tradespeople to parknear our home.
on 2023-01-08 OBJECT
I am a regular visitor to the Glen and I am extremely concerned that the proposeddevelopment will make an adverse impact on the area.Also the current situation with street parking is difficult will get much worse with the residents,visitors, delivery vehicles and ambulances that will visit the site.Further work is required in order to :- Make the character of the proposed development more acceptable and sympathetic with theexisting residential houses in the area.- Come up with a proposal to deal with the increase in traffic and parking in the area, especiallyThe Glen; and- Ensure that, if anything, the tree cover is increased not decreased.
on 2023-01-08 OBJECT
I am a regular visitor to the Glen and I am extremely concerned that the proposeddevelopment will make an adverse impact on the street. The green character of the site currentlywould change to scenery of dense urban oppressive buildings. The developers own report statesthat the visual impact on the Glen is 'moderate to substantial adverse', and the existing houses willbe dominated and overlooked by buildings out of character with the currently pleasant area ofBristol. The amount of greenery and the loss of trees proposed is incredible at a time when weneed to increase biodiversity in Bristol. We understand that the current very difficult parkingsituation will get much worse with the residents, visitors, delivery vehicles and ambulances that willvisit the site, through the narrow heavily parked side street.Further work is required in order to :- Make the character of the proposed development more acceptable and sympathetic with theexisting residential houses in the area.- Come up with a proposal to deal with the increase in traffic and parking in the area, including TheGlen; and- Ensure that, if anything, the tree cover is increased not decreased.
on 2023-01-07 OBJECT
I just moved to the area and have become aware of this incredibly insensitivedevelopment plan. It's entirely out of keeping with the neighbouring properties and the localheritage, some of it seems incredibly cramped up against the remaining buildings and I am veryupset to see that so much green space, and so many trees will be lost. Not least, it would appearthat it's going to cause more parking issues in an already blighted area.
It's obvious the developers are just trying to maximise their profit by insensitively compressing toomany flats into too small a space. They can walk away from it, those left living in the area can't.
on 2023-01-07 SUPPORT
I think this will be a positive development for the area.
on 2023-01-07 OBJECT
Having looked at the revisions, I find that my previous objections still stand and theapplication should be refused for the reasons previously stated.The 'revisions' are extremely small, and frankly cynical.The scheme is simply too large in footprint and far too dense.There is insufficient parking for the number of proposed dwellings, with a guaranteed knock-oneffect to congestion and road-safety concerns in the immediate neighbourhood.There are still plans to remove far too many mature trees. The scheme is by no objective view'landscape led' which I believe is part of the requirement. In fact it is only 'profit led' do thedetriment of nature and the environment.Furthermore, there is no affordable housing within the scheme.In summary these revisions are entirely insufficient.Yours sincerely.
Peter Lord (C0-founder and director of Aardman Animations)
on 2023-01-07 OBJECT
The developers are obviously not committed to addressing our concerns or nationalstandards. It appears that they are treating this planning process like a game and have no respectfor the faculties of the Council planners.
I have reviewed the revisions submitted by the developer and my previous objections still stand.
A number of the revisions are cosmetic and do not address the concerns in any meaningful way:There is a minimal reduction in the number of unitsBuildings are crowded with respect to the area and neighbouring propertiesThe heights of buildings have been reduced by 30cm; this is laughable as it has minimal impact onvisual impactInsufficient parking and the new parking will have an impact on the residents of The Glen
on 2023-01-07 OBJECT
The developers are obviously not committed to addressing our concerns or nationalstandards. It appears that they are treating this planning process like a game and have no respectfor the faculties of the Council planners.
I have reviewed the revisions submitted by the developer and my previous objections still stand.
A number of the revisions are cosmetic and do not address the concerns in any meaningful way:There is a minimal reduction in the number of unitsBuildings are crowded with respect to the area and neighbouring propertiesThe heights of buildings have been reduced by 30cm; this is laughable as it has minimal impact onvisual impactInsufficient parking and the new parking will have an impact on the residents of The Glen
on 2023-01-07 OBJECT
To Bristol City Council
Re: Planning Application ref no 22/01221/F
I wish to object to the derisorily inadequate revised plans for 'after care' homes on the former StChristopher's School site which is in a CONSERVATION AREA.
I have been an owner and resident of my home in Royal Albert Road for over 37 years. Before Iexpress my objections, I wish to make the following comment.
In my previous communication about the Original Plans, I cited my objection to the proposedvehicle entrance to the site from Bayswater Avenue. This proposal was cynically submitted by thedevelopers, knowing that its proximity to a nursery, infant and junior school, a repair garage, and aroad junction (at times very busy) would ensure its rejection, thereby enabling the Revised Plans(for an alternative entrance) to appear to offer a huge concession. Westbury Park residents arenot fooled by this.
I object to the Revised Planning Application because it does NOT address the real concernspeople have expressed. The revised plans are largely cosmetic 'tweaks': a) 116 homes instead of122 (a reduction of only 6); b) blocks of flats still 5 storeys high; and c) Parking spaces on site foronly 65 cars (but with up to 200 residents on site!).
Objection 1) Traffic and parking CHAOS that will be caused.
Having up to 200 residents and only 65 parking spaces on site will inevitably cause overspillparking in adjacent roads in an area already plagued with such problems.
Parking on site will be needed for:
- Live-in staff- Maintenance workers- Cleaners- Gardeners- Cooks/café workers- Swimming pool attendants- Administrative staff- Visiting doctors/nurses/podiatrists etc- Friends and relatives visiting residents- Delivery vans bringing food and other supplies
With the decline of the high street and the advance of online shopping there will be manydeliveries by Ocado, Deliveroo, Amazon etc.
The obvious and inevitable overspill onto adjacent roads will be catastrophic in an area of largelyVictorian/Edwardian houses in need of constant maintenance. Maintenance workers and buildersneed parking space near to the houses they are working on because of having to carry heavyequipment.Many septuagenarians and octogenarians are opting to pay for 'care at home' rather then moveinto a residential home, or 'after care' facility. Carers, who may need to come three times a day,need somewhere to park.
There is an abundance of care homes already in this area, very many with many vacancies asevidenced by leaflets arriving through our letter boxes all the time informing us of this.
Objection 2: Increased traffic will be injurious to health and safety.
The increase in traffic will be injurious to all who live in the area, and especially the young whoeither attend one of the three local schools or walk (as recommended by Bristol City Council) tosecondary schools (opting for a healthy lifestyle).
Objection 3: Over development - never good but in a Conservation Area should not becountenanced.
The number of housing units has only been reduced by 6, from 122 to 116. Certainly the 4 and 5
storey buildings are not in harmony with the existing architecture of Westbury Park. In addition, 5-storey buildings are incomprehensible in an 'extra care' home for the elderly. The elderly opt for aflat on the first or second floor. Lifts are no inducement to living on the 3rd, 4th or 5th floor as liftscan break down, and the Grenfell Tower disaster is in everyone's mind.
Inevitably, too many trees will be sacrificed in the construction process and wild life will bedecimated. Wild life will not return to this concrete land.
Conclusion
Finally, I would like to record my disgust at the deliberate publication of the revised plans and theinvitation to reply at the busiest, most frantic time of the year, namely the Christmas and New Yearperiod. These are busy, stressful times in any year with queues at supermarkets and a hundredand one things to do to make these occasions happy ones for all.
This year (with the NHS at breaking point, with travel chaos arising from industrial action, aneconomic crisis, not to mention political instability and the war in Ukraine) it seems particularlycruel, cynical timing.
I hope that Bristol City Council will reject these 'tweaked' plans.
Happy New Year.
on 2023-01-07 OBJECT
The Henleaze Society objects to the amended planning application no. 22/01221/F.
The revised plans would still create overdevelopment of this site, within the Downs ConservationArea. The number of proposed housing units reduced merely by 5% to 116 is insufficient. Therewould still be excessive height and bulk of apartment blocks up to 5 storeys, which are out-of-character in Westbury Park.The Grade II listed Grace House would be dwarfed by the proposed 4 apartment blocks nearby.There would be too few on-site parking places leading to parking and more traffic on theneighbouring, narrow streets, which would be unsafe for vehicles and pedestrians.Access from The Glen is inappropriate and unsafe. Access to the site by large emergency vehicleshas not been properly considered.This revised planning proposal would still lead to extensive loss of green space, mature trees andhabitats for wild life. Environmental matters have not been fully taken into account.There is a lack of provision of some affordable houses in this development plan.The loss of SEND school facilities on this site is disappointing, since SEND school places areneeded.
on 2023-01-07 OBJECT
Commenter Type: Amenity - Residents Group
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:Having looked at the revisions, I find that my previous objections still stand and the
application should be refused for the reasons previously stated.
The 'revisions' are extremely small, and frankly cynical.
The scheme is simply too large in footprint and far too dense.
There is insufficient parking for the number of proposed dwellings, with a guaranteed knock-on
effect to congestion and road-safety concerns in the immediate neighbourhood.
There are still plans to remove far too many mature trees. The scheme is by no objective view
'landscape led' which I believe is part of the requirement. In fact it is only 'profit led' do the
detriment of nature and the environment.
Furthermore, there is no affordable housing within the scheme.
In summary these revisions are entirely insufficient.
Yours sincerely.
on 2023-01-06 OBJECT
Having objected to the original development, I just as strongly object to these revisedproposals which do not in any sufficient way reflect on the grave concerns of the local community.The developers continue to show just as much contempt for the community, disingenuously timingthe second round of public consultation during the festive period in an attempt to reduce theamount of objections to their plans. Their "revised" proposals are minimal and in many ways aninsult to the local community which has from the beginning attempted to work with the developersto find a reasonable way forward for the site. Such attempts have only led to developersattempting to deceive local residents of the scale of their plans and publicly fear for their "businessmodel" if significant changes were to be made.
Firstly, I am particularly horrified about the proposal for vehicle access to be added to the site fromThe Glen. This street is a cul de sac and narrow in width. There has been a longstandingagreement with the site that the gate at the end of The Glen is to never be used and only inemergency cases. For many years, it has been a well used space in the local community withyoung children using the road to ride bikes, exercise and enjoy the outdoors. With this in mind Ihave grave concerns about the safety of any proposed vehicle access, with the clear dangers offast moving cars regularly coming in and out of the development presenting a great risk to thesafety of local children. Road safety is a very important issue for Westbury Park, with multipleincidents where children have been hurt or put at risk by fast moving traffic. In 2018, my sister washit by a car at the zebra crossing on Coldharbour Road - a crossing that is regularly used bychildren of both primary and secondary school age multiple times every day. This incidentinvolving my sister led to an A&E visit and long-lasting mental effects. The dangers of an
increased flow of traffic in an area populated by many young families, with multiple schools andnurseries just minutes from the proposed development, is a key reason for its unsuitability to ourarea. However, more specifically, the proposal to add vehicle access to The Glen presents furtherdangers on a small road on which many young children use every day. Alongside the road safetydangers, The Glen also has a well-documented issue with parking going back at least a decade.The proposed development - with a clear lack of parking for such a large development - will onlyworsen the parking issues around Westbury Park, but the proposal for vehicle access on The Glenwill mean this road is particularly hard hit. Furthermore, the plans to take away 6 parking spaceson The Glen in order to widen the road for emergency access to the site is also completelyunacceptable. Once again, The Glen has an unsustainable parking issue - with many residentsforced to regularly park many streets away from their homes. Taking away 6 parking spaces issimply not feasible. The design of the cul-de-sac simply means there is not the space for vehicleaccess on The Glen. It is inappropriate and unacceptable and betrays a promise the developersmade to the local residents.
The amendments that have been made by the developers are minor, if not insulting. The fact thatthe changes have been deliberately timed to coincide with the festive season, with the hope thatthis would lead to fewer objections is yet more evidence of the developers contempt for the localcommunity. Their unflinching desire to put profit ahead of the concerns and needs of the people ofWestbury Park is completely out of place with the values of Bristol as a city and the council thatstrives to represent us.
The proposals remain a clear overdevelopment, with a reduction of only 6 housing units and areduction of one floor in height of the highest block completely insufficient in meeting the needs ofthe local area, a designated conservation area. The development still continues to only provide 65parking spaces for now 116 units of housing. The overspill of cars and road safety consequencesof such on the local area is undeniable. The proposal of vehicle access from The Glen wouldmean this street would bear the immediate brunt of the chaos. As outlined in my previousobjection, original proposals for pedestrian access from The Glen (and vehicle access fromBayswater Avenue) were also hugely inappropriate. The developers originally promised the localcommunity that there would be no access, pedestrian or vehicle, from The Glen and this promisehas been twice broken now by the proposed developers. It is yet another example of thedevelopers refusing to listen to the community and instead looking to secure as much profit fromthe site as possible.
As a young person with special educational needs, I would like to particularly address the loss ofSEND provision on this site that comes with this proposed development. The vague offer of ashared room for special educational need usage is an absolute insult to the 70 year legacy ofSEND provision provided on site. Bristol has some of the worst SEND provision in the country andthe closure of this site will only worsen this issue. In my view, this site should not be developed forany usage other than SEND provision unless such provision is replaced elsewhere in Bristol.
I am also appalled by the continued proposals to fell around 40% of trees onsite, including twomature trees that the council arboricultural officer has said must be protected due to their culturalsignificance. Furthermore, fewer replacement trees are now being planted on site because there issimply not enough room for them to grow amongst the hugely dense buildings. The proposedreplacement trees will now potentially be planted miles away from the site, further worsening theclimate impacts of this development. Such environmentally harmful plans not only show a hugelevel of arrogance on behalf of the developers but also clearly disregards the council pledge to putthe climate emergency at the heart of all decision making. On this matter alone, the council mustreject these proposals or otherwise break their promise to the people of Bristol. It is a matter oftrust.
The developers' undeniable greed can also be seen in their continued refusal to include any kindof affordable housing within the development - they have told local residents that any such planswould be "incompatible with their business model". Furthermore, they have disingenuously pushedfor their proposed luxury retirement complex to be designated as a residential care home (ClassC2) as this therefore supposedly absolves them from providing any affordable housing, despiteprevious legal precedent.
I would also like to fully endorse the scathing criticism as submitted by Professor Robin Hambleton(TBD/TBD/TBD) and the objection of the St Christopher's Action Network (SCAN) (TBD/TBD/TBD)which both accurately capture the public outrage within the community at this proposeddevelopment, as well as exposing such as completely inappropriate and unacceptable for ourarea. Throughout this process, the local community has sought to engage with the developers in agood willed way to reach a reasonable understanding for the development of the site, recognisingthe need for the site to be developed in some way. In return, the developers have treated the localcommunity with deception and disdain, repeatedly ignoring the loud concerns that have beenraised as well as lying to local residents about the proposed plans for the site. There is noquestion that the developers values are out of step with those of the local community and thepeople of Bristol that Bristol City Council strives to represent. This amended proposal must berejected.
I have also attached my original objection below which was submitted on TBD/TBD/TBD. Icontinue to stand by my original objection in opposition to these "amended" plans.
I strongly oppose this development. I believe it is clear that the proposed overdevelopment is notonly completely inappropriate for and inconsistent with the character of the area, but that theattitude of the developers has been in conflict with the values of Bristol City Council and thepeople it represents. When local residents have previously raised concerns with the developersregarding their proposals, we have been told that changes would "not be compatible with their
business model". It is a concern of mine that this approach from the developers has beenextremely damaging and has led to a proposal that is completely inappropriate for our community.
The proposal of over 120 housing units would be across three large buildings, ranging betweenthree and six stories high. The current site consists of low rise buildings, as is appropriate for thearea and indeed Bristol as a whole. The tallest building would be visible from The Downs and thiswould therefore clearly be a completely inappropriate development for The Downs ConservationArea. The huge overdevelopment would also have a negative impact on surrounding streets,including The Glen. The proposed buildings would be significantly closer than the current onesand the overshadowing of neighbouring properties would have a big impact on noise, privacy, andlight.
The huge overdevelopment would also have another significant impact on the local community inthe form of cars and pollution. With over 120 housing units, the proposed plans only provide 65on-site parking spaces. The impact of cars on the surrounding area would be undeniable.Westbury Park already has a significant problem with parking, traffic and road safety. Most roadsare double parked with cars, with many residents regularly unable to find a parking spaceanywhere near their home. The large number of cars is already having a dire impact on roadsafety. In 2019, my sister was hit by a speeding car on the zebra crossing of Coldharbour Road,one of the closest main roads to the proposed development. This resulted in being taken to A&Efor medical care, and has left a lasting psychological impact on her. There have also been otherfamilies I know in the local area who have also had family members, including young children, hitby cars. The idea of more cars descending on the area, one that is full of young families, schoolsand nurseries, is absolutely horrifying. It is important to be aware of the fact that the 65 parkingspaces will not only be completely insufficient for the 122 housing units present onsite, but also forvisitors, carers, office and maintenance staff, and deliveries.
I also have particular concerns about the proposed pedestrian access at the end of The Glen. Ithas long been the case that the door to the St Christopher's site at the end of The Glen is foremergency uses only. To have permanent pedestrian access at the end of The Glen wouldunfairly change the nature of the cul de sac. With many young families living on the street and inthe area, young children use the road to play and bond. Pedestrian access to the site from TheGlen would lead to an increase in car flow on the road as residents, staff and deliveries search fora parking space before popping through the pedestrian access. Due to my family's pastexperience with my sister being hit by a car on the roads close to the proposed development thisis of particular concern to me.
I am also very disappointed and concerned about the environmental impact that this hugeoverdevelopment would have on the local community. It is incredibly disappointing that thedevelopers have not taken any sufficient steps to increase the number of trees or amount ofbiodiversity present on the site. In actual fact, over 50% of the trees on the site would be brutallycut down including many beautiful, mature specimens that would take decades to replace.
Furthermore, the plans would mean an overall loss of biodiversity of 7.3% and this is not compliantwith the Emergency Action Plan that puts the Climate and Ecological Emergencies at the heart ofall decisions. The supposed plans to replace the over 50% of trees that will be destroyed duringthis development are also not in line with Bristol City Council policy. The site is home to a hugeamount of wildlife, including woodpeckers, owls, bats and foxes. The proposed plans, along withthe undeniable increase that we would see in vehicles, traffic and air pollution would have a brutalimpact on the surrounding environment of the site and local area. These plans once again seem tobe in stark contrast to the values of the local community, one that deeply cares for ourenvironment. Given that the council has promised to put the climate emergency at the heart of alldecisions, it would be incredibly disappointing to see them support this development.
It is also incredibly disappointing that the developers have offered no provision for affordablehousing within this proposal, even though Bristol City Council and the government have bothclaimed that this is a "key target" of theirs. In actual fact, when local residents have previouslyshared their concerns with the developers regarding the overdevelopment and the lack ofaffordable housing within it, we have been told that affordable housing is "not compatible with theirbusiness model". This approach from the developers raises serious questions about a conflict ofvalues of the council and the surrounding community, and that of the developers.
The plans also fail to guarantee any provisions for young people with Special Educational Needsand Disabilities (SEND). In light of the legacy of St Christopher's School, which provided care forhundreds of children over a seventy year period, it is incredibly disappointing that this use of thesite is not addressed by the developers. There are already many care homes and older agefacilities within the area providing valuable care for seniors, and this is therefore perhaps not themost suitable use of the site. Following the previous comments from the developers regardingaffordable housing not being compatible with their business model, I am concerned that thisattitude has meant they have failed to adequately consider what the best use of the site wouldactually be, and have instead focused simply on what they believe would deliver them the mostprofit. Despite the fact that Bristol City Council have said that they are attempting to improve thequality of service for SEND young people in the city, there are no longer any residential careplaces in Bristol for children who need support. The St Christopher's site is also directly next doorto a local primary school, Westbury Park Primary School, who have long been interested in havingmore space for their students. It is incredibly disappointing to me that the developers have failed totake a more holistic approach to their development, and have not considered what use of the sitewould be most valuable to the community. Local residents have been very understanding of theneed to develop the site, but the huge overdevelopment that has been proposed is completelyinsensitive to and inappropriate for the local area.
For these reasons, I am strongly opposed to the proposed development. Planning permissionshould be refused.
on 2023-01-06 OBJECT
Having objected to the original development, I just as strongly object to these revisedproposals which do not in any sufficient way reflect on the grave concerns of the local community.The developers continue to show just as much contempt for the community, disingenuously timingthe second round of public consultation during the festive period in an attempt to reduce theamount of objections to their plans. Their "revised" proposals are minimal and in many ways aninsult to the local community which has from the beginning attempted to work with the developersto find a reasonable way forward for the site. Such attempts have only led to developersattempting to deceive local residents of the scale of their plans and publicly fear for their "businessmodel" if significant changes were to be made.
Firstly, I am particularly horrified about the proposal for vehicle access to be added to the site fromThe Glen. This street is a cul de sac and narrow in width. There has been a longstandingagreement with the site that the gate at the end of The Glen is to never be used and only inemergency cases. For many years, it has been a well used space in the local community withyoung children using the road to ride bikes, exercise and enjoy the outdoors. With this in mind Ihave grave concerns about the safety of any proposed vehicle access, with the clear dangers offast moving cars regularly coming in and out of the development presenting a great risk to thesafety of local children. Road safety is a very important issue for Westbury Park, with multipleincidents where children have been hurt or put at risk by fast moving traffic. In 2018, my sister washit by a car at the zebra crossing on Coldharbour Road - a crossing that is regularly used bychildren of both primary and secondary school age multiple times every day. This incidentinvolving my sister led to an A&E visit and long-lasting mental effects. The dangers of an
increased flow of traffic in an area populated by many young families, with multiple schools andnurseries just minutes from the proposed development, is a key reason for its unsuitability to ourarea. However, more specifically, the proposal to add vehicle access to The Glen presents furtherdangers on a small road on which many young children use every day. Alongside the road safetydangers, The Glen also has a well-documented issue with parking going back at least a decade.The proposed development - with a clear lack of parking for such a large development - will onlyworsen the parking issues around Westbury Park, but the proposal for vehicle access on The Glenwill mean this road is particularly hard hit. Furthermore, the plans to take away 6 parking spaceson The Glen in order to widen the road for emergency access to the site is also completelyunacceptable. Once again, The Glen has an unsustainable parking issue - with many residentsforced to regularly park many streets away from their homes. Taking away 6 parking spaces issimply not feasible. The design of the cul-de-sac simply means there is not the space for vehicleaccess on The Glen. It is inappropriate and unacceptable and betrays a promise the developersmade to the local residents.
The amendments that have been made by the developers are minor, if not insulting. The fact thatthe changes have been deliberately timed to coincide with the festive season, with the hope thatthis would lead to fewer objections is yet more evidence of the developers contempt for the localcommunity. Their unflinching desire to put profit ahead of the concerns and needs of the people ofWestbury Park is completely out of place with the values of Bristol as a city and the council thatstrives to represent us.
The proposals remain a clear overdevelopment, with a reduction of only 6 housing units and areduction of one floor in height of the highest block completely insufficient in meeting the needs ofthe local area, a designated conservation area. The development still continues to only provide 65parking spaces for now 116 units of housing. The overspill of cars and road safety consequencesof such on the local area is undeniable. The proposal of vehicle access from The Glen wouldmean this street would bear the immediate brunt of the chaos. As outlined in my previousobjection, original proposals for pedestrian access from The Glen (and vehicle access fromBayswater Avenue) were also hugely inappropriate. The developers originally promised the localcommunity that there would be no access, pedestrian or vehicle, from The Glen and this promisehas been twice broken now by the proposed developers. It is yet another example of thedevelopers refusing to listen to the community and instead looking to secure as much profit fromthe site as possible.
As a young person with special educational needs, I would like to particularly address the loss ofSEND provision on this site that comes with this proposed development. The vague offer of ashared room for special educational need usage is an absolute insult to the 70 year legacy ofSEND provision provided on site. Bristol has some of the worst SEND provision in the country andthe closure of this site will only worsen this issue. In my view, this site should not be developed forany usage other than SEND provision unless such provision is replaced elsewhere in Bristol.
I am also appalled by the continued proposals to fell around 40% of trees onsite, including twomature trees that the council arboricultural officer has said must be protected due to their culturalsignificance. Furthermore, fewer replacement trees are now being planted on site because there issimply not enough room for them to grow amongst the hugely dense buildings. The proposedreplacement trees will now potentially be planted miles away from the site, further worsening theclimate impacts of this development. Such environmentally harmful plans not only show a hugelevel of arrogance on behalf of the developers but also clearly disregards the council pledge to putthe climate emergency at the heart of all decision making. On this matter alone, the council mustreject these proposals or otherwise break their promise to the people of Bristol. It is a matter oftrust.
The developers' undeniable greed can also be seen in their continued refusal to include any kindof affordable housing within the development - they have told local residents that any such planswould be "incompatible with their business model". Furthermore, they have disingenuously pushedfor their proposed luxury retirement complex to be designated as a residential care home (ClassC2) as this therefore supposedly absolves them from providing any affordable housing, despiteprevious legal precedent.
I would also like to fully endorse the scathing criticism submitted by Professor Robin Hambletonand the objection of the St Christopher's Action Network (SCAN) (03/01/2023) which bothaccurately capture the public outrage within the community at this proposed development, as wellas exposing such as completely inappropriate and unacceptable for our area. Throughout thisprocess, the local community has sought to engage with the developers in a good willed way toreach a reasonable understanding for the development of the site, recognising the need for thesite to be developed in some way. In return, the developers have treated the local community withdeception and disdain, repeatedly ignoring the loud concerns that have been raised as well aslying to local residents about the proposed plans for the site. There is no question that thedevelopers values are out of step with those of the local community and the people of Bristol thatBristol City Council strives to represent. This amended proposal must be rejected.
I have also attached my original objection below which was submitted on 22/04/2022. I continue tostand by my original objection in opposition to these "amended" plans.
I strongly oppose this development. I believe it is clear that the proposed overdevelopment is notonly completely inappropriate for and inconsistent with the character of the area, but that theattitude of the developers has been in conflict with the values of Bristol City Council and thepeople it represents. When local residents have previously raised concerns with the developersregarding their proposals, we have been told that changes would "not be compatible with theirbusiness model". It is a concern of mine that this approach from the developers has been
extremely damaging and has led to a proposal that is completely inappropriate for our community.
The proposal of over 120 housing units would be across three large buildings, ranging betweenthree and six stories high. The current site consists of low rise buildings, as is appropriate for thearea and indeed Bristol as a whole. The tallest building would be visible from The Downs and thiswould therefore clearly be a completely inappropriate development for The Downs ConservationArea. The huge overdevelopment would also have a negative impact on surrounding streets,including The Glen. The proposed buildings would be significantly closer than the current onesand the overshadowing of neighbouring properties would have a big impact on noise, privacy, andlight.
The huge overdevelopment would also have another significant impact on the local community inthe form of cars and pollution. With over 120 housing units, the proposed plans only provide 65on-site parking spaces. The impact of cars on the surrounding area would be undeniable.Westbury Park already has a significant problem with parking, traffic and road safety. Most roadsare double parked with cars, with many residents regularly unable to find a parking spaceanywhere near their home. The large number of cars is already having a dire impact on roadsafety. In 2019, my sister was hit by a speeding car on the zebra crossing of Coldharbour Road,one of the closest main roads to the proposed development. This resulted in being taken to A&Efor medical care, and has left a lasting psychological impact on her. There have also been otherfamilies I know in the local area who have also had family members, including young children, hitby cars. The idea of more cars descending on the area, one that is full of young families, schoolsand nurseries, is absolutely horrifying. It is important to be aware of the fact that the 65 parkingspaces will not only be completely insufficient for the 122 housing units present onsite, but also forvisitors, carers, office and maintenance staff, and deliveries.
I also have particular concerns about the proposed pedestrian access at the end of The Glen. Ithas long been the case that the door to the St Christopher's site at the end of The Glen is foremergency uses only. To have permanent pedestrian access at the end of The Glen wouldunfairly change the nature of the cul de sac. With many young families living on the street and inthe area, young children use the road to play and bond. Pedestrian access to the site from TheGlen would lead to an increase in car flow on the road as residents, staff and deliveries search fora parking space before popping through the pedestrian access. Due to my family's pastexperience with my sister being hit by a car on the roads close to the proposed development thisis of particular concern to me.
I am also very disappointed and concerned about the environmental impact that this hugeoverdevelopment would have on the local community. It is incredibly disappointing that thedevelopers have not taken any sufficient steps to increase the number of trees or amount ofbiodiversity present on the site. In actual fact, over 50% of the trees on the site would be brutallycut down including many beautiful, mature specimens that would take decades to replace.Furthermore, the plans would mean an overall loss of biodiversity of 7.3% and this is not compliant
with the Emergency Action Plan that puts the Climate and Ecological Emergencies at the heart ofall decisions. The supposed plans to replace the over 50% of trees that will be destroyed duringthis development are also not in line with Bristol City Council policy. The site is home to a hugeamount of wildlife, including woodpeckers, owls, bats and foxes. The proposed plans, along withthe undeniable increase that we would see in vehicles, traffic and air pollution would have a brutalimpact on the surrounding environment of the site and local area. These plans once again seem tobe in stark contrast to the values of the local community, one that deeply cares for ourenvironment. Given that the council has promised to put the climate emergency at the heart of alldecisions, it would be incredibly disappointing to see them support this development.
It is also incredibly disappointing that the developers have offered no provision for affordablehousing within this proposal, even though Bristol City Council and the government have bothclaimed that this is a "key target" of theirs. In actual fact, when local residents have previouslyshared their concerns with the developers regarding the overdevelopment and the lack ofaffordable housing within it, we have been told that affordable housing is "not compatible with theirbusiness model". This approach from the developers raises serious questions about a conflict ofvalues of the council and the surrounding community, and that of the developers.
The plans also fail to guarantee any provisions for young people with Special Educational Needsand Disabilities (SEND). In light of the legacy of St Christopher's School, which provided care forhundreds of children over a seventy year period, it is incredibly disappointing that this use of thesite is not addressed by the developers. There are already many care homes and older agefacilities within the area providing valuable care for seniors, and this is therefore perhaps not themost suitable use of the site. Following the previous comments from the developers regardingaffordable housing not being compatible with their business model, I am concerned that thisattitude has meant they have failed to adequately consider what the best use of the site wouldactually be, and have instead focused simply on what they believe would deliver them the mostprofit. Despite the fact that Bristol City Council have said that they are attempting to improve thequality of service for SEND young people in the city, there are no longer any residential careplaces in Bristol for children who need support. The St Christopher's site is also directly next doorto a local primary school, Westbury Park Primary School, who have long been interested in havingmore space for their students. It is incredibly disappointing to me that the developers have failed totake a more holistic approach to their development, and have not considered what use of the sitewould be most valuable to the community. Local residents have been very understanding of theneed to develop the site, but the huge overdevelopment that has been proposed is completelyinsensitive to and inappropriate for the local area.
For these reasons, I am strongly opposed to the proposed development. Planning permissionshould be refused.
on 2023-01-06 OBJECT
The build will worsen traffic and parking in the area, which is already difficult, and affectwildlife.
on 2023-01-06 OBJECT
• This site (and others) must be redeveloped in a way that meets the density policy, not only to meet that specific policy requirement, but in order to provide the homes that the Bristol community needs, as set out in the Core Strategy.
• At 1.9ha, the 116 dwellings proposed equate to a density of 61 dwellings per hectare. This is toward the lower end of what the Local Plan requires and is a result of an assessment of site constraints and other factors.
We made an argument in our original objection about overdevelopment (points 4.2 to 4.9) that applying a single density to a site with two such different parts (frontage and backland) is very poor practice. Using our approach, commonly applied across the country, the density on the backland area would be c.180 dwellings per hectare, above the City Council’s maximum level for this area of Bristol.
The importance of maximising previously developed land is, of course, recognised but as the recent letter (1st December) to local authorities from Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities states: “Developments that are not well-designed should be refused planning permission and housing targets should not be used as a justification to grant them permission.” We agree with this.
The Unacceptable Scale and Impact of the Proposed Development
• The total number of homes is now 116 (down from 122). • The height of Villa B has been reduced by one storey and height of all the other villas
has been reduced by 300mm. • Footprints of Villas A & B have been reduced and additional chamfers added to façades
facing Grace House. Footprints of each of new build blocks have been reduced. (This is confusing; it is not clear if all footprints have been reduced or just those for Villas A and B.)
• The eastern row of cottages has been moved south. These cottages are at an oblique angle. Measuring from the Bayswater Avenue properties to the proposed cottages the dimension varies between 18m to 22.8m.
• The two cottages adjacent to the Bayswater Avenue access have been replaced with a single storey bungalow to reduce the impact on Grace house, (with) obscured glazing to its first-floor windows with an addition(al) clear glazed window to its north elevation facing away from Bayswater Avenue.
• New blocks have been offset from the existing Lodges where possible providing views from within the lodges towards open garden spaces.
• Amenity space for residents in the refurbished Grade II Listed Grace House, with elements open to the wider community, and in what we are calling an ‘Urban Village Hall’ where we will curate activities for Westbury Park and beyond.
The proposed marginal reduction in the number of units makes no basic difference at all to the overall bulk, scale and ground coverage of the proposals. The part of the backland covered by buildings is still almost the same as in the original scheme and this approach is clearly not ‘landscape-led’ as the City Council are seeking and which we fully support.
One storey has been removed from Villa B but, as the amended Verified Views report shows clearly (and as did the original report), this still leaves the other three blocks inappropriately high and seriously visually intrusive all around the site. Though views from surrounding houses are not something to be formally taken into account, the visual impact on those residents will be horrendous.
The reduction of Villa B from six to five storeys might prevent visibility of this block from The Downs but it will still exceed the height of the Lodges and be visually conspicuous from many other viewpoints (also see Grace House section below).
Removing from the original scheme the two northernmost cottages to the east is an improvement, especially in terms of tree loss (see later section). However the replacement of the two cottages by a single bungalow called “Woodland Glade Cottage” is a clear step back. A glade is ‘an open space in a wood or forest’ allowing light to penetrate. That space would now be filled with a building and that building and small garden would be almost permanently deprived of sunlight.
The 300mm (just one foot!!) parapet height reduction, chamfering, offsetting the new Villas etc. are all completely inconsequential to the basic point about the amount and heights of the proposed development and their negative visual and intrusive impact on the predominantly two storey surrounding residential areas.
In addition:
No mention is made in any of the revised scheme documents of the distances between the blocks; a key point in the comments from the City Council Conservation and Design Team. Though some improvements have been made as a result of reduction in building footprints, there are still a number of occasions where window to window (and certainly balcony to balcony) distances are below, sometimes almost half of, the necessary 20 metres. The applicants also acknowledge that some of the distances between Bayswater Avenue houses and the eastern cottages are less than the standard (in fact they point out that some are more than 20 metres and some less, almost implying that averaging out is acceptable).
We wish to re-affirm our objection concerning the amount of development crammed inappropriately into this site, the height of all the new blocks and the distances between the new blocks and from the new blocks to surrounding properties. This is massive overdevelopment which damages the recognised character of this area as a whole. And, of course, it damages the Conservation Area (see Listed Building section).
Design
• Entrances to the new villa blocks are now defined with a contextual interpretation of the Victorian villa entrance. The entrances to the new villa blocks are on the side of the buildings, reflecting the side entrances to the existing Victorian Lodges.
• The proposed façades have been refined following further analysis of the fenestration on the neighbouring frontage villas along Westbury Park. The proposed windows now combine a vertical emphasis and variety of sizes to achieve vertical and horizontal hierarchy, better reflecting the frontage villas along Westbury Park.
• The proposed roof form reflects the mansard roofs found on neighbouring villas along Westbury Park which is their primary reference. There are a number of mansard-like roof forms along Westbury Park, these include dormers and slate roof tiles, all of these aspects have been reflected within the proposed design.
• Following further analysis of the Westbury Park frontage villas, the facing materials have been changed to red brick.
We do not wish to dig into matters of detailed design but:
1. We are not aware of anybody actually asking for chamfered corners, for changes to the fenestration pattern or for entrances that reflect the side entrances to the Lodges.
2. There is clearly an attempt to try to secure support for the new Villas by constantly referring to design details from Westbury Park (the street) rather than – as we believe should be the case for the backland area - from the houses in Royal Albert Road, Bayswater Avenue, The Glen and Blenheim Road.
3. The design changes are based on formal elevations, which is not how people experience buildings when walking along.
We object to the applicant’s use of selective design references in a forlorn attempt to ameliorate the impact of the proposed overdevelopment of the site. Grace House
• The previously proposed spa extension has been removed from Grace House. The new spa building now sits to the north of Grace House, along the boundary, and is no longer attached to the listed building.
• Views of Grace House will be opened up on entering the site from both Westbury Park and Bayswater Avenue, making the building more visible within its enhanced green setting.
• In order to retain the original shadow gap around Grace House a carefully conceived edge detail will be developed to keep any raised levels set back from the original building. This will allow the shadow gap to be appreciated by those in close proximity to the building edge when the full height of the building will continue to be appreciated.
• The chamfers on the entrance façades of Villa blocks A & B gently undulate in and then out again on the approach to Grace House; this visually and physically frames the view of the listed building on approach from Westbury Park with deliberate yet subtle and expressive geometries. The eastern corner of villa A aligns with the SW corner of Grace House.
• The proposed amendments to the area behind Grace House includes consolidated service/plant areas and relocation of the refuse store along the boundary which, together with the removal of the external fire escape, allows for the introduction of more soft landscape along this edge. A simple green roof pavilion building extends along the boundary in place of the existing sheds; this pavilion building includes a combination of ancillary and wellbeing spaces.
• The expressive splayed dormers at roof level make a gentle reference back to the more eccentric roof of Grace house without detracting from the primacy of the listed building.
Relocating the spa building may help in terms of safeguarding the character of Grace House but it would mean that users of the facilities in Grace House would have to walk in the open from across to the spa.
Opening up better views to Grace House, emphasising the ‘shadow gap’, chamfers, tidying up the buildings to the north and splaying dormers may all be simple design improvements but they make absolutely no difference to the overall balance between Grace House and the proposed new Villas. This is also about the issue of distances between buildings (as in the Overdevelopment section above). The key issue here is the distance between Grace House – specifically at its main entrance – and Villa B, probably around 10/12 metres. The photo overleaf is from the entrance to Grace House (note the railing at the front). The sketch is taken directly from the photo so can be regarded as appropriately accurate. It shows the appalling impact on the setting of Grace House of the five storey Villa B at this location (note the entrance railing again and the need to significantly raise the eyeline in order to show the height of the new Villa).
We wish to re-affirm our objection to the proximity of the proposed Villa B to Grace House and to the failure to provide an appropriate setting to Grace House.
Landscape
• The landscape setting has been redesigned so as to retain and enhance the verdant nature of the site and wider conservation area. This also allows for the retention of an additional five existing trees.
• The northerly cottages have been replaced with a single storey cottage which sits within the footprint of the existing building to enable trees to be retained in this location.
• Through the retention of trees and a new approach to the landscape design, the sylvan setting is retained and enhanced to create a woodland glade around Grace House.
• The new landscape design proposals make a clear definition between the public and private realm.
• The shadow gap around Grace House will be screened by the lush new landscaping which will enhance the overall setting of the listed building
• Overall layout changed so that the setting of Grace House within its wooded area setting is appreciated. The landscape around the building is a wooded area/natural setting that is enhanced with additional tree planting.
• The overall landscape has been reviewed, minimal intervention proposed to the existing setting access and new tree planting complementing and enhancing the existing wooded area.
• The villas and its landscape have been designed as individual precinct respecting the original villa boundaries with the landscape becoming a landscape to be viewed as a visual amenity with minimal intervention. Existing trees are retained with a wild flower meadow introduced to the front and edge of the site. A sculpture/piece of art introduced within the revived historic frontage respecting the villa setting.
• A clear access and wayfinding strategy has been progressed that creates a special moment as one walks their way through the site. The East/West connection has been defined to create a cohesive route.
• Trees have been strategically located and a thorough strategy has been devised. The built form now sits proudly with a clear strategy for public and private landscape edge.
• A thorough review has been carried out in regard to future canopy spread of proposed trees.
• Tree planting strategically done and accords with the NHBC Trees near building standard.
(Some of the comments above could also apply to the Overdevelopment and Grace House sections.)
In general, the landscape layout and design has been improved as per several of the responses noted above, including in relation to aspects of the setting of Grace House (but see comment and photos above).
We note that, in their response to the original masterplan, the City Council commented that the enclosure ratio of 1:1 is too uncomfortable and not appropriate in a verdant Conservation Area and will overshadow the public realm. We agree with this assessment and are of the view that the revised proposals do not respond sufficiently to this criticism.
The comment about retaining an additional five trees is ‘economical with the truth’, because the amended arboricultural report notes the five trees to now be retained but then mentions a further two to be removed. A total of 39 trees were to be removed with the previous scheme and the changes still mean the removal of an unacceptable number of 34 trees out of 82.
We have commented above about the bizarre notion of introducing a ‘glade’ to the north east then filling it with a permanently shaded building!
There is minor but no fundamental improvement in the ‘clear definition between the public and private realm’.
The ‘wayfinding’ comment is valuable but hardly a ‘strategy’. No explanation is given anywhere for what is, what is not and at what times the site or parts of it are open to ‘the community’.
Despite some minor improvements, we re-affirm our objection to the removal of such a large number of often good condition and certainly visually important trees. And the scheme is still not (as we and the City Council wish to see) ‘landscape-led’.
Parking
In submitting the revisions the applicant has either reiterated or made several new statements about parking:
• The proposals include 65 spaces, which is over the standard. The extra spaces will reduce the risk of overspill parking onto residential roads.
• Whilst the number of units has been reduced from 122 to 116, the number of proposed parking spaces remain the same, so the ratio of parking spaces per unit (0.56) has increased marginally.
• The parking survey (Transport Statement - Appendix G) demonstrates that although the site has more parking provision than is needed, there are spaces available off-site should there be any overspill.
• Parking is now provided off The Glen, in response to confirmation from Highway officers that they will not support use of the Etloe Road access for parking (other than related to substation maintenance).
• We have also looked nationally at a number of Integrated Retirement Living schemes. Applying the parking ratio of these schemes to the proposed development the proposed site would require 56 spaces.
The applicant states that there are 65 spaces but the revised Transport Statement paras. 6.7 and 6.9 lists just 62 spaces, i.e. 37 resident spaces, 10 staff spaces, 4 accessible spaces, 8 charging points, 2 car club spaces and I minibus space.
In April 2022 the Community Association objected to the original application on a number of grounds including that the 65 parking spaces proposed by the applicant was insufficient and would lead to overspill parking on surrounding roads which are already at full parking capacity.
We also queried the claim that the 65 spaces figure was over the standard as this claim was based on the incorrect application of Bristol City Council’s C2 resident care home parking standards (see earlier comments on C2 land use designation). The parking standard for care home visitors was mistakenly used to assess the parking requirement for St. Christopher’s residents, an independent living scheme. Additionally, the staff parking requirements were underestimated while no attempt at all was made to assess visitor parking requirements for either those visiting residents or for non- residents attending community facilities and events at Grace House and the proposed urban village hall. (NB. One of the ‘selling points’ of the development is that non residents will be allowed to use the facilities and enjoy the grounds.)
We estimated that a total of between 60 and 70 spaces would be required for residents’ parking, between 16 and 22 spaces for staff, between 12 and 15 spaces for visitors and three spaces for the car club and minibus making the overall requirement for spaces in the range 91 – 110 spaces with the actual number required within this range depending largely on staff (FTE) numbers, shift patterns and changeovers, and the age profile of residents.
In our previous submission we pointed out that the applicant had acknowledged that there might be overspill parking by stating that the proposed provision would “reduce the risk of overspill parking”. The applicant has now further acknowledged the risk of overspill parking by stating that “although the site has more parking provision than is needed there are spaces available off-site should there be any overspill”. This statement is based largely on night time parking surveys conducted in November 2022, the results of which are presented in Appendix G of the applicant’s Transport Statement
The parking surveys were conducted on a Monday and Wednesday at night – between 10.00 pm and midnight. We can only assume that this time frame was selected as it was calculated that this would be the most advantageous time as far as the applicant was concerned in demonstrating the availability of on street parking spaces in the vicinity of the St. Christopher’s site. Indeed, the surveys did show 30 and 27 free spaces respectively on the two survey nights. A survey(s) conducted during daylight hours when residents, visitors and staff are far more likely to be looking for spaces would have shown a very different picture with virtually no spaces available within 150 metres (as demonstrated by several community surveys conducted in recent years) and obviously clear to anyone who has tried to park in nearby roads during the day and at night.
Most of the available spaces revealed by the two night time surveys were along Westbury Park which is fully parked up during the day by commuters and freed up at night. Westbury Park is some distance from houses and is therefore best avoided by local residents at night for safety and security reasons (as it would likely be by future St. Christopher’s residents). The surveys actually indicated that the roads closest to St, Christopher’s and likely to be
most affected by any overspill parking (Belvedere Road, The Glen, Bayswater Avenue) had very few available spaces, confirming parking surveys conducted in recent year by the Community Association and by local residents.
On a technical note it would appear that the parking survey extended to a 150 metres distance from the respective edges of the St. Christopher’s site and thus included roads and parts of roads which would be well beyond a 150 metres distance that future residents living in most parts of the site would have to walk to reach their cars.
The new proposal for vehicle and pedestrian access to the St. Christopher’s site from The Glen will increase even more the likelihood of overspill parking in The Glen, Belvedere Road and nearby roads. With this access it will be easier for residents to walk to and from surrounding roads should they choose not to pay for an on site parking space or are unable to find an available space within the site. In addition, attendees of events at the proposed Urban Village Hall and SEND related visitors will almost certainly be drawn more towards parking in The Glen etc. because of their proximity to this facility.
The Transport Statement submitted with the revised proposals included a new table and analysis (para. 6.17, page 22) which attempted to demonstrate that the parking provision proposed is sufficient by reference to four integrated retirement schemes elsewhere in England.
The choice of the four cited schemes is somewhat surprising for the schemes do not in any way support the argument that 65 spaces on the St. Christopher’s site will meet the parking needs of residents, staff and visitors. Three of the schemes were, unlike the St. Christopher’s site, close to city/town centres and involved a variety of car parking regimes (lift systems etc.) that would almost certainly act as a disincentive to owning a car: the fourth scheme, Beechmoor Nurseries, had a relatively generous overall parking provision compared with what is being offered at St. Christopher’s. Details of each scheme are included in the Appendix but the conclusion is clear – 65 parking spaces is inadequate.
For the reasons stated in our previous submission and for the reasons / arguments/ counter arguments set out in this submission we still hold strongly to the view that that the proposed parking provision is too low and will inevitably lead to overspill parking on surrounding streets which are already at full parking capacity.
Community Engagement and Imagery
The applicants state in their December 2022 newsletter that:
“After extensive consultation and engagement with the community over the last 18 months including numerous in-person and virtual events, written submissions, broad reaching surveys, and electronic comments, we have taken on board the feedback received and have amended our plans in response.”
We made very, very clear in our own report on the community engagement prior to the original application that, although the range of engagement activities was acceptable, their delivery in detail was hopelessly inadequate – the workshops descended into farce, the exhibitions offered very limited scope for commenting and the surveys were seriously rigged to get the results the applicants wanted.
In relation to the revised application, we note that, although the revisions would have been developed well before their submission, no further community engagement of any kind was undertaken during this period. This is also despite the fact that a Planning Performance
Agreement was being developed (and is now in place) and both national and Bristol City Council requirements for a PPA include community engagement prior to application.
We re-affirm the extensive critique of community engagement in our original objections and object to the complete lack of necessary community engagement on the revisions.
Both our original objection on overdevelopment and our report on the submitted Statement of Community Involvement also criticised the imagery used, not just in the application material but also at all stages during the engagement period.
In the material submitted for the original application, in the revisions to the application and in the applicant’s recent newsletter, there is very limited imagery, especially imagery that shows the new Villas in relation to one another, in relation to the Lodges and in relation to surrounding streets and properties. Given that all this material is CAD-based where it is extremely easy to produce very good quality or even just basic images, this can only be a deliberate ploy to make it difficult for lay people to properly interpret the actual, as experienced, implications of the proposals.
The amended Design and Access Statement includes just two images, one (p.6) using the dark, almost twilight format used in the original application and one (p.17, repeated in the newsletter) showing a new view from the ‘woodland glade cottage’ towards Grace House* and Villa B. The 3D versions of the blocks (pp.24-27) provide some help in assessing building relationships but that is very limited. (*It had been agreed with the applicants, several months ago, that the inclusion of Grace House in imagery would no longer take place because, even in the latest image, it distorts the overall effect of the four huge Villa blocks. It is unclear why they have ignored that agreement.)
We object to the imagery used in the revised proposals and to the overall lack of imagery to show the all-important relationships between the new Villas, the Villas in relation to the Lodges, the Villas in relation to Grace House and the Villas in relation to surrounding streets and properties.
The View of the Secretary of State
Having elaborated our objections, we think it appropriate to end by quoting further from the December 2022 letter referred to earlier from Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. In the letter he states the following:
• “…. all development that is not good design should be refused, especially where fails to reflect local design policies.”
• “ …. councils to set clear standards for what they and the local community find beautiful and refuse what they find ugly”.
We trust that Bristol City Council will also take these statements fully into account when determining this application.
APPENDIX
The four schemes cited in the revised Transport Statement as examples where parking provision was lower than that being proposed at St. Christopher’s are detailed below.
Epsom This application was refused on appeal but a second application for 305 care units and 24 key worker units was subsequently approved on appeal. The proposed development is close to Epsom town centre so that there is less need for residents to own a car compared with the more suburban St. Christopher’s site. The scheme involves an automated parking system requiring residents to drop off their vehicles using a lift system – hardly an inducement to owning a car. On a point of accuracy, the number of proposed parking spaces was 156 rather than the 150 indicated in the table in paragraph 6.17 of the Transport Statement. Bath This application on the former Homebase site was allowed on appeal. The site is close to Bath City Centre and so a lower level of parking provision was deemed acceptable by Bath City Council as it reflected the 0.5 level of car ownership per dwelling in Bath City Centre revealed by the 2011 Census (By way of comparison St. Christopher’s is in Henleaze Ward where car ownership per dwelling in 2011 was 0.84 per dwelling in the adjoining Redland Ward the respective figure was 0.79 per dwelling.) The 136 space residents’ car park comprises a double and triple stacking system requiring residents to drop off and collect their cars from a valet. With a further 16 spaces proposed at street level the total provision is 152 spaces rather than the 136 indicated in the Transport Statement. The Bath site is in a commercial area with strict parking restrictions and the nearest residential streets are in a residential parking zone (unlike the residential areas closest to St. Christopher’s). The nearest available on-street spaces are more than 500 metres away. Walton-on-Thames This application, comprising 196 extra care units and 26 nursing home care units, was refused by Elmbridge Borough Council on several grounds (including insufficient on-site parking) and subsequently allowed on appeal. The proposed 122 spaces included 98 basement spaces accessed via a car lift – again rather a disincentive for owning a car. In respect of the parking provision it was mentioned in the appeal decision letter that (i) there were two car parks within easy walking distance available for visitors and possibly staff to use and (ii) a number of surrounding roads were private roads which could not be used for unauthorised parking. Beechmoor Nurseries This application was refused by Chester West and Chester District Council but allowed on appeal. The scheme comprised not just 85 assisted living apartments but 25 care bungalows as well – a total of 110 units. The total parking provision was 87 spaces including visitor spaces. To equate to this level of parking provision the St. Christopher’s scheme would require approximately 90 spaces rather than the 65 spaces proposed.
on 2023-01-06 OBJECT
Once again developers submitted an application that they expected to be refused andnow have revised their plans with a view to getting acceptance for what is largely thesame proposal. I submitted my objections to the original plans and follow here with myobjections to the current proposals. Bearing in mind the position and importance of thissite in relation to the Downs, and it being a conservation area I state:A reduction of 6 units i.e. 5% is totally inadequate, the scale and size of the newbuildings is totally unacceptable for the site. Many of the buildings proposed are still tooclose to existing houses and to each other. (See national standards on this point.)Reducing the height of Villa B means you can't see it from the Downs, but it is still toolarge and intrusive. Similarly reducing the footprint of Villas A,B,C and D does not getaway from the fact that the site as planned is very overcrowded. Reducing the height by300mm (1 foot) is a joke.Parking is still inadequate. 65 spaces in total will not cope with residents' and staffparking. The surrounding streets are already at capacity.I welcome the reduction in the number of trees to be felled, but don't see any signs ofthe 'landscape-led' scheme as preferred by the Council.
on 2023-01-06 OBJECT
We write in objection to the revised plans for the site submitted under the originalreference.we are concerned that these proposals are presented as if they are significantly different from theoriginal submission. We do not believe that to be the case as they reflect only minor changes andthe mass of the building and its impact on neighbouring residents remains unacceptable. Whist thechanges are a small step to improving the application they fall well short of addressing residentsconcerns.
We are also unhappy with the timing of the submission and its impact on residents' ability torespond over the festive period. Any reduction in the number of objections is likely to be as a resultof this timing and not due to change in opinion of those affected.Our position remains as previously recorded. We welcome the concept of accommodation forolder residents within the community. However, we are very aware that this area of Westbury Parkis unique and the current plans do not recognise the importance of the proximity to the Downs andthe impact on the neighbouring houses which are already situated more than a metre below thesite, so will be overwhelmed by the proposed structures. It would still be daunting if the proposedbuildings were aesthetically pleasing, but is not surprisingly upsetting affected residents in itscurrent form.Apart from concerns about the overdevelopment. the loss of trees and so much green space isalso a matter for concernThe area is already saturated for parking, and we have no way of assessing whether thedevelopers claims are justifiable. It would appear that access to and exit from the site will bedifficult, as none of the local roads provide clear access or have capacity for delivery vehicles.
During construction and subsequent occupation there will inevitably be more traffic flow and anattempt to find more parking spaces. The area is already under commuter pressure as the areajust outside of a parking zone close to the main bus routes, and we see nothing that will helpalleviate this pressure in the proposals.We remain of the view that this application is not appropriate
Cllrs Geoff Gollop Sharon Scott and Steve SmitCouncillors for Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze
on 2023-01-06 OBJECT
This development (even with the minor amendments) is a gross overdevelopment of thesite. The tall buildings, increased traffic and inadequate parking provision will all damage thenature and lifestyle of the area. Access of such an increased volume of vehicles throughresidential areas will be hugely detrimental to the quality of residents life.
on 2023-01-06 OBJECT
I submitted an objection to the original planning application and this still stands for thisnew proposal.
The changes proposed are minimal and mostly cosmetic and go nowhere near to addressing thevery real concerns of the local community:
Overdevelopment. Reducing the number of homes from 122 to 116 and still building 4- & 5- storeyblocks of flats is only a token amendment to the original plan. The scale of this development is stilltoo big, too dense and too high and totally unsuitable for the Westbury Park area and the widercommunity.
Traffic. The site is surrounded by narrow streets. Residents take up most of the parking spacesand commuters the rest. This will lead to overspill and safety hazards in an already verycongested residential area. Building 6 fewer homes will not adequately address these traffic,parking and road safety issues.
Loss of trees and habitat wildlife. There are still too many mature being felled - the number hasbeen reduced but not significantly - which will have a serious impact on the biodiversity of thisbeautiful conservation area.
Harm to heritage. The scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and disregardsthe fact that this is a designated Conservation Area.
I therefore continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasonsstated.
on 2023-01-06 OBJECT
Flats are too high, and there are huge issues relating to parking. Westbury park is adensely populated area and local residents find it impossible to park as it is.
on 2023-01-06 SUPPORT
on 2023-01-06 OBJECT
I object to the revised proposals to develop the St Christopher's school site.
- The revisions that the developers have made since previous objections were received are notmaterial and do not properly or adequately address the objections made. An example of this is thereduction in the number of dwellings from 122 to 116 - that is not even a 10% reduction, thechange is minimal and immaterial; this is a clear example of the developer apparently trying toshow changes to address objections but in fact making changes that are merely window dressing.This is not acceptable and the "revised" plans should not be allowed through given this.- I particularly object to the complete removal of SEND provision from a site that has historicallyprovided this vital service to vulnerable children in the Bristol community. The site contains GraceHouse which is a building of historic importance (acknowledged by its listing in 2019) and whichwas architecturally designed as a one off Steiner teaching building, with its design aiming tospecifically provide for disabled children and to physically express the Steiner educational ethosand philosophy. This is surely a precious, unique resource that the council and community shouldstrive to retain and improve. I understand that the original building was designed to sit in an opengarden setting. The current plans do not respect this, let alone improve on it. It seems instead thata mass of large, tall buildings will overshadow Grace House and use up much of the existinggarden/open land and trees so that Grace House will no longer sit within and provide access to anatural outdoor setting. It seems that the current plans provide only cursory provision towardsanything that could be used for SEND provision. I think plans for the site should give this a fargreater prominence, they should respect the historic SEND provision on the site, improve on it anduse and improve Grace House for the purposes for which it was designed - it could become a
beacon of excellence in SEND provision. It is also known that intergenerational living is beneficial,so if there is to be a retirement community which sounds like a good idea, then having this alsowith SEND provision and enabling interaction between the two would be an innovative wayforward.- The current plans are not in keeping with the nature and scale of buildings in Westbury Park andthe conservation area within which they sit. The four large blocks leave inadequate green space.They will negatively affect views from the Downs and having insufficient green space willnegatively impact the people living in the blocks.- I understand the plans will involve removing around 40% of mature trees on the site. Maturetrees provide a natural habitat for plants, insects, birds, fungi etc which is instantly lost when theyare felled and which by its nature takes decades to replace because mature trees are decadesold. Planting a sapling and getting it to the point of growing into an independent tree is a resourceintensive exercise as seen from the constant efforts to keep replanting trees around the Downsetc, and with climate changes leading to long droughts such as last summer it is particularlydifficult to get new trees established. Taking down numerous mature trees is therefore aneconomically and ecologically negative exercise. Having mature trees growing together in a groupas on this site also has special extra benefits for habitat and it is increasingly understood that treesthat have grown together for many years work together via their roots and other systems.- Having such a large density of new residences with inadequate parking does not seem to havebeen properly thought through and this needs further work and improvement before any plans cango ahead.
on 2023-01-06 OBJECT
I think this proposal is a massive overdevelopment of a sensitive site overlookingDurdam downs. The area is already highly congested with passing traffic throughout the day. Thisoverdevelopment will make it much worse. It also represents a sad loss of much needed SENDeducation and the loss of historic buildings. It has nothing in it's favour and offers no much neededaffordable housing. This is the wrong development and council must do the right thing and reject itoutright.
on 2023-01-06 OBJECT
I wish to object to this development on the following grounds.
Although there has been some reductions in the number of units , this is very very small comparedto the overall number.It is still too large for this site and dominates the neighbourhood and particularly those propertiesthat surround the site.
Another very big problem is that if traffic and parking. There is not enough onsite parking to meetthe needs of the residents, let alone all the staff that will b working there. The roads in that areaare already congested causing parking problems for local residents. There is also safety concernsrelating to emergency vehicles..
There will also be a loss of trees and the effect that that will have on wildlife in this area.
.There is no provision for affordable housing which surely is very necessary as there is such ahuge need for this throughout our city.
The amendments, made by the development company, to it's original plans are minimal and go noway to answer the great concerns that people in Westbuty Park have.
Thank you,Myra Jones
on 2023-01-06 OBJECT
There needs to be more parking. Local roads are terrible for parking as it is. Should beunderground parking. Also main building is too high, doesn't fit with adjacent buildings.
on 2023-01-06 OBJECT
Reasons I object to development:-1. Too many flats that are too high and the design is not in keeping with the houses in surroundingarea.
2.Insufficient parking.3.Lack of SEND provision.4.Detrimental effect on wildlife in the area.
on 2023-01-06 SUPPORT
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:Comments for Planning Application 22/01221/F
I am repeating the submision I made last April in SUPPORT of the St Christopher application.
thank you
Comments Details
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application
Reasons for comment:
Comments: St Christopher's site
I support the proposal. I have lived in Westbury Park for 54 years.
1) I think the concept of an Extra Care development is excellent. I like the fact that it will
incorporate at its heart in Grace House, facilities for creativity, learning and socializing; all
contributing to a well-lived old age. Best of all, I'm enthusiastic about the emphasis on links
between the retirement village and the local community:
a) access to and from the site via Westbury Road, Bayswater Avenue and The Glen.
b) the café, the pool and other facilities open to the local community.
c) a connection with the local primary school via a gate in the wall they share so that a tarmac-only
school will be able to enjoy grass, trees and gardening; and pupils will have contact with old
people to their mutual benefit.
In all, the value to the mental health of the residents and the local community will be worth more
than gold. Inter-generational contacts are life enhancing. Anathema for me would be a gated
development of luxury homes for the very rich on this site.
I have no evidence to mistrust the Developer's promises.
2) Trees: more trees will be planted on this site by the Developer than have been planted in the
whole history of Westbury Park as a suburb of Bristol. Any loss of trees is sad but the gain in
ecological terms will be immense. I have no evidence to mistrust the Developer's promise.
3) Releasing Existing Houses: many 3 and 4 bedroom houses in WP are lived in by couples or
single people who moved there long ago with young families. Some may wish to stay there; others
would like to move to a smaller property and not leave this loveliest of all Bristol suburbs. St
Christophers will give them the choice and inevitably release some local houses for families.
4) Parking: I do not believe this is a long-term problem. Car use and our subservience to the car is
changing all the time. It will continue to do so. The plan allows for one space per property. Many
residents will not want a car and there will be spare places for staff and visitors. Many residents
may like to join a car-share scheme. That will free more spaces. Perhaps the Developer could
increase the 65 places. Traffic problems do not appear to me to be made any worse by this
development. I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water.
5) Height and "Overdevelopment": I constantly remind myself that we live here in an urban
environment and not on Salisbury Plain. The proximity of new buildings to the existing can be
unsettling. I think the 6 and 5 storey buildings should be reduced in height. Would a reduction in
the larger blocks be possible and economically viable and therefore make the development more
acceptable?
In my opinion, the benefits of this development to residents and the local community far outweigh
the drawbacks.
Thank you.
Kind regards
on 2023-01-06 OBJECT
Commenter Type: Other
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:
I wish to object to this development on the following grounds.
Although there has been some reductions in the number of units , this is very very small compared
to the overall number.
It is still too large for this site and dominates the neighbourhood and particularly those properties
that surround the site.
Another very big problem is that if traffic and parking. There is not enough onsite parking to meet
the needs of the residents, let alone all the staff that will b working there. The roads in that area
are already congested causing parking problems for local residents. There is also safety concerns
relating to emergency vehicles..
There will also be a loss of trees and the effect that that will have on wildlife in this area.
.There is no provision for affordable housing which surely is very necessary as there is such a
huge need for this throughout our city.
The amendments, made by the development company, to it's original plans are minimal and go no
way to answer the great concerns that people in Westbuty Park have.
Thank you,
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Having reviewed the planning documents, I wish to re- state my earlier objection.
In addition, I make the following comments on the amended planning application:-
*The total number of planned units has been reduced from 122 to 116. This is a 5% reduction andnowhere near significant in terms of reducing the damaging scale / bulk of new buildings.
- Fewer cottages are planned close to Bayswater Avenue. However, some cottages are still tooclose to existing houses according to national standards and the 'Villas' are still way too close toeach other.
- Villa B would be intrusive when viewed from The Glen.The five storey building would be 10/12metres away from the listed Grace House.
- The heights of the proposed villas have only been lowered by 300mm .
- The landscape proposals have been revised to increase the amount of soft landscaping,particularly around Grace House. However, there is no reduction in the amount of space betweenthe blocks as a whole. It is certainly not 'landscape-led' as the City Council want it to be.
- Fewer trees would be removed but that number is still very high. This represents too manyprotected, mature trees brung felled.
- There is no planned increase in the number of parking spaces. Even with the marginal reductionin the number of dwelling units 65 spaces will be insufficient to meet the demand for spacescreated by 116 new dwellings and will lead to overspill parking in surrounding roads.
*Bristol City Council have now agreed Use Class C2 (residential care homes and other institutionalhousing) so there is no longer a requirement for the developer to provide any affordable housingas part of the development. Provision for Special Educational Needs remains unresolved.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before. Namely these are:Overdevelopment and disfigurement of the nature of the area which is a conservation area;deleterious effect on wildlife habitats; loss of old and much treasured old trees and green space.Potential traffic congestion at the exit of Westbury Road onto the roundabout, insufficient parkingspaces on the site which will effect the already over parked narrow streets; safety concerns forlocal school and pre school children and other pedestrians; increased stress on the currentinhabitants of Westbury Park resulting from the parking and traffic chaos, let alone the disruptionof years of building work noise and congestion.
on 2023-01-05
The Glen and Belvedere Rd are afforded no protection from permit parking. In addition,the two care homes in Belvedere Rd require parking for ambulances,visitors, staff and deliveries atall timesAny additional access granted to either of these roads would be disastrous to this conservationarea.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The proposed development of the site will have a significant, negative bearing on the immediateneighbourhood which is already very congested. Having recently moved to the area we areconscious of the high level of traffic on the roads nearby: Etloe Road, Bayswater Avenue andRoyal Albert Road in particular. With the proposed plan there will be spaces for 65 cars for thenew residents of the 116 living spaces - and, in addition, their visitors. Both traffic and noise levelswill consequently increase. The health and safety aspect impact on two nearby nurseries, oneprimary school and all local residents will be profound. These local roads at rush hours/dropoff/pick-up times are often overrun with cars. Even more vehicles will potentially create ahazardous zone, with accidents waiting to happen, that should be avoided at all cost. Myobjections, furthermore, concern the visual impact of the proposed site. At present there is awonderful array of ancient trees, the sight of which brings great pleasure to many. The proposedplan includes the removal of several of these. Their loss will not only have a detrimental effectvisually but also on the environment.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
All my comments in my previous objection from last year still stand despite changes tothe plans: these changes appear minor.My comments related and still relate essentially to insensitive and overly intensive development ofthe site: plans reflect construction entirely out of keeping with anything in the near and wider localarea, with significant loss of amenity and biodiversity.We all would love this site to be developed for appropriate future use for future generations butthese plans fairly clearly put high population density at the top of the priority list at the expense ofamenity/biodiversity/practicalities of logistics and services.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I strongly object to the revised plans for the St Christopher's site. The changes to theplans have been so small and have made no difference to the fundamental issues raisedoriginally. The site is overdeveloped. The height of the proposed buildings are too high and do notfit with the existing developments surrounding the site. I'm extremely concerned about the impactof vehicle access. The surrounding roads are already heavily used for parking which has been andcontinues to be a huge problem in the area. More vehicles coming and going and not being able topark on site will only add to the difficulty.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I have written previously regarding this proposed development. Essentially, my viewsremain the same. This proposal although in principle is to be welcomed, the detailed design is not.'Over development' of the site is being proposed, and this is evidenced via for example, thebuildings being too high, inadequate car parking being provided on site etc. The lack of car parkingon site for residents, carers, visitors etc will only exacerbate the very considerable problems ofinadequate off road car parking in Westbury Park. Local residents will be substantially andadversely affected, and given the character of the 'urban form' in the area, the problem ofinadequate car parking cannot be solved. The subject proposals for the St Christopher's site needto take in to account the wider ambience/character of the area. The scheme proposed does not dothis at present, therefore I believe that these revised design details are unacceptable, and theplanning application should be refused.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Buildings of 4 or 5 storeys are out of keeping with the general construction of the area. Itwould seem, that as usual, the developers are trying to maximise their profits, and are notconcerned with the aesthetics or practicalities of their development. Insufficient parking, pooraccess, increased traffic, loss of habitat and wildlife, do not seem to concern the developers in anyway. There are actually many examples of recent such developments that are very good; the oneat Failand comes to mind, without a 4 storey building in site. They have plenty of low buildings,greenery, parking and proper access, and presumably making a profit. It shows it can be done, sowhy can't these developers?
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Dear Sirs
I would like to object in the strongest terms to the atrocious revised plans for developing the old StChristopher's site in Westbury Park. Whilst not opposed in principle to appropriate futuredevelopment of the site - and certainly not wanting to stand in the way of progress in improving theprovision of affordable residential facilities for older (or any age) people in the local or wider area -this planned development is far from "appropriate" in my view.
Anyone living in this area will know that it is already densely populated with insufficient parkingand a network of old roads already too narrow to cope with the volume of traffic. Any developmentthat significantly exacerbates this situation should be avoided. In this respect the proposeddevelopment is still too big, too dense and too tall, with blatantly too little provision for additionalparking spaces.
In addition, this development will undoubtedly lead to a significant change and deterioration in thecharacter of this old and much treasured residential area, to an unforgivable reduction in thepopulation of trees and therefore wildlife habitat in the area and to a loss of facilities for specialneeds provision.
In my view this development in its currently envisaged form must be opposed and stopped - andreplaced by a substantially revised plan involving fewer and less tall and imposing residentialunits, greater provision for additional and directly associated parking facilities and significantly
reduced impact on local wildlife.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I strongly object to the planning application on the following grounds:
1. The proposed development is still too big and too dense.2. There are too many trees being removed, leading to a loss of wildlife.3. There are not enough parking spaces, leading to overspill and road safety hazards.4. As the parent of someone with a learning disability, I object to the almost total loss of SpecialEducational Needs provision, which is woefully inadequate, with only occasional shared use of aroom.
5. The scheme is totally out of character with the neighbourhood.
Please reject this application out of hand.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Without at least 1.2 parking bays per flat, This proposal should be denied. Parking isalready a problem in this area.Also the proposed building look so ugly, make them lower and more in keeping with the area
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I ask the developers if they would really be happy for this development to built at theend of their gardens? In their neighbourhood?
Whilst I support the need for St Christopher's site to be developed and a retirement village is, inmy opinion, a good option. I feel the buildings planned are too tall and invasive to the localcommunity. I object to the cutting down of so many trees, we need to keep our trees and plant aLOT more. I also think the revised development if it goes ahead will put too much pressure on thelocal area particularly the parking. I teach at the local Westbury Park primary school and I wouldreally like the development to include more space both inside and outside for the school. However,I am not sure how a peaceful retirement village works along side a very noisy playground! Believeme, it is very noisy!
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
It is absolutely impossible to park by our house at the moment, with the huge number ofextra vehicles the build would bring, it would cause absolute congestion in an area that alreadyhas huge congestion problems.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
This project, with proposed 5 storey buildings is totally out of character in thisconservation areaThe lack of on site parking provision will cause an increase in requirement for on street parking
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before'.
My main concerns, which I outlined in my previous response have NOT been addressed by thevery minor, superficial amendments to the planning application.
Specifically.
I was concerned that the scale, mass and bulk of the proposals was inappropriate, would situncomfortably within the plot with the tall and uninteresting form standing out amongst the heritageassets in the Conservation Area adjoining the Downs and unacceptably altering the existingcharacter of the area. This concern has NOT been remotely addressed by the reduction of one ofthe four tall buildings by one story and another by a mere 30 cm.
The extent of the tree loss in particular of high quality trees, although slightly reduced is still notjustified.
Parking provision is wholly inadequate, with the revised proposal including no more spaces andparking spaces in total of 65 for 116 dwellings (6 less than previously) and no additional spaces forvisitors, staff etc. The nature of the location, closely surrounded by residential roads, combinedwith the inadequate parking provision on site means that residents and staff would seek to park on
neighbouring roads impacting residents and creating traffic hazards.
In the context of the need for increased SEND accommodation in Bristol the proposal only offers avague proposal for shared use of a room in the "Urban Village Hall" which is wholly inadequate.
Unless major substantive changes are made to the application, it should be rejected in its entirety.
Regards,Imogen
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before as very minor modifications have been proposed.The plans remain completely out of proportion in size and scope and will have a devastatingimpact on the health and well being of this community, in an important conservation area.
on 2023-01-05
In light of re submitted plans we still have some concerns:
1.Noise and Air Pollution during construction
The scale of the construction will naturally involve significant building works despite revised plans.Whilst we recognise the developer will respect the appropriate legislation we would like to highlightthe close proximity of the school to the site. Some of our pupils suffer from severe asthma and wehave a number of children with sensory needs that would need additional care if noise/disturbancelevels become too much.
To lessen the impact on the children's health and wellbeing, we would propose that:
· Any preparation works near to the school take place during the school holidays.· The best screening and dust dampeners are used to protect the children's and staff's health.· The school is offered regular access to clean up teams who will clean the windows, playgroundsetc. to lessen the impact of the construction works.· There are opportunities for the children to learn about building and design practices withsustainability at their heart. This could be facilitated through the construction phase.
2. Increase in traffic
It is good to see there will be no vehicular access from Bayswater Avenue except for access to the
sub-station. We still have concerns that in an already very narrow and busy area, even a smallincrease in traffic, especially during school pick up and drop off times, will add considerable risk tochildren's journey to and from school. Cars already line the pavements, which can forcepedestrians onto the road and makes crossing safely more difficult.
Mitigations may include the following:
· addition of double yellow lines,· a pedestrian crossing or zebra crossing· safety beacon lights and· better school signage for Bayswater Avenue and surrounding roads.
3. Urban Village Hall and specialist provision
We have not been consulted about the plan for an occasional use specialist provision andtherefore do not fully understand the intention and purpose of North House. Our experience ofinclusion suggests any impactful use of North House would require significant resourcing andplanning especially around safeguarding.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Multiple reasons associated with overdevelopment have already been clearlyarticulated. I concur with all these. The development is so inappropriate.Looking at the proposals as they have modified (marginally) over time appears to indicate that thedevelopers have made little effort to take on board the requirements of the Council or the wishesand aspirations of the local community. Above all, at best only lip service appears to be paid to thehistory of the location as a rare educational capability, and claims regarding biodiversity and'green' credentials appear hollow and perhaps cynical.I hope this development does not go ahead even close to the current proposal.Thank you
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The proposed redevelopment of the former St Christopher School site remainsdisproportionate to the surrounding area in regards to building height and density. It is not inkeeping with the Westbury Park area and the Downs and will impact negatively on neighbours.This is not only cosmetically but also with regards to the resulting increased traffic which bringsnoise and air pollution to this quiet residential area. It is already very difficult to find parking on theside of the road and I fear this large development will cause more parking problems. It is alsoalready challenging as a pedestrian to cross Westbury Park Road to the Downs and this would beworse with more traffic in and out of the new development. I fear accidents could be caused withcars parking on the side of Westbury park road and obstructing the view of cars pulling out of thedriveways of the development.In addition I note that no provision has been made for affordable housing or Senco which is theheritage of this site.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I objected to the previous planning application for this site in May 2022 and all myprevious objections are still relevant. The plans have been changed by so little that everything Isaid before still applies. The claimed 'reduction in scale and massing' by the developers is utterlyminimal, with one building being reduced by one storey and a few other cosmetic changes.Specific comments in relation to this latest application, are as follows:1. The fundamental issues of overdevelopment, lack of sensitivity to the Downs ConservationArea, insufficient parking spaces and loss of trees have barely been addressed. There is no waythis proposal has the feel of 'being close to nature' or 'in keeping with the existing landscape',which the developers claim.2. The proposed Blocks remain as over-dominant structures for the area, in scale and form. Eventhe so-called 'cottages' would be overbearing to their near neighbours.3. The proposed development still results in a significant loss of mature trees and their resultantwildlife, which should be cherished. Young trees are more susceptible to disease and drought, soit is difficult to replace the old faithfuls.4. The new vehicle entrance created from The Glen will cause road safety issues and furtherparking stresses on The Glen and Belvedere Road, which are known already to suffer fromparking difficulties, blocked roads and dangerous vehicle turning issues.5. The proposal to provide fire engine access to the rear of the site via the Glen means thatseveral of the precious road parking spaces will be lost to provide unrestricted access for the fireengine (see page 67 of the transport plan).6. The local area is already struggling for parking, with an RPZ nearby preventing locals fromparking further away from the development site. Thus, the development needs to be completely
self-serving in relation to parking. I believe this would be in the region of 115 spaces.7. No action has been taken to alleviate the lack of privacy to the houses in The Glen, particularly15, 16 and 17, which back directly onto the site.8. No heights are given for the 'cottages' near The Glen but one of the site sections (seeLandscape Addendum, page 23, illustrative section BB) shows them as two storey buildings with afull height roof on top, which will be significantly higher than the current single storey building.Could the 'cottages' fulfil their purpose if they were changed to bungalows?9. Site section 3357517 B-B is untruthful in at least two respects: A) the big lime tree on the left iswell behind the 'cottages' and will therefore NOT be able to soften their roofline. B) The drawingshows a large tree behind the house marked 15 The Glen which appears to be around twice theheight of the house, which gives the impression that the cottages are quite small. There is only asmall tree of around a third higher than the house actually within the vicinity of 15 the Glen.10. Verified view 3353026 from The Glen shows Block D changing the character of the road bydominating the end of the cul de sac and being out of keeping with the locality. The developersown report states that the visual impact on the Glen is 'moderate to substantial adverse'.Specific to 16 The Glen:- A row of five 2-storey 'cottages' are proposed at the back of 16 The Glen, with windows lookingEast directly towards the large windows of our main living areas, main bedrooms and also ourback garden. This would result in a serious loss of privacy in our main rooms and amenity space,which is where most of our time is spent.- Block C (5 storeys high) and Block D (4 storeys) are tall and over-dominant buildings, taking theplace of a number of tall, mature trees and would look incongruous in the area. Block C wouldhave multiple windows and balconies with views towards the main windows of no 16 and Block Dlooks directly towards the private back garden. Again, this would be detrimental to our privacy.- 16 The Glen has nearly all its habitable rooms facing west, all with large windows facing directlytowards the cottages and diagonally towards block C. We use the private garden at the back of No16 frequently throughout the year for gardening and recreational purposes. We currently enjoy ahigh degree of privacy, which we value greatly.- I am also concerned about the potential for light pollution into our home from windows, stairs,and outside lighting on the site.- In short, the proposed development would significantly impact upon the privacy of both theupstairs, downstairs and private garden space of 16 The Glen, for ourselves and any futureresidents.
I fully support SCAN and Westbury Park Community Association in their work and comments onthe proposals.SJ
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
There are not enough parking spaces included in this development for residents andvisitors. This will lead to overspill. This is a problem as there is already a lack of parking in thesurrounding streets.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Unnecessary overdevelopment leading to increased traffic, parking issues and safetyconcerns, especially for children.
I have no problem with the proposed use, but the impact on the environment and existingcommunity need to be more measured. The new junction is a major concern and an unnecessaryaddition. The traffic, especially during rush hour on the streets up the the proposed junction will bea disaster.
It seems that the initial feedback from the community was not fully respected and addressed. Thetrees on the site are beautiful and must remain. I feel for those that live next to the site, especiallywith the height of the proposed buildings.
If this goes ahead the council needs to review the need for residential parking on the nearbystreets. I believe this is needed.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before and which I have included again below.
We strongly oppose this.We live on St Helena Road and object to this development which is out of place in our area as it isnot in keeping with its historic character and overall size and type of buildings. It will also createmuch busier and noisier surroundings in what is currently a quiet area.
We have always loved the quiet, peaceful, local character of the area, and the historic nature ofthe buildings and the conservation area. This is what we have chosen to live in, not a much busierarea which is inevitable with the proposed development.
Similarly, this will also impact on the tranquility of Durdham Downs where I go for regular walksand take my grandson to play. At the moment it is a quiet and never too busy safe space which Iwould like to keep that way. It will also spoil the view from the Downs.
Parking and traffic are already an issue with narrow streets and often a lack of on street parking.The last thing the area needs is increased traffic and more cars trying to park. It will also make itless safe for the children attending the local primary school and nursery. Increased traffic will alsoincrease pollution locally.
The further environmental impact of the proposed development, with 50% of trees being felled andimpact on biodiversity is also completely unacceptable.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I object on the ground that parking is extremely difficult already around here, I amdisabled and have not yet applied for disabled parking, but will have to if this goes ahead, theextra congestion will make the area unpleasant to live in due to pollution and lack of safety forpedestrians especially children on their way to the local schools,
The development itself does not have enough parking spaces for the number of units, and I thinkthis could become an old people's ghetto, not a village if they are trapped with lack of transport,the lack of parking for the number of units also becomes problematic for the number of health careprofessionals.
I also object to the loss of wildlife habitat, the loss of trees, and the proposed density of housing.
I am concerned about the fact send provision on this sight will be lost, particularly because I haveused send myself as a young person.
This development is out of character with the rest of the housing in this area.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
My original objection still stands.
This re design still represents a complete over development in height and scale and will blight theWestbury Park conservation area.
The number of flats will result in additional traffic on our already congested roads and exacerbatean existing parking problem.
Overspill parking, additional traffic and access on/off Westbury Park (road) along with road safety,still seems to have been ignored.
This scheme needs a complete rethink and should NOT be granted planning permission
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The revised scheme proposed by the developers of the St.Christophers Park site is stillnot appropriate for the area. It doesn't address parking or amenity concerns and it does not "giveback" to the community (SEN or otherwise) in any meaningful way. No doubt it will also be aneyesore in a Conservation Area, not in keeping with the surrounding architectural style, but I wouldbe more inclined to accept this if there was a proven need for the type of residences beingprovided and if the local infrastructure (ie roads, utilities and Council provided services such asrubbish collection) was not already under strain from an area that is more densely populated thanwas anticipated
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
My original objection still stands.
This re design still represents a complete over development in height and scale and will blight theWestbury Park conservation area.
The number of flats will result in additional traffic on our already congested roads and exacerbatean existing parking problem. Overspill parking, additional traffic and access on/off Westbury Park(road) along with road safety, still seems to have been ignored.
This scheme needs a complete rethink and should NOT be granted planning permission
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I am concerned about the proposed plan to this site. The environmental impact of somuch extra traffic in an area that is already heavily congested will have negative consequences fornearby residents, and the environment.The Downs is an important green space for the whole city and a proposed high rise block willchange this landscape and the sanctuary that this green space provides for all.There is already a lot of provision for retirement living in the area, much of which is still vacant. Forexample The Vincent on Redland Hill. Any proposed development should be in character withexisting buildings and enhance the facilities available in the wider community.
Kind regards
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I am writing on behalf of my mother in law, Mrs Joyce Wilkins, with her full consent andapproval, who has been resident at 17, The Glen since 1962. Mrs Wilkins, who is now in her 90s,is outraged and distressed at the impact this development will have on her and her neighbours.
Community Impact: The Glen has always been a very peaceful and neighbourly road, within in aconservation area, where many of the residents have lived for many years. Most are either elderlyor have young children. The peacefulness of the road has been a boon to both, despite the manyissues with parking that already exist. To create an entrance from The Glen into the newdevelopment, removing its cul de sac status, so that it becomes a through road, will completelychange the nature of this street, making it a hazard for young children and pets, not to mentiongreatly increasing the noise and pollution that will be suffered by all. As St Christopher's has adouble entrance opposite the Downs, which has proved more than sufficient to date, it is hard toimagine why creating another entrance, which will prove highly disruptive and dangerous, is trulyrequired.
Parking: With the amount of cars already parked primarily by non residents (most of the residentshave driveways) and the increased number of through traffic, The Glen will become extremelydifficult to navigate and cause the residents endless challenges as they try to manoeuvre in andout of their own homes. It is clear that the application does not include enough parking to supportthe number of individual properties included within the proposed development and so the onus ison the developers to rectify this situation without imposing further constraints on the alreadystretched parking capacity of The Glen.
Invasion of Privacy: I would also like to flag the invasion of privacy and blocking of light that will besuffered by residents on the north side of The Glen which includes No. 17, by the height of theproperties that will back onto them, causing further distress to the residents who have livingpeacefully in The Glen for many years.
This is a development funded for commercial gain. It does not offer any social housing or anyfacilities that might be of benefit to the wider community. It is a huge space and should be able tobe developed without imposing so drastically on a neighbourhood that has shown itself throughoutthe years to be a supportive and peaceful community.
I very much hope that the Council will register this impact and call upon the developers to rescaletheir plans so that many people are not caused distress, property value impact and impairedquality of domestic life in order to fund their profits.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The plans have hardly changed! The traffic and parking around St Christopher's andnearby roads is already horrendous and extremely dangerous. It is near to a primary school andhas many secondary school pupils passing the area each day too. My own son has had to bepushed into the road in his wheelchair (when he had to use one) due to the antisocial parking andpeople parking on pavements. The walk to school is a dangerous one with Cara using these roadsas a rat run and there being low visibility to cross roads due to people parking on corners and dropkerbs. I worry immensely how bad it'll be be with all the extra proposed accommodation andtherefore cars having park in surrounding roads. It is already dangerously busy with residents ofthe area and those parking to get the bus into town. We have no room for more cars on theseroads and I truly fear for people's safety. It is already very hard to park anywhere near my house.The height and scale of the proposed buildings will be an eyesore in a beautiful area. The wildlifewill be affected, nature and green spaces ruined and trees cut down. It is awful to think about theaffect this will have on this area and the people living here. The privacy of direct neighbours will beruined with the height and size of these monstrosities. It smacks of greed on the developers sideto cram as many people as possible in one place and to have no thought about how it affectsothers.Please, please, please do not let these plans go through. The safety of our children is at stake.They should be able to walk to and from school in a safe environment and be able to feel safe. Wehave no space for more cars, whether they are driving to or parking here. Thank you
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I am very concerned about the lack of parking on the site, which is in an unsustainablelocation and, despite being aimed at the older generation, will lead to parking pressures forresidents and visitors on the surrounding streets, which are already full to capacity with on streetparking. This in turn will lead to highway safety issues, particularly on The Glen where there is noturning facility at the end of the cul de sac street, and associated noise and general disturbancefrom the comings and goings of vehicles. The scheme overall represents a significantoverdevelopment of the site and should be drastically reduced in scale and size to minimise theimpact on existing residents from overlooking/overshadowing, as well as on the character andappearance of the conservation area.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
As a regular visitor to my daughter in Redland l think it will be very bad with a largedevelopment in the area. It will increase traffic and cause a problem with parking in an alreadybusy area.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
My previous comments re the windows from a row of very tall cottages overlooking ourproperty and garden, the large blocks towering over our house and garden with balconies andwindows facing our house, light pollution affecting us from the tall blocks remains unchanged asthe proposal has not changed in that respect.These further comments are on review of the rather scant detail that has been supplied in theamended proposal.Height of H01 Cottages in site section drawing 2006 rev A. During consultation with the developerthese were described to us as single storey with accommodation in the roof. The rooftops now lineup with the top of a 1930s house so are more like a townhouse with two full storeys and a roofabove, and will be significantly higher than the current single storey building. There are nodimensions on the drawings, they can only be estimated using a ruler against the drawing scale.The latest site section shows a gradient over the length of the cottages (H01) of 1.7m, howeverthe cottage roof line appears to be level. We have a significant and I believe justified concern thecottages could end up being 1.7 m higher if the ground is built up over the length to be level,instead of excavated to achieve level ground.Site section drawing 2006 - The top of roofline of the H01 cottages has been obscured by treebranches to disguise their height. In fact, there is no tree that can obscure the front of thesecottages so the view is misleading and incorrect.Site section drawing 2006 - the drawing shows a large tree behind the house marked 15 The Glenwhich appears to be around twice the height of the house, which gives the impression that thecottages are quite small. There is only a small tree of around a third higher than the house actuallywithin the vicinity of 15 the Glen. The drawing may have included trees on the Westbury park road
boundary in the far background which will not in practise provide the same view from the house.2006 site section - this section is still showing the two very large trees tree 52 and tree 65 whichelsewhere in the proposal says are to be removed for sewer works. The inclusion of these treesmakes the scene deceptively green, and this error was pointed out in the first consultation, and thesignificant error has been conveniently repeated.Verified view 3353026 - the view of the Glen shows Block D changing the character of the road bydominating the end of the cul de sac and being out of keeping with the locality. The developersown report states that the visual impact on the Glen is 'moderate to substantial adverse'. As thechosen viewpoint is some way up the street, the visual impact will worsen as we approach ourhouse, which is nearer to the end of the street.The inclusion in the addendum of a road vehicle entrance from the Glen presents further problemsfor Glen residents. The 6 parking spaces that are proposed is nowhere near enough for all theresidents at the back of the site where the Glen is the nearest road, so will try to park in the roadwhich already has significant parking issues.The need to provide fire engine access to the rear of the site via the Glen means that around 6 ofthe precious road parking spaces will be lost to provide unrestricted access for the fire engine (refpage 67 of the transport plan).The plan to create a village hall from the building that has been described as the old laundrysounds interesting but seems quite impractical due to the size, and will add further pressure toparking on the road as there is no provision on site.There may be a connection from the end of the Glen to the school, via the village hall. This mayencourage parents to try and drop off and pick up children using cars driven and parked in theGlen. A cul de sac with reversing cars would not be a safe place for children to be waiting forparents to pick up.Delivery vans may try to deliver packages to residents as it would be the shortest road route andthere would increased vehicle reversing and congestion in the road.Parking in Westbury Park road - already a busy road and during the recent covid vaccinationsessions held in st christophers, there was car parking on the grassed area of Downs land, onboth sides of the road, which is against byelaws, unsightly and caused further traffic disruption,and indicates the scale of the problem if the occupancy of the site is increased as proposed.The summary of the amended proposal states that less trees will be removed, I am unable todetermine how many less than the 58 proposed trees are to be felled. I have read that a furtherOak tree is to be felled but cannot see any reference to that.
Specific comments to 16 The Glen:- A row of five 2-storey 'cottages' are proposed at the back of 16 The Glen, with windows lookingEast directly towards the large windows of our main living areas, main bedrooms and also ourback garden. This would result in a serious loss of privacy in our main rooms and amenity space,which is where most of our time is spent.- Block C (5 storeys high) and Block D (4 storeys) are tall and over-dominant buildings, taking theplace of a number of tall, mature trees and would look incongruous in the area. Block C wouldhave multiple windows and balconies with views towards the main windows of no 16 and Block D
looks directly towards the private back garden. Again, this would be detrimental to our privacy.- 16 The Glen has nearly all its habitable rooms facing west, all with large windows facing directlytowards the cottages and diagonally towards block C. We use the private garden at the back of No16 frequently throughout the year for gardening and recreational purposes. We currently enjoy ahigh degree of privacy, which we value greatly.- I am also concerned about the potential for light pollution into our home from windows, stairs,and outside lighting on the site.- In short, the proposed development would significantly impact upon the privacy of both theupstairs, downstairs and private garden space of 16 The Glen, for ourselves and any futureresidents.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
These plans would have a negative impact on the environment, there would be evenmore cars on already busy roads, and make parking worse, affecting families who already live inthe area.The 'look' of the new buildings is not in keeping with the area and are excessive for the size of thesite.Local infrastructure will not be able to cope.Roads onto Westbury Park are also already too busy.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The amendments to the original application are minor and insufficient to negate myprevious objections. Therefore my same objections stand
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
As residents of Bayswater Avenue, overlooked by the proposed development, westrongly object to the revised planning proposal ref 22/01221/F. This latest proposal makes nosignificant alterations to the previous one and the objections in our previous letter dated 16th May2022 still stand.
We echo submissions made by the St Christopher's Action Network (SCAN) and the WestburyPark Community Association (WPCA) relating to wider community concerns. Whilst we supportsensitive development of the site in principle, we object to the height and density of the proposednew buildings, which are not in keeping with the local conservation area. The gardens, maturetrees and wildlife form an important setting for Grace House, which we believe should be protectedas part of Bristol's architectural heritage. We object to the height of the new cottages, and theirproximity to the boundaries of Bayswater Avenue dwellings, which we believe have beencommunicated in a misleading way (by not measuring the closest dimensions). We object to theloss of light and privacy to our small rear garden and directly overlooking windows to the rear ofour house. In fact we believe the proposed "cottages" (H02) will result in a mutually unacceptableoverlooking and overshadowing.
The boundary wall of 21 Bayswater Avenue (our property) is directly integrated into the existingNorth House/Gardener's Cottage. It would appear this is now proposed to become an 'UrbanVillage Hall', which leads us to question what noise impact this will have on us.
There has still been no clarification provided regarding land levels. We estimate that the site is
between 1 and 2m higher than garden levels on Bayswater Avenue and we are thereforeconcerned that the proposed new buildings will tower over those on Bayswater Avenue.
We believe the serious lack of adequate parking provision will further exacerbate traffic andparking issues in the area and create additional safety risks to local school children.
Fewer trees are due to be felled in this latest proposal; however the number of mature trees due tobe removed is still very high which will be detrimental to the character of the neighbourhood.
In summary, the development is too dense, too high and too close to site boundaries with toomany mature trees being removed. There is clearly a serious lack of parking provision leading toincreased traffic in an area with two nurseries, a pre-school and a primary school in closeproximity.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I wish to register my objection to the proposed development on St Christopher's site.Having recently moved to Royal Albert Road, I can see how the impact of these proposals wouldhave a very negative impact on the area - and its residents. Firstly, further vehicular traffic willimpact on the already congested roads around the adjoining streets. There is very limited parkingas it is for residents, without the added number of vehicles which would inevitably be fighting forspaces. I've found I often have to park quite a distance away from my house, and know this to betrue for my neighbours too. Alongside this, the general congestion of cars clogging up the streets -delivery vehicles, removal vans and such like find it difficult to negotiate the roads with vehiclesbanked up on pavements and often unable to pass. To develop a site needing outside car parkingspaces is just adding to an already well established problem.Secondly, having viewed the plans I cannot see how this would be in keeping with the surroundingperiod architecture, the vista for many would be a complete eyesore.Thirdly, the number of established trees that would need to be cut down is unreasonable, whenthe idea is to preserve our trees for the benefit of living more ecologically, and preserving what wealready have.I am strongly against these new proposals.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Don't build this scar on the landscape near green areas that are treasured by people allacross Bristol. Building these retirement homes will increase congestion in an area with alreadybad traffic problems and narrow roads. Renovating the current St Christopher's building wouldalready yield many apartments too. They would be highly coveted since the current building is solarge and beautiful.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
My previous objection still stands as this revised scheme goes nowhere near toreducing the size and scale of the development that the Community wants.
The height and size of the development would simply dwarf the original Victorian villas and thisjust isn't in keeping - or appropriate - for a Conservation Area.
Whilst fewer trees are planned to be removed, the number is still alarmingly high and when youlook at this in conjunction with the increase and density of traffic a development of this size willinevitably incur, then this is certainly a juxtaposition to Bristol's policy to become a "cleaner air"city.
Furthermore, the proposed parking provision for the residents is woefully inadequate and thealready congested roads surrounding the area will be used to meet the demand, resulting ingreater traffic and parking issues and a risk to safety.
This application should simply not be allowed to go ahead.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
As a local resident, I am opposed to the current plans for development of the StChristopher's site for the following reasons:
- Impact of increased traffic accessing the site, resulting in detriment to local residents and safetyof pedestrians and pets. Safety, noise and pollution concerns, it will make our quiet residentialstreets much busier.- Impact to parking - there doesn't appear to be sufficient parking provision within the plans tosupport no. of residents, visitors and associated staff, overflow would be onto local streets that arealready crowded with no RPZ in place- Impact to privacy of surrounding properties with proposed height of development. This is out ofkeeping with properties in the area which is a conservation area. Proposed height of buildings willbe visible far from the site. Height should not exceed that of existing buildings (standard regulationwhen rebuilding on existing site). although plans have been revised, height of buildings is still outof keeping with surrounding housing.- Impact on biodiversity with removal of trees and wildlife habitat if development goes head to thedetriment of the environment.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
A five storey building(s) is ridiculous for this area. This could set a precedent foreverand must be rejected.Parking anywhere in this locale would be a great challenge not only for residents but also forvisitors and people who already live in the area and have to park on the surrounding area. This isalready a challenge particularly at school drop off and collection times.The increase in vehicular traffic would be a massive challenge as some of these roads arebasically one lane due to cars parked there already. More traffic could easily end in gridlock.Please reject this application in the form that it is submitted. It is neither suitable nor welcome.Thank you.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
As a parent of two children who go to Westbury Park Primary School, I can say thatparking near the school is difficult half of the time. Should the planning permission were granted tothe site at St Christopher's, it would no doubt put more pressure on the users of roads in the area,making more people frustrated and angry every day. I hope the plan could be changed to makethe new development self sufficient in terms of parking. Thank you!
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The scheme has made no substantive attempt to respond to original objections. Densityis still an issue, leading to dangerous traffic issues. The skyline of an important Conservation Areain Bristol is threatened, with the height of the development wholly inappropriate for the area. It willset a precedent for further development and fundamentally change the character of the area. Theloss to wildlife habitat through development is not in line with Bristol's commitment as a green city.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I understand that there is a demand for housing in Bristol, but maximising housingdensity should not be the only objective. This has to be balanced against Bristol's quality of lifeand my objection is on two grounds, the loss of mature trees and inadequate on-site parking.
Our mature city trees are increasingly scarce and should be highly valued, the loss of trees here isunacceptable.
The streets of Bristol are overrun with cars. Pavement parking is endemic leaving less and lessspace for pedestrians. Perhaps less of an issue for the fit adult, but very hard on those walkingwith young children, the elderly and the disabled.
65 parking spaces for 200 residents is a crazy idea. The streets around the area are already full ofvehicles, so this can only lead to more antisocial parking.
This scheme needed to revised so that it provides adequate parking and protects the trees.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I am appalled that the current application for redevelopment of the site has reached thisfar. It is so clearly out of keeping with the locality and would be a blight on the Downs. It is simplytoo big, too high, too invasive, too ugly!(For many visitors to Bristol their first view of the city is on their journey via the Downs - this wouldruin that!)The destruction 0f 40% of established on-site trees is iniquitous, given their carbon-absorbingcapabilities - and this at a time when Bristol aims to be a greener city.Car parking in the surrounding area is already a huge problem and allocation of sufficientadditional spaces on the site - for residents and staff is utterly inadequate.Special needs provision is poor in the city. The development of the site site should at least attemptto provide some proper facilities to compensate for the loss of St Christopher's School.We really do not need or want yet another luxury housing provision.Let us get our priorities right and veto this!
on 2023-01-05
The density of the blocks is improved but and still out of character with the conservationarea.
The elevational treatment is poor with a lack of hierarchy to the flats. Little regards have beengiven to residents' amenity, and in particular the visual and physical connection of the ground floorunits and gardens.
I do however welcome the proposed use of the site for sheltered accommodation.
I would encourage a financial contribution, by thedevelopers, to the creation of a 'Home Zone' along Bayswater Avenue, part of Etloe Road andRoyal Albert Road. This will slow traffic and enhance the environment.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
We wish to express our concern with regard to the proposed development of this site.Specifically, the density of housing & significant increase in parking demand in an already crowdedroad space, so close to a busy shopping area as well as commuter parking.
on 2023-01-05 SUPPORT
As previously mentioned in my original support statement, Bristol is badly in need ofhousing, and the diverse mix of retirement and extra care homes proposed would be a goodaddition to the area. Local residents would also have access to the facilities and gardensproposed. Having seen the original plans there is an emphasis on sustainability and biodiversity.The revised plans offer some appeasement to the objectors but most of them seem to be carobsessed, thinking only of their own situation and not addressing the lack of suitable and availablehousing for retirement and extra care in the area. Further improvements could be made, eg asproposed by the police for crime prevention, but I support this development for its overall benefit tothe community at large.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I am a regular visitor to the Glen and am appalled at the proposed development whichwould have a tremendous adverse impact on the street. The current green character of the sitewould change to urban oppressive buildings with removal of much of the natural scenery. Thedeveloper's own report states that the visual impact on the Glen is 'moderate to substantialadverse', and the existing houses will be dominated and overlooked by buildings out of characterwith this currently pleasant area of Bristol. The amount of greenery and the loss of trees proposedis incredible at a time when we need to increase biodiversity in Bristol and in the country as awhole. Parking is also a big issue. The Glen is already used by cars trying to avoid resident onlyzones, and I frequently have trouble finding anywhere to park when I am visiting. This can only getworse if residents, visitors, delivery vehicles and ambulances visit the site through the narrowheavily parked side street.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Although I submitted this once, as i pressed 'SEND', it timed me out, so I was not ableto save a copy. Hence an abbreviated presentation.
-development is too big and too hi
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I wish to register my opposition to the above plans. The proposed buildings are still toomany, too big and too overbearing for the space, and out of character for the neighbourhood.There will be too great a loss of trees and damage to the safe space which the local wildlife hasenjoyed for many years. Parking in the area is already extremely difficult. We cannot absorb theextra pressure on parking space, and the likely effect on road safety, especially in this area wherewe have a primary school and nursery.
on 2023-01-05 SUPPORT
I have checked over the application, and considered the objections. My parents used tolive in a OAP complex, and in reality, not many of them had cars. So, the impact i think will beminimal.Discussions i have had suggest the businesses in the area, are concerned parking spaces will getused up. Note not many of the businesses have car parks, so we can't just reject the application,to save parking spaces for them. If they need parking spaces, then create them on their ownareas. When i have discussed planning in the area previously, i have mentioned parking, andalways advised it is not a problem.There are other buildings in the area that are 5/6 stories - take the old Lloyds bank building onnorth view.The site has a number of trees, and some to be taken out. I can understand for the proposal somemay need to go. That is regrettable - perhaps some trees could be added on the perimeters as asuggestion. People objecting could look to plant further trees themselves.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Overdevelopment and disfigurement of the nature of the area which is a conservation area;deleterious effect on wildlife habitats; loss of old and much treasured old trees and green space.Potential traffic congestion at the exit of Westbury Road onto the roundabout, insufficient parking.Intrusive to nearby properties.spaces on the site which will effect the already over parked narrow streets; safety concerns forlocal school and pre school children and other pedestrians; increased stress on the currentinhabitants of Westbury Park resulting from the parking and traffic chaos,of years of building work noise and congestion.Uneccassary removal of trees.incursion onto the protected status of the Downs.I believe the grass border between Westbury park road and the front wall of the lodges is includedin the Downs area and should not be reduced.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
These comments are on behalf of FODAG (Friends of the Downs and Avon Gorge) anamenity groupwhich represents the interests of users of the Downs. Note, the proposed development of StChristophers into an extra care facility is seen as a favourable use for the tranquil site immediatelyadjacent to the Downs, where more people will be able to benefit from the amenity of the BristolDowns. There are the following concerns about the proposed implementation in the amendedproposal.The loss of many trees and hedgerows that provide valuable green biodiversity in the Downsconservation area. The st Christophers site is recognised as a connected biodiversity corridor totheDowns and the substantial vegetation that is to be removed will have a significant adverse impact.Overspill parking from residents and visitors to the site may lead to parking on the Downs landgrassed areas as was seen during recent Covid vaccination sessions that were held inCarisbrookelodge hall. Parking on the grass causes the soil structure to deteriorate and become unsightly,whichis expensive to remediate, which is necessary so that parking there doesn't become the norm.Note,the grass border between Westbury park road and the front wall of the lodges is part of the Downsand must be protected under the 1861 Downs act.The increased vehicle movements to the site and the large size of the more regular waste disposalvehicles, and other service vehicles including fire engines, will mean loss or damage to the Downs
grassland to accommodate the vehicle turning swept path at the site entrance and exit.The reduction in height of one of the 4 tall buildings does reduce the risk of the buildings beingvisible from the viewpoint used for the verified views. Even with the reduction of one storey, thebuildings which still up to 4m higher than the lodges, which are the frontage to the Granny Downs,may be visible from other viewpoints such as from Whitetree roundabout direction where the tallbuildings will be visible behind the lodges. A more detailed visual impact assessment is needed toensure that the character and views of the conservation area aren't permanently and adverselyaffected. Note, some of the tree canopies which help to conceal the new buildings in the verifiedview pictures are to be removed in the proposed development plans.The occupancy of the site will be considerably higher than the previous usage and increasedvehiclemovements in and out of the site and along Westbury park will detract from the tranquil nature ofthe Granny Downs area.Provision for car parking is planned in front of the lodges which may impact the views of thehistoricbuildings, and which could be a significant detriment if vans or minibuses were parked there, thereisno detail as to how the visual impact of these vehicles is to be minimised.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Excuse the bullet points:-
- too big and too high; a blight on the Downs and local surrounds
- loss of trees (40% destructed) is both shameful and iniquitous
- loss of wildlife is equally iniquitous
- trees are anti-pollutants, extracting CO2 from the air
- reduced Special Needs provision for the most vulnerable is almost criminal. The site should offermore than luxury housing and profit for 'greedy' developers
- increase in cars and motor traffic, and insufficient parking can only lead to increased pollutionand congestion
- finally - it is TOTALLY out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
We no longer live in the Westbury Park area, but we still spend much of our time there,particularly supporting the local St Albans Church.
Our view is that proposed development at St. Christopher's is out of keeping with the rest of thearea. The accommodation proposed is too high density and this is particularly significant in theheights of some of the proposed buildings. This high density accommodation will not only lead toincreased through traffic in a quiet residential area, but also to increased parking locally, making acongested parking area even more congested.
As a result we would be in favour of a re-design that was more sympathetic to the localneighbou4hood.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I do not feel the revised plans have addressed any of my concerns. There is still noprovision for affordable housing. There are still insufficient parking spaces. There is stilldestruction of wildlife habitats. We do not need another expensive retirement complex in the area.We need affordable homes for young families!
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The streets around my son's school (Westbury Park) are already filled with cars withnowhere for residents to park. This is exacerbated by having the school and nurseries in closeproximity, add in the fact these streets are the last without residential parking permits thereforeyou have commuters parking here as well. This all adds up with cars using every inch of the roadsand pavements, I can't fathom adding to this deeply unsafe mess further with this newdevelopment.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The revised 'minimal alterations' that have been made to the planning permission are aninsult to the locals' intelligence.
I object to the large number of properties being built for the following reasons:
More congestion on already narrow busy roads (Westbury Park and Bayswater Avenue) leading tothe a White Tree roundabout.
Inadequate parking facilities will cause a knock on effect for residents all down Redland Road andthe Westbury Park area.
The area as a whole cannot take any more inhabitants. As it is a high percentage of properties areconverted to flats or multiple occupancy all allowing several cars per residence.
The Westbury Park area is already over inhabited.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
This is my first direct objection to this development. It is disappointing this resubmissionappears to retain all of the problems with the previous one and the developers have not acted ingood faith on the feedback from the community.
My main concerns are:- The plans continue to result in a large increase in households with flats up to 5 stories high.- Parking remains too limited for this number of properties and households.- traffic concerns are not addressed to prevent additional traffic in an already busy area for roads -I am particularly concerned about traffic safety issues given proximity to Westbury Park school.- environment will be disrupted with too many mature trees being removed.
Please reject the application and request any resubmission to be a complete redesignrepresenting much lower density housing
Regards
Paul
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I am in principle in favour of appropriate open access development of this area for a welldesigned retirement village that will permit the engagement of the residents with the widercommunity and the use of the communal facilities by the wider community. It could make a lovelydevelopment that could really further connect the community with the retirees and further augmentaccess to he Granny Downs which all would welcome for their green spaces.
I do agree though that the parking arrangements are inadequate taking into care the staff andcarers that will also work on site. I also consider that the heights of the blocks are simply toooverbearing and need realistic reduction to 3 floors taking into account the heritage andconservation status of the local area. If the plans could adapt to reflect that I believe that otherecological concerns etc are adequately addressed and I would be supportive.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
It is ridiculous to erect buildings without enough parking spaces for every person whowill live and be going in and out of there. The parking around the area and the roads will be muchtoo busy.
This is not to mention that the building designs are really ugly and will be an eyesore for those wholife near.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I have lived in Westbury Park for 22 years, it is the most beautiful area, with the Downsto walk in and see all the views . I have walked up past the St Christophers site for all these yearsand to now know this development will kill all those lovely views I see on my walk is heartbreaking. It adds huge wellbeing to the community to be able to walk in such a lovely Green openspace. I have no words what this will do to Westbury Park.
The destruction of wildlife, trees, birds, bugs and habitat also adds to this. Taking one story off anaggressive high rise building which doesn't fit into the beautiful area surrounding the Downs andclaiming reducing the 122 flats to 116 by taking off one level and enlarging the foot print of theblock , they have actually increased the flats by one to 123.This is a beautiful piece of the South West unspoilt area which includes the Downs which is aheritage site and is used by families and we need this area to remain in its beautiful setting as it is,not overshadowed by high rise buildings.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I live in Redland so the area in which the development is proposed is relatively close tomy home, even though I would probably not count as a neighbour. The proposed developmentappears out of extraordinarily out of keeping with the existing neighbourhood. Living well with ourneighbours in communities should be the goal, and developments should support and enhance lifeand well-being both for the neighbours and the wider city. Please rethink this
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Ongoing concerns around existing tree retention, there needs to be way more parkingfor a site of this size not the standard for a council run facility - no overspill into the current roadsshould be accepted. Current planned buildings are too high for a residential area especially givenits position close to the downs.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Hello - I do believe that the proposed use and design is the best use of this site. It isclear though, that there are too many units and not enough parking. Really, this is all there is to it.In the current market, the unit prices seem depressed, cost not doubt max inflated to showguaranteed profit levels (at the max of the range) can only be met at these volumes with noaffordable housing.We all know this is not the case.The developer with either make super profits (hidden in the cost base or visible) and could affordaffordable housing / less units. We also all know that if we start doing something and the costs goup then we cannot demand the same max profit margins ... and yet....
There are too many units and not enough parking - how clear can this be? It is not possible tojustify a lower ratio of parking to property than for elderly use,,, but folks have friends / famliy /carers and some cars. There is no room for these cars on the surrounding jammed streets, whereaccidents have happened since he first application and have needed police support already - suchas next to the Bayswater nursery that closed the road last year.
Playing a planning game of using a bonkers start point - so you can conceed to look morereasonable (see ridiculous suggestion of opening the road next to the nursery or the crazy originalunit volume) - is merely a game to entangle planning officers.
These new plans should be reviewed ignoring previous bonkers application. At this point, we willstill see the units / risk free profit demands / parking ratios are too much.
Unit prices will be higher - lets watch the estate agents in the future should we?? - The concept of"guaranteed" profit margins (how nice - other businesses probably wish they could achieve thesame!) should be ignored.
This is the right use.The volumes are too high, parking too low and, even if this was maintained, affordable housing isaffordable.
BCC Planning team are better than this game - we know this..
Using the vacant facility as Covid vaccination centre or to house refugees should not be seen asswaying the argument. This is great but it has nothing to do with the development / developerbeing reasonable and should not influence our decisions (which no doubt they are hoping it will).This planning decision will live with our city & community for many. many years - after thisdeveloper has long left our city boundaries.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The parking issues have not really been addressed. The developer proposed lease forthe parking spaces and even with reduced number of properties this will ultimately mean to savecosts residents/staff/visitors will park on already overcrowded neighbouring roads.I really can't see the residents (being an assisted retirement facility) using bikes to get about assuggested in the plans. So the amount of added traffic in the area will be an issue and also safetyconcern as there is a school right round the corner.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
This development will increase the need for more parking the area is alreadyovercrowded.The new proposal hasn't address any of my concerns about the traffic or parking.The site developments are not in keeping with the area with high rise buildings
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
We can't believe that these plans have put in again with so little actual changes and thecynicism of the developer doing this just before Christmas.There are still too many trees being felled, extensive building which is still five storeys high (this isa conservation area as you know), insufficient parking provided for new dwellings and opinionsand needs of the local community being disregarded.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
As someone who has had a very close connection to the St Christopher's site, I objectto these plans on a variety of grounds. They do not serve the legacy of the site in providingschooling for SEND children. The residential development plans are not in keeping with the beautyof the site as the housing units are too dense and too tall; too many trees would have to be cutdown without the possibility of them being replaced. There is far too little provision for parking forresidents, and none for staff. Vehicle access points have not been given careful consideration andwould create traffic chaos and hinder access by emergency vehicles. Most importantly, thecommunity and city of Bristol would be losing a wonderful site for a school, when there is adesperate need for SEND provision. As one local councillor said recently on Twitter "There areSEND kids in Bristol desperately needing suitable provision. The St Christopher's site is aSCHOOL. Our children's needs should have priority over developers' profits." Finally, I do not thinkthis area needs more luxury housing; any housing development should focus on providingaffordable housing. This would be more in keeping with the legacy of the site. Please DO NOTALLOW THIS PLAN TO GO AHEAD.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Howdy!
I am a regular visitor to the Glen and am appalled at the proposeddevelopment which will make a tremendous adverse impact on the street. The green character ofthe site currently would change to scenery of dense urban oppressive buildings. The developersown report states that the visual impact on the Glen is 'moderate to substantial adverse', and theexisting houses will be dominated and overlooked by buildings out of character with the currentlypleasant area of Bristol. The amount of greenery and the loss of trees proposed is incredible at atime when we need to increase biodiversity in Bristol. We understand that the current very difficultparking situation will get much worse with the residents, visitors, delivery vehicles and ambulancesthat will visit the site, through the narrow heavily parked side street. Please reject this proposeddevelopment which is out of character with such a pleasant conservation area.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Nothing has fundamentally changed as far as I'm concerned.
I'm afraid that the destruction of all of the trees and the environmental impact of this scheme is stillnot acceptable
This is certainly not a 'Landscape-led' scheme. The idea that the developers are creating a newwoodland and new meadow is laughable.
If they reduce the number for units, reduce the size and scale of the development and then veryeasily they will have more space for all things green.
The conservation area of Westbury Park deserves better. This scheme should not be accepted.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Minor changes made, but still too big, too dense and too high for the area.
1. Damage to Heritage: The proposals amount to severe overdevelopment in a conservation area.The proposed scale, mass and bulk are inappropriate within the sensitive heritage context ofWestbury Park and the listed Grace House, and the scheme will give rise to unacceptable impactson the townscape.2. Damage to the Environment: There will be too many trees lost and a detrimental impact onnature & wildlife, losing high quality specimens that make a valued contribution to the characterand appearance of the Conservation Area.3. Road Safety, Traffic & Parking: The proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms,owing to insufficient on-site parking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements,which will increase the road safety risks in an area where this is already a significant concern. Noincrease in parking spaces, so the increase in traffic will be an additional hazard for local residentsand the children who attend the local nursery, pre schools and schools in the area.
4. Lack of Affordable Housing: The proposal includes no affordable housing and is not supportedbyany evidence to justify such a lack of provision.5. Loss of SEND provision: In the context of an increasing need for SEND accommodation inBristol,the developers have failed to comply with council policies that seek to safeguard community
facilities.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Minor changes made, but still too big, too dense and too high for the area.
1. Damage to Heritage: The proposals amount to severe overdevelopment in a conservation area.The proposed scale, mass and bulk are inappropriate within the sensitive heritage context ofWestbury Park and the listed Grace House, and the scheme will give rise to unacceptable impactson the townscape.2. Damage to the Environment: There will be too many trees lost and a detrimental impact onnature & wildlife, losing high quality specimens that make a valued contribution to the characterand appearance of the Conservation Area.3. Road Safety, Traffic & Parking: The proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms,owing to insufficient on-site parking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements,which will increase the road safety risks in an area where this is already a significant concern. Noincrease in parking spaces, so the increase in traffic will be an additional hazard for local residentsand the children who attend the local nursery, pre schools and schools in the area.
4. Lack of Affordable Housing: The proposal includes no affordable housing and is not supportedbyany evidence to justify such a lack of provision.5. Loss of SEND provision: In the context of an increasing need for SEND accommodation inBristol,the developers have failed to comply with council policies that seek to safeguard community
facilities.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Developers' need to rethink their new plan and stop taking the micky out of theWestbury Parkresidents. Massively over developed the site, too much destruction of wildlife, trees, birds, bugsandhabitat.Taking one story off an aggressive high rise building which doesn't fit into the beautiful areasurrounding the Downs and claiming reducing the 122 flats to 116 by taking off one level andenlarging the foot print of the block , they have actually increased the flats by one to 123.I am sure the developers have looked at the surrounding roads and access and 65 onsite parkingspaces they know will not be enough and probably know there will be a need for 50 more required.
where will those extra 50 plus cars park in an already very, very congested residential area?This is a beautiful piece of the South West unspoilt area which includes the Downs which is aheritage site. Families use this every day and to see Gigantic huge tower blocks that over look this
and private residents homes that have lived here for a long time is unacceptable.St Christophers was always a school for 70 yrs for SEND( special Educational Needs orDisability).How is the one communal room going to help as a mixed room to serve these needs?The developers need to go back to the drawing board and look at maximum two floor tower blocks
so people can enjoy the views from the downs instead of looking at concreate tower blocks.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to this proposal(the proposal is still largely the same as the original one). I continue to believe that this planningapplication should be refused for the reasons I stated before.
My parents live in the area and we are frequent visitors both to their house as well as DurdhamDowns.The proposed development is completely out of character with the conservation area, and toohigh, too big. It would also spoil the quietness of the area and create far too much traffic, parkingproblems and and pollution.It would also negatively affect the wildlife on site and too many trees would be lost.There is also insufficient SEND provision.
I strongly oppose the proposed development.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The building development is too big and higj and out of character for the area. Suchdensily populated scheme will increase traffic burden in an already busy residential area, willreduce the availability of parking for existing residence and add to the air quality concerns andincrease road safety concerns of the area. The loss of the greeny and wildlife is a huge concern asWestbury Park and Redland are known to be green areas which protect the trees and spaces.Trees take decades to grow and should be protected by all means. Influx of housing and thecongestion will also devalue existing housing in the area.
Totally unsupportive of the scheme.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The proposed development at the site of St Christopher's School is entirelyinappropriate for this Victorian residential neighbourhood. Five-storey blocks of flats are far toobig. The number of residential units is far too high, and the impact on traffic and parking will bedisastrous for the neighbourhood. Disastrous too will be the impact on the natural beauty of thearea with the removal of ancient trees and the loss of wildlife habitats. The proposals aregrotesquely out of proportion with the character of Westbury Park.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before'.
My main concerns, which I outlined in my previous response have NOT been addressed by thevery minor, superficial amendments to the planning application.
Specifically.
I was concerned that the scale, mass and bulk of the proposals was inappropriate, would situncomfortably within the plot with the tall and uninteresting form standing out amongst the heritageassets in the Conservation Area adjoining the Downs and unacceptably altering the existingcharacter of the area. This concern has NOT been remotely addressed by the reduction of one ofthe four tall buildings by one story and another by a mere 30 cm.
The extent of the tree loss in particular of high quality trees, although slightly reduced is still notjustified.
Parking provision is wholly inadequate, with the revised proposal including no more spaces andparking spaces in total of 65 for 116 dwellings (6 less than previously) and no additional spaces forvisitors, staff etc. The nature of the location, closely surrounded by residential roads, combinedwith the inadequate parking provision on site means that residents and staff would seek to park on
neighbouring roads impacting residents and creating traffic hazards.
In the context of the need for increased SEND accommodation in Bristol the proposal only offers avague proposal for shared use of a room in the "Urban Village Hall" which is wholly inadequate.
Unless major substantive changes are made to the application, it should be rejected in its entirety.
Regards,
Ella Ward Parsons
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before'.
My main concerns, which I outlined in my previous response have NOT been addressed by thevery minor, superficial amendments to the planning application.
Specifically.
I was concerned that the scale, mass and bulk of the proposals was inappropriate, would situncomfortably within the plot with the tall and uninteresting form standing out amongst the heritageassets in the Conservation Area adjoining the Downs and unacceptably altering the existingcharacter of the area. This concern has NOT been remotely addressed by the reduction of one ofthe four tall buildings by one story and another by a mere 30 cm.
The extent of the tree loss in particular of high quality trees, although slightly reduced is still notjustified.
Parking provision is wholly inadequate, with the revised proposal including no more spaces andparking spaces in total of 65 for 116 dwellings (6 less than previously) and no additional spaces forvisitors, staff etc. The nature of the location, closely surrounded by residential roads, combinedwith the inadequate parking provision on site means that residents and staff would seek to park on
neighbouring roads impacting residents and creating traffic hazards.
In the context of the need for increased SEND accommodation in Bristol the proposal only offers avague proposal for shared use of a room in the "Urban Village Hall" which is wholly inadequate.
Unless major substantive changes are made to the application, it should be rejected in its entirety.
Regards,
Ella Ward Parsons
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
My original objection made on the 17th May 2022 still stands. The latest planssubmitted by the developer have not made any material difference to lessen the harm theirproposed development would have.
The proposed design plans are too big, too dense and too high. It will cause significant visualharm, in a highly valued and protected conservation and heritage site of Bristol. No other propertyowner would be allowed to build such a visually and environmentally harmful development on theDowns. The developer's reason to build at this scale and mass appears to be that they need tomake their financial business model work. That is not an acceptable justification. The LPA shouldcounsel the developer to help them find a more suitable and sympathetic design plan.
The Conservation panel strongly objects to the proposals and states they will cause "significantdamage"
I therefore resubmit below my original objection, as none of my reasons for objecting have beenaddressed or mitigated in the latest design plans the developer has submitted: -
ObjectionWhile the principle of an appropriate and acceptable development at this site has merit the currentapplication, due to its sheer amount, height, mass, bulk and stark out of character form will causeenormous visual harm and cannot be considered to conserve or enhance the character of theDowns Conservation Area and is therefore contrary to Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and policies BCS22 and DM31.
It is also clear that the proposed development would give rise to an unacceptable level of transportand road safety issues, loss of residential amenity by an overwhelming sense of overbearing andloss of biodiversity due to unnecessary extensive removal of high-quality mature woodland trees inthe highly valued Downs Conservation area.
The development also does not contribute towards the Affordable Housing targets or SENDprovision, which Bristol clearly needs.
What is the justification for developing at this scale, mass and amount in the context of a highlyvalued conservation area?It appears the applicant is stating their commercial business model can't operate, as desired, ifthey sympathetically adjust their design plans and have less flats.
The below was reported in The Bristol Cable last December at a public consultation, the developerwas quoted as stating: -"The total number of units has been reduced to 125 to 120, which are made up of a mixture ofcottages and apartment blocks. But Martin said this total can't be reduced further, becauseotherwise the care model won't work, as residents will have to be charged more for their servicecharge. "
However, this appears to be an issue for the applicant's own financial decision making and not aplanning justification to approve a multi harmful development in a heritage conservation area,where no other application would stand a chance of being approved.
Furthermore, the applicant has not provided a viability assessment to qualify this position. Withoutsuch information Bristol City Council are unable to verify the justification for development at thisscale. They are being asked to establish that a developer's individual business model, and needfor financial return by building large bulky blocks of flats on The Downs, is more important thansafeguarding the conservation status of a heritage asset for future generations. If established,Bristol City Council may well then have no control over similar applications that might be submittedby other residential care developers in the location who want to build overbearing bulky new flatroof apartments to make their own operating model work.
Would the proposed development be out of scale or context with the surrounding area?
Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 indicates thatdevelopment proposals should conserve or enhance the character and aesthetic of designatedConservation Areas.
Policy BCS20 sets out the development should exhibit densities informed by characteristics of the
site and local context.
Policy BCS21 states that new development should deliver high-quality urban design whichcontributes towards the character and identity of the area.
Policy BCS22 states that development proposals should not undermine the character, significanceor setting of any designated heritage assets.
Policies DM26-27 (inclusive) of the Site Allocations & Development Management Policies requiredevelopment to contribute to the character of an area through its layout, form and building design.
Policy DM30 states that development proposals should respect the character, scale and form ofthe host property and preserve traditional architectural features.
Policy DM31 states that development proposals should not give rise to any unacceptable impactson the character or setting of designated heritage assets.
Any site visit taken by Planning Officers or City Design Group members will clearly identify theapplication design is in conflict with all these policies. The unsympathetic design is not in keepingwith the aesthetic of the Conservation Area and would cause visual harm from both long, andshort-range, views. To suggest otherwise by the applicant's own Heritage Assessment Statementwould be inaccurate.
Bristol City Council City Design Group and Planning Offices should consult with the applicant toidentify a high quality, conservation style design which respects and enhances the character of thearea.
In its current form the development would reinforce poor quality design which would be visuallyincongruous to the character of the buildings and its immediate surroundings.
Is the impact of the proposed development on transport and highways acceptable?
Policy BCS10 states that development should be designed and located to ensure safe streetswhere traffic and other activities are integrated.
Policy DM23 outlines that development should not give rise to unacceptable traffic conditions andwould be expected to provide safe and adequate access onto the highway.
Policies BCS10 and DM23 outline that development should not give rise to any impact on parkingor vehicle access.
The application does not accord with these policies. Owing to insufficient on-site parking provision
and inappropriate access/egress arrangements, which will increase the road safety risks in anarea where this is already a significant concern.
Bristol City Council Transport Development Management should be highly concerned and has aDuty of Care over road safety. It is not acceptable in terms of highways and transport impacts.
Would the proposed development give rise to any unacceptable impacts on residential amenity?
Policy BCS21 states that new developments should safeguard the amenity of existingdevelopments.
Policy DM30 states that development proposals should not prejudice the existing and futuredevelopment potential of adjoining sites.
The proposed development would be of an unacceptable scale and mass and would give rise toan unacceptable sense of overbearing. The proposed new build section will unreasonablyoverlook and dominate all the surrounding homes on the roads affected.
Does the proposed development give sufficient consideration to its environmental impact?
While the development is likely to accord with sustainable design and build standards such asPolicy BCS13, BCS14 and BCS15. There will be a significant, unjustified, loss of many maturewoodland trees and a detrimental impact on nature & wildlife. Losing high-quality specimens thatmake a valued contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Thisunique area requires safeguarding for future generations.
Furthermore, the lack of SEND provision and Affordable Housing creates an imbalance in the localcommunity.
While there is merit for an acceptable and appropriate development at this site, the harm thisparticular application will cause in its current form and scale cannot be considered acceptable andwarrants being refused.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The proposed development at the site of St Christopher's School is utterly unsuitable forthis elegant Victorian residential district. To build five-storey blocks of flats is absurdly out ofproportion. The number of residential units is far too high, the reduction of only 6 units after theconsultation comes nowhere near what is required, and the impact on traffic and parking will meangridlock for the neighbourhood. The impact on the natural beauty of the area, with the removal ofancient trees and the loss of wildlife habitats, would be irreversible. I would like to object in thestrongest terms.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I am very much against the development. The building development will not fit intoneighbourhood style. Also it will be too big and out of place. It will create extra traffic and reducethe availability of parking for existing residence. The loss of the greeny and wildlife is a hugeconcern as Westbury Park and Redland are known to be green areas which protect the trees andspaces. Trees take decades to grow and should be protected by all means.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I see there has been some concessions. But I love so close by and walk by the areaevery day. I am very anxious - the plans are still TOO big for the area. They must re think andscale back on all front. Smaller and for fewer people. Please do not let this pass.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
We object to the proposal for a number of reasons as noted below.
We appreciate that there have been some changes to the original proposal, however these do notaddress the main concerns regarding this development. Fundamentally it is still too dense andover developed and not in keeping with the conservation area. The impact that this scale ofdevelopment would have on the existing strained road networks would be devastating.
Housing DemandsIt is noted in the application that this development will be aiding the housing shortage, howeverthis accommodation is high end housing and not the type that is required as there are similarfacilities in the area with considerable vacancies. If this development was market housing, a muchneeded affordable housing provision would be incurred, the density of the site would besignificantly lower due to residential design requirements and the parking allocation would be morerealistic.Application TimingWe also note that the timing of this application for comments, with the majority of the period overthe Christmas holiday, was restrictive. An extension would be a good idea considering manyresidents and community members (eg school users and local businesses) might not have seen /had the time to review the updated documents properly.Parking & TrafficAlthough there are 6 fewer units and the parking has not changed, this is still a huge underprovision for parking. Visitors, residents and workers of the site will park on the adjacent streets.
Fundamentally, Westbury Park road (in effect a single lane road due to parking on one side) is notadequate for the purpose and any increase in traffic or parking will be hugely problematic to thearea. This has been highlighted recently when St Christophers site was used as a vaccine clinicand the traffic on this road led to road blocks and huge traffic jams. The updated transportstatement uses a 2 day survey at night (22.00 - 00.00) however this is not appropriate to the trafficand parking issues of the area. These are predominantly during the daytime due to the competingneeds of parking residents, visitors, workers, local commerce, staff at local schools/ nursery andcommuters benefiting from free parking and using local transport to travel into work in town.Due to the large scale of this development (116 units and café & facilities), there will be asignificant increase to the local traffic (Residents, Staff, Visitors & Deliveries). The parkingprovision of 65 spaces for 116 units, Staff and visitors is laughably inadequate. In contrast, thenearby Vincent development at Queen Victoria House (Planning Reference 15/01681/F) providingnew accommodation for assisted living for older people comprised of 65 homes with 66 carparking spaces.The applicant proposal is a high-end residential development for occupants aged from 65 yearsold. A high proportion of them will still be driving and wanting the independence of their own carand for shopping. The parking provision should therefore be based on normal residentialdevelopments, not care home standards. There is nothing in place to stop theoccupants/staff/visitors from utilising overspill parking on the adjacent streets, which are stretchedto breaking point. This is more likely given the parking spaces provided on site are rented to theusers at a cost.
Scale & Density update.The proposal is still far too over developed & too dense for the site. Although there has been areduction of units and the ridiculous 6 storey villa B has been reduced to 5 storeys, this is just atoken gesture by the developers and overall it is still too dense for the scale of the site.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
We live nearby and our children attend Westbury Park School adjoing the site. Weobject very strongly on the grounds that it will further compound issues of traffic and parking in theneighbourhood. The development will alter the character of the area, being so large and high rise,and due to the clearing of mature trees on the edge of the leafy downs.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The residents of Belvedere Road have had problems in finding parking spaces for along time as it is not in an RPZ. It is used by commuters and others who leave their cars thereduring the day. There are also many vehicles parking and manoeuvring associated with thenursing homes. Extra pressure on parking spaces caused by the proposed development wouldmake the situation intolerable for residents.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
It is a shame that such a monstrous development might even be considered forapproval. There are no other buildings close to this height in the area and developers areproposing something not at all in keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood. Even the existinghouses on site which overlook the Downs would be dwarfed by the buildings proposed. Please,please don't give approval for these plans which are clearly motivated by greed and trying to packas many people in as possible purely for profit. It just isn't right and nobody who lives in WestburyPark wants this extreme over development to happen. Surely this should matter.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
There are already far too many cars on the roads here and this will bring even more.Also bad for the environment
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
My two grandchildren attend Westbury Park School and I regularly do the school run.Bayswater Road and the pavements narrow and restricted by trees so that the road often has tobe used to allow groups of people to pass. With the development there would be more traffic andmore parked cars with the limited number of parking places on the site presenting more danger toschool children. I also object to the proposed felling of mature trees. The revised plans do notsolve anything and I object to the development.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
This scheme will cram huge numbers of luxury housing into an area already underpressure for services and parking. The scheme will destroy a large number of mature treesreducing air quality and causing detrimental environmental impact. Views to the downs will beobstructed and parking space allocated is insufficient for the development. There is also noaffordable options which is much needed in this area of bristol. I cannot see anything positiveabout this development and strongly object to it.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I must express my objection to the revised plans proposed for the St Christophers site.
There appear to have been very minor changes from the original plans
The proposed plans appear to be overdeveloping this site with too many housing units, andbuilding blocks that are too high and out of keeping with the surrounding area and overbearing tothe surrounding property and area. The plan to reduce many of the blocks by 30cm clearlyrecognises that this is an issue, but completely fails to address it.
There is not nearly enough parking provision. The impact this will have on the surrounding roadswhich are already overcrowded with parked cars is likely to become a safety hazard, particularly inview of the primary school nearby.
Far too many mature trees are planned to be felled and site will be too densely built on to replantthe trees on this site, changing the aesthetics of this site greatly
It also seems very wrong that there will be no concrete special educational needs provision giventhe history of this site and the real need for this provision in bristol
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I live adjacent to the site and the latest changes to the scheme are minor and address non of theoriginal issues. The developers have ignored the concerns raised by the local community and acomplete redesign is required. The surrounding roads are dangerous due to high volumes of trafficand pavements are blocked on a daily basis. Please object the scheme. Thank you.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Proposed development is too large and overbearing. Especially since it's overlookingthe Downs which is really an amenity for all of Bristol not just the local area.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The new proposed development is still far too big . It is totally out of keeping with thelocal area .This area is a haven for wildlife, with regular sightings of bats, owls, foxes , badgers etc etc -thedevelopment with have a hugely detrimental affect on the wildlife.Please rethink this development.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The planned development for this site would have a very negative impact on thesurrounding area and residents. The plans and revised plans are building far too many propertieson this site, with buildings that are too large and overbearing to the surrounding area. This alongwith the plans to cut down so many trees will be completely out of keeping with a conservationarea.
I have real worries that in a densely populated area with already congested roads, adding thisnumber of properties along with the transport needs of the care staff will have a very negativeimpact on the health and safety of the surrounding residents and lead to overspill parking on thealready overcrowded surrounding roads
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
My original objection to this development was mainly that the scale and density of thisdevelopment was completely inappropriate for this site. This was was concern for the density ofbuilding and related effects on roads and parking.
The revisions now proposed are modest in the extreme in addressing these concerns. My viewremains that the entire scale of the development needs drastic reduction to make it acceptableeven within its own aims.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
The number of units is hugely too great for the Highways capacity of the surroundingfour roads.The main frontage road Durdham Down needs widening to two lanes plus parking space widthand full highways standard entrance junctions and sight lines.The developer should be funding a traffic scheme for the other three roads.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
I am a regular visitor to the Glen and am appalled at the proposed development whichwill make a tremendous adverse impact on the street. The green character of the site currentlywould change to scenery of dense urban oppressive buildings. The developers own report statesthat the visual impact on the Glen is 'moderate to substantial adverse', and the existing houses willbe dominated and overlooked by buildings out of character with the currently pleasant area ofBristol. The amount of greenery and the loss of trees proposed is incredible at a time when weneed to increase biodiversity in Bristol. We understand that the current very difficult parkingsituation will get much worse with the residents, visitors, delivery vehicles and ambulances that willvisit the site, through the narrow heavily parked side street. Please reject this proposeddevelopment which is out of character with such a pleasant conservation area.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Reducing the No of residents by 6 will solve none of the added congestion or parkingproblems. Also the amount of traffic near the local primary school and nursery will increase.The flats are still to high for the area and will spoil the local skyline and views of the downs.In our world today there are already to many mature trees which help our environment being lost,(No more).
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Commenter Type: Other
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:I am writing on behalf of with her full consent and
approval, since 1962.
Community Impact: The Glen has always been a very peaceful and neighbourly road, within in a
conservation area, where many of the residents have lived for many years. Most are either elderly
or have young children. The peacefulness of the road has been a boon to both, despite the many
issues with parking that already exist. To create an entrance from The Glen into the new
development, removing its cul de sac status, so that it becomes a through road, will completely
change the nature of this street, making it a hazard for young children and pets, not to mention
greatly increasing the noise and pollution that will be suffered by all. As St Christopher's has a
double entrance opposite the Downs, which has proved more than sufficient to date, it is hard to
imagine why creating another entrance, which will prove highly disruptive and dangerous, is truly
required.
Parking: With the amount of cars already parked primarily by non residents (most of the residents
have driveways) and the increased number of through traffic, The Glen will become extremely
difficult to navigate and cause the residents endless challenges as they try to manoeuvre in and
out of their own homes. It is clear that the application does not include enough parking to support
the number of individual properties included within the proposed development and so the onus is
on the developers to rectify this situation without imposing further constraints on the already
stretched parking capacity of The Glen.
Invasion of Privacy: I would also like to flag the invasion of privacy and blocking of light that will be
suffered by residents on the north side of The Glen which includes No. 17, by the height of the
properties that will back onto them, causing further distress to the residents who have living
peacefully in The Glen for many years.
This is a development funded for commercial gain. It does not offer any social housing or any
facilities that might be of benefit to the wider community. It is a huge space and should be able to
be developed without imposing so drastically on a neighbourhood that has shown itself throughout
the years to be a supportive and peaceful community.
I very much hope that the Council will register this impact and call upon the developers to rescale
their plans so that many people are not caused distress, property value impact and impaired
quality of domestic life in order to fund their profits.
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to this
proposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons I
stated before'.
My main concerns, which I outlined in my previous response have NOT been addressed by the
very minor, superficial amendments to the planning application.
Specifically.
I was concerned that the scale, mass and bulk of the proposals was inappropriate, would sit
uncomfortably within the plot with the tall and uninteresting form standing out amongst the heritage
assets in the Conservation Area adjoining the Downs and unacceptably altering the existing
character of the area. This concern has NOT been remotely addressed by the reduction of one of
the four tall buildings by one story and another by a mere 30 cm.
The extent of the tree loss in particular of high quality trees, although slightly reduced is still not
justified.
Parking provision is wholly inadequate, with the revised proposal including no more spaces and
parking spaces in total of 65 for 116 dwellings (6 less than previously) and no additional spaces for
visitors, staff etc. The nature of the location, closely surrounded by residential roads, combined
with the inadequate parking provision on site means that residents and staff would seek to park on
neighbouring roads impacting residents and creating traffic hazards.
In the context of the need for increased SEND accommodation in Bristol the proposal only offers a
vague proposal for shared use of a room in the "Urban Village Hall" which is wholly inadequate.
Unless major substantive changes are made to the application, it should be rejected in its entirety.
Regards,
on 2023-01-05 OBJECT
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to this
proposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons I
stated before'.
My main concerns, which I outlined in my previous response have NOT been addressed by the
very minor, superficial amendments to the planning application.
Specifically.
I was concerned that the scale, mass and bulk of the proposals was inappropriate, would sit
uncomfortably within the plot with the tall and uninteresting form standing out amongst the heritage
assets in the Conservation Area adjoining the Downs and unacceptably altering the existing
character of the area. This concern has NOT been remotely addressed by the reduction of one of
the four tall buildings by one story and another by a mere 30 cm.
The extent of the tree loss in particular of high quality trees, although slightly reduced is still not
justified.
Parking provision is wholly inadequate, with the revised proposal including no more spaces and
parking spaces in total of 65 for 116 dwellings (6 less than previously) and no additional spaces for
visitors, staff etc. The nature of the location, closely surrounded by residential roads, combined
with the inadequate parking provision on site means that residents and staff would seek to park on
neighbouring roads impacting residents and creating traffic hazards.
In the context of the need for increased SEND accommodation in Bristol the proposal only offers a
vague proposal for shared use of a room in the "Urban Village Hall" which is wholly inadequate.
Unless major substantive changes are made to the application, it should be rejected in its entirety.
Regards,
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The objections I submitted on the 13/04/2022 to the original planning application stillapplies to this proposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused forthe reasons I stated before.We were pleased to see the entrance to the site next to daisychain nursery has been removedfrom the revised planning application.The revised planning application should be refused on the following points:The proposed development still results in a significant loss of trees and wildlife.Traffic and parking remains a significant safety risk as per my previous comments (inc photos).No Special educational needs provision.The proposed scheme is totally at odds with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood anddisregards the fact that this is a designated conservation area.The planning application is far too over developed the planned buildings are too high, too denselysituated and too large.The applicants for this proposal have clearly not listened to the concerns raised by the localcommunity, local group and national bodies as they have made largely token changes to the initialplanning application. They clearly have no regard for the area and have profit as their only focuswith regards to this development. There is no affordable housing.Please reject it.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Although not a close neighbour to the site I know the area well having lived here forover 20 years. During that time due to houses being turned into HMO and the introduction of aCPZ traffic and parking through the entire area has steadily deteriorated massively. The effects ofthe recently introduced CAZ have yet to be felt but being on the edge of the area there aredoubtless already extra vehicles using the narrow residential streets to avoid the charging zone.This ugly development does not have enough parking for the residents let alone theirvisitors/carers. Rush hour could see the area grind to a standstill with people trying to get to thenearby nursery and primary school. Extra danger will be presented to those trying to walk to theselocations by even more badly parked and driven motor vehicles due to overspill from the proposeddevelopment.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The proposed changes to the planning application are purely cosmetic and do nothingto address the impact on the local area. The height of the main buildings are too high and willimpact greatly on the surrounding residents. A site of this size will greatly impact traffic flow andparking problems that already exist in this area. The application is definitely not in keeping with thearea and is trying to cram too much into the site
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Dear Sir,
I wish to register my objection to this insensitive and inappropriate proposal.
The plan is simply too large , too high and is pure overdevelopment. it offers no social housing andis only available to elderly rich folk who will lock themselves away behind its gates like a tribe ofprotected fossils. Do we really need this ?
No doubt the Bristol planners will mysteriously support it as they did last year for another appallingdevelopment Land At Home Gardens.
Yours faithfully
Andrew Sutton
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The amendments to the plan are in no way satisfactory. This site should be redevelopedfor some type of facility for people with learning difficulties. This was the original purpose fir thisarea and we no longer would have that facility.In addition the plans proposed will create more traffic and parking problems in an area where thereare already problems.I have other objections to these plans such as the height of the buildings ( still too high)
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Having attended two 'open days' for the St Christopher's development I was assuredBOTH times by more than one member of the development team that there would be NOVEHICULAR ACCESS at the rear of the development onto Bayswater Road/Etloe Road/St HelenaRoad junction. A nursery and primary school are immediate neighbours and adding more traffic toan already very busy T-junction would make it even more dangerous for pedestrians, lots of whomwill be children, as well as other motorists. Vehicular access CAN ONLY SAFELY BE FROM THEDOWNS ENTRANCE. Indeed pedestrian access must also be denied from BayswaterAvenue/Etloe Road to avoid St Christopher's staff attempting to park there and put additionalpressure on parking in the area.
Parking is already a huge problem in this area - cars are even left parked on pavements with EtloeRoad as a case in point! There will be no on street parking available for residents or staff! Anyparking required MUST BE SUPPLIED ON SITE.
While I appreciate the site needs to be developed I believe it must be done to complement itssurroundings. The existing villas can be refurbished to their original standard and any other newconstruction should complement them and certainly not be six storeys high!! Three storeys wouldbe ample any taller would constitute over development, totally swamp the site and severelyoverlook the homes and gardens of local residents - impeding not only on their privacy but also theprivacy of residents in St Christopher's.,
Being careful not to overdevelop this site would also enable the fantastic mature trees to remain in
situ. We need to continue to support and further develop the wildlife in this urban area as well asbenefit from the wonderful air cleansing properties of these trees. Bristol is proud to promote itselfas a green city and the council planners should stand by its beliefs.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I object on the grounds that a 5 storey high building will be significantly higher that thesurrounding buildings in a Conservation Area and will therefore have a significant impact of thecity landscape. I note that whilst there has been a proposed reduction in height from 6 to 5 storeysthe mews cottages have been increased in size and these cottages are in very close proximity totheir neighbours.Also note the removal of 33 trees and a number of hedgerows. The re-planting of new trees whichhave a poor survival rate doesn't make up for the destruction of beautiful and mature trees such asT65 & T52. Also the landscaping will not compensate for the loss of what some would classify asurban woodland. Bristol is facing an ecological disaster as was declared by the Mayor 2 or 3 yearsago. This site falls within the West of England Nature Recovery Network Wookland and isthererfore important ecologically.Other objections: Red brick doesn't go with the surrounding buildings.Too high a density which will lead to traffic problems due to the lack of imagination and willingnessto approach transport issues (the targetted age group often have lots of carers popping in and out& don't use scooters!).This development will not be providing affordable homes.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Bristol Civic Society lodged an objection to the earlier proposal. We acknowledge thatthere has been some reduction in height and massing which is welcome. However, the amendedproposal has not moved far enough and the basis of our objection remains the same.
We still believe that the proposal, because of its height, massing and design, would be harmful tothe character of the Conservstion Area in this location and harmful to the setting of the ListedBuilding. The Society is not opposed to the principle of development on this site to enable it tocontribute to the housing supply in Bristol but a less intensive approach more sensitive to theConservation Area, Listed Building and biodiversity is required.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Overdevelopment in this area, 116 residential units are too many.Loss of SEND provision which this site is particularly known for.Lack of parking provision for residents, their carers and visitors.Unimaginative buildings, not in keeping with the neighbourhood, ie, cube blocks of flats, whichhave too many storeysLoss of trees and wildlife.Increase of traffic on residential streets.The scheme is totally out of character with the neighbourhood and disregards the fact that this is aConservation Area
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I object to the revised proposals for development on the site of St Christophers Schoolfor the following reasons.
1. The development is still far too dense for this Conservation area- only a small reduction on theoriginal proposal2. Totally inadequate parking spaces available - traffic will make the area more dangerous andchaotic3. The buildings are far too high and out of keeping with the area.4. Loss of mature trees and wildlife - far too little greenery in the development.5. There is no affordable housing in the development - we don't need more 'luxury' housing6. The loss of SEND educational places is not mitigated.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I objected to the first proposal to this development and cannot see any substantialchanges in the new proposal. My objections still stand.There are only 6 fewer homes in the new proposal.It is an overdevelopment on the site.It includes too many high-rise blocks.Very little provision has been made for parking in the area.There will be an increase in traffic on residential roadsThe development will be extremely disruptive to the area.Loss of trees and wildlife.Loss of SEND provision, for which St Christopher's is particularly well known.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I think the revised plans for now five storey blocks represents overdevelopment of thissite and that the proposed parking provisions are wholly inadequate given the existing congestionon local roads.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I wish to confirm my objection to this development which has not changed with therevised plans. I object for the following reasons:
1. There is a plentiful supply of retirement property in the area. This is clear from the number ofproperties on Rightmove. Particularly there is absolutely no need for yet more 'luxury' retirementproperty, vis the number of unsold flats in the Vincent and Audley Redwood. This is just a moneymaking scheme offering no amenity to the area. However there is a huge need for more familyhomes, single person dwellings and some more basic retirement dwellings mixed in with thecommunity.There is no way that any commitment of the government to the ideal of affordable housing isworkable in the current plans. What we need is a smaller amount of balanced housing to addbenefit to the community.2. This is a beautiful area of the city. This development pays no respect to the environment. Highrise, cutting down of trees, overcrowding. It will be a scar on the city and an enemy to wildlife..3. No attention has been made to the reality of traffic and parking. Even if older people do not owncars they generate a lot of vehicles in their properties, and I speak from experience here. Thereare care workers and cleaners who have to rely on their cars. There are frequent visits fromfriends and family, necessary to raise the elderly from depression, these will sadly reduce if thereis no parking. The streets around the site are already overbearingly parked. There must beenough parking spaces on site.4. No allowance seems to have been made for access of heavy lorries during the building works.These are all narrow heavily parked residential roads. How on earth are the vehicles going to get
through that without considerable damage to the roads and danger to the kids walking to and fromschool each day?
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I'm incredibly concerned about the proposed development. The planned buildings aremuch too large and high, and are totally out of keeping with this beautiful and historic area.
As a mother of two young children, I'm also very concerned about an inevitable rise in traffic dueto the development, and the impact of this on the safety of the many children living locally. Thestreets here are narrow and parking is already very difficult.
I am also concerned about the loss of mature trees and wildlife. The scheme seems totally out ofplace in our neighbourhood, which is a conservation area.
I strongly believe that this application should be refused, for the reasons stated above.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I'd like to object to this application. I'm concerned with the loss of mature trees. I'd like tosee a new proposal that made a real effort to preserve trees since this is an important priority.Mature trees are irreplaceable. Financial contributions are unsuitable since they often go unusedand cannot make up for severe environmental damage. Birds can't nest in developer's money.I'm also concerned with the Loss of SEND provision, Lack of Affordable housing and lack ofemergency vehicle access.Surely the developers can come up with a better proposal that addresses these concerns.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that the planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The revised proposals do not deal with the many real concerns expressed by localresidents. The adjustments are minor 'window dressing' and not 'real' or 'serious'.eg The reduction in the number of units from 122 to 116 represents less than 5%. The reduction inheight of the villas by 300mm is negligible.
My principle concern is that of overdevelopment. This has inevitable knock-on effects with regardto the visual impact, the loss of trees/impact on wildlife, traffic/parking.
A real reduction in the density of the development would ease all these pressures and allow for amore creative use of a wonderful space.
Thank you.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I have concerns over the traffic that this will cause. There are not sufficient parkingspaces for the number of probable residents. It will impact the local flora and fauna, which isdiminishing all the the time in the city
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The reasons for my previous objections still stand.Parking. 65 parking spaces for now 116 housing units. As before there is not enough parking.Opening Saint Christophers into the Glen will cause utter chaos with even more drivers findingthere is no parking and having to turn round unless they reverse to Belvedere Road all this is anaccident waiting to happen, there is parking on both sides of The Glen leaving only enough roomfor one car at a time to drive along.Overdevelopment. Developers one block reduced by 30cms!!! Historic England has it absolutelyright four storeys maximum as otherwise the impact is too great this is a designated conservationarea. Does this really mean nothing?Trees. The proposed removal of so many mature trees is scandalous with the needs of the planetat this time.SEN. The vague offer of a shared used space or room in the "urban village hall" that could beused for special education needs is just paying lip service to what is really required urgently.I could continue but I will save you from reading anymore as I think that you will see by the numberof people who are objecting we feel very strongly as a community.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
This development should not be allowed to be giving planning permission.
It is also totally unprofessional to make these dead lines over the New Year period.
The project is far too big, not enough car spaces, as our area is already overcrowded.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
On the whole I do not object to the development of the site however, we already havehorrible parking problems in and around our property specifically on The Glen, Belvedere Road,Redland Road and Blenheim Rd. This could be solved in one of 2 ways... 1. Add more dedicatedparking to the proposal; 2. Make these streets specifically part of the CN parking zone whichwould prevent residents, visitors or workers to the new site from being able to park here with norestrictions. This seems like a simple solution to the parking issue if BCC were willing to listen tothe concerns of local residents that we have been telling you about for years!
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I am commenting on this planning application in much the same terms as I did to theprevious failed application. It is both disappointing and shocking that the changes made betweenthe two applications are so small as to be insignificant, which suggests that the developers haveno interest in listening to the views of the large numbers of local residents, heritage andconservation bodies and other political and expert commentators. This shows contempt.
There are so many levels on which to object to this application that I hardly know where to begin.
HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS
Perhaps the worst aspects are the proposed impacts on Heritage and Environment. The proposalswould bring very acute overdevelopment in this conservation area. The proposed scale, mass andheight of the buildings are incongruous within the vulnerable heritage context of Westbury Parkand the listed Grace House. These buildings would be visible all over Westbury Park and beyondand would be oppressive and ugly for Westbury Park residents. I dread it.
Of course, this overdevelopment can only be made at the expense of the trees and habitats thatexist within the proposed development site. Too many trees would be lost to us, many of themvaluable specimens that make an immeasurable contribution to the character and appearance ofthe area. The proposal would without question make a very harmful impact on the nature andwildlife of Westbury Park.
LOSS OF SEND PROVISION / TOO MUCH RETIREMENT PROVISION
I am familiar with both of these.
First, I have known people who have had children resident at St. Christophers and my wife and Ibrought up a niece with Special Educational Needs. We know well that there is a critical shortageof Special Educational Needs and Disability infrastructure and facilities in the Bristol Area. Ourcommunity should not be losing SEND provision; it should be growing it.
Second, my wife was admissions manager at the enormous St. Monica Trust, a world famous careand dementia home, just a few hundred yards away from Westbury Park, across the Downs. Alsowithin a few hundred yards are numerous other, smaller care homes and facilities offeringexcellent service and coverage. It is clear that we have adequate Retirement Provision in the areaand would be damaged by being swamped by more, densely packed into this development.
ROAD SAFETY, TRAFFIC AND PARKING IMPACTS
Five members of our family, over two generations, have attended Westbury Park School.
Both of our two daughters live in roads that enter Bayswater Avenue and Etloe Road.
We are very familiar with the dangerous traffic environment in which the school has to operate andalso the dreadful parking crisis in Bayswater Avenue and Etloe Road.
The proposal is totally inadequate in its provision for transport, parking and highway access. Thisis because there is very self-evidently insufficient on-site parking provision for the circa 200residents, their carers, staff and visitors and inappropriate access arrangements to the site.
The proposed means of access onto Bayswater Avenue/ Etloe Road near the Daisychain Nurseryand opposite the entrance to St Helena Road causes the greatest concern over the dangers that itwill create to school children and residents. The whole proposal. will increase the road safety risksin an area where this is already a significant concern.
Parking is already a serious issue in Bayswater Avenue and Etloe Road. There is no sparecapacity to accommodate the road parking of large numbers of residents of the proposeddevelopment.
We already suffer from non-resident commuters parking in our community before onward travel towork in Bristol. We have no more capacity for non-residents, such as the potential occupants ofthis development.
LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
There is no provision in the proposal for affordable housing for our younger community membersand no cogent reason is given for this lack of provision.
CONCLUSION
I object forcefully to this planning application and can find nothing in it to benefit or enhance ourcommunity.
Residents of Westbury Park are thoroughly switched on and are aware of the likely huge anddamaging impact on the Westbury Park Community and wider Bristol if this application should beapproved in anything like its current form.
This cannot be allowed to progress.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The developer has made only token changes to the plans already submitted, and so mypreviously stated objections all remain in place. This is an insensitive, overly-intensivedevelopment which will, if given planning permission, change forever the character andappearance of the area, with five storey apartment blocks in an area of predominantly periodbuldings. Provision for parking is inadequate and parking will spill over onto streets alreadystruggling to cope with existing residents' parking. There will be an increase of traffic requiringaccess to the site on the small surrounding streets which will not be able to cope with suchincrease. Many of these roads are currently quieter alternatives for walking and cycling that themain roads surrounding them. Increased traffic and pollution on these streets will be to thedetriment of walkers, cyclists and residents alike. The loss of mature trees to make way foraccommodation is unacceptable: as well as the loss of wildlife habitat, there is also the loss ofCO2 absorption (an estimated 40 tons of CO2 per annum per tree) and the city cooling effectafforded by mature trees.Please do not accede to developer greed by granting consent to this planning proposal.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The revised planning application should be refused for the following reasons: Theproposed development still results in a significant loss of trees and wildlife. Traffic and parkingremains a significant safety risk. No Special educational needs provision. The proposed scheme istotally at odds with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood and disregards the fact thatthis is a designated conservation area. The planning application is far too over developed theplanned buildings are too high, too densely situated and too large. There is no affordable housing.It is abundantly clear that the applicants for this proposal have clearly not listened to the concernsraised by the local community; local groups and national bodies. They have done nothing morethat make only token changes to the initial planning application. They clearly have no regard forthe area and have profit as their only focus with regards to this development. Please reject it.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
It seems the revised plans have barely changed and therefore my previous concernsstill stand.
The height of the proposed buildings is not sympathetic to the surrounding structures and woulddominate the skyline. Laughable given the difficultly residents have adjusting the height of adormer window!
Too many proposed residents with not enough parking, before taking into account staff andvisitors, will inevitably lead to more parking and safety issues in surrounding roads.
The provision for SEN children is an ill thought out token gesture. As a father of an SEN child, Ifind it quite insulting that developers use the SEN badge to justify a project when that is clearly nottheir priority.
I think that a development for the site would be good but because of the complex nature of theenvironment any developer needs to spend more time on design and less time trying to forcethrough basic and unsuitable proposals.
Thanks
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
This is clear overdevelopment of an already very crowded and popular area for profitand not sustainability.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I object to this revised planning application on the same grounds as I objectedpreviously. It is unconscionable in this climate emergency to cut down mature trees, there is noparking on the Downs as it is, and this overdevelopment will make that problem exponentiallyworse, and the proposed development is out of keeping with the area. Do Conservation Areasmean nothing nowadays?
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I have lived close to the site all my life and object to the effect of more cars on theneighbouring roads.
The fact that for each unit only one on site parking place is to be provided means there will be anumber of cars parked outside the development. There will also be considerably more traffic onthe adjoining roads which are already inadequate
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
My previous objections have not been met by the slightly altered recent application. Mymain objection concerns the prospect of blocked roads, traffic jams and more parking on thepavements of streets near to the site. Living close nearby I have already noticed a worseningtraffic situation. Proximity to Westbury Park Primary School reinforces my objections . Primaryschool children should be moving forward towards self.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Inappropriate development in size and nature.Will cause traffic and parking problems ifallowed.The felling of mature trees is not acceptable.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Please note all previous comments still stand as the planning laws clearly state thisdevelopment is not appropriate and everyone having to spend time and effort on this overChristmas is outrageous.Additionally, the drawings are not to a correct scale in places so one can't determine the exactscale, heights & distances, especially considering drawings have been deceitful as mentioned onmultiple occasions in the past.Its perplexing that a development which had such a huge negative response can be resubmittedwith so few minor changes made.My previous comments still stand as outlined below:This proposed development displays a complete lack of consideration for the heritage andconservation of the existing landscape, especially in relation to neighbouring buildings.In particular the proposed buildings are too high next to the neighbouring houses with too muchdensity and too close. They over power and over shadow existing homes and in particular thehouses in the Glen.Additionally, the area simply cannot take the volume of cars and traffic associated with such adense site. Westbury Park Road is already gridlocked during rush hour and busy throughout theday and this is before most people return to working in the office again. The surrounding roads, inparticular The Glen, are already difficult to navigate and any extra traffic from the development -and potentially opening access ways such as the proposed emergency and pedestrian access atthe end of The Glen - would make it dangerous.As stated in many comments on the application process, I would reiterate the opinion that thedevelopers have not conducted a fair and appropriate consultation process: it has been done to
push an agenda.In summary, I cannot object strongly enough to this proposal.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
My previous objections have not been met by the slightly altered recent application. Mymain objection concerns the prospect of blocked roads, traffic jams and more parking on thepavements of streets near to the site.
Living close nearby I have already noticed a worsening traffic situation. Proximity to WestburyPark Primary School reinforces my objections . Primary school children should be moving forwardtowards self sufficiency and autonomy in walking to school, and learning to cycle safely. Reallycongested streets with more people parking their on the pavements already is worsening withoutthe great increase envisaged by cars of residents of the proposed homes. The proposed reductionin resident numbers is derisory in my opinion.
Extra congestion due to many more cars, delivery and construction and health workers vehicles aswell as visitors to the site will inevitably add much more road traffic and pressure on theneighbourhood.
Air pollution, too, would increase. Many trees could presumably be planted on the Downs, but theimmediate impact of many more vehicles passing by should not be ignored.
I am not against the development in principle , but in relation to its proposed implementation. I amalso concerned that there is to be no affordable housing provision, and no constant or appropriateSEND provision. Educational ends should be respected and met, especially given the history ofeducational provision on the site. The Bristol Council report underpins my objection. Lip service or
vague aspirational aims will not suffice.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The objections submitted previously still apply to this proposal together with theadditional following concerns and comments. We would ask you to consider these points inconjunction with all the previous reasons provided which included that the development, asproposed, would conflict with Policies BCS18, BCS21 and the aims of the Development Plan.Please note that the previous objections were submitted after consultation with CSJ PlanningConsultants together with their details, and all concerns listed.
Additional concerns.
Proposed Cottages H.O.1. ( ref drgs No's 2004,2005 and 2006. Nb: Developers drawing notavailable showing Floor Plans or Elevations of these cottages and no new 'Distances Plan'available as previously submitted. Certain information taken from H.O.2 cottages drawing No2021)The developers purport these as ' Cottages'. They are not - they are a 'Wall of 5 Terraced Houses'sited to the rear of our home and garden. If scaled correctly according to developer's drawingsthey are greater in height than our subject house which has, as I understand, never been classedor referred to as a 'Cottage'. These 'so called cottages' should be no higher or closer than thesingle storey units that exist on the proposed site location and be arranged as individual dwellingswith a balanced layout to create an appealing site line. Bungalow style units would be moreappropriate here.Similarly, this I believe should also apply to the H.O.2 cottages proposed adjacent to residents inBayswater Avenue.
Villa 'C'. Proposed 5 Storey Unit. (ref drg No's 2004,2015,2016 and 2017.)This unit has East facing side windows and balconies which look directly into our habitable roomsand rear garden. Nothing here should be above 2 storey and certainly not be so imposing and ofsuch high density. Any dwellings for consideration on such a sensitive border must surely bescaled and proportioned accordingly.
Villa 'D'. Proposed 4 Storey Unit (ref drg No's 2005 and 2019.)This Multi Storey Apartment Block is positioned overlooking the full length of our home includingthe front and rear gardens. It is outrageous to suggest having this monstrosity with multiplewindows ( dozens in fact ) and balconies looking directly into our habitable rooms and garden.Again, nothing here should be above 2 storey and contrary to a design and density appropriate tothe site, especially being in a conservation area. As pointed out in the previous objection,reference drawing No 2019, Fig 3 shows the fenestration arrangement of these unacceptablenumerous windows and balconies. Again, we reiterate the fact that any dwelling considered onsuch a sensitive border must surely be scaled and proportioned appropriately.
Summary.As stated in our previous submission, the foregoing siting of all proposed dwellings results in a'hemming in' of our home from every angle, amounting to a complete invasion of privacy. We areoverlooked, over-powered and over-shadowed from every proposed adjacent unit and dwelling.We would again also draw your attention to the previous 'Daylight and Sunlight Assessment' whichis considered not to provide sufficient evidence that the proposal is acceptable, with some roomsexperiencing a 28% reduction in daylight. Also previous 'Overshadowing' statements wereincluded, referring to an unacceptable loss of daylight .We have fully engaged with the developers, attending every possible meeting and consultation butwe do not feel that any of our concerns have been addressed or acted upon. This is highlighted bythe fact that generally only superficial adjustments have been made and no follow-onneighbourhood consultation process has been provided to us after submission of the most recentplans.Together with the foregoing points we draw your attention to all previous relevant commentsincluding:- Increased traffic and lack of parking especially in 'The Glen'. This is dire.-General over development of the entire site.- Loss of certain trees and wildlife.- Unacceptable Harming of a "Heritage Site" particularly in a Conservation Area.-The disgraceful loss of a long-standing established Special Needs Education School on this site.At the present time, the way this is all unravelling looks most suspicious.
We are not 'Nimbys' but please reconsider these proposals and reduce the stress and anxiety thatwe and many others are experiencing associated with these outrageous and unacceptableproposals.
Thankyou in advance.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The objections submitted previously still apply to this proposal together with theadditional following concerns and comments. We would ask you to consider these points inconjunction with all the previous reasons provided which included that the development, asproposed, would conflict with Policies BCS18, BCS21 and the aims of the Development Plan.Please note that the previous objections were submitted after consultation with CSJ PlanningConsultants together with their details, and all concerns listed.
Additional concerns.
Proposed Cottages H.O.1. ( ref drgs No's 2004,2005 and 2006. Nb: Developers drawing notavailable showing Floor Plans or Elevations of these cottages and no new 'Distances Plan'available as previously submitted. Certain information taken from H.O.2 cottages drawing No2021)The developers purport these as ' Cottages'. They are not - they are a 'Wall of 5 Terraced Houses'sited to the rear of our home and garden. If scaled correctly according to developer's drawingsthey are greater in height than our subject house which has, as I understand, never been classedor referred to as a 'Cottage'. These 'so called cottages' should be no higher or closer than thesingle storey units that exist on the proposed site location and be arranged as individual dwellingswith a balanced layout to create an appealing site line. Bungalow style units would be moreappropriate here.Similarly, this I believe should also apply to the H.O.2 cottages proposed adjacent to residents inBayswater Avenue.
Villa 'C'. Proposed 5 Storey Unit. (ref drg No's 2004,2015,2016 and 2017.)This unit has East facing side windows and balconies which look directly into our habitable roomsand rear garden. Nothing here should be above 2 storey and certainly not be so imposing and ofsuch high density. Any dwellings for consideration on such a sensitive border must surely bescaled and proportioned accordingly.
Villa 'D'. Proposed 4 Storey Unit (ref drg No's 2005 and 2019.)This Multi Storey Apartment Block is positioned overlooking the full length of our home includingthe front and rear gardens. It is outrageous to suggest having this monstrosity with multiplewindows ( dozens in fact ) and balconies looking directly into our habitable rooms and garden.Again, nothing here should be above 2 storey and contrary to a design and density appropriate tothe site, especially being in a conservation area. As pointed out in the previous objection,reference drawing No 2019, Fig 3 shows the fenestration arrangement of these unacceptablenumerous windows and balconies. Again, we reiterate the fact that any dwelling considered onsuch a sensitive border must surely be scaled and proportioned appropriately.
Summary.As stated in our previous submission, the foregoing siting of all proposed dwellings results in a'hemming in' of our home from every angle, amounting to a complete invasion of privacy. We areoverlooked, over-powered and over-shadowed from every proposed adjacent unit and dwelling.We would again also draw your attention to the previous 'Daylight and Sunlight Assessment' whichis considered not to provide sufficient evidence that the proposal is acceptable, with some roomsexperiencing a 28% reduction in daylight. Also previous 'Overshadowing' statements wereincluded, referring to an unacceptable loss of daylight .We have fully engaged with the developers, attending every possible meeting and consultation butwe do not feel that any of our concerns have been addressed or acted upon. This is highlighted bythe fact that generally only superficial adjustments have been made and no follow-onneighbourhood consultation process has been provided to us after submission of the most recentplans.Together with the foregoing points we draw your attention to all previous relevant commentsincluding:- Increased traffic and lack of parking especially in 'The Glen'. This is dire.-General over development of the entire site.- Loss of certain trees and wildlife.- Unacceptable Harming of a "Heritage Site" particularly in a Conservation Area.-The disgraceful loss of a long-standing established Special Needs Education School on this site.At the present time, the way this is all unravelling looks most suspicious.
We are not 'Nimbys' but please reconsider these proposals and reduce the stress and anxiety thatwe and many others are experiencing associated with these outrageous and unacceptableproposals.
Thankyou in advance.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Please note all previous comments still stand as the planning laws clearly state thisdevelopment is not appropriate and everyone having to spend time and effort on this overChristmas is outrageous.Additionally, the drawings are not to a correct scale in places so one can't determine the exactscale, heights & distances, especially considering drawings have been deceitful as mentioned onmultiple occasions in the past.Its perplexing that a development which had such a huge negative response can be resubmittedwith so few minor changes made.My previous comments still stand as outlined below:This proposed development displays a complete lack of consideration for the heritage andconservation of the existing landscape, especially in relation to neighbouring buildings.In particular the proposed buildings are too high next to the neighbouring houses with too muchdensity and too close. They over power and over shadow existing homes and in particular thehouses in the Glen.Additionally, the area simply cannot take the volume of cars and traffic associated with such adense site. Westbury Park Road is already gridlocked during rush hour and busy throughout theday and this is before most people return to working in the office again. The surrounding roads, inparticular The Glen, are already difficult to navigate and any extra traffic from the development -and potentially opening access ways such as the proposed emergency and pedestrian access atthe end of The Glen - would make it dangerous.As stated in many comments on the application process, I would reiterate the opinion that thedevelopers have not conducted a fair and appropriate consultation process: it has been done to
push an agenda.In summary, I still strongly object to this proposal.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The objections submitted previously still apply to this proposal together with theadditional following concerns and comments. We would ask you to consider these points inconjunction with all the previous reasons provided which included that the development, asproposed, would conflict with Policies BCS18, BCS21 and the aims of the Development Plan.Please note that the previous objections were submitted after consultation with CSJ PlanningConsultants together with their details, and all concerns listed.
Additional concerns.
Proposed Cottages H.O.1. ( ref drgs No's 2004,2005 and 2006. Nb: Developers drawing notavailable showing Floor Plans or Elevations of these cottages and no new 'Distances Plan'available as previously submitted. Certain information taken from H.O.2 cottages drawing No2021)The developers purport these as ' Cottages'. They are not - they are a 'Wall of 5 Terraced Houses'sited to the rear of our home and garden. If scaled correctly according to developer's drawingsthey are greater in height than our subject house which has, as I understand, never been classedor referred to as a 'Cottage'. These 'so called cottages' should be no higher or closer than thesingle storey units that exist on the proposed site location and be arranged as individual dwellingswith a balanced layout to create an appealing site line. Bungalow style units would be moreappropriate here.Similarly, this I believe should also apply to the H.O.2 cottages proposed adjacent to residents inBayswater Avenue.
Villa 'C'. Proposed 5 Storey Unit. (ref drg No's 2004,2015,2016 and 2017.)This unit has East facing side windows and balconies which look directly into our habitable roomsand rear garden. Nothing here should be above 2 storey and certainly not be so imposing and ofsuch high density. Any dwellings for consideration on such a sensitive border must surely bescaled and proportioned accordingly.
Villa 'D'. Proposed 4 Storey Unit (ref drg No's 2005 and 2019.)This Multi Storey Apartment Block is positioned overlooking the full length of our home includingthe front and rear gardens. It is outrageous to suggest having this monstrosity with multiplewindows ( dozens in fact ) and balconies looking directly into our habitable rooms and garden.Again, nothing here should be above 2 storey and contrary to a design and density appropriate tothe site, especially being in a conservation area. As pointed out in the previous objection,reference drawing No 2019, Fig 3 shows the fenestration arrangement of these unacceptablenumerous windows and balconies. Again, we reiterate the fact that any dwelling considered onsuch a sensitive border must surely be scaled and proportioned appropriately.
Summary.As stated in our previous submission, the foregoing siting of all proposed dwellings results in a'hemming in' of our home from every angle, amounting to a complete invasion of privacy. We areoverlooked, over-powered and over-shadowed from every proposed adjacent unit and dwelling.We would again also draw your attention to the previous 'Daylight and Sunlight Assessment' whichis considered not to provide sufficient evidence that the proposal is acceptable, with some roomsexperiencing a 28% reduction in daylight. Also previous 'Overshadowing' statements wereincluded, referring to an unacceptable loss of daylight .We have fully engaged with the developers, attending every possible meeting and consultation butwe do not feel that any of our concerns have been addressed or acted upon. This is highlighted bythe fact that generally only superficial adjustments have been made and no follow-onneighbourhood consultation process has been provided to us after submission of the most recentplans.Together with the foregoing points we draw your attention to all previous relevant commentsincluding:- Increased traffic and lack of parking especially in 'The Glen'. This is dire.-General over development of the entire site.- Loss of certain trees and wildlife.- Unacceptable Harming of a "Heritage Site" particularly in a Conservation Area.-The disgraceful loss of a long-standing established Special Needs Education School on this site.At the present time, the way this is all unravelling looks most suspicious.
We are not 'Nimbys' but please reconsider these proposals and reduce the stress and anxiety thatwe and many others are experiencing associated with these outrageous and unacceptableproposals.
Thankyou in advance.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Please note all previous comments still stand as the planning laws clearly state thisdevelopment is not appropriate and everyone having to spend time and effort on this over theChristmas period is terrible with the timed consultation over the festive period.
Additionally, the drawings are not to a correct scale in places so one can't determine the exactscale, heights & distances, especially considering drawings have been deceitful.
Its sad that a development that had such a huge negative response can be resubmitted with sofew minor changes made.
This proposed development displays a complete lack of consideration for the heritage andconservation of the existing landscape, especially in relation to neighbouring buildings.In particular the proposed buildings are too high next to the neighbouring houses with too muchdensity and too close. They over power and over shadow existing homes and in particular thehouses in the Glen.
Additionally, the area simply cannot take the volume of cars and traffic associated with such adense site. Westbury Park Road is already gridlocked during rush hour and busy throughout theday and this is before most people return to working in the office again.
The surrounding roads, in particular The Glen, are already difficult to navigate and any extra trafficfrom the development - and potentially opening access ways such as the proposed emergency
and pedestrian access at the end of The Glen - would make it dangerous.
I cannot object strongly enough to this proposal.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
There were only minor changes to the original scheme.So the main objections still apply.1) This is overdevelopment with still 6 storey buildings overlooking all the 2 storey houses in thesurrounding area. They are huge in comparison to anything else and would overlook all otherproperties. They would also be clearly visible from the downs without trying to match thesurrounding area.2) Parking and traffic. There are already major parking problems in the area with very little parkingavailable. This project only supplies around 50% parking leaving all the other vehicles hunting forspaces surely each property should have parking. There are also major traffic queues at peak timealready on the road outside St Christophers and surrounding roads. This large increase in trafficwill only intensify the problems . The roads in this area cannot cope with the present trafficcreating an already dangerous situation.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I am not convinced by the most recent development plans for the following reasons:1. The existing site comprises beautiful buildings and surroundings which will be utterly ruined bythe proposed high-density development.2. Existing parking problems will be exacerbated as a result of overflow parking3. A reduction by only a handful of units is not enough to get my support
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Hi, as a local resident, living a few streets down from this development plan. I do objectto the plans for the following reasons and fully support apposing this development:
Overdevelopment - still too big, too dense & too highb. Loss of Trees and Wildlife - still too many trees being chopped downc. Traffic - not enough parking spaces leading to overspill and roadsafety hazardsd. Loss of Special Educational Needs Provision- derisory offer ofoccasional shared use of a room, unsuitable due to safeguardingconcerns, fails to adequately address Bristol's growing SEND crisis.e. Harm to Heritage - the scheme is totally out of character with ourneighbourhood and this precious Conservation Area.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I strongly object AGAIN to what is a massive overdevelopment of this site.
The negative impact this would have to the surrounding area should be a major consideration.
*ROADS AND PARKINGIt is obviously not possible to widen the existing residential roads where only one vehicle can drivethrough at at a time.It is not possible to create new access roads or widen the existing one as the Downs is a protectedarea which is of benefit to everyone.Wishful thinking cannot possibly conjure up a solution to what will inevitably result in total chaosand gridlock.The resulting overspill, distressing for residents will also affect local shops.The lack of suitable access and parking facilities should be more than enough to reject theseplans.
*OTHER OBJECTIONSThere is no justifiable reason here to cut down valuable and irreplaceable mature trees.The new buildings are so wrong in terms of character and size for this area.Both comprehensively covered by other respondents.
The few minor changes must be seen for what they are - a deliberate ploy (used by manydevelopers) to get their plans approved
by hoping that fewer people will object every time they submit a new plan.Not everyone is aware that a comment has to be sent in for each application which gives thedevelopers an unfair advantage.
Planning Departments must surely consider it their duty to protect the quality of life and wellbeingof residents when considering such proposals.Greedy developers are only concerned with maximising their profit and do not care about theimpact on the communities affected.
Please send a strong and clear message that these plans have to be drastically amended.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The latest revisions do not address my previous concerns.
The height of the storey blocks is not appropriate in the local area, i.e. far too high. The number ofdwellings and the resulting number of residents is far too high for the size of the site. The localneighbourhood is saturated with parked cars, with inappropriate parking on pavements and closeto junctions, so the neighbourhood cannot support the anticipated addition of a large number ofadditional vehicles (belonging to staff, residents, visitors and online delivery drivers) There's alsothe loss of trees and the impact this will have on wildlife; and the loss of SEND provision (whichhas been a big part of history of this site).
In the developers' plans, there is the suggestion that this development will free up some of thelarge family homes because people wanting to downsize will choose this new site as their newresidence. This is guesswork, and it is a big assumption to make, and in my opinion shows acomplete lack of understanding of the local neighbourhood.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I strongly object to this proposal.
I am objecting for the first time to this proposal as the developers seem plainly to be ignoring thecommunity consensus. The community has made clear that they stand strongly in opposition tothese plans which would cause ridiculous overdevelopment, as well as cutting down mature treesin an urban community full of young people, a school, and older residents which must retain notonly its character, but its biodiversity and nature.
I am a young adult who grew up near the school. Seeing SEN children getting support, care, andeducation was fantastic, and the idea that this should be changed - purely for developers' financialgain - is appalling. The developers claim there is enough SEN provision in the rest of Bristol - thisis blatantly not true. The site should be protected and remain a site for SEN provision. If not, welose a huge amount of support and care for some of the most vulnerable members of ourcommunity - this seems unjustifiable.
I do not understand how these developers can justify a) hardly amending their plans betweenproposals, b) the large-scale over-development and chopping down of urban trees, c) the safetyconcern of road hazards with the number of people this scale of development would attract, d) thelack of regard for this site's history as an important site for SEN care in Bristol and the surroundingareas.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
This my first comment on this scheme as the previous objections have represented myviews on this redevelopment of the site. I write to object now because the redrawn plans have notanswered my concerns over:The large mass of buildings have not been reduced enough to reduce the impact of the blocks asthey will continue to dominate the local residents' homes and so have a negative effect on theirlives. Reducing a 4 floor block down to 3 whilst not reducing the other blocks from their threestoreys does not answer the many objections previously made.
The car parking is inadequate as this development is not a care home but a luxury retirementhome. As a retired person who is considering downsizing to a retirement village, I know that I willretain my two cars so that my wife and I can lead independent lives. Using this as a yardstick thecar parking is inadequate therefore the excess car parking will spill outside of the complex andimpact badly on already congested streets. The developers calculations are biased and requireproper support by reviewing the parking requirements of other retirement villages.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Well, the revised plans don't suggest much of an improvement. Six fewer dwellings, andnot much reduction in height. Really too dense a development, at the expense of the open andgreen nature of the housing on the edge of the Downs. Do we really want the fringes of the Downsto look like a third rate version of Central Park, New York? We already have a tall residential blockand the old Spire hospital at the junction of Westbury Park and Belvedere Road. Parking provisionis inadequate. I think it works out at about one parking space for two dwellings. Visitor parkingdoesn't seem to have been considered. I doubt the residents of The Glen will be happy withoverflow parking outside their houses. Bicycle parking is a laugh. My mother used to cycle 4 milesto the nearest town for shopping, and brought it back balanced on her handlebars. She gave it uplong before she was eligible for the market this development is aimed at!
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I object to the application and revised plans for the reasons stated in my previouslysubmitted objection, which still stands.
A primary reason remains the inadequate on-site parking. It is evident that the small reduction innumber of apartments will make no significant difference to this, and there would still be asignificant overspill on to the surrounding roads, which already suffer from over-demand due to thelocation being on the border of the RPZ.
Additionally the revised plans now propose vehicular as well as pedestrian access from The Glen(despite earlier assurances that this would not happen), and for this to provide the only vehicularaccess to the rear of the site - 24 apartments in Block D, 4 two-storey "cottages and the new"Urban Village Hall".
Given the shortage of on-site parking, concentrated at the front of the site, the new entranceincreases the likelihood of The Glen being used for free parking for residents, particularly those inthe units at the rear of the site, as well as for their visitors and carers. It also encourages thoseresidents to arrange drop-offs and deliveries at the end of The Glen - including potentially using itfor removal vans on moving in/moving out days, rather than having to park at the other end of theSt Christophers site.
The Glen is a narrow cul-de-sac which is already filled to capacity with parked cars. There is noturning space, so cars trying to access the St Christophers entrance would have to reverse back
down the road, past the junction with Belvedere Road, whose corners are frequently obstructed byparked cars, and from where vehicles also reverse back on to The Glen due to the regularblockages in Belvedere Road itself. This can only increase risks to pedestrians (including childrenwalking to the nearby school) in an area already acknowledged by BCC and the PlanningInspectorate to suffer from "significant hazards".
It is also very difficult to see how fire appliances could safely access the site from the end of TheGlen - with all the double parking, parking on corners of junctions, and road blockages due to theNursing Homes on Belvedere Road, access to the site cannot be guaranteed to be possible at alltimes.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
My previous objection still stands. The plans have barely been changed, and none ofour feedback has been addressed.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I am not happy with the extra floors to buildings
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
There are enough HMO's in the area already ,creating parking and traffic problems. Tothen put an extra 200 residents with little thought to the parking on site is very bad planningdecision by the developers. The removal of tree's and green spaces to create these high rise flatswill change the sky line for many people who enjoy walking on the downs.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I write to express my concerns about this development as follows:
Overdevelopment - still too big, too dense & too high - just 6 fewer housing units than before andstill no affordable housing
Loss of Trees and Wildlife - still too many protected mature trees being chopped down
Traffic - still not enough parking spaces leading to overspill and road safety hazards
Harm to Heritage - the scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and disregardsthe fact that this is a designated Conservation Area.
I urge the Planning department to reject the development as is it still not suitable for WestburyPark and the wider community. Thank-you.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The revised plans have made very little difference to the impact this development willhave on the local community. Hence I am objecting for a second time.
My reasons for objecting still remain the same from the initial proposal. The vast overdevelopmentof a small site, even the reduction by just 6 flats will still lead to huge traffic and parking overspill inan area already blighted by commuter parking from the Downs parking restrictions and local RPZschemes. The number of parking spaces on site still remains just 65 for 116 flats this isn't enoughfor all the owners, workers etc. estimated at over 200 people. Road safety will still be a huge issuewith local primary school and nursery on Etloe road with this increased traffic and hunt for parkingspaces.
The loss of mature trees and green space will be lost and the local view spoilt by thisoverdevelopment.
What makes this proposal worse is they have not listened to any of the comments from the councilor residents before resubmitting the plans with almost negligible changes.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The proposed development will have an immensely negative impact on the historic areasome of which is a conservation area.It is not in keeping with the architecture, and proposes buildings that are far too tall and out ofplace. Four storeys should be the maximum allowed.Traffic and parking are already issues and it would be inevitable that this would greatly increase.Similar local facilities have at least one parking space per dwelling, and this ratio could beachieved by reducing the number of dwellings.
Further there will be negative impact to the wildlife, and it is inappropriate to propose the felling ofso many trees.Replacement trees to be planted don't make up for this in any sustainable way and is incompatiblewith BCC's climate change targets.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I write to object to the proposals as amended. I and my family have lived close to theapplication site for over 25 years and thus we know the site and its environs very well. In myprofessional career I have been involved in developing new buildings and extending old buildingswithin conservation areas and in a World Heritage city. Having looking at theplans/images/documents, I make the following comments in objection to the proposals: Density:the buildings are clearly to high, too big and too close together. In short, they are trying to squeezetoo much on to the site. Environment: the Downs and the surrounding streets contribute much tothe environment through the many trees in the area. Whilst one understands that it may benecessary to fell some trees to undertake the redevelopment of the site, this should be limited toimmature and/or diseased trees, leaving the mature and healthy trees in place. Too many maturetrees are planned to be removed. Traffic & Transport: one only has to walk around the area toknow that the roads close to the site are already busy and fully occupied with parked vehicles. Theproposals would add to the congestion on the roads and the parking problems the communityalready encounters. There are too many units of accommodation (most of which are likely to haveat least one or maybe two cars), and not enough parking spaces. Conservation Area/Heritage: theWestbury Park/Henleaze area is blessed with some fine buildings, those proposed would not fallinto that classification. They are ugly, unsympathetic and out of keeping. In conclusion, whilstredevelopment of the site is to be welcomed, the current proposals should not be grantedpermission for the reasons I and many hundreds of others have elucidated.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Whilst I don't object to a nursing/ residential development in principle, I feel theproposed plan is unsuitable for the following reasons:Insufficient parking places on site, leading to more congestion in an area where it is already verydifficult for local residents to park.
The traffic at the Whitetree roundabout already backs up Westbury Rd at busy times; additionaltraffic will make this route from Redland a nightmare and make the air pollution even worse.
There is a primary school and a nursery in Bayswater Road ; both of these will be affected by theextra traffic and parking issues.YoursSarah Cheetham
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I wish to object to the redevelopment of the St Christophers site on the followinggrounds:- It is an overdevelopment in this area. It is out of character with the rest of theneighbourhood and will result in far too many cars being parked off site. As it is out road is alreadyfilled with commuter parkers - often across driveways making access difficult. Too many maturetrees will be removed.I dislike the apparent cynical attitude of the developers and their method of operating.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The changes made by developers since the last application are minor, the mainobjections by the neighbours of overcrowding of the site, loss of biodiversity, and buildings that aretoo high and will loom large and overlook homes and gardens in The Glen have not beenadequately addressed.
However to two principal reasons for objection are1) Loss of a purpose built site for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities at atime when hundreds of children in Bristol with SEND are without a school place, and children arebeing off-rolled from mainstream schools who cannot provide adequately, or the children cannotcope in mainstream school. The permanent change of use of this site would be a travesty.2) parking - there is nowhere near enough provision for the proposed number of dwellings plusstaff and visitors, and the surrounding streets are already dangerously overcrowded due to beingjust outside the boundary of the Cotham North residents parking zone. The site is very close toseveral schools and nurseries, as well as 3 nursing homes on Belvedere Rd adjoining the Glen,none of which have parking either. Furthermore, people use the area as permanent storage motorhomes as well as park and ride parking. I have witnessed cones put out on the Glen for scaffoldinglorries being moved by someone who parked up and then pulled a fold out bike from their boot andcycled off to work. The council will not extend the RPZ, and the situation is already chaotic anddangerous. An accident happened recent;y at the junction of Bayswater Rd and Ladysmith Rd,and so the developers have withdrawn their access proposal for Bayswater, but now proposeaccess from The Glen. This is very worrying for residents who are desperate when we alreadyhave bin lorries having to reverse down the length the street, damaged vehicles, inability for
contractors to park, ambulances getting stuck and blockages on a daily basis. The site needs toensure there will be no overflow parking as there is nowhere to overflow to.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The revised plans don't change the fact that there will be additional pressure on localroads from a traffic, safety, pollution and parking perspective. The site is located next to a schooland nursery and increases the risk to individuals travelling to and from these educationalestablishments.
The changes proposed do not address the many issues previously raised by many; damage tolocal ecosystem through removal of green spaces, imposing designs out of keeping with existingneighbourhood, inadequate parking onsite, lack of SEN provision to name a few.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Further to the objection that I previously submitted for this planning application.
The amendments made by the developers are minimal (and I might add, cynical), and do notaddress the fundamental issues which these proposals throw up. Namely that the proposedbuildings are totally out of character with the surrounding area - the Downs being an importantconservation area. These new buildings would be visible from the Downs and would alsoovershadow the Grade 2 listed building - Grace House. This application shows no consideration toeither of these objections and therefore must be rejected.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
In principle I continue to support the provision of this type of housing in Westbury Park.However, in my view the amended planning application does not address the concerns I havepreviously expressed about the proposed development.- the provision of 116 units on the site continues to be an overdevelopment of the site.- provision of 65 parking spaces for the proposed new units remains the same and insufficient forthe number of units, residents and staff, with the likely impact on the already busy surroundingstreets.- the move of resident parking access from Bayswater Avenue does not address previouscomments about access from The Glen.- community engagement for these revised plans has not been extensive as suggested bydevelopers.- other proposed amendments appear to be cosmetic only.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The revised plans for the development of the former St Christopher's School still seemtoo overdeveloped for the site, having reduced the number of homes by only 6 to 116, still with noaffordable housing.The planned 65 parking spaces for the 116 homes seem insufficient to accommodate all residents,staff and visitors, thus creating additional pressure on already crowded nearby roads.The revised plans for the height of the apartment blocks will still overshadow nearby homes andalter the view from The Downs permanently.The revised plans will still result in too many mature trees being felled, impacting massively onwildlife and nature.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The new proposed plans still don't address the parking issues where Westbury Parkroad is already a difficult drive from Royal Albert Road to Redland Road due parked carsessentially making the road a virtually single track road. So in almost every occasion due tovolume of traffic going down Westbury Park Road to Whitetree roundabout trying to drive upWestbury Park Road to Claypit road means having to pull in to spaces between parked cars toallow traffic to pass safely before resuming the journey - additional traffic into and out of theproposed site and additional parking will severely impact the route from Royal Albert road toRedland Road.
The height of proposed of buildings still too high for the neighbourhood
Still too many trees being removed
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Our main concern is the overdevelopment of the site with buildings not in keeping withthe character of Westbury Park. The traffic and associated parking will be very problematic in thenarrow streets with many cars already parking on the pavements. The close proximity of a primaryschool and two nurseries is also a concern with increased traffic. The loss of any green space inthe city along with the removal of mature trees and destruction of natural wildlife habitats would bevery disappointing.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I very strongly object to the plans and building of the new development of the former stChristopher's school for the new building put forward and to be built.
I objected originally and the new plans have not made much difference to the area landscape,increased amount of traffic that will cause and also the over subscribed amount or parking that willimpact the local surrounding roads that is already over populated.
Also the felling of the mature trees on the site.
The height of the buildings will also have a major impact on the local residents.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The objections I submitted to the original planning application still apply to this proposal.I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons I statedbefore and because the 'modifications' to the proposal represent no substantive change.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
To whom it may concern
I would like to register my objection to the proposed development of the former St Christophersschool.My address is Flat C, 45 Florence Park, Westbury Park, Bristol, BS6 7LT and I overlook the sitefrom my living room window.Apart from the fact that the school should never have been closed in the first place and is anabsolute scandal, the development is completely out of character with the surrounding area. Whatis the point of designating an area a Conservation Area if it is completely disregarded bydevelopers and the council planning department.After the recent debacle/environmental tragedy at the Bristol Ferry station near Temple Meadswhen mature Weeping Willows were cut down I would like to think that any more tree removalwould be extremely limited.This is a low scale neighbourhood of mostly 2 to 3 storeys, not 5 or 6 and from an admittedlyselfish point of view will completely ruin/dominate the view from my living room window, as forothers, there homes/gardens will be overlooked leading to an unacceptable loss of privacy.With regards to the lack of parking I recently received my Covid 19 Booster Jab at the site and theextra traffic it generated caused chaos on Westbury Park road, a precursor of what will come Ithink. It is already bad enough on that road in the morning when I drive to work.Please reject this proposal.Yours sincerelyMr. Simon Boddy
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I find it astonishing that so little has been modified to rectify the first plans and addressthe numerous valid objections to this application.As I have outlined before, the negative impact on the area as far as parking availability and trafficoverload will be immense. I feel it has not been thought through logically, for the long term, for thisalready challenged area. This development will drastically increase traffic congestion and pollutionand is furthermore likely to endanger pedestrians generally and furthermore local infant andprimary school pupils.The aesthetic of such a build will severely impact on the immediate and surrounding area, it sadlymakes a mockery of the protected conservation area scheme requirements - what is this for but toprotect spaces from such inappropriate and greedy development.The proposed development will have a negative affect on nature and wildlife in this wonderful andunique natural space. This, and the planned loss of those mature trees seems to transgress allcurrent thinking for the protection of the natural environment.I strongly object to these most recent plans.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Over development, excess traffic, loss of send, height of planned buildings grossintrusion on existing residents and no provision of affordable housing.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before. The ammendments they propose do not actually address any of the issues andappear to be bare minimum token gestures to give the impression to casual observers that thedevelopers are being responsible when they are not.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I have looked at the revised plans and still cannot support them. One of my concernshas hardly been addressed. There is still only 65 parking spaces on site , the parking in mine andsurrounding roads will be even worse than it is at present. There will be a massive overspill intoour roads. With over 200 residents and carers all wanting spaces ... The traffic is the area willvastly increase and road safety will be even more of an issue.The site is still being completely overdeveloped. The beautiful mature trees and green spaces fornature and wildlife will be lost.The light pollution from the hallways in the blocks of flats and pathways will be awful.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The developers claim that the revised plans mean:
A: Fewer homes.The reality is that this is just 6 fewer homes - there would still be 116 housing units. And still noaffordable housing.
This is not acceptable.
B: 'Improved' parking ratio.The reality is that there are still only 65 spaces for 116 luxury homes - all the staff, carers, visitors,deliveries, etc. will also need to park. Overspill is inevitable.
This is not acceptable.
C: The revised scheme is smaller & less visible.The reality is that:One block has lowered by 30 cm or less than one foot!Another block has been reduced by a single storey, but there would still be 4 huge apartmentbuildings - up to 5 storeys high - overwhelming the listed Grace House, nearby homes and theDowns.
This is not acceptable.
Nb: The Council's own Conservation Panel 'strongly' objects to these revised plans saying theywill cause 'significant damage'.
D: The revised scheme would retain more trees.The reality is that still too many protected, mature trees will be felled - including a wonderful oldoak tree. It will take decades for any new saplings to provide the same benefit to nature andwildlife.
This is not acceptable.
E: An "Urban Village Hall" will be created with space for community groups - with possible use bychildren with special education needs (SEN).The reality is that this is a vague offer of a shared-use space or room. Experts advise that thisarrangement won't work from a safeguarding aspect.
The proposal doesn't come close to addressing the great need for SEN school places and doesn'tcompensate for the loss of St Christopher's - a much valued community asset.
This is not acceptable.
I believe it's entirely possible for this site to be developed in a far more sensitive and sustainableway - providing much needed housing in Bristol (including affordable housing).
What the developers are currently proposing is not acceptable.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Although the developers have revised the plans for the redevelopment of StChristopher's, I would like to resubmit my original objections submitted earlier in the year andcopied below the following introductory paragraph.
My reasons are as follows:
The revisions are very minor and do not diminish the fact that overall, the plans are for excessiveoverdevelopment of a site in a conservation area which includes the important listed building ofGrace House. The fact that the proposed number of units has been reduced by 6 from 122 to 116is hardly significant. The other revisions are extremely slight and although they present a smallimprovement the fact remains that the proposals are out of character with the original site, wouldresult in a cramped development and would add greatly to the parking problems in Westbury Park,already under incredible pressure from existing residents. The fact that a high number of maturetrees would be felled is also in contravention of the City Council's green agenda.
My original objections submitted earlier in April/May 2022 and which largely still apply:
Although extra-care residential developments are needed to fill the gap for those with a specificspecial need living in society with carers visiting daily and those who live in care homes, theproposal to build such a facility on the former St Christopher's site is completely out of place.
I strongly oppose the siting of such a development because of the negative impact the proposals
would have on the Downs as a heritage site and on the local residential area. According to plansthe development would result in excessively high extra buildings that would dominate the skylineand the existing homes of residents in Westbury Park and would be completely out of place withthe local neighbourhood.
I am also strongly opposed to the negative arboreal impact of the development across the site andparticularly in the area close to Bayswater Avenue, Etloe Road and St Helena Road. The existingtrees are magnificent and are well over 100 years old and even if replaced by saplings of the samevariety they would clearly take many decades to even approach the magnificence of those alreadyin situ.
The site and its surrounding area are within the Downs conservation area and clearly the felling oftrees and additional buildings on the site would inevitably have a detrimental impact on bio-diversity which would clearly fail to meet any requirement for a net gain in this area.
In addition, Westbury Park is an area under extreme pressure with regards to parking. Terracedhousing with some homeowners requiring two cars due to work commitments already make lifeincredibly difficult for those living in the area. The proposed 65 parking spaces on-site fall wellbelow what would be needed to provide for those who would live, work and visit the extra-carefacility. Clearly there would be overspill into streets in the local area whilst existing space would bereduced by the extra vehicular access into and from Bayswater Avenue with the necessary spacerequired for turning left or right.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
As a regular visitor to this area I cannot believe that this application is even beingconsidered. It is a dinosaur of a development, totally out of keeping with the area and downrightugly. It will not improve Bristol at all or the beautiful area and parking is already a nightmare. Badplanning!!!!
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
My previous objections still stand as the revised plans do not address them adequately.The proposed development is out of character and totally out of proportion with the surroundingbuildings.The loss of mature trees and green space will be damaging to the environment at a time that weare all called upon to be mindful of environmental issues.The impact on the local roads and parking will be massive.This is a development that is not needed.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Having studied the revised plans for St Christopher's School development, I would liketo express my objections to the very small changes that have been made to date, and which donot go far enough to mitigate the concerns which have been expressed by local residents groups.These concerns include lack of parking spaces, height of new buildings, loss of wildlife habitat andlack of affordable housing.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
We are residents of one of the roads near to, though not directly bordering the StChristopher's site.
We set out our views on the original planning application previously, and have copied these belowfor ease of reference.
We believe that the revised planning application should be refused for the reasons stated then, asthe revisions are not of a scale to change our views. In particular we consider that the number ofunits, and limited parking on site, will result in intolerable strain on parking for local residents.
In the hopefully unlikely scenario of the application being approved, we plead strongly that thecouncil expands the Residents' Parking Scheme areas to include the streets on both sides ofNorth View, as far as the Henleaze Road.
Submission to previous planning application given below:
We are supportive in principle of the site being used for the purpose set out. We have an elderlyparent living locally (1/4 mile) in a smaller scale retirement community, and we think many aspectsof the proposal together with the location would appeal strongly to the developers' target market.
We have some concerns that the height of the tallest buildings may dominate the area. We were
also unimpressed at the way in which the company putting forward the application seemed toavoid showing any artist impressions that gave a clear impression of how the site would look fromdifferent angles on the Downs.However, our primary objection relates to the number of accommodations proposed and to theresultant traffic and parking issues.
Firstly we think that the developers are hugely over-optimistic in their view that the residents - whowill typically be relatively wealthy independent people who remain somewhat active - will willinglygive up their cars to the extent claimed. We have not seen that in the local retirement communitywe know, where the residents are on average less wealthy and less active. And that community isa shorter walking distance to a wider variety of shops and activities than the St Christophers site.
The developers have suggested that the elderly residents may use bikes instead. It is possible thata few may, but anyone who lives around here will know that these roads are not particularly safefor any but more experienced and confident cyclists. Other retirement communities in the area donot have significant take-up of cycling, you only have to live here to realise that although there isquite a significant number of cyclists on the roads there are few elderly ones despite many olderpeople in the local population. Again we think the developers are using over-optimisticassumptions.
So we think the likelihood that the number of cars retained will only be about half the number ofaccommodation units is very low.
Then there is the question of staff parking. While the developers say they will provide shuttlebuses to help staff get to work, and that is good, it would be incredibly naïve to think that most staffwill use these. We are used to a number of care home staff parking near to our house - if there isfree parking available nearby, even if not much of it, that is what most staff are likely to use unlessthey happen to live very close to the shuttle bus route.
Finally there is the question of visitor parking. There appears to be little or no visitor parkingprovided on site. We are aware of local retirement communities with 1 visitor space for every 5-10resident units.
Overall we consider that the development as proposed will lead to a significant amount ofadditional demand for parking on the residential streets nearby. This will obviously have a negativeeffect on local residents, businesses and of course Westbury Park School. We are thereforeopposed to the development as it stands, and request that planning consent is not given unlessthere is either a significant reduction in the number of residential units or a significant increase inthe on-site parking.
If the application is approved, we request that the council expands the Residents' Parking Schemeareas to include the streets on both sides of North View, as far as the Henleaze Road.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The revised proposal for the development of the St. Cristopher School site is onlymarginally altered, leaving key negative impacts largely unresolved. Foremost, with 65 parkingspaces for 116 units, traffic is likely to substantially increase in the neighbourhood. Westbury Park,just outside the Redland and Cotham North parking schemes, is already used for parking by asignificant number of commuters resulting in heavy traffic, lack of resident parking during the dayand air pollution. This being a neighbourhood with many young families, traffic safety is anadditional concern. The last thing this neighbourhood needs is additional traffic. Because of thequality of Redland Green School, the neighbourhood is already gentrifying rapidly, resulting in afurther loss of healthy social diversity. The last thing the neighbourhood needs is 116 luxuryretirement homes to accelerate this trend. I would like to strongly encourage you to reject therevised planning application. Thank you very much for your consideration.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Upper Redland and Westbury Park are just outside the Residents' Parking Zone. It isnecessary to recognise that on-street parking has become a major issue in these suburbs, with acombination of daily commuters and long-term parking by students. Whatever from and intensityany development of the school site takes, it must not generate even more cars.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Overdevelopment of site.Parking facilities inadequate for the size and density of the development. This will result in furthercongestion on local roads.Where do the staff ,support staff etc park. ?Loss of trees and wildlife.No provision or plans for social housing or local housing to fulfil a need.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
- There is very little change to the previous plans submitted and the objections remain- the planned development is to dense and overbearing for the surrounding residential area.- no affordable housing with the scheme.- the area already has plenty of luxury retirement homes. the area requires more family homes andaffordable housing- high storey blocks of flats are out of character for the srrounding conservation area and existingresidential housing- the area cannot support this dense development of mainly flats and there will be no additionalinfrastructure to support- there is not enough parking for the development which will lead more parking issues on thealready over crowded roads- lack of SEND education places in bristol cannot be ignored. the school provided a vital lifeline tochild in need- the traffic flow to the development will be a danger to the surrounding areas mainly populated byfamilies and surrounding school/nurseries- the large loss of trees/greenery will impact the air quality. the area needs more trees to beplanted not for them to be chopped down. Any replacement trees are unlikely to be planted in thearea
- this development will provide no benefit to the surrounding community of Redland and WestburyPark and will instead have a detrimental impact.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I sent in my objection to the first plans and those objections still stand. From looking atthe revised plans I can see very little has changed and nothing has changed to alter my originalobjections.
The developers claim that the revised plans mean:
A: Fewer homes.The reality is that this is just 6 fewer homes - there would still be 116 housing units. This ishousing is far too dense for the area.
This is not acceptable.
B: 'Improved' parking ratio.The reality is that there are still only 65 spaces for 116 luxury homes - all the staff, carers, visitors,deliveries, etc. will also need to park. Overspill is inevitable.
This is not acceptable.
C: The revised scheme is smaller & less visible.The reality is that:One block has lowered by 30 cm or less than one foot!Another block has been reduced by a single storey, but there would still be 4 huge apartment
buildings - up to 5 storeys high - overwhelming the listed Grace House, nearby homes and theDowns.
This is not acceptable.
Nb: The Council's own Conservation Panel 'strongly' objects to these revised plans saying theywill cause 'significant damage'.
D: The revised scheme would retain more trees.The reality is that still too many protected, mature trees will be felled - including a wonderful oldoak tree. It will take decades for any new saplings to provide the same benefit to nature andwildlife.
This is not acceptable.
E: An "Urban Village Hall" will be created with space for community groups - with possible use bychildren with special education needs (SEN).The reality is that this is a vague offer of a shared-use space or room. Experts advise that thisarrangement won't work from a safeguarding aspect.
The proposal doesn't come close to addressing the great need for SEN school places and doesn'tcompensate for the loss of St Christopher's - a much-valued community asset.
This is not acceptable.
I believe it's entirely possible for this site to be developed in a far more sensitive and sustainableway - providing much-needed housing in Bristol (including affordable housing).
What the developers are currently proposing is not acceptable.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I strongly object due to the revised planning application. I believe that this planningapplication should be refused for the following reasons;- huge 5 storey high building will be a massive change to the neighbourhood area with views fromthe downs altered forever- mature trees and green space fur nature and wildlife will be lost- increase in traffic due to not enough parking spaces being available, leading to overspill and roadsafety hazards. How can anyone plan just 65 spaces on site when there will be about 200residents and their caters, staff and visitors, all trying ti find a space in an already limited parkingarea!!!!!!- loss of SEND provision, offer of shared use of a room is an insult to the 70 Yeats's legacy ofspecial needs education on this site- harm to heritage, disregards that this is a designated conservation area
It is an absolutely ridiculous planning application that I'm ashamed is even being considered!
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I object to the proposed buildings on a number of fronts:1. The new buildings themselves will be out of character with the environs and alter the characterof the area2. The felling of wonderful, mature and treasured trees will contribute to our global climate crisis aswell as having a detrimental effect on our local environment with wildlife losing habitat, and naturebeing taken from us.3.The parking overflow, as there are only 65 designated parking spaces on site, will cause trafficgridlock in the surrounding roads.4.There is no affordable housing offered5. There is no meaningful replacement SEND provision for Bristol's children. St Christopher's wasa much need resource. Where will children with additional needs get support?
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The current revised plans are unacceptable and should not be allowed to proceed.There are many issues regarding density, parking, ratios etc which need greater analysis. Thecurrent proposals are not viable.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I strongly object to the proposal for the revised building works at the site of StChristopher's school. The suggested changes continue to have a very negative impact. There areonly 6 fewer houses in the revised plan. There continues to be a safety concern with no parkingprovision in a built up residential area near a local school. With inadequate parking due to trying tobuild too many homes in a restricted area there is a safety concern with too much traffic cominginto the area and a risk to pedestrians and school children. There will be a negative impact on theenvironment, with loss of protected trees and damage to both animal and plant habitats. There willbe a negative impact in an important conservation area. The proposal will result in the permanentloss of an important SEN education facility in the local area.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The revised proposals don't seem to have taken any material feedback into account,just a token gesture.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Dear Sir or MadamI wish to object to the planning application, in its revised November 2022 form, to redevelop the StChristopher's School site in Westbury Park because:
Overdevelopment.The size and number of buildings will still dwarf/overshadow the existing residential buildings thatsurround the site, The existing residents adjoining the site must be fearing for loss of privacy, lightand quiet enjoyment of their properties. And, of course, the proposed height of the buildings, eventhough slightly reduced, will be clearly visible from the Downs and will be overbearing relative tothe villas along Westbury Park. Surely, being a conservation area, any new buildings should be inkeeping with the area into which they are being inserted i.e. of appropriate size and sympatheticdesign. A lesser number of buildings which are no higher than the surrounding buildings would bemuch better.
Heritage:Large parts of Westbury Park are designated as a conservation area and as such surely theproposed buildings are overbearing/out of keeping/inappropriate in the context of the existingbuildings. In particular the villas on Westbury Park will be dwarfed by the proposed buildings, as,of course, will all the other surrounding dwellings. Well designed buildings in sympathetic materialsand of no greater height than the surrounding buildings would not raise an objection.
Traffic, Parking and Road Safety:
The proposed parking provision of 65 spaces must be wholly inadequate for a development of 116units, the staff that will support the residents and, of course, the residents visitors.
The majority of residents will surely want to retain their independence, which could mean say 100cars, way more than the 65 proposed, and to which should be added parking for staff and visitors.The developers assertion that the residents will not want cars is 'wishful thinking' - It is entirelycommon for 70 and 80 year olds to be driving cars, not least because public transport will not takethem to places they want to go e.g. out of the way National Trust properties. Just 2 car shares willdo little to alleviate the need for cars.
There will of course be a conflict between the residents wishing to use the proposed minibus andthe staff needing to get to work, always assuming the staff are conveniently located.
The impact of inadequate parking provision will mean increased demand for on-street parking inthe surrounding streets, which are already overcrowded. This impact will also have a 'knock-on'effect into streets not immediately adjacent to the development. The increased demand for on-street parking will likely lead to road safety issues such as parking on pavements and on cornersof junctions affecting visibility.
I do not think pursuing a policy of increased cycle use or walking is entirely appropriate for theelderly; whilst some might enjoy the exercise, many/most will not be able to use this form oftransport, especially to carry out their weekly shopping. A further but real reduction in the size ofthe development will reduce this concern, but, I suspect, not remove it completely without asignificant increase in on-site parking provision.
St Christopher's Square, and Environmental:The revised scheme retains a few more trees but the revisions are surely just 'tinkering' and do notshow any significant increase in green space - the loss of any of the mature trees would be hugelydetrimental and, of course, take many many years to replace. Even the revised scheme does notpresent an area that could be described as (an open) 'St Thomas's Square' which with theproposed loss of so much green, seems a lost opportunity.
Yours faithfully
John Franklin15 Dundonald RoadWestbury ParkBRISTOLBS6 7LN
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before'.
My main concerns, which I outlined in my previous response have NOT been addressed by thevery minor, superficial amendments to the planning application.
Specifically.
I was concerned that the scale, mass and bulk of the proposals was inappropriate, would situncomfortably within the plot with the tall and uninteresting form standing out amongst the heritageassets in the Conservation Area adjoining the Downs and unacceptably altering the existingcharacter of the area. This concern has NOT been remotely addressed by the reduction of one ofthe four tall buildings by one story and another by a mere 30 cm.
The extent of the tree loss in particular of high quality trees, although slightly reduced is still notjustified.
Parking provision is wholly inadequate, with the revised proposal including no more spaces andparking spaces in total of 65 for 116 dwellings (6 less than previously) and no additional spaces forvisitors, staff etc. The nature of the location, closely surrounded by residential roads, combinedwith the inadequate parking provision on site means that residents and staff would seek to park on
neighbouring roads impacting residents and creating traffic hazards.
In the context of the need for increased SEND accommodation in Bristol the proposal only offers avague proposal for shared use of a room in the "Urban Village Hall" which is wholly inadequate.
Unless major substantive changes are made to the application, it should be rejected in its entirety.
RegardsAndy Parsons
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Developers' need to rethink their new plan and stop taking the micky out of theWestbury Park residents. Massively over developed the site, too much destruction of wildlife,trees, birds, bugs and habitat.Taking one story off an aggressive high rise building which doesn't fit into the beautiful areasurrounding the Downs and claiming reducing the 122 flats to 116 by taking off one level andenlarging the foot print of the block , they have actually increased the flats by one to 123.I am sure the developers have looked at the surrounding roads and access and 65 onsite parkingspaces they know will not be enough and probably know there will be a need for 50 more required.where will those extra 50 plus cars park in an already very, very congested residential area?This is a beautiful piece of the South West unspoilt area which includes the Downs which is aheritage site. Families use this every day and to see Gigantic huge tower blocks that over look thisand private residents homes that have lived here for a long time is unacceptable.St Christopher's was always a school for 70 yrs for SEND( special Educational Needs orDisability). How is the one communal room going to help as a mixed room to serve these needs?The developers need to go back to the drawing board and look at maximum two floor tower blocksso people can enjoy the views from the downs instead of looking at concreate tower blocks.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
1. The existing narrow vehicular access to the site via Etloe Road/ Bayswater Avenue has verylittle/ ad-hoc vehicles passing through this access; namely service vehicles for access to thesubstation, and also provision for ambulances to access. This narrow access is directly adjacent tothe main front door entrance to Daisy Chain Nursery. Since living on Coldhabour Road anddropping off and picking up my children from Daisy Chain Nursery over the last 4 years I havenever seen a vehicle access this entrance. The developer's proposal to make this a pedestrianaccess to the site may result in visitors/ staff looking for parking/ parking their vehicles onBayswater Avenue/ Etloe Road where parking is already a premium in the area. Myrecommendation is to keep this entrance for access to the substation only i.e. similar to its currentuse and not include pedestrian access.
2. As the site was a previous educational setting, inadequate provision has been made in theproposed development for an outdoor/ open space and a facility for SEND use and use by theWestbury Park School and Daisy Chain nursery (which adjoin the development site), noting thatDaisy Chain has limited outdoor space. Daisy Chain and Westbury Park School would greatlybenefit from the use of a green outdoor space, e.g. a playing field, being included in a revisedproposed development. Whilst the planning application makes reference to looking at SENDoptions, there is nothing concrete to hold the developers to account on providing such facilities.
3. Noting that the proposed development only provides c.60 parking spaces for c. 116 dwellings(potentially c. 232 residents), plus staff, plus visitors, the transport plans presented in the transport
related document provided in the developers planning applications do not clearly state howresidents, visitors, and staff will be encouraged to use alternative means of transport and not usetheir own vehicles to/ from the re-developed site, and therefore there is risk that there will begreater on-street parking in the local area, which is already suffering from a lack of on-streetparking and potential increased traffic flow from the recently introduce CAZ. More on site parkingprovision should be provided.
Yours faithfully,
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before'.
My main concerns, which I outlined in my previous response have NOT been addressed by thevery minor, superficial amendments to the planning application.
Specifically.
I was concerned that the scale, mass and bulk of the proposals was inappropriate, would situncomfortably within the plot with the tall, uninteresting, out of character design standing outamongst the heritage assets in the Conservation Area adjoining the Downs and unacceptablyaltering the existing character of the area. This concern has NOT been remotely addressed by thereduction of one of the four tall buildings by one story and another by a mere 30 cm.
The extent of the tree loss in particular of high quality mature trees, although slightly reduced isstill not justified.
Parking provision is wholly inadequate, with the revised proposal including no more spaces andparking spaces in total of 65 for 116 dwellings (6 less than previously) and no additional spaces forvisitors, staff etc. The nature of the location, closely surrounded by residential roads, combinedwith the inadequate parking provision on site means that residents and staff would seek to park on
neighbouring roads impacting residents negatively and creating traffic hazards.
In the context of the need for increased SEND accommodation in Bristol the proposal only offers avague proposal for shared use of a room in the "Urban Village Hall" which is wholly inadequate.
Unless major substantive changes are made to the application, it should be rejected in its entirety.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before. The changes in the ammended plans are simply not enough to justify the projectgoing ahead. Residents deserve better and we must put people before profit.
on 2023-01-04
I am in agreement with the general principle behind the development; however I feel therevised plans still leaves the site overdeveloped.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to the revisedproposal. I believe that the application should be refused for the reasons I stated before. Thechanges to the application are minimal; only six fewer homes, too many mature trees beingchopped down, not enough parking spaces, minimal SEND provision, the scheme is out ofcharacter for the neighbourhood.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I think that the new proposals have changed little from the original scheme which waspoorly designed. There has only been a tiny reduction in the number of homes from 122 down to116, this is a derisory decrease and will still lead to an overbearing estate in our midst, with a veryhigh density of homes which is not in keeping with the local area. The buildings will be 5 storeyshigh which in my opinion is too high and overbearing and not in keeping with the adjacentproperties. The area is already densely populated and this will add considerably to the trafficproblems in the area as well as the chronic lack of parking. Aesthetically it looks poor and will havea detrimental effect on the beautiful views that we have of the Downs. The character of the Down'slandscape will be altered forever in a bad way rather than being enhanced. All of these problemswill detract from the quality of life and vistas enjoyed by those living in the area as well as thosevisiting the Downs for recreational reasons from the rest of Bristol and beyond!The chopping down of trees is a crime against nature and will result in the degradation of our localwildlife. All of this along with the excess traffic, will destroy the feel of the area and also jeopardisethe safety of the children living and attending the local school and playgroup. All in all it is adisaster and a complete rethink is necessary rather than a few cynical cosmetic changes just to beseen to be doing something. The council should refuse the new proposals and get the developersto go back to the drawing board and think up a less destructive scheme which shows sympathy forthe local landscape, wildlife and people.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
I find it astonishing that so little has been modified to rectify the first plans and address the numerous valid objections to this application.As I have outlined before, the negative impact on the area as far as parking availability and traffic overload will be immense. I feel it has not been thought through logically, for the long term, for this already challenged area. This development will drastically increase traffic congestion and pollution and is highly likely to endanger pedestrians generally and furthermore local infant and primary school pupils.The aesthetic of such a build will severely impact on the immediate and surrounding area, it sadly makes a mockery of the protected conservation area scheme requirements - what is this for but to protect spaces from such inappropriate and greedy development.The proposed development will have a negative affect on nature and wildlife in this wonderful and unique natural space. This, and the planned loss of those mature trees seems to transgress all current thinking for the protection of the natural environment.I strongly object to these most recent plans.
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:Whilst I don't object to a nursing/ residential development in principle, I feel the
proposed plan is unsuitable for the following reasons:
Insufficient parking places on site, leading to more congestion in an area where it is already very
difficult for local residents to park.
The traffic at the Whitetree roundabout already backs up Westbury Rd at busy times; additional
traffic will make this route from Redland a nightmare and make the air pollution even worse.
There is a primary school and a nursery in Bayswater Road ; both of these will be affected by the
extra traffic and parking issues.
Yours
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:To whom it may concern
I would like to register my objection to the proposed development of the former St Christophers
school.
and I overlook the site
from my living room window.
Apart from the fact that the school should never have been closed in the first place and is an
absolute scandal, the development is completely out of character with the surrounding area. What
is the point of designating an area a Conservation Area if it is completely disregarded by
developers and the council planning department.
After the recent debacle/environmental tragedy at the Bristol Ferry station near Temple Meads
when mature Weeping Willows were cut down I would like to think that any more tree removal
would be extremely limited.
This is a low scale neighbourhood of mostly 2 to 3 storeys, not 5 or 6 and from an admittedly
selfish point of view will completely ruin/dominate the view from my living room window, as for
others, there homes/gardens will be overlooked leading to an unacceptable loss of privacy.
With regards to the lack of parking I recently received my Covid 19 Booster Jab at the site and the
extra traffic it generated caused chaos on Westbury Park road, a precursor of what will come I
think. It is already bad enough on that road in the morning when I drive to work.
Please reject this proposal.
Yours sincerely
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:Dear Sir or Madam
I wish to object to the planning application, in its revised November 2022 form, to redevelop the St
Christopher's School site in Westbury Park because:
Overdevelopment.
The size and number of buildings will still dwarf/overshadow the existing residential buildings that
surround the site, The existing residents adjoining the site must be fearing for loss of privacy, light
and quiet enjoyment of their properties. And, of course, the proposed height of the buildings, even
though slightly reduced, will be clearly visible from the Downs and will be overbearing relative to
the villas along Westbury Park. Surely, being a conservation area, any new buildings should be in
keeping with the area into which they are being inserted i.e. of appropriate size and sympathetic
design. A lesser number of buildings which are no higher than the surrounding buildings would be
much better.
Heritage:
Large parts of Westbury Park are designated as a conservation area and as such surely the
proposed buildings are overbearing/out of keeping/inappropriate in the context of the existing
buildings. In particular the villas on Westbury Park will be dwarfed by the proposed buildings, as,
of course, will all the other surrounding dwellings. Well designed buildings in sympathetic materials
and of no greater height than the surrounding buildings would not raise an objection.
Traffic, Parking and Road Safety:
The proposed parking provision of 65 spaces must be wholly inadequate for a development of 116
units, the staff that will support the residents and, of course, the residents visitors.
The majority of residents will surely want to retain their independence, which could mean say 100
cars, way more than the 65 proposed, and to which should be added parking for staff and visitors.
The developers assertion that the residents will not want cars is 'wishful thinking' - It is entirely
common for 70 and 80 year olds to be driving cars, not least because public transport will not take
them to places they want to go e.g. out of the way National Trust properties. Just 2 car shares will
do little to alleviate the need for cars.
There will of course be a conflict between the residents wishing to use the proposed minibus and
the staff needing to get to work, always assuming the staff are conveniently located.
The impact of inadequate parking provision will mean increased demand for on-street parking in
the surrounding streets, which are already overcrowded. This impact will also have a 'knock-on'
effect into streets not immediately adjacent to the development. The increased demand for on-
street parking will likely lead to road safety issues such as parking on pavements and on corners
of junctions affecting visibility.
I do not think pursuing a policy of increased cycle use or walking is entirely appropriate for the
elderly; whilst some might enjoy the exercise, many/most will not be able to use this form of
transport, especially to carry out their weekly shopping. A further but real reduction in the size of
the development will reduce this concern, but, I suspect, not remove it completely without a
significant increase in on-site parking provision.
St Christopher's Square, and Environmental:
The revised scheme retains a few more trees but the revisions are surely just 'tinkering' and do not
show any significant increase in green space - the loss of any of the mature trees would be hugely
detrimental and, of course, take many many years to replace. Even the revised scheme does not
present an area that could be described as (an open) 'St Thomas's Square' which with the
proposed loss of so much green, seems a lost opportunity.
Yours faithfully
on 2023-01-04 OBJECT
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to this
proposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons I
stated before'.
My main concerns, which I outlined in my previous response have NOT been addressed by the
very minor, superficial amendments to the planning application.
Specifically.
I was concerned that the scale, mass and bulk of the proposals was inappropriate, would sit
uncomfortably within the plot with the tall and uninteresting form standing out amongst the heritage
assets in the Conservation Area adjoining the Downs and unacceptably altering the existing
character of the area. This concern has NOT been remotely addressed by the reduction of one of
the four tall buildings by one story and another by a mere 30 cm.
The extent of the tree loss in particular of high quality trees, although slightly reduced is still not
justified.
Parking provision is wholly inadequate, with the revised proposal including no more spaces and
parking spaces in total of 65 for 116 dwellings (6 less than previously) and no additional spaces for
visitors, staff etc. The nature of the location, closely surrounded by residential roads, combined
with the inadequate parking provision on site means that residents and staff would seek to park on
neighbouring roads impacting residents and creating traffic hazards.
In the context of the need for increased SEND accommodation in Bristol the proposal only offers a
vague proposal for shared use of a room in the "Urban Village Hall" which is wholly inadequate.
Unless major substantive changes are made to the application, it should be rejected in its entirety.
Regards
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
This is still huge over development of the site. The amendments are minor. The scale ofthe development will cause a major impact on all the surrounding infrastructure.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
Having re-read my strong 'objection' to the first set of plans submitted by the developer,back in April 2022, I feel entirely justified in cutting and pasting those same comments as the basisfor this equally strong objection. The developers simply have not listened to the feedback receivedfrom the local community, or indeed the council and other expert bodies. The small changes theyhave made do not change my views whatsoever. I am amazed at the arrogance, they simply donot 'get it'.
I wish to register my strong objection to this planned development based mainly (but notexclusively) on the scale of the development. The plans as they are today are still a significantoverdevelopment of this valuable site, with impacts on the character of the area, road safety andparking, and the ecology or the area overall.
I have lived in Bayswater Ave and before that in Etloe Rd for over 30 years, so know the area andits character very well. I still am very concerned a development of this size is going to change anddamage the area in a way that is both dramatic and irreversible.
Whilst I would prefer to see the site used for the SEND needs of the city, I am comfortable that thechange of use to it being an integrated retirement community is a reasonable one.
What I am appalled and concerned about here is the sheer scale of the development. It is simplytoo big for the site. Commercial needs for profit seem to be blind to practical realities. Thebuildings still are too big, there are still too many flats, and priority seems to be given to more
buildings rather than adequate provision of parking on-site. A site twice the size might be moreappropriate if this is what the developers need to feed their financial ambitions. Plans for this siteneed to be significantly scaled back if it is to get my support. Smaller and fewer buildings, moretrees, more parking.
The Downs Conservation Area is not going to be conserved if these huge carbuncles are built. Ialso feel for those home owners and residents whose properties backs directly onto the site. Theirhomes are going to be blighted by being overlooked, overshadowed by such huge buildings, manyvery near the perimeter. Noise pollution, light pollution, removal of 58 trees, privacy violation, alldamaging and irreversible.
I am also very concerned about traffic and road safety in the area as a whole and the impact on acommunity whose roads are only just able to copy right now. I refer you to the parking surveyscarried out in March'22 by local residents. These show very clearly that today, there are very fewparking spaces available in any road surrounding the site. This leads already to many examplesevery day of illegal and dangerous parking of vehicles - across junctions, on double yellows, onschool zig-zags, on the pavement. If drivers had space available to park, they would clearly notpark in such dangerous and antisocial ways. Clearly at many times, they have no choice. Havingstudied the plans for development closely, it is clear that there is nowhere near enough parkingprovided on-site, so the developers think the surrounding neighbourhood will be able to absorb theextra cars and vehicles who need to park. These roads cannot absorb this increase.Bayswater Ave is home to two children's nurseries, a primary school, an active church and church-hall. Safety is going to be compromised for all these if the new development does not make moreway for parking on-site.
In summary, I am not against this site becoming an integrated retirement community. But the plansas they are a simply too big, and do not allow anywhere close to adequate parking.
Please help us preserve the very special character of Westbury Park and the Downs.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I object on grounds of : - large numbers of trees still to be chopped down; extra trafficand congestion (and pollution) in local roads that will be generated; lack of character in buildingsappropriate to area; loss of provision of S.E.N.D.S. Westbury Park is a real haven of peace and itscharacter will be forever changed (and lost) with this development.
on 2023-01-03 SUPPORT
Retirement homes are needed for the increasing elderly in the atea.The retiring people will hopefully make available for sale their own homes and this free up homesfor younger families in the area
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I refer to my previous objections & comments which remain the same and I repeat them.
The revised plans only barely minimally reduce the impact of the proposed development. Theymake no significant response to the concerns of me and many other residents.
The revised parking provision makes no meaningful change to the harmful impact on thesurrounding roads. Residents and staff on this development will obviously & inevitably usesurrounding roads for parking, adding to congestion & taking the space used by existing residents.
The scale & volume of the development is still grossly out of keeping with the surrounding areaand will overpower the existing community in appearance & character. It will disproportionatelyincrease the local population.
There is no need for the suggested amenities on the site for existing residents of this area - wealready have shops, cafes, and many other local businesses that we wish to support, not tosubject to the intrusion of anonymous corporate providers.
The loss of trees and the damage to the green spaces is still unjustifiable even on the revisedplan.
Bristol City Council is well aware of the traffic, safety & environmental concerns in this vicinity - soshould also be actively concerned about the impact on existing residents.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
Concerned about traffic near the school and impact on environment. The revised plansdon't adequately address concerns.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The new 'revised' proposal is still a grave concern for residents like me. The retirementhomes have only been cut down by 6.How on earth is this going to make any difference ? With only 65 spaces on site - where are the200 or more residents and staff going to park ? These narrow streets are already full to capacity.During the Westbury Park school pick up and drop off times, it is absolute 'bedlam' alongBayswater Ave and surrounding roads.Extra staff and residents driving along and trying to park along these narrow and alreadyoverflowing roads is going to cause real problems.5 storey buildings will STILL be an eye sore and change for the worst what is a beautiful area ofthis city. This area of natural beauty needs to be protected, not exploited.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I object to the current application.The development of the site is not in keeping the surrounding area:It is situated between a neighbourhood conservation area and the Bristol Downs, a very specialgreen amenity for nature, people and wildlife.The effect of extra parking and traffic due large number of future residents and visitors would beextremely detrimental to the surrounding area.The Buildings are too tall, overbearing and not attractive.The whole development is far too intensive.I am disappointed the the wonderful heritage of Bristol is being destroyed bit by bit. It should bevalued and respected by everyone involved in planning, developing sites etc.Elizabeth Bloomfield
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
Yet another developer proposal which implies much but delivers nothing, again failing toaddress the significant concerns of local residents.
Are councilors bought so easily this will be waived through planning consent again?
In short: ill-conceived (other than to maximise significant profit for the developer) with unecessaryand devastating impact on the environment, the local community and the already oversubscribedroad network.
The plans themselves will dwarf existing buildings, parking would need to be increased by at least4 times to accommodate the proposed volume of housing - such a high-density proposal iscompletely inappropriate for the area.
Morally and ethically wrong.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I cannot recall if I objected to the previous application but if I did not I would have likedto do so.My reasons for objecting are :a) Bristol is surely heading for an over supply of flats at the present time. The number and size ofthe developments already in existence or planned are disproportionate to the demand for flats aspart of overall housing provision. Developers would no doubt argue that the demand is there butinsofar as this is correct it will be because the focus on building flats has excluded the availabilityof other types of housing provision, ie. people have reduced or no choice.b) The construction of flats in this particular location, particularly 4 or five storey blocks, isparticularly objectionable. The location is leafy and open. The existing structures are attractiveperiod properties which will be dominated and overshadowed by the proposed development.c) A relatively open space, (in terms of the distances between the existing period properties), willbe lost and replaced by densely packed buildings in comparison.d) The area in question, already has flat block developments at Redland Hill.e) Traffic congestion will be badly affected. As it is, all available parking provision along RedlandRoad extending down Westbury Park to White Tree is regularly taken up. The traffic queue to joinWhite Tree extends for a quarter mile on occasion. The proposed intensive development will makematters a lot worse.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The revised plans put forward for this development do not address the main issuesaround the development. The number of flats has been reduced by 6 but there will still be 116 newflats with only 65 car parking spaces on site. This is nowhere near enough parking for residents,carers, staff and visitors. The overflow of cars into an already chaotic road layout will make manypeoples daily lives unbearable.The height of the building is still too high. In a layout of traditional 2 story houses, a 5 story block offlats is going to have a negative impact on peoples views and access to daylight in their homes. Itwill also be completely out of keeping with the rest of the area.
The area is a great development opportunity but the current plans make no sense in relation to thearea they are planned for.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I an concerned about the loss of trees and the change to the Downs views.I am concerned about the impact on local services eg parking, local traffic . I am also concernedabout the level of local gp provision
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The amendment to the revised plans are negligible and I plead with you to rethink thispreposterous plan.The roads are congested already, a danger to children going to the nearby schools and nurseriesand impossible for emergency vehicles to pass through the parked cars.It will affect the visual aspect of the whole area and the immediate neighbours will have to sufferduring any construction work.Please be realistic!
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
For all the reasons my wife and I gave in our original objection to the Proposed StChristopher's Square development, we continue to object in the strongest possible terms - addedto which the developers have tried to confuse the community by submitting their allegedamendments over Christmas/New Year. Actually we are not confused, or in the least bit amused.This remains a terrible plan and deserves to be refused at the earliest opportunity to save us allfurther concern and worry.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The objection that I submitted previously still applies for the following reasons.
I have reviewed the changes proposed and I believe that there were no substantial alterations andthe changes were minimal. For example, Villa B was only reduced by one storey, meaning it willstill be a five storey building with excessive height in comparison to the surrounding area. All theproposed large blocks of flats remain not in keeping with the Conservation area and will also doharm to the heritage of the St Christopher's site especially with Grace House being a listedbuilding.
The newly proposed access through The Glen is totally unacceptable - the residents made thisvery clear during the consultation process. I am a resident on Belvedere Road, the parking andhighway issues on The Glen and Belvedere Road are well known and well documented over theyears. We already face dangerous highway situations everyday due to too much traffic and lack ofparking, e.g. regular parking on corners and delivery vehicles / ambulances frequently blockingroads causing drivers to have to reverse all the way onto the main road. Hence any accessthrough The Glen will encourage more road users to nearby roads and worsening the situation.Since there is insufficient parking proposed on the St Christopher's site, access from The Glen willalso encourage site users such as residents, visitors and staff to use The Glen and BelvedereRoad as free parking due to those roads not being in the RPZ. Therefore, I believe the proposedaccess through The Glen will exacerbate the already unacceptable and dangerous highwaysituation on nearby roads.
I confirm my objection to the latest proposal for the St Christopher's site for the reasons explainedabove.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The changes in this amended application are small. This area is already busy withcars,vans and caravans parking. The road is therefore narrow, and dangerous for cyclists. Tohave parking for 65 cars when there are far more residences is going to cause chaos in the area,with visitors, deliveries and carers hoping to park inside.Little has been changed regarding the tree. A well loved oak tree is to be destroyed. I regard thatas criminal. I could name more objection, but instead will place my trust in our authorities.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I object to the revised plans for the development as the height and scale is still too bigand will drastically alter the character of the neighbourhood. The parking also remains inadequateand is a huge cause for concern given that parking is already really difficult in this area. There areno permits so anyone can park on our streets without living here and this development will makethings worse.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
My primary objections relate to:- The scale and height of the development. It is out of keeping with the neighbourhood (aConservation Area) and would be very detrimental to the currently attractive, perimeter of theClifton Downs- The relatively low amount of car parking that will inevitably cause even more congestion and overcrowded streets in the area
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I am supportive of the development of this site, just not in its current proposed form.
As per previous objection, my comments remain:- single aspect, north-facing homes on blocks B and D are not acceptable for a development ofthis quality, particularly one which proposes to be net zero carbon.- noted that the developer has reduced some height; however it is noted that plant enclosures arenot noted on all sections and elevations which it misleading - this will, in essence, add anotherstorey to the building. While surrounding buildings onto Westbury Park may be grand, it must beremembered that the buildings on all other sides are terraced houses and these buildings will havea significant impact at this height
Positives:- I don't have an issue with parking. We all have issues parking; the council may considerexpanding the residents' parking permits into Westbury Park. The retired folk moving into thisdevelopment are likely to have fewer cars than if family homes.- This site is underused and could be a really positive new addition to the area.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I am writing to express my strong objection to the revised planning application for thedevelopment of St Christopher's School.
The reduction in the number of dwellings from 122 to 116 is tiny in terms of the impact the schemeis likely to have on the surrounding area. Likewise, the proposed reduction in height of a smallnumber of units is negligible. It does nothing to change the fact that the proposed development isoverbearing and out of all proportion to the surrounding properties including Grace House.I am also concerned at the proposal to cut down 40% of the trees on this naturally mature andbeautiful site. This will be a huge loss in what is already an area of densely packed housing.The disappearance of this site as an educational facility is also a considerable loss the localcommunity. There is no significant SEND provision in Bristol and the replacement of the schoolwith yet more luxury retirement apartments seems hard to justify. The absence of any affordablehousing in the proposal is further evidence of the disregard of the developers for the actual needsof the community in Westbury Park or in the city as a whole.What is perhaps most concerning about the revised proposal, is the plan to provide a new accesspoint from The Glen for cars, pedestrians and emergency vehicles. The information in theTransport Statement about existing vehicle access from The Glen is plainly misleading. The gateat the end of the road was put in during the construction of the site and sealed once this wascompleted. It has never to my knowledge been used during the 13 years I have lived in The Glen.The Glen is highly unlikely to be a feasible route for fire appliances anyway, as cars are constantlyparked on both sides of the road, which would make access difficult. In addition to legally parkedvehicles, there are often cars parked on the corners of the road, while access to the end of The
Glen is frequently impossible because of ambulances and lorries delivering to the 3 nursing homeson Belvedere Road and the supported living facility in The Glen.Parking is already a huge problem in The Glen. As a consequence, the safety of pedestrians isoften compromised by cars that are parked illegally and others circling the area looking for spaces.There is no residents' parking scheme in the area, so local residents are constantly struggling tofind places to park. This scheme will greatly exacerbate this already difficult situation.The proposal in the revised plans to put a double yellow line at the end of The Glen, willimmediately remove one of the already small number of available parking spaces. Moreworryingly, the spaces at the rear of the site, to which the Glen would give access is likely to befully occupied much of the time. This will lead to an unlimited number of drivers accessing the sitespeculatively, searching for available spaces, all of them entering and leaving the site via TheGlen, all of them having to reverse down the road as there is no turning space within the proposedparking area. The danger that this poses to pedestrians and other vehicles is obvious.The proposal for 65 parking spaces to accommodate residents, staff and visitors for 116 dwellingsis clearly inadequate. Pedestrian access from The Glen will inevitably lead to people trying to parkthere as well as in surrounding roads, when on-site parking is full, with all the danger andinconvenience to local residents outlined above. The proposal for an "urban village Hall" without itsown car park, close to the entrance from The Glen will of course add to difficulty.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before'. plans for this proposal suggest the project is not in keeping with the local area.The building is too big and too high.My main concern is for the problem with parking, leading to overspill and causing dangerousparking and driving, especially with Westbury Park School being so close.The destruction to wildlife and trees will be a tragedy and disproportionate to the benefit of yetanother residential community.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
Total over development in a conservation area. Lack of parking. Risk to protectedspecies and local wildlife in general. The Glen is totally unsuitable for the main entrance on to thesite.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
It seems the developers submitted a first plan in the knowledge they could subsequentlybe seen to scale back in response to objections. The revisions are so minimal so perhaps thisshould be kept in mind by Case Officers who could look afresh, as if the revised plan was theoriginal proposal.
A high rise modern development in an architecturally traditional setting is beyond belief. Why can'tthe developer and the Case Officers see this?
How can the destruction of a natural habitat be permitted?
Is there really a need for accommodation of this category in Westbury Park and Redland whenother developments are still struggling to be filled?
The definition of support living seems very fluid which suggests the developers can open themarket in order to fill the properties.
In which case, wouldn't it be more appropriate for the developers to scale back, redesign a morefitting exterior in keeping with the existing architecture? They could build a second moderndevelopment in a less traditionally sensitive part of Bristol.
Much has been written about the obvious safety issues of an increase in people trying to park instreets that are already hazardous for parking. It's not just cars, it's the contractors' vans during
construction, delivery vans and thereafter residents and support staff. It will be just a question oftime before accidents occur.
It must be draining for Case Officers to continually receive objections, but please, pleaseunderstand the obvious problems this development will create.
Thank you.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
My previous objection submitted still applies to this proposal. In particular, I think thatthe provision of so many bicycle parking spots is inappropriate for the type (age!) of residentsintended to reside here. There should be more car parking spots and maybe spaces for mobilityscooters too.I believe that this planning application should be refused for this and the reasons I stated before.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I object to this development on a number of different grounds.Firstly, I believe that this is a unique green space in Bristol and should be subject to no furtherbuilding developments of this scale. Conserving the green spaces we have in Bristol is key tomaintaining a healthy environment to live in, promoting urban biodiversity and maximising thenumber of trees.Secondly, the scale of the project is vast and would completely change the landscape of thecommunity. Bristol is a great place because of its historic buildings dominating the landscape. Thisbuilding development would completely alter and dominate the skyline of this neighbourhoodwhich as the moment is filled with trees and old spires. If the project is to go ahead, the scaleshould be vastly reduced so that it is in keeping with the heights of surrounding buildings. 3stories.Thirdly, the parking and traffic in this area is already an issue. This would increase local traffic,increase parking availability for existing residents, and decrease air quality.Further to this, Westbury Park and close surrounding areas already have a large proportion ofaccommodation for retired and elderly residents. I live in The Glen and the road opposite where Ilive already has two old peoples homes. Within a 5 minute walk there is already a luxuryretirement village with views of the downs. This city already has such a disparity in communities interms of wealth and age neighbourhoods, this should not be increased further by exclusive luxuryapartments for those of a retired age. I am in no way discriminating against more elderly residents,but I believe that for a neighbourhood to flourish it should be populated by a range of people,young working groups, families and the retired and elderly. As this area in Bristol is so expensive,young people and families are already being priced out. This should not be compounded by
exclusive luxury apartments.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The submitted plans continue to be completely at odds with the reality on the ground.Firstly, this development would constitute a major change of character within the DownsConservation Area, with multi-story blocks of flats dominating the skyline, completelyunsympathetic to the surrounding heritage buildings, not to mention the significant loss of maturetrees from the site. Secondly, it would significantly increase the amount of traffic and parkingdemand in the area, with 116 new accommodation units, plus staffing and services demand,supported by only 65 parking spaces. Together this would only increase congestion in an alreadyover-crowded local street network. Thirdly, the proposed change of use would rob the city of anexisting school site that could be utilised to help alleviate the acute pressure on SEND serviceswithin the city. I sincerely hope that the proposed development will not be approved in its currentform.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to the re-proposal. I am still of the opinion that this planning application should be refused for the reasonsstated previously.
Specifically, the reasons for my position pertains to the marked over-development of the site -nothings has substantially altered with my regard to my initial perception. I should also point outthat the re-purposed reduction of 6 homes is an insult in itself! This response from the developer istruly insufficient and represents nothing less than game playing.
Secondly, there is the issue of traffic congestion as there are not enough parking spaces forvehicles (e.g., considering visitors to the overdeveloped site), not to mention the externalcongested traffic which will result from this proposal. Traffic, especially during rush hours appearsuncontrolled as is.
Finally, it is my considered opinion that the developers, coupled with the BCC are only interestedin financial gain, vis-a-vis this project and not concerned about our neighbourhood's well-being.What a surprise!
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I am not opposed in principle to the development of this site, but the revised proposalsmake only cosmetic changes to the original proposals which were out of scale and not in keepingwith the character of the area. In particular, the small reduction in the number of the proposeddwellings will do little to alleviate the potential parking problems in my own and neighbouringstreets.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I objected to the original planning application on the grounds of over development of thesite, loss of biodivesity including several mateure and well established trees, the impact on thesurrounding streets due to overspill of parking from residents, visitors, care staff etc, loss of SENSprovision and lack of affordable housing. These amended plans offer such minor alterations thatmy original objections still stand. Also I don't understand why another 'village hall' is being offeredto the community when there are already 2 well used halls at either end of Bayswater Avenue andEtloe Road.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I am objecting to this revised proposal, which I consider has only tinkered at the edgesand has not addressed local concerns.I think that the scale of the development remains far too large for the site. A reduction from 122 to116 units is minor, as are the proposed height reductions of the blocks. The overall design is out ofcharacter for the neighbourhood.I am extremely worried about the amount of traffic likely to be generated and the safety of roadsand pavements around. I believe that there is still insufficient provision for parking for theresidents, carers, visitors, taxis and delivery drivers. I am fearful that this will result in an overspillonto local roads, which are already highly congested. There are already dangerous blockedpavements and junctions and this is likely to get worse.I object also to the loss of green space and the felling of mature trees.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
This revised application offers minor changes to an overbearing scheme.The tower blocks are still too high and sight lines from The Downs will still be badly affected.Please reject this application.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
Objection to Planning Application 22/01221/F
I would like to object strongly to the new vehicular access to the development site from The Glen,as proposed in this application.This will be the only vehicular access to the rear of the site, as theinternal roads from the Westbury Park entrances only lead to the front block of flats. This proposednew access would have the effect of making even more dangerous the current traffic, road safetyand parking problems in The Glen and Belvedere Road. These problems have been welldocumented, are well known to the planning authorities, and have resulted in the refusal of otherplanning applications in the neighbourhood that have been similarly deemed to exacerbate analready unacceptable situation (see, for example, final paragraph to this objection below).
Specifically, this application will significantly increase traffic, parking and road safety hazards forthe following reasons:
1. The new car park to be reached from The Glen has 7 spaces intended for residents, which isevidently not enough for all the occupants of the adjacent large block of flats, as well as the rearcottages. This is likely to encourage residents who don't have a space to park in The Glen orBelvedere Rd and walk through. It may also lead to staff and visitors for the rear blocks trying touse it, and then circling and parking on The Glen or Belvedere Road if they can't find a space.
2. There is also a new proposed "Urban Village Hall" next to and accessed from the end of TheGlen, which has only 2 (disabled) parking spaces allocated. This is intended for community and
SEND activities, which is likely to lead all external visitors to try to park on The Glen andBelvedere Rd.
3. As the only access point to the rear of the site, it is also likely to be used by delivery vehiclesand ambulances for the rear blocks of flats and cottages, although they will have to actually park inThe Glen.
4. The access is also intended for fire engines needing to access the rear of the site. However,this is not possible without removing at least 6 parking spaces from the end of The Glen. (Theapplicant has not mentioned this, but it is clear from the detailed plans.) Furthermore, there is noturning space in the car park, so any fire appliance would need to reverse back down The Glen.This is contrary to the direction from the TDM (1 st August 2022) that "Swept path analysis mustbe provided for a fire tender to demonstrate that it can safely access the site and turn around andemerge in a forward gear from the main vehicular access points on Westbury Road, as well as theemergency access point on The Glen."
5. Finally, the plans have been submitted in the context of a continued shortfall of on-site parking(65 spaces for residents, staff, carers and visitors for 116 apartments), which will lead to overspillon all surrounding roads, but a particular issue for The Glen and Belvedere Road, due to theaccessibility and proximity to the rear apartment block and cottages.
I would like to point out that the applicants make a highly misleading claim. In Travel Plan 3.1.5and Transport Statement 2.3 they sate that "There is also a gated access from The Glen". In fact,the gate referred to was only allowed to be used during the construction phase of a previousapplication (02/00500/F/N and 02/00501/LC/N). The applicant at the time stated in a letter to BCC(Mr McCamphill), dated 3/4/02, "Once the work is finished the access will be sealed.... The Glenentrance cannot and will not be used even when we develop the North House" and subsequentlya condition of the approval (SC44) was that "Means of vehicular access to the permitted buildingafter construction shall be from the main entrance of Carisbrooke Lodge, Westbury Park only" andthis condition was complied with.
In conclusion, I would like to draw attention to the Council's refusal of a recent planning applicationin Belvedere Road (20/06030/F) and the upholding of the Council's decision, following appeal, bythe Planning Inspectorate. It was precisely on account of the traffic, parking and road safetyissues, referred to in this objection, that the Inspectorate upheld the decision.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I am a home care worker, and I visit clients within the area. In order do my job I need todrive my own car to and from clients parking in the area is already very difficult and I often have todrive around for 5 or 10 mins to find a space depending on the time.of day..ther is insufficientcurrent parking, so more property and vehicles in the area, will only increase the difficulty.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
Having reviewed the revised proposals, I still object to the proposed development forthe same reasons outlined in my comments to the original submission. The key concerns I'd like tohighlight are;
- Overdevelopment of the site. There seems to be little to no regard for the location andsurrounding residents and amenities in the proposals. Adding this many residences to the size ofstyle of site would be a gross over development, the plans appear to be about maximising profitonly and not creating a development that will integrate into a well established community. Thereduction of only 6 proposed dwellings is frankly laughable and shows the level of care thedevelopers have in the approach.
- The lack of increased parking provision is a similar concern. The streets and area around thedevelopment is already saturated with cars and any assumption that the roads can support moretraffic is a mistake. While the movement of the road access away from the nursery entrance ispositive, this is to the detriment of residents near The Glen which is simply moving the issue.I would also strongly implore BCC to review the options around introduction of an RPZ forWestbury Park. Currently we sit on the perimeter of other RPZ's so feel the knock on effect ofhouses parking additional vehicles from nearby roads. The area was already a busy commutertrap for those driving to the area and leaving cars to travel into the city, this will only be worse withthe introduction of the CAZ.
- Any loss of trees and natural habitat should be strongly avoided. The site is already home to
considerable local wildlife and the loss of habitat including the loss of mature trees must beavoided at all costs.
- The loss of SEND provision is unfortunate and I would prefer to see the site retained for thispurpose, especially given the relative high proportion of retirement properties already in the area.
For the reasons outlined above I strongly object to the plans and hope a complete revision (not thesmall amendments proposed) for a development more appropriate to the site and surroundingcommunity is taken forwards.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
My name is Dr Paul Rawlings and I live at 15 Belvedere Road (the side of the roadbacking onto the St Cristopher's site). I would like to register my strong objection to the currentslightly revised planning application and I urge you to reject it and to instruct the developer tocome forward with a significantly revised and more sympathetic scheme. My grounds for objectingare as follows:
1. The Development Will Significantly Impact Parking and Highway Safety.The parking problems in this area are well known and, in particular, the problems in the Glen andBelvedere Road. These roads have significant parking and highway safety issues as this area ison the edge of the resident parking zone and is used as a park and ride scheme into town as wellas by the staff working at the care homes in Belvedere Road (which have no parking of their own)and the delivery drivers and ambulances that regularly attend these businesses and frequentlyblock the roads. These issues have previously led to the rejection of planning applications for anextension of the Glenview Care Home in Belvedere Road (20/06030/F) and even a proposal for asingle off-road parking space (19/01251/H) was rejected with the following comments from theTransport Development Manager: "The application would create one off street parking space andthe loss of up to two on-street parking spaces. This would be a net loss in an area where there isalready over demand for parking spaces and would increase the risk of motorists parking in adangerous manner. The application is thus recommended for refusal on the grounds of highwaysafety." The proposed development should be rejected in-line with these precedents because:1.1 Lack of On-Site ParkingThe proposed development has very limited on-site parking for the residents and staff (65 places
for 116 units). This will inevitably lead to significant overspill parking in the surrounding roads andmake the current problems significantly worse.1.2 Vehicular Access from GlenThe revised proposal is now even worse than the original proposal as it has vehicular access fromthe Glen. This should not be allowed for the following reasons:- This access will be the only vehicular access to the rear of the site and will significantly increasetraffic in Belvedere Road and the Glen and will be used by delivery vehicles and ambulances forthe rear blocks of flats and cottages, although they will have to actually park in The Glen.- There is a new proposed "Urban Village Hall" next to and accessed from the end of The Glen,which has only 2 (disabled) parking spaces allocated. This is intended for community and SENDactivities, which is likely to lead all external visitors to try to park on The Glen and Belvedere Rd.- The new car park reached from The Glen has a further 7 spaces intended for residents, which isevidently not enough for all the occupants of the adjacent large block of flats, as well as the rearcottages. This is likely to encourage residents who don't have a space to park in The Glen orBelvedere Rd and walk through. It may also lead to staff and visitors for the rear blocks trying touse it and then circling and parking on The Glen or Belvedere Road if they can't find a space.1.3 Emergency Vehicle Access from the Glen.In addition to refusing general vehicular access from The Glen emergency vehicle access shouldalso be refused. The Glen will make a very poor approach road for emergency vehicles due to thedensity of parking and it is unnecessary as there will be sufficient access from the existing pointsof access at the front of the site. To enable access for fire engines through The Glen at least 6parking spaces will need to be removed from the end of The Glen which will significantly adverselyaffect parking provision and hence highway safety. The applicant has not mentioned the removalof the parking places in their submission, but it is clear that this will be the case from the detailedplans.1.4 Pedestrian Access from the GlenThe proposal contains a plan for pedestrian access from the Glen. This should not be allowed(even if it is only for residents and staff) as this will further encourage parking in the Glen andBelvedere Road. This would be made even worse if the public were to be able to use it as a cutthrough.
2. Scale of the Development and Effect on the Amenity of the AreaThe development is completely out of proportion to the area of land, the high-rise blocks willovershadow the listed buildings and change the current open and beautiful aspect from the Downsand surrounding areas and degrade this beautiful part of Bristol which is a key leisure area for thecity. The amendment to the height of one block cannot be considered a significant attempt by thedeveloper to listen to the many adverse criticisms of the scheme by bodies such as Bristol CityCouncil Conservation Panel who have called the buildings "overbearing" and saying there's solittle space between them, it'll limit natural light and impact tree growth.2.1 Privacy. The high-rise residential blocks are far too close to neighbouring properties and willovershadow and infringe their privacy.2.2 Environment. The plans will lead to the removal of a significant number of mature tress as well
as open grassy and wild areas and will adversely impact the biodiversity of the area.
3. Lack of SEND ProvisionBristol City Council Education Department have issued a report that disagrees with the findings ofthe developer's report on SEND provision and that there will be a shortfall of SEND provisionwhich needs to be addressed.
For the reasons stated above please reject this application and instruct the developers to listen tothe reasonable criticism that has been made of the scheme and to alter it significantly enough toalign with the needs of the site and residents.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I object to this application. The latest revisions are minor and improve nothing- forexample, the number of apartments have only been reduced by six. They are mere windowdressing and greenwash to appease your officers. This remains an inappropriate and harmfulapplication.The massing, height and design (blocks of flats up to five storeys high) is out of the keeping withthe area and will negatively affect views from the Downs Conservation Area, and the Grade IIlisted Grace House on site. The application will alter this area for ever.
There is no affordable housing at a time when the city is facing a housing crisis. If the site is to beredeveloped for apartments, surely it has a moral obligation to provide affordable housing, even ifthe developer has technically wriggled out of it on Use Class grounds.
This is a luxury retirement complex with no benefits for the community - the developer's offer of an'urban village hall' and access a cafe is laughable; there are plenty of cafes and two church hallsfor hire nearby.
There only 65 car parking spaces proposed which means, with 200 residents and staff andvisitors, there will be a massive overspill of vehicles into surrounding streets which already sufferfrom dangerous congestion and pavement parking. A development that will generate so muchtraffic cannot by any of the stretch of the imagination be described as 'sustainable,' however manyecobling features it includes
The loss of protected and mature trees and green space is unacceptable in a time of nature andclimate emergency and must surely fly in the face of the council's own policy. The existing site isrich in wildlife and biodiversity already and the development will damage this. It is greenwash tosay that the development will 'restore local biodiversity'.
The site should be retained for SEND education facilities- there is an acute shortage of these inthe city.
The consultation on the updated proposals has disingenuously been run over the festive period,no doubt in the hope that local people wouldn't notice- an old trick. This is bad practice.
on 2023-01-03 SUPPORT
This response follows the amendments that were recently submitted and follows onfrom my previously submitted response. Significant amendments have been made addressingprevious comments in relation to trees, massing and the cottages close to Bayswater Avenue.Further design comments now provided are that this is clearly a high quality, carefully considered,sensitive and appropriate design in a sustainable location. The principle of a retirement communityis supported, meeting important housing needs and hopefully freeing up larger houses in the areafor families.
One outstanding significant concern is in relation to parking as parking on surrounding streets issignificantly constrained and presents road safety issues with cars having to circle round the blockmultiple times trying to find spaces. However this could be addressed by bringing forward aresidents parking zone with new residents in the development not being eligible for parkingpermits. This would mean that residents buy into the scheme knowing they will not have a parkingspace therefore encouraging sustainable travel modes from the outset. If a RPZ could be boughtforward alongside this development, then the application should be supported.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The revised proposal does not resolve any of the original issues raised. There will stillbe issues with parking, road traffic, and heritage conservation.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
This is a very extensive development involving a the creation of a large number ofproperties on a relatively small site. Insufficient consideration has been given to the affect on thelocal amenities, including access from already congested road network and lack of on-site parkingas well as the environmental affect of the felling of a significant of well established trees. Theproposed new buildings are higher than surrounding properties and would have a detrimentalimpact on the Downs Conservation area.The developers claim to have modified plans to take account of previous opposition, but thesechanges are minimal.- The developers say the revised scheme is smaller & less visible with fewer homes.In reality, just there are just 6 fewer homes. There would still be 116 housing units in 4 blocks upto five storeys high, dwarfing adjacent properties with a serious detrimental affect on the DownsConservation area.- They say there is an 'Improved' parking ratio.In reality there will be still only 65 spaces for 116 luxury homes with no specific provision for staffwho look after the site, carers, visitors, deliveries.- They say the revised plans would retain more trees.The reality is that too many protected, mature trees will be felled - including a wonderful old oaktree. It will take decades for any new saplings to provide the same benefit to nature and wildlife.- They say they will create an "Urban Village Hall" with space for community groups - with possibleuse by children with special education needs (SEN).In reality this is a vague offer without any substance which safeguarding issues would renderimpossible to implement. It is wrong to imply that this provision would compensate in any way for
the loss of St Christopher's, a much valued community asset for 70+ years.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I think this development, even in its revised form which would lead to a reduction ofnumber of flats from 122 to 116 and reduction in number of storeys from 6 to 5, is quite out ofplace. As I wrote in reply to the First Application re this site. This revised proposed development,even with amendments, would destroy a "green" area which, I suggest, if of great benefit toWestbury Park Residents and other locals as well as birds and beasts ~and further be a completeeyesore ~ rather like those hideous 1960's "modern" multi-storey blocks of flats behind the SpireHospital, only 300 yards away. Further, it inevitably would cause traffic congestion what withresidents, staff and visitors looking for parking.. in an area bedevilled with narrow roads andexisting parking problems not least with the growing number of commuters who park in theseroads before 0800 on workdays and catch the bus into town thereby avoiding charging zone feesand parking fees.Better, I suggest, to let rich buyers take these marvellous properties over as residences .. as hasbeen evidenced already on the Redland edge of this Site. We note that fine large Victorian houseand grounds has been bought privately and done up, splendidly; a pleasure to walk by andadmire! Let's emulate that example and I ask the planners to reject this amended application. BillChavasse; Fodag Member..former solicitor & 45 years resident of Bristol.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
Just far too big.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The objection I made previously to the original planning application applies to thisproposal.I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before.The main areas of concern are as follows1 overdevelopment. This is a major concern. There is no real change as it is still too big, too denseand too high. There are only 6 fewer homes but still 4 and 5 storey blocks of flats2 Loss of trees and wildlife. Still too many mature trees being chopped down the reduction is byvery little.3. Traffic there are insufficient parking spaces leading to overspill and road safety hazards. 6 fewerhomes will not shift the dial. This is already a very busy traffic area and there is a shortage ofparking spaces in the area.4 Loss of SEND provision- an offer of shared use of a room is an insult to the 70years legacy ofspecial needs education on this site.5 Lossof heritage. This scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and completelydisregards the fact that this is a designated Conservation area.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The proposed development of the site will have a significant, negative bearing on the immediateneighbourhood which is already very congested. Having recently moved to the area we areconscious of the high level of traffic on the roads nearby: Etloe Road, Bayswater Avenue andRoyal Albert Road in particular. With the proposed plan there will be spaces for 65 cars for thenew residents of the 116 living spaces - and, in addition, their visitors. Both traffic and noise levelswill consequently increase. The health and safety aspect impact on two nearby nurseries, oneprimary school and all local residents will be profound. These local roads at rush hours/dropoff/pick-up times are often overrun with cars. Even more vehicles will potentially create ahazardous zone, with accidents waiting to happen, that should be avoided at all cost. Myobjections, furthermore, concern the visual impact of the proposed site. At present there is awonderful array of ancient trees, the sight of which brings great pleasure to many. The proposedplan includes the removal of several of these. Their loss will not only have a detrimental effectvisually but also on the environment.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application remains applicable to thisproposal as the revisions made by the developer are mere tinkering around the edges rather thana fundamental review taking into account the concerns of residents, the Council and expertbodies. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before'.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
1 There is insufficient on-site parking to avoid overspill and associated adverse impact and road
safety concerns on neighbouring roads
1.1 Summary
The applicant does not provide any evidence or estimates of the actual expected parking needs of the
residents, staff and visitors for a new Extra Care scheme, so has not established that they have provided
sufficient parking to be able to meet these without any overspill on to surrounding roads. It is
disappointing that this has still not been addressed, despite being raised in comments responding to the
earlier application.
In summary, the information provided in Section 6 of the Transport Statement to justify the number of
parking spaces is fallacious, irrelevant and misleading, relying on:
• an interpretation of the BCC parking standards for C2 (residential care homes where residents
don't have cars);
• comparison with parking provided at a small number of non-similar schemes (eg where care is
not provided, which are socially rented, where there is a much higher proportion of single
occupancy reducing the ratio of cars to dwellings, or the minimum age is greater) and flawed
“parking accumulation” calculations;
• a comparison with four planning applications for integrated care schemes, none of which have
been built, one of which was rejected, and one superseded. Of the other two, one was approved
based on the fact that the acknowledged parking overspill could be accommodated by nearby
public car parks, and the other due to the lack of on-street parking within 500m which could be
affected. It should also be clear that planning applications for non-existent developments do not
provide any actual evidence to support that the proposed parking will be sufficient for this
development;
• parking surveys of the area undertaken between 10pm and midnight, which do not demonstrate
any capacity to absorb the overspill at the busiest times during the working day, when staff and
visitors will be searching for parking. This is despite it being well known that these roads suffer
from major over demand during the working day, when they are used by local commuters as well
as staff at the nearby schools and care homes.
Section 1.2 of this statement provides a fuller analysis of the flaws in the information provided in
Transport Statement Section 6, supporting the above points.
We are confident that BCC will not see this as sufficient evidence on which to base such a decision, where
if the on-site parking proves insufficient, it will have a major impact on road safety in a residential area.
It is almost inconceivable that the applicant, having been planning the development for more than 18
months, would not have conducted proper analysis of the actual likely demand for parking from residents,
staff, carers and visitors, so it is puzzling why they continue to base their assertions on such subjective
and non-evidenced estimates, instead of providing quantified assumptions, data and research to show
the actual likely parking requirements.
In the absence of this, Section 1.3 of this statement uses reliable data sources to indicate that a
reasonable estimate of parking requirements for the development would be 115 spaces, made up of:
• 73 spaces for residents’ cars
• 2 car club and 1 mini-bus space
• 39 spaces reserved for staff and visitors (including public visitors to the community facilities)
Given that the applicant has only included 65 spaces, this suggests there will be an overspill of at least 50
additional cars trying to park on the roads surrounding the site. It is well known that these already face
issues with over-demand of parking, and the associated road safety issues. Section 1.4 provides further
detail and evidence, including parking surveys (with photographs) undertaken throughout the working
day, which prove that there is no spare capacity to accommodate the likely overspill from the new
development, and the extra volume of cars looking for spaces will exacerbate the current safety
concerns.
Obviously, the ultimate parking needs will be based on a number of factors and cannot be predicted with
100% accuracy. However, it should be recognised that the nature of the location – closely surrounded by
residential roads – means that if the estimates lead to insufficient parking on-site, residents, staff and
visitors will seek to park on the neighbouring roads, and this impact cannot be managed by the developers
(or BCC) once the site is occupied. There must therefore be a clear onus on the applicant to provide
sufficient parking, based on realistic estimates, to reduce, as far as reasonably possible, the risk of this
occurring. Instead, their provisions are, at best, based on unenforceable best case wishful thinking. The
estimates we have provided above are based on defined and reasonable (not worst case) assumptions, as
detailed further in Section 1.3.
It is worth noting that the plans presented in the first pre-app included 120 spaces, and even then, they
referred to the potential need for a residents parking scheme to avoid overspill into the surrounding
streets. This suggests that the applicant is in fact aware of the likely number of parking spaces required
to avoid overspill, but has reduced the planned provision from 120 to 65 for their own reasons.
Overall, it is clear that there is simply no basis for assuming that the planned parking provision is
sufficient for the parking needs at this location. It is very likely there will be a significant overspill,
which will increase risks to road safety in the surrounding residential streets.
Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that “Development should only be prevented or refused on highway
grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts
on the road network would be severe.” It is clear that the developers are not producing sufficient parking
to avoid an unacceptable impact, and the application should therefore be rejected.
1.2 Flaws in the applicant’s justification for provision of 65 spaces
This section details why the information provided in the Transport Statement is flawed and does not
support their assertion that 65 spaces will be sufficient to avoid parking overspill on to surrounding roads.
Firstly it should be noted that the TDM response (dated 1st August 2022) to the initial application
specifically stated that “A clear breakdown of all staff split between care, administrative, domestic and
ancillary must be provided. This needs to take into consideration the 24 hour site provision and the fact
that public transport may not be operational when staff changes over, such as late at night or early in the
morning. This will require staff to depend on the use of motorised forms of transport.”
This applicant has provided neither this, nor evidence to support any proposed ratio of cars to residents.
Instead they have continued to rely on comparison with parking provided at non-comparable – and
non-existent! – sites, rather than identifying the actual likely needs for this particular site.
1.2.1 Inappropriate reliance on Bristol City Council Parking Standards for Care Homes
During the consultation process, the applicant referred to the on-site parking capacity being restricted by BCC
parking standards. In this application (eg Transport Statement 6.8 and 6.33) they have repeatedly stated that they
are providing more spaces than would be allowed by the BCC parking standards. This is misleading, due to their use
of C2 parking standards, which relate to residential care homes, and have significantly different needs to an Extra
Care scheme.
Transport Statement 6.6 states “Car parking is set as the following for ‘Hospitals/Nursing Homes and Residential
Care Homes’, with ‘Convalescent and residential car homes’ having the following standard.
C2 1 space per 2 Full time staff
1 space per 6 bed space”
This paragraph omits to mention that the allowance of “1 space per 6 bed space” is set for visitors, not for residents,
who presumably are assumed (in a care home) not to be able to drive. The C2 parking standards are clearly not
intended, or appropriate, for a scheme in which many residents will be capable of driving, and which will be
marketed as having rentable on-site parking spaces.
It should be noted that the BCC C3 parking standards allow for the following:
One bed house/flat: one space per dwelling
Two bed house/flat: 1.25 spaces per dwelling
Transport Statement 6.7 states that there will be 105 two-bed and 11 one-bed apartments, so C3
planning standards would allow for 142 car parking spaces.
It is understood that the Extra Care development does not easily fit into either a C2 or C3 category – in
particular, there will be a need for residents’ parking spaces, which are not allowed under C2, while there
will be an additional need for staff parking, which is not recognised under C3. In fact, BCC’s TDM response
to the first version of this application (dated 1st August 2022), states:
‘Application Design Principles for Extra Care Housing (3rd edition) June 2020 sets out that “Parking
standards will need to be negotiated with the planning/highways authority as there are often no
defined standards for ‘housing with care’”. TDM agrees with this statement.’
It appears that the applicant has ignored this.
1.2.2 Meaningless comparison with provision at dissimilar schemes
Most of the applicant’s case seems to rely on a suggestion (Transport Statement 6.19) that “The parking,
when checked against other examples in TRICS, local examples and national examples, shows the
provision is in line with other schemes”. However, the amount of parking provided at these other sites is
not relevant in determining the actual parking needs of this site.
• Firstly, the amount of parking provided at any other site does not indicate this is sufficient to meet
the actual demand; there may well be overspill at these other sites, or usable public parking close-
by. For some, the location of the site (eg out of town) actually prohibits overspill – which is not
the case at the St Christophers Square location, being surrounded by residential streets with
unrestricted parking which residents, staff and visitors will seek to use if they cannot park on site.
• Secondly, the sites referred to are not sufficiently similar in nature, location or demographics, to
be comparable to St Christophers Square for the reasons explained in the sections below. Several
of the referenced sites have not even been built!
A) Comparison with TRICS assisted living schemes
Firstly, Transport Statement 6.11 & 6.12 state the applicant has considered six such schemes in the
“assisted living” category of TRICS, with an average of 0.412 spaces per dwelling. These TRICS sites are not
comparable with St Christophers Square for the following reasons:
• primarily because they are for standard “assisted living” meaning that they do not require the
same degree of parking for staff and carers (except for AC-03-P-01 and LE-03-P-01 which appear
to be care homes, where residents do not have cars)
• four of them (AD-03-P-01, NF-03-P-01, NY-03-P-01 and TY-03-P-01) provide rented social care
accommodation, which is a significantly different demographic from the St Christophers Square
target market
• three of them (AD-03-P-01, NF-03-P-02 and TB-03-P-01) are intended for single occupancy, with
solely 1-bedroom flats and studios. This clearly reduces the ratio of cars per dwelling, compared
to St Christophers where most flats are designed for double occupancy
• one of them (TW-03-P-01) is restricted to residents aged over 70, unlike St Christophers which
limits one resident per dwelling to be over 65
• most of them (such as the Edge of Town ones AC-03-P-01, LE-03-P-01, TB-03-P-01, TY-03-P-01)
have no uncontrolled on-street parking close by, which prevents overspill, unlike the location of
St Christophers.
It is also worth noting that the TRICS extracts in Appendix H do not show the number of car parking spaces
per scheme, and the applicant has provided no information to enable their figures to be validated.
Clearly this data does not provide any reliable justification that this ratio of spaces per dwelling will be
sufficient for a scheme of the nature and location of St Christophers.
(For the purposes of the above, Appendix H Page 99 identifies the sites by road name and town, which
enables them to be identified as the following assisted living schemes or care homes:
AC-03-P-01 Daneside Court, Chester Way, Northwich
AD-03-P-01 Bede House Court, St Machar Drive, Aberdeen
LE-03-P-01 Jasmine Court, Nottingham Road, Loughborough
NF-03-P-02 Harriet Court, Lakenfields, Norwich
NY-03-P-01 Sunnyfield Lodge, Fennell Grove, Ripon
TB-03-P-01 Abbeyfield Park House, Garfield Road, Paignton
TW-03-P-01 Kenton Lodge, Kenton Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne
TY-03-P-01 Sperrin Court, Limekiln Lane, Tyrone)
B) Comparison with “other integrated retirement living schemes”
Transport Statement 6.15 and 6.16 refer to parking provision at the site covered by Bristol Application 17/06914/F
in Bishopsworth, which was approved with 22 spaces for 62 units.
However, the demographic of residents of this scheme (Brunelcare Waverley Gardens) is entirely different from that
proposed for St Christophers Square. The majority of the units are single-bedroomed, and the site provides 100%
affordable housing to applicants on Bristol City Council’s health and social care waiting list1. This is totally different
from the private ownership of largely 2-bedroomed flats in St Christophers Square. Neither does the scheme provide
the proposed additional community facilities, with the associated additional staff and visitors of St Christophers
Square.
Furthermore, the amount of parking provision at this site does not prove that it is sufficient for all parking
requirements or that there is no overspill. In fact, the Bishopsworth application shows that the applicant based their
own parking estimates on comparison date (from TRICS) for residential care homes2, which do not allow for parking
spaces for residents. While there may have been a reason why this was seen as valid in the case of Waverley Gardens
(eg to cater purely for the additional staff requirements), this does not make it comparable to St Christophers Square,
which is being marketed with available residents’ parking. In fact, BCC commented on the application that “there
must be measures in place to maintain this low level of parking demand and prevent an increase, which if overspilled
onto the surrounding highway could create congestion”. None of this is comparable with St Christophers Square.
It is notable that the applicant has avoided comparison with the two far more similar local sites:
• The Vincent is less than a mile away and provides 66 car parking spaces for 65 retirement
apartments.
• Westbury Fields Sommerville Retirement Village two miles away, which provides private
retirement accommodation. This is one of Bristol City Council’s approved Extra Care Housing
sites3 and is registered by the CQC to “provide care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra
care’ housing”4. This development also provides more than one parking space per dwelling.
The applicant then goes on to state in Transport Statement 6.17: “We have also looked nationally at
Integrated Retirement Living schemes” and refers to the average parking ratio of four such schemes.
This statement is highly disingenuous, because:
• None of these schemes actually exist; the data is provided from planning application forms but
none have been built, one was not approved, and one has been superseded.
• Where these have been approved, this was on the basis of defined site-specific circumstances
which would avoid parking over-spilling into residential areas, which demonstrably do not apply
to the St Christopher’s site.
Specifically:
• Epsom 19/01722 – application was rejected.
• BANES 20/00259 – application was approved on appeal (with 156 spaces, not 136 as shown by
the applicant), stating that: “Parking throughout the local area is also well controlled and the
nearest available on-street spaces are more than 500 metres from the site. As such, overspill
1 From Application 17/06914/F on the Bristol City Council Planning Portal: “Affordable Housing Statement” and “Housing Delivery Response” 2 From Application 17/06914/F on the Bristol City Council Planning Portal: “Trip Rate Calculation” 3 https://www.bristol.gov.uk/social-care-health/extra-care-housing - Section “Where you could live” 4 https://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-126473607#accordion-1
parking is unlikely to occur.” This is fundamentally different from St Christophers, which is
surrounded by residential on-street spaces, which are known to already be under high demand.
• Elmbridge BC 2020/0832 – application was approved on appeal stating that: “There are also two
car parks within easy walking distance available for visitors and possibly staff to use… Ashley
Park Crescent and Avenue, beyond their gates, are private roads and it is clear from the signage
that this is the case and that there is to be no unauthorised parking with CCTV in place”. This is
fundamentally different from St Christophers, where there are no public car parks anywhere
nearby, and where the surrounding residential roads are not private and cannot restrict parking
to residents only.
• Cheshire West & Chester 17/03661 – application was not progressed and has now been fully
superseded by a new one (22/02075/S73) which is still under consideration.
Fundamentally, it should be obvious that planning applications for other sites, which have not even
been built, do nothing to demonstrate that the proposed parking at this site, in this location, will be
sufficient to avoid overspill.
C) Erroneous “parking accumulation” figures
In paragraphs 6.20 – 6.24 the applicant state that they have used TRICS figures to show parking
accumulation throughout the day, leading to projections of either 33 or 40 peak occupancy.
• These figures are actually incorrect; Appendix F shows that these projections are based on a
completely unjustified assumption, which is that at the beginning of the day the St Christophers’
car park will only be occupied by (respectively) 25 and 33 cars (out of 65 spaces). The
projections of peak occupancy are therefore unfounded and wrong.
• Furthermore, the comparison data is from the same assisted living schemes referred to in
Section B above, which are not valid comparators for the reasons given. In particular, they
provide no reliable comparison data about the number of care staff who will be arriving
throughout the day.
Overall, Section 6 provides limited data from non-comparable and non-existent schemes, and does
nothing to demonstrate why these could validly be extrapolated for the St Christophers scheme. It seems
highly unlikely that professional developers would actually base their own projections on such flaky
comparisons.
1.2.3 Meaningless comparison with occupation by guardians
The applicant states (Transport Statement 7.10) that “90 ‘guardians’ are currently living in the buildings, providing
round the clock live-in surveillance. Effectively this is the same as 90 separate residential units operating from the
site, and likely to have a higher impact on parking and traffic movements than the proposed use.”
This comparison is simply ridiculous, and is yet another subjective assertion with no evidence base or relevance.
• Firstly, this application can only be judged on the additional parking requirements from the previous
approved use – as a residential school for disabled children, where the only parking requirements were for
staff – rather than on a comparison to an unapproved interim situation. The applicant appears to be
implying that there has already been de facto approval for 90 residential units on the site – this is obviously
incorrect, and clearly should not be taken as an approved starting point for further increases.
• Secondly, the applicant provides no evidence or rationale to support their assertion that the new Extra Care
facility would have a lesser impact than the current use by guardians. We have been told by one of the
guardians that only about 10 of them have vehicles, which are able to be kept on-site, and rarely used apart
from to travel to festivals. There is in fact no comprehensible reason why 90 individual guardians – largely
young people, looking for cheap temporary accommodation – would require more parking than the
occupants of 116 primarily 2-bedroom apartments intended for relatively wealthy retired couples and
individuals, together with the supporting staff and visitors of an Extra Care facility.
1.2.4 Summary
Overall, it is clear that the applicant has provided no reliable evidence to indicate that 65 spaces will be
sufficient, for this scheme and location, to avoid parking overspill onto neighbouring roads.
1.3 Research-based estimate of likely parking requirements
As the applicant has not produced any actual estimates or evidence of the likely parking requirements for
the site, this section provides a basis for making a reasonable estimate of the parking needs for each
category of site user.
This results in a total estimated demand for parking for 115 vehicles. This number is explained in detail
below, together with references to the supporting research.
1.3.1 Residents’ parking requirements
The applicant justifies the low number of parking spaces by suggesting that “car ownership levels within an
integrated retirement community are far lower than an open market housing development5”. However, they do not
provide any evidence to justify or quantify this statement.
In the new document “Addendum Planning Statement” the applicant also suggests (Paragraph 4.48) that
“the parking proposals are considered in the context of the site location and the other transport
measures.” referring to the fact that “the site is in a sustainable location where walking, cycling, mobility
scooter use and public transport are viable options for journeys.”
However, it is clearly a fallacy to suggest that the viability of other options for short journeys directly leads
to low car ownership – at best it could indicate that not all journeys may need a car, but not that residents
will feel able to give up their cars altogether. For example, elderly residents are highly unlikely to choose
to take one or more buses (or cycle!!) while carrying heavy shopping, or rely on buses and trains to visit
family who live even a little distance away. It is far more likely that residents will wish to keep their existing
cars, especially if they believe they will be able to leave them at no cost in the surrounding streets, where
even if they are not regularly used they will reduce the already limited parking availability for residents of
those streets.
In fact, contrary to the applicant’s unevidenced assertions, all sources we have identified show there are
continued high levels of car ownership throughout retirement, as evidenced below. The data sources
referenced, and defined assumptions below, indicate a likely need of 73 parking spaces for residents.
Firstly, it should be noted that the applicant states that there will be “a minimum age of 65 for lead residents;
although experience confirms the average age of residents at the point of entry will be late 70’s and on a needs
basis.”6 Unfortunately, the applicant provides no sources to evidence the “experience” which supports this
assertion, which cannot therefore be treated as a reliable basis for estimates.
In fact, the proposed Heads of Terms7 confirms that the minimum age is 65 for lead residents, but also shows that
there is no minimum age or care requirement for a cohabitee (who may continue to live in their property following
the death of the lead resident). The applicant has promoted the development as being appropriate for couples where
one partner may be younger and more independent, while the other is starting to need some care.
There is no data to indicate that car ownership of this demographic will be low. As noted in the TDM response dated
1st August 2022: “as people are living longer they are not automatically switching to public transport, especially if
they remain fit and active”. In fact, a survey by Statista8 in 2017 states that “British people aged 60 years and older
were the age group with the highest share of car ownership”.
Furthermore, the ONS dataset entitled “Table A47 - Percentage of households with cars by income group, tenure
and household composition – UK, financial year ending 2018”9 shows a high percentage of car ownership amongst
retired adults. In particular, for retired couples who are not mainly dependent on state pension (the key likely
demographic for St Christophers Square), 89% of retired couples own one or more cars as shown in the following
extract:
5 Statement of Community Involvement Part 1 Page 50 (or Page 51 of PDF) 6 Planning Statement Page 14 Paragraph 4.2 (Page 17 of PDF) 7 Draft Heads of Terms Page 2 (Page 4 of PDF): Definition of “Qualifying Person” 8 https://www.statista.com/statistics/682596/consumers-who-own-a-motor-vehicle-in-the-united-kingdom-uk-by-age/ #:~:text=British%20people%20aged%2060%20years,were%20planning%20on%20purchasing%20one. 9https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/expenditure/datasets/percentageofhouseholdswithcarsbyincomegrouptenureandhouseholdcompositionuktablea47
There is no reason why car ownership for the population living at St Christophers Square would be any less than
these figures demonstrate. In fact, Department of Transport data10 shows that while the number of “car trips as
driver” (NB – this refers to individual trips, not car ownership) may decrease with age, there is a corresponding
increase in “car trips as passenger”, indicating that as the care needs of one person increase, they become more
reliant on their partner (or carer) to be able to drive them, so are still likely to retain their cars.
The nature of the development (the applicant refers to it being aimed at retired people “who want to still live
independently”11, and their website claims that “The services will help residents to live independently for longer12”)
and its location, surrounded by residential streets with non-restricted parking, suggest that many potential buyers
would see it as a benefit that they can retain their cars, parked either on-site or very close by. (This is not the case
for out-of-town retirement schemes, where there is no viable alternative to parking on-site and car ownership is
limited to the actual on-site provision.)
Assuming that 50% of the 116 flats at St Christophers Place are occupied by two adults (although it may well be more
than this initially), and 50% by a single adult, and that all have income above state pension level (as is likely to be
necessary), the ONS figures indicate that an average of 70% of flats will have occupant(s) owning one or more car.
Even assuming that this would be limited to only one car per individual or couple (which may be reasonable, if not
enforceable), this would result in a potential 81 cars to be accommodated.
The applicant proposes the use of a car club (with 2 allocated spaces) to reduce car ownership, which is appreciated,
but there is no data to support the likely take-up of this. It is interesting that the applicant proposes (Transport
Statement 7.11) that Bristol City Council will be solely responsible for promoting this to residents – showing that the
applicant takes no responsibility for encouraging car ownership reduction through its usage. However, as an
estimating assumption only, if 10% of residents give up their cars due to the availability of 2 car club cars, this would
lead to a reduced estimate of 73 residents’ cars needing to be accommodated.
1.3.2 Staff parking Requirements
Travel Plan 1.1.1 and Transport Statement 6.6 refers to the site having between 15 and 20 staff on site at any one
time and apply BCC’s standard of “1 space per 2 Full time staff” to this figure (rather than to the 33 FTE shown in the
Application Form). However, there is no rationale or evidence to support either figure, which are at best unvalidated
and unenforceable.
In fact, 15 – 20 on-site staff is likely to be a significant under-estimate, particularly at peak hours. The following
analysis shows that an estimated 37 staff are likely to be on site during peak hours. A fairly optimistic estimate of
50% of staff travelling by car suggests the need for at least 19 car park spaces for staff.
The TDM response to the Application (dated 1st August 2022) specifically requested the applicant to
provide “A clear breakdown of all staff split between care, administrative, domestic and ancillary must be
provided. This needs to take into consideration the 24 hour site provision and the fact that public
transport may not be operational when staff changes over, such as late at night or early in the morning.
This will require staff to depend on the use of motorised forms of transport.”
Unfortunately, the applicant has not provided this, or indeed any supporting information to explain the
number of permanent staff on site, or to indicate the basis for estimating the likely number of carers who
10 NTS0601: Average number of trips (trip rates) by age, gender and main mode 11 Transport Statement Paragraph 5.2 12 https://www.stchristophersbristol.com/benefits-of-extra-care
will be required to support the residents. Therefore this section provides some research basis for likely
estimates of what staffing will be required.
The only information about levels of care provision is given on Page 14 of the original Planning Statement, where
paragraph 4.4 states that “residents must have a minimum package of 2 hours support per week”. There is no
maximum, and residents may ultimately receive 24-hour care, with paragraph 4.1 confirming that “residents may
also organise night service or care companions for episodic care of permanent appointments”.
It is surprising that the applicant has not conducted more detailed research into the amount of care they are likely
to be providing. Fortunately, there are a number of research documents indicating the patterns of care provision in
Extra Care communities. A commonly expressed view is that effective Extra Care communities typically provide a
balance of care across the entirety of the range, eg “extra care providers often aim for a balance of care needs among
residents, such as one third each with high, medium and low needs”13 and “Keeping a community balance of high,
medium and low care needs is likely to be vital”14.
This indicates that a range of care requirements should be expected at St Christophers Square, from the lowest to
the highest needs; in other words, the care requirements are likely to fully cover the range from 2 hours a week to
24 hours a day.
The Planning Inspectorate, in considering Appeal Ref: APP/F0114/W/21/3268794, approached
Carterwood, an independent Market Research company specialising in health and social care, to request
information regarding the average level of care provision required by residents within a housing with care
scheme. Carterwood responded (1st July 2021) to provide PINS with a report from the Institute of Public
Care at Oxford Brookes University entitled “Predicting and managing demand in extra care” (2016) and
summarising that this “sets out that the average level of care provided in an extra care scheme is
identified as 12 hours per week.” The full report states that “on average any extra care - housing scheme
for older people should be based on an average of 12 hours per resident of care and support per week.
This should give ample scope to offer less care to those who will not require it and to offer intensive care
when people are experiencing a crisis and not coping very well with personal care.”
This therefore seems a reasonable assumption on which to estimate the care hours to be provided at St Christophers
Square. Assuming that 50% of the 116 flats at St Christophers Place are occupied by two adults, and 50% by a single
adult, there would be 174 residents, requiring an average of 12 hours care per week, leading to an average provision
of 2088 hours care a week, or 298 hours a day. If this was spread evenly over a 12-hour day, this would equate to
25 carers on site throughout the day.
However, the care requirements of individuals mean that care is unlikely to be spread evenly throughout the day.
Residents will expect to receive care when they need it, rather than to fit in with a smooth resource profile, and can
choose to use their own carers if necessary. By far the most common care requirement is assistance in the morning
with getting up, and in the evening with preparing for bed, so there are normally significant peaks between 7am to
9am and again from 5pm to 7pm, with the majority of the remaining care likely to be spread in between.
Assuming that a third of the residents need an hour of care morning and evening (in line with a third having high
care needs, as referenced above – although in practice many of those with medium needs may also need care during
these hours), and there are 174 residents (as assumed above), this would lead to the need to provide care to 58
people during each of these 2-hour periods, which would equate to 29 carers being on site during peak hours.
The above suggests that the number of carers on site may range between 23 to 29 throughout a normal day.
It should be noted that the peak hours coincide with the busiest times in the surrounding roads, when commuters
are arriving and leaving, and when children are being dropped at the neighbouring Westbury Park Primary School,
when the roads can least absorb any additional parking demands, or accommodate extra traffic from cars searching
for spaces. It is therefore important to plan for the parking demands of these key hours.
As well as the care staff, there will be other on-site staff providing the following functions: Management, Admin,
Concierge, Food & Beverage Provision, Activities. As noted, the applicant does not provide a break-down of the
13Cambridge University Press - Extra Care Housing: The Current State of Research and Prospects for the Future - 11 Nov 21 14 ILC-UK - Establishing the extra in Extra Care - September 2011
proposed 33 FTE; a minimal assumption of 25% being for non-care related activities would suggest a further 8 staff
on site during working hours.
Together this leads to a likely total of 31 to 37 (at peak hours) staff on site throughout a normal day.
The applicant does not estimate the number of staff who would be expected to drive to work, although they imply
that the proximity of local bus-stops would reduce this. They have also suggested that they could reduce the number
of staff driving to work by using a mini-bus to pick up staff (Transport Statement 6.9 and 7.8). However, there is no
evidence that this would be successful, and unfortunately these suggestions do not reflect the nature of care work.
Carers normally aim to minimise all travel time, as it is unpaid, and frequently arrive at work early in the morning
and leave late in the evening, or at night. For this reason, public transport is unattractive, and they are equally
unlikely to drive to a pick-up location in order to be collected, or wait at the end of their paid hours for the next
arranged mini-bus, as this will simply lengthen their day and unpaid hours. Amicala cannot force their staff (or those
of other care agencies which residents may choose to access) to use the mini-bus or public transport. It is also
interesting that the applicant proposes (Transport Statement 7.11) that responsibility for reducing car usage
amongst staff would lie with Bristol City Council.
Nonetheless, it is assumed that there will be some take-up of public transport and mini-bus facilities, so
it is estimated that only 50% of the staff will drive to the site. It could well be much more than this, and
it is obviously impossible to enforce this estimate. This would lead to a need for a minimum of 19 on-
site parking spaces being required for staff.
1.3.3 Visitors Parking Requirements
Although the applicant does not provide any estimate of likely visitor numbers, they use the C2 standards for visitors
parking spaces, which suggest (for a care home) 1 visitor space per 6 beds. With 11 x 1-bedroom apartment and 105
x 2-bedroom apartments, this comes to the 37 spaces referred to by the applicant in Transport Statement 6.7.
It is possible that this guideline could be applied differently for 2-bed apartments, in which two residents may be
expected to be related and have visitors in common. Applying the guideline to dwellings rather than bedrooms
would reduce the requirement to 19 spaces.
It is also recognised that visitor numbers may be slightly lower than those for residential care homes (assuming that
many of the residents are mobile enough to be driving, as covered in section 1.3.1), and a reduced ratio of 1 visitor
space to 8 dwellings (which we understand is used by some Local Authorities) would result in 15 spaces being
required for visitors.
However, it is likely that the number of visitors may be higher than this at popular times.
1.3.4 Requirements for Visitors to Community Facilities
The applicant refers to the site including “outward facing facilities open to the wider community”15. They
state that the site “will be open to the public, providing … community facilities in the restored Grace
House”16 and that “The deli/café and bar will be open to the public”17. Amicala have also publicly stated
the site will “provide a new social and leisure hub for Westbury Park, opening up the site and offering a
wide range of facilities for residents and local people to enjoy18.”
The updated application also includes an “Urban Village Hall”, which it says will have “space for a wide
variety of groups such as local children, including those with special educational needs…. This space will
become a focal point for all of Westbury park and we intend to curate activities there.”19
15 Planning Statement Paragraph 1.3 16 Statement of Community Involvement Part 1 Page 54 (Page 55 of PDF) 17 Planning Statement Paragraph 6.37 18 Bristol Post 21st March 2022 https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/major-85m-development-could-built-6804183 19 “Updated proposals for Bristol’s most sustainable Integrated Retirement Community” December 2022; leaflet distributed to all local residents.
If the site is providing such a wide range of publicly accessible facilities, this will also lead to increased
parking demands. The applicant has made no allowance for any parking for these facilities, except for
two (unreserved) wheelchair spaces in the new car park accessed from The Glen; this cannot be sufficient
for number of visitors who these facilities are aimed at.
Without allocated on-site parking for the Urban Village Hall, the closest parking is on The Glen, which
cannot safely be accommodated, as described in section 2 of this statement.
It is difficult to assess the parking requirements without more knowledge of the proposed facilities and
activities, but it would be reasonable to assume a minimum of 5 spaces for external visitors to the site
(although it could be a lot more at certain times of day).
1.3.5 Total Parking Requirements
The above estimates and assumptions result in the following minimum parking requirements.
Residents’ spaces 73
2 car-club + 1 mini-bus 3
Staff (including carers) 19
Residents’ visitors 15
Visitors to Urban Village Hall and other public facilities 5
TOTAL Required Spaces 115
It should be noted that the estimates used in this section have been made on as reasonable a basis as
possible and are not maximums/worst case scenarios. We have assumed that some reductions will be
able to be made on the base estimates from our research; without this, a total of 140 - 150 cars (or more)
could require parking during peak hours, and this is still possible, given that none of the estimating
assumptions are enforceable in practice.
1.4 The neighbouring roads cannot accommodate any extra cars
Section 1.3 provides a reasonable estimate of the parking requirements at St Christophers Square as 115
spaces. The applicant currently plans 65 spaces, which would result in an overspill of an estimated 50 cars
trying to park on surrounding roads.
The surrounding roads simply do not have the capacity to absorb any more cars. All roads in the area are
already normally filled with parked cars, especially during the working day, because:
• The area suffers from being just outside the Cotham North Residents Parking Zone. It is
frequently used for commuters to Bristol City Centre, who use the free parking in these roads and
then take the bus (or walk/cycle) into the city
• The roads immediately surrounding the site contain a primary school, five nurseries and
preschools, three nursing homes and two assisted living facilities20, leading to a high demand for
parking from staff, parents and visitors to these facilities.
Unfortunately, the applicant has only undertaken parking surveys at highly limited and unrepresentative
times (shown in Transport Statement Appendix G to be conducted between 10pm and midnight on 14th
and 16th November). These do nothing to demonstrate the parking situation during the working day, when
there will be the most demand from staff, carers and visitors, and when it is already known that the
parking stresses are the greatest on these roads. Further reasons for discounting the surveys are given in
Section 1.4.2 below.
We appreciate that Bristol City Council are aware of the resulting parking stresses in these roads, as noted
in the TDM statement of 1st August 2022.
The issues with high demand for parking already lead to road safety concerns. The constant hunt for
limited parking spaces leads to traffic circling the area. The roads are narrow (including cul-de-sacs), with
parking on both sides, and cars coming in opposite directions normally have to reverse to let one pass.
This is made more difficult due to the density of parking, and the parking on corners and on pavements.
Obstructive parking limits drivers’ visibility and causes a real hazard to all users of these roads.
This is further substantiated by the evidence provided in Sections 1.4.3 and 1.4.4 below, evidenced by a
large number of photographs in the annexes, of which the originals are available on request.
The parking pressures were also been confirmed by the TDM in his statement of 1st August 2022, having
undertaken a site visit.
1.4.1 Existing road safety concerns
The road safety issues are particularly concerning because there is a primary school and five preschool/nurseries
very close to St Christopher’s Square. Children walk down these roads on their way to school, and the obstructive
parking on junctions, and volume of cars looking for somewhere to park, increases the risk of accidents.
SCAN commissioned Mindset Research21, an independent market research company, to undertake a survey of
parents of children attending the school or nursery, as well as other local residents, and ask for their views about
local road safety. There were 298 respondents, of whom 282 live in the area between Westbury Park (road),
Coldharbour Road, Linden Road and North View. 134 have children attending Westbury Park Primary School or
Daisychain Nursery.
The full results are provided in Annex 1, but in summary, of the respondents:
• 63% believe the roads in the area to be very unsafe or fairly unsafe
20 Westbury Park Primary School, Daisychain Nursery, Harcourt Preschool, White Tree Preschool, Red House Nursery, Torwood Lodge Nursery, Belvedere Lodge, Meadowcare, Glenview, Abbeyfield, Freeways-2 The Glen 21 https://www.mindsetresearch.co.uk/
• 81% see parking in Westbury Park having a dangerous impact on road safety (comments referred to
obstructive parking, as further described in section 1.4.2 below, and driver stress)
• 67% said they had witnessed accidents, incidents or near misses in this area (44% more than once).
• The top two issues were reported to be:
Issue % of respondents reporting this as an issue
% of respondents reporting this as their number one issue
Children struggling to cross roads safely
72% (rising to 80% of parents with children at Westbury Park Primary or Daisychain)
33%
Lack of parking available 89% 30%
It is clear there is a high degree of local concern about the impact of parking issues on road safety, and these issues
will only be exacerbated with the volume of additional cars competing for spaces.
1.4.2 Issues with the applicant’s parking surveys
The applicant provides two parking surveys undertaken between 10pm and midnight on 14th and 16th
November. These do not provide any evidence to support the applicant’s claim that there is sufficient
space, for the following reasons:
• They were undertaken in the middle of the night, when there is least likely to be demand for
parking from staff, carers and visitors to the site.
• This may be in response to the BCC methodology for residential applications suggesting these
times (although this also suggests “Morning and early evening surveys may also be required due
to conflict with commuter / commercial use parking.”) However, since the applicant maintains
that the application class is C2, not C3 (residential), it is clear that these guidelines do not apply
and the applicant should instead have provided an “hourly beat within proposed commercial
activity times” – in other words, throughout the working day.
• It is well known that the roads surrounding the site suffer from major over demand during the
working day, when they are used by commuters to Bristol as well as staff at the nearby schools
and care homes. This is also when there is the greatest risk of accidents.
• Although the applicant’s midnight surveys do show some spaces (primarily along Westbury Park
road), they also show 40 cases of illegal parking on each occasion, on the residential surrounding
roads. This demonstrates the over demand during day-time hours, as cars tend to park illegally
when there are no available spaces, and then may be left overnight.
• The photographs provided by the applicant do not clearly show the precise location and length of
the purported space(s), so these cannot be confirmed to be valid spaces; in some of the photos it
is not actually possible to see any spaces at all, and certainly not the number they claim to be
available. Any updated survey should provide clear photographs where any purported spaces are
very clearly identifiable.
1.4.3 Existing issues with obstructive and dangerous parking
The lack of available parking is demonstrated by the frequent examples of dangerous and obstructive parking on the
roads surrounding the site, as most people will park legally if there is a valid space available. This includes:
• cars parked on corners and right up to junctions, and on double yellow lines
• cars blocking dropped kerbs (preventing wheelchair users from safely crossing the roads, as well as blocking
people’s drives)
• cars parked in restricted areas (such as disabled spaces)
• cars parked along the pavement, making this unusable for people with wheelchairs and pushchairs.
The obstructive parking leads to blocked visibility at junctions, leading to safety concerns. This can only be
exacerbated if there is an increased demand from c 50 more cars.
Annex 2 provides photographic evidence of this type of parking, taken during March 2022. (This is further evidenced
by the Parking Beat Data included in Appendix G of the applicant’s Transport Statement.)
1.4.4 Evidence of lack of capacity to absorb more cars
We believe it is the applicant’s responsibility both to identify the amount of parking which may be required and to
demonstrate that the surrounding roads have capacity to absorb any overspill during the times of greatest demand.
Unfortunately, they have done neither.
Therefore, a number of local residents have attempted to provide our own data and evidence to demonstrate the
current lack of parking availability in these roads.
The applicant is proposing five pedestrian entrances around the perimeter of the site. There are 12 residential roads
which fall (either fully or partially) within 150m of one of these entrances, which forms a significant area. We
obviously do not have the resources to undertake simultaneous surveys of the whole area ourselves, or to
commission an independent survey. However, we have undertaken a number of different surveys which together
demonstrate the density of parking and lack of spaces throughout a typical day and week.
Two 1-hour surveys of the whole area
A resident has undertaken two surveys of the entire area, at approximately the same time on two separate mornings
in March, in which any available spaces were counted. This was evidenced by photographing all cars parked in the
roads. It took an hour to get round all the roads, so the available spaces were those found over the course of this
hour, and not necessarily all available concurrently. These two surveys showed
• 6 spaces during the hour on 24th March
• 5 spaces during the hour on 28th March.
1-week survey of each road
A number of residents of the surrounding roads have undertaken surveys of the parking situation in their own area,
supported by photographs, and we have collated the results in this submission. The results show a week in March
for each road (with one count a day). The number of spaces available for each road were as shown below. (NB, due
to residents’ differing availability, these were not all taken during the same week or at the same time of day; the
numbers are not intended to show concurrent availability, but to demonstrate the typical lack of availability in each
individual road.)
Road Weekday spaces available Mon, Tues, Wed, Thurs, Fri
Average avail. weekday spaces
Weekend spaces available Saturday, Sunday
Westbury Park 0,1,0,0,0 0.2 3,0
Clay Pit Road 0,0,0,0,0 0 1,1
Belvedere Road 0,1,1,0,1 0.6 10,3
The Glen 0,0,3,0,1 0.8 7,4
Bayswater Avenue 0,1,2,1,1 1.0 6,7
St Helena Road 1,1,1,0,0 0.6 0,1
Ladysmith Road 0,0,1,0,0 0.2 0,0
Florence Park 1,0,0,0,0 0.2 0,0
Etloe Road 1,0,0,0,0 0.2 -,2
Queen Victoria Road 1,-,4,0,- 1.7 -,-
Royal Albert Road 1,2,2,2,0 1.4 6,7
Redland Road 0,0,0,0,0 0 0,0
There were also cars parked obstructively in most of these roads when the surveys were undertaken, suggesting
that when those cars arrived there were no valid spaces.
Further details of surveys
Annex 3 explains the methods used and includes the detailed data from each road, showing the date/time that it
was surveyed and the number of spaces available at that time, as well as the concurrent obstructive parking. There
is photographic evidence supporting each count.
The results of the surveys indicate that there were sometimes 1 or 2 spaces in some of the roads. This is not
surprising, as cars obviously come and go throughout the day, and there will be spaces available for a short period
before another car arrives. However, it is the cars searching these roads for the limited spaces which cause the
additional traffic and road safety issues, and this can only increase with the additional c50 cars connected to St
Christophers.
1.5 Loss of car parking spaces on Westbury Park and The Glen
The map on Transport Statement Page 36 indicates an increase in double yellow lines and “raised tables”
along Westbury Park and Royal Albert Road. It appears that these will reduce the available road-side
parking in these roads, although unfortunately the applicant has not made this clear.
The map also shows a new double yellow line at the end of The Glen, which would remove one parking
space (by No. 15 The Glen).
Although this would be likely to be subject to a separate TRO, it should be expected that the need for this,
and the effect on surrounding roads of a further reduction in publicly available spaces, would be
considered with this application, so that the net impact on local parking can be considered in its entirety.
The above sections make clear that there is already insufficient parking capacity to absorb the likely
overspill of the site. A further reduction in spaces, due to new parking restrictions, would increase the
problems even further.
Overall, we ask that the current application is updated to confirm exactly how many existing on-road
parking spaces would be lost due to the proposed development, and that the impact of this is considered
along with the additional parking requirements.
2 The proposed new access at The Glen – for all vehicular traffic to the rear of the site - will increase
road safety issues and exacerbate existing parking stresses.
2.1 Creation of a new access point at The Glen will exacerbate current road safety issues in The Glen
and Belvedere Road
The applicant is proposing to create a new entrance to the site from The Glen, for cars, pedestrians and
emergency vehicles. This is proposed to be the only vehicular access point to the rear of the site, ie the
closest access point for:
• 24 Apartments in Block D
• 4 rear so-called “cottages”
• Urban Village Hall, proposed for community and SEND use
Their claims (Travel Plan 3.1.5 and Transport Statement 2.3) that “There is also a gated access from The
Glen” are misleading. The gate referred to was only allowed to be used during the construction phase of
a previous application (02/00500/F/N and 02/00501/LC/N). The applicant at the time stated in a letter to
BCC (Mr McCamphill), dated 3/4/02, "Once the work is finished the access will be sealed.... The Glen
entrance cannot and will not be used even when we develop the North House" and subsequently a
condition of the approval (SC44) was that "Means of vehicular access to the permitted building after
construction shall be from the main entrance of Carisbrooke Lodge, Westbury Park only" and this
condition was complied with.
The applicant now proposes to fundamentally change this, by opening up a new entrance to the site from
The Glen. They state this would be used for parking spaces and emergency access for fire appliances.
It appears that this would be used to provide 9 parking spaces22, of which at least 2 would be unallocated23,
so would lead to visitors using this access speculatively. A double yellow line would be placed alongside
15 The Glen, removing one of the existing on-street parking spaces in the road.
Creating a new access on The Glen will increase traffic and road safety hazards in The Glen and Belvedere
Road, which are already known to exist due to their location on the edge of the Cotham North residents
parking zone and the additional traffic created by the three nursing homes on Belvedere Road and assisted
living homes on The Glen.
Furthermore, the proposed access by fire appliances is not feasible, for the reasons stated below.
While we welcome the removal of the Etloe Road parking entrance, we maintain our originally stated
position that there should be no access from the rear of the site; instead there should be internal vehicular
access provided through the site from the main Westbury Park entrance, removing the need for new
access points to be created from existing residential roads.
2.1.1 Lack of feasibility of access by fire appliances
The Fire Tender Tracking Plan on Page 68 of the Transport Statement shows that the access would not
currently be feasible for the following reasons:
• The plan of The Glen omits to show the cars parked each side of the road. It is clear from the proposed
entrance angle that the fire appliance could not enter the site if there are any cars parked on the right-
hand side of The Glen, ie between Nos. 12 and 14, as is always the case;
• There is no turning space in the car park, so any fire appliance would need to reverse back down The
Glen. This is contrary to the direction from the TDM (1st August 2022) that “Swept path analysis must
22 Plan on Page 68 of Transport Statement 23 Transport Statement 5.8
be provided for a fire tender to demonstrate that it can safely access the site and turn around and
emerge in a forward gear from the main vehicular access points on Westbury Road, as well as the
emergency access point on The Glen.”;
• Any badly parked cars in the proposed new car park would prevent the fire appliance from entering,
meaning that it would have to park in The Glen, blocking houses and access;
• The plan does not show the whole of The Glen, including the corners with the entrance from
Belvedere Road, which are frequently blocked by parked cars, so it is not clear whether a fire appliance
would be able to access The Glen at all, particularly with the frequent blockages of Belvedere Road
described in 2.1.4 below.
If it is necessary for fire appliances to be able to approach Block D, the Urban Village Hall, and the rear
“cottages” more closely than the current internal road allows, it is clear that the internal roads need to be
extended to provide this access from the Westbury Park entrance, since access from The Glen would be
infeasible for the reasons above.
If, however, the applicant continues with the current plans, access by fire appliances will only be possible
with the removal of up to 6 on-street parking spaces from The Glen (and possibly more around the corners
with Belvedere Road and Blenheim Road). This has not been identified by the applicant, and would
significantly exacerbate the current parking stresses, as described below.
2.1.2 Issues caused by new vehicle and pedestrian access
Problems would be caused by the proposed vehicular and pedestrian access due to the following:
• The existence of the access will increase the volume of cars travelling down The Glen and Belvedere
Road searching for spaces to park. Even if some of the spaces are allocated to the “cottages”, it will
be difficult to prevent other cars trying to use this entrance to look for parking, particularly as at least
two spaces will be unallocated;
• If cars enter through this access point, but find they cannot park, they are likely to seek to park in The
Glen or Belvedere Road, which already suffers from a high level of over demand, as evidenced
elsewhere in this statement;
• Pedestrian access through this entrance will also encourage residents, staff and visitors to use The
Glen and Belvedere Road for overflow parking, particularly for the neighbouring blocks of flats.
Section 1 of this statement makes it clear that 65 on-site spaces will not be enough for all users of the
site, and Travel Plan 1.2.2 states that on-site parking “spaces for residents would be rented/leased,
rather than owned by tenants.” This further incentivises residents to park off-site, and The Glen will
be perceived as free and unrestricted parking, which is actually closer to Block D than most of the on-
site parking. The resulting increased parking demand, and traffic circling looking for spaces, can only
increase the existing road safety issues for all residents and other road users (including children
walking to the nearby Westbury Park Primary School);
• This is supported by the applicant’s own statement that “parking off The Glen is required to allow
equal access to residents of the proposed cottages, who would otherwise have to park on the west
side on the site, a long distance from their front door.”24 The applicant appears to recognise that
residents will prefer to park close to their own dwelling. This equally applies to residents of the 24
apartments in Block B; however the car park off The Glen only provides 7 standard spaces, which
24 Addendum Planning Statement paragraph 4.52
further supports that most of these residents are likely to try to park in The Glen itself rather than
have to walk the “long distance” to the limited on-site parking in the west of the site;
• The new access from The Glen is the closest vehicular access point to Block D and the rear “cottages”
(28 dwellings), who may therefore also choose to use this for deliveries, taxi pick-up/drop-off, and
ambulance access, further increasing the traffic on this narrow cul-de-sac;
• The new access from The Glen is the closest point to the “Urban Village Hall”, which is proposed for
use by the community and possibly SEND provision. This has no allocated parking on-site, (apart from
two unallocated wheelchair spaces in the new car park accessed from The Glen, which cannot be
guaranteed to be free), which will clearly encourage external users of this facility to try to park in The
Glen/Belvedere Road, increasing the parking demand still further; it will also encourage The Glen to
be used as a drop-off point, particularly for those with mobility issues;
• There is no turning space in the proposed car park (which is specifically excluded from the Mercedes
Benz tracking plan on Page 65 of the Transport Statement). If cars are parked in all available spaces,
cars will need to reverse out of the entrance, into The Glen, which will cause further safety hazards in
the road.
Furthermore, the applicant has not justified the need for access for either cars or pedestrians:
• Section 2.1.1 of this statement makes it clear that an internal road will need to be created to allow
fire appliances to access the rear “cottages”, which should then also be used for accessing any
parking at the rear of the site, for both the “cottages” and the Urban Village Hall, removing the
need for access from The Glen.
• Throughout the consultation process the applicant promised that pedestrian access would only
be provided if seen as a benefit by the local community (in initial meetings with residents of
neighbouring streets, and in the second webinar on 20th January 2022). However, an analysis of
all feedback included in the applicant’s “Statement of Community Involvement Part 3” shows that
there was significantly more opposition to the pedestrian gateway (for the reasons given in
Section 2.1.2 above) than support (which was limited to a small number of comments primarily
about providing public access to the site). Notably, in a poll of all residents of The Glen and
Belvedere Road (61 households, more than 100 residents), who would be most likely to benefit
from any “improved connectivity”, no resident stated a desire or support for the access, while
many residents raised the concerns outlined in this section. This feedback was submitted to the
applicant (and BCC) in January 2022.
2.1.3 Lack of capacity to remove parking spaces and increase net demand
It is clear that the proposed access will result in the loss of at least one on-street parking space (outside
15 The Glen) and potentially several more, if it were to be made accessible for fire appliances. We are
grateful that BCC has previously recognised and acknowledged that a loss of on-street parking spaces
cannot be approved for safety reasons. In particular:
• On 28th November 2022, BCC recommended refusal of planning application BCC 22/01529/F “on
the basis of the impact upon highway safety resulting from a lack of available parking in the area.”
They commented “The proposed development would increase parking demand in an area which
already exhibits significant parking stress” and that “this would encourage inconsiderate or unsafe
parking and increase conflict between two-way movements.”
• Two other recent planning applications – 19/93194/F and 20/06030/F – were rejected due to the
additional parking demands they would place on The Glen and Belvedere Road, and the impact
on road safety. Additionally, the report from the Planning Inspectorate in response to an appeal
on 19/93194/F upheld the Council's decision, summarising that "I found that parking is at a
premium, which is currently causing significant hazards for all users of the highway."
• An earlier application, reference 19/01251/H, for 3 The Glen would have resulted in a net
reduction of 1 on-road parking space (with no increased demand). Permission was refused on the
grounds of highway safety, with the TDM stating, “This would be a net loss in an area where there
is already over demand for parking spaces and would increase the risk of motorists parking in a
dangerous manner. The application is thus recommended for refusal on the grounds of highway
safety.”
Any reduction in spaces, and any likelihood of increased demand, arising from the new access point, will
exacerbate the existing issues, and should not be approved for the same reasons.
(All above comments are taken from documents to be found on the BCC Planning Portal.)
2.1.4 Safety issues resulting from parking pressures
The existing road safety issues on these roads are well known, but to summarise:
• Cars are frequently parked dangerously and obstructively in both The Glen and Belvedere Road
(linking The Glen to Westbury Park). Annex 2 (pages 2 – 6) provides photographic evidence of the
frequent dangerous parking on junctions, which results in reduced visibility, increasing the risk to
pedestrians. The stresses are further evidenced by the frequency of PCNs issued in Belvedere Road.
In 2021 there were 85 PCNs issued on Belvedere Road, with one or more PCN being issued on 45% of
the traffic warden’s visits25. Even for Westbury Park this is high (for comparison, in the same
timeframe there were no PCNs issued in Royal Albert Road, which is parallel, close-by, and a similar
length).
• The Glen is a cul-de-sac with no turning space, so cars frequently reverse down the road, past the
junction with Belvedere Road, where visibility is often obstructed by cars parked on the corners.
Belvedere Road is regularly blocked by ambulances and delivery vehicles visiting the three nursing
homes, which similarly leads to vehicles reversing back down it, on to The Glen. These factors already
lead to significant safety concerns in both roads. Annex 4 provides photos taken in recent months of
the frequent blockages in Belvedere Road.
All of this will be made significantly worse by the overspill of another c50 cars circling the roads trying to
find spaces. The additional access via The Glen will focus more of this overspill traffic on to The Glen and
Belvedere Road, as well as increasing the amount of traffic reversing down The Glen.
25 FOI request 23900191
2.2 Applicant’s failure to abide by commitments made during Consultation Process
The primary concerns in this statement were first raised in meetings with Amicala held in July 2021, and
the applicant provided a number of key assurances. Minutes of the meeting were provided on 15th July
2021 and included in the applicant’s Statement of Community Involvement Part 3 Pages 160-161 (Page
85-86 of PDF).
Unfortunately, following months of so-called consultation, the current application is actually worse in
these key areas than the original concept, demonstrated by the following quotes from those minutes:
Amicala stated Residents stated Current Plans
Parking There will be parking on-site - approximately 1 space per unit (ie a total of around 120 spaces).
There appears a severe risk of parking over-spilling into nearby roads, which would be a major concern.
Parking spaces reduced to 65, equivalent to 0.56 spaces per unit.
Vehicular access from The Glen
there will be no vehicular access from The Glen
The Glen now proposed to provide all vehicular access to the rear block, “cottages” and Urban Village Hall.
Pedestrian access from The Glen
There could be pedestrian access from The Glen – however, this was only suggested in response to a perception that this may be seen as a benefit for the community, and is not a requirement for Amicala
If there is pedestrian access from The Glen to the site, this significantly increases the risk that staff and visitors will use The Glen/Belvedere Road as overflow parking… our feedback is that pedestrian access to The Glen should not be included in the development plans
Opening the community facilities to the public … also carries the risk of further visitors to the site wanting to park in the local roads.
Pedestrian access from The Glen is planned, together with an Urban Village Hall adjacent to this with no parking allocation or consideration
It is difficult to understand the applicant’s claims to have responded positively to feedback, when all these
key changes have been implemented in direct opposition to the feedback received.
Annexes
The following annexes to this statement can be found as part of our original submission.
• Annex 1 – Road Safety Survey
• Annex 2 – Obstructive Parking
• Annex 3 – Parking Surveys
The following Annex 4 provides photos taken in recent months of the frequent road blockages in
Belvedere Road (leading from Westbury Park to The Glen), due to ambulances and delivery vehicles
visiting the existing nursing homes.
Original JPEGs of all photos (in all annexes), with date/time stamps, are available on request.
ANNEX 4 – ROAD BLOCKAGES IN BELVEDERE ROAD
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds – Annex 4: Road Blockages on Belvedere Road
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
● the entrance for vehicles and pedestrians, and main access point to the UrbanVillage Hall, will increase the likelihood The Glen being used for overspill parkingas well as a drop-off point, thereby increasing road safety issues andexacerbating existing parking stresses on The Glen and Belvedere Road;
● the access for fire appliances appears unfeasible without the removal of on-streetparking on The Glen, which would further exacerbate the parking stresses.
This is addressed in Section 2, which is almost entirely new.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The proposed development of the site will have a significant, negative bearing on the immediateneighbourhood which is already very congested. Having recently moved to the area we areconscious of the high level of traffic on the roads nearby: Etloe Road, Bayswater Avenue andRoyal Albert Road in particular. With the proposed plan there will be spaces for 65 cars for thenew residents of the 116 living spaces - and, in addition, their visitors. Both traffic and noise levelswill consequently increase. The health and safety aspect impact on two nearby nurseries, oneprimary school and all local residents will be profound. These local roads at rush hours/dropoff/pick-up times are often overrun with cars. Even more vehicles will potentially create ahazardous zone, with accidents waiting to happen, that should be avoided at all cost. Myobjections, furthermore, concern the visual impact of the proposed site. At present there is awonderful array of ancient trees, the sight of which brings great pleasure to many. The proposedplan includes the removal of several of these. Their loss will not only have a detrimental effectvisually but also on the environment.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The comment we submitted last year objecting to the original application still applies tothis revised application as it is not in any substantive way different from the original. Therefore theapplication should still be refused based on those objections. Furthermore, with reference to therevised application, the changes that have been made are purely cosmetic and despite thedeveloper claiming in their glossy brochure delivered to local residents and in their press releasesthat they have taken on board community feedback, all they have done is a bit of window-dressing, making a small number of tiny changes without addressing the fundamental problemsthat the proposed development poses.
Their claim that the development will now be smaller and less visible is risible - four multi-storeyapartment blocks on this site would still constitute inappropriately dense and imposingdevelopment. The reduction in the number of proposed units is minimal in the extreme - 116 unitsis a huge number to be squeezing onto this site.
The alleged community benefit of an "urban village hall" carries no weight - the site is within astone's throw of two church halls and a school hall all of which are used frequently for communityevents.
The developers have failed to address in any substantive way the road traffic and parkingproblems that will ensue by building almost 120 housing units with parking space for only half ofthem, never mind the impact of staff, visitor and delivery vehicles. When the site has been used forNHS vaccinations recently people have been parking on yellow lines, dropped kerbs and on the
grass of the Downs itself. Westbury Park has become gridlocked with drivers struggling to passeach other. The removal of the Etloe Road access is welcome but the opening up of The Glenaccess will worsen the already difficult access problems on The Glen and Belvedere Road.Deliveries and ambulance visits to the care homes on Belvedere Road mean it is already blockedseveral times daily, even without the addition of new traffic and parking demand.
The argument that the revised plans will actually improve biodiversity is completely specious. Thebiodiversity on site is long established. Building multi-story apartment blocks will only destroy it.
This site is not appropriate for this degree of development, the massing for four multi-storey blockswould be overly imposing and deleterious to the local area. The claimed reduction in size of theblocks is ridiculous, given it relates to a change of less than 300mm in the height of only one of theblocks. The proposed development is too big, too densely-packed and entirely inappropriate forthis site.
We urge councillors to refuse this application for the reasons we have given in our originalcomment and those stated above.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The amendments to the plans are negligible and do very little to reduce the overallexcessive overdevelopment of the site that is proposed. The size of the buildings and theirarchitectural design are disproportionate and out of place in the existing surrounding buildings andthe number of individual apartments being constructed will lead to over-population creatingexcessive traffic; noise; excessive offsite parking and infrastructure problems (eg deliveries, sitemaintenance, staffing, rubbish collection etc). As a wheelchair user it is already virtually impossibleto navigate from Westbury Road to Heleaze becaue of pacement parking; illegal double yellow lineparking; parking over dropped kerbs etc, all of which I report to council/ police and which isignored. Creating an entire new development with insufficient parking will hugely impact on safetyand movement of pedestrians; wheelchair users; pushchairs and children in this small residentialarea. the highway safety issues will be signficant.The destruction of hugely valued and valuable trees and openspace is equally disastrous for thearea both in terms of nature conservation, wildlife and climate change, and aesthetically. Thebuilding of these monstrosities, on this scale is not necessary and should not proceed. There isalready overprovision of expensive 'retirement' properties in the area with the Vincent (which has agreat many unsold apartments still) and the St Monica's devt. This proposal does nothing toaddress the serious shortage of genuinely accessible and affordable housing in the city and issimply for the proposed financial gain of overseas investors. It is not a necessary, useful ordesirable amenity for the area.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continues to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before with the following additions, since the minor amendments have been made.1) OVER DEVELOPMENT IN A RESTRICTED SITE - Reduction of 6 units is very minor and notworth the hassle!!2) PRIVACY WITHIN A HERITAGE SITE - Tall blocks of flats harm the Victorian houses withblocking out light, loss of privacy etc. as well as lack of privacy to Westbury Park School &adjacent nursery.3) TRAVEL CHAOS - Narrow roads & car parking are already a safety hazard without furthertraffic adding to this dilemma.4) CAR PARKING - Totally inadequate car parking provision within development, adding toexisting blocked car parking on surrounding roads.5) NO DETAILED OVERVIEW PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROVIDED - only artists' impressionwhich DISTORT THE TRUTH!!
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I sent in my objections to the original planning application. Nothing has changed topersuade me that this is Ill conceived, out of synch with the surrounding area, lacking in affordablehousing etc. it will be a monstrosity if it ever gets that far. It will cause a Massive overspill on tolocal roads where parking is already a huge problem. You will be failing in your civic duty if thisdisastrous plan ever sees the light of day.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
My objections submitted for the original planning application still stand.I hope this development will be refused because it will overdevelop a key site in a way which is outof character with this Conservation area. The loss of up to 40 percent of mature trees, increasedtraffic and multiple parking needs of residents, carers and visitors will significantly affect ourneighbourhood.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The new plans provide vehicular access from The Glen - this is the only vehicularaccess to the rear of the site, as the internal roads from the WP entrances only lead to the frontblocks of flats. This will lead to congestion in Belvede Rd and The Glen. Not acceptable.
There is also a new proposed "Urban Village Hall" next to and accessed from the end of The Glen,which has only 2 (disabled) parking spaces allocated. This is intended for community and SENDactivities, which is likely to lead all external visitors to try to park on The Glen and Belvedere Rd.again leading to congestion on an already busy road for parking. We can't park as it is.
The access is also intended for fire engines needing to access the rear of the site. However, this isnot possible without removing at least 6 parking spaces from the end of The Glen. (The applicanthas not mentioned this, but it is clear from the detailed plans.). We can not lose more car parkingspaces and large vehicles get stuck on our road already so to get rid of spaces on the corners stilldon't work.
As it will be the only access point to the rear of the site, it is also likely to be used by deliveryvehicles and ambulances for the rear blocks of flats and cottages, although they will have toactually park in The Glen. We already get blocks on the road from ambulances and deliveries. Thenew project will make this situation worse.
The new car park reached from The Glen has a further 7 spaces intended for residents, which isevidently not enough for all the occupants of the adjacent large block of flats, as well as the rearcottages. This is likely to encourage residents who don't have a space to park in The Glen orBelvedere Rd and walk through. It may also lead to staff and visitors for the rear blocks trying touse it, and then circling and parking on TG or BR if they can't find a space.
Finally this is all in the context of a continued shortfall of on-site parking (65 spaces for residents,staff, carers and visitors for 116 apartments), which will lead to overspill on all surrounding roads,but a particular issue for The Glen and Belvedere Road, due to the accessibility and proximity tothe rear apartment block and cottages. This is not a realistic proposal or acceptable.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The revised proposals remain unacceptable. The development, in its excessive height,massing and bulk, is quite simply out of character within the Conservation Area which will suffersignificant damage as a result. This will be most obviously felt in the extensive loss of greenspace, trees and natural habitat as well as damage to the setting of the Grade 2 listed GraceHouse. Particularly striking is the lack of affordable housing, not to mention inadequate parkingprovision for the 116 housing units proposed.
Perhaps most shocking is the fact that the SEND provision of the former St Christopher's -desperately under-resourced in Bristol - is being sacrificed to luxury dwellings and developergreed.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The revised plan in no way adresses the comments I previously made on my lastobjection, which still stand.
There are no where near enough parking spaces, thus pushing more cars onto the alreadycrowded streets around the development.
The buildings are still too high, so will dwarf the houses surrounding it. The massing is still aconsiderable issue.
The amenity space that is described is too vague and not suitable for SEN from a safeguardingpoint of view.
Trees will still be chopped down and this won't lessen the eyesore that is being proposed whichdoes not blend into the housing stock nearby.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The revised application only minimally addresses the extensive concerns raisedpreviously. This includes critical issues of SEND provision, retention of mature trees (despite Inote the increased biodiversity statement), access (noting concerns on previous rejected planningapplications for changed access to driveways in The Glen), parking (a reduction of only 6 unitsdoes not alleviate any of these concerns), and the overall scale of the development.
I note and appreciate the changes to access via Bayswater Avenue but the provision for parkingremains insufficient. I do not consider the comparator planning applications sufficiently similar tomerit real comparison.
The "Urban Village Hall" is an unnecessary duplication of existing local provision and will onlycompound traffic problems.
The revised proposals request a development that remains too dense, too large (especially inheight), and out of keeping with the surrounding area. I note that most comments focus on parkingbut the other critical areas raised previous objections have not been sufficiently addressed.
As just one example, I note and would echo the comments from Historic England that "the revisedmasterplan would not result in a meaningful reduction in the impact and harm caused to thesetting of this listed building".
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The area does not require further retirement living as it already benefits from substantialamounts located in and around Redland/Downs.
The traffic is already an issue with the white tree roundabout being a major issue during peak rushhours, and parking is non existent in many streets.
The scale of the proposed development in relation to its surroundings is unjustifiable as in no waydoes five storeys sit or match the context/character of the area. The only building it can relate to isthe 70's era blocks of flats situated on Durdham park road (arguably one of the worstdevelopments within the local area).
I would just like to state that in now way am I against the redevelopment of this site, I simplybelieve there is a better use and design to be made.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
It's unacceptable that these buildings should be built at such a height as to ruin thevisual aspect in this beautiful old neighbourhood and impact on the wild area of the downs. Thereare far too few parking spaces planned and the increased volume of cars will contribute roadaccidents, traffic jams and pollution. A development of this magnitude would be driven by onething alone -capitalist greed with no thought for existing residents or the environment.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The revised plans for the development of the former St Christopher's School site havedone nothing to address the concerns of local residents. Whilst I understand, accept and welcomedevelopment, I strongly disagree with how the site is proposed to be developed. This area isalready heavily populated with multi people dwellings. There are already enough flats for people ofretirement age in the area. What there is not enough of is parking spaces for the residents whoalready live in this area. Westbury Park is already filled up with commuters parking who are tryingto avoid nearby resident parking zones. There are many businesses and schools locally that alsoincrease the number of people seeking to park on the heavily congested roads. This is all in starkcontrast to local green policy to reduce emissions and promote Bristol as a sustainable green city.The proposed changes to the site will see massive destruction of vital flora and fauna and changethe skyline permanently. This is not right, what does it say to our young people who have seen avaluable, necessary resource such as St Christopher's School closed and not replaced by anothervitally needed school to support some of the most vulnerable young people in our city. Instead,developers plan to make maximum profit enabling some of the wealthiest people in our society tolive in luxury. I hope that whatever development does take place on this site ensures that it hasminimal impact on the local area and uses only the footprint that already exists, thereby preservingthe beauty of the buildings and the vegetation that has existed on the St Christopher's site formany years. Thank you.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
There are far too many homes for the number of parking spaces available. Parking isalready almost impossible in the local area, this will only make it worse.The buildings are far too high in the area, the reductions proposed by the developer are trivial.Too many protected trees are going to be felled.The proposals for an 'Urban Village Hall' are vague, probably are illegal from a safe guardingperspective.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
It's disappointing to see such minimal changes to the original plan even though theirtone tries to suggest to us that they have done so much to rethink it. To me it shows that they haveignored all the concerns. I imagine that their only priority is making money as their plans show solittle care for the environment or the community.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The main objections to this development still remain.
1. Over-development. No real change it is still too big, too dense and too high. There are only 6fewer homes - this is not going to improve the situation.
2. Loss of trees and wildlife. There are still too many mature trees going to be chopped down.
3 Traffic - not enough parking spaces which will lead to overspill and road safety hazards andparking chaos. Six fewer homes won't change the situation.
4. The loss of SEND provision is an insult to the 70 years legacy of special needs education onthis site.
5. Harm to heritage. The scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and disregardsthe fact that this is a designated conservation area. The proposed building is a monstrosity and istotally out of character with the surrounding area. This will alter the character of the area.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The main objections to this development still remain.
1. Over-development. No real change it is still too big, too dense and too high. There are only 6fewer homes - this is not going to improve the situation.
2. Loss of trees and wildlife. There are still too many mature trees going to be chopped down.
3 Traffic - not enough parking spaces which will lead to overspill and road safety hazards andparking chaos. Six fewer homes won't change the situation.
4. The loss of SEND provision is an insult to the 70 years legacy of special needs education onthis site.
5. Harm to heritage. The scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and disregardsthe fact that this is a designated conservation area. The proposed building is a monstrosity and istotally out of character with the surrounding area. This will alter the character of the area.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I want to object to the plans because the proposed development is still too big, toodense & too high
Loss of Trees and Wildlife - still too many trees being chopped down and not serious plans toreplace trees. How do you replace an old tree with a sapling - simply not comparable or seriouslike for like possible.
Traffic - not enough parking spaces leading to overspill and road safety hazards
Loss of SEND provision - derisory offer of shared use of a room is an insult to the 70 years legacyof special needs education on this site. This is a community asset and much needed. There js alegal requirement to provide adequate school provision for children which the council is currentlyfailing across the board.
Harm to Heritage - the scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and disregardsthe fact that this is a designated Conservation Area.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The revised proposal fails to adequately address any of the previously raised concerns.
The proposed scheme will have a detrimental impact on traffic, road safety and parking in thearea. Any proposed development should have adequate on-site parking for all residents, as wellas staff, visitors and tradespeople during construction work. Vehicle and pedestrian access shouldonly be allowed from the existing site entrance (not Bayswater Avenue or The Glen).
The proposed development will also have a negative impact on nature and wildlife as severalmature trees will be lost and high density buildings added. There is already extensive similaraccommodation in the area, this site should not be overdeveloped and the majority of trees andgreen space should be retained. The developers have not given any real consideration to theinfrastructure, safety and conservation of the local area and the surrounding Downs.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The changes to this application are insignificant so my concerns are as they were lastyear, namely:
Whilst, undoubtedly, accommodation for older people is needed across the city, very few of themwould be able to afford to live in 'luxury' so, yet another enclave for the rich would be created.
There is also no doubt that there is a SEND crisis in Bristol, such that many children are either athome/off-roll or at school far from where they live. This is an education site and should be used tomeet the needs of these children.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The construction of the planned building, without provision for parking, will turn the Gleninto a multi lane motorway in terms of traffic! This will cause an unacceptable amount of traffic anddisruption to the locals, some of whom are my friends, and the development should be brandedillegal and all involved prosecuted!
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The construction of the planned building, without provision for parking, will turn the Gleninto a multi lane motorway in terms of traffic! This will cause an unacceptable amount of traffic anddisruption to the locals, some of whom are my friends, and the development should be brandedillegal and all involved prosecuted! It is immoral and indecent to approve such a stain on thebeautiful Westbury Park landscape.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The proposed reduction in number of units is insignificant (approx 5%).The 'Villas' are too close together and the large Villa (B) is still far too tall creating a visual eyesoreand are certainly not in keeping with the surrounding area. There is too much development (it istoo cramped) on this site.Too many trees are still proposed to be removed. This site is on The Downs and trees are a vitalpart of the area and its history.Parking remains an enormous problem, both on the site and particularly the risk of overspillparking in The Glen and nearby roads.
In general the proposed changes are insignificant and don't make any substantial alteration to theoriginal proposal; some are merely cosmetic. The scale of the development and its overallappearance are absolutely not sympathetic to the original site. Little attempt has been made totake local materials into account.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The revised planning proposal does not adequately address any of the previously raisedconcerns.
The proposed development is too dense and high and does not have adequate on-site parking forresidents and staff, which will undoubtedly have a detrimental impact on traffic, road safety andparking in the area. The site should not be overdeveloped and the majority of trees and greenspace should be retained.
The developers have only submitted token revisions with no real improvement on the original plan- the planning committee at BCC must insist that amendments are substantial and take intoconsideration the infrastructure, safety and conservation of the local area and the surroundingDowns.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I object to this application. The latest revisions are trivial and superficial - for example,the number of apartments have only been reduced by six. There would still be 116 housing unitsmost of which will be two-bedroomed. And there is still no affordable housing in this revisedapplication--much needed throughout Bristol. The changes are mere window dressing andgreenwash in an effort to appease planning officers. This remains an inappropriate and harmfulapplication.
The massing, height and design (blocks of flats up to five storeys high) is out of the keeping withthe area and will negatively affect views from the Downs Conservation Area, and the Grade IIlisted Grace House on site. This application will alter the character and urban landscape of thisarea. The developer has revised the application by lowering the height of the blocks by just 30cm--this revision is nothing more than cosmetic!
With the revised plans there are still only 65 car parking spaces proposed which means, with 200residents and staff and visitors, there will be a massive overspill of vehicles into surroundingstreets, streets which already suffer from dangerous congestion and pavement parking. Adevelopment that will generate so much traffic cannot make any claim to be 'sustainable'.
The loss of protected and mature trees and green space is also unacceptable in a time of climatecrisis. The existing site is rich in wildlife and biodiversity already and the development will damagethis. It is simply greenwash to say that the development will 'restore local biodiversity'.
I objected to the original application because of the use proposed of a luxury retirement village.Such a use, particularly at this overbearing scale of development, would fundamentally upset anddestabilise the local community, a community made up of a diverse range of life stages. Already inthe immediate surrounding area of Westbury Park there is a plethora of housing provision for oldpeople. We don't need yet more. The developer has not produced a rigorous, independent, studythat demonstrates an acute paucity of retirement housing in Westbury Park that needs addressing.Where there is no argument is that there is an acute shortage of Special needs Educationprovision in North Bristol. I would like to see the site retained for SEND education use.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I am a resident of The Glen and wish to object to this amended application for thedevelopment of land on the St Christopher's School Site.
From the beginning of the community consultations we were reassured by the developers that thesite would not be accessed through The Glen and in this revised design they have gone againsttheir word. As a residents of The Glen I am horrified at the prospect that the road will be used forany access. It is already a dangerous road due to the parking issues we face and this will onlyexacerbate the current issues.
This new proposal would mean that Belvedere rd and The Glen will be subjected to a significantincrease in vehicle movements and an increased pressure on our already ridiculous demand forparking spaces.
Please note The Glen is not a wide road (single car passing only).
The number of parking spaces in the application is totally inadequate. Not all residents may own acar but the developer massively underestimates the amount of vehicle movements that will incurfrom:
Deliveries - medical and personal such as internet shopping, groceries etc.Care givers (Doctors, Chiropodists, Hairdressers, Therapists, Nurses etc)Waste removal
Taxi'sVisitors of those in the site.Ambulances and emergency vehicles.Maintenance Vehicles
We live opposite three care homes on Belvedere Rd and are only too familiar with the hugenumber of vehicle movements 'care' developments generate. It has been for these reasons thatwe have successfully won in our objections to any further care development on Belvedere Rd.Developers have submitted three applications since 2019 and all applications have been refusedon the grounds that the infrastructure of our roads just can not support any more commercialdevelopment.
I would consider our roads to already be at breaking point and an accident is inevitable if BCC donot look to resolve the problems we face. Any new development next to The Glen needs to besensitive to this situation and must be able to exist without an impact to the road infrastructure inthe surrounding area.
It is important to note that The Glen is currently adjacent to Cotham North RPS and suffers all ofthe consequences of this in terms of overspill, it is something we are all too familiar with. BCC arealso familiar with this as we have reported countless issues with illegal parking and trafficproblems as well as regular contact with our local councillors Fi Hance and Martin Fodor and outPCSOs. Please note that BCC constantly ticket illegally parked cars on these roads (due toinsufficient parking to meet the demand) so have their own record of the problems we are alreadyfacing.
The St Christophers Site development proposes its own RPS which places The Glen andBelvedere Rd in a sandwich between two RPSs. Any development of the St Christophers Siteneeds to be supported with a new RPS in our roads - an extension of the Cotham north zone sothat we are not impacted from all the inevitable overspill from the site.
The number of units in this development is extortionate and the height of the buildings is totallyunacceptable. This site is part of The Downs Conservation Area and I can not begin to see howthis application fits within the remit of this type of protected land area.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The proposed development of the St Christophers site is completely out of keeping withthe area. The site is within a conservation area, any future plans should compliment thesurrounding buildings and environment the plans that have been submitted currently despite beingrevised do not in any way give consideration to their surroundings. As a resident I struggle on adaily basis to find parking on my road if the current plan was to go ahead with such a huge numberof people living in the new development, it would cause a massive negative impact on already adifficult parking situation. I love living in Westbury Park because of the green spaces and trees,why on earth would a development like this which was asked to be landscape led even beenconsidered? 40% of trees to be felled is a crime. I would like to know why a plan that is morecommunity and landscape sensitive has not been submitted where rental and market prices canbe raised to make the revenue required to make the development acceptable to the community.Do not accept a 'stack em high' approach that will be a blight on the area, find a new plan thatdemands quality.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I am a regular visitor to The Glen as I have family who reside there.
In response to this application I would like to raise the following points:
The Glen already has a huge problem with parking. Whenever I visit I have to park several roadsaway and as I am elderly this makes seeing my family extremely difficult. There appears to bemany more cars tarrying to park on this road than those who are owned by the residents. Thereare several commercial businesses on the road and surrounding roads as well as a large primaryschool on a neighbouring road, all of which bring in a large number of cars. These roads alsoborder a residents parking scheme so suffer from all the overspill of those not wishing to pay topark.
I can not see how access to this site from The Glen would work seeing as the road isn't wide andis currently often congested and blocked. There are a large number of commercial vehicles whotry to access the three large care homes on belvedere road meaning the roads are grid locked.
This application looks to threaten the privacy of residents homes on The Glen due to the vastheight of the proposed buildings.
I am alarmed at the number of trees this application looks to remove.
I ask BCC to reject this application.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
Not nearly enough significant alterations made from the previous proposal and wish tostrongly oppose the newly proposed vehicle access through the Glen, completely changing thesafety of the road and further adding to the substantial parking/traffic problems we have alreadyhad increasing here over the last few years. The amount of vehicle access/movement as a resultof this development is still vastly underestimated. The plans still don't go nearly far enough toaddress the impact of this development on the trees and wildlife in the area either.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I am writing to object against this horrible plan for the St Christophers site which is in noway in keeping with any of the architecture of the local area. The proposed building will be a blighton the landscape. This will be very damaging to our local environment. I cannot believe they arealso proposing to cut down 40% of the trees in a time when we are trying to plant more trees andhave more green spaces. The lack of parking being provided on site for the number of peoplewhich will be living there, will add to the existing daily struggles of being able to park on my ownroad which is difficult enough already. Social sustainability in planning is so important, and as faras I can see no great thought has been put into this current plan a new plan needs to be put inplace where heritage preservation and the built environment can be enriched by the naturalenvironment and can enhance the cultural and economic prosperity of the area.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
My main concern is that fact that the number of spaces available for parking on the siteare not sufficient for the number of residents and number of workers, visitors and traders who willvisit the site. Although not a solution, I would like the council to consider the option of introducing aRPZ across Westbury Park. There are enough spaces for residents already, the main cause ofreduced spaces is the additional influx of cars daily, of those who are parking and walking intotown or using buses to avoid paying for parking. The RPZ could be funded using section 106funds from the developer. This is a complex issue, and RPZ won't on its own solve the traffic andparking challenge, it would need to be seen alongside improvements to public transport. It doesstrike me as strange that many residents in Westbury Park have many cars per residence but willobject to more cars being introduced - where are older people going to live if they cannot live inthe areas they grow old in.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I still strongly object to this development, it is completely out of character for a muchloved conservation area, overwhelming in proportion, too dense, too big and too tall with absurdlyfew changes to the original application:* Loss of 40% of trees on site and local wildlife* Additional traffic in an already congested area leading tofurther health and safety hazards for the community* Not enough parking spaces, increasing congestion* Loss of much needed Special Educational Needs Provision-derisory offer fails to adequately address Bristol's growingSEND crisis.* Harm to Heritage - the scheme is totally out of character withour neighbourhood and this precious Conservation Area.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I object to this revised plan as I believe it will greatly increase traffic and thereforepollution. This concerns me as a parent and with having a primary school nearby. Parking isalready an issue in the area and this development will only worsen that.Loss of trees/wildlife- this will be a great shame.It is not in keeping with the area. It will be very imposing.Loss of a much needed SEND provision.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I object to these revised plans because they do not reflect the considerable feedbackprovided and continue to mean the site:- will result in a negative impact on the environment- will create issues with traffic and parking which will negatively impact safety particular withrespect of the primary school and nurseries that are right next to the site.- does not provide any affordable housing or adequate SEN provision.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
After reviewing the revised details for the planning application, my previous objectionremains firmly extant.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The changes to the application do not sufficiently address my original concerns,therefore please note my previous objection.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:
. I would like to register my strong objection to the current
slightly revised planning application and I urge you to reject it and to instruct the developer to
come forward with a significantly revised and more sympathetic scheme. My grounds for objecting
are as follows:
1. The Development Will Significantly Impact Parking and Highway Safety.
The parking problems in this area are well known and, in particular, the problems in the Glen and
Belvedere Road. These roads have significant parking and highway safety issues as this area is
on the edge of the resident parking zone and is used as a park and ride scheme into town as well
as by the staff working at the care homes in Belvedere Road (which have no parking of their own)
and the delivery drivers and ambulances that regularly attend these businesses and frequently
block the roads. These issues have previously led to the rejection of planning applications for an
extension of the Glenview Care Home in Belvedere Road (20/06030/F) and even a proposal for a
single off-road parking space (19/01251/H) was rejected with the following comments from the
Transport Development Manager: "The application would create one off street parking space and
the loss of up to two on-street parking spaces. This would be a net loss in an area where there is
already over demand for parking spaces and would increase the risk of motorists parking in a
dangerous manner. The application is thus recommended for refusal on the grounds of highway
safety." The proposed development should be rejected in-line with these precedents because:
1.1 Lack of On-Site Parking
The proposed development has very limited on-site parking for the residents and staff (65 places
for 116 units). This will inevitably lead to significant overspill parking in the surrounding roads and
make the current problems significantly worse.
1.2 Vehicular Access from Glen
The revised proposal is now even worse than the original proposal as it has vehicular access from
the Glen. This should not be allowed for the following reasons:
- This access will be the only vehicular access to the rear of the site and will significantly increase
traffic in Belvedere Road and the Glen and will be used by delivery vehicles and ambulances for
the rear blocks of flats and cottages, although they will have to actually park in The Glen.
- There is a new proposed "Urban Village Hall" next to and accessed from the end of The Glen,
which has only 2 (disabled) parking spaces allocated. This is intended for community and SEND
activities, which is likely to lead all external visitors to try to park on The Glen and Belvedere Rd.
- The new car park reached from The Glen has a further 7 spaces intended for residents, which is
evidently not enough for all the occupants of the adjacent large block of flats, as well as the rear
cottages. This is likely to encourage residents who don't have a space to park in The Glen or
Belvedere Rd and walk through. It may also lead to staff and visitors for the rear blocks trying to
use it and then circling and parking on The Glen or Belvedere Road if they can't find a space.
1.3 Emergency Vehicle Access from the Glen.
In addition to refusing general vehicular access from The Glen emergency vehicle access should
also be refused. The Glen will make a very poor approach road for emergency vehicles due to the
density of parking and it is unnecessary as there will be sufficient access from the existing points
of access at the front of the site. To enable access for fire engines through The Glen at least 6
parking spaces will need to be removed from the end of The Glen which will significantly adversely
affect parking provision and hence highway safety. The applicant has not mentioned the removal
of the parking places in their submission, but it is clear that this will be the case from the detailed
plans.
1.4 Pedestrian Access from the Glen
The proposal contains a plan for pedestrian access from the Glen. This should not be allowed
(even if it is only for residents and staff) as this will further encourage parking in the Glen and
Belvedere Road. This would be made even worse if the public were to be able to use it as a cut
through.
2. Scale of the Development and Effect on the Amenity of the Area
The development is completely out of proportion to the area of land, the high-rise blocks will
overshadow the listed buildings and change the current open and beautiful aspect from the Downs
and surrounding areas and degrade this beautiful part of Bristol which is a key leisure area for the
city. The amendment to the height of one block cannot be considered a significant attempt by the
developer to listen to the many adverse criticisms of the scheme by bodies such as Bristol City
Council Conservation Panel who have called the buildings "overbearing" and saying there's so
little space between them, it'll limit natural light and impact tree growth.
2.1 Privacy. The high-rise residential blocks are far too close to neighbouring properties and will
overshadow and infringe their privacy.
2.2 Environment. The plans will lead to the removal of a significant number of mature tress as well
as open grassy and wild areas and will adversely impact the biodiversity of the area.
3. Lack of SEND Provision
Bristol City Council Education Department have issued a report that disagrees with the findings of
the developer's report on SEND provision and that there will be a shortfall of SEND provision
which needs to be addressed.
For the reasons stated above please reject this application and instruct the developers to listen to
the reasonable criticism that has been made of the scheme and to alter it significantly enough to
align with the needs of the site and residents.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The revised plans have made minimal changes and the original issues remain.
There will still be 4 huge apartment blocks which are out if character with the area, will causeadditional congestion and also do not include any social housing.
I am very concerned about the impact on the trees - especially the felling of the large mature oaktree.
I am very skeptical about the plans to make an area available for the local community - thiscontains no details and is very vague in its wording. Will this be available on days / times that thecommunity want it?
I strongly object to this development and hope the council will vote against this unecessary overdevelopment.
Thanks Melanie
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I object to this revised proposal for the reasons I submitted previously. The onlysubstantive improvement in the proposal - to not have a vehicle entrance on Bayswater Ave. iswelcome.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The reduction of 6 units has done nothing to reduce the dangers caused by the increasein traffic on local parking and roads around the St Christophers site. There are still only 65 parkingspaces for the workers carers, visitors and 116 units (most of which will have two occupants). It isalready difficult and dangerous trying to cross roads with distracted drivers looking for spaces anddelivery services abandoning vehicles at crossing points.Allowing access through the glen is an appalling idea the road is barely able to cope with currentresidents and people looking to park without the extra journey's in and out by site users along anarrow overused residential road.The reduction by one floor of one block is not going to change the overbearing appearance of theamended proposals they still destroy views rip up mature trees and reduce the naturalenvironment within and around the site
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I object to this revised proposal for the reasons I submitted previously. The onlysubstantive improvement in the proposal, to not have a vehicle entrance on Bayswater Avenue, iswelcome.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
Unfortunately it's clear that the plan to squeeze a large number of homes into a smallspace is simply a result of a developer wanting to make as much profit as possible. I have noparticular objection to development of the area generally however the plans need to be drasticallyscaled back. The developers are going to keep marginally reducing their plans to ensuremaximum profit however they need to be given a clear message that the number of residentsproposed in that area is not sustainable. The primary issue in the area is parking, it doesn'tactually affect me as I am part of the residents parking zone, bur I am aware of the parking issuesin the Westbury Park area. Possibly the council should introduce wider residents parking, but untilthat happens you need to ensure that any development is limited to allow for enough on siteparking to accommodate all residents, staff, and visitors. That means fewer residents and more onsite parking in any final proposals.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
I previously submitted an objection to the original plans, and this still stands; there areno changes which have made any meaningful improvement. On the contrary, the applicant hasnow proposed a vehicular, as well as pedestrian, access from The Glen, to be the only vehicularmeans of accessing the rear of the site (24 apartments in Block D, 4 two-storey so-called"cottages" and the "Urban Village Hall").
The on-site parking remains demonstrably insufficient for the needs of this development, and theresulting overspill on to the surrounding roads will increase the current issues with parking stressand road safety. The applicant has provided no meaningful analysis of the likely parking needs ofthe residents, visitors, staff or carers, to support their claim that there will be sufficient parking on-site for all needs. Simply referring to the amount of parking provided in a number of non-comparable supported living schemes (or proposed in other applications which have not evenbeen built) does not do this!
Furthermore, literally hundreds of residents provided comments to the first application describingthe parking issues in the surrounding roads; SCAN also conducted a number of surveys withcomprehensive photographic evidence showing the lack of day-time spaces and the road safetyissues created by this. The issues on some of the roads have also been acknowledged by BCCand PINS in relation to other applications. It is simply bizarre that the applicant (who must be fullyaware of the parking stresses, from their own visits to the site) tries to suggest that a couple ofselective night-time surveys is sufficient to demonstrate otherwise.
The proposed access point on The Glen will increase the likelihood of The Glen and neighbouringBelvedere Road being used for overflow parking, particularly for residents of Block D and the rear"cottages", due to the proximity of access. The proposed rear car park only contains 7 standardspaces and the applicant acknowledges (Addendum Planning Statement Paragraph 4.52) that theonly other on-site parking available for these residents is "a long distance from their front door". Itwill be closer (and cheaper) for these residents to park on The Glen.
There is a high risk of this access also being used for drop-offs, pick-ups, deliveries, ambulancesetc, as the end of The Glen will allow closer access to the rear of the site than is possible from theon-site roads. However the entrance is intended to be managed, this type of usage will beimpossible to prevent in practice.
The proposal to establish an "Urban Village Hall" as a "focal point for all of Westbury Park", to beaccessed directly from the pedestrian gate at the end of The Glen, will further encourage The Glento be used as a drop-off for this building, and for public visitors looking for parking (especially asthe applicant has not even considered any on-site parking needs for this facility).
The Glen is a short narrow cul-de-sac, with no turning space (apart from using residents' privatedrives), which has already been acknowledged by BCC and the Planning Inspectorate to suffer"significant hazards" due to issues with over-demand for parking. It is unimaginable how it isexpected to cope with an increase in volume of cars using it for access and overflow parking for StChristophers.
The proposed usage for fire emergency access is ill-conceived. The applicant's "Tracking Plan"does not show cars parked on both sides of the road, or access to The Glen from the junction withBelvedere Road or Blenheim Road. Taking parked cars into consideration, this indicates thataccess would not be possible from The Glen without removing several existing on-street parkingspaces - one by Number 15 (proposed to be a double-yellow line), several by Numbers 12 - 14 (toenable the proposed line of entry for the fire engine) and almost certainly more from the corners ofthe junctions with Belvedere Road and possibly Blenheim Road (to enable access to The Glen) -although none of this has been admitted yet by the applicant. This would obviously result in aneven greater net increase of demand for the remaining places.
This makes it obvious that the internal roads of the site need to be re-considered, so that fireappliance access to the rear of the site is possible from the main entrance on Westbury Park.Once this is established, it should be clear that the proposed access from The Glen would not beneeded and should be removed altogether.
It is notable that, contrary to the applicants' assertions of responding to residents' feedback, theproposed new entrance breaks the commitment they made to residents in the very firstconsultation meetings, not to open up access from The Glen beyond any essential emergencyneeds.
Finally, the proposed Urban Village Hall appears to be primarily a "sop" to suggest there will bewider community benefits from the scheme through provision of public meeting rooms (and to holdout some slim hope of SEND usage, which is almost certainly infeasible in practice). This conceptappears misconceived. Bayswater Avenue, along the rear boundary of the site, already containsthree charitable organisations providing community rooms for hire - St Albans Church, WestburyPark Church and Westbury Park Primary School. A competing (privately owned) "Urban VillageHall" would be likely to reduce vital rental income for these organisations.
There does not appear to be any established community need for more meeting rooms - so anysuggestion that this could be a benefit of the development to compensate for the primary issues isquite insulting. What we most need is a resolution to the parking chaos caused by the RPZs, not anew development with demonstrably insufficient on-site parking, which can only exacerbate this.
Overall, I object to this development and support the detailed objections submitted by SCAN.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
This is the the worst, most brazen and disappointing watering downs I have seen.Profiteering and no consideration for the community.
on 2023-01-03 OBJECT
The amendments to the proposed development are superficial and don't change theoverwhelming bulk and mass of the scheme.
My original concerns stand regarding overdevelopment, road safety, and the loss of trees, heritage& Special Educational Needs provision. And still no affordable housing, which is what our areadesperately needs.
Specifically:
Just 6 fewer homes in these plans.
A parking ratio that will still lead to overspill.
Adjustments to block height are insignificant and, as per Council's Conservation Panel strongobjection to these revised plans the massing will still cause 'significant damage'.
Still too many protected, mature trees felled.
All in all no substantive change.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The development is still too big, too dense and too high and completely disregards thefact that this is a designated Conservation area. There is no consideration for the increased trafficthis will bring
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before'.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The Conservation Advisory Panel object to this application
The Panel recognised that some amendments have been made to the proposal in response toconcerns expressed, but the changes do not result in a measurable improvement. The Panelmaintains its previous strong objection to the proposal.
There would be significant damage to the setting of the listed Grace House and the unlistedbuildings facing Westbury Park. The scale and height of the new buildings would be too great. Theproposed mansards and flared dormers would be very prominent and overbearing.
The arrangement of the new buildings would not refer to the setting and symmetry of the listedbuilding in any way. Any new buildings must be subservient to the listed building and morerestrained in appearance. Further details of the works to the villas, which should be classified asUnlisted Buildings of Merit in the Conservation Area, such as replacement of plastic windows,should be provided.
The loss of existing trees, some Grade A and some subject to TPOs, would change the characterof the site and was not acceptable. The proposed planting should be more substantial with largertrees.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The objections I submitted to the original planning application still apply to this proposal.I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons I statedbefore. The minor changes are not significant enough to improve the application, which is stillinsensitive, overbearing and inappropriate. The development is still too dense and too high, thetree loss is still substantial. There is still insufficient parking for the number of dwellings. Thescheme disregards the character of the area and the designated Conservation Area. There is noprovision for affordable homes and substantial loss of special needs provision. Please refer to myoriginal objections for a full account.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I object to the revised proposals for the following reasons:
Overdevelopment
The proposed new 4-5 storey buildings are still out of scale with the surrounding area and appearoverbearing when viewed from outside the St Christopher's site.The proposed new building elevations are visually out of scale when compared with thesurrounding area and offer a bland facade, which is out of keeping with the surrounding area.
Ecology
There still appears to be a significant loss of mature trees proposed across the site. Although theproposals include the planting of new trees, these will take decades before they reach maturity. Inthe interim the local ecology will be adversely affected and could lead to an overall loss ofbiodiversity.
Parking
On street parking is already a problem in the surrounding streets and the planned quantum ofparking provision within the development has not changed, so it is most likely to exacerbate theparking outside the site. Despite the developers best intentions, they will not be able to preventstaff, visitors and possibly some future St Christopher's residents parking in the streets adjacent if
on site spaces are found to be inadequate.
Traffic
The previously proposed access from Bayswater Road, for the cottage residents has beenremoved, but the current proposals just shifts the extra traffic to the Glen.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I have grave concerns about this proposed development. Having lived in Westbury Parkfor more than 20 years, I feel that if any more homes are needed, they should be built for familiesand be at a reasonable cost. There is already significant provision for retirement housing in thevicinity of this site.I understand that there is only very limited parking provision planned: parking and traffic have longbeen an issue in the area, and this is only likely to get worse if 116 homes are to be built with only65 parking spaces.Its difficult to see how this development adds anything visually to the area, indeed, the plansinclude the removal of trees and open space.There is an opportunity to provide amenities for our community, but this proposal provides none:our local primary school is in critically cramped accomodation. The nearest municipal leisurecentre is in Horfield.Overall, I think this application brings nothing to Westbury Park and should be rejected entirely.How about asking local residents what they'd like, and then seeing if a developer is happy to takeit on?
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Widespread traffic chaos will result if the current plans for the St Christopher' site arepassed by councillors, to say nothing of the damage to the peace of the local area as a whole.
Residents will be left unable to access their homes, due to the inevitable increase in demand forparking in the area, as a result of a large influx of vehicles visting the area and the proposed StChristopher's settlement.This area was refused a Residents' Parking Zone, despite many calls to the contrary, and the areais now vastly overpopulated with traffic and parking is a complete nightmare for all who have toattempt to get anywhere near their homes.As far as I am aware, the Council has made no attempt to consider taking steps that wouldameliorate the damage that would result from the approval of this ill-begotten scheme.This problem will be hugely exacerbated by the new influx of residents to the proposeddevelopment and the staff and service demands,which will accompany the development, if it isapproved.None of these unwelcome developments appear to have been calculated in the currentplans for the site and this will create a nightmare for anyone living and trying to access theirhomes. Many residents are elderly and will have severe difficulties in managing their lives, shouldthese ill-conceived and selfish plans be passed by councillors. The plans pose a positive danger toquality of life of local residents and their families.It is unbelievably short sighted, to contemplate approval for this development, unless and untiltheplans are modified to ensure that the development cannot fatally damage the are and the livesof those living hereWestbury Park was left out of the Parking Zone allocations, some years ago- and that failure has
made life difficult ever since.The current difficulties will be as nothing, if this selfish and ill conceived plan is approved and liveswill be blighted by a decision to approve the proposals.It is ill-conceived and will irreparably damage the lives of those living in the area- and I hope thatcouncillors will realise that they must act in the interests of those living here and not those whoseek to damage the area and the community.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The balance between number of homes and parking is completely off. There would bemore than 4 residents, carers and staff trying to use each parking space. Inevitably, they will parkin the already congested neighbourhood.The loss of habitat and mature trees will affect wildlife for many years.The legacy promised to SEND support has been reduced to 'they can hire a room'.Essentially, this is a company trying to cram too many residences onto the site without regard forthe impact on the residents, neighbourhood, wildlife, and iconic views of a tourist attraction - TheDowns.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
My original objections still stand. The proposer has made only token changes and arenow falsely trying to give the impression that they are significant. I think they also showthemselves to be somewhat devious in resubmitting the proposal over the Christmas / New Yearperiod when they probably hope it will will be noticed least.
More specifically, the balance between number of homes and parking is completely wrong Therewould be more than 4 residents, carers and staff trying to use each parking space. Inevitably, theywill park in the already congested neighbourhood.The loss of habitat and mature trees will affect wildlife for many years.The legacy promised to SEND support has been reduced to 'they can hire a room'.Essentially, this is a company trying to cram too many residences onto the site without regard forthe impact on the residents, neighbourhood, wildlife, and iconic views of a tourist attraction - TheDowns.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I object because this will make the traffic even worse, it is out of character with the areaand we will lose many important trees.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I object to the revised plans on the former St Christopher's school site for the followingreasons.
The number of residences has only been reduced by less than 5% which is no real change andthe site remains totally over developed.This will cause too many cars in the area which already struggles with parking issues.Too many mature trees will be lost which will totally change the character in this part of WestburyPark.Therefore this planning application should be refused.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I have already submitted my reasons for objecting to this proposed development. Theseobjections remain. It seems to me that the revised plans show minimal changes and little or noattempt to address the very real and deeply felt concerns of residents. In fact the revision appearsto be little more than a cynical exercise in appearing to compromise. There seems to be nounderstanding of just how how inappropriate this scheme is in an area already suffering under thestrain of overdevelopment. The roads are dangerously congested and parking is already a seriousproblem for residents in this area.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
As I previously objected ,I wish to add that the proposed changes are an insult , for thenumber of living spaces proposed there would necessarily need to be an absolute minimum of 160parking spaces available. I still fear for the safety of the many children in this area. And asmentioned before, what about this being a conservation area? It's an abomination.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
1. The development is far too big for the area - far too dense and tall. It is notappropriate for the site, which at present has a somewhat rural and open feel. It is totally out ofcharacter for a designated Conservation Area.2. It will lead to far too much traffic in the surrounding roads. Furthermore, parking in the area willbe affected, as there are not enough parking spaces provided on the site for all those who will willwant to use a motor vehicle to visit the buildings.3. I object to all the trees that will need to be chopped down, and to the effect on precious wildlife.It is farcical to be so prescriptive with other residents about felling or pruning trees, and then toallow this tree massacre.4. This location was previously used for youngsters with special needs. The offer by the proposeddevelopers of the shared use of a room in no way makes up for the loss of SEND provision onsite.5. It is not the type of development we need in the area, and will certainly not come under thedesignation of affordable housing.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The proposed development is far too ambitious. The buildings are too large and toodense on the site. The proposed 5 storey buildings are far too high and will completely alter thelook and feel of the site. Some of the other blocks are far too tall and close to existing homes andwill block light and be intimidating.The 'villas' backing onto 23 and 25 Bayswater Avenue are much too close to the existing buildingsand they are too tall. They will block the light to the existing houses. Importantly these are familyhomes and the new villas will be able to look straight into the living rooms and bedrooms of theexisting houses. The loss of privacy to the existing homes is completely unacceptable.It is likely that the 65 parking spaces will be insufficient for the 116 units, guests, staff, carers anddelivery vehicles and cars will be forced onto neighbouring roads. Already some of these roadsare completely full and cars are parking on the pavement. The extra vehicles and congestion islikely to increase pollution levels in the area. This is particularly bad as it is so close to a schooland we should be looking at ways to reduce pollution levels around schools. It has been provedthat pollution from vehicles has an adverse effect on children's long term health.The density of the buildings on the site and the large number of people based there will mean thatinevitably there will be a loss of trees and green space. This will mean a reduction in the numberand diversity of wildlife and it will have a negative impact on climate change through loss of treesand reduction in biodiversity. Westbury Park is a designated Conservation Area and its greenspaces should not be overdeveloped.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The objections I originally shared to the original planning application still applies to thisupdated proposal. I'm disappointed with the very minimal changes the developer made to theproposal and I strongly believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Ioriginally shared, including- insufficient parking- increased traffic making roads less safe for our children- tall buildings that are out of character with the conservation area- density of housing too great
thank you
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I object to this application on the grounds of:
· Insufficient on-site parking to avoid overspill on to the surrounding roads, which are already filledto capacity. Will increase parking stresses and road safety issues.
· New entrance from The Glen (to provide the only vehicular access to 28 dwellings at the rear ofthe site, as well as the Urban Village Hall) will encourage overspill parking on The Glen, as well asincreasing traffic for drop-offs, pick-ups, deliveries, ambulances etc down a narrow cul-de-sac.
· The fire emergency access from The Glen appears infeasible without removing several moreparking spaces, although this has not been stated.
on 2023-01-02 SUPPORT
We need more flats for people so I support the new development. We also need lesscars so I think it's a good idea to put less parking at the new blocks and encourage people to usepublic transport, cycle or walk. Please also improve these transport modes so that we don't alsoneed to own cars. Make the pavements and bike lanes better please!
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
My objections submitted to the original planning application still apply to this proposaland I continue to believe that this planning application should be REFUSED for the reasons Istated before. After viewing the minor amendments by the developers, I wish to add the following:1) Complete OVER DEVELOPMENTOF SITE and minimalreduction of 6 residential units - TOTALLY INADEQUATE!!!2) OVERBEARING BLOCKAGE OF LIGHT AND PRIVACY toexisting Victorian houses in a heritage site, as well as SAFEGUARDING PRIVACY of children at Westbury Park School.3) TRAVEL CHAOS has switched from one area to another!!4) CAR PARKING TOTALLY INADEQUATE for the number ofunits and provision for elderly residents.5) NO OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED DETAILED PLAN submittedof revised planning amendments. Artists' impressions areuseless and DISTORT THE TRUTH!!
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before'.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Dear Sir / Madam,
Reading the details of this modified submission for St Christopher's site development the minimalmodifications and remaining significant negative impact to this beautiful area of our city is of graveconsideration. A reduction of 6 from 116 units is immaterial. Parking plans are grossly out of kilterwith reality as well as the capacity of the area. Felling of the number of trees including the old oak,still materially damaging to the areas natural environment. 30cm reduction and one story reductionthis is still a five story development that is totally out of keeping. As for the creation of the UrbanVillage Hall, as a parent of a child with special educational needs myself, the vagueness and lackof respect to the gravity of this in the area is offensive.
This development endeavour is pure profiteering at this scale. They have not come even close toanything reasonable and I totally object to this scheme even in it's newly revised form.
Kind Regards
Ali Neil
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Dear Sir, Madam,
I would like to register my objection to the revised plans for development of this site. From parkingto the height reduction, number of apartments and this " Urban Village Hall" concept which isappalling, there does nothing for me to want to support this project. I hope you take this feedbackonboard to seriously review the intentions of these developers versus the Bristol city residentswell-being and what is right for our city.
Thanks
Frankie
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Whilst I am not an architect or a builder, I have some experience of planning through mywork. I see no substantial difference between these new plans and the previous plans that Iunderstand were rejected. Specifically, there seems to be no meaningful reduction in the scale ofdevelopment (size and number of dwellings) or increased provision for parking. The communityresource being provided seems nominal. The developer addressed none of these issues in thepublicity that they sent.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
When I first saw the pictures of the proposed development, my first thoughts were thatthe buildings look like a Texas prison, only with slightly bigger windows, there's no way this is apositive development whichever way you look at it.
The trees that will be sacrificed are used by bats, as I always see them flying around at dusk.
There's more than enough provision for elderly care of this nature in this area, with the latestone(opposite the spire) still yet to be filled.
Most elderly people want to stay in their homes anyway with any care coming to them, (mywidowed mother being one)
This will affect the equilibrium of the area (I've lived here for almost 20 years)
The people who live next to the development must surely have a right to light in their properties byprescriptive easement, the height of these blocks will affect this.
The children that were being helped here (where do they go now)
Let's be honest this is just about making money and as much as possible, we don't even have anRPZ so parking will be even more of a problem, children in this area have already suffered lifechanging injuries
Please, as planners you have a moral responsibility to ensure correct development and notmaking rich people just a bit wealthier.
I'm not a nimby as I live a couple of streets away from the development.
Please reconsider I beg you
Kind Regards
Mike Rees
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
When I first saw the pictures of the proposed development, my first thoughts were thatthe buildings look like a Texas prison, only with slightly bigger windows, there's no way this is apositive development whichever way you look at it.
The trees that will be sacrificed are used by bats, as I always see them flying around at dusk.
There's more than enough provision for elderly care of this nature in this area, with the latestone(opposite the spire) still yet to be filled.
Most elderly people want to stay in their homes anyway with any care coming to them, (mywidowed mother being one)
This will affect the equilibrium of the area (I've lived here for almost 20 years)
The people who live next to the development must surely have a right to light in their properties byprescriptive easement, the height of these blocks will affect this.
The children that were being helped here (where do they go now)
Let's be honest this is just about making money and as much as possible, we don't even have anRPZ so parking will be even more of a problem, children in this area have already suffered lifechanging injuries
Please, as planners you have a moral responsibility to ensure correct development and notmaking rich people just a bit wealthier.
I'm not a nimby as I live a couple of streets away from the development.
Please reconsider I beg you
Kind Regards
Mike Rees
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The revision doesn't address the fundamental problems with this development. Myprevious objections stand. It damages the landscape, trees and creates unwanted traffic problems.No affordable housing is proposed.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The reasons for my objections remain as before. There is a complete lack of parking onsite and with no residents parking scheme nearby, this will cause additional misery for localresidents on top of what is already a problem. Although this is a retirement community it is alsolikely that some of the residents will still work possibly in a voluntary capacity and thus still havecars.
I also consider that the number of units is excessive forthe site and thus overdevelopment.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Revised plans make no difference to my opinion.
1. Far too large a development with 116 housing units. Mostly two-bedroomed. And still noaffordable housing.
2. Still only 65 spaces for 116 luxury homes- not forgetting all the staff, carers, visitors, deliveries.Overspill is inevitable.
3. Still 4 huge apartment buildings - up to 5 storeys high - overwhelming the listed Grace House,nearby homes and the Downs.
4. Still too many protected, mature trees will be felled - including a wonderful old oak tree. It willtake decades for any new saplings to provide the same benefit to nature and wildlife.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I have serious concerns about overdevelopment, road safety, and the loss of trees,heritage & Special Educational Needs provision.
The developers have not significantly changed their plans so all original objections still apply.
They say: Fewer homes.The reality: Just 6 fewer. There would still be 116 housing units. Mostly two-bedroomed. And stillno affordable housing.
They say: 'Improved' parking ratio.The reality: Still only 65 spaces for 116 luxury homes- not forgetting all the staff, carers, visitors,deliveries. Overspill into an already congested area with primary schools and nurseries and youngchildren dodging parked cars on pavements is inevitable.
They say: The revised scheme is smaller & less visible.The reality: One block lowered by the height of a ruler - that's just 30 cm or less than one foot!Although another block has been reduced by a single storey, there would still be 4 huge apartmentbuildings - up to 5 storeys high - overwhelming the listed Grace House, nearby homes and theDowns. The council's own Conservation Panel 'strongly' objects to these revised plans saying theywill cause 'significant damage'.
They say: The revised scheme would retain more trees.
The reality: Still too many protected, mature trees will be felled - including a wonderful old oaktree. It will take decades for any new saplings to provide the same benefit to nature and wildlife.
They say: They'll create an "Urban Village Hall" with space for community groups - with possibleuse by children with special education needs (SEN).The reality: Vague offer of a shared-use space or room. Experts tell us this arrangement won'twork from a safeguarding aspect. The proposal doesn't come close to addressing the desperateneed for SEN school places and doesn't compensate for the loss of St Christopher's, a muchvalued community asset for 70+ years.
It must be possible to develop the sight in a more sympathetic, sustainable way.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I objected to the previous planning application for the development of the StChristopher's site on the grounds of overdevelopment in terms of the density of the buildings andtheir height. I accept that some changes have been made to the original planning application and Ihave understood the developer's arguments concerning a minimum density to redevelopmentprojects. However, I still think that a 5 storey apartment block is going to impose itself on theskyline, loom over the neighbourhood and block light from adjacent properties.Another continuing concern is the arrangements proposed for traffic flow and parking. Despiteassurances from the outset that vehicular access from The Glen (which is a cul-de-sac) was notan option, it has now become a part of the planning application. The proposal is for access to alimited number of parking spaces but unless access is somehow controlled to those spaces, thereis every likelihood that their very existence will generate traffic along The Glen hoping to access aparking space. Should a parking space then not be available the vehicles will then have tonegotiate their way back along The Glen. The Glen and adjoining Belvedere Road already havesevere traffic congestion problems and the proposed access to the St Christopher's site willexacerbate these issues. Given that there are multiple access points to the St Christopher's sitefrom the main Westbury Park road, I feel the layout of the site should be designed to allowvehicular access to all buildings and parking areas from the main entrance. This seems sensiblefrom a safety aspect and would avoid the need for regular access from adjacent residential roads.Access from the The Glen could then be limited to emergency vehicles only. Another worry is thatvehicular access from The Glen could be used during the construction phase of the project andthis could be extremely disruptive and dangerous for local residents. Large construction vehiclesand equipment would have problems negotiating the roads and potentially become stuck, blocking
the roads for other users.Many of the objections to the planning application have mentioned the lack of adequate parking atthe site for residents, employees of the company managing the retirement complex and visitors.The lack of adequate provision of parking spaces has the potential to impact the local area in anadverse fashion. The surrounding roads can provide no additional spaces and we already witnessthe spectacle of cars cruising around trying to find spaces to park. This is not conducive to roadsafety or air quality.In conclusion I would hope for a further reduction in the maximum height of apartment blocks anda rethink over the access of vehicles to the parking places near to The Glen, allowing The Glen toremain a cul-de-sac as it has been for the last 50 years or more.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I objected to the previous planning application for the development of the StChristopher's site on the grounds of overdevelopment in terms of the density of the buildings andtheir height. I accept that some changes have been made to the original planning application and Ihave understood the developer's arguments concerning a minimum density to redevelopmentprojects. However, I still think that a 5 storey apartment block is going to impose itself on theskyline, loom over the neighbourhood and block light from adjacent properties.Another continuing concern is the arrangements proposed for traffic flow and parking. Despiteassurances from the outset that vehicular access from The Glen (which is a cul-de-sac) was notan option, it has now become a part of the planning application. The proposal is for access to alimited number of parking spaces but unless access is somehow controlled to those spaces, thereis every likelihood that their very existence will generate traffic along The Glen hoping to access aparking space. Should a parking space then not be available the vehicles will then have tonegotiate their way back along The Glen. The Glen and adjoining Belvedere Road already havesevere traffic congestion problems and the proposed access to the St Christopher's site willexacerbate these issues. Given that there are multiple access points to the St Christopher's sitefrom the main Westbury Park road, I feel the layout of the site should be designed to allowvehicular access to all buildings and parking areas from the main entrance. This seems sensiblefrom a safety aspect and would avoid the need for regular access from adjacent residential roads.Access from the The Glen could then be limited to emergency vehicles only. Another worry is thatvehicular access from The Glen could be used during the construction phase of the project andthis could be extremely disruptive and dangerous for local residents. Large construction vehiclesand equipment would have problems negotiating the roads and potentially become stuck, blocking
the roads for other users.Many of the objections to the planning application have mentioned the lack of adequate parking atthe site for residents, employees of the company managing the retirement complex and visitors.The lack of adequate provision of parking spaces has the potential to impact the local area in anadverse fashion. The surrounding roads can provide no additional spaces and we already witnessthe spectacle of cars cruising around trying to find spaces to park. This is not conducive to roadsafety or air quality.In conclusion I would hope for a further reduction in the maximum height of apartment blocks anda rethink over the access of vehicles to the parking places near to The Glen, allowing The Glen toremain a cul-de-sac as it has been for the last 50 years or more.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I STRONGLY object to the proposed development at St Christopher's School. Toomany units are proposed, they are too high and not in keeping with the area AND there are notenough car parking facilities planned. I also Object to the cutting down of fine, mature trees. Thereis also no affordable housing proposed.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Following the revisions to the scheme there is still not enough parking. The blocks areway too high for the local area. There are not enough facilities for the local community to benefitfrom. Access to the site is via a small road which two cars cannot pass down. There are too manyunits on the site in an area which already has a huge number of retirement properties. There areno provisions for SEN children which is what the original purpose of the site was built for. I object,yet again, to the complete lack of understanding of our neighbourhood by the developer.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I wish to object to this application. I am a frequent visitor to family living in the WestburyPark area.I believe that the residential buildings are too big and massed at the centre of the site. The blocksof flats are totally out of proportion to the surrounding houses, too dominant both onsite and thesurrounding houses. This will inevitably lead toovercrowding onsite with the mix of pedestrians and cars (residents and visitors) and will beunsafe for elderly people with disabilities.There is a mismatch in parking spaces between those residents who still drive and care staff andthe visitors for residents and leisure facilities. It appears that only Bristolians can purchaseThe procedures for accepting new residents and assessment of residents with care needsexceeding C2 care, are not specified.The proposals about providing educational provision onsite are too vague and unrealistic to be ofany value to Bristol City Council.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I believe that this planning application should be refused for the following reasons:Overdevelopment - too many units, blocks of flats too high and not suitable for a site next to theDowns.
Too many trees being felled.
Needs more parking spaces. Parking is already extremely problematic in this area as so manypeople drive in to park in Westbury Park and then catch the bus into the town centre for work.The roads will be IMPOSSIBLE and IMPASSABLE.
This is a designated conservation area and the scheme is not in character in any way withVictorian and Edwardian buildings.
It seems that the developers are being greedy and insensitive.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
In respect of the changes to the planning proposal:
Overall number of housing units has only been reduced from 122 to 116, that's just six fewer and areduction of only 5%. The scheme remains overwhelming, overbearing and densely populated.Only one block has been reduced by a storey and one other by the length of 30cm. There will stillbe 4 huge blocks of flats up to five stories high which, along with the houses on site, are too closetogether, too close to neighboring houses, too high and completely out of character with aconservation area, swamping nearby two storey homes and stifling the beautiful grade 2 listed,Steiner-inspired, Grace House that lies at the heart of the site. Other purely cosmetic changeshave little impact on the scale of the scheme. e.g. the colour of the facade on some buildings haschanged.Huge apartment blocks and houses still dominate this site leaving very little green space.
There is no increase in the number of parking spaces. The new plans show zero improvement inon-site parking provision and no reliable information to support claims there won't be overspill orthat if there was, it could be accommodated on the nearby roads. There are still only 65 spaces for116 units of mainly 2-bedroomed flats. The developers have provided very little further informationto justify the low number of on site car parking spaces. They have failed to respond to Bristol CityCouncil's request to provide a breakdown of staff parking needs across the day.
The developers have finally accepted there can't be an access on Etloe Road for safetyreasons.However, they are merely shifting the problem elsewhere and are now proposing anentrance to the site and emergency access via the Glen which would have a knock-on effect on
nearby roads as well as posing a safety risk if fire engines ever had to navigate the alreadyovercrowded roads that lead there.
Around 40% of trees on site will still be chopped down - among them two mature trees the councilarboricultural officer said should be protected because of their cultural significance. Fewerreplacement trees are now being planted onsite as there simply isn't room for them to growhealthily between the tall buildings.
There will be no replacement school places on site to make up for the loss of this vital communityasset. The possible occasional and shared use of a room in what is described as an 'Urban Villagehall' is not the significant SEND provision which Bristol desperately needs. The St Christopher'ssite is a school; children's needs should have priority over developers' profits.
I specifically wish to object to the proposed access from The Glen:
The new plans provide vehicular access from The Glen and this is the only vehicular access to therear of the site as the internal roads from the Westbury Park entrances only lead to the frontblocks of flats.
The new proposed 'urban village hall' is next to and accessed from the end of The Glen. Thisbuilding only has 2 parking spaces (disabled) allocated. If this is intended for community andSEND activities, this will result in all external visitors trying to park on The Glen and BelvedereRoad which are already dangerously overcrowded.
The access is also required for fire engines. This is only achieved by removing at least 6 parkingspaces from the end of The Glen further exacerbating the lack of parking on The Glen andBelvedere Road. This is not mentioned but is clear from the detailed plans.
As it will be the only access point to the rear of the site, it is also likely to be used by deliveryvehicles and ambulances for the rear blocks of flats and cottages, although they will have toactually park in The Glen. When parking is unavailable such vehicles are likely to double parkblocking access.
The new car park reached from The Glen has a further 7 spaces intended for residents, which isevidently not enough for all the occupants of the adjacent large block of flats, as well as the rearcottages. This is likely to encourage residents who don't have a space to park in The Glen orBelvedere Rd and walk through. Staff and visitors for the rear blocks will be unable to park and arethen also likely tottery to park on the surrounding roads resulting in circling or waiting on The Glenor Belvedere Road when they can't find a space.This is in the context of a continued shortfall of on-site parking (65 spaces for residents, staff,carers and visitors for 116 apartments), which will lead to overspill on all surrounding roads, but a
particular issue for The Glen and Belvedere Road, due to the accessibility and proximity to therear apartment block and cottages.
I would like to restate my objections to the original planning proposal which were submitted on25/05/22:
'In the first instance I would like to comment on the community engagement meetings held face toface in October 2021 and then online in January of this year.Most of the first meeting was spent asking members of the local community to list the things thatwere special about the site. Following this, we were asked to list the things that we thought wouldbe most important to preserve in any development of the site. The developers then presentedplans, ignoring all that had been said, and which were in contradiction to everything that had beendiscussed for most of the meeting. However, no elevations or projections demonstrating the sizeand scale of the development were presented. It was also difficult to determine the heights ornumbers of storeys of each building which were represented by shades of grey. This resulted insignificant concern and numerous views were then expressed suggesting that the developerswere taking the local population 'as fools' and that attendance was mainly to demonstrate andphotograph a community engagement event taking place. It appeared that the WPCA had beenmisled as to both the number of units proposed as well as the total scale of the development. As aresult, there was a complete breakdown in trust with the local community.The second community engagement meeting in January 2022 was held online. It was not possibleto see who or how many members of the community were attending. Submitted questions wereread out by a mediator. However, these questions were not read our verbatim and were toneddown in language and strength of feeling. Often, the responses were evasive or specificallyignored the question. It was then not possible to ask timely or meaningful follow up questions or tochallenge the responses given. As a result, again the meeting felt like a controlled exercise insimply 'ticking a box'. The 'revised' plans that were presented did nothing to reassure thecommunity and did not appear to have taken any of the feedback given at the previous meetinginto account. It became clear that the developers viewed at least 120 units as being required tomake the development economically viable and they were therefore unwilling to consider anyreduction in scale.The need for such a large development of 'high end' retirement or enhanced care accommodationin this area is also questionable. The immediate area already has a high density of care relatedaccommodation. Other planning proposals to increase care capacity in the area have beendeclined with the impact on congestion, parking and road safety in the local area cited. In addition,many apartments in other similar developments (The Vincent) remain unsold. The developmentalso has no proposals for affordable housing.The planning proposals and change of use do not take the historical context of the site intoaccount. This is despite the fact that there is a crisis in terms of provision of residential care foryoung people with special needs or disabilities within the city of Bristol.Historically, the St Christopher's site provided this accommodation. Sadly, the school was closed
by Aurora following allegations of poor care. The way in which the parents of the children andyoung adults were contacted and given less than 24 hours to collect their children resulted inconsiderable distress for already highly vulnerable individuals and was covered in the NationalPress at the time. It seems that no attempts or action plans were made to improve care. A simpleinternet search at the time demonstrated that the majority share owner of Aurora was a later lifecare provider. This at least suggests that the school may have originally been purchased to realisethe investment potential of the site. Whilst this may have no bearing on a subsequent planningapplication, this heightens the sense that something profoundly wrong is occurring hereparticularly given the desperate shortage of accommodation for young people and adults withspecial educational needs. I find it hard to see how such a change of use could be justified in thiscontext.We welcome any proposed use of North Lodge by Westbury Park School. Westbury Park Schoolis integral to the local community and any proposals to enhance their facility would be welcomed.However, we would object to this area, which is directly adjacent to our rear side boundary, beingfreely open to the public for reasons of security and privacy. School use would necessitate secureaccess.
It has also been suggested that the building or garden area of North Lodge might be open to thepublic for booked events. This area is directly adjacent to our rear garden. I have asked thedevelopers for a meeting to discuss the planned usage of North House but we have had noresponse. I seek clarification around what the public usage of these buildings and gardens wouldbe.Throughout the consultation process, the residents of The Glen were repeatedly assured thatthere would be no vehicular or pedestrian access to the St Christopher's site from The Glen.However, the plans now include access for emergency vehicles and pedestrian access.Previous planning developments on the St. Christopher's site were only granted on condition thatthere was no vehicle or pedestrian access from The Glen. Rare emergency access needs resultedin ambulance vehicles parking at the end of the Glen as the entrance is too narrow to admit morethan a small car. Occasionally, this would block access from our driveway. However, both my wifeand I are doctors and require vehicle access from our drive at all hours.Should pedestrian access be granted to the St Christopher's site from the Glen, this will result inincreased parking and double parking on The Glen, particularly at the end of The Glen (deliveries,care workers, friends visiting, residents unable to park on site). A relatively infrequent problem withdouble parking and blockage of our driveway at the end of The Glen may become a more frequentoccurrence. Irrespective of our access being blocked, I am very concerned that access throughThe Glen to St Christopher's will result in increased parking and congestion on The Glen andsurrounding streets.The Glen is an established Cul de Sac. We and many other families bought these propertiesspecifically for this reason. Many young children live on the road and regularly play in the road.The street is also often used for community events. Understandably, other local residents object tovehicular access through Bayswater Road. However, should site access plans ever be revised (asa result of other objections) to allow full vehicular access from the Glen, I would strongly opposethis. The Glen is already a narrow and dangerously crowded road.
The scale of development and number of Units proposed is completely out of character with andproportion to the local Westbury Park environment. The heights of the buildings have not beentaken from the existing villas in Bayswater, Royal Albert and the Glen. The high points of theproposed buildings even exceed the heights of the Westbury Park Lodge buildings and will bevisible from the Downs and from all surrounding streets. The buildings will impact on line of site inall directions.The proximity of buildings to neighboring homes is far closer than many other local authority areasrecommend. With buildings of this size, height and scale there will be considerable impact onprivacy and loss of amenity. The character of the surrounding streets will change completely. Thebuildings are two high, two dense, too close and would dwarf nearby homes and completelyoverwhelm the community.My daughter has previously been hit by a car whilst crossing at the Coldharbour Road zebracrossing on her way to school. This resulted in A and E attendance and a lasting psychological
impact. The proposed development has inadequate car parking spaces for a development of thissize and scale. The proposed 65 places will be inadequate and half that likely to be required.Inadequate parking on site will result in over flow parking by residents, staff, visitors and deliveries.This scale of over development will inevitably increase traffic and have a negative impact on publicsafety and parking in what is already a busy residential area, with so many children travelling tonursery, primary or secondary school on foot. The roads are already unsafe.The use of facilities by the local community has been proposed. However, the area is already wellserviced with cafes, restaurants and other social venues. The additional facilities suggested arenot welcome or required. There are other venues for 'coffee and cake'.This development will result in the destruction of a unique green space adjacent to the Downs andwithin the Downs Conservation Area. I am very concerned by the number and size of the maturetrees that will be lost, completely changing the character of the site. The loss of so many verylarge protected mature trees, together with the scale of the development, will have a major impacton local wildlife including foxes, bats and owls and other bird life. Bats are clearly visible flyingfrom the site and through adjacent gardens each evening at dusk. The loss of such a number oflarge mature trees cannot be compensated for by planting new trees. It is not just the number oftrees it is the size and age of the trees that will be lost that matters.The current proposals strike me as an act of environmental vandalism. I find it difficult to believethat this would be allowed.'
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
OVERDEVELOPMENT - still too big, local area is made up of predominantly 2 storeyproperties. Revised plans are for minimal changes - not acceptable. This is of enormous size, withlittle green space. Still no affordable housing.HARM TO HERITAGE OF AREA - out of character with surroundings; designated conservationarea; NOT a landscape led scheme. Historic England already advised is a harmful scheme . 20thCentury Society strongly object. Will change the skyline from the Downs irrevocably.LOSS of trees and wildlife - from extreme overdevelopmentTRAFFIC/PARKING/ROAD SAFETY - only 65 parking spaces on site for 116 housing units =increased local traffic, parking and increased hazards to local school and nurseries.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I have written previously to object to this scheme, and despite the alleged changesmade by the contractors, I am having to take time to write again to say that I still strongly object.
Parking spaces for 64 cars is insanely low, where are the other 60 plus cars going to park? Whatabout visitors, carers, deliveries? The roads surrounding this site are ALREADY too busy. Toomany cars will make parking for residents a nightmare, worse even than it currently is.
Has the safety of these roads been considered? We have two small children who frequently cycle,walk, scoot along these pavements ans roads. It is already busy. If you are considering doublingthe level of traffic here this is an accident waiting to happen.
Have they considered the noise we will suffer as a result of cars/lorries/people and not to mentionthe development itself?
How many trees are actually going to be felled? Is this all really necessary just for developergreed?
The height of these buildings needs to be reduced considerably. What an eyesore they will be. Dowe really need to cram so many people into such a small space? Really? Smacks of greed, again.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I strongly object to the proposed plans as it will put severe pressures on local roads andparking, houses backing on will be massively overlooked and lose their privacy. Not least theimpact with the local school. There needs to be consideration given.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
So many objections to this awful scheme.
This is a beautiful conservation area and they are planning huge blocks of flats (even in therevised plans) - I believe some of the building at the front are listed and it's awful for the peoplewho live on the roads that back onto st Christopher's. Why should they suddenly be sooverlooked? I also strongly object to the amount of green space and trees being demolished forthis building work. It is unnecessary and should be forbidden in an area of outstanding beautywhich houses so much important wildlife.
Parking is another issue in an area saturated. The new plans still don't take into account what isalready an dangerous levels in the surrounding streets. God forbid there is ever a fire at westburypark school as a fire engine would not be able to fit down etloe road.
This should have been kept as a school for special needs - something this city and surroundingarea DESPERATELY needs - it's criminal it was shut down with absolutely no evidence.
I also object to the amount of pollution the construction and increased traffic is going to bring to theschool (where my children attend) and surrounding area where we live. Bristol city council pleaseplease do better - we don't need more housing for well off elderly people, we need more socialcare for the less able, we need to protect our green spaces and we need to not be blindsided bygreen washing property developers.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Despite some minor changes, this planning proposal remains unacceptable and I wishto restate my previous objection.This is on the basis of density of occupation, size and scale of the development in a conservationarea, heights of buildings, proximity to neighbouring properties, lack of parking, resulting overspillparking on the surrounding roads, loss of mature trees and biodiversity and lack of SENDeducational provision.
I also wish to specifically object to access from the end of the Glen:
The new plans provide vehicular access from The Glen and this is the only vehicular access to therear of the site as the internal roads from the Westbury Park entrances only lead to the frontblocks of flats.
The new proposed 'urban village hall' is next to and accessed from the end of The Glen. Thisbuilding only has 2 parking spaces (disabled) allocated. If this is intended for community andSEND activities, this will result in all external visitors trying to park on The Glen and BelvedereRoad which are already dangerously overcrowded.
The access is also required for fire engines. This is only achieved by removing at least 6 parkingspaces from the end of The Glen further exacerbating the lack of parking on The Glen andBelvedere Road. This is not mentioned but is clear from the detailed plans.
As it will be the only access point to the rear of the site, it is also likely to be used by deliveryvehicles and ambulances for the rear blocks of flats and cottages, although they will have toactually park in The Glen. When parking is unavailable such vehicles are likely to double parkblocking access.
The new car park reached from The Glen has a further 7 spaces intended for residents, which isevidently not enough for all the occupants of the adjacent large block of flats, as well as the rearcottages. This is likely to encourage residents who don't have a space to park in The Glen orBelvedere Rd and walk through. Staff and visitors for the rear blocks will be unable to park and arethen also likely tottery to park on the surrounding roads resulting in circling or waiting on The Glenor Belvedere Road when they can't find a space.This is in the context of a continued shortfall of on-site parking (65 spaces for residents, staff,carers and visitors for 116 apartments), which will lead to overspill on all surrounding roads, but aparticular issue for The Glen and Belvedere Road, due to the accessibility and proximity to therear apartment block and cottages.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I can't believe that yet another retirement development is even being considered in theBS6 area. We've already sadly lost Bristol Zoo due to a retirement area & now you want here too?Where are the residents of St. Christopher's now residing? Why don't you develop the site forthose people. We don't have enough SEND provisions in the area and schools are crying out forextra SEND facilities. Bristol is meant to be proud of being 'Green' yet you're going to demolish thetrees and wildlife. It will no doubt affect the traffic in the area & may I ask why such tall buildings?Surely this must have an impact on direct neighbours. The building plans are completely out ofcharacter for the area & what happened about it being a Conservation Area? Honestly, if this goesahead it will literally be for someone making a profit. I object 100%. As for the amendments to theplans...what a joke (8 less homes).
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Overdevelopment - still too big, too dense & too high - just 6 fewer housing units thanbefore and still no affordable housing
Loss of Trees and Wildlife - still too many protected mature trees being chopped down
Traffic - still not enough parking spaces leading to overspill and road safety hazards
Loss of SEND provision - derisory & vague offer of an occasional shared space is an insult to the70 years legacy of special needs education on this site and does nothing to address the SENDcrisis for school places in Bristol
Harm to Heritage - the scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and disregardsthe fact that this is a designated Conservation Area.
This area needs high quality development with lower numbers of housing to maintain theneighbourhood culture and community.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Overdevelopment - still far too big, too dense & too high
Loss of Trees and Wildlife - still too many trees being chopped down
Traffic - not enough parking spaces leading to overspill and road safety hazards
Loss of SEND provision - derisory offer of shared use of a room is an insult to the 70 years legacyof special needs education on this site
Harm to Heritage - the scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and disregardsthe fact that this is a designated Conservation Area.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The density of housing aligned with the lack of amenities, traffic and parking will destroythe character of Westbury Park.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I wish to object most strongly to the overdevelopment of this site. I have grandchildrenliving and going to school In the area and precious trees and land is being sacrificed. On one handwe have the CAZ. on the other we have the wilful destruction of mature trees that are useful to theenvironment and ease pollution. I find it incredible to believe there is not a more sympatheticdevelopment for this area. I ask you, for future generations to think carefully about thisdevelopment and give consideration to the wider population as well as neighbours.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I wish to object to this landing proposal which despite some minor changes remainscompletely unacceptable.
The main reasons for this have been well documented in terms of size, scale, height of buildings,lack of parking, overspill on surrounding roads, loss of trees and wildlife and how out of characterthe proposals are with the local area and conservation area. The proposals also reduce thealready desperately poor provision for SEND education in Bristol.
I specifically wish to object to the proposed access from The Glen:
I have been hit by a car on one of the neighbouring roads resulting in hospital attendance. Accessfrom the Glen will result in overspill traffic and parking on the surrounding roads. With so manyschool children travelling to school on foot, access from the Glen will result in a furthercompromise to road safety. Other children will be hit by cars either impatiently circling looking forparking or as a result of obstructed views and hazardous crossings.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I object to this development as the buildings would be too tall and as the buildings lookunsightly that I would be able to see from my bedroom window, on Berkeley Road. We also do notneed anymore luxury housing in our city and area and are in desperate need for more affordablehousing developments in Bristol, that this development won't provide. I do like the idea of usingthe hall there as a community space with events on though. Their is also enough old people's carehomes already with St Monica's Care home 5 minutes away and the St Vincent Care home alsoaround 5 minutes away by foot. Though this developments amended proposals sound a bit betterthan the original proposal though still not suitable for this city or area. I feel that this developmentshould revert to it's previous use as a learning difficulties care home which suits this area and thattheir is not enough provision for already.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
There are still too many 4 and 5 storey buildings. This will cause traffic problems in thearea.
I also believe that there is insufficient SEND provision locally. An accessible educational provisionwould be a good use for the site.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I believe that this planning application should be refused for the following reasons:
Overdevelopment - there are too many units and the blocks of flats are too high and not suitablefor a site next to the Downs, where they will be overbearing.
Too many mature trees will be felled and it will take decades to replace them.
Inadequate parking provision. Parking is already extremely problematic in this area.
This is a designated conservation area and the scheme is not in character in any way withVictorian and Edwardian buildings and the wider Downs environs.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
parking - there needs to be at least one car parking space for each bedroom built plussufficient for guests using amenitiesappearance - the tower blocks need to be visually in the same style as surrounding periodpropertiesthank you
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Really concerned to see revised plans with very little meaningful change (submitted forcomment over the busy Christmas period!). Plans still have no affordable housing, too manyhomes squeezed in and insufficient parking for residents and staff in an area already too full ofcars and with a primary school which is already dangerous at drop off and pick up time.
They are still intending to chop down trees and haven't addressed the issues re. The height of thedevelopment (a 30cm reduction of one of the buildings!! And one story of another). I understandthe councils own conservation committee object so it seems hugely questionable as to why thisdevelopment is still being considered in its current form.
This site should be being used to address the issues Bristol has in terms of affordable supportedliving for the most vulnerable and addressing the lack of sen provision. Instead it looks like wehave another expensive luxury home development (wrapped up superficially as something moreworthy). Surely we can do better with the opportunity this site provides.
As an aside, as someone who commented through the developers own survey, it was a swizzle.Siphoning participants to say they wanted 'a shared garden/ cafe' etc as the best of a bad lot,without opportunity to provide actual feedback. It was clearly designed to produce graphs andcharts that say residents would like x and we're going to provide it regardless of how disingenuousthis actually is. I'm sure you're aware of it and wise to the game but felt it needed to be highlighted.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The number of parking spaces are insufficient to support the number of residents, andtherefore will create traffic and parking chaos in the nearby area (there are already difficultiescaused by people parking too close to corners on roads). The height of the buildings is also out ofkeeping with the local area and will be unsightly; recent updates to the planning submission do notseem to have materially changed this. In summary, the plans would overdevelop the landcompared to what can be sustained within the limitations of this area.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
There is already insufficient parking in the area which makes crossing roads etcdangerous for children. The area needs more social housing rather than more retirement housing.The project would involve felling mature trees in an area already lacking in greenery and greenspace.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
There is already a shortage of SEN provision for children and the removal of this sitewill be detrimental.
116 new homes will create even more road pollution and congestion in an area that already hassignificant congestion and pollution.
It will increase traffic directly next to a main route for a primary school and a secondary school.
It is only providing luxury housing. No family homes or affordable starter properties.
It will negatively impact wildlife and trees.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
There are many reasons for objecting to this proposal:1. Lost of wildlife (trees).2. Complete lack of affordable housing.3. Increased traffic next to a primary school4. Lack of parking spaces ( in an already overcrowded area).5. Their offer of a room for SEN children is a joke.Thank you.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
There are many reasons for objecting this proposal.There is already a lack of parking spaces in the area and this housing plan will make the situationeven worse. There will be lots of traffic next to Westbury Park Primary school. Also, no affordablehousing offered at all.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Only minor alterations have been made to the previous plans and our concerns remainas strong as ever. The revised proposed development continues to overwhelm the site affectingthe outlook, parking, conservation of trees and prevents the development of resources for familiesneeding affordable housing and for vulnerable children.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The amendments that have been drawn up do not truly address the terrible negativeimpact overdevelopment will have on road safety and heritage. Part of Westbury parks charm isthe green and slower pace outside of the city, it's so sad to ruin that for £££
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before.Specifically:a. Overdevelopment - the revised proposal is still too big, too dense & too high;b. Loss of Trees and Wildlife - still too many mature trees being chopped down especially at a timewhen we should be increasing biodiversity;c. Traffic - there are not enough parking spaces leading to overspill and road safety hazardsespecially so close to a nursery and Westbury Park Primary School.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Unfortunately the revised plans have changed little and it appears local residentsconcerns have not been listened to and taken into account. The amount of properties has onlybeen reduced by 6 to 116 and one of the blocks is still 5 storeys high so would be imposing andnot in-keeping with the local area. The area already has a severe issue with on street parking andtraffic especially at peak times which is especially dangerous for the local school when children'saren't always visible due to all the parked cars. The fact that there are only around half the carparking spaces for the amount of properties not even taking into account staff and visitors willmean the situation will only be worsened. Until the development is scaled back into somethingmore realistic that could be accommodated in the local area, it should continue to be rejected.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The parking and road congestion around Etloe road is terrible. I worry for the safety ofmy child playing on the roads around the area. More than often we can't push a pram on thepavement as cars are parked onto the pavement and that's without the extra parking overspillneeded for the new plans. A big development like this would be a terrible circumstance forsurrounding homes and residents. Please reconsider the use of these buildings. The local roadcan not support a development like this.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I would like to object to this revised planning application on my original grounds as Idon't think the revisions are adequate.
My grounds are:
overdevelopment of the siteno provision for affordable homestoo much pressure on already traffic-choked surrounding roads
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
This will massively effect the area in a negative way
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I do not believe that this development benefits either our community or this area in anyway. It appears to be simply a profit making proposition presented on the premise that the price ofthat profit is the loss of valuable mature trees, increased pressure on available parking, increasedvolume of traffic and a reduction in the character of the neighbourhood.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The proposed buildings are too high and will obstruct the skyline of Westbury Park.Please reduce the amount of floors which will reduce traffic and noise and ensure Westbury Parkremains a nice place to live in.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Please do not grant permission for in excess of 100 homes to be built on the site offormer St Christopher School in Westbury Park. I have concerns about the height of multiple tallbuildings planned and felling of well established trees in the process. My main concern is the lackof planned parking for a development of luxury homes. There is insufficient parking for eachresident. There will be no parking available on site for visitors, carers etc. The roads around thesite are already double parked all day and night - we have no capacity for more vehicles. The mostrecent changes made by the Developer do not address the concerns listed above. Please refusepermission for the Development.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Poorly thought out proposals with only profit in mind.Too high density development with inadequate parking provision.I am particularly saddened by the loss of so many trees which are valuable animal habitats.I don't understand why the site cannot remain a School.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
This development is completely wrong for the area. It will damage the area aestheticallyand there will be traffic and parking issues across the area as a direct consequence. This isanother example of development plans with a huge number of objections getting passed becausethere are profits to be made by a few who are already wealthy. Please stop trying to ruin ourhomes.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The proposals will still ruin the look of the area around the edge of the Downs, removetrees that have taken years to grow to maturity,the proposed parking allocation is insufficient forthe number of flats. The flats arent even providing affordable housing!? Its clearly developerstrying to make as much money as possible, with no benefits to the local community, and lots ofnegatives. It will be appalling if this goes ahead!
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The amendments made to this proposal are minimal and cosmetic. There would still bea huge impact on the neighbourhood - parking, visual. This proposed development is an insult tothe inhabitants of Westbury Park - it would dramatically and adversely affect the quality of life of allthe residents. There are too many dwellings, the buildings are still too high, too many trees aregoing to be cut down, it would significantly worsen the already dreadful parking situation (theCouncil continues to ignore any request for an RPZ despite the fact that many commuterscontinue to park in our streets). This proposal continues to be totally unacceptable to the residentsof Westbury Park and I call upon the Council to reject it.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The development is overbearing and out of character for the surrounding area which ismade up of much smaller houses, not flats and is a conservation area.
Additionally the amount of parking provided on the site seem insufficient for the number of unitsthey are proposing. The area already has issues with parking and the site will generate additionalparking demand in a very peaky manner (morning and evening care).
I do appreciate that there is some improvement to the biodiversity of the site, however this feelsminimal given the size of the site and is further compounded by the loss of mature trees that thedeveloper is proposing.
I don't object to the redevelopment of the site, however the current plans are not appropriate forthe area.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I object to the proposed development on the basis that it is completely not in keepingwith the architecture of the area and will result in large over development. The buildings will ruinthe landscape and the enjoyment of the beautiful and historically important buildings whichcurrently exist. The plans provide for a large number of people in a restricted area and will result inincreased parking issues which are already a huge problem in the area. Irresponsible parking isalready a major issue and often a danger to younger children especially.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I write to object to the scale and massing of the proposal and the knock on that this willhave to the local area.
The revisions are slight and should further consider the parking issues in the area. The inevitableoverspill to the surrounding streets will compound an already growing parking situation.
There must be a solution where fewer mature and protected trees are removed but further supportfor transport / parking is provided. A reduction in the number of units would seem to cure this.
In the last submission I commented that further community facilities may help with local objection.Suggesting that a child's play park may be a nice idea. The proposed urban village hall seems tobe a way of ticking this box, however, if this is a single shared use room somewhere in thecomplex it is likely it will never be used by the local community.
I would like to continue being part of this local community and conservation area seeing a moreconsidered and In keeping scheme being proposed.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Sufficient allowance has not been made for the number of additional cars that thisdevelopment will bring to the area. Each flat should have at least one parking space available,given the potential need of residents for carers and increased likelihood of residents with mobilityissues being reliant on cars. The proposed buildings are too tall and will ruin the look from thedowns, and are not in keeping with current properties in the local area. Additionally more luxuryretirement properties are not what this area needs, given the housing shortage for young workingprofessionals. Affordable housing targeted at first time buyers and renters would be much bettersuited to the needs of the area. A similar luxury retirement community on the other side of thedowns is still struggling to sell their apartments as they are too expensive, showing that there isnot a need for this type of property in the area.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I would like to object to the proposed development of the St Christopher's site inWestbury Park. I refer you to my previous objections, all of which still stand as regard toovercrowding, overly-prominent buildings, increased road congestion and pressure on parkingspaces in an already densely-populated area, the damage to an iconic skyline and impact on listedbuildings. Not to mention the increased risks to pedestrians and the proximity of schools.
The effects on wildlife, heritage and amenity value will be extensive, and the site, adjacent to theDowns, represents important habitat for many birds and insects as well as protected species suchas bats which are frequently seen flying in the area may well roost in mature trees, especially if hotweather means that roof spaces become too warm for them. Fragmenting of habitat and reductionof resources such as food and nesting spaces puts unmanageable pressure on wildlife and itsability to survive.
In terms of value to the human population, in this time of climate crisis, and following a year thathas seen an increasing number of extreme weather events and record high temperatures, itshould be obvious that the shade value and air-cooling properties of trees is an asset that the localcommunity and the wider city cannot afford to lose.
It is clear that the carbon that is sequestered by vegetation - particularly long-lived woodyspecimens such as trees - should remain locked up in the wood and in the ground. Replacementplanting cannot compensate for the ecological loss of mature trees and established landscapes,even if this planting is good quality and well cared for.
The proposed development therefore inflicts an unacceptable level of damage on the historiccharacter of the area, its wildlife and the local residents, not to mention global and local priorities interms of conservation and environment, and it should be rejected.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The developers are not maintaining the essence and purpose of both the legacy andopportunity this land provides
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I am still very concerned that the developers have not sufficiently addressed the variousissues already raised. As a local parent, I am deeply concerned about the implications of thisdevelopment for road safety and air pollution, parking, loss of old trees, and failure to use the siteto improve SEN provision for children and/or affordable housing.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I objected to the initial plans. The adjustments made to the plans by the developers arepaltry. The tiny reduction in the total number of dwellings will do very little to reduce the effect onlocal traffic flow and parking.I don't think the developers have justified the need for this type of housing over the need for SENprovision in Bristol. The lack of any affordable housing is unacceptable.If the developers can't propose meaningful changes to their plans, their proposals should berejected entirely.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
This development is totally overbearing and out of character and proportion with theneighbourhood dwarfing surrounding buildings.Local streets are narrow with too few parking spaces and the parking proposed in thedevelopment is inadequate and will inevitably lead to vehicles parking on local streets.The loss of beautiful old trees is unacceptable.Additional vehicles and parking will make streets more dangerous for our children and the elderlyin particular.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The revised plans offer scant improvement over the previous submission. If approved,the impact of a substantial number of additional cars will be signifcantly deterimental in an areawith already heavily congested parking. Additionally, the risk to safety of the many childrenattending the nearby Westbury Park School don't appear to have been addressed. The highnumber of dwellings spread over numerous multiple-storey buildings is in no way in keeping(including some listed buildings) with the area and cannot be absorbed in the existinginfrastructure.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I am very upset that there has been little fundamental change to the original plans.
Too little care of the environment, too close and overly looming buildings set against neighbouringproperty.
There is no space for people to park currently and even less will be available when this massdevelopment happens.
There seems to be yet again no regard or respect for the ecological/environmental orpyschological damage this development will cause.
Too much greed it appears is still in control in this development. I do hope this does not passmuster and some sensible alterative décisions are made for this site. Fully respecting the value ofthe existing buildings, trees etc. And not imposing massive looming structures on the neighbouringproperties and their inhabitants.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
This development would cause a dangerous increase in traffic and still provides far fewparking spaces for the amount of living spaces. I have children at the local school and amconcerned for their safety due to the increase in traffic and lack of parking spaces provided. Thedesign is not in keeping and the felling of trees is harmful to the natural environment.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
This development is still way too big - only 6 fewer homes! This makes very littledifference from the previous plan. The development would still be far too densely populated. Stillvery high blocks of flats for this area - of 4 and 5 storeys.There would still be a big loss of mature trees, this not acceptable now that we understand howmuch they offer in terms of wildlife, cleaner air, the climate crisis, and of course their beauty.Parking - still an enormous issue. 6 fewer homes will hardly make a difference to the road safetyand parking issues this development would cause in an area that's already struggling with way toomany cars parked on pavements.The offer of a shared use of a room for SEND provision is derisory.This scheme is totally out of character for this area, and ignores the fact that it is a ConservationArea.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Revised proposals are little more than superficial nod to objections rather than awholesale change of tact. This seems to treat those who object with contempt.I therefore object on the grounds of environmental sustainability, both by removal of trees, alteringof the landscape and ensuring the influx of more traffic so close to an infant and junior school.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I have read the changes that have been made to the Saint Christophers development.These still leave significant issues that I do not think they have addressed or made enoughchanges to.
For example the number the parking spots do not nearly meet the requirements of the number ofresidents that will be living there. Being a neighbour on an adjoining streets and Christopher is theparking is already difficult. 65 parking slots do not nearly provide enough parking for the peoplewho will be visiting and providing services to the new residence.
Parking on the surrounding streets is already challenging leading to people parking in poorpositions and using the zigzag lines of the school.
There have been instance where the children have had near misses they have been witnesseddue to these poor parking issues and adding to the Traffic and parking Bird and will only makethese instances more frequent.
It is also a significant shame that they are chopping down so many of the large trees. As they arehome to the owls who we could hear at night.
Saint Christophers is a very large development of properties used for SEN education, And morerecently for immunisations. It is a real shame not to have any clear information about how theDevelopment of Saint Christophers will benefit the local community or integrate with the local
community in anyway.
Finally although there has been some changes to the heights of some of the properties they stillare massive blocks at five stories high which is several stories higher than the adjacent housingand is not appropriate for the local area.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I agree with all the objections being made by those against this ill thought outdevelopment.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I am concerned about this application because of the increased vehicle traffic and lackcar parking spaces. Clearly there will be significant pressure on the already limited parking in localstreets as well as increased traffic in the vicinity of two primary schools.
The height of the buildings is out of keeping with the surrounding architecture.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
This is a truly appalling proposal with no regard for the local community. How in this dayand age can it be allowed to happen? How can a greedy, rich person or company be allowed toacquire land and develop ugly buildings that have no visual context with the immediateneighbourhood and will do absolutely nothing for the community? Good architecture and townplanning is about sensitivity and understanding of the physical context and users of a space orarea.
This proposal is an over-development which will result in loss of trees and wildlife. It isenvironmentally all wrong. Shame on Bristol City Council for not dismissing it on this basis alone.The high density of the proposal with inevitable congestion and traffic problems created by thecars unable to park on the actual site. Do you know what Bayswater Avenue is like even at thequiet times, let alone rush hour or Westbury Park School drop off and pick up times? The bottlenecks around Redland Road, Westbury Park, Etloe Road and Royal Albert Road will besignificantly worse.
The very last thing that is needed round here is fancy housing foraffluent old people. It is such a pathetic, lazy pitch. There is no shortage of housing available inthis category in BS6.
The scheme should be either looking at creating low density and low rise affordable housing forfamilies or for a different use - a municipal leisure facility that can be reached on foot by 1000s oflocal residents. A huge amount of money is spent by local parents on swimming and sporting
activities for their children all year round - it could be incredibly lucrative as children and adultswould flock. Why not let the site be a new location for Westbury Park School? This would retain aconnection with the educational legacy of the SEN provision that St Christopher's offered.
How have rules been created that have meant that a planning application of this nature has anypurchase whatsoever in the Council Planning process? It is so clearly a terrible idea and benefitsno one except the developer. Please reject it so that the site can be developed with integrity andinsight to secure and maintain this areas for those of us that live here and care.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
For same reasons as in previous objection
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I strongly disagree with the plans and revised plans. My major concerns are still that theproposal doesn't take into consideration where it is and how it will fit into the landscape orcommunity.
My main concern is the traffic and parking problems the development would cause. The site hasn'tallowed enough parking spaces for such a large development. We already have both a traffic andparking problem. People use our small, residential streets as rat runs and we are alwayswitnessing congestion and road rage. I often come home in the evenings and find I have to parkseveral streets away.
Bayswater Avenue is a danger hotspot and children aren't safe walking to school and crossing theroad due to the amount of people who drive to school and lack of parking. Myself and my childrenwere almost hit by a car a few weeks ago because they were trying to reverse into a gap (adriveway) to make way for another car passing and they didn't see we were trying to cross theroad to school. These problems would only be made worse with this development.
I also disagree with the design due to its impact on wildlife and nature (removal of trees) andblocking light from neighbouring houses due to the height of the properties. The new design isn't inkeeping with the current properties around it and will be an eyesore.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Having reviewed the revised plans we remain still very concerned that the local areacannot take the extra traffic and parking that this development will require. The revised plans donot adequately make allowance for this and are not significantly different from the original plans. Inaddition we are concerned about the height of the buildings which are higher than those in thearea.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
It is scandalous that developers adopt these was of attrition tactics, particularlyconniving to schedule it so that comments need to be made during the Christmas break.
However, we still strongly object to these proposals. The so-called revised plan is nothing morethan a tinkering at the edges, and there are still fundamental problems with :-
- provision of parking spaces- height of the proposed buildings- destruction of irreplaceable wildlife habitats and heritage trees- lack of provision of real affordable housing- lack of consideration for special education provision
Finally, in the Glen, we have particular objections to the proposals as they seek to open up accessfrom the end of our cul-de-sac, which would make already chronic parking problems even worse.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
I am 11 years old, I think that the building is too big and I am sad about the trees beingcut down.I think that the extra cars will make the roads dangerous for me and my friends.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
This programme of building works will have a huge negative impact on the primaryschool. Access to the school, noise and also impact on infrastructure of the area.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
This proposal is presented by the developer has having been revised. But given the size of the pileof documents, the difficulty of locating within them the tiny number of elements that have beenaltered, and the minimal nature of those changes, one has to question whether the exercise isworth it - for planners, or for the public. Is the developer being cloth-eared, or vexatious?
So minimal are the changes in height, in density and in massing, that ALL of the comments I madein a detailed and carefully-considered submission on 16th May 2022 still apply, and my objectionto this 'revision' remains equally strong, even without the irritation of having to repeat myself, andof knowing others' time is being similarly wasted.
I particularly wish to emphasise two elements of objection ignored in this revision:
1) Regarding parking, this should be a 'Sui generis' consideration - it is anomalous to classify as a'Residential institution' this 'Extra care development' (for which all 221 residents must ARRIVEwhile still independent, to then 'age in place'). This is a well-heeled suburb - to imagine only 1 in 6of new arrivals will own a car stretches credulity well beyond its limits.
2) The objections on sustainability and wildlife habitat loss cannot begin to be addressed byshaving 30cm off one block and removing one storey from one out of four residential blocks.Because it is the density and massing of the proposed development that obliges removal of somany trees, and in addition guarantees that their 'replacements' will never be allowed to grow to
full size - because of the proximity of buildings. So the proposal gives lip-service to sustainability,as only a radical reduction in aspirations can remedy this and the parking problem.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
The so-called 'updated proposals' submitted by the developers in response to thesubstantial local opposition are no more than cosmetic attempts to make their plans appear moreattractive. They do not in any meaningful way address the basic anatomy of their proposeddevelopment, which if approved would constitute an indelible 'blot on the Bristol landscape'.
I wrote opposing the original application. Having studied the 'updated proposals' in detail, myconsidered opposition to the scheme is undiminished.
The reduction of the number of proposed 'luxury retirement homes' from 122 to 116 is a tokengesture - as is the reduction of the height of the massive blocks of flats by just one storey. Fivestorey buildings towering above the trees and neighbouring buildings on this the highest part of thecity would constitute an environmental eyesore. If Bristol is to embrace such structures, it shouldonly do so at lower levels of the city, where their visual impact would be less conspicuous.
Nor does the revised plan address the issue of ecological impoverishment. The developer's claimthat it would create 'greater bio-diversity' is relative only to their original plan - not to the existingmix of mature trees, varied habitat and open space that their utopian development would impose.Our city's long history of a gradual evolution of partnership between the aspirations of people andthe needs of nature would be swept aside in an irreversible act of ecological sabotage.
There are many other more logistic issues: traffic flow, road safety along the edge of the Downs,parking chaos in and around the site, lack of affordable and social housing, loss of architectural
heritage and mature trees, reduction of open space and the imposition of a new man-made skylineas a backdrop to this part of the Bristol Downs.
These are all valid and pressing issues. But the basis of my opposition as a professional ecologistand a BBC Natural History film-maker - and also personally as a guardian of the kind of world inwhich we wish to live - is the fundamental and irreversible impact that this development wouldhave on the future character and nature of Bristol.
Globally we are facing a crisis of conflict between man and nature; here in one small corner of theplanet - the long-established and multi-faceted city of Bristol - we will be judged by how we as acommunity balance the rapacious demands of commerce with our down-to-earth conscience andinstincts about how we as an urban society should be shaping the nature of the place which weand our successors will be proud to call 'home'.
Peter Crawford2 January 2023
on 2023-01-02 SUPPORT
Bristol has some of the worst quality housing and public infrastructure of any major Ukcity. Bristol needs more homes in places people want to live, good schools to underpin liveabilityand tram bus and rail infrastructure to reduce car dependency and travel. Without infrastructurecomes car dependency comes nimbyism comes lack of new homes comes lack of growth andfunding to support communities and infrastructure, a productivity/youth drain and unaffordablehouse prices. This is a good initiative that should be supported, how it's been received by thecommunity is inevitable.
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:Dear Sir / Madam,
Reading the details of this modified submission for St Christopher's site development the minimal
modifications and remaining significant negative impact to this beautiful area of our city is of grave
consideration. A reduction of 6 from 116 units is immaterial. Parking plans are grossly out of kilter
with reality as well as the capacity of the area. Felling of the number of trees including the old oak,
still materially damaging to the areas natural environment. 30cm reduction and one story reduction
this is still a five story development that is totally out of keeping. As for the creation of the Urban
Village Hall, as a parent of a child with special educational needs myself, the vagueness and lack
of respect to the gravity of this in the area is offensive.
This development endeavour is pure profiteering at this scale. They have not come even close to
anything reasonable and I totally object to this scheme even in it's newly revised form.
Kind Regards
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:When I first saw the pictures of the proposed development, my first thoughts were that
the buildings look like a Texas prison, only with slightly bigger windows, there's no way this is a
positive development whichever way you look at it.
The trees that will be sacrificed are used by bats, as I always see them flying around at dusk.
There's more than enough provision for elderly care of this nature in this area, with the latest
one(opposite the spire) still yet to be filled.
Most elderly people want to stay in their homes anyway with any care coming to them, (my
widowed mother being one)
This will affect the equilibrium of the area (I've lived here for almost 20 years)
The people who live next to the development must surely have a right to light in their properties by
prescriptive easement, the height of these blocks will affect this.
The children that were being helped here (where do they go now)
Let's be honest this is just about making money and as much as possible, we don't even have an
RPZ so parking will be even more of a problem, children in this area have already suffered life
changing injuries
Please, as planners you have a moral responsibility to ensure correct development and not
making rich people just a bit wealthier.
I'm not a nimby as I live a couple of streets away from the development.
Please reconsider I beg you
Kind Regards
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:When I first saw the pictures of the proposed development, my first thoughts were that
the buildings look like a Texas prison, only with slightly bigger windows, there's no way this is a
positive development whichever way you look at it.
The trees that will be sacrificed are used by bats, as I always see them flying around at dusk.
There's more than enough provision for elderly care of this nature in this area, with the latest
one(opposite the spire) still yet to be filled.
Most elderly people want to stay in their homes anyway with any care coming to them, (my
widowed mother being one)
This will affect the equilibrium of the area (I've lived here for almost 20 years)
The people who live next to the development must surely have a right to light in their properties by
prescriptive easement, the height of these blocks will affect this.
The children that were being helped here (where do they go now)
Let's be honest this is just about making money and as much as possible, we don't even have an
RPZ so parking will be even more of a problem, children in this area have already suffered life
changing injuries
Please, as planners you have a moral responsibility to ensure correct development and not
making rich people just a bit wealthier.
I'm not a nimby as I live a couple of streets away from the development.
Please reconsider I beg you
Kind Regards
on 2023-01-02 OBJECT
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:The so-called 'updated proposals' submitted by the developers in response to the
substantial local opposition are no more than cosmetic attempts to make their plans appear more
attractive. They do not in any meaningful way address the basic anatomy of their proposed
development, which if approved would constitute an indelible 'blot on the Bristol landscape'.
I wrote opposing the original application. Having studied the 'updated proposals' in detail, my
considered opposition to the scheme is undiminished.
The reduction of the number of proposed 'luxury retirement homes' from 122 to 116 is a token
gesture - as is the reduction of the height of the massive blocks of flats by just one storey. Five
storey buildings towering above the trees and neighbouring buildings on this the highest part of the
city would constitute an environmental eyesore. If Bristol is to embrace such structures, it should
only do so at lower levels of the city, where their visual impact would be less conspicuous.
Nor does the revised plan address the issue of ecological impoverishment. The developer's claim
that it would create 'greater bio-diversity' is relative only to their original plan - not to the existing
mix of mature trees, varied habitat and open space that their utopian development would impose.
Our city's long history of a gradual evolution of partnership between the aspirations of people and
the needs of nature would be swept aside in an irreversible act of ecological sabotage.
There are many other more logistic issues: traffic flow, road safety along the edge of the Downs,
parking chaos in and around the site, lack of affordable and social housing, loss of architectural
heritage and mature trees, reduction of open space and the imposition of a new man-made skyline
as a backdrop to this part of the Bristol Downs.
These are all valid and pressing issues. But the basis of my opposition as a professional ecologist
and a BBC Natural History film-maker - and also personally as a guardian of the kind of world in
which we wish to live - is the fundamental and irreversible impact that this development would
have on the future character and nature of Bristol.
Globally we are facing a crisis of conflict between man and nature; here in one small corner of the
planet - the long-established and multi-faceted city of Bristol - we will be judged by how we as a
community balance the rapacious demands of commerce with our down-to-earth conscience and
instincts about how we as an urban society should be shaping the nature of the place which we
and our successors will be proud to call 'home'.
2 January 2023
on 2023-01-01 OBJECT
We have previously lodged our objection to this proposed scheme and see nothing inthe revised plans to encourage us to change our mind. Our view remains the same in that thesedevelopers are seeking to enrich themselves with little or no thought for the effect their plans willhave on local and other residents.
Many people living in the Henleaze area will recall the recent nearby Grange Court flats fiascowhere London property speculators were eventually seen off and defeated after a concerted effortby deeply concerned citizens.
on 2023-01-01 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to this newproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before. It is still too big with only 6 fewer homes suggested. There is still an unacceptableloss of trees and wildlife. The parking issue remains significant with such a small reduction andSEND provision remains cursory. The project is not in character with Westbury Park and TheDowns and I sincerely hope it is rejected.
on 2023-01-01 OBJECT
The application should be refused for the following:1. Over development with density and height excessive2. Traffic generation and insufficient parking.3. Use of the Glen for emergency vehicles considered inappropriate with a narrow cut de sac.4. Loss of trees and biodiversity,5. Affordable housing insufficient. Developer says unviable but as a chartered surveyor withexperience of residential schemes planning viability is likely to be a work of fiction.Regards
on 2023-01-01 OBJECT
Whilst the developers have made some concessions a small reduction the the numberof apartments, no access from Bayswater Avenue. I am still concerned that this looks like anoverdevelopment of the site as mentioned in my original objection. Similarly I have concerns aboutthe lack of parking which will put more pressure on nearby roads already clogged with cars.
on 2023-01-01 OBJECT
I don't feel the new proposals have made enough changes to overcome the concerns Iraised in my previous objection. I therefore still believe the planning application should be refusedbased on the reasons outlined previously.
on 2023-01-01 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasonsstated.Since my original comment, St Christopher's has been used as a vaccine centre on numerousweekends, which compounds my theory re the construction workers, that there was nowhere topark, which caused illegal parking on the Downs.There is insufficient parking for local residents and, the planners have not allowed one parkingspace per each residential unit proposed.I have lived in this area for 46 years, of which parking has always been a major issue, and thisproposed plan will make things even worse.I am 86 years old and have maintained this property for my final years which will be horrendous ifthis planning is to be carried out.The property was originally donated for the accommodation and use for disabled children, forcharitable reasons not profiteering.It was acquired by a company who quickly closed the residential aspect, and it's school fordisabled children purely for its location to turn into a profit making residential site.
on 2023-01-01 OBJECT
1. Overdevelopment. It is still too big, too dense and too high. They have only reducedby 6 fewer homes - still 4 and 5 storey block of flats2. Loss of trees and wild life: still too many mature trees being chopped down3. Traffic- there are not enough parking spaces - this will lead to over spill into neighbouring roadslike mine - and, parking is already extremely difficult, and often impossible. I would like a residents'parking scheme in my road, Downs park East.4. Loss of SENd provision - a derisory offer of the use of a room is an insult to the 70 years legacyof special needs education on the site.5. Harm to heritage_ this scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and disregardsthe fact that this is a designated Conservation area.
on 2023-01-01 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to this newproposal. I continue to believe that the planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated previously. The changes that have been made are negligible.
on 2023-01-01 OBJECT
I submitted an objection to the original planning application, and that still stands for thisnew proposal. The traffic issue has not been addressed, the site is surrounded by narrow streets,existing residents take up most of the parking spaces and commuters take the rest. There will beoverspill further and further away from the site, traffic jams due to increased volume of traffic, andpotential road rage incidents.The scale of this development is not suitable for the Westbury park area.
on 2023-01-01 OBJECT
This is still overdevelopment of a heritage site in a conservation area. Of a site withlimited road access, which is bordered on three sides by residential streets, with a school and twonurseries. Where traffic and parking are already an issue, giving rise to concerns for health andsafety.
A reduction from 122 to 116 units is a cosmetic change to the original plans. To provide 65 parkingspaces for 116 units will inevitably lead to an impact on surrounding streets.
I object to this proposed development.
on 2023-01-01 OBJECT
The so-called revisions to this planning application are extremely minor and indicatethat the multiple objections made previously have been intentionally ignored, with scant regard forthe community.
The development is still far too tall and overbearing, it is too dense and will remove green spaceand trees, it does not provide anywhere near suffucient parking and it is out of character with thesurrounding architecture.
All of the objections I previously submitted still apply to this proposal. Therefore, I am convincedthis application should be refused for all the reasons previously stated.
on 2023-01-01 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before.The revised plans have changed very little with only 5 less flats achieved by reducing the 6 storeyto 5 storey. There remain two 5 storey buildings, a 4 storey & a 3 storey which will totally dominatethe site and be visible from all aspects including Bayswater Avenue. This is far too muchdevelopment for the site and the neighbourhood.The consequences of such an overcrowded, dense development will be huge. The naturalenvironment within the site will face a huge loss of diversity and any replanting will take years tobecome established meanwhile the ecosystem and habitats will be lost forever.The already densely built environment beyond the site in Westbury Park will be totallyoverwhelmed. This will be exacerbated by the paltry 65 car spaces provided for 116 dwellings.Where will all the residents, their visitors, support staff and admin staff park? Obviously in thesurrounding streets. These streets are already full of parked cars as shown in the car surveycarried out by the residents. There is no RPS in this area so it will become impossible for theresidents or their visitors to find a parking space which will lead to overspill parking across a widearea. Although the vehicular access has been removed from Bayswater Avenue it has been addedto The Glen just transferring the problem The pedestrian access remains onto Bayswater Avenuewhich will be where the residents and visitors of the site will park when their totally inadequate siteparking is full. There will be therefore an increase in traffic on all the neighbouring roads which willonly lead to more danger for the neighbourhood as potentially more accidents will occur. There isa primary school and two nurseries in Bayswater Avenue whose children's safety should be a high
priority.
I therefore stand by my previous comments and urge the Council to reject these plans completely.
on 2023-01-01 OBJECT
Whilst we support the redevelopment of this site, we object to the lack of parkingprovision (65 spaces for 116 homes)Overflow parking to neighbouring streets which are not in a residents parking schemes is asignificant concern.
on 2023-01-01 OBJECT
I'm writing once again to state my objection to this application following the developers'revised plans.The reduction from 122 to 116 homes is a minor concession and will do nothing to reduce theimpact on the surrounding area, one thousands of people hold very dear.As well as the size and scale of the development and disruption it will cause, I object theadditional, and in my view dangerous, levels of traffic it will bring to the area.The site would have totally inadequate parking for its proposed size, forcing the vast majority ofvehicles to seek alternative parking on already congested surrounding roads.I already face a daily struggle to park on the road in which I've lived for 17 years. This proposal willmake the task even worse.This all comes at a time when the Council states its desire to dramatically reduce car usage in thecity to ease congestion. This will only make matters worse.The planners should be on the side of hard-working, local taxpayers, not developers seeking towin support through a few minor amendments to the original plan which provoked such criticismand anger.This special area on the Downs is treasured by locals and visitors alike. We must protect it.Thank you for reading.
on 2023-01-01 OBJECT
We object to the revised proposal as the main concerns raised to the previous application havenot been adequately addressed. The developers need to be realistic about what can be achievedon the site and the impact on the local community.
In particular, the development should respect the conservation area and be in proportion with thesurroundings - the proposed buildings are too tall.
We have serious concerns around road safety due to increased traffic visiting the site and parkingdue to the inadequate parking provision.
Increased traffic on tight and already congested roads presents a safety risk for young children.Many local residents have young families and the site is adjacent to a primary school and nursery.As the surrounding roads have no parking restrictions there will inevitably be overspill parking withcarers and visitors parking nearby, seriously impacting local residents.
We sincerely hope that the revised plans are rejected.
on 2023-01-01 OBJECT
We object to the revised proposal as the main concerns raised to the previous application havenot been adequately addressed. The developers need to be realistic about what can be achievedon the site and the impact on the local community.
In particular, the development should respect the conservation area and be in proportion with thesurroundings - the proposed buildings are too tall.
We have serious concerns around road safety due to increased traffic visiting the site and parkingdue to the inadequate parking provision.
Increased traffic on tight and already congested roads presents a safety risk for young children.Many local residents have young families and the site is adjacent to a primary school and nursery.As the surrounding roads have no parking restrictions there will inevitably be overspill parking withcarers and visitors parking nearby, seriously impacting local residents.
We sincerely hope that the revised plans are rejected.
on 2022-12-31 OBJECT
Loss of trees and wildlife habitats. Not enough parking. Too many buildings. Not carbonneutral . More traffic in the area. Safety concerns for children at neighbouring school. Morepollution with less trees to soak up the carbon.All in all, not a well thought out scheme. Develop the site for non profit and give back to thecommunity instead. It's not all about making money in this world.
on 2022-12-31 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before. The changes made to the application are minimal and do not address my concernsabout this proposal.
on 2022-12-31 OBJECT
I object, for the first time, on the following grounds.
- Consultation - being over the Christmas period and reducing the availability and likelihood ofeveryday people being able to comment. Organisations benefiting financially from thedevelopment will naturally gear up all there resources focused on these tight deadlines, howeverneighbours views and objections are likely to be less forthcoming purely due to the consultationprocess and timings.
- Overdevelopment - still too big, too dense & too high
- Loss of Trees and Wildlife - still too many trees being chopped down
- Traffic - not enough parking spaces leading to overspill and road safety hazards
- Loss of SEND provision - derisory offer of shared use of a room is an insult to the 70 yearslegacy of special needs education on this site
- Harm to Heritage - the scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and disregardsthe fact that this is a designated Conservation Area.
on 2022-12-31 OBJECT
As before, Overdevelopment, Traffic, Harm to heritage
on 2022-12-31 OBJECT
The revised plan fails to address the main concerns raised by many neighbours andother interested parties.There appears only to be small amendments which are merely tinkering at the marginsThis objection remains as beforeThere is an overdevelopment of the siteInsufficient parking provisionBuildings that are too tall and out of character with neighbouring propertiesA loss of wildlife and treesFails to recognise this is a conservation area.I believe the scheme is overbearing and inappropriate taking no account of the heritage of the siteor the context of the sensitivities surrounding its future development.
on 2022-12-31 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before. These are fundamentally:Overdevelopment, the project is too big, too dense and too high.Loss of trees and wildlife - too many mature trees being cut downHarm to heritage - the scheme is out of character with the neighbourhood and disregards the factthat this is a designated Conservation area.Increase in traffic in an area which already suffers from too many vehicles and lack of parkingleading to road safety hazards.
on 2022-12-31 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before.
Overdevelopment - still too big, too dense & too highLoss of Trees and Wildlife - still too many trees being chopped downTraffic - not enough parking spaces leading to overspill and road safety hazardsHarm to Heritage - the scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and disregardsthe fact that this is a designated Conservation Area.Loss of SEND provision
on 2022-12-31 OBJECT
This site looks to be completely over developed. The local street's are already too busyand the new resident and construction traffic will blight and gridlock the area. Lower density & max3 story blocks.
on 2022-12-31 OBJECT
The revised plan for this scheme have hardly changed the appearance or impact of theChang win use for this property.Large blocks of apartments are unsightly, excessive in the number of residents in an alreadyovercrowded residential area. The height of the apartment blocks will be visible from across theDowns and elsewhere. Whilst I appreciate there is a limit on parking provision as per guidance,the number of parking spaces is woeful and will lead to further overcrowding of parked vehicles inthe area. I am also concerned about road safety in regards to overflow of vehicles not only forparking but an increase in vehicle use in Westbury Park.There is a significant loss of green space impacting wildlife and increase in pollution.How is the council going to provide care for their vulnerable, SEND provision. The offer of shareduse of a room is an insult to the 70 years legacy of special needs education on this siteHarm to Heritage - the scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and disregardsthe fact that this is a designated Conservation Area.I employee the council to think about the long term and not the profits and spin of the privatesector wishing to make these changes.
on 2022-12-31 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before. The developers clearly have not listened to the objections and do not care about theimpact this development will have on the local community and environment if they think thatslightly lowering the height of one building makes this a viable proposal. Unfortunately it seemsthey are motivated by greed and profit rather than developing this beautiful sight in a sensitive waywhich respects the views of the local community.
on 2022-12-31 OBJECT
As per my previous objections, very little has been done to reduce the impact of thisoverbearing and inappropriately large development. My concerns remain that the developmentremains far to large- too tall, too many homes, and simply at a far greater scale than appropriate tothe local neighbourhood. It is entirely inappropriate to have such tall blocks of flats at 4-5 storeys.
There are still not enough parking spaces for the number or properties and staff required tosupport them. This will impact further on local roads where congestion is already an issue and thisincludes roads where many young children are walking to the local school which immediatelyadjoins the development.
At a time of climate concerns it find it hard to believe that so many mature trees can be sacrificed-this would be a further loss for the environment and local wildlife.
It is very sad that such beautiful properties that provided care and support to children with specialneeds are being developed with little consideration of those children. There is only a minimalsuggestion of support for the local school.
Please again reject this disproportionate development. It does not respect the local area, it doesnot reflect the local need, it is far to large, dense and high to be appropriate. The developers haveinsulted all those involved by making negligible changes to their application and it should again berejected.
on 2022-12-31 OBJECT
My initial objection to this proposal still stands. It is clear the developers have notlistened to the concerns of local people as there have been no meaningful alterations to the plans.
The site is still being overdeveloped. The proposals are still leading to significant loss of maturetrees, habitats and wildlife. Traffic and road safety concerns have not been addressed by thedevelopers.
The site is in a designated Conservation Area. Conservation areas have 'special character andappearance' which the council 'aim to preserve or enhance'. Therefore, by their own logic, BristolCity Council cannot allow this development to go ahead in its current form.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
I object to this application. It is too big and will overwhelm the local community. It istrying to pack in too much high-density housing at the expense of the community.
The protection offered to the local trees and wildlife is not sufficient.
By building up a green and leafy site (which could accommodate residents parking) the applicantacknowledges that there will be overspill into neighbouring streets. This is neither necessary noracceptable.
The applicant should note that access through The Glen will not work. This cul de sac is alreadyheavily congested with vehicles that reverse their way out having already cruised the area for non-existent parking spaces.
The applicant has not made adequate provision for legacy SEND requirements.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
The tiny revisions do nothing to make this proposal more acceptable. Its real purpose isjust to make a few rich individuals even richer. They will laugh their heads off if given permission toover-develop the beautiful and well-loved St Christopher's site for private profit. Then they willmove on to their next lucrative target, and the one after that. The planning authorities shouldobstruct such commercial greed, not enable it.
on 2022-12-30 SUPPORT
A positive use for the site. Desperate need for more housing, particularly retirementsuitable ones
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
I object to this for the same reasons I gave previously when they submitted theirprevious plans. The loss of trees, more cars in an area that is already beyond capacity. Fears foreven worse safety on the roads for children at Westbury Park School. No continuing SENprovision when this is clearly needed in Bristol. Ridiculous height of buildings and no way nearenough parking. And the designs are completely out of sync with the area. It is ridiculous that theycan change their plans by such a minimal amount and then submit another application to wasteeveryone's time.
on 2022-12-30 SUPPORT
I objected previously to this planning application and continue to do so. Theamendments made are very minor and do not significantly address the problems raised.The development is too big, dense and overbearing for the space and is out of character in thisneighbourhood.There is insufficient parking provision for proposed residents, never mind for visitors and carersetc and there is NO capacity for overspill into the surrounding streets. There are primary andnursery schools in Bayswater Avenue and heavy commuter traffic and extra traffic pressure wouldadd to this dangerous mix.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
I object to the proposed development of St Christopher's school. The increase in trafficin the area with such a large increase in the local population is not sustainable - all the adjoiningroads are already too busy and this will significantly increase congestion and pollution in the area.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
The changes proposed in this revised application are minimal. Reducing the number offlats by just 6 homes will make virtually no difference to the overcrowded site. The buildingsproposed are still too high for this conservation area.
Worst of all is the decision to make the rear access via The Glen. This would simply encourageresidents, staff and visitors, for whom there is already inadequate parking provision on site, to tryand park in The Glen or Belvedere Road. There is already insufficient parking for the residents ofthese two roads. Belvedere Road is regularly blocked by delivery vehicles and ambulances and,as a resident myself, I find myself circling the area for 20 minutes or more, trying to find a space inneighbouring streets.
It's a recipe for chaos in this part of Redland.
I continue to object to the proposed development.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
My objection to the initial plans have not in the slightest bit changed with theamendments proposed. The site should not be developed in this way.The area infrastructure will not be able to support such an enormous development that is totallyout of character with the place; too dense and way too high meaning it will impinge on thesurrounds. Most importantly this means the school which will be polluted by the building works andtraffic demands of building. The roads simply cannot support the building work needs and will beunable to support the increase in accommodation that will come if the site development happenswith cars, parking needs, pollution. The environmental cost will be huge since there will need to besignificant loss of trees in the vicinity; as such the whole character of the place, nestled next to awonderful green space will be ruined durning and after site work.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
My original objections to this planning application pertain. The revised application is acynical revision of the plans aimed at accommodating the comments of local residents. Inparticular I am concerned about the following:1. the density of the accommodation means the site will be overdeveloped. The number ofresidences has been reduced from 122 to 116, a reduction of a mere 4.9%. This figure goesnowhere near meeting the needs of both site residents and local residents2. parking facilities are still minimal and will impact on local streets and the Downs. The reductionof residences by six will have little if any impact on the already inadequate parking provision in theoriginal plans3. the design of the main buildings is totally out of keeping with the area, which is a ConservationArea4. the slight reduction in the height of the buildings means they will still remain an eyesore to localresidents, and indeed, to those living there5. the SEND provision is an insult to the history and legacy of the site
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before, including extensive damage to the environment (loss of trees), the proposed size ofthe development being completely out of character with the surrounding area and heritage of thesite and the dangerous increase in traffic in an already over-crowded neighbourhood with localnursery and school traffic.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
I object to this proposal.It seems to me that once again developers are using their ploy of submitting an outrageous designin order to have it refused so that they hope something slightly less outrageous will be accepted.The proposal in its present form is not landscape-led, and modifications such as a 300mmreduction in the height of the villas, or a change of their colour are merely cosmetic.The substance is that their scale and bulk are still excessive, the development encroaches, andwould certainly lead to overspill parking in the already crowded area around.There is too much building on too small a site, and too many trees would be removed.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
The objections I submitted to the original planning application remain entirely relevant tothis proposal. I continue to believe that the planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated previously. The revised application makes only very small changes which do little or nothingto reduce the level of over development - 4-5 storey blocks of flats wedged onto the site withinadequate parking and poor road access. It submission in the run up to Christmas looks like acynical attempt to avoid public comment.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
I object to this development on the grounds of over development. The height of therevised scheme is still out of keeping with adjacent dwellings and the proximity of dwellings,especially to the listed Steiner building create a too dense development, that will have overallharm to the heritage of the site.
Additionally the parking provision on site, despite the applicants claims that car use will beminimised due to the proposed use still appears inadequate and will lead to further congestion onadjacent streets
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
I object on the same reasons as previously stated.
These minor alterations do not fundamentally change the proposed development and therefore failto sufficiently address any of the concerns raised. The development is just too large, and too high,for the size of the site and the impact on the quality of the local environment, traffic and heritagewill be devastating. The development also does nothing to honour the legacy of St Christophersand does not give needed SEN provision.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
I object to this planning application due to its overdevelopment, it is still to large for thesite and the buildings to close together. The loss of trees and wildlife are harmful to the heritage ofthe site.Previously I objected to the parking and access arrangements which will continue to cause parkingissues in the nearby roads.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before.
The revised application continues to overdevelop the site. It's too dense and too high.
Too may trees are being chopped down - in today's environmental crisis, this is a good enoughreason to object.
Parking will be a big problem in an already overcrowded area.
The scheme is out of character with the neighbourhood and is a flagrant disregard to the fact thisis a designated conservation area.
The site has a legacy of special needs education and the derisory offer of shared use of a room isan insult to this legacy.
I object strongly to this development.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
While I am generally in favour of using the site for care homes, the proposals arecurrently unacceptable. The buildings are on a large scale with too many buildings for the site, andare inappropriate for the area, and the proposals for parking are wholly inadequate for the scale ofthe development and would lead to overspill into residential streets which are already hugelyovercrowded. The commitment to SEND provision has not been met. A large number of trees willbe felled which is also unacceptable.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
The objections I submitted to the original planning application still apply to this newapplication. I continue to believe that the new application must be refused for the reasons I statedbefore
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
Little evidence that notice has been taken of previous objections eg .1-traffic congestionand associated dangers2.loss of natural habitat for wild life3Affordable housing4 local amenities-ie more delivery vans from large stores and delivery firms less local shopping willensue
5 little parking for local cars -diminishing public transport ,what there is takes the same route iecentre to Cribbs Causeway but nothing to Sneyd Park or the Gloucester Rd.Expensive accomodation,pricing out aging residents whose pensions would not meet the ongoingcosts of living there,more research needs to be done to understand the actual ,rather than theperceived needs of the population.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
There have been very minor amendments to this application. The development stillrepresents very significant over development of this site. This is in terms of mass, there are still 4and 5 storey buildings. There is tiny reduction in homes from 122 to 116. There is still a significantloss of mature trees and significant increase in traffic and parking on local streets. In addition thedemand
in this area is for family housing not retirement flats, similar projects have not sold.
Overall this development needs a full rethink. Low level housing would be much more appropriate.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
I am a lodger nearby the development which is clearly too big, too dense and too high,will cause a loss of trees and wildlife, I'm sad at the idea so many trees will be chopped down.There simply is not enough parking spaces for this and driving through white tree roundaboutawful as it is!
I also believe the Loss of SEND provisions, that being the derisory offer of shared use of a room isan insult to the 70 years legacy of special needs education on this site. Shame on the developersfor closing this wonderful school for their own greed!
It's also a harm to heritage because the scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhoodand disregards the fact that this is a designated conservation area.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
I object to this development as it is out of keeping with the style, size and change to theviews from the Downs - and all in a Conservation Area. In the same way the development at theold Clifton Zoo site is an eyesore and completely out of keeping with the local building, thisdevelopment would also be very noticeable and have a jarring contrast to the neighbouringbuildings. I understand that this development would also mean removal of local trees which I alsoobject to.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
The objection I submitted against the original application still applies to this proposal.
There has been no significant change regarding overdevelopment. The proposal is still too high,too dense and too big. The traffic and parking concerns remain - too few parking spaces andincreased road safety hazards. Still too much damage to trees and local wildlife. InadequateSEND provision and a proposed development scheme that is neither in keeping with the characterof the neighbourhood, nor considerate of the designated Conservation Area.
I continue to believe that the planning application should be refused for the reasons I stated beforeand have re-iterated here.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
Overdevelopment not enough parking spaces for people living their visitors and carers .Area all around the site is full to brim with parked cars everywhere. Danger to road uses &pedestrians. Residents parking would help . I think buildings already there should be used forbetter things sad education for disabled being lost.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the previous planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe the planning should be rejected for the reasons I stated previously.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
I wish to re-state my objection to this application. The revised plans show only minimalchange and my reasons set out in my previous objection still stand.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
Over development of site proposed and severe environmental consequences
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
The revised proposals do not overcome my previously stated concerns.The 5% reduction in the number of buildings is nowhere near significant in terms of reducing theoverall and still damaging scale / bulk of new buildings.The number of trees removed is still very high.65 parking spaces will be insufficient to meet the demand and will lead to overspill parking insurrounding roads.There is still too much building on too small a site.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
This will be a complete eye saw and way over develop the area. There will be a loss oftrees and wildlife and ruin the local community. I strongly object.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
My initial objection to this proposal still stands. It is clear the developers have notlistened to the concerns of local people as there have been no meaningful alterations to the plans.
The site is still being overdeveloped. The proposals are still leading to significant loss of maturetrees, habitats and wildlife. Traffic and road safety concerns have not been addressed by thedevelopers.
The site is in a designated Conservation Area. Conservation areas have 'special character andappearance' which the council 'aim to preserve or enhance'. Therefore, by their own logic, BristolCity Council cannot allow this development to go ahead in its current form.
on 2022-12-30 OBJECT
No listed building should have internal or external alterations or be demolished.Appalling to push through lucrative plans for the benefit of few.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
Still too dense/high. Too much loss of trees/wildlife. Not enough parking or trafficconsiderations.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
I object to the plans.We have lived in Westbury Park for over 25 years. There are bats and owls that live in the trees inthe site which need to be preserved.Our children grew up integrated with the children and people living there who have special needsand require continued provision.The roads here cannot take any more parking and traffic - there are already more cars here thanthe area can take.It will affect the outlook - we look directly onto the trees which helps our mental wellbeing. Any tallbuildings would block our light.We have a very strong local community where people walk and meet. We have street parties too.We do not want the development changing the nature of our community. The developers have nointerest in the soul of this special community with mixed age groups.This development needs to be rejected.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
The development is still too large, out of keeping with the character of the area, and willcause problems with traffic and loss of mature trees. There is insufficient provision for SENDlegacy,.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
As a Redland resident I'm very concerned about the very limited revised plans for StChristopher's site.1. Four huge blocks of flats are totally out of character with a conservation area.2. Limited parking provision will impact the whole residential area.3. The lack of much needed affordable housing.4. No SEND provision which is desperately needed.5. The loss of mature trees and the effect on birds and other wildlife.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
We are concerned about the negative effect this project would have on road safety inthis area since the access road to site is not designed for heavy traffic. We are also concernedabout the negative impact on the wild life cause by demolishing and erecting brand new buildingsin this part of Bristol.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
Despite the revised design submitted by the developer the reasons I gave for objectingto this development in my original comment still stand.The scale and density of development is inappropriate to the size, location and context of this sitein a residential and school neighbourhood and (theoretically) a conservation area with narrowroads and inadequate parking spaces available.Westbury Park and Henleaze areas do not need further 'up-scale' retirement developments anymore than Bristol needs yet more student accommodation. We need affordable family homes andsome apartments, more play grounds and preservation of our most valuable green spaces.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
Development too large for the location.Parking and traffic already overstretchedTrees being lost is unacceptable
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original objections still applies to this proposal. Icontinue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons I stated before.
Please please do not support this planning application. It will be horrific in terms of safety, traffic,pollution, aesthetics, wildlife, SEND provision .... all for monetary gain.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original objections still applies to this proposal. Icontinue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons I stated before.
The reduction of 6 houses is wholly inappropriate in response to the very lengthy complaintssubmitted previously.
on 2022-12-29
Hi. I think there are too many units on this site for it to match its locality. I don't think thedensity matches that of Westbury fields - an excellent development. High rise at The Vincent ismore acceptable for that particular site.I like the idea of a community room but think it would make more sense to seek to develop thecommunity resources on North View where there is an interesting complex of rooms as part of theMethodist church. This would draw people towards the excellent local resources of library,supermarket etc and help integrate the older community with the local younger one. Maybe alsohelp local relationships by improving these slightly tired rooms.
on 2022-12-29
There is no substantial change to the original plans. This does not seem to take accountof local feelings.- Despite the claims of this being a sustainable site, there is still a significant loss of trees.- The project will increase traffic in an already busy part of the city, and where parking for residentsis already difficult. I've seen nothing that convinces me that this has been addressed and thoughtthrough.- The proposal to provide an elderly residential home is laudable, but losing St Christopher's is abig hit to the SEND needs of the community, and surely this is more immediately pressing?- Finally, the buildings are still too high and despite assurances during the open day impact theskyline of the local community.I have some real concerns about this and object the plans.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
I object to the revised planning application for the St Christopher's site in Westbury Parkon the grounds of overdevelopment and the impact this will have on the surrounding community.
The site fronts a particularly attractive stretch of the Downs and is surrounded by residentialbuildings in a variety of attractive styles. Although the reduction in the height of the apartmentblocks is welcome, the height will still be detrimental to the area as it will loom over all the adjacentbuildings and block the light from parts of the new development as well as surrounding properties.At the initial neighbourhood consultation meeting we were assured that the height of thedevelopment would not be much higher than the older lodge buildings that face the Downs. Thiscommitment has obviously now been shelved. If this height of development is allowed it might setan unfortunate precedent for high rise buildings on the perimeter of the Downs.
The other significant impact of this development is, of course, going to be seen on the surroundingroads both in terms of traffic flow and parking. The planning application goes into much detail todefend the low numbers of parking spaces that will be provided and maintains that they will beadequate to meet the demands of the residents and staff. Many of the elderly residents likely to beliving in the development will still need cars to lead their normal lives. Currently, the local roadsparticularly in the Glenn and Belvedere Road are fully parked up with vans, ambulances,scaffolding and refuse disposal lorries parked in the middle of the roads. Consequently, forpractical purposes these roads are one way only. I am fearful of this congestion will lead to localtraffic rage and avoidable accidents. One solution would be to have access from Westbury Roadwith double yellow lines on both sides of the road from Belvedere Road to Albert Road.
The plans also indicate a lack of green and open space within the site. It appears that the densityand height of the development are dictated by the need to have sufficient numbers of residents toallow the business model of the retirement village to be financially viable.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
Not enough consideration for parking.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
This development is too big and the buildings are too tall. It will destroy the localcommunity and is out of character. The developers want to put too many properties on the site.There will also remove many trees. Parking is an issue as well of course. Parking is already anissue in this area but will get worse with this new development.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
1 Overdevelopment of site. Too big, too dense and too high.... 4 and 5 storeyflats...Totally out of character with the area, especially in a designated Conservation Area.2 Requires cutting down of mature trees...unacceptable in these times of carbon reduction.3 Not enough on site parking resulting in overspill into surrounding roads which are alreadyovercrowded and resulting in parking on pavements.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
This revised proposal offer only minor - indeed derisory - improvement over itspredecessor and fails in my view on all major assessment criteria, viz. density of building,ecological impact, traffic/parking, and appropriateness to the area. I would urge the Council toreject it.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
The amendments to the original planning application on this site are inadequate. Thereduction by 6 homes represents less than a 5% reduction. It remains too dense and too high andtoo many mature trees will be felled to accommodate this scheme. The parking issues with carsnot accommodated in the inadequate parking on the site will make an already congested areamore problematic.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
The proposal is overdeveloped. The properties are still too big at 4-5 storeys. Would behappier with maximum 3 storeys and also further reduction in the number of units - max 100.
More mature trees need to be retained, these have been reduced in the amendment but not bymuch.
More parking needs to be provided, the area is already overloaded with vehicles so there needs tobe more onsite provision.
The development needs to be more in keeping with the heritage of the area.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
Overdevelopment of the site:Still too big, too dense and too high.
Adequacy of Parking and Access:Not enough parking spaces leading to overspill and road safety hazards.Parking is already at a premium within the local area.
Traffic and Safety:Significant increase in traffic movement from site residents, visitors, staff and deliveries will impactadversely on an already congested and busy area.
Environment: loss of trees and wildlife:Still too many mature trees being chopped down
Harm to Heritage:the scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and disregards the fact that this is adesignated Conservation Area.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
The proposal is overdeveloped. The properties are still too big at 4-5 storeys. Would behappier with maximum 3 storeys and also further reduction in the number of units - max 100.
More mature trees need to be retained, these have been reduced in the amendment but not bymuch.
More parking needs to be provided, the area is already overloaded with vehicles so there needs tobe more onsite provision.
The development needs to be more in keeping with the heritage of the area.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
Overdevelopment - too dense and too high.Loss of trees and wildlife.Traffic and parking increased.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
I stand by my original objections and believe this application should still be refused asthe revised plans make very little difference to the proposed development.It's overwhelming in terms of size.Way too many trees would be lost and there isn't sufficient space on site to replace them.SEND provision is much needed in Bristol and school places should be provided.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
Here are my comments on the proposal - a summary of the Revisions with mycomments following :-
- Total number of units reduced from 122 to 116. That is a 5% reduction, nowhere near significantin terms of reducing the overall and still damaging scale / bulk of new buildings.
- Fewer cottages are planned close to Bayswater Avenue. But some are still too close to existinghouses according to national standards and the 'Villas' are still way too close to each other.
- Villa B has been reduced from six to five storeys so would no longer be visible from The Downs.Irrelevant in the larger picture and Villa B would still be intrusive when viewed from The Glen. Also,imagine this huge building around just 10/12 metres away from the listed Grace House.
- The footprint and positioning of Villas A, B, C and D have been changed a little to create morespace around Grace House. Minor changes only; still too much building on too small a site.
- No longer any resident parking access from Bayswater Avenue (just service access to substation). Access for parking for 8 cars now proposed off the end of The Glen. The former is goodnews, the latter will certainly not be welcomed as it would increase the risk of overspill parking inThe Glen and nearby roads..
- Heights of all the proposed villas have been lowered by 300mm (about one foot). No comment!
- The façade treatment of the villas had been revised to reduce the bulk of the mansard roofs,using red brick instead of buff colour and revised window designs. Purely cosmetic.
- The landscape proposals have been revised to increase the amount of soft landscaping,particularly around Grace House. But no reduction in the amount of space between the blocks asa whole. It is certainly not 'landscape-led' as the City Council want it to be.
- The proposed spa extension to Grace House would be relocated to along the northern siteboundary. Perhaps a visual improvement but this makes that facility a short walk from the otherfacilities in Grace House.
- Fewer trees removed. But that number is still very high.
- There is no planned increase in the number of parking spaces. Even with the marginal reductionin the number of dwelling units 65 spaces will be insufficient to meet the demand for spaces andwill lead to overspill parking in surrounding roads.
Also please note - I understand Bristol City Council have now agreed Use Class C2 (residentialcare homes and other institutional housing) so there is no longer a requirement for the developerto provide any affordable housing as part of the development. Provision for Special EducationalNeeds remains unresolved
Victor Tettmar
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
The changes to the earlier submission are inadequate. The lack of on site parking willcause more problems in the vicinity.The over crowding I think you could call it is wrong for this and other sites. There will be too manyoccupants.Care of the natural environment doesn't appear to feature extensively here. Too many trees beinglost. This is a fortunate area which borders the Downs, there's a lot of local fauna and floraneeding our protection.I thought there was supposed to be some provision for special education needs. The loss of StChristopher's obviously made an impact in this.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
My objections in a previous comment still apply to these paltry amendments.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
The revised plans for this proposed development are inadequateand do not take into account the fact that this remains over-development of a heritage site. To reduce the proposed high-risedwellings by one storey is laughable and will make no difference tothe previous concerns expressed by earlier comments. Thereduction of 6 homes from 122 to 116 will make no differencewhatsoever and it is unbelievable that the applicants think it will.The likely traffic problems remain an issue and generally the proposed scale of the developmenttotally ignores not only theimportance of retention of the environmental factors of this designated conservation area but alsothe views and concerns already given by local (long term) residents many of whom are olderpeople (who wont necessarily be impressed by the provision of a community centre, cafe orWellbeing centre which in itself will add to traffic congestion etc.)
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. The most recent proposal does little to address my concerns and I believe that thisplanning application should be refused for the reasons I stated before.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
My previous objections submitted to the original planning application still apply to thisproposal. The changes proposed are minimal: reducing 6 stories to 5 has no impact onoverdevelopment; 6 fewer homes will have no impact on parking and traffic issues in thesurrounding area; loss of trees would be only slightly reduced.The scheme is out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood and I continue to believe thatthis planning application should be refused.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
There is already a parking problem on local roads without all of these extra houses.Some roads eg. Ellie and Bayswater are already difficult to drive down due to cars parked. Alsopavements are impossible to pass with buggies or wheelchairs as people park on pavements.Over a hundred new homes would create chaos. Also, by creating another gated community forolder people there is yet again more segregation in society. Where is the affordable housing forkey workers or young families ? Also what about special needs provision for the young people whohave lost their home / school?
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
1. Number of housing units - small reduction in new plans but still potential for 100+households with cars but nowhere to park (65 spaces offered), needing facilities such asdoctors/schools/shops and no further provision for these.2. Buildings will be very high and dominate view from surrounding roads eg The Glen, fromWestbury Park and the Downs.3. Destruction of wildlife habitat is inevitable and many trees will be lost.4. Building design is in conflict with conservation area style and appearance.5. Why not go for smaller number of better quality homes, leaving more space for green areas andparking?6. I am not convinced that the revised plans do any more than acknowledge that there wereobjections. My original concerns stand.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
My objections to this development remain the same as expressed previously. Thealterations to the planning proposal do not adequately address the environmental concerns due tothe loss of mature trees and open, natural space. This proposed development is still totally out ofcharacter and proportion to its surroundings and the impact on road safety has not beenaddressed.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
My original objection to this proposal still applies. This development is unnecessary andunwanted and a blight on the area in every way. The pathetic tinkering with the first proposal isdisrespectful to the local inhabitants, and pays little heed to their concerns. Please bin thisdreadful plan.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before.It's still way too high and reducing 1 block by 1 storey will do little to improve the plan.This site provided school places and there's nothing in the revised plan to offset the loss of SENDprovision.No feasibility has been done to ascertain the on-site parking needs for residents and staff on adaily basis.....without additional parking it's highly likely that more people will be trying to park onlocal streets that are already very congested during the day.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
This development is too large for this area and the large number of properties andresidents will have a severe problem with all the extra cars and not enough parkingThe loss of trees and habitat is a serious detriment to the local community and I object to thisoverdevelopment
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
The proposed changes to the proposed planning application do not overcome mypreviously stated concerns:Loss of mature trees and biodiversity.The density of the units - both in quantity and spacing between the buildings.The height of the blocks remains too high.I am relieved that the Etloe Rd access point will no longer be available to vehicles. However, theprovision of just 65 parking spaces for 116 units plus staff and visitors, is totally inadequate.Surrounding residential roads already suffer from overspill parking from local care home staff, andfrom residents in neighbouring Redland parking zone.The tweaked designs are not landscape-led.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
As a local resident I feel we have more than enough elderly developments locally. Theproposed development looks like it would be a significant overdevelopment of the site addingmany more elderly residents with a Reliance on cars and add to the already congested roadnetwork and overstretched doctors and medical provision. This area needs less high density,elderly residences and more family and accommodation for working people who can maintain andupgrade the Georgian houses and the grounds around them.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
This is an overdevelopment of the site with excessively high buildings. Due to thenumber of properties there will be a major impact and additional stress put on the alreadyimpossible parking and road situation. Increased traffic will increase the danger to the manypedestrians who use this area.In addition to these comments the loss of trees and home to wildlife and visual impact on the areamakes a mockery of the area's conservation status.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
Having just moved to the area I cannot, by all means, support the latest plans for StChristopher's. Just spend a couple of minutes driving down Bayswater Avenue starting from itssouth end: the area is already densely packed with houses and parking as well as driving is anightmare. What's the point of making this situation even worse with a clunky eyesore?
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
The proposed site is overdeveloped. Little has changed from the original applications.Excessive damages to the environment in chopping down mature trees, fewer than previouslyproposed but still too many. Traffic which is already difficult will be adversely effected. Proposedshared use / community facility is derisory compared to current use for SNE where there is alreadya shortage in Bristol. No consideration has been made to our local heritage and the character ofthe neighbourhood and that the area is a designated conservation area.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
This development will dwarf the surrounding neighbourhood due to its height and overallsize. However the main issues relate to the traffic issues. Irrespective of where the access pointsfor the site are, congestion is inevitable as the area as a whole is currently overwhelmed by trafficat particular points in the day. Further the suggested parking arrangements for the site are totallyinadequate which will lead to even more "pavement" parking in the immediate vicinity. The offer ofa shared use of space for SEND provision amounts to a shared room. Clearly not enough toamount to meaningful provision.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
Hi, I have looked at the revised plans for this development and they are quite simply notenough, the developers have offered minimal changes. My objections are still the same as myoriginal reasons why this development should not go ahead. It's is overbearing and entirelyinappropriate for this area. You are suggesting 116 homes with it enough parking spaces for thesedwellings. This will lead to the overspill into neighbouring streets which are already full. Manymature trees will be removed which will have ab impact on local wildlife and biodiversity. Thisdevelopment is totally not in keeping with the area, I believe this is a conservation area and thisscheme appears to ignore the character of this neighbourhood. Please reconsider this applicationand create something in keeping with the area and that will work cohesively with the communityand other businesses. Please don't let this happen and leave everyone living with the regret ofwhat might have been
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
I object the original and revised proposal for this large site. The community is aconservation area and thus large scale housing is not in keeping with conservation.Moreover we do not need such huge volumes of retirement accommodation. As a health Careprofessional I can assure this will not take pressure of the NHS at all. In fact it will increasepressure as the older people will be more dependent on GP, Emergency and other hospitalservices.The ethos of this site for education needs to be maintained and if housing is necessary, a smallamount of affordable and sustainable housing for young people is welcome.Scrap your plans right away
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
I fully support the main areas that as a community we objected to before:
- Overdevelopment - still too big, too dense & too high
- Loss of Trees and Wildlife - still too many trees being chopped down
- Traffic - not enough parking spaces leading to overspill and road safety hazards (I'm particularlyconcerned about this with young children at Westbury Park school)
- Harm to Heritage - the scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and disregardsthe fact that this is a designated Conservation Area.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before. The changes to the proposal are still too big, too dense, and too high.
I am concerned about the loss of trees and wildlife. I acknowledge some changes have beenmade to the number of trees being chopped down, however, there are still too many mature treeswhich will be destroyed in this plan.
There are not enough parking spaces for the development, six fewer homes won't create sufficientparking for this development.
The scheme is totally out of character with the local neighbourhood.
As someone who works in social care with children in care, I am concerned about the loss ofSEND provision within the city which is already very limited.
I have direct experience of working with young people with additional needs who requireresidential care, and have to move to care settings at long distances from their family and lovedones, which is harmful to their well-being. We need local SEND provision within the city, inkeeping with Bristol's One City ambitions.
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
The proposed modifications to the previous submission go nowhere near far enough tomake this revised application acceptable in any shape or form
on 2022-12-29 OBJECT
The area between the road on the Eastern boundary of the Downs Downs (WestburyPark) and Linden Road already has a high density of housing resulting in heavily congested roadsand very little, if any, spare parking. The proposed development will also have an adverse effecton local wildlife.The parking spaces planned I'm sure will be insufficient (even if above the minimum required bylaw) for the new residents, let alone any visitors. This will lead to overspill into the local roadswhich will then mean that existing local residents will be unable to park (where will they then go?)and result in people cruising the local roads to find a parking slot. This is already starting tohappen during evenings and busy periods. This will in turn result in greater potential danger tolocal residents, in particular children since this is an area with a number of schools and many localchildren of school age.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before.There is already a severe parking issue in the area and the plans do not cater for enough parkingspaces on site. Westbury Park road is rammed 24/7 with van dwellers, commuters who park herebefore catching the bus into town, and local residents who need to park. Adding to this parkingissue is not the way to go - any development should not exacerbate the existing severe parkingissue.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before. In summary:
Overdevelopment of the site:Still too big, too dense and too high.
Adequacy of Parking and Access:Not enough parking spaces leading to overspill and road safety hazards.Parking is already at a premium within the local area.
Traffic and Safety:Significant increase in traffic movement from site residents, visitors, staff and deliveries will impactadversely on an already congested and busy area.
Environment - loss of trees and wildlifeStill too many mature trees being chopped down
Harm to Heritage - the scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and disregardsthe fact that this is a designated Conservation Area.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before. In summary:
Overdevelopment of the site:Still too big, too dense and too high.
Adequacy of Parking and Access:Not enough parking spaces leading to overspill and road safety hazards.Parking is already at a premium within the local area.
Traffic and Safety:Significant increase in traffic movement from site residents, visitors, staff and deliveries will impactadversely on an already congested and busy area.
Environment - loss of trees and wildlifeStill too many mature trees being chopped down
Harm to Heritage - the scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and disregardsthe fact that this is a designated Conservation Area.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
I strongly believe the proposal is a huge overdevelopment.
The number of homes is far too high for the local area. The density is much too great for the site.The proposed height (4- & 5-storey blocks) is not appropriate in this area. It would overwhelm thesurrounding houses.
The environmental impact would be hugely damaging, with many culturally important treesdestroyed and wildlife such as bats, foxes and many bird species decimated.
The extra traffic generated would cause huge problems. There are schools and nurseries close-byand there would be an increased danger to children and families. The proposed number of parkingspaces on the site is vastly insufficient - in an area already saturated with parked vehicles, there isliterally no room for more.
The loss of SEND provision is devastating to the children desperately in need of suitable provision.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
I anm still concerned about serious & severe overdevelopment in a conservation andresidential area.Scales proposed are inappropriate for the locale, thereby causing unacceptable impacts on thelocal area. With the potential to cause environmental damage. The claim it is a "sustainable &green project" seems very at odds with detrimental impact on wildlife/nature and the number ofvehicles it will encourage once completed (staff, residents, visitors).I am *extremely* concerned about Road Safety, Traffic & Parking. Especially with there havingbeen talk of a bus gate in North View (and this does not seem to have been taken intoconsideration).The revised proposal still does not address appropriate parking, insufficient transport links/parking.The roads in front of and behind the proposed site are already a cause for concern. And theproposed development will increase the road safety risks even further which is very troubling witha primary school in the locale. This just doesn't appear to have been addressed fully.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
I believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons ofoverdevelopment, the loss of trees and wildlife, the impact of traffic on the local area, the loss ofsend provision and the harm to Heritage.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
I would like to register my opposition to this particular aspect due to my concerns overits potentially negative impact on the local environment and the extra strain it will put on the localinfrastructure.
For starters, I think that the proposed apartment block would have a detrimental impact on what isa conservation area as this would overshadow neighbouring homes and the green area and sowould be bad for local nature and local people. Therefore I would appeal to council planners to callfor a re-think on part of a development that would tower over local homes.
Furthermore, I am extremely concerned about the detrimental impact the scheme will have on thelocal road network both in terms of navigating the highways and also finding somewhere to parkone's care which is in the vicinity of one's home.
For starters, the extra traffic will be generated by the amount of homes that is being proposed inthis scheme not only due to the residents' vehicles but also all the traffic that is associated withserving them right from Amazon deliverers to care and support staff will make the current alreadysevere traffic issues at the nearby White Trees Roundabout even worse.
Long delays are commonplace there are at the best of times due to traffic coming down the roadthat development is on and this will be seriously aggravated under the current plans which willhave many negative knock-on effects as drivers sit in tailbacks.
Also, parking throughout the day and at night is already very problematic for residents in theWestbury Park area and this all be worsened by this project as there are insufficient car parkingspots earmarked for this scheme. I often have to park a long way from home when for exampleI've been supermarket shopping and this all be worsened as residents and support staff willcompete for scarce parking spots.
With this in mind I would urge you yo re-think the ratio of dwellings to car parking spots.
In summary, while I do welcome the prospect of elderly people living in the area I think thisproposed development goes too far in terms off cramming homes into the area. Should the plansgo ahead in their current guise not only will this be bad news for current residents but it will alsoadversely affect quality of life for people in these new dwellings.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
I have viewed the REVISED plans for this proposal. In my view the new plans do notsufficiently address the concerns I made to the original proposal.Furthermore there is already a plentiful provision of retirement homes in this area, and many otherrecent developments nearby have been unable to sell properties.In summary, in agreement with the activities of scanbristol.org and the massive support fromresidents, experts and council departments, with over 600 objections, I also strongly reject theserevised proposals.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
Objection to St Christophers development
I have recently received notification of the revised plans submitted in relation to the developmentof St Christophers in Westbury Park. I reiterate (and have copied below for reference) my originalconcerns about the development and changes that are needed before approval should be granted.
I welcome the adjustments that have been made but the massing of the main tall buildings is stilltoo much. Losing 6 residencies given the scale of the development is frankly game playing anddoesn't impress.
Ref the wildlife, I'm not impressed by planting lots of young, cheap trees but removing theessential mature trees already in place and providing the depth of wildlife habitat that's needed -again this is playing at the biodiversity card and is entirely unconvincing. They must simply reducethe number of mature trees affected, substantially.
However the greatest change that I absolutely object to is the entirely inappropriate opening of anentrance at the end of The Glen. We have spent years, fighting development in that specific areadue to the chronic lack of parking and the safety hazard posed by encouraging more parking inthis area, which a gateway will absolutely do. Allowing this change will increase the 'rat run'experience already endured by Belvedere Road and The Glen by commuters. As there isinsufficient staff and service parking on the main St Christophers site, the overspill will be into this
area - one that the Planning Inspector has already refused permission for, for precisely thisreason. It is entirely untenable that this entrance should even be considered plausible given theprecedent set previously.
I urge you to refuse this revised planning application until the matters above have been adequatelyaddressed by the developers and not just 'game played' to get past the system!
Sincerely
Mrs Samantha Mant
Objection letter from May 2022I have been a resident on Belvedere Road for over 17 years, my garden is one garden away fromSt Christopher's and I have friends who have worked there in its capacity as a special school.
I have followed the consultation process by the developers of the St Christophers developmentand I have to say that much of what they have presented has been very carefully done to concealthe full extent of their ambitions.
Whilst I am in favour of this area being developed as a later life residential centre, there are anumber of elements about this particular proposal which are completely unacceptable and onlypresent to ensure extreme profit rather than reasonable profit for the developers.
I am aware that the SCAN organisation has provided excellent detailed information in regard to allof the areas that I am concerned about so I will simply highlight those areas here and point you atthe SCAN reports for more details.
Over-development and intensification is extreme with this development, the sheer scale of the newbuildings will dwarf the existing properties substantially and negatively impacting on theenvironment in the area. The height of some of the buildings is absurd in this location particularlywith reference to the concept of overlooking neighbouring homes. In addition to the height, theclose proximity and density of the buildings to each other and the boundaries is totally out ofcharacter.
What this intensification also leads to is the destruction of a significant number of mature treeswhich are providing valuable ecosystem support, air purification and general amenity value to thearea. These trees support all manner of wildlife and given this is a conservation area, I wouldsuggest that this aspect is taken very seriously indeed.
Again in direct relationship to the density of the building, by any measure there are woefully fewparking spaces to accommodate the residents and visiting staff. This means that the overspill willimpact directly on the non-existent parking available on our street. I should point out that the
inspector who refused the local Glenview nursing home extension last year refused it mainly onthe grounds of not making local streets any more dangerous or congested.
Lastly, as a long-term conservationist, I am appalled at the proposed loss of trees and generalwildlife habitat and species. This development will drive local species away from their establishedhomes and leave the area barren. Given that its part of the Downs Conservation Area and createsa valuable wildlife corridor currently, the proposed plans are highly destructive in this regard.
The team at SCAN have delivered a detailed and policy driven response which I would supportand refer you to for details. In the meantime I hope you will refuse this application in its currentstate and seek to dramatically reduce the scale of the development (height and density) tosomething considerably more in keeping with its environment and sympathetic to the surroundingproblems and environmental assets.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
Dear SirsI have written to you about this over-development before.The minor changes made to the original developers plans in no way meet the objections I had tothe scale of over-development.The revised plans are still too crowded. The developers are being greedy. A more modestproposal in keeping with the current site and its neighbourhood would have my support. As it is Ican only conclude that the developers are squeezing maximum profit from the site at the expenseof the existing valued environment on the edge of The Downs.Yours faithfullyR. Pinder
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
The objections I submitted to the original planning application remain and still apply tothis proposal-I continue to oppose the application for the reasons previously stated.In addition the proposed amendments by the Developers are of very limited effect. The wholeproposal remains a huge overdevelopment with a reduction of only 6 homes? They still propose 5blocks of flats of 4 and 5 storeys. One amendment allows a roof height reduction of 30 cms!!I applaud the acceptance that Etloe Rd will no longer be used as a vehicle access -the Council'straffic experts themselves had said it was unacceptable anyway so hardly a concession! But theyseek now to use The Glen as an access way despite the huge car parking issues there - how onearth would a fire engine access the main site in emergencies?No further provision has been made for car parking- only 65 spaces for 116 units? Where are allthese cars going to park? And what about employees? Westbury Park Road is already very busydue to it being effectively one lane accessing North View.No provision is to be made for SEND educational needs. The Developers suggest the use of oneroom in "The Urban Village Hall". That is completely inadequate. They also suggest there is morethan adequate SEND provision available in Bristol- that is a complete nonsense as The Councilwill know. Why not utilise this site for proper SEND provision as previously?Finally it seems that the Developers have been able to use planning laws to suggest they will beoperating a residential care home, an d avoiding the need for any affordable housing. They will notbe operating a care home- it's a luxury development. Care homes provide daily regular care tothose mainly elderly who are in need of daily assistance due to ill health or disability. Entrance tothis development will not be dependent on being ill/disabled- how can this be classed as a Carehome? The relevant legislation does not include luxury housing/flats for people over 60!
Finally it is interesting to note that amended plans were put forward early December with adeadline of 5th January for objections. I have to think that was partly done as many people wouldbe away at Christmas and less able to respond?I object to the Application.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
I object to this application on the same grounds as set out by my wife Mrs MaureenPhillips, already submitted.Its a massive overdevelopment with inadequate provision for parking, limited access and noregards for the locality and need for SEND provision. A massive reduction in trees id also a hugeissue.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
I strongly object to the revised plans....No to the development of 120 retirement homes!The area gets busy enough on Westbury Park by the downs as it is, we don't need anymore trafficand pollution. I love the area and will do what I can to prevent the development from happening.
Thank youDan
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
I strongly object to the revised plans for the development. The buildings proposed arefar too large and will create an eyesore in a beautiful area - there are still 4/5 storey blocks of flats.
There are too many residences being created with far too few parking spaces. Parking is difficultwhere we live at the best of times and this will only make it worse. We have just had a baby and itis already impossible for us to leave the house and walk along the street with the pram due to carsparked on the pavement so we have to walk in the road, which is incredibly dangerous. This willbe made significantly worse with more cars parked on our street, and more traffic coming alongour street too. I imagine this will also cause huge issues for parents dropping off/picking up theirchildren from the school down the road too. Building 6 fewer homes will do nothing to change this.
There is a huge amount of wildlife in the locale area which will also be affected by thedevelopment. This has been reduced on the revised plans but not by enough.
I also disagree with the change of use of the property - st Christopher's do wonderful work withpeople with additional needs and I believe should be funded by the council to stay in the currentproperty.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
I object the development for the following reasons
1. Loss of trees and wildlife2. Not enough parking3. Too much traffic4. Harm to heritage5. Overdevelopment
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
This amended application does NOT address any of my previous concerns and I objectto this application.
Too big and out of characterToo much traffic generation, insufficient parking and increased danger to pedestrians
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
Overdevelopment - too big, too dense & too high
Loss of Trees and Wildlife - too many trees being chopped down
Traffic - not enough parking spaces leading to overspill and road safety hazards
Loss of SEND provision
Harm to Heritage - scheme is totally out of character with the neighbourhood and disregards thefact that this is a designated Conservation Area.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
Objection to St Christophers development - Dec 2022
I have recently received notification of the revised plans submitted in relation to the developmentof St Christophers in Westbury Park. I reiterate (and have copied below for reference) my originalconcerns about the development and changes that are needed before approval should be granted.
I welcome the adjustments that have been made but the massing of the main tall buildings is stilltoo much. Losing 6 residencies given the scale of the development is frankly game playing anddoesn't impress.
Ref the wildlife, I'm not impressed by planting lots of young, cheap trees but removing theessential mature trees already in place and providing the depth of wildlife habitat that's needed -again this is playing at the biodiversity card and is entirely unconvincing. They must simply reducethe number of mature trees affected, substantially.
However the greatest change that I absolutely object to is the entirely inappropriate opening of anentrance at the end of The Glen. We have spent years, fighting development in that specific areadue to the chronic lack of parking and the safety hazard posed by encouraging more parking inthis area, which a gateway will absolutely do. Allowing this change will increase the 'rat run'experience already endured by Belvedere Road and The Glen by commuters. As there isinsufficient staff and service parking on the main St Christophers site, the overspill will be into this
area - one that the Planning Inspector has already refused permission for, for precisely thisreason. It is entirely untenable that this entrance should even be considered plausible given theprecedent set previously.
I urge you to refuse this revised planning application until the matters above have been adequatelyaddressed by the developers and not just 'game played' to get past the system!
Sincerely
Mr Eden Warren
Objection submitted in May 2022I have been a resident on Belvedere Road for over 17 years, my garden is one garden away fromSt Christopher's and I have friends who have worked there in its capacity as a special school.
I have followed the consultation process by the developers of the St Christophers developmentand I have to say that much of what they have presented has been very carefully done to concealthe full extent of their ambitions.
Whilst I am in favour of this area being developed as a later life residential centre, there are anumber of elements about this particular proposal which are completely unacceptable and onlypresent to ensure extreme profit rather than reasonable profit for the developers.
I am aware that the SCAN organisation has provided excellent detailed information in regard to allof the areas that I am concerned about so I will simply highlight those areas here and point you atthe SCAN reports for more details.
Over-development and intensification is extreme with this development, the sheer scale of the newbuildings will dwarf the existing properties substantially and negatively impacting on theenvironment in the area. The height of some of the buildings is absurd in this location particularlywith reference to the concept of overlooking neighbouring homes. In addition to the height, theclose proximity and density of the buildings to each other and the boundaries is totally out ofcharacter.
What this intensification also leads to is the destruction of a significant number of mature treeswhich are providing valuable ecosystem support, air purification and general amenity value to thearea. These trees support all manner of wildlife and given this is a conservation area, I wouldsuggest that this aspect is taken very seriously indeed.
Again in direct relationship to the density of the building, by any measure there are woefully fewparking spaces to accommodate the residents and visiting staff. This means that the overspill willimpact directly on the non-existent parking available on our street. I should point out that the
inspector who refused the local Glenview nursing home extension last year refused it mainly onthe grounds of not making local streets any more dangerous or congested.
Lastly, as a long-term conservationist, I am appalled at the proposed loss of trees and generalwildlife habitat and species. This development will drive local species away from their establishedhomes and leave the area barren. Given that its part of the Downs Conservation Area and createsa valuable wildlife corridor currently, the proposed plans are highly destructive in this regard.
The team at SCAN have delivered a detailed and policy driven response which I would supportand refer you to for details. In the meantime I hope you will refuse this application in its currentstate and seek to dramatically reduce the scale of the development (height and density) tosomething considerably more in keeping with its environment and sympathetic to the surroundingproblems and environmental assets.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated previously.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
I object to this planning application.Removing an educational establishment that focused on special needs with an overdevelopmentof residential property is abhorrent. There is no provision for the increased number of properties,the surrounding roads are already busy and 116 properties worth of traffic will not fit. It is a moneymaking exercise that brings nothing to the area except to destroy trees and the conservation area.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
My previous objections still stand:1. There are still too many homes in blocks that are too high (4-5 storey blocks) that will impose inthe local area and on neighbours whose homes are max 3 storey high2. Still too many mature trees due to be chopped down3. Not enough parking spaces for the 116 homes, staff and visitors4. Very little community integration- use of a shared room only5. Harm to the heritage of the local Conservation area.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to this revisedproposal.I strongly object to this planning application and continue to believe that it should be refused forthe reasons I have stated in detail before - including access, parking, child safety andenvironmental reasons.
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
No improvement on original plan, plans out of keeping with area too dense too high nomeaningful reduction in homes in a vital area for whole of Bristol. The downs is an asset for all ofBristol area, loss of trees, increase in traffic and parking needs exactly what this precious part ofBristol does not need. Would be a terrible legacy for current council leaders to impact on a vitalgreen space for the whole of Bristol, if covid period taught us anything the downs are a vital assetfor future generations
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
I object for the same reasons as previously. Namely:Overdevelopment of the siteParking issues which are already acute in the areaTraffic safetyWestbury park is a almost a single track road which is already gridlocked every rush hour. Thisdevelopment will exercebate the issue.Out of keeping with surrounding conservation area
on 2022-12-28 OBJECT
This development fails to account for the need older people have for cars as a mode oftransport. Even those without their own vehicle will have visitors and carers who will need to parknearby. The safety of the many children walking to the nearby schools will be at increased risk andit will worsen the existing issues with parking and congestion in these small streets. It's packingtoo many units into a small site which is already home to trees, and wildlife which will also bedamaged.
on 2022-12-27 OBJECT
I refer to my initial comments made on 8th May 2022. The developer will keepsubmitting mild alterations in the hope that the local community give up. This isn't fair. Thedeveloper will keep submitting mild alterations in the hope that the local community give up. Thisisn't fair and the planning committee must ionsist that amendments are substantial in meetingcommunioty opinion.
The developer quotes average car usage for the elderly but fails to acknowledge that thisdevelopment is for the wealthy and able bodied who are much more likely to be driving one oreven two cars per dwelling. Westbury Park is densely populated with terraced housing with little offstreet parking. Any new development should not seek to take parking from the community just tosqueeze as many dwellings as possible onto the site.
The development is still too tall. It is in a conservation area and should be sympathetic to this. Iwould ask the planning department to throw this application out and ask the developer to comeback with something that might be acceptable instead of playing the planning 'game'.
on 2022-12-27 OBJECT
The objection I made to the original application still applies to the proposal .The amended plan is completely derisory, 6 fewer homes ! The development is too dense andoverwhelmingly high .The timing of the consultation period over the festive period is surely timed so the community islargely unaware / involved in festive activities /So developers have just made minor cosmetic changes and hope for few objections .
on 2022-12-27 OBJECT
I have no objections to new homes being built on this site. What I object to is the scaleand height of the development.Too many homes are being squeezed into a fairy small area, which will have major repercussionson the surrounding community....traffic for a start.
I also object to any trees being chopped down.
on 2022-12-27 SUPPORT
Some form of redevelopment is inevitable. Of all the possibilities, a retirementcommunity seems the best. And if such a community is to be built, a degree of scale must beallowed. I believe that the revised plans offer a reasonable compromise.
on 2022-12-27 OBJECT
I feel I must write again, to object to the unacceptable plans for the former StChristopher's site.Despite all the well made and fully justified objections to this 'carbuncle' of a development , therehave been no substantive changes to the completely unaxceptable original proposals.It is clear that the developers are seeking to make a few minor cosmetic changes only - and theunacceptable damage to the area and the local population remain largely unchanged.The massive proposedresidential blocks would continue to dominate the local area, to thedetriment of those living nearby. It is clear that the developers are simply not prepared to considerthe welfare of the local community.Overbearing, huge buildings, huge loss of trees and local wildlife, make this developmentuntenable. The inevitable increase in unwelcome traffic, in an already vulnerable local community,with many elderly residents and children , going to local schools, render the plan unacceptable.Thraffic is already overbearing and dangerous. Residents cannot park now-imaging what it will belike when the proposed residences are filled with many more people, many of whom will bringfurther traffic and more danger and road chaos.MNany of us are particularly angry about the pathetic lip service to community use, and the majorloss of SEND Provision.The gigantic and ugly buildings proposed for the site, with grossly inadequate provision forresidents' cars will make an already very difficult situation very much worse.Put bluntly, this proposed scheme is a simple and crude money making attempt to ruin a large partof a vibrant, cohesive and caring community, so that a few wealthy people can live in some luxury,at a large and unwelcome cost to the area and the many people, -young and old, who live here.
I cannot stress too firmly the damage that will result to this area, if councillors permit it to proceed.I urge our council representatives to reject the plane entirely, for the lastingbenefitto all thos livingin Westbury Park.
Thankyou
on 2022-12-27 OBJECT
The buildings must not be higher than the surrounding buildings.There must be at least one and a half parking spaces more than the total number of apartments
on 2022-12-27 OBJECT
I object to the proposal both from a process and substantive perspective.
From a process perspective, the latest amendments have been submitted over the festive periodwhen many people are away and not available to review or comment.
From a substantive perspective:
- the development is too tall and out of character. The downs is a precious space and visibility ofmore flats will downgrade the space.
- the development is too dense for an area without the infrastructure to accommodate it (roads andparking)
- the development is directly behind the Westbury Park School playground. The works will beextensive and take time. The noise will damage education (I have seen no study on this). The dustwill damage health in children with developing lungs (I have seen no study on this)
- too many trees are being chopped down with loss to habitat
- there is not even one parking space per flat and many will have 2 cars. The surroundingresidential roads cannot cope with the additional parking. There is alerady problems withpavement parking along Etloe road on narrow streets meaning parents with prams going to school
and nursery, and persons with disabilities need to go on the road. There is little off road parkingand no residents parking scheme.
- the scheme is totally out of character with the neighbourhood and disregards the fact that this isa designated Conservation Area.
on 2022-12-26 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original proposal still applies to this proposal. Weappreciate that the developers have now removed the proposed access next to Daisychainnursery, but none of the other points raised have been appropriately addressed. To call thechanges 'material' is at best a gross exaggeration but more realistically an outright lie.
The key points I continue to be concerned about are:
- Overdevelopment - the proposals are grossly out of scale for the local area and remain too big afootprint, too tall and too densely populated.
- Traffic and road safety - even without access next to Daisychain, there will be an increase intraffic along Etloe/Bayswater. The road is already very busy and vehicles frequently drive too fast.There is insufficient parking already meaning lots of cars park on pavements making it difficult towalk safely down the road or cross the road - which is very concerning given the nursery andprimary school on the road and many young families in the area.
- The environmental impact - the proposals will result in a loss of trees and wildlife in an area weenjoy daily.
- Impact from a heritage perspective - the area is a conservation area and the proposals remainout of keeping with the local area and neighbourhood.
- Loss of SEND provision - I understand the developers have offered shared use of a room. This iswholly inadequate given the SEND legacy being lost at a time when SEND provision is a councilpriority.
on 2022-12-26 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original proposal still applies to this proposal. Inparticular:
- Overdevelopment - the proposals are grossly out of scale for the local area and remain too big,too high and too dense.
- Traffic / road safety - although the access next to Daisychain has been removed, there will still bean increase in traffic along Etloe/Bayswater Road. This is already extremely busy andcars/vans/lorries frequently drive too fast along it. There are already way too many cars and notenough parking, so lots of cars park on pavements which makes it difficult and unsafe to walkdown and cross the road.
- The environmental impact - the proposals will result in a loss of trees and wildlife in an area weas a family enjoy daily.
- Impact from a heritage perspective - the proposals remain out of keeping with the local area andneighbourhood which is particularly concerning given it'sa conservation area.
- Loss of SEND provision - I understand the developers have offered shared use of a room. Thisdoes not appropriately address the SEND legacy being lost at a time when SEND provision is acouncil priority.
on 2022-12-24 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before'.
on 2022-12-24 OBJECT
I objected to the initial proposal and resubmit the same objection because the proposalhas only superficial change.
I assume this is the point. The developer will keep submitting mild alterations in the hope that thelocal community give up. This isn't fair.
The proposed level of parking provision is inadequate. The developer quotes average car usagefor the elderly but fails to acknowledge that this development is for the wealth y and able bodiedwho are much more likely to be driving one or even two cars per dwelling.
Westbury Park is densely populated with terraced housing with little off street parking. Any newdevelopment should not seek to take parking from the community just to squeeze as manydwellings as possible onto the site.
The development is still too tall. It is in a conservation area and should be sympathetic to this.
I would ask the planning department to throw this application out and ask the developer to comeback with something that might be acceptable instead of playing the planning 'game'.
on 2022-12-24 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Ihave stated before. Even the submitted amendments are totally out of character with ourneighbourhood and disregards the fact that this is a designated Conservation Area.
on 2022-12-24 OBJECT
My objections to this planning application are unchanged, as this proposal is almostunchanged in its latest version. This planning application should be refused because:
- It's over-developing the site: still five big blocks, much too high and an eyesore.
- There are still too many trees being chopped down
- The access roads are too narrow, congested and unsafe for such a large development.
- There is no SEND provision
- The scheme is out of character with the locality and disregards the fact that this is a designatedConservation Area.
on 2022-12-23 OBJECT
Please refer to my submission to the original planning application. I do not believe thatmy original objections have been addressed by the revised plan, in particular:1) The overdevelopment of the site.2) Inadequate parking.3) Increased traffic in proximity to a school.4) Negative local environmental impact to a designated Conservation Area.5) Lack of SEND provision.
on 2022-12-22 OBJECT
My husband and I are against the development plans for the St Christophers Site for thefollowing reasons, in order, as they will impact on our lives.We are realistic and know that the site will be developed but we would like to see plans that addsomething to the area and not have a negative impact on those who already live here.
1 Increased traffic flow and parking.ParkingWe live on the corner of Royal Albert Road and Westbury Park (road). Ever since theestablishment of a Resident Parking Zone which ends at the start of Westbury Park (road) wehave had major problems with parking. As the developers know, we have a good bus service intoBristol from here which means that during the day time, commuters park here and in surroundingroads. With the addition of 116, (only 6 fewer than in the original plans) housing units and noincrease in the parking provision of 65 places there will be ever more pressure.My experience of elderly people is that they are able to use their owns cars well into their 80s butwould find it increasingly difficult to board a bus. They need car parking, if not for themselves thenfor family/ visitors.Local roads which are already saturated with cars will not be able to cope with the overspill of StChristopher's residents' staff's and visitors' cars.The introduction of an RPZ would help if it included all surrounding roads including Westbury Park(road).Traffic flowWe are pleased to see that the developers have withdrawn their plans for access to the site from
Etloe Rd/Bayswater Ave, this was a truly reckless idea. But access from The Glen and theproposed access on Westbury Park will cause a massive increase in traffic on already congestedroads.The developers have suggested that there might only be problems with increased traffic flow atpeak times - those of us who live here know that our roads are busy quite a lot of the time withRoyal Albert used as a rat run with drivers trying to avoid the queue (sometimes even atlunchtime) on Westbury Park (road) and cutting down Eltoe Rd to get to North View and then ontoWhite Tree round-a-bout. It is not rocket science to suggest that the addition of 116 housing unitswill make this situation worse.
2 Overdevelopment of the siteA reduction of 6 units is very little given the remaining density and height of the buildings. Some ofthe buildings are too close to existing houses and will tower above them. The 5 storey blocks aregrossly out of place in Westbury Park, a predominantly Victorian suburb. One 5 storey block is fartoo close to residents in The Glen. The mews cottages, which in the latest plans seem to havegrown in height, are too close both to those in The Glen and residents in Bayswater Ave.
3 The loss of trees and ecology.Any development is bound to have a temporary effect on wildlife, trees and plants but the sheersize of the development will impact on the number of trees and green space on the site.
4 We are concerned that this development offers nothing in terms of affordable housing and theredon't seem to be any suggestions for offsetting elsewhere. We would much rather have seenplans for a lower density mixed housing development with adequate parking.
If the assisted living development is affordable it could possibly offer something positive to thearea and it could free up local housing for families.But the density and height of buildings and traffic flow and parking problems make these planstotally unacceptable to ourselves who live in close proximity.
on 2022-12-22 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before.
This proposal is much too large, condensed and not in keeping with the surrounding area. This isa conservation area and we need to stop building modern, square, faceless high apartment blockswhich are a blot on the landscape, will spoil the view from the Downs and eliminate many maturelarge trees and wildlife. We need to protect our heritage. There are many examples of where wehaven't done this in the past and we now have to live with the consequences. Just look at St.Vincent's which incidentally is still only half occupied. The area is already densely populated dueto nursing homes, flats, HMO's etc. and we already have several care homes in close proximity.
The impact on traffic and parking in the local area will be insurmountable to maintain the safetyand well being of the local population. It is inconceivable and patronising to suggest that 65 carparking spaces is sufficient for 116 dwellings given the average ratio of car ownership per personplus all of the ancillary vehicles required to maintain and support the development. I do not knowhow the developers sleep at night knowing how detrimental the effect of their plans would be onlocal residents. Previous planning applications in close proximity to this development have beenturned down due to the impact on congestion and parking in the area so this alone should besufficient precedent to decline the application.
There are many other uses for this site which would add value to the city and local community
without just a pile them up high for maximum profit approach and which would greater protect theinitial charitable purpose of the site which was for SEND provision for Bristol children. This iscurrently inadequate across the city.
on 2022-12-22 OBJECT
It remains disappointing that the developers have ignored all the community'scomments in relation to consultation and indeed have AGAIN thought it appropriate to consult overthe Christmas period. No doubt the planning office will take this into account.
It is also my view that in the absence of revised plans addressing the concerns raised by thecommunity and professionals alike, and given that there are no material changes to the plans, myprevious, (and indeed all the 600 plus previous) objections to the site still stand; I do not proposerepeating them. Is this "revision" an abuse of the planning process? Should it not be kicked outsummarily?
The one change that I would like to comment on is the switch to vehicular access from The Glenrather than Bayswater Avenue to provide access to the rear of the proposed site. This entrancewill be used by residents (with and without car parking spaces leased on site), taxis,care/therapy/staff, delivery vehicles and visitors for the rear blocks of flats, cottages and urbanvillage hall. This access is also intended for emergency vehicles. It appears that the plans indicatethat at least 6 parking spaces from the end of The Glen, would have to be lost. There is no spacefor potentially large vehicles (fire engines) to turn around to exit the proposed site. This could leadto a high number of vehicles ,including emergency vehicles reversing down The Glen in order toexit the area and is clearly unsafe.
The proposed 7 parking spaces shown on the plans and presumably ear marked for payingresidents, is insufficient and there will be overspill onto already congested roads (the parking
survey submitted by the developers is a joke, I wonder how many nocturnal visits the developershad to pay for, before the 2 results published could be found!). As you are aware there are alreadysevere circling, idling and parking issues on The Glen and Belvedere and Blenheim Roads, due tothe high number of care homes already in the area and the staff and visitor movements that arise.
on 2022-12-22 OBJECT
I am really disappointed that the developers have not listened to the hundreds ofobjections made by the community and professional bodies, there have been no substantialchanges to the plans. I repeat my previous concerns and objections.I am sure more people would object had this not clashed with Christmas
on 2022-12-22 OBJECT
My core objection is that the proposed development is a clear alienation from thepurpose of this property to provide a provision for the benefit of children with learning disabilities.The proposal clearly fails to honour this in any serious way.
on 2022-12-21 OBJECT
I objected to the original proposals.
I note that the developers have made some revisions. But these are minor changes.
For example there is a minor reduction in the overall number of units, no increase in number ofparking spaces. This will still have a major impact on parking and traffic in the area.
A large number of trees will still be taken down.
The height of the buildings will still overshadow surrounding development
I object to this proposal until more substantial amendments are made.
Mark
on 2022-12-21 OBJECT
I wish to re-state my opposition to this development for the following reasons:1. Residential unit numbers, accommodation blocks and 'cottages'The amended height of Villa B by loss of the 6th floor and re-configuration of the roof (Ref para2.2) does little to reduce the excessive massing of buildings in the centre of the site. It merelybrings Villa B to the same 5-floor height of the other villas, making a collection of very large blocksof flats, hence not really 'villas' and only reduces the excessive number of units in I those blocksfrom 122 to 118. Off-setting the big blocks may reduce some of the crowding but makes nodifference to the massing at the centre of the site.The reduction to one-floor units for the two 'cottages' on the north-eastern perimeter of the site,thereby reducing the residential units to a total of 116 and obscured windows on the first floor ofone 2-storey 'cottages' to reduce the overlook on neighbours in Bayswater Avenue, is welcome.So let me state that the two one-floor 'cottages' are in fact bungalows and the other ' cottages ' area row of 2-storey terraced houses with separate flats on each floor. Why not make all the cottagesbungalows, and therefore reduce the impact on neighbours and further reduce the unit numbers?The service area will still be an unpleasant outlook for flats on the north side of Villa A2. Educational elementsWhile an attempt to promote the use of some buildings for SEND individuals has been stated,apparently in order in part to fulfil the original purpose of St. Christopher's, the reality of its being'fit for purpose', remains questionable and has not been agreed by Bristol Council.
3, Car parking and circulationWhile adherence to parking policies is stated and some off-site parking in the Glen has been
proposed, the number of parking spaces has to be balanced with the fact that, despite the size ofthe site, the activities and ages of the users and outside visitors also needs to be considered. Thenumber of people circulating on a daily basis, whether walking, cycling or driving , will at aconservative estimate, be in excess of 150. Some of the C2 residents may not be driving orcycling but staff and visitors will be using vehicle and walking paths. It is not clear how excessivecrowding and accidents will be avoided.
Also it could be concluded that even if residents might choose to use public transport or walk forsome of the time, they may still be car owners and therefore could eithera) leave their cars in an on-site space for lengthy periods of time, thereby putting more pressureon surrounding roads orb) if they wish to avoid a parking space fee onsite, will choose to leave their cars on surroundingroads for lengthy periods of time both, again putting pressure on scant spaces already availableEither option is unsatisfactory.
The 'crossing' for linking the site with the Downs (Ref: para 2.31) the has now been moved to theroundabout, perhaps marginally safer but still risky for elderly people with sight/hearing andmobility problems.
There was a rather confusing statement in the original application (Lifestyle and Flexibilityservices, Planning Report, P11, S4.1) about 'transport services'. Has this not been included n theamended application? If it has, what does it mean?
4. Governance and management of C2 residentsIt is not clear in the amended application that ARCO and their 'accelerated member companies'Amicala and Allegra have withdrawn the 'extra-care industry regulator function' for what they nowcall 'integrated residential community' with Class C2 registration. In addition, there are no detailsabout potential residents' and spouses' assessments to be carried out by Amicala, nor is themanagement of the two types of carers - provided by Allegra and Social Services - clear. Wheredoes governance and line management lie in the structure of the organisation? I am sure that theC2 Regulator- the Care Quality Commission - will be wanting to have answers to those questions.
on 2022-12-21 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I don't see any significant changes that would warrant a change of position. I continue tobelieve that this planning application should be refused for the reasons I stated before. I don't thinkthat the Developers are taking the feedback seriously.
on 2022-12-21 OBJECT
on 2022-12-21 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before.I should also add that imagining one can build under a tree canopy without damaging the roots ofthe tree is total nonsense.Please refer to my previous objection dated 4th April 2022.Sincerely,Gillian Naden
on 2022-12-20 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before.
The development is still far too large, there are far too many properties in the plan for the area tocope with. I am concerned about the beautiful listed buildings being overshadowed by thedevelopment and an increase in traffic to the area which will in turn lead to more pollution.
on 2022-12-20 OBJECT
I made representations on the original application and the current amendments do notsatisfy my objections.The revised scheme pays lip service to the objections as it does not address the key issues in asatisfactory manner as follows: -Loss of much needed educational facilities.Development is too dense and too high and thus impacts both the Downs and the localenvironment in an unacceptable way and remains incompatible with the highly protected area ofThe Downs and surrounding residential conservation area. The Historic England letter of 19December provides the professional opinion that the height of the proposed buildings should bereduced to four storeys.Unacceptable loss of natural habitat in a City that claims significant green qualitiesI believe the developer has completely underestimated the local impact on insufficient onsiteparking provision contained in the proposal. Parking already takes place on the grass of theDowns and street parking is at saturation point. The local roads are frequently blocked for longperiods by waiting ambulances, delivery vehicles and scaffolding lorries. The introduction of furthervehicles through The Glen will only exacerbate the problem. Use of The Glen access is against aprevious undertaking to seal access following building works and which undertaking was includedas condition SC44 in planning consent dated 6 June 2002 under reference 02/00500/F/N&02/00501/LC/NThe more detailed swept path analysis appears to show that vehicles entering or leaving the sitefrom Westbury Park, even if perfectly driven, would have to use land which I believe is owned bythe Downs and not in control of the developer. Reading the minutes of the Downs committee I see
no evidence of that this potential encroachment has even been discussed. I don't know if theDowns committee is even empowered to sell or grant long term easements over this "commonland "and I suggest that the developers need to demonstrate that they have suitable access rights.We note that the Downs committee does investigate and act on encroachment and thatparking/access on Downs land is a current issue.As I wrote previously Bristol deserves better.
on 2022-12-19 OBJECT
My mother lives in Royal Albert Road and is very unhappy with the planning proposalsof St Christopher's , we feel the additional need for parking will not be met with this scheme.Overall the buildings will be too dense, too high and will have an impact on light in the smalltownhouse gardens that Royal Albert Road have loosing sunlight and therefore enjoyment of thespace.
on 2022-12-19 OBJECT
Sir,The objections I submitted to the original Planning Application still applies to this new proposal. !continie to believe that this Planning Application should be refused for the reasons I stated before.To repeat, my main objections are:Overdevelopment - still too big. too dense, too high.Loss of Trees & Wildlife - still too many trees chopped downTraffic - not enough parking spaces leading to overspill and roadsafety hazardsLoss of 'SEND' provision - derisory offer of shared use of room isan insult to the 70 year legacy of 'special needseducation' on this site.Harm to Heritage - the Scheme is totally out of charactur withour Neighbourhood and disregards that the fact that thisis a designated Conservation Area
on 2022-12-19 OBJECT
I have seen the revised plans and they have not fully addressed my original concerns.My original objection still stands and should be considered in relation to the revised pans. Theparking is still far too limited which will have an adverse impact on the surrounding roads. Thevolume of building, whilst reduced still remains too high for this area without increased infrastructure to support it. Why have the developers not included SEND provision when it has beenclearly stated that there will be a significant loss of facilities in this area and across Bristol. Thedevelopers do not appear to be listening to the local people despite sending out an expensivecommunication that appears to suggest they have. Please review the renewed plan against thewell thought out and balance objections previously submitted by groups in this area. We careabout our community.
on 2022-12-19 OBJECT
There is still not enough parking:
- The new plans provide vehicular access from The Glen - this is the only vehicular access to therear of the site, as the internal roads from the WP entrances only lead to the front blocks of flats.- There is also a new proposed "Urban Village Hall" next to and accessed from the end of TheGlen, which has only 2 (disabled) parking spaces allocated. This is intended for community andSEND activities, which is likely to lead all external visitors to try to park on The Glen andBelvedere Rd.- The access is also intended for fire engines needing to access the rear of the site. However, thisis not possible without removing at least 6 parking spaces from the end of The Glen. (Theapplicant has not mentioned this, but it is clear from the detailed plans.)- As it will be the only access point to the rear of the site, it is also likely to be used by deliveryvehicles and ambulances for the rear blocks of flats and cottages, although they will have toactually park in The Glen.- The new car park reached from The Glen has a further 7 spaces intended for residents, which isevidently not enough for all the occupants of the adjacent large block of flats, as well as the rearcottages. This is likely to encourage residents who don't have a space to park in The Glen orBelvedere Rd and walk through. It may also lead to staff and visitors for the rear blocks trying touse it, and then circling and parking on TG or BR if they can't find a space.- Finally this is all in the context of a continued shortfall of on-site parking (65 spaces for residents,staff, carers and visitors for 116 apartments), which will lead to overspill on all surrounding roads,but a particular issue for The Glen and Belvedere Road, due to the accessibility and proximity to
the rear apartment block and cottages.
I already live here. Where am I meant to park?
on 2022-12-19 OBJECT
The updated proposals for St Christopher's have not altered my reasons for objecting tothis development. They are:-
- Overdevelopment of the site with buildings that are too large,too tall and totally out of character in this conservation area.- Added pressure on parking in the area which is alreadystretched to the limit, and the implications for trafficcongestion and road safety. The proposed entrance to thesite from The Glen is not acceptable as it is a narrow congestedstreet surrounded by other narrow congested streets used asrat-runs.- The felling of mature trees and loss of wildlife habitat is very sadand upsetting.- The lack of much needed SEND provision is not in keepingwith the legacy of St Christopher's School.- There is no mention of affordable housing.
on 2022-12-18 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before'.
In my view this is an overdevelopment of the site which is still too big, dense and high for the areaand totally out of keeping with the area. I am concerned as to the number of trees that will befelled on such a beautiful site next to the Downs which is such a beautiful area of Bristol. While thedevelopers have reduced (by a tiny margin) the number of dwellings, there are clearly not enoughparking spaces in what is a very busy area already. The suggestion that there are bicycle parkingspaces (for the elderly) is clearly not well thought through! With the Schools and the nurseries inthe surrounding areas the traffic implications are very worrying. The area is a designatedconservation area and I am very concerned about the harm to the heritage of the area.
on 2022-12-18 OBJECT
I originally objected to this development in my detailed comments posted on 13 April2022, and which are still filed against this application as an objection. I wish those comments to becarried forward against this revised application.
The main objections that I had earlier this year are not addressed by these revised plans. Thedevelopment is still too intensive for the site, and the reduction by one story of the biggest buildingwill not adequately address the overbearing nature of the whole development. There is still noprovision for affordable housing, and it seems to be very short-sighted not to use this site for SENprovision: the purpose of the original gift of the site. There is surely an opportunity here for theCouncil to enhance the grounds of Westbury Park primary school by the proper inclusion of somegreen space into the school grounds.
I remain very concerned that this development will result in an unacceptable increase in traffic inthe area. I do not believe the developers' estimates of car use: in particular, the very limitednumber of hours assistance that is needed to live here suggests that most occupants will be therelatively healthy and wealthy elderly, who will have cars, and not those that need on-site care andnursing and who will not drive. It is entirely possible that there will be many more cars thanspaces, and the very limited reduction in the number of residential units (122 down to 116) willhave little, if any, effect on the number of cars drawn to the site.
I do not fully understand the precise rules but others on this site have suggested that thedevelopers have cynically used the car: residence ratio for a nursing home and not for lightly
supported assisted living units. The transport statement states that the parking spaces have beenset based on C2 (nursing homes), yet this will be a development of independent living units (andthe developers' website goes to some length to emphasise that this is not a nursing / care home),suggesting that the developers should have used a C3 rating, meaning that there would be 1-1.5spaces per unit (depending on bedrooms) and 1 visitor space per 100 units. This would requiresomewhere nearer 130 spaces, before staff parking is considered.
Only 20% of spaces will be wired for electric car-charging, which seems wholly inadequate.
Despite promises to the contrary during neighbourhood consultation, these plans now includeaccess from The Glen. The car park accessed from The Glen will hold 9 cars, but there is certainto be a significantly larger number of cars drawn to try to park outside the entrance and, findingthat there is no space, we will get constant blockages as cars double-park, and try to back up,because that part of The Glen is a cul-de-sac. It is likely that the need to keep this entrance clearwill mean that we will lose a significant amount of street space at that end of The Glen, and what iscurrently a cul-de-sac becomes a thoroughfare. Many of the traffic problems are exacerbated bythe absence of an RPZ in these streets, meaning that parking becomes a free-for-all. This willmake it much, much worse. And it is not the inability to park that is the problem, as much as thesheer number of cars circling and idling waiting for a space.
on 2022-12-18 OBJECT
I have read the updated proposals for St. Christopher's Square. The proposedamendments are an insult to the local community. It is minor tinkering. My original objections stillstand.
A reduction of 6 dwellings makes no difference to the overall impact of the plan.65 resident parking spaces for 116 homes is unrealistic. There is no provision for staff or visitors.The already overcrowded residential streets will become even more congested. Changingvehicular access from Etloe Road to The Glen simply moves the problem round the corner. It doesnothing to alleviate congestion.It is derisory to suggest that any SEND provision is included in the proposals. Anyone who hashad any experience of children with special needs can testify that occasional use of a village hall isan insult to the children and those caring for them.
on 2022-12-17 OBJECT
I would like to reiterate my objection to this development plan in the Westbury Parkarea. My previous comments and reasons to object still apply to this revised proposal. In fact, Iconsider that no significant changes have been made.I still strongly recommend to refuse this application for the following reasons:- Increase in traffic, pollution, noise, parking constraints and road accidents.- over development of the area with impact on local services, amenities, schools, health provision.- impact on the heritage and conservation of this area with out of character buildings and affectingthe outlook and natural light of many neighbours.- loss of wildlife and trees which are on site and surrounding areas.
on 2022-12-17 OBJECT
I wish to reinstate my original objections. The whole concept is wrong and should not beallowed in this beautiful area.
I would add the great need for a school for special needs children would be a good solution.
Once this development is allowed to go ahead , the whole area and its beauty will be lost forever...
on 2022-12-17 OBJECT
Dear sir/ Madam,We are still very disappointed with this application for the Saint Christopher school alterationproject. The small changes that have been made to the original design do not address in any waythe parking, traffic and conservation problems that the project will create.Our main objections are still the number of accommodations that would be added to the areawithout planning for adequate parking facilities. We are not even sure that there would be enoughparking spaces within the property for staff, so how could it be suitable for the extra 116accommodations being proposed. This will put an incredible pressure on parking in the adjacentroads such as ours and particularly the Glen which would be the only rear access according to thenew plan. It is already impossible to park in the area and we cannot imagine what it would like withso many extra residents, visitors, service vehicles etc. Do not believe that this will force people touse public transport as most of the staff already working in any of the three care homes alreadylocated in Belvedere Road come by car and try to park in the vicinity! These roads are not part ofthe resident parking scheme and are also used for people commuting to the city centre to avoidparking charges.To accommodate such a large number of accommodations the applicant is still suggesting to builda 5-storey building which is in no way in keeping with this conservation area where none of thebuildings are no more than 3 storeys high. This complete eyesore will be seen not just from thedowns but also from every other direction as the proposed buildings will dwarf everything aroundthem.We could see on the plan that many old trees and most of the wild life will still disappear which issad, especially for the foxes, squirrels and birds. May I remind you that 70% of birds have
disappeared during the past 50 years thank to the humans' invasion of their natural habitat.It is our opinion that the promoters have presented a project that will maximize their profit at thisstage without any consideration how detrimental it will be to the area and the area which is alandmark in Bristol.
Yours faithfully
Jacques Desallais & Margaret Thwaytes
on 2022-12-17 OBJECT
Dear SirsMy main complaint is - enough already!!!If the developer cut the proposal in half and stopped being so demanding, it would not upset somany people. This is a demanding developer carving up our neighbourhood and they don't livehere. Please stop this.
I live in the adjoining street to the development, and I am really concerned at this planningproposal. I have lived here for 12 years and during this time there have been a lot of attempts totake advantage of us in this area and to turn it from a quiet residential area which has a lovelycommunity to a developer's advantage. The good community here saves society in mental healthand other social supports. Please don't take it away from us.
My reasons are as follows.- This is a conservation area, and all developments should stay within the conservation code here.We are only allowed to alter our house within certain parameters. I think this developer should alsobe kept to those parameters.- The proposal will destroy the area in terms of parking, and we will be overwhelmed by carslooking to park here. The proposal is entirely inadequate in terms of allocated parking for the sitewith about half the number of places that would be needed for the people living there, staff andvisitors. If this is to go ahead, the amount of space for parking should be at least 116.- I object to the entrance to the rear buildings for cars being from The Glen. This is a smallresidential area and will change the character out of recognition and forcibly make a cul-de-sac
into a busy thoroughfare against the resident's wishes. There should be access from the front tothe rear buildings, not from The Glen.- They have only allocated 2 disabled parking spaces for the Urban Hall, which is sited at the rear,which means everyone else will want to park in our street, where there is already a crush forparking. This will lead to dangerous parking with a danger to the pedestrians and prams etc whichwe already experience.- If any fire engines or ambulances need access to the back, they will need to come through thesesmall roads, which are packed with cars. If the developer cannot ensure safe access via the front,it is a high risk for emergency vehicles will not be able to enter via The Glen due to it being reliedupon by the developer for surplus parking (of which there is no surplus). The whole thing has notbeen thought out properly.- It is unfair that this developer is taking advantage of the free parking roads in our couple ofstreets. We have campaigned for RPZ but the Mayor stopped all new allocations when he came topower, so we don't have it in these streets. If there was RPZ, the developer would have to allocatemore parking spaces in the development. When the Mayor leaves, we will campaign again. If wethen get RPZ, what will they do about parking then? They will not be able to park in our streetsand then there will be a deficit of parking spaces for the residents as well.- I object to the scale of this development. It should be reduced by half, to fit the space and theavailable services and parking. If the developer will not do what is suitable for the space, then heneeds to modify his demands or go somewhere else.
on 2022-12-17 OBJECT
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:Dear sir/ Madam,
We are still very disappointed with this application for the Saint Christopher school alteration
project. The small changes that have been made to the original design do not address in any way
the parking, traffic and conservation problems that the project will create.
Our main objections are still the number of accommodations that would be added to the area
without planning for adequate parking facilities. We are not even sure that there would be enough
parking spaces within the property for staff, so how could it be suitable for the extra 116
accommodations being proposed. This will put an incredible pressure on parking in the adjacent
roads such as ours and particularly the Glen which would be the only rear access according to the
new plan. It is already impossible to park in the area and we cannot imagine what it would like with
so many extra residents, visitors, service vehicles etc. Do not believe that this will force people to
use public transport as most of the staff already working in any of the three care homes already
located in Belvedere Road come by car and try to park in the vicinity! These roads are not part of
the resident parking scheme and are also used for people commuting to the city centre to avoid
parking charges.
To accommodate such a large number of accommodations the applicant is still suggesting to build
a 5-storey building which is in no way in keeping with this conservation area where none of the
buildings are no more than 3 storeys high. This complete eyesore will be seen not just from the
downs but also from every other direction as the proposed buildings will dwarf everything around
them.
We could see on the plan that many old trees and most of the wild life will still disappear which is
sad, especially for the foxes, squirrels and birds. May I remind you that 70% of birds have
disappeared during the past 50 years thank to the humans' invasion of their natural habitat.
It is our opinion that the promoters have presented a project that will maximize their profit at this
stage without any consideration how detrimental it will be to the area and the area which is a
landmark in Bristol.
Yours faithfully
on 2022-12-16 OBJECT
The revised plans have not changed at all as far as I'm concerned. A reduction of only 6dwellings shows that the developer clearly does not listen to the weight of concern of thecommunity or interested parties. Parking and road safety will still be adversely impacted as thissite will still be massively over developed. My previous objection and comments have not changedbased on this revised plan. It should be rejected.
on 2022-12-15 OBJECT
The revised plans have barely changed in terms of potential impact on increasedparking problems in the neighbourhood (and visitors and residents driving around trying to findparking); on the loss of trees and greenery; and on the the character and heritage of theneighbourhood. I find the approach of the developers to be cynical and dismissive of the concernsexpressed in such force by neighbours, council officers and local representatives in response tothe first application. I strongly oppose the overdevelopment of the site in the way proposed, eventhough the objective of provision of housing for the older generation is certainly unobjectionable.
on 2022-12-15 OBJECT
I am still strongly against this proposed development.My key concerns are as follows:
- Increased traffic / parking. However the developers spin it, there will clearly be an increase inparking in the local area. There is already a problem with road safety arising from the lack ofparking / volume of vehicles on the roads. Any development has to cover its own parkingrequirements.
- Not in keeping. The proposed development is not in keeping with the local area at all. There is nojustification whatsoever to material change the current footprint of the site. I.e. same number ofbuildings / same profile (height/size).
- Purpose. The local area simply doesn't need this kind of development. There are two luxuryretirement complexes within walking distance, both of which aren't full!
- Strength of feeling from the local community. It's clear from the number of objections, the rallyingof WPCA and SCAN, and the local outrage at the way developers have 'engaged' with thecommunity that this proposed development is so out of touch with the local community.
In conclusion, these revised plans are superficial changes and do not address the fundamentalissue; which is that the site is not right for this sort of development, especially on a scale anddesign that's been proposed.
on 2022-12-15 OBJECT
Are the Developers advocating all Staff cycle to work - No matter the distance orweather they may have to travel?Or are they suggesting the proposed residents ride bicycles?
Vehicle Type:No increase in parking spaces for vehicles but CYCLES appear to have increased to 52
Cycle spacesExisting number of spaces:0Total proposed (including spaces retained) this does not make sense if as above, NUMBER OFEXISTING SPACES "0"52Difference in spaces:52
Developers have provided very little further information to justify the low number of on site carparking spaces. For example, they have failed to respond to Bristol City Council's request toprovide a breakdown of staff parking needs across the day.
Has the entrance from Bayswater Road been discarded entirely? AND Or shifted to The Glenwhich would have another knock-on effect on those nearby roads as well as posing a safety risk if
fire engines ever had to navigate the already overcrowded roads that lead there.
Loss of Light - Being overshadowed by tall high rise buildings of up to 6 floors seems incongruousin a Conservation area where it is planned to remove 50% of the trees and copses to build thesebuildings, where it is already populated with highly endangered Hedgehogs, endangered bats,foxes, badgers & their setts under legal protection from intentional cruelty due to results fromhuman activities such as this development. And there are so many, many varieties of birds,insects and tiny creatures that are necessary for all life that will be dislodged or destroyed. Someof these wild animals like Hedgehogs are classed as endangered now, this development will helpto drive them further into extinction.
Loss of privacy - Living under a High rise (6 floor high) building feels as if the citizens who alreadyhave property surrounding this new development will have nowhere to go to escape from beingpeered at from such close proximity, whether they are in a garden, a yard, a balcony or even in aroom, they will always be overlooked.
It is unbelievable that in this year of 2022 no attempt has been made or even acknowledgementmade to the fact that Affordable Housing is strongly needed and vital on any new developmentanywhere in the UK. Developer Socius and the project team's commitment to Affordable Housingis "IT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THEIR BUSINESS MODEL". This seems to be creating an evenbigger divide between the Haves and the Have-nots further stretching the rich from the poor. Isthis the way Bristol wants to be known in the future?
The Developers quote there is an acute need for homes for older people. There may well be asthe figures created by Bristol City Council portray a similar view, however, many of the elderly asportrayed by Bristol City Council will not be able to take advantage of this new development due tothe fact that there is no affordable housing to be built nor is there any rented housing to be setaside for inclusion. Leaving a large socio economic population of Bristolians unable to availthemselves of a healthier lifestyle and unnecessary suffering and heaping pressures on the NHS.Increasing social care costs and tackling the loneliness that is often felt by the elderly.
The independent model portrayed by Developer Socius is for older people, who already have theirown home and are able to sell it to provide for a property in this new development or they may befortunate enough to have large pensions. Anyone entering into a scheme such as this one, on thesurface sounds wonderful, but what if you don't like it or don't get on in a small close nitcommunity. If you become ill or need extra care and you have used your capital purchasing ahome, you are then dependant on your family for support to pay for the additional care you need.Or perhaps you will be able to re-sell your property in the scheme and leave the community andbe in the jurisdiction of Bristol City Council to offer you help.
Developer Socius also believes by creating these large communities they are helping tostrengthen the local housing market for all generations, as those who move into extra care
facilities may sell their family homes, creating opportunities for families to up-size, which in turnboosts the availability of smaller homes for first-time buyers. Developer Socius makes theirscheme sound so plausible and it could be if it was not so ambitious.
on 2022-12-15 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Igave before.
Overdevelopment - still too big, too dense & too highLoss of Trees and Wildlife - still too many trees being chopped downTraffic - not enough parking spaces leading to overspill and road safety hazardsLoss of SEND provision - derisory offer of shared use of a room is an insult to the 70 years legacyof special needs education on this siteHarm to Heritage - the scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and disregardsthe fact that this is a designated Conservation Area.
on 2022-12-14 OBJECT
The plans for this proposal suggest the project is not in keeping with the local area.
The building is too big and too high.
My main concern is for the problem with parking, leading to overspill and causing dangerousparking and driving, especially with Westbury Park School being so close.
The destruction to wildlife and trees will be a tragedy and disproportionate to the benefit of yetanother residential community.
on 2022-12-14 OBJECT
The development will impact on an already heavily congestion area.There needs to be less dwellings and more parking.I have to already walk around cars which is not good.The area is already heavily congestion at school times with park cars and people park around thisarea to bus into town.PLEASE START THINKING OF THE PEOPLE ALREADY LIVING HERE.The revised plan's have not really changed
on 2022-12-14 OBJECT
I made objections to the previous version of this planning application. The revisedapplication has changed very little and my previous objection still stands for the reasons stated. Inparticular, the excessive scale of the proposal in my view is an overdevelopment of the siteinvolving deleterious impact on a conservation area and destruction of too much of the naturalenvironment on the site.I am particularly concerned about the inadequate parking provision proposed on site. Thedeveloper's adoption of the "Convalescent and residential care homes" standard is, I believe,incorrect for this site. What they are proposing are 116 separate residential units where people liveindependently with on-site support. The residents will still be mainly active and involved, capableof driving and leading an active social life. As a member of this age group, I can testify that almostall my contemporaries have cars and regard them as a lifeline. The provision of c45 spaces for116 units is completely inadequate. Also, the survey of available parking in the area was carefullycarried out at night. During the day commuters fill almost all parking leaving very few on-streetspaces available.
on 2022-12-14 OBJECT
My objections as stated in my previous response are still valid and still apply to thislatest proposal. For these reasons my objection as a close neighbour to the proposeddevelopment still stands.Yours,John Ashford
on 2022-12-14 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before.
Overdevelopment - still too big, too dense & too highLoss of Trees and Wildlife - still too many trees being chopped downTraffic - not enough parking spaces leading to overspill and road safety hazards especially in avery busy area.Loss of SEND provision - derisory offer of shared use of a room is an insult to the 70 years legacyof special needs education on this siteHarm to Heritage - the scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and disregardsthe fact that this is a designated Conservation Area.
on 2022-12-14 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before.
The amends made are minor, the development is too large with minimal respect for the area andthe site regarding height, parking, trees and impact on the community.
on 2022-12-14 OBJECT
Having previously commented on the original plans that were submitted, I am verydisappointed that the Developers appear to have paid scant attention to the many objections thatwere lodged and not significantly modified their plans. Only reducing the number of homes by sIxdwellings is ridiculous, and will have virtually no impact on the proposed over development, andunacceptably high density, of the site. Reducing the height of the block of flats from six to fivestoreys will certainly not lessen the negative visual impact of this block which is totally at odds withexisting buildings, and the architecture of the local area.Not increasing the number of parking places will have a significant and detrimental effect on thelocal neighbourhood and the surrounding, already heavily congested, roads. Local residentsalready face daily challenges to park near their homes.The proposed destruction of trees, foliage and wildlife's habitat is certainly not in keeping with thecurrent green agenda we are being encouraged to follow.The site has had a proud history of educating young people with Special Educational Needs, aprovision the city of Bristol is in desperate need of expanding. From these plans there seems to bevery little real intention of maintaining any meaningful SEN provision.
on 2022-12-14 OBJECT
Commenter Type: Neighbour
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Comment Reasons:
Comment:My objections as stated in my previous response are still valid and still apply to this
latest proposal. For these reasons my objection as a close neighbour to the proposed
development still stands.
Yours,
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
I object to these proposals because:- the flats are still too high, the changes are minimal- loss of trees and wildlife - increasingly important as we struggle to preserve our planet- not enough attention to parking issues. Exchanging Bayswater Avenue for the Glen is not asolution- not enough attention to the opportunities of joint work with the school next door - there have beenmany TV programmes showing the benefits to children and elderly people of meeting andcommunicating and doing joint activities- I might have missed it, but I didn't see any details of safe bike storage - I am 80 but still happilyriding my bike.
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
The revised proposal shows very little change to the original. The objection I submittedto the original planning application therefore still applies to this proposal. I continue to believe thatthis planning application should be refused for the reasons I stated before.
The proposal will damage wildlife and trees, foster huge traffic problems in an area already understrain, and is not wanted by locals. The Downs area has been a refuge and joy for generations ofBristolians and should be for years to come. The whole area will be negatively impacted by thisproposal with consequent effects n the Claypit Lane part of the Downs and traffic increases allaround.
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to this proposaland they were based on the application being: (1) an overdevelopment, still too big, too high andtoo dense; (2) the loss of trees (needed to be chopped) and of wildlife that such a massivedevelopment would bring; (3) the danger to traffic due to limited parking spaces leading to overspilland road safety hazards; (4) the big loss of SEND provision (e.g. offer of shared room is an insultto the 70 years legacy of special needs education on this site); (5) and harm to heritage given thatthe proposal is completely out of character with our neighbourhood and disregards the fact thatthis is a designated Conservation Area.
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
Plans have only had minor adjustments made so all points from my previous objectionstill stand. It is still very much an overdevelopment of the site.
An entrance on The Glen is not practical at all as the surrounding roads are already very busy,and Belvedere Road is frequently blocked with ambulances/deliveries etc. Cars already park oncorners, block pavements and dropped curbs and this development will only increase the problemdue to inadequate parking.
The removal of mature trees is still unacceptable and planting replacements else where absolutelyis not a solution.
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
As per my previous submissions I object to this development. It is too big, the buildingstoo high and they will look out of place and be an eyesore across The Downs. It will make parkingmuch worse and this will impact the wider area. This is a location famous in the UK for it's beautyand history. This development will damage that and mar Bristol's reputation for caring for theenvironment and being a green city.
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
Leave trees to grow and help our environment and air.
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
Overdevelopment - still too big, too dense & too highLoss of SEND provision - derisory offer of shared use of a room is an insult to the 70 years legacyof special needs education on this site
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
The revised proposals do nothing to meet my original concerns; that the density andvertical scale of the development is too great for the site, lack of sufficient car parking spaces andgeneral lack architectural merit for such an important site in the heart of our community.
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
I wish to strongly object to the proposals made by the developers of the St.Christopher's site .AsI have objected to the previous application, all my comments still stand.
The cost to the area of an overdeveloped site which is far too large and high ,and inappropriate inan area which is already densely populated.,
The pollution caused by extra traffic in an already overcrowded area. Parking is already a problemdue to being on the edge of the Residents Parking Zone
The destruction of mature trees and habitat.
The lack of affordable housing.
The total disregard of the objections raised by so many.Very little has changed since the original proposals were made.
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
i object on the basis that it is too big a development for the area with totally inadequateparking. i live in Westbury Park (Downs Park West) & have my business in North View, there arealready too many residents looking for too few parking spaces.
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
Quite frankly, I find the developers' revised plan insulting.They have completely ignored the numerous objections from all sides, including the council's ownadvisers.The suggestion that the offer of a shared room addresses the SEND needs is laughable. Therevised plan remains a significant over-development in a conservation area and is still completelyout of character. The buildings remain far too high and densely packed.
The minimal change in parking spaces will still lead to massive over spill onto the local roads withincreased traffic hazards especially near a primary school. This concern has again beenoverlooked.I am also very concerned about the attitude to tree loss and the impact on wildlife. Far too maytrees are still being lost in an attempt to pack the site with income generating buildings. I resentthis callous disregard for nature, heritage and the local community.
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
I objected to the original proposal for several reasons. Disappointingly, the newproposal is almost identical to the first, with only very minor and insignificant changes so I mustobject equally strongly to the new plans.
In short:The development puts far too many new units on the site.The tower blocks are far too high.There is nowhere near enough parking provided for the number of residents.The effect on local traffic, parking and road safety will be huge.The loss of mature trees and other wildlife habitat is unacceptable.
Regards
Paul Millward
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before.
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
I objected to the original proposals on the grounds of the overbearing effect of thebuildings on the surroundings and the danger from increased traffic volumes and lack of parking.I have read the revised proposals and comment that- the density if buildings is barely changed, from 121 to 116 occupants. The changes in externaldimensions (height and footprint) are marginal and do little to affect the impact- the residential area of Westbury Park already has a dangerous volume of through traffic andextra traffic, both cars and delivery vans, would add to this danger. Making the principalentrance(s)from the west doesn't change this. I see no improvement of parking provision.
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
I objected to the original proposals on the grounds of the overbearing effect of thebuildings on the surroundings and the danger from increased traffic volumes and lack of parking.I have read the revised proposals and comment that- the density if buildings is barely changed, from 121 to 116 occupants. The changes in externaldimensions (height and footprint) are marginal and do little to affect the impact- the residential area of Westbury Park already has a dangerous volume of through traffic andextra traffic, both cars and delivery vans, would add to this danger. Making the principalentrance(s)from the west doesn't change this. I see no improvement of parking provision.
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
It is a shame that the developers have made such minimal changes to theoverwhelmingly unpopular development proposals.The scale and number of properties is not in keeping with the area, and the derisory number ofparking spaces is incomprehensible. Parking in the area is already somewhat impossible, and thelack of sufficient on-site parking will only make a bad situation worse. The idea that older peopleno longer drive is not one that can be justified - we have neighbours who are still driving in their80s and 90s!The timing of the developers revised proposal is also clearly calculated - coinciding with theChristmas period when local residents are distracted and may not have the time to object again.Local feeling hasn't changed and I just hope the Council recognises that and continues to refusepermission.
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before'.
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before'.
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
I continue to object to the planning application. I objected to the previous application and maintainmy objection to the current revised, just before Christmas application. Parking in Westbury Park isalready saturated. The area by St Christopher's is on the very edge of the Redland ResidentsParking Zone and therefore cars already overspill into the non restricted Westbury Park area. Thearea also appears attractive to community vehicle day care, whereby commuters park their cars inthe free non RPZ from the early morning to the evening to commute into town. The area has ahigh number of terraced houses without garages or car parking spaces and therefore 116 unitsplanned for St Christopher's would significantly increase the cars and traffic in the already highlycongested, small area of Westbury Park. The 116 units mostly two bedroom properties couldpotentially mean 232 additional cars with a very limited 65 spaces. There is yet no detail how the65 spaces will be allocated by the developer. With an older persons demographic theaccommodation would need to satisfy all in house parking to be able to meet demand. Thedeveloper has significantly underestimated the needs of this particular demographic group andhas a poor understanding of community services. Many community health and social care servicesare reliant on vehicles due to their constraints with time specific appointments or prescribed ,timetabled routines. Bear in mind that many community services are not necessary local and oftencover a large area of Bristol. Various community services will be required, and the majority willhave cars. This is in addition to the cars belonging to permanent residents at St Christopher's andtheir visiting families and friends. These include social care agency staff, social care practitioners,social care prescribers, Community Nurses, District Nurses, GPs, Community Physiotherapists,Community Occupational Therapists will generally be involved with older people, some requiring
two members of staff to visit dependent on individual circumstances which may risk two separatevehicles for each visit.
Care service personnel vehicles, residents vehicles, friends and family vehicles, in-house andexternal care staff vehicles, community health professionals vehicles, work/repair workers will leadto a highly congested area which will increase risk to safety for all pedestrians. If you care to lookat the local roads in the immediate area which accommodate a primary school and nursery youwill evidence cars parked already on pavements, cars parked on dropped kerbs, cars parked onyellow lines. Bristol Waste are regularly delayed or collections abandoned. I therefore concludethat this application should be refused.
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
I object to the resubmitted proposals for the former St Christopher's School site. Myreasons for objection are as follows:1. Damage to Heritage: The proposals amount to severe overdevelopment in a conservation area.The proposed scale, mass and bulk are inappropriate within the sensitive heritage context ofWestbury Park and the listed Grace House, and the scheme will give rise to unacceptable impactsin the Downs Conservation Area. Block B and block C are both still five storeys which is out ofkeeping with the surrounding existing housing. Furthermore, we as residents are expected touphold and respect the conservation area and are therefore restricted in amendments to ourhomes. For example, planning application "19/01251/H" a proposal to remove part of a frontboundary and hard-surface part of a front garden on The Glen was refused on the grounds of"unjustified and unnecessary harm to the sensitive setting of the host property and the characterand appearance of the surrounding Downs Conservation Area", including refusal of a bin storebeing "incongruous" and "fail to preserve or enhance the character of The Downs ConservationArea". Similarly, application 14/00188/F to replace timber-framed single glazed windows withuPVC double-glazed units was refused due to "unsympathetic alteration.. that would fail tosafeguard the character and appearance of this part of the Downs Conservation Area, as well ascausing harm to the setting of the neighbouring grade II listed Church". The St Christoperdevelopment proposals seem to disregard requirements of the conservation area that we as localresidents are expected to uphold. The developers should be expected to respect these in thesame way as us to ensure the conservation area is protected for future generations to enjoy.2. Damage to the Environment: There will be too many trees lost and a detrimental impact onnature & wildlife, losing high quality specimens that make a valued contribution to the character
and appearance of the Conservation Area.3. Road Safety, Traffic & Parking: The proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms,owing to insufficient on-site parking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements,which will increase the road safety risks in an area where this is already a significant concern. 65spaces for 116 units will be insufficient for residents, carers and visitors and overspill intoneighbouring roads is inevitable. The submitted parking surveys clearly show an oversubscriptionof parking on neighbouring roads, including the Glen. The idea of providing vehicular access to thesite via the Glen seems to completely disregard the already stretched parking situation for currentresidents, and the proposal of a double-yellow line at the end of the Glen will also further reducespaces that are frequently utilised by residents. Furthermore, the Glen can only permit single cartraffic, and is therefore not fit for purpose to provide vehicular access to the site. A planningapplication "19/D1251/H" to create a second off-street parking area on The Glen was refused onthe grounds that "the loss of existing on street parking spaces..would be to the detriment ofhighway safety". Allowing the St Christopher site development to proceed with inadequate parkingprovisions as they have proposed will undermine previous planning refusals such as thatmentioned.4. Lack of Affordable Housing: The proposal includes no affordable housing and is not supportedby any evidence to justify such a lack of provision. It still remains a luxury development.5. Loss of SEND provision: In the context of an increasing need for SEND accommodation inBristol, the developers have failed to comply with council policies that seek to safeguardcommunity facilities.
on 2022-12-13 OBJECT
I object to the resubmitted proposals for the former St Christopher's School site. Myreasons for objection are as follows:1. Damage to Heritage: The proposals amount to severe overdevelopment in a conservation area.The proposed scale, mass and bulk are inappropriate within the sensitive heritage context ofWestbury Park and the listed Grace House, and the scheme will give rise to unacceptable impactsin the Downs Conservation Area. Block B and block C are both five storeys which is out of keepingwith the surrounding existing housing. We as residents are expected to uphold and respect theconservation area and are therefore restricted in amendments to our homes. For example,planning application "19/01251/H" a proposal to remove part of a front boundary and hard-surfacepart of a front garden on The Glen was refused on the grounds of "unjustified and unnecessaryharm to the sensitive setting of the host property and the character and appearance of thesurrounding Downs Conservation Area", including refusal of a bin store being "incongruous" and"fail to preserve or enhance the character of The Downs Conservation Area". Similarly, application14/00188/F to replace timber-framed single glazed windows with uPVC double-glazed units wasrefused due to "unsympathetic alteration.. that would fail to safeguard the character andappearance of this part of the Downs Conservation Area, as well as causing harm to the setting ofthe neighbouring grade II listed Church". The St Christoper development proposals seem todisregard requirements of the conservation area that we as local residents are expected to uphold.The developers should be expected to respect these in the same way as us to ensure theconservation area is protected for future generations to enjoy.2. Damage to the Environment: There will be too many trees lost and a detrimental impact onnature & wildlife, losing high quality specimens that make a valued contribution to the character
and appearance of the Conservation Area.3. Road Safety, Traffic & Parking: The proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms,owing to insufficient on-site parking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements,which will increase the road safety risks in an area where this is already a significant concern. 65spaces for 116 units will be insufficient for residents, carers and visitors and overspill intoneighbouring roads is inevitable. The submitted parking surveys clearly show an oversubscriptionof parking on neighbouring roads, including the Glen. The idea of providing vehicular access to thesite via the Glen seems to completely disregard the already stretched parking situation for currentresidents, and the proposal of a double-yellow line at the end of the Glen will also further reducespaces that are frequently utilised by residents. Furthermore, the Glen can only permit single cartraffic, and is therefore not fit for purpose to provide vehicular access to the site. A planningapplication "19/D1251/H" to create a second off-street parking area on The Glen was refused onthe grounds that "the loss of existing on street parking spaces..would be to the detriment ofhighway safety". Allowing the St Christopher site development to proceed with inadequate parkingprovisions as proposed will undermine previous planning refusals such as that mentioned.4. Lack of Affordable Housing: The proposal includes no affordable housing and is not supportedby any evidence to justify such a lack of provision. It still remains a luxury development.5. Loss of SEND provision: In the context of an increasing need for SEND accommodation inBristol, the developers have failed to comply with council policies that seek to safeguardcommunity facilities.
on 2022-12-12 OBJECT
The parking situation is already dreadful. Allowing access from The Glen will make thesituation impossible. I strongly object.This is also bad from a safety point of view
on 2022-12-12 OBJECT
• This record has purely been from visual attention. No motion cameras or sensors were used in the compilation of this log. No sitting by the window/on road. Just day to day noting.
• Accompanying photographic evidence is available.
Considerations:
• This log was carried out May to December 2020, after the application for the 17 bed extension was refused. This log was made in anticipation of an appeal. It could be interpreted that this is a record of the applicant on ‘best behaviour’ with an impending appeal to be submitted December 2020.
• Visitors were not permitted to The Glen View, Meadowcare and Belvedere Lodge due to Covid-19 Restrictions during much of the time period covered and, therefore, is not a true reflection of the impact of visitor traffic to the home.
• Commuter traffic was reduced due to Covid-19 Government restrictions. • If one lorry is recorded, it is not an indication that one lorry visited the road on that day. Five
lorries may have visited, but one was visually seen and, therefore, recorded.
Traffic, Parking and Overconcentration
The log reinforces three main concerns that were raised by the previous REFUSED 17 bed extension application at Council in April and again in May 2020, and again in the REFUSED application in June 2021, namely: traffic, parking and overconcentration of residential institutions in one short road.
On the Incident Log I have recorded the date, the event and the issues raised by the event. These are all current entries of the situation on the road before any further increases in bed spaces. Issues repeatedly raised are:
1. Traffic directly attributed to, and associated with, The Glen View Dementia Home as well as Meadowcare Dementia Home, highlighting the Highway Safety issues and air quality issues;
2. Parking issues on the road that are further exacerbated by the number of vehicles attending the dementia homes;
3. Overconcentration of residential institutions compounding and increasing Environmental Waste issues on the road which in turn contributes to increased traffic to remove waste from the road.
Notes
More detailed notes are included after the attached 29 page report.
To conclude
To record a small insight of one household on Belvedere Road into the impact of the 40 bed care home, the Glen View, I have attached this 29 page Incident Log for Belvedere Road. There has already been an unacceptable impact on Highway Safety on Belvedere Road and any expansion will further compound this issue. Parking pressures are already at an unacceptable level for the resident community. Obstructions in the road and across driveways are already prevalent. Overconcentration is already the case on this road. Care home bed spaces outnumber residents by some margin.
Attached
1. Incident Log – 29 pages. Please see below
2. Notes
Belvedere Road Incident Log : May to December 2020 Key Ambulance Food delivery Delivery other
Bin collections etc.
Dedicated Maintenance vans for the Care Homes Staff parking
Date 2020 Time (24/hr) Incident (description inc problem caused) Issue Wed 27 May 14.00 Council Chambers meeting - win 8-1
19.30 White people carrier care home worker repeatedly circ. Streets looking for parking spaces. PARKING
19.45
Silver care home worker car circ. Street looking for parking space. At junction of the Glen and Belvedere reverses quite fast into the front end of a Tesco delivery lorry that was parked in the road unloading. Details exchanged with driver. PARKING
Thu 28 May 10.10 Bristol Waste bin lorry - cardboard TRAFFIC
10.32
Jones Food delivery to THE GLENVIEW CARE HOME. Large lorry. Reverses at speed down the road - too large to handle corner of The Glen due to over parking on the corner of Belvedere Road. No marshalling. Engine running for duration.
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
10.35
Jones Food delivery to THE MEADOWCARE CARE HOME. Large lorry. Reverses at speed down the road - too large to handle corner of The Glen due to over parking on the corner of Belvedere Road. No marshalling. Engine running for duration.
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
Friday 29 May 9.00 Bin lorry blocks road. TRAFFIC Care worker car blocks road. TRAFFIC - PARKING 11.25 DHL Delivery to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
11.30 Jones food delivery to THE GLENVIEW CARE HOME. Reverses down road. Engine running.
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
Mon 1 June
10.55 Jones Food delivery engine running to keep refrigerated lorry cool - lorry reverses length of road - no marshall
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
11.30 Ambulance blocking the road TRAFFIC - PARKING Tue 2 June
2.00 am
Bin lids constantly being opened and closed loudly at the THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. Other residents heard these and were discussing next day.
6.45 am Initial Clinical waste collection - woke/noticed by many residents TRAFFIC - PARKING
9.15 am DJB Cleaning delivery blocking our drive 16 B. Rd DURATION 20 MINUTES TRAFFIC - PARKING
915 am Bristol waste (green bins) for MEADOWCARE CARE HOME TRAFFIC
920 am Bristol waste (green bins) for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC
1020 am Jones Delivery, reverses up road at speed, engine running while standing - delivery to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
1025 am Jones delivery to MEADOWCARE CARE HOME engine running - reverses at speed
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
15.50 Maintenance Man White Van (caretaker) blocks road TRAFFIC - PARKING Thur 4 June
5.15 am Bin lids loudly being dropped at THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME wake us and other residents
9.15 am
Jones Food delivery lorry reverses and engine running THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME and MEADOWCARE CARE HOME - DURATION BLOCKING ROAD 55 MINUTES
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
10.04-10.10 am
A 'Wiltshire Farm Foods' Van pulls up behind the Jones delivery lorry delivering to MEADOWCARE CARE HOME expecting road not to be blocked for long. At 10.09 am horns start and a heated argument breaks out with the two drivers
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
10.10 am
Jones food lorry pulls out of the road out of the road to let the 'Wiltshire' van past. Bin lorry pulls immediately into the road having waited for the Jones delivery to move. Couldnt see if lorry pulled back in after bin lorry entered but unlikely as bin lorries need to exit street and ambulance waiting to enter (see below)
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
1010 am Bristol waste bin lorry collect from MEADOWCARE CARE HOME. TRAFFIC 10.15 am Bristol waste bin lorry collect from THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC
10.16 am Ambulance trying to get past bin men - sits and waits. Amb. For THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME and leaves 10.32 am. TRAFFIC - PARKING
ROAD CONTINUALLY BLOCKED (no break) 0915-1032 TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
(I was out 11-1300)
13.20 pm Jones Food lorry blocking road again to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME engine running - noise and air pollution
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
13.32 pm Ambulance blocking the road dropping off a patient. THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. TRAFFIC - PARKING
Friday 5 June
Multiple care home workers cars are parked in close vicinity for 12 hour shifts.
Tue 10 June
11.10 Care home worker blocks our drive for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME - DURATION 25 MINUTES PARKING
Wed 11 June
08.00 am Notice care home worker (white Vauxhall people carrier) circling street looking for spaces for 10 mins PARKING - TRAFFIC
8.10 Same car blocks our drive while waiting for a space to become available staff for the THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME PARKING
9.20
JONES Food delivery lorry, engine running, large vehicle, reverses - delivers to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME - DURATION BLOCKING ROAD 25 MINUTES
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
9.45
JONES delivery then moves to MEADOWCARE CARE HOME engine still running for duration noise and air pollution - reverses - DURATION UNKNOWN
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
1016 am Bin lorry brown cardboard blocking road THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC
14.45 pm Collection of staff. Blocked drive. THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
14.50 pm Maintenance/caretaker Van blocking our drive THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
Fri 12 June
10.55 am DJB Cleaning supplies van blocking our drive delivering to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
Sat 13 June
8.00 pm
Our drive blocked by person collecting member of staff from THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. I approach him after some time and he tells me 'he is going to stay there forever'. He says this repeatedly as if to antagonise me.
PARKING - ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Mon 15 June
17.15 pm Maintenance/care home caretaker van blocking the road servicing THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
Thur 18 June
11.40
Jones food delivery to the THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. Reverses up the road at speed. 12.17 Still blocking the road - went to MEADOWCARE CARE HOME - then came back to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME - engine running in the street the whole time. 12.20 finally leaves. DURATION 40 MINUTES
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
13.05 Bin lorry MEADOWCARE CARE HOME TRAFFIC 13.10 Bin lorry THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC Friday 19 June
10.50
Mason Moves Bristol' lorry blocking our drive unloading furniture for the care home. Driver rang door bell and asked politely if they could park across drive delivering to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
Mon 22 June
11.20
Jones food delivery lorry reverses, engine running whole time. Blocking road. Delivers to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME 11.20-11.40 then moves to MEADOWCARE CARE HOME. Do not see what time it leaves MEADOWCARE CARE HOME (not a clear view from here). DURATION AT LEAST 30 MINUTES
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
14.40 Taxi blocking our drive waiting to collect care home worker. TRAFFIC - PARKING Tue 23 June
MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Green large bin on street since yesterday taking up a parking space outside MEADOWCARE CARE HOME PARKING
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Green large bin on street since yesterday taking up a parking space outside THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME PARKING
MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin collection green tub taking up parking space TRAFFIC - PARKING
9.00 am THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin collection THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME and MEADOWCARE CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
13.00 Our drive blocked by white van delivering to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. Engine left running.
TRAFFIC - PARKING - AIR QUALITY
Wed 24 June
11.30
Ambulance has been blocking street for some time outside MC. Resident tells me she has abandoned taking her dog for his daily walk in the woods (or wherever) as she can not get past the ambulance at one end and scaffolders at the other end. Whole street blocked in for the duration. TRAFFIC - PARKING
13.40 Private ambulance blocking our drive (was out and returned back to find here and just about to leave) TRAFFIC - PARKING
Thur 25 June
9.15 am
Jones food delivery lorry - reverses, engine running whole time. At THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME 915-935 and then moves to MEADOWCARE CARE HOME - can not see it clearly to note when it leaves - imagine it is there a similar amount of time.
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
10.35 am Bin collection MEADOWCARE CARE HOME TRAFFIC 10.40 am Bin collection THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC Fri 26 June Wailing through the night from home
Constant opening and closing of maintenance man van doors throughout the early morning.
8.45 Caretaker van leaves parking space - white Citroen care home worker car that has been circling immediately takes the space. TRAFFIC - PARKING
10.05 Bin lorry (brown bins) MEADOWCARE CARE HOME TRAFFIC 10.10 Bin lorry THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC
10.15-10.25 Initial Healthcare management blocking the road collecting clinical waste. Dangerous hazard warnings on van. TRAFFIC - PARKING
11.20 -11.35 Our drive blocked with large delivery lorry of furniture possibly - engine running the entire time TRAFFIC - PARKING
11.37 Bin lorry to MEADOWCARE CARE HOME (large green tubs) TRAFFIC 11.39 Bin lorry to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC 16.00 Ambulance blocking the road TRAFFIC - PARKING Mon 29 June
11.15-11.50
Jones food delivery lorry reverses down road, engine running whole time. Noise of metal trollies and mechanical raising and lowering of platform at back of lorry. 11.15 at THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME then 11.35 moves to MEADOWCARE CARE HOME. 11.50 leave MEADOWCARE CARE HOME. DURATION 35 MINUTES+
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
17.55 Ambulance blocking the road TRAFFIC - PARKING
Tues 30 June
9.10 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bristol Waste - large Green tub bins on street TRAFFIC - PARKING
9.15 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bristol waste - large green tub bins TRAFFIC - PARKING
13.50 pm DJB Cleaning supplies van blocking our drive - DURATION 20-30 MINUTES TRAFFIC - PARKING
16.20 Ambulance blocking our drive TRAFFIC - PARKING
16.25
Car collecting care home worker from THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME/MEADOWCARE CARE HOME (a regular visitor to the street) blocking MoD drives of No.s 18 and 19 PARKING
Thurs 9 July
8.35
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME delivery Jones food lorry. Engine running for duration. DURATION 35 MINUTES OUTSIDE GV AND UNKNOWN TIME DURATION OUTSIDE MC
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
9.10 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME delivery Jones food lorry. Engine running for duration.
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
10.15 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bristol Waste brown bin collection TRAFFIC 10.20 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bristol Waste brown bin collection TRAFFIC 10.35 DJB Cleaning Supplies - contractor TRAFFIC - PARKING
10.45 Return of Jones food lorry. Engine running. REVERSES again up the rd
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
11.05 DPD Delivery to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING Friday 10 July
9.30 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
9.35 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry. Driving very fast down the road.
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mon 13 July
8.00 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Green bin tubs wheeled into the road taking up parking spaces. DURATION: 24 HOURS PARKING
8.00 Meadowcare Care Home Green bin tubs wheeled into the road taking up parking spaces DURATION 24 HOURS PARKING
8.05 Silver care workers car circling repeatedly then parks across our drive TRAFFIC - PARKING
11.15 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Jones food delivery. Engine runnning. Reverses up the road. DURATION 20+ MINUTES
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
THE MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Jones food delivery. Engine runnning. Reverses up the road. DURATION 20+ MINUTES
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
Tue 14 July
7.30 Green bin tub still in the road from yesterday morning taking up parking space PARKING
10.25 DJB Cleaning Supplies - DURATION 20+ MINUTES TRAFFIC - PARKING Thurs 16 July
9.00
Unusal number of car spaces on the street. School hols now. Also none of the usual large cars of care workers parked in road which usually arrive for 8 am shift. PARKING
13.15 Uber car blocks drive dropping off to the THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME home. TRAFFIC - PARKING
Fri 17 July
8.35 Bin lorry Bristol Waste blocking the road. Dangerous reversing up road - DURATION: 30+ MINUTES
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mon 20 July
22.00 Green bin tubs on street. Taking car parking spaces until collection tomorrow. PARKING
Tue 21 July 9.10 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry Bristol Waste TRAFFIC 9.15 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry Bristol Waste TRAFFIC
9.20
DPD Van blocks drive delivering to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. I was trying to leave the drive. Flagged down THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME reception and driver and asked if they could move to a space provided by the care home. Moved. TRAFFIC - PARKING
9.22
Jones Food Delivery - met as trying to leave the drive a second time. Usual scenario of blocking the road, engine running an dangerous reversing.
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
15.15 Delivery van blocking the drive TRAFFIC - PARKING 17.35 Taxi blocking the drive waiting for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING Wed 22 July
8.10 White car blocking our drive waiting for collection at THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
Thu 23 July 10.20 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Brown bin collection TRAFFIC 10.25 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Brown bin collection TRAFFIC
10.50
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME and then MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Jones Food Delivery - blocking road - engine running - DURATION: OVER ONE HOUR
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
White transit van parked in the road behind food van for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. TRAFFIC - PARKING
11.15
Visitors to our house couldnt access road as blocked at one end and Jones food delivery at the other so had to leave car in the middle of the road and drop off the child and move quickly. TRAFFIC - PARKING
11.30 Housing Officer MoD unable to access the road as Jones Food delivery blocking road outside MEADOWCARE CARE HOME.
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
11.40 Jones food delivery still blocking road with engine running.
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
11.50 Jones food delivery shut off engine for 20 minutes. TRAFFIC - PARKING
19.45 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Grey car delivery blocks road - no answer at reception door so delays blockage TRAFFIC - PARKING
Fri 24 July 9.00 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC 9.05 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC
9.20
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Care home workers x 3 having picnic on wall of No.17 . Child of worker allowed to play in the garden. Care home employee then enters the garden and urinates up against the garage of No.17. Reported to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Manager. ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Mon 27 July
11.50 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME food delivery. Jones Food lorry - engine running - reverses up the road TRAFFIC - PARKING
MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Food delivery Jones Food lorry TRAFFIC - PARKING 17.30 Bins out on the street. Taking up parking. PARKING Tue 28 July
9.05 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry Bristol Waste green tubs taking up parking up to this point PARKING
9.10 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry Bristol Waste green tubs taking up parking up to this point PARKING
Thurs 30 July
8.20
Kevin Manager at THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME comes over and brings offender from urination incident to apologise. Embarrassing for the offender and for us.
10.05 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry brown tub TRAFFIC 10.10 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry brown tub TRAFFIC
10.10 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME White van blocking road unloading for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
Fri 31 July 10.50 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin collection brown wheelie bin TRAFFIC 10.55 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin collection brown wheelie bin TRAFFIC Sat 1 August
12.00 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME loud ongoing wailing from THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME
*Away for one week* Sun 9 August
8.00 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME worker collection VW Silver car engine running in the road waiting. Shift change. TRAFFIC - PARKING
Mon 10 August
10.20
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Food delivery Jones. Engine running loudly. Blocking road. Reverses up road. DURATION 40+ MINUTES NOT INCLUDING TIME SPENT BLOCKING ROAD OUTSIDE MEADOWCARE CARE HOME
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
10.40 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Jones food delivery moves to MEADOWCARE CARE HOME and continues to block road
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
10.40
DJB Cleaning supplies blocking road outside THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME literally as Jones food delivery moved away. Road now blocked in two places outside both MEADOWCARE CARE HOME and THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. DURATION 25 MINUTES TRAFFIC - PARKING
11.05
DJB then Pressurised to move on by Buxton Butchers Van trying to get along Belvedere Road. DJB then moves up to delivery at MEADOWCARE CARE HOME. TRAFFIC - PARKING
17.00 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Maintenance Van blocking our drive DURATION 15 MINUTES TRAFFIC - PARKING
20.00 White large taxi people carrier blocking our drive to our house at shift change for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME home TRAFFIC - PARKING
21.00 Green bin in road awaiting collection tomorrow taking up parking PARKING Tue 11 August
6.15 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Clinical Waste collection - noisy and early DURATION 10-15 MINUTES AT 0615 AM
TRAFFIC - OPERATING ANTISOCIAL HOURS
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Clinical Waste collection - noisy and early
TRAFFIC - OPERATING AT ANTISOCIAL HOURS
9.00
Green Bin still taking up a space on road since last night - loss of parking spaces on road MEADOWCARE CARE HOME and THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME PARKING
9.20
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME care home visitor - medical - asks if she can block our drive partially as she cannot find any parking locally - agreed TRAFFIC - PARKING
9.25 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry collection - green bin TRAFFIC 9.30 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry collection - green bin TRAFFIC
9.30
We have friends arriving - we cant even have them park across the drive, let a lone in a parking space on the road as green tubs taking up spaces and drive partially blocked. PARKING
10.00 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Jones food delivery. Engine runnning. Blocking road.
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Jones food delivery. Engine runnning. Blocking road.
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
Wed 12 August
7.40 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Taxi blocking our drive DURATION 20+ MINUTES PARKING
8.10 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Maintenance Van blocking our drive DURATION 30+ MINUTES PARKING
Thurs 13 August
8.30
Couldnt get car on to our drive as blocked by car waiting for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME care home worker - she came out as he moved away and we pulled on to drive. PARKING
8.40 Another car for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME blocking our drive PARKING
9.15 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME silver car blocking our drive, waiting for care home worker PARKING
9.50 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry collection brown tub 9.55 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry collection brown tub
10.55
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Jones Food delivery - blocking road - engine running - reverses up road DURATION 30+ MINUTES NOT INCLUDING TIME SPENT OUTSIDE MEADOWCARE CARE HOME
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
11.25 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Jones Food delivery - blocking road - engine running - reverses up road
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
12.45 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME massive yellow bin lorry TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
12.40 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME MASSIVE yellow bin lorry - reversed back up road
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
Fri 14 August 9.00/9.30 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry collection TRAFFIC 9.00/9.30 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry collection TRAFFIC 10.35 White Van blocking the road for the GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING 16.15 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME White Van blocking the road TRAFFIC - PARKING Mon 17 August
10.10 DJB Cleaning supplies delivering for the THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
11.35 Taxi blocking the road waiting for worker from THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
12.05 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Mr Baryah blocks road. Leaves car in the road to go inside the GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
16.40 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Maintenance Van blocking the road TRAFFIC - PARKING
17.30
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Green tub bins taking up parking space on the road - will until tomorrow a.m. Green bins overflowing.
PARKING - ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ISSUE
MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Green tub bins taking up parking space on the road - will until tomorrow a.m. Green bins overflowing. PARKING
18.30
MEADOWCARE CARE HOME bin provision - clinical waste overflowing. Crows and magpies pulling out urine soaked incontinence pads from the bins and dragging them into the road. The stench was unreal. Gag reflex. Flies.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD
Tue 18 August 7.00 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Clinical Waste Collection TRAFFIC 7.10 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Clinical Waste Collection TRAFFIC MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Green bin taking up space on road PARKING
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Green tub bins taking up parking space on the road PARKING
8.55 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry collection green tub TRAFFIC 9.00 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME bin collecton green tub TRAFFIC
16.35
As I and my two children walk past Meadowcare, two private ambulance staff leave Meadowcare with a body on trolley. Because they can not park directly outside the home, the body is wheeled along the pavement up the street to the dropped kerb and then across the road to the opposite side of Belvedere Road and along to where the Private Ambulance is across the drive of No.s 18 and 19. No. 19 is the home of young children. PARKING - BODIES
Wed 19 August
19.15 Wailing from the home of distressed patient. This has been going on for hours a day all week. 19.45 still wailing.
Thurs 20 August
8.00 Vehicle blocking our drive waiting for collection of care home staff PARKING Fri 21 August 9.30 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry collection - brown TRAFFIC 9.35 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry collection - brown TRAFFIC
10.30 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Jones Food delivery - blocking road - engine running - reverses up road
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
10.40 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Jones Food delivery - blocking road - engine running - reverses up road
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
12.50 Ambulance outside MEADOWCARE CARE HOME TRAFFIC
14.00 Police outside THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME - called to MEADOWCARE CARE HOME. TRAFFIC
Sat 22 August
2.00
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME - EMERGENCY GP car blocking our drive and lots of car doors slamming awakening us outside the house.
TRAFFIC - PARKING - ANTISOCIAL HOURS DISTURBANCE
10.50 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Car with hazards on blocking road dropping visitor to care home. TRAFFIC - PARKING
Mon 24 August
10.35 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Jones food delivery - engine running - reverses DURATION 25 MINUTES
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
11.00
MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Jones Food delivery - blocking road - engine running - reverses up road DURATION UNKNOWN BUT AT LEAST 20 MINUTES
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
20.00 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Green bins taking up parking on road PARKING MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Green bins taking up parking on road PARKING Tue 25 August Clinical Waste collection day 8.50 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME bin lorry green tub TRAFFIC
8.55 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME bin lorry green tub TRAFFIC
9.00
Bin lorry not able to turn the corner so forced to reverse back up the whole length of Belvedere Road. Dangerous manouvre. No marshalling.
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
20.00 White car blocking our drive - collecting THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME care home staff DURATION 15 MINUTES PARKING
Wed 26 August
11.55
11.55 Ambulance blocking our drive as we are about to leave. Feel we are providing a space for the care home that they are not providing. We are the Designated Parking Space for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Care Home. There is NO DESIGNATED PARKING for a 40-bed care home that requires 24 hour access to care. We abandon our plans and go back inside. DURATION 35 MINUTES+ PARKING
12.15-12.30 Ambulance moves to block the road as it does not have room in our drive to open the doors and extend the ramp for the trolley. TRAFFIC - PARKING
Thur 27 August
9.30 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry brown tub - brown tub blocking pavement TRAFFIC - PARKING
9.35
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry brown tub - brown tub blocking pavement. Bin lorry reverses up the length of the road as can not get out by via The Glen. This is common. This is dangerous.
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
11.30 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC 11.35 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC
11.40 White Van blocking the drive. RD Johns delivery. Delivery to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
13.30
RD Johns Foodservice Van back again blocking our drive and actually ON No.15 drive delivering to the THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
17.30 Brown bins large tubs still blocking the pavement outside THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. Been 24 hours since they were put out. HIGHWAYS HAZARD
Sat 29 August
Family at No. 17 who have moved here 10 days ago tell us they and their three young children have seen their first body being removed from the home - private ambulance. BODIES
Mon 31 August
(Bank Hol) 9.40
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Delivery: Large Jones Food delivery - engine running the whole time - reverses the length of the street. DURATION 30 MINUTES
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
10.10
MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Delivery: Large Jones food delivery lorry unloading with engine running and reverses length of the road. Total of 50 minutes blocking the road. DURATION 20 MINUTES. Other cars that enter the road via the Glen drive up, wait, then reverse themselves back the length of the road. Multiple cars. Engine running, the noise for a bank holiday is horrendous. And the pollution from a standing heavy refrigerated lorry into the street is palpable.
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
14.45 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Male resident banging and screaming from inside screaming 'let me out' repeatedly.
7.55 Drive blocked by white van waiting to collect worker from THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. PARKING
Tue 1 September 8.30 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC 8.35 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC
17.00 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME employee taking photos of spaces. PARKING Wed 2 September
6.30/6.40
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lids slammed repeatedly and bins moving around on wheels in bin provision area outside THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME.
7.30 Trolleys wheeled up street between THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME and MEADOWCARE CARE HOME PARKING
8.00 Leaf blower constantly going Thur 3 September 8.35 Ambulance blocking our drives and then the road. TRAFFIC - PARKING
8.50
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Jones food lorry - large lorry engine running for duration of delivery. Reverses up the road to the MEADOWCARE CARE HOME. DURATION 30 MINUTES
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
9.20
MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Jones food lorry - large lorry engine running for duration of delivery. Reverses up the road to Redland Rd. Blocking road for a total of over 40-50 minutes DURATION 20 MINUTES = TOTAL FOR ROAD 40-50 MINUTES
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
9.40 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry - brown bins TRAFFIC 9.45 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry - brown tub bins TRAFFIC Sat 5 September out all day Sun 6 September
a.m.
Green Tub bins in road for collection: overflowing with latex gloves being pulled out by birds etc. latex gloves should be in clinical??
TRAFFIC - ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ISSUES
15.30
Ambulance blocking our drive attending THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. We returned to the house and found we couldnt park on our driveway so we parked on the road further down - one space fortunately. Leaves 16.15. DURATION 45 MINUTES PARKING/TRAFFIC
Mon 7 September 7.40 White Van blocking our drive PARKING
12.30
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME food delivery: Jones Food delivery lorry - large refrigerated lorry - parked at the end of the road and ferrying up and down the street food in noisy trolleys for unknown amount of time. One hour??
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
14.00 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Green bin in the street taking up parking - will still be there tomorrow. TRAFFIC - PARKING
14.00 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Green bin inn the street taking up parking until tomorrow. TRAFFIC - PARKING
14.45 White Maintenance van blocking our drive. PARKING Tue 8 September
8.00 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME White cruiser blocking our drive. Dropping off workers to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. TRAFFIC - PARKING
9.30 Delivery van for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME blocking road. TRAFFIC - PARKING 10.00 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC 10.05 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC
11.00
DJB Cleaning supplies to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME half on the driveway of No. 15 using it as a delivery space and blocking the width of the pavement TRAFFIC - PARKING
18.00 Car on corner of Belvedere and the Glen with parking ticket blocking dropped kerb. PARKING
Wed 9 September 18.30 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME alarm going off
Thur 10 Sept 10.15 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC 10.20 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC
10.25
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry - then reverses up the road. Then returns at speed down the road as another bin lorry is blocking the entrance to the road at Redland Road end - it is residents allocated bin day - then takes multiple marshalled manouvres to get around corner of Belvedere and the Glen due to overparking
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
Fri 11 Sept
7.50 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME White transit van blocking our drive collecting THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME staff PARKING
8.00 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME White mini van blocking our drive collecting from THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME PARKING
10.10 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC
10.15 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry - blocking road - lorry sat in road waiting for bin lorry to move TRAFFIC
22.00 Care home worker flaggin down my car as I drive down the road from Redland Road end in the hope that I am a taxi
Sat 12 Sept
7.50
White people carrier blocking our drive collecting staff member from THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. Then moves down Belvedere Road to block the drive of No. 13. PARKING/TRAFFIC
8.00 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Blue car blocking our drive. Dropping off staff to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. PARKING
Mon 14 September
9.25 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Enterprise delivery blocking our drive delivering to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
12.15
MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Jones food delivery lorry parked on Redland Road trolleying food along the pavement down to MEADOWCARE CARE HOME PARKING
12.35 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Food delivery blocking to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Belvedere road. Jones food lorry. PARKING
15.30/16.00
Noted a sewage drainage company outside MEADOWCARE CARE HOME with manhole cover up. Overconcentration issue? Over the summer months the children in the road have been complaining of sewage smells in the road outside the THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME and also the MEADOWCARE CARE HOME. We have had strong sewage odours coming up into our home on a daily basis. With 40 en suite rooms and additional bathrooms and spa facilities relying on a Victorian sewage system. An additional 14-17 ensuite bathrooms will add to this issue and any attempts to expand the sewage system will lead to extended disruption to this road as it did on the last occasion where large holes in the road and sewage were exposed.
POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD
Wed 16 Sept 8.00 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME maintenance loud in the road Thur 17 Sept 8.25 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Alarm going off 10.55 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry Brown tub TRAFFIC 11.00 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry Brown tub TRAFFIC
12.10 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME delivery to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME blocking road TRAFFIC - PARKING
Sun 20 September
7.50 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME White car blocking our drive collecting staff TRAFFIC - PARKING
Mon 21 September
10.25 Jones food delivery to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME by trolley along road TRAFFIC - PARKING
Tue 22 September 8.00 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Green bins blocking parking 2 x tubs TRAFFIC - PARKING 8.00 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Green bins blocking parking 1 x tubs TRAFFIC - PARKING 9.35 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC 9.40 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC
10.20 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME DJB Cleaning supplies blocking our drive and No. 15 PARKING
11.15 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Ambulance collecting from THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME blocking the road PARKING
19.00 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Ambulance blocking road PARKING Thur 24 September
9.10 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME White van blocking the road, refrigerated delivery TRAFFIC - PARKING
10.35 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC 10.40 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC Fri 25 September 9.30 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry (brown wheelies) TRAFFIC 9.35 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry (brown wheelies) TRAFFIC 11.00 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME drive blocked by taxi TRAFFIC - PARKING
13.30 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME drive blocked by taxi - have to ask them to move as we are going out. TRAFFIC - PARKING
Away 26 & 27 Mon 28 September
7.45 Maintenance Van for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME blocking our drive TRAFFIC - PARKING
9.00 Refrigerated food delivery for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME in unmarked white van blocking the drive TRAFFIC - PARKING
Tue 29 September
7.50 White van for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME blocking the drive DURATION 25 MINUTES TRAFFIC - PARKING
8.15 White van pulls away and white maintenance van reverses into the drive immediately (no parking on the road it would seem!) PARKING
14.00 Maintenance Van blocking our drive PARKING 17.07 White van for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME blocking the drive PARKING Wed 30 September 13.30 Van blocking the drive for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME PARKING 15.20 Van blocking the drive for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME PARKING
15.25 Van blocking the drive for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME - no parking on street PARKING
Thur 1 October White van blocking our drive PARKING
9.10 White van returns again blocking the drive THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME PARKING
9.15 White van blocks road, hazards on, delivery for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
Fri 2 October
10.20
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME 2 x CIS Vans ask to block the drive to clean windows of the THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. I say no as we are about to leave the drive in the next 15 minutes. He said he is grateful for me saying no as he 'can leave now'. Third attempt to the property to find spaces and clean windows - he is frustrated at the lack of parking - there is none. CIC 0800 108 80 20 Window Cleaning. TRAFFIC - PARKING
Sat 3 October 11.15 Maintenance van blocks our drive - THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME PARKING 13.00 Maintenance van blocks our drive - THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME PARKING
17.25 White transit people carrier blocks our drive - THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
Mon 5 October
7.50 White maintenance van blocking our drive THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME DURATION 40 MINUTES PARKING
8.00
White refrigerated food van blocking Belvedere Road while delivering to THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. DURATION 30 MINUTES TRAFFIC - PARKING
8.15
Care home workers circling looking for spaces and queueing behind refrigerated delivery blocking Belvedere Road delivering to the THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
8.20 red car joins the blockage of vans and cars outside the THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME as above TRAFFIC - PARKING
8.30 traffic moves on finally
15.00 Ambulance blocking our drive attending THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME PARKING
17.25 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME White maintenance van blocking road and then our drive. PARKING
Tue 6 October 7.45 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Maintenance van blocking the drive PARKING
8.00 Green bins in road overflowing and awaiting collection taking up parking on the road outside the THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME
PARKING - ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ISSUE
11.25 DJB Cleaning supplies blocking our drive delivering to the THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
12.30 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Care home worker circling Belvedere Road 3 x looking for spaces to park PARKING
Wed 7 October
Bin lorries having to reverse up road due to scaffolding trucks parked on corners. DANGEROUS.
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
Fri 9 October 9.55 am Van blocking our drive for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME parking 11.15 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC 11.20 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC
12.20 MEADOWCARE CARE HOME bin lorry - lorry had to reverse down the road being marshalled
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
12.25 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry - lorry had to reverse down the road being marshalled
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
14.10 Taxi for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME blocking our drive TRAFFIC - PARKING
14.55 THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Ambulance blocking road attending the THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME PARKING
Tue 13 October
8.50 am Initial Medical van blocking road then drive waste disposal THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
8.55 am MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry - REVERSES UP ROAD - dangerous
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
9.00 am THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry - reverses up the road - DANGEROUS
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
Wed 14 October 12.45 Van for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME blocking our drive PARKING
14.00
Called THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME to ask them to ask driver of van attending THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME as children of Westbury Park Primary School around the corner have been using our driveway for their cycling proficiency - had been all morning and all week and do this every year. Now they couldn’t use it. And we were blocked in and not asked out of courtesy. PARKING
Thurs 15 October
8.25
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME food delivery white unmarked refrigerated van blocking the road. Weekly bin collection Lorry trying to get down the road but cant go further than 16 /17 Belvedere Road. TRAFFIC - PARKING
Fri 16 October 10.00 am MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC 10.05 am THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC Sun 18 October
16.15 Silver van blocking the drive waiting for maintenance man from THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME PARKING
Mon 19 October
8.25 am White van blocking Belvedere Road outside THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. Food delivery. TRAFFIC - PARKING
9.55 am White van blocking Belvedere Road outside THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. Food delivery. TRAFFIC - PARKING
20.00 pm Overflowing large green bins taking up parking on road
PARKING - ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Tue 20 October
8.15 am White maintenance van blocks the road. Then moves to block our drive as cars trying to get past. PARKING/TRAFFIC
Bins wheeled onto the road taking up parking PARKING MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC 9.15 am MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC 9.20 am THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC Wed 21 October
8.30 am White maintenance van blocking our drive from THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME PARKING
Fri 23 October
10.25 am MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry - reverses to get here - DANGEROUS
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
10.30 am THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME bin lorry - reverses to get here - DANGEROUS
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mon 26 October 17.00 Ambulance blocking road outside THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. PARKING 20.00 Ambulance blocking road outside THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME. PARKING Tue 27 October 9.05 am MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC 9.10 am THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC Tue 3 November 9.30 am MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry. DANGEROUS REVERSING TRAFFIC - PARKING
9.35 am
THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry - Can not get around the Glen so reverses back up the road being marshalled. Loud beeping. DANGEROUS
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY - AIR QUALITY
Wed 4 November
Worker unloading a grey van of cardboard - biscuit boxes etc. into the waste bins at THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME PARKING
Thur 5 November
9.00 am Bin lorry for residents not able to get around corners onto the Glen
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
9.30 am White refrigerated van blocking our drive TRAFFIC - PARKING 11.10 am MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC 11.15 am THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC 16.15 White refrigerated van blocking our drive and No. 15's TRAFFIC - PARKING Fri 6 November 9.35 am MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC 9.40 am THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC 14.20 Ambulance blocking road for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME PARKING Sun 8 November
16.30 Ambulance blocking the road outside MEADOWCARE CARE HOME. DURATION 1.5 HOURS+? PARKING
Mon 9 November 7.45-8.15 am White van for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME blocking the drive PARKING 9.05-9.15 Healthcare van blocking road for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING Tue 10 November
8.20 am THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Green bin tub wheeled onto the road taking up parking spaces PARKING
8.55 am Food delivery blocking road - traffic jam TRAFFIC - PARKING
9.05 am MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin collection TRAFFIC 9.10 am THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME bin collection TRAFFIC
11.00 am THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Inital van blocking road for THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
Wed 11 November
15.50 pm Maintenance man van THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME blocking ours and No.15's drive PARKING - TRAFFIC
Mon 16 November 8.40 am White Van blocks road despite car being behind him on the road TRAFFIC - PARKING Thurs 19 November 13.05 pm THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Toploader bin lorry PARKING 13.10 pm MEADOWCARE CARE HOME bin lorry PARKING Tue 24 November
8.40 am Maintenance Van blocks the road and then the drive outside THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME PARKING - TRAFFIC
13.00 pm Delivery Van blue blocking the road TRAFFIC - PARKING
13.25 pm Maintenance van blocking the road outkside THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME PARKING - TRAFFIC
Thur 26 November
8.50 am RD Johns Food van blocking the road outside MEADOWCARE CARE HOME 8.50-9.48 total TOTAL DURATION ONE HOUR. TRAFFIC - PARKING
9.22 am
RD Johns Food van blocking the road outside THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME 8.50-9.48 total. TOTAL DURATION ONE HOUR - as above TRAFFIC - PARKING
Wed 2 December
8.50 am
RD Johns Food Van THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME - unusally a space was available but it didnt even use it and blocked the road - DURATION 20 MINUTES + MC UNKNOWN.
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
Thur 3 December 8.00 am RD John's food van blocking road DURATION 30+ MINUTES TRAFFIC - PARKING ? MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC ? THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC Fri 4 December
7.50-810 am
Maintenance van blocking road. Cars beeping three times to get him to move. Moves back into position on road unloading/loading van. TRAFFIC - PARKING
8.35 am MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC
8.40 am THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry - reverses up the road to the THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME
TRAFFIC - PARKING - HIGHWAY SAFETY
10.35 am MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin collection TRAFFIC 10.40 am THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin collection TRAFFIC 12.00 Blocked in by van delivery to the THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING Sun 6 December 14.10 pm THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME workers car blocking our driveway PARKING - TRAFFIC Mon 7 December 8.20 am DJB Cleaning supplies blocking our drive TRAFFIC - PARKING
8.50 am RD Johns Van delivery food blocking road outside THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME TRAFFIC - PARKING
8.55 am MEADOWCARE CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC 9.00 am THE GLEN VIEW CARE HOME Bin lorry TRAFFIC
NOTES
Highway Safety
In particular, I would like to highlight Highway Safety as detailed on the log. Belvedere is a single lane road with parked cars on both sides. There are a small number of driveways to homes mainly on the north side of the road. The road is adjacent to a Residents Parking Zone (RPZ) and close to major arterial transport routes into the city centre, making it attractive to commuters looking to park. Parking is at a premium and spaces are rarely available. Drivers park across dropped kerbs and on the corners regularly. Due to the nature of the street scene, many of these larger vehicles are not able to navigate the junction of Belvedere Road and the Glen, due to the size of the vehicle and its turning circle or due to overparking on the corners. In addition, another valid reason for not being able to continue to exit Belvedere Road at The Glen end can be because of transport collections at the Freeways Supported Living Facility at No.2 , The Glen, on the corner of Blenheim Road, that has minibuses and disabled access vehicles and taxis regularly attend for the residents of this facility. As you will note from the log, a significant number of the bin lorries that attend the Dementia Homes are forced to return back up Belvedere Road. They are not able to turn around. Therefore, they are forced to reverse. Many reverse at speed. Rarely, have I witnessed marshalling of these heavy vehicles. This is one block from a 420 child primary school. Many of the children on this road, including my own, attend this school.
Bin lorries are an all too frequent occurrence on this road, in one form or another, through Bristol Waste,’ Initial’ clinical waste or private waste enterprises – it is unclear as many of the large waste vehicles are unmarked. An increase in residents needing additional assistance living locally will lead to an increase in waste and will compound this issue of Highway Safety further.
Fig 1: Unmarked oversized bin lorry June 2020
Ambulances block the road and are then in turn blocked in by more ambulances/food deliveries etc. attending the other two care homes, forcing one or other to reverse. They can and have also been known to be blocked in at The Glen end by the disabled transport buses for Freeways. An increase in residents locally requiring additional care will result in a Residual Cumulative Impact on Highway Safety and Patient Safety further.
Figure 2 Multiple emergency vehicles attend January 2021
Not one single parking space is incorporated into the on-site design to accommodate visitors, staff or delivery vehicles. A car park is required for these large numbers and the associated care needed. This log comments on the current level of residents requiring additional assistance on this one road. The application wants to increase parking pressure on this area by providing insufficient parking. Adding additional parking pressures to The Glen and Belvedere Road is dangerous and will increase highway concerns for the community.
With a significant inevitable increase in vehicle activity, staff numbers, visitor numbers, food deliveries and waste provision, handling and collection in similarly significant proportions, this will increase the residual cumulative impact to the residents living on this road.
Figure 3 Daily food delivery lorry, blocking the road, engine running for duration up to an hour, reverses length of the road without marshalling. Residents and Ambulances alike to find alternative access. August 2020.
Overconcentration
There are three care homes on Belvedere Road, occupying 24% of the available housing property in the road. The proposed application will increase the number of residents in the area requiring additional assistance with living. This in turn will impact staff numbers visiting the site as well as amenities such as bin lorries. And due to the age and health, the number of emergency vehicles will increase.
Figure 4 Delivery van and bin lorry blocking resident drive and road - June 2020
The pressures on this road are already too great. Highway safety is already an issue. To exacerbate this is dangerous.
on 2022-12-12 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before.
This will ruin the neighbourhood
on 2022-12-12 OBJECT
Concerns around tree felling and inadequate parking where on street parking is alreadylimited. Needs to probably an agreed formula eg .7 space per staff full time equivalent and .5space per residence.
on 2022-12-12 OBJECT
The developers have not listened to any of the objections and have changed nothing inthis new plan.Over-development. Appalling affect on the neighbourhood for traffic. Loss of trees and thereforewildlife. Height of buildings in a conservation area totally inappropriate. The council should not bebamboozled by these developers
on 2022-12-12 OBJECT
I consider the objections I submitted to the original planning application still applies tothis proposal which in fact has only had minor alterations. I continue to believe that this applicationshould be refused for the reasons previously stated. In summary:1. The site is still being overdeveloped. Knocking one storey off a building is derisory. It remailstoo dense and too high.2. As previously mentioned, the whole road system around The Whitetree Roundabout area is inneed of improvement. Currently at peak times and often during the day traffic queues downWestbuy Park from Whitetree Roundabout - sometimes as far as the St Christopher's Lodges.With all access coming from Westbury Park there will be gridlock at times. Street parking iscongested with almost no capacity during daytime hours. Parking facilities in the proposals aregrossly inadequate and subsequent spill over will impact the community adversely.3. There continues to be too many trees designated for chopping.4. The scheme is totally out of character with our neighbourhood and disregards the fact that thisis a designated Conservation Area.
on 2022-12-12 OBJECT
The new proposed plan are totally inappropriate, they have still not addressed theproblem of parking and would cause an overspill around surrounding roads causing congestionand traffic chaos.The Redland parking zone has pushed cars into parking in Westbury Park, in my road cars havebeen left for weeks!The buildings remain too close together and an eyesore for such an important area of the DownsThis would overlook the local school and disrupt the children's education and well being.I ask the council to review these inappropriate plans.
on 2022-12-12 OBJECT
Altogether a 'corporate' approach for a site which needs much more sensitivity and lessconcern for shareholder interests.Some bullet-points: --too much packed onto the site, with heavy impact on trees and urban wildlife;good to remember that it's a conservation area.--SEND provision proposed is almost an insult--here is a fine site to share with young people/adults with special needs--parking: more difficult to assess, but, considering that the area is already short in availableparking, any extra pressure will be difficult, either wayHope this will help towards the right decisions taken. Thank you!
on 2022-12-12 OBJECT
I submitted an objection to the original application, and my reasons then still stand forthis revised application which I outline below. I can only see marginal, insignificant and cosmeticdifferences in this current application none of which begin to address my original concerns.
I also feel that the timing of this application frustrates genuine public consultation as it crosses theChristmas and New Year festive season.
Scale Development
The proposed apartment blocks range from 4-6 stories which conflicts with the character of TheDowns Conservation Area where the street scenes are mainly 2-3 stories. These blocks willdominate the sky line from every side of the development site. They will take away the sense ofgreen space, for example the sense of space afforded by the gaps between the lodges onWestbury Park will be lost.
Building Design
The proposed design of the new apartment blocks fails to reflect the sense of place of theconservation area through appropriate use of external materials and colours, window styles andsizes (eg proportion of glazing to solid walls), elevations, variety in the street scene or roof shapes.
The Setting of Grace House
There would be a negative impact on the setting of the listed building Grace House, by the nearproximity of 4-6 story apartment blocks on two of its sides. By overshadowing and towering abovethis unique building there would be a significant loss of its amenity and contribution of character tothe area.
Affordable Housing
There appears to be no provision for affordable housing.
Westbury Park Primary School & Green Space
This popular school is very close to the development. One of its major weaknesses is that it hasno green space on site for the health and wellbeing of the hundreds of pupils and staff. Anopportunity has been lost to provide some dedicated and permanent green space. Although thedeveloper has said "where possible the site and its facilities will be accessible and available to thelocal community" this is not a commitment, gives no specific details and could be withdrawn at anytime.
The Pre-Application Consultation Process
I also wish challenge the fairness of the pre-app process which I took part in. I completed thedeveloper's online questionnaire but its' format did not allow me to express any opinion about themost fundamental planning issues of scale, design and impact. Secondly I took part in an onlinepresentation on 20 January 2022 where I could watch pre-prepared answers from pre-submittedquestions. All community participants were muted throughout and had no chance to quiz thespokespeople on their answers. Altogether a most frustrating process which seemed devised tominimise and marginalise the scale of objections resulting in a biased result.
on 2022-12-12 OBJECT
'The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before'.
On the new proposals:
The height of the buildings close to Bayswater avenue have been reduced but they are still tooclose, particularly Block D as per their plan.
The tower blocks remain too high- 5 stories for some. This will dwarf the buildings in theneighbourhood and be seen for miles. They will also block the views to Grace House, even fromthe other buildings on the site, even under the latest proposals.
There is already plenty of accommodation on the site from the current buildings, 4 additional towerblocks is not necessary and will ruin the sense of the site.
The site already has two access points off westbury park road- it does not need another from theGlen which is a narrow and busy road as it is. A pedestrian access might be sensible but notvehicle.
There is insufficient parking and the area is already overly congested with cars and traffic.
Where are the sustainable energy developments? Eg There should be solar panels and electriccar charging points (ideally open to public use)
There is no family housing that is affordable nor provision for children with additional needs. Thearea does need this type of housing/buildings and there is already assisted living typeaccommodation nearby.
on 2022-12-12 OBJECT
There has not really been any change with the latest plan. There is still going to be agreat increase in accommodation without adequate parking for the residents of the complex. Theyand visitors will be coming and going around a school my children attend and this is a veryworrying safety issue on an already car lined road. There is also going to be overspill of cars fromvisitors which I worry will impact the behaviour of all road users. The buildings remain too high.The site in its previous use was not intrusive. The proposed buildings will completely dominate thearea. Any change should be on the existing footprint and no higher than any other houses. Ioppose this development
on 2022-12-12 SUPPORT
A development of this size and impact next to a school and early years setting is justreckless.Traffic is already at gridlock, cars affect the ability of kids and the local community to walk toschool at drop off and pick up as it is. Adding to it would make things worse still. Please stop theseplans and do not approve this inconsiderate scheme
on 2022-12-12 OBJECT
I strongly object to this development due to the massive impact it will have on thisconservation area in terms of trees cut down and wildlife impacted, also the real danger in terms ofproximity to the school in terms of increased traffic and the massive impact this will have onparking in the area which is already at capacity. The proposals are also completely out ofcharacter for the area and, if accepted will be looked back on in shame - there is an opportunity todevelop the site sensitively and in keeping with the local school ans community but the developersneed to make some significant changes to achieve this
on 2022-12-12 OBJECT
The objection I submitted to the original planning application still applies to thisproposal. I continue to believe that this planning application should be refused for the reasons Istated before.
The villas still too large and dwarf Grace House which.
Pleased that there is no vehicle access near the Nursery. The main access should be from theGlen which has better access. Bayswater has a school but The Glen is already a used road withno school and other obstructions.
There is still not enough parking on site to cope with staff etc. etc.
on 2022-12-11 OBJECT
Summary1) We challenge the proposed parking allocations on site, based on the classification of thehousing as residential institutions when in fact the site will 'promote independence' and provide'self-contained flats'. This is more in line with residential dwellings which have an appreciablygreater requirement of car parking per bed space.2) We have concerns for the building of such a substantial development over the next 3 yearswhile our young children are spending their early years on the other side of the construction sitewall. This is inevitably going to affect the quality of their learning environment and it is not clearhow this disruption will be mitigated.3) We seek explicit clarity on the community uses statement for young children who attend thelocal schools and nurseries.
As presented, this over development will unacceptably increase pressure on parking, already amajor issue in the local area. The following solutions to be considered (in order of preference):- Reduce the number of units built (partially addressed)- Increase parking spaces to be in line with C3 housing classification (not addressed)- Increase the car club spaces from 2 to 12 in order to discourage care ownership (not addressed)- Make all parking bays electric vehicle charging spaces to support national environmental targets.(not addressed)While the proposal for an older community site is acceptable, the approach to put profit ahead oflocal infrastructure, community and the environment is alarming.
BackgroundWe are a professional family of four. Our first child will hopefully move to Westbury Park Schoolfrom September 2023. Our second child will follow the same progression. We own one car that isparked on the road outside our terraced home on Devonshire Road.Parking ConcernsWe present the evidence relating to parking offered by the developers and the local council:Developers: St Christopher's PropCo Ltd: Transport Statement v6 statement4.18 The maximum car parking standards for C2 use are as follows (from legislation not currentlyin force):- 1 staff space per 5 Full time staff- 1 visitor space per 12 bed spaces6.6 Car parking [for a C2 property category] is set as follows (in line with existing legislation):- 1 space per 2 Full time staff- 1 space per 6 bed spaces6.7 The proposal is for 116 units comprising 105 two-bed and 11 one-bed. There will be anestimated 15-20 staff on site at any one time. Using the above standard, the site would require 37spaces for tenants and ten for staff, totalling 47 spaces.6.8 The proposals include 65 spaces, which is over the standard. The extra spaces will reduce therisk of overspill parking onto residential roads. Roads to the south such as The Glen andBelvedere Road are on the edge of the residents parking zone and have issues with lack of onstreet parking for residents.6.9 The 65 spaces include six accessible spaces, eight electric vehicle charging spaces, two carclub spaces and one space for the mini-bus used for staff and resident travel. The route/use of themini-bus will be established once staff locations are known.
Site Allocations and Development Management Policies, Bristol City Council, July 2014C2 - Residential Institutions:- At least one bay for ambulances, minibuses and general servicing- Staff: 1 space per 2 F/T duty staff (Convalescent and residential care)- Visitors: 1 space per 6 bed spaces (Convalescent and residential care)C3 - Residential Dwellings:- 1 space per 1 bed dwelling, 1.25 per 2 bed dwelling- 1 electric vehicle charging point per 5 spacesUsing the C2 council calculations, the requirement based on 20 F/T staff and 221 bed spaces is48 car parking and emergency vehicle spaces including 10 electric vehicle charging points. Usingthe C3 council calculations, the requirement is for 142 car parking spaces including 28 electriccharging points.
Parking conclusionsThe actual planned use of the site is to promote 'independence in self-contained flats' not to createresidential care homes. This distinction portrays self-catering and will demand that each flat willneed the ability to buy groceries 52 weeks of the year. Classifying the site as C2 suggests that the
residents would receive wrap around care including catering but this is simply not the case. Thereality is the worst of both worlds - the new residents will need each of; F/T staff parking, visitorparking, emergency vehicle parking and their own vehicles to maintain independence.
Considering that residents would walk to the local Waitrose which is optimistically quoted as 350maway is unreasonable. My wife and I are fully active healthy individuals and the thought of walkingthat amount of food the shorter walk home on a weekly basis is not realistic. And furtherconsidering public transport an option to get to a supermarket is equally absurd. Residents willneed their own transport for basic grocery shopping as well as day trips etc.
The car parking allocation, including the requirement for electric vehicle charging points, isconsidered entirely inadequate. This development is planned in an area of terraced housing wherevery few properties have access to off-street parking. From first-hand experience, returning homeby car after 7pm means a long walk to our home. The only viable area for future residents of StChristopher's without a parking allocation is to overspill park in Bayswater Road or the surroundingroads to the south of the development displacing existing vehicles putting unacceptable pressureon our already stretched parking provision.
A revised parking space allocation is proposed:- We agree with 10 parking spaces for staff- We agree with 1 parking space for emergency vehicles in line with guidance- 37 parking spaces for visitors in line with guidance for a C2 property- Recognising that not all residents will be able to drive and that some may take up the car clubscheme, we request 58 parking spaces for residents (1 parking allocation per 2 flats) and 12 carclub spaces for vehicles that are only accessible for residents.- We expect the 5:1 ratio of parking spaces to electric vehicle charging points to be followed if notimproved to support national environmental targets and discourage unnecessary short journeys to'fill up the tank'.
The minimum realistic on-site parking spaces requirement to cater for the amount of flatsproposed is therefore 118. This minimum number will avoid causing unacceptable impact on thelocal roads' parking capacity. This is almost double the allocation offered by the developers anddoes not meet wider local council stipulations including electric vehicle charging points.
on 2022-12-11 OBJECT
My objections remain the same as last time. Whilst there have been a couple of positivechanges made, these have been minimal and I am very disappointed that very little considerationhas been given to the concerns of the community.
The height of the new buildings still remain too high. I would see reducing by one more level to bemore in line with the area.
Parking remains limited on the site for the number of proposed residents and their needs.
on 2022-12-11 OBJECT
I strongly object to the latest planning application for the St Christopher's site on the grounds ofover-concentration, highway safety and parking.
We object on the grounds of:
Parking, Road Safety & Traffic
Parking is already at a premium in this area. The site has too few parking spaces as a whole. An'Urban Village Hall' accessed from The Glen with two parking spaces is shown with no provisionfor additional parking.
The site is shown to be accessible from The Glen. We are strongly against this on the grounds ofparking, road safety and traffic. The Glen and Belvedere Road are already frequently blocked, withtraffic circling and driveways parked across. There is woefully insufficient parking to accommodatethree care homes on Belvedere Road, Freeways on The Glen and additional traffic that will begenerated by the St Christopher's development.
In the creation of an access gate at The Glen, there will a loss of parking (not shown by the plansbut evident). Any loss of parking in this area is untenable. There is a continued shortfall of on siteparking which will inevitably lead to an overspill on the surrounding roads. An overspill that alreadycan not be accommodated.
Bristol City Council (BCC) Planning Department have already shown real concern at the traffic andparking situation on Belvedere Road and The Glen. In regard to planning application 19/D1251/Hfor a dropped kerb on The Glen which was REFUSED, In BCC Planning Department's own words:
'The application would create one off street parking space and the loss of up to two on-streetparking spaces. This would be a net loss in an area where there is already over demand forparking spaces and would increase the risk of motorists parking in a dangerous manner. Theapplication is thus recommended for refusal on the grounds of highway safety. This would be a netloss in an area where there is already over demand for parking spaces.' (Planning application19/D1251/H)
The proposed application removes parking in an area already struggling to accommodate thecurrent population and local parking pressures presented by the nearby Residents ParkingScheme (RPZ), multiple care homes and commuter parking. The loss of ONE parking space wasgrounds for refusal on the grounds of highway safety. This application is dealing with parkingpressures of certainly more than one car parking space.Bristol City Council Planning Department REFUSED application 19/03104/F in June 2020 for achange of use to the 17 bed extension to the Glen View care home on Belvedere Road. In BCCPlanning Department's own words:
'The proposed development would result in an unacceptable increase in demand for parking,leading to inappropriate on-street parking activities, safety concerns and the obstruction of accessto private driveways. This would be contrary to Policy BCS10 (Transport and AccessImprovements), Policy DM2 (Residential Sub-divisions, Shared and Specialist Housing) and PolicyDM23 (Transport Development Management).'
This proposed application on Belvedere Road has had and will have with this application asignificant impact on this area. The proposed application is even more demanding on this areathan the previous application in terms of parking. The demand for parking in the surroundingroads, safety concerns and obstruction of roads and access to private driveways already exists.The intensity of the development and the lack of parking will further aggravate already overburdened residential streets that border the application site.
Hence followed a Planning Appeal on Belvedere Road: The Planning Inspectorate visited the siteof 7 Belvedere Road in February 2021 (Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/W/20/3263935). The appeal wasdismissed.
To quote the report: 'The main issues are: the effects of the proposal on parking and highwaysafety and; the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including theConservation Area, noise, disturbance, recycling/refuse'.This application will impact parking and highway safety as this is already an issue, evidenced by
the refusals of the above applications.
Heritage Impact
The proposed plans for the height and concentration of buildings on the site are woefully out ofstep with what the community wishes for the site. The plans for the site are architecturally lazy,and have too much of an impact on the local area to be of any value.
Bristol City Council Planning Department have already shown real concern at the degradation ofthe Down's Conservation Area, specifically on Belvedere Road and The Glen. A planningapplication on Belvedere Road, bordering the site, to replace windows on a basement flat beneathstreet level was REFUSED (14/03655/F). In the BCC Planning Department's own words:
It was stated that the replacement of these windows were an 'unsympathetic alteration to the hostproperty and appear incongruous within the street scene. The proposal would fail to safeguard thecharacter and setting of this part of the Downs Conservation Area, detrimental to the visualamenity of the area'.
This, tiny in comparison, application of a window replacement was seen by BCC to have a cleargrounds for refusal in this area. Bristol City Council Planning Department can apply much of thissame wording to the plans for the St Christopher site. This application has clear grounds forrefusal in that it 'appears incongruous within the street scene', 'fails to safeguard the character andsetting of this part of the Down's Conservation Area' and is 'detrimental' by sheer size and impacton surrounding properties and the wider area.
To concludeThe seriousness with which parking, highway safety and heritage impact is taken by Bristol CityCouncil on a number of different scales is evidenced by the refusals of the above applications.Bristol City Council Planning Department should REFUSE this application on the grounds of over-concentration, highway safety, parking and heritage impact.
To not refuse this application will show inconsistency, double standards and will call into questionthe integrity of the Planning Department at Bristol City Council.
We object strongly to this application.
on 2022-12-11 OBJECT
We strongly object to the latest planning application from the developers of the StChristopher site.
Vehicular access from The Glen will add to the already overburdened roads of The Glen andBelvedere Road. Belvedere Road already accommodates three care home with all the deliveries,staff movement, amenities lorries and ambulances this brings. We understand already the realitiesof living alongside businesses such as the St Christopher's development. The parking andhighway safety aspects have already been flagged by Bristol City Council in their refusal ofextensions to The Glen View Care Home - with upheld appeals. To add to this already unsafeenvironment is a powder keg for this area.
There is also a new proposed "Urban Village Hall" next to and accessed from the end of The Glen,which has only 2 (disabled) parking spaces allocated. This is intended for community and SENDactivities. In all We strongly object to the latest planning application from the developers of the StChristopher site.
Vehicular access from The Glen will add to the already overburdened roads of The Glen andBelvedere Road. Belvedere Road already accommodated three care home with all the deliveries,staff movement, amenities lorries and ambulances. We understand already the realities of livingalongside developments such as the St Christopher's development. The parking and highwaysafety aspects have already been flagged by Bristol City Council in their refusal of extentions toThe Glen View Care Home - with upheld appeals. To add to this already unsafe environment is a
powder keg for this area.
There is also a new proposed "Urban Village Hall" next to and accessed from the end of The Glen,which has only 2 (disabled) parking spaces allocated. This is intended for community and SENDactivities. In all likelyhood, this will lead external visitors to attempt to park on The Glen andBelvedere Rd. Especially if mobility is an issue, this will be an issue for the visitors themselves, letalone the knock on effect to residents who will be prevented at times from accessing the roadoutside their properties.
The access on The Glen is also intended for fire engines requiring access the rear of the site.However, this is not possible without removing at least six parking spaces from The Glen. Theapplicant has not mentioned this, but it is clear from the detailed plans. ANY loss of parking forresidents is unacceptable.Being the only access point to the rear of the site, it is also likely to be used by delivery vehiclesand ambulances for the rear blocks of flats and cottages, although they will have to actually park inThe Glen. Already on these roads, we experience food deliveries, ambulances blocking the roadsdue to a lack of parking, bin lorries unable to turn the corner of Belvedere Road and the Glen dueto the size of the vehicles and over-parking on corners. Also, damage is evident to cars from thesewide heavy vehicle that frequently reverse, without marshals and at speed back up BelvedereRoad to Redland Road due being too large to manoeuvre around the corner of these two roads.
The new car park reached from The Glen has a further 7 spaces intended for residents, which isevidently not enough for all the occupants of the adjacent large block of flats, as well as the rearcottages. This is likely to encourage residents who don't have a space to park in The Glen orBelvedere Rd and walk through. It will also lead to staff and visitors for the rear blocks trying touse it, and then circling and parking on The Glen or Belvedere Road if they can't find a space. Thisadds to the highway safety aspect of the application. This makes these roads less safe - and thisis one block from a primary school.
In this application there is a continued shortfall of on-site parking. 65 spaces for residents, staff,carers and visitors for 116 apartments is inadequate at best. Dangerous as for the implicationsand consequences that will come of this oversight.This will be a particular issue for The Glen and Belvedere Road, due to the accessibility andproximity to the rear apartment block and cottages. Surrounding residents will again pay the priceof profits before provision for the St Christopher's site planning and development.
We strongly object.
on 2022-12-09 OBJECT
I am pleased to see that the developer has addressed some of the previous objectionsmade against this proposed development, in particular building heights. I have 3 continuingconcerns:
1). The density of the development is still too high for this site in my view;2). I am concerned about the loss of trees, and unconvinced that a financial contribution toplanting elsewhere to compensate will actually happen;3). Nothing has been done to address the parking objections. Whilst citing cycling, walking etcaccess, I wonder how many of the residents (in their 70s and 80s) will actually be able to makeuse
on 2022-12-09 OBJECT
I am pleased to see that the developer has addressed some of the previous objectionsmade against this proposed development, in particular building heights. I have 3 continuingconcerns:
1). The density of the development is still too high for this site in my view;2). I am concerned about the loss of trees, and unconvinced that a financial contribution toplanting elsewhere by way of compensation is either appropriate or that any alternative plantingwould actually happen;3). Nothing has been done to address the parking objections. Whilst citing cycling, walking etc., Iwonder how many of the residents (in their 70s and 80s) will actually be able to make use of themas their primary way of getting to and from the development. Many will want to continue to drive,and I also wonder how visitors to site, be they relatives, health professionals or whatever, will beable to park and visit too. It seems naive to me to assume so little need for on-site parking. If thecurrent proposal goes through, the resulting congestion on surround streets caused by theinevitable increased parking pressure from residents and visitors would be very detrimental andproblematic for the neighbourhood.
on 2022-12-09 OBJECT
My objections remain the same as last time. There have been minimal changes madeand little consideration has been taken about the concerns of the community.
on 2022-12-09 OBJECT
The revised proposals minimally address the major concerns. Overdevelopment interms of density, height, tree loss and visual amenity. The most pressing concern is the woefulunderprovison of car parking. I completely refute the assertion that wealthy over 70's relocatinghere would give up their vehicles and opt to walk and cycle. Do they really think thesegrandparents will walk to see their families? Get real. There will be an average of at least one carper household and therefore enormous pressure on the already overcrowded local roads.
on 2022-12-09 OBJECT
Revised proposals do not represent significant change form first application. Objectingon grounds of:
- over development of site
- height and bulk of buildings close to Westbury Park and Royal Albert Road which are too big andtoo close to houses
- number of extra dwellings is too many in a densely populated area
-impact of traffic especially on the already busy Westbury Park
- impact on parking - already a nightmare to park locally
- lots more elderly people putting pressure on local NHS and other services including GPs
- loss of trees and green spaces
-dubious evidence for effectiveness of care to be provided (see objections to previous proposal)
on 2022-12-09 OBJECT
General comments
1. The newly submitted plans completely ignore what the community has emphatically asked fordespite the developers disingenuously claiming to have built their original proposals on the resultsof "extensive consultation and engagement with the community last year". Additionally, there hasbeen no consultation at all on the recent revisions.2. It is a cynical and deceptive ploy for the developers to use the tactic of submitting late revisionsin the period before and after Christmas, when local residents might not notice, to make it difficultto get a further round of objections.3. The original proposals received fundamental objections from almost all City Councildepartments and teams, from many outside organisations - including the WPCA and SCAN locally- and around 750 individuals like me. The revisions are positive but very minor. They go no way atall in addressing gigantic overdevelopment of an important site in an important Conservation Areawith an historically important Listed Building.
Specific comments
- Units reduced from 122 to 116. That is a 5% reduction, nowhere near significant in terms ofreducing the overall and still damaging bulk of new buildings.- Fewer cottages are planned close to Bayswater Avenue. But some are still too close to existinghouses according to national standards and the 'Villas' are still way too close to each other.- Villa B has been reduced from six to five storeys so would no longer be visible from The Downs.
This becomes irrelevant in the larger picture and Villa B would still be visible from The Glen. Thishuge building would be just a few metres away from the listed Grace House.- The footprint and positioning of Villas A, B, C and D have been changed a little to create morespace around Grace House but these are only minor changes; essentially there is still too muchbuilding on too small a site.- No longer any resident parking access from Bayswater Avenue (just service access to substation). Access for parking for 8 cars now proposed off the end of The Glen. The latter is certainlynot to be welcomed and does not appear to work properly.
- Heights of the parapets on Villa B have also been reduced by 300mm (about 1 foot). This ishardly significant and simply serves as a foil!- The façade treatment of the villas had been revised to reduce the bulk of the mansard roofs,using red brick instead of buff colour and revised window designs. Again, this is not a fundamentalchange. Another foil.- The landscape proposals have been revised to increase the amount of soft landscaping,particularly around Grace House. But no reduction in the amount of space between the blocks asa whole. It is certainly not 'landscape-led' as the City Council want it to be.- The proposed spa extension to Grace House would be relocated to along the northern siteboundary. Perhaps a visual improvement but this makes that facility a short walk from the otherfacilities in Grace House.- Fewer trees removed. But that number is still very high.- There is no planned increase in the number of parking spaces. Even with the marginal reductionin the number of dwelling units, 65 spaces will be insufficient to meet the demand for spaces andwill lead to overspill parking in surrounding roads. Disappointingly there is no provision ofaffordable housing as part of the development. Lack of provision for Special Educational Needs tobalance out what has been lost, is very disappointing.
on 2022-12-09 OBJECT
fully object to this amendment to the planned development. I objected to the originalplans for the development. It is overbearing and huge and totally out of character to the area. I willbe able to see it from my windows and it will overshadow my flat. The parking in this area isterrible and the parking for the development is woefully inadequate for the development, puttingmore pressure on the neighbouring streets.This is a conservation area. I was not allowed to put in UPVC windows and had to pay double forwooden ones for my flat. How can planning then be fair and just to allow this monstrosity to bebuilt in a conservation area. The meaning is in the word, to conserve. The area should beconserved as it is and not be developed beyond the boundaries that are there right now.I object to this unsympathetic development
on 2022-12-08 OBJECT
The revised plans remain totally unacceptable on the grounds of traffic and parkingimpact on local area, inappropriate overdevelopment in a conservation area, height of proposedbuildings too tall and hence visible from the Downs, overall housing density and damage to localtrees and heritage. This development partnership has made no significant alterations to its plansdespite hundreds of objections. The consultation period should be extended to allow commentfrom other concerned parties on the revised plans. The application should be refused outright.
on 2022-12-05
Dear Paul,
I see that revised documents have just been published. They do not include any revisedecology or biodiversity evidence (including a BNG Metric calculation).
Is it intended that these will be provided?
The new master plan suggests that, at the least, different habitats will becreated/enhanced (I need to check if the Baseline habitats will change) so it looks like anew BNG calculation will be needed...hopefully using the latest version - BNG 3.1 in.xlsm format.
Mark
Regards
Bristol Tree Forum
on 2022-12-02 OBJECT
I object to this plan because it is not in keeping with the are. It will mar the character ofWestbury Park but also of the Downs. The Downs are an important local but also nationally wellknown and loved area. Why we would want to spoil the Downs and significantly increase trafficcongestion is beyond me . Please remember this planned development would damage the areafor a lifetime. Please don't let it go ahead.
on 2022-12-02 OBJECT
I object to the development in St Christophers as it is overbearing in size and theapproach roads are not suitable for the children in the area, and the traffic is already exists. Thealteration of the trees that may be needed. No social housing so you know not a satisfactorydevelopment whatsoever, thank you, nigel, naden.
on 2022-12-02 OBJECT
This development is a wholly out of character for the area. The size of the new buildingswill be a blot on the landscape, the parking provision is completely inadequate, the increase intraffic on The Glen is intensely unfair on the residents of that road and the surrounding roads. Theenvironmental impact of destroying the established tree population will be disastrous.
on 2022-12-02 OBJECT
Having visited St Christpoher's many times of the years I feel it's tragic that this site hasnot been protected and respected.
on 2022-12-02 OBJECT
If this development goes ahead it will be out of character with this conservation area.Why do locals have to follow regulations to respect and maintain the beauty of this area and thesedevelopers who don't live here and aren't listening to the experts come in an damage the area forgood?The height of the 4 and 6 storey buildings will be visible from the Downs and spoil the look of thisarea where buildings are two storey. Some existing residences are feet away from these blockswhich will remove their privacy, take away natural light and provide them with light pollution. Thesite will be permanently lit with stair wells and individual flats lit from dawn to dusk. At another sitein Exmouth when something commensurate was built people had to move because there was nopermanent means to blackout light pollution. This will be a permanent nuisance.The developers have taken no account of the detailed study of the parking problems in this areathat already exist. No new parking spaces have been created in their new plans so we all knowthis situation will worsen. This is disastrous for safety as parking is already dangerous and childrenand elderly already endangered by it.We have a duty to protect the beauty of this area. The new buildings are not in keeping and willoverwhelm the area.The reason why these developers didn't include clear visuals of the height and proximity of theirbuildings is because they know they will dominate inappropriately.The developers don't live here and aren't listening to the local residents. Please stop them. Theyneed to rethink.
on 2022-12-02 OBJECT
I fully object to this amendment to the planned development. I objected to the originalplans for the development. It is overbearing and huge and totally out of character to the area. I willbe able to see it from my windows and it will overshadow my flat. The parking in this area isterrible and the parking for the development is woefully inadequate for the development, puttingmore pressure on the neighbouring streets.This is a conservation area. I was not allowed to put in UPVC windows and had to pay double forwooden ones for my flat. How can planning then be fair and just to allow this monstrosity to bebuilt in a conservation area. The meaning is in the word, to conserve. The area should beconserved as it is and not be developed beyond the boundaries that are there right now.I object to this unsympathetic development
on 2022-11-28 OBJECT
These proposals are totally inappropriate for the site with no consideration forconservation nd I encourage BCC planning to refuse thjis application.
on 2022-10-01 OBJECT
The Westbury Park Community Association object to this application in relation to theapplicant's proposed achievement of the now legally required Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). Thereare two aspects to this objection.
Firstly, that the BNG report only appeared on the portal on 14th September 2022. This isdisgracefully and unacceptably late, meaning that we were unable to add comments on BNGissues when we made objections some months ago based on the originally submitted details -hence these further objections now. It is lucky that we and others have been so vigilant about thisslow creep of additional reports following the initial application because, otherwise, we would havebeen deprived of our democratic right to comment.
Secondly, we have concerns about the BNG report, as follows:
1. No detail is given for when the surveys were undertaken. Survey dates are provided in therelated Ecology Report (also by Ethos) but neither document makes it clear whether these werethe same dates for the BNG work. This is important because it could mean that habitats for keyspecies have not been checked properly.
2. As stated on page 7, there are several aspects to good practice. Principle 3 (Be Inclusive andEquitable) highlights a requirement for "stakeholder engagement", as do Principles 8 and 10. It isthen stated that "There has been on-going stakeholder and local community engagement, whichcovered biodiversity". This is completely untrue. In relation to Principle 3, BNG was not raised by
the applicants or by a single participant in the 1-2-1 or site visit sessions. BNG was not addressedexplicitly in the material used in the September workshops and there was only one brief mentionon the exhibition material for the December drop-ins to the effect that the proposals would provideat least a 10% gain. This was patently not "ongoing ... engagement". This is even more the casewith Principle 8 that requires "Engaging stakeholders and jointly agreeing practical solutions thatsecure net gain in perpetuity". There was absolutely no "jointly agreeing" and the word 'perpetuity'requires a post-development management plan. This plan was mentioned twice in the report butwe have been unable to find such a plan or any mention of it in any of the application material.
3. There are two unexplained inconsistencies in terms of the assessments of habitats on thecurrent site and for the proposals, which make it impossible to fully compare the existing situationand the situation that would result from the proposals. Firstly, three charts are included (pages 13-16) with assessments of between three and seven specific aspects of 'modified grassland', 'urbantrees' and 'urban allotments'. Though some aspects are rated as Pass and some as Fail, there isnothing to show how this produces the summary of 5.42 baseline units on page 17. Secondly, thisfirst point is important because no evidence is provided to show that aspects that fail on theexisting site - notably gaps in tree canopy cover - have been addressed successfully in theproposals.
4. At the end of the summary chart on page 21, there is a statement to the effect that "theprojected area is inflated due to the areas being double counted for the green roofs and urbantrees". This is unexplained and is presumably related in part to the fact that there are proposed tobe solar/photovoltaic panels on the green roofs. This needs to be explained fully because it couldwell lower the final total of biodiversity units and hence reduce the net gain below the suggested43%.
5. In response to Principle 6 on page 8, it is suggested that "The creation of new habitat includesliving roofs and living walls". We were unable find any mention of living walls anywhere in theapplication material and they are not mentioned later in the BNG report in the assessment of theproposals.
In summary, we object because of the number of important faults in the (late) submittedBiodiversity Net Gain report.
on 2022-07-14 OBJECT
on 2022-07-13 OBJECT
Appraisal Inputs FVA Page 8 Revised Model
Gross Development Value GDV (Total) £85,863,400+2% £87,580,668
Costs (Total) -£65,106,843 -2% -£63,804,706Profit/Risk Return -£17,172,680 -£17,516,134 Residual Land Value £3,583,877 £6,259,828Benchmark Land Value -£5,580,000 -£5,580,000Surplus/Deficit -£1,996,123 £679,828
The significant change in viability caused by just a small variation of critical input factors indicatesthese should be treated with extreme caution, and further comments in Section 3 below indicatethat the variation may actually be significantly larger than this. We presume that BCC will beindependently assessing the reliability of all input costs and sales figures.
c. The Developers Return (Profit/Risk Return) is set at the top of the acceptable range of 15 –20%. An adjustment to even mid-range (17.5%) would show the development to be financiallyviable (and is typically seen as appropriate if affordable housing were included, given theresulting reduction in risk).
Appraisal Inputs FVA Page 8 Revised AmountGross Development Value (Total) £85,863,400 £85,863,400Costs (Total) -£65,106,843 -£65,106,843Profit/Risk Return -£17,172,680 -£15,026,095 Residual Land Value £3,583,877 £5,730,462Benchmark Land Value -£5,580,000 -£5,580,000Surplus/Deficit -£1,996,123 £150,462
Addressing any one of the above factors would show the development scheme to be viable –addressing all of them would deliver a demonstrable surplus profit.
Obviously, the revised figures above are only based on estimates and assumptions (of necessity,given the lack of certain relevant information provided in the FVA and other application documents).However, they are sufficient to show that the FVA’s conclusions of lack of viability are highly unlikelyto be correct.
The remainder of this statement provides more supporting information relating to each of the aboveconcerns, and includes all estimating assumptions used in calculating the revised figures.
For indicative purposes, we have also included a further revised model suggesting that the schemecould remain viable with significantly fewer new-build apartments. By making just a few reasonableadjustments, this model shows viability with 34 fewer apartments, and we suspect that improvedcalculations on all figures would prove that numbers can be reduced even further.
These revised models strongly suggest that the scheme could be amended to reduce the density ofdevelopment, while delivering sufficient margin to incorporate some low-cost housing.
2. Consideration of Future Long Term Income Streams
The basic methodology used in the FVA assumes a sale of all units and that there is no future incomestream on the asset (apart from a minimal fee for leased car park spaces). This is fundamentallyincorrect, as an Extra Care facility will continue to provide other long term income streams.
Bristol City Council’s “Affordable Housing Practice Note (April 2018)” states that GDV in a viabilityassessment should include “Yields for the commercial elements of the scheme and supportingevidence” (page 25).
It is also clear from the PPG that all future income streams should be included in the GrossDevelopment Value, as it states: “For residential development, this [the GDV] may be total salesand/or capitalised net rental income from developments” and also “The economics of build to rentschemes differ from build for sale as they depend on a long-term income stream”.
While Extra Care housing is not specifically referred to, it differs from both “build for sale” and “buildto rent” in that units are initially sold but the development also generates long term income streams.However, the above quotes make clear that (as would be expected) all capitalised future profitshould be included in the GDV. The assessors appear to recognise this, as they have followed thisguidance for the minimal income from car parking spaces, but they have omitted consideration ofother major commercial income streams, which make a substantial difference to the GDV.
Evidently the GDV should include a capitalised value for profit from all future long term incomestreams, not just the parking spaces.
In the case of the St Christophers development, there will be a number of future income streams,which are likely to include:
● “Exit fees” from future resale of apartments – not included in Section 8 of FVA.● Profit from Care fees from the integrated care model, which is an essential part of Extra Care
(and forms the basis of the proposed C2 categorisation) – not included in Section 8 of FVA.● Leased car park spaces – Paragraph 8.3 refers to 54 spaces leased at £130 per year, providing
a capitalised value of £140,400 based on a 5% yield.● Potentially a management fee from the monthly service charges which the residents will
have to pay – this should be considered a commercial income stream.● Profit elements of any on-site facilities such as the café as well as optional wellbeing services
which may be chargeable to residents.
Additionally, the FVA specifically excludes the following revenue streams. If this is the case, weassume that the developers will agree to an S106 condition that they will never receive any revenuefrom these – or other – sources.
● Fees from the proposed community use of facilities. The FVA states “We have not includedany additional revenue for this” (Paragraph 8.2) – does this imply that all facilities will beprovided for free to the community?
● Land rent – The FVA states that they “have not included any capitalised ground rent incomein our assessment.” (Paragraph 8.4).
Given the lack of information on the other potential sources of income, it is difficult to showaccurately the impact on the FVA if these are included. However, an indicative view can be providedby making some reasonable assumptions as outlined below.
Exit Fees
It is typical for retirement properties to be subject to a form of exit fee when they are resold. Themechanisms (and names) for this vary greatly, but Age UK1 state the following “They may becalculated as a percentage of the re-sale price or market value of the property. Most‘housing-with-support’ schemes charge a fee of one or two per cent. However, some schemes chargemore, for example 10 or 30 per cent. Extra care schemes tend to charge more.”
Some retirement schemes charge the fee based on the number of years the property was owned (eg1% per year owned), others as a flat fee on the sale. Some schemes also charge an additional agencyfee for re-selling the property, forming another stream of profit.
It should be noted that on 10th June 2019 the Planning Inspectorate upheld a planning decision bythe London Borough of Camden that exit fees (referred to as deferred management fees or DMF)should be included in the viability assessment, stating “The evidence does not support omission fromthe viability assessment of future DMF income, suitably capitalised.”2
Given the wide possible range of fees, as well as the comments from Age UK about higher charges inExtra Care, we have estimated a profit element from exit fees at 4% of sale value. Assuming that 10%of the properties are re-sold each year (which seems reasonable, given the expected age and futurecare needs of residents), with an average property price of £702,648 (FVA paragraph 8.1), this wouldresult in an annual income of £342,892. This would equate to a capitalised value of £6,857,844(based on 5% yield as proposed in Paragraph 8.3 of the FVA).
Care Fees
Integrated care is an essential part of the St Christophers model. The developers justify the proposedC2 use class on the basis that “an age restriction, a range of communal facilities, and the requirementfor a needs assessed minimum care package to be secured by Section 106 Agreement, leads ascheme to fall within Use Class C2” (paragraph 6.21 of Planning Statement). They also state that“The model for the Integrated Retirement Community at St. Christopher's Square is an in-homeprivately funded care model “(paragraph 4.1 of Planning Statement), making it clear that theresidents will pay for care provided by the scheme.
Unfortunately, the applicant has provided no information about estimated care provision, apart fromstating an initial minimum of 2 hours per resident per week, which may rise to 24-hour care ifrequired. As detailed in the SCAN statement on Transport, there are a number of research articlesshowing the likely care needs of residents of extra care developments. One such study states that“on average any extra care housing scheme for older people should be based on an average of 12hours per resident of care and support per week.”3
In the absence of any other information, this seems a reasonable assumption on which to estimatethe care hours to be provided at St Christophers Square. Assuming that 50% of the 122 flats at StChristophers Place are occupied by two adults, and 50% by a single adult, there would be 183residents, requiring an average of 12 hours care per week, leading to an average provision of 2196hours care a week.
3 Institute of Public Care at Oxford Brookes University - Predicting and managing demand in social careDiscussion paper - April 2016
2 Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision: Appeal Ref: APP/X5210/W/18/3198746. Paragraph 202
1 Age UK Factsheet 2 – Buying Retirement Housing – November 2021https://www.ageuk.org.uk/globalassets/age-uk/documents/factsheets/fs2_buying_retirement_housing_fcs.pdf
Since an integrated care package is an essential part of the “extra care” model (and justification forproposed C2 categorisation), it is expected that profit arising from this should be included in the FVA.It is not possible to know the likely profit margin that the scheme will receive from provision of care.However, an estimate of £1 profit per hour attributable to St Christophers would lead to profit of£2,196 per week or £114,192 per year. This would equate to a capitalised value of £2,283,840(similarly based on 5% yield).
Recalculated Viability Model
Including capitalised value from the Exit Fees and Care Fees leads to the following revised GrossDevelopment Value (GDV):
GDV Annual Income Capitalised ValueInitial Sales FVA Paragraph 8.1 £85,723,000Car Parking FVA Paragraph 8.3: 54 * £130 £7,020 £140,400Exit Fees As above: 122 * 10% * £702,648 * 4% £342,892 £6,857,844Care Profit As above: 183 * 12 * 52 * £1 £114,192 £2,283,840Total GDV £95,005,084
This would obviously be increased further if any of the other revenue assumptions change (such asprofit element of management fees, profit from café, charging for community use of facilities,increasing the cost of car parking spaces, or the number of parking spaces etc). However, this basicestimate is sufficient to highlight the flaws in the current FVA.
Using this revised GDV figure, with no change to any other figures, the model immediately becomesviable:
Appraisal Inputs FVA Page 8 Revised ModelGross Development Value GDV (Total) £85,863,400 £95,005,084Costs (Total) -£65,106,843 -£65,106,843Profit/Risk Return -£17,172,680 -£19,001,107 Residual Land Value £3,583,877 £10,897,225Benchmark Land Value -£5,580,000 -£5,580,000Surplus/Deficit -£1,996,123 £5,317,225
In other words, there would be a very significant surplus of 95% of the benchmark land value.
3. Development Costs and Sales Values
As noted above, it is in the interests of the developer, in seeking to justify the lack of affordablehousing, to over-estimate costs and under-estimate sales revenues. Their figures for these shouldtherefore be treated with extreme caution (as suggested by the WPCA in their separate comment onthe FVA) and we trust will be fully reviewed by an independent source appointed by Bristol CityCouncil. Our own observations and concerns are noted below:
In terms of sale receipts we believe the most appropriate benchmark is The Vincent which is in veryclose proximity. JLL have assumed that sale prices at St Christophers would be slightly less given it isfurther from amenities. We do not agree with this. St Christophers is arguably better placed toprovide level access to more amenities on North View, Coldharbour Road, Henleaze Road, andRedland Road, as well as being close to those on Whiteladies Road. Also, St Christophers abuts TheDowns which could attract a premium over The Vincent.
If price per foot matched the Vincent (£715) this would increase the revenue from sales by £3.8m.However, Land Registry data4 shows that house prices in Bristol have risen 8% since most of the StVincent properties were sold. This would equate to a revised price of £772.2 per square foot –meaning that, in today’s prices the sale revenue would be £10.92m higher than estimated by JLL.Addressing even this single factor would show the scheme to be viable and profitable.
The rate that sales will be made is assumed at two per month. This is conservative and increasesfinancing costs in the model. Judging by property sales at Audley Redwood and The Vincentdevelopments, sales should be assumed at least 3 per month if not more.
On the costs side, it is clear that most estimates in the FVA have been proposed at the top of theacceptable range suggested in the PPG. Some examples are:
● Debt is assumed at 6.5% whereas the acceptable range is 5.5-6.5%. A lower rate could beassumed given the low risk nature of the scheme in a highly desirable residentialneighbourhood and the recent successful developments of The Vincent and AudleyRedwood. Even though there is currently pressure to increase debt rates in the financialmarkets at the moment, the nature of the phasing, location and asset backed naturesupports a lower debt rate.
● The acceptable range for sales and marketing is 3-5% of GDV. JLL have assumed 5% on thebasis that retirement community type properties often take longer to sell and require moreeffort and costs. However, this is contradicted by the applicant, who, throughout theirapplication, stresses the need for extra care units in Bristol (eg “The report by ContactConsulting confirms that there is a need for 401 market extra care units at 2020”), supportedby BCC in their response to the pre-application5. This perceived high demand surely reducesthe need for excessive sales and marketing costs.
It is not feasible for us to assess the construction costs in detail, but we assume that BCC will haveaccess to a quantity surveyor to undertake this.
Overall, it is clear (as shown in Section 1, paragraph b) that even a very small reduction in costs orincrease in sales figures would change the model to show a financial viability, while changes toaddress the above factors could lead to a substantial surplus.
4. Developers Return
The Profit/Risk return (Developers Return) is planned to be 20%.
The PPG states “For the purpose of plan making an assumption of 15-20% of gross developmentvalue (GDV) may be considered a suitable return to developers in order to establish the viability of
5 Applicant’s Planning Statement, paragraphs 6.17, 6.18, 6.19.
4https://landregistry.data.gov.uk/app/ukhpi/print?in%5B%5D=avg&st%5B%5D=all&thm%5B%5D=property_type&from=2021-06-01&to=2022-07-01&location=http%3A%2F%2Flandregistry.data.gov.uk%2Fid%2Fregion%2Fcity-of-bristol&lang=en
plan policies.” It also states “a lower figure may be more appropriate in consideration of delivery ofaffordable housing in circumstances where this guarantees an end sale at a known value and reducesrisk”.
Adjusting the return to even a mid-range value of 17.5% would not be unreasonable, andimmediately makes the model viable, as shown in Section 1, paragraph c.
There is clearly a direct relationship between the Developers Return and the Surplus/Deficit onresidual land value. It is unreasonable to set the Developers Return to such a high rate to make thedevelopment appear unviable and so avoid affordable housing, when the inclusion of affordablehousing should allow a lower Developers Return, which would in itself make the scheme viable.
5. Indicative model showing reduction in number of apartments
For indicative purposes only, we have produced an alternative model, based on the following limitedchanges to the published FVA:
● Amend the GDV to incorporate future income streams for reasons given in Section 2● Reduce the number of apartments in the new blocks from 86 to 52● Adjust the costs & revenue based on the lower number of apartments (other potential
changes suggested in Section 3 have not been reflected)● Amend the Developers Return to 17.5% for reasons given in Section 4● Increase the number of leasable car park spaces from 54 to 75 (which would increase
revenue as well as addressing current issues with insufficient parking).
This could result in the following revised model, indicating that the development would be viablewith substantially fewer apartments. (The revised figures below are based on relatively simple prorata adjustments to key figures from the FVA, and the full basis of the calculations is provided inAppendix 1):
Appraisal Inputs AmountGross Development Value (Total) £68,397,743Costs (Total) -£50,704,514Profit/Risk Return -£11,966,455 Residual Land Value £5,708,774Benchmark Land Value -£5,580,000Surplus/Deficit £128,774
It is obviously recognised that this revised model is based on very high-level estimating assumptionsand adjustments and that the full changes would be much more complex to make; on the otherhand, a number of potential factors referred to above (which would further improve profitability)have not been amended, in order to keep the changes relatively simple. We suspect that addressingall the issues raised in this statement could demonstrate viability with even fewer apartments.
However, we trust that this limited model is sufficient to demonstrate that the extra caredevelopment scheme would still be financially viable with significantly fewer new-build flats.
Appendix 1
Calculations for revised model reducing the number of apartments in the main blocks from 86 to 52:
1. Sales Revenue
The below table shows the impact on sales revenue of the reduction in apartments.
AveragePrice
Numberin FVA
Revenue inFVA
RevisedNumber
RevisedRevenue
Lodges £601,920 25 £15,048,000 25£15,048,00
0Cottages £880,000 11 £9,680,000 11 £9,680,000
Apartments £709,244 86 £60,995,000 52£36,880,68
8
Total 122 £85,723,000 88£61,608,68
8Average Price (TotalRevenue/ TotalNumber) £702,648 £700,099
● Apartments in blocks reduced from 86 to 52● Total apartments are reduced from 122 to 88● Total sales revenue reduced from £85,723,000 to £61,608,688● Average price per apartment reduced from £702,648 to £700,099
2. Gross Development Value (GDV)
The below table shows the impact on GDV of the reduction in apartments combined with includingadditional income streams. The following have been assumed:
● A reduction in number of apartments will enable an increased number of car parking spaces– suggested increase to 75 rentable spaces for 88 flats, leased at £130 pa as in the FVA.
● Exit fees on reduced number of 88 flats. 10% sold each year. Profit element equates to 4% ofaverage price £700,099 (from table in (1) above).
● Care element for 132 residents (assuming that 50% of 88 flats have 1 resident, 50% have 2residents) provided an average of 12 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. Profit element of£1 per care hour.
Capitalisation is based on estimated 5% yield, as shown in 8.3 of FVA.
GDV Annual Income Capitalised Value
Sales As shown in (1) above £61,608,688Car Parking 75 * £130 £9,750 £195,000Exit Fees 88 * 10% * £700,009 * 4% £246,435 £4,928,695Care Profit 132 * 12 * 52 * £1 £82,368 £1,647,360Total GDV £68,379,743
Total revised GDV of £68,379,743.
3. Costs
The table below shows estimated revisions to the cost model.
Current FVA Revised Model
Development Costs (detailed below) £49,939,008 £39,124,49
4
Demolition and Enabling Works £1,357,676 £1,357,676 Refurbished Lodges £7,725,879 £7,725,879 New Build Cottages £3,060,914 £3,060,914
New Build Flats £27,354,358 £16,539,84
4 A Grace House £3,423,105 £3,423,105 North House £132,977 £132,977 External Works and Incoming Services £4,862,712 £4,862,712 Ancillary Buildings £543,387 £543,387 Additional Sustainability Measures £1,478,000 £1,478,000Acquisition Costs SDLT, Legal fees and Agent fees £222,788 £222,788 Professional Fees 10% (on construction costs) £4,993,001 £3,912,449 BFinancial PlanningContributions Section 106 £86,227 £86,227 Disposal Costs Marketing and Sales Agents – 5% £4,293,044 £3,080,434 C Sales Legal – £1,000 per unit £122,000 £88,000 D Purchaser’s costs – 1.8% on parking £2,527 £3,510 EFinance 6.5% Debit Rate, 1% Credit £5,449,877 £4,186,611 F
Total Costs £65,108,472 £50,704,51
4
Detailed figures in “Current FVA” are taken from page 25, paragraph 11.2 of the FVA. NB this totals to £65,108,472 which is slightly different from the totalfigure provide in paragraph 1.6 of the FVA (65,106,843). It is assumed this is a typo in paragraph 1.6, although the difference is fairly insignificant.
In the Revised Model, the annotated figures have been amended as noted below:
A – Development costs of new build flats have been reduced pro rata by a factor of 52/86,representing the reduced number of such apartments.
B – Professional fees calculated at 10% of revised total construction costs of £39,124,494.
C – Marketing and Sales Agents fees calculated at 5% of revised sales revenue of £61,608,688 (ascalculated in paragraph 1 above)
D – Sales Legal fees calculated at £1000 times 88 units
E – Purchaser’s costs on parking calculated at 1.8% of revised parking capitalised value of £195,000(as calculated in paragraph 2 above)
F – Finance costs in FVA equate to 9% of all other costs. Finance in revised model calculated as 9% ofall other costs.
This produces a revised estimate for total costs of £50,704,514.
4. Revised Viability Model
The results of the above calculations for revised GDV and costs are shown in the table below.
Profit/Risk Return has been revised to 17.5% of GDV.
Appraisal Inputs FVA Amount Revised AmountGross Development Value (Total) £85,863,400 £68,379,743Costs (Total) -£65,106,843 -£50,704,514Profit/Risk Return -£17,172,680 -£11,966,455 Residual Land Value £3,583,877 £5,708,774Benchmark Land Value -£5,580,000 -£5,580,000Surplus/Deficit -£1,996,123 £128,774
This demonstrates that the development can be financially viable with a significantly reducednumber of new-build apartments.
on 2022-07-04 OBJECT
The Westbury Park Community Association wish to submit a further objection to theproposals for the St. Christopher's site as a result of seeing the very late submission by theapplicants of their Financial Viability Assessment. (It is unclear why this was not submitted untilmany months after the submission of the original application and all its associated and necessaryreports.)
The Assessment rightly highlights some, but by no means all, of the volatilities and uncertainties inthe construction industry and retirement homes market at the moment. It also makes a minormention of sensitivity analysis but, in such an uncertain current situation, totally fails to apply thisto its own figures and, in particular, to its one overall conclusion - that the scheme would make aloss. If one applies sensitivities even as low as 2% both up and down, and to both costs andrevenue, this can produce figures as varied as a clear overall profit or a greater loss than thereport suggests. This then explains the following statement that "Despite this the applicant iscommitted to delivering the scheme as proposed". The applicants do of course know it can be -and will be - managed so that it makes a profit, not a loss.
The applicants will presumably be pleased that the Assessment concludes that the scheme istechnically unviable and cannot contribute towards the provision of affordable housing as this isthe conclusion which was almost certainly sought by the applicant when commissioning theAssessment.
We contend that the Assessment should have presented a range of possible financial outcomes to
reflect real world uncertainties concerning construction costs and house prices rather than offerone single conclusion. Furthermore, the Assessment should also have at least illustrated howmaking different assumptions about key cost elements (profit return, the cost of sales and the costof finance) would have a major impact on financial viability. Its failure to explore and present arange of possible financial outcomes raises the question of how far the Assessment can beconsidered objective or credible.
We are therefore of the view that the Assessment should be treated with considerable cautionwhen coming to a decision about the financial viability of the development to provide or make acontribution to affordable housing.
on 2022-06-09
Hi Paul, the Downs Committee received a briefing from the St Christophers team this week, and the committee chair Cllr Paula O'Rourke agreed that I should submit a statement on behalf of the committee as a consultee. Please could you accept the following (below in italics) as the committee's statement?
The Downs Committee has reviewed the proposals for St Christophers Square and received a briefing from the development team. The committee's interest in the development is both as a "neighbour" being custodian of the land immediately adjoining the site, and because small elements of the development (such as proposed new footpaths) cross land which is managed by the committee. The committee has two comments:
1) We are concerned that the height of the tallest building at six storeys is excessive, and that it will be visible over the roof of the existing villas and therefore harmful to existing views from the Downs.2) We support the creation of the new link footpath across the "Granny Downs", but would wish to be consulted over the detailed design, materials etc before this element goes ahead.
Many thanks,
Steve Smith, Councillor for Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze.
on 2022-06-09
Hi Paul, the Downs Committee received a briefing from the St Christophers team this week, and the committee chair Cllr Paula O'Rourke agreed that I should submit a statement on behalf of the committee as a consultee. Please could you accept the following (below in italics) as the committee's statement?
The Downs Committee has reviewed the proposals for St Christophers Square and received a briefing from the development team. The committee's interest in the development is both as a "neighbour" being custodian of the land immediately adjoining the site, and because small elements of the development (such as proposed new footpaths) cross land which is managed by the committee. The committee has two comments:
1) We are concerned that the height of the tallest building at six storeys is excessive, and that it will be visible over the roof of the existing villas and therefore harmful to existing views from the Downs.2) We support the creation of the new link footpath across the "Granny Downs", but would wish to be consulted over the detailed design, materials etc before this element goes ahead.
Many thanks,
Steve Smith, Councillor for Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze.
on 2022-06-07 OBJECT
I'm very disappointed that this development is so intensive and that it's height willdominate the immediate area. Even worse I am concerned that it will bring extra traffic to an areaalready experiencing heavy traffic flow and dangerous speeds along narrow roads.I dispute the suggestion that there is a need for this type of housing in the area. What is needed ismix of more family homes and more private gardens.
on 2022-06-01 OBJECT
An unacceptably large development likely to cause traffic and parking havoc in analready congested area. Strongly object too that it will overshadow existing buildings and not be inkeeping with the architecture. This should not be allowed to continue in current plans and anythinning down again looked at critically to protect this area.
on 2022-06-01 OBJECT
The loss of this Special School is much to be regretted.
The proposed development is over scaled and over massed. If development is to proceed it mustbe on a much smaller scale and more sensitive to its surroundings.
on 2022-05-25 OBJECT
Extremely bad for the area parking is bad enough already without having to Towerblocks situated right next to the downs
on 2022-05-24
Support the principle of an extra care facility to meet important housing needs for olderpeople in a sustainable location. It is considered that extra care in this location is more appropriatethan a conventional residential development which would put additional pressure on the localschools and would have a greater parking and traffic impact.
However the loss of trees and in particular TPOs is a significant concern particularly as the NPPFhas recently been updated to require that existing trees are retained wherever possible. The treeloss is not appropriate particularly on the northeast corner of the site and close to BayswaterAvenue. These trees are important to the Conservation Area and to the amenity of the area and itis considered that these should be retained. The Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment notesthat there will be a moderate to substantial impact on St Helena Road. This could be addressed byretaining more trees.
The new cottages to the east of the site seem to sit uncomfortably against the rear gardens andproperties on Bayswater Avenue. Separation distances have not been provided but the cottagesseem to sit very close to the rear gardens and properties on Bayswater Avenue.
Given the low parking ratio that it is provided there is inevitably going to be significant overspillparking onto the local roads. The local roads are already full with it already being very difficult topark leading to cars having to circle round the block multiple times which presents safety issuesgiven the roads are narrow.Road safety issues are particularly concerning given the local school, nursery and local church
with its programme of regular events. To manage the overspill parking a residents parking zone isstrongly supported with a standard S106 obligation whereby new residents will be unable to obtaina permit and therefore buy into the scheme knowing that they will not able to park and thussupporting sustainable lifestyles from the outset.
As a final point, it is unclear whether the secret door and wall on Bayswater Avenue is proposed tobe retained. This is a special feature important to the character of the area and as such it isconsidered that this should be retained.
on 2022-05-23 SUPPORT
In principle I support this application:
1 It meets a clearly identified need for the increasing population of older people.2 The site's location within easy walking distance of local amenities and open space enablesresidents to live active lives and reduces dependency on motor vehicles.3 The permeability of the site to pedestrians is an important contribution to bringing the widercommunity together and avoiding housing for the elderly becoming a 'ghetto'.4 The concept makes creative use of the Grade ll listed Grace House as a facility for the residentsand the wider community and creates an opportunity for inter-generational activities.5 Grace House is otherwise redundant and cannot be adapted to the current requirements forSpecial Needs educational, which are being met elsewhere by the City's SEND strategy. Thescheme provides funding to bring it back to use and secure its long-term future.6 The lower car parking provision is a contribution to sustainability and the realistic needs of anolder population; any concerns about staff parking in adjacent streets can be met by trafficmanagement measures and should be seen in the wider context of managing commuter parking.7 The height of the proposed buildings should be seen in the context of their impact on thesurroundings and not in absolute terms. With some adjustments to the design the effect onneighbouring properties.
on 2022-05-23 SUPPORT
In principle I support this concept behind this application:
1 It meets a clearly identified need for the increasing population of older people.2 The site's location within easy walking distance of local amenities and open space enablesresidents to live active lives and reduces dependency on motor vehicles.3 The permeability of the site to pedestrians is an important contribution to bringing the widercommunity together and avoiding housing for the elderly becoming a 'ghetto'.4 The concept makes creative use of the Grade ll listed Grace House as a facility for the residentsand the wider community and creates an opportunity for inter-generational activities.5 Grace House is otherwise redundant and cannot be adapted to the current requirements forSpecial Needs educational, which are being met elsewhere by the City's SEND strategy. Thescheme provides funding to bring it back to use and secure its long-term future.6 The lower car parking provision is a contribution to sustainability and the realistic needs of anolder population; any concerns about staff parking in adjacent streets can be met by trafficmanagement measures and should be seen in the wider context of managing commuter parking.7 The height of the proposed buildings should be seen in the context of their impact on thesurroundings and not in absolute terms. With adjustments to the design the effect on neighbouringproperties can be mitigated.8 The loss of trees on the eastern boundary with Bayswater Road should be resisted, however thesite suffers from long-term neglect of the landscape in particular along the frontage to WestburyPark; the scheme provides an opportunity for a long-term management landscape managementplan.
I would urge the Planning Department to work with the applicants to resolve the design issues torealise the vision of providing accommodation for the older generation and integrating within thecommunity.
on 2022-05-19 OBJECT
I strongly object to this proposal. It is a significant overdevelopment of a heritage site.There will be a significant negative impact to the environment damaging trees and wildlife in aconservation area that will change the environmental area next to the Downs forever. This is notaffordable housing and there is no need for such tall blocks, and such suggestedoverdevelopment. Any development of this site should be done in keeping with the heritage site atlow level with minimal impact on the environment. There should be NO vehicular access toBayswater Avenue. This is the site of both a nursery school and the local Westbury Park schooland 2 churches. There is already a high volume of traffic and a junction in this road will increaserisk to safety and risk an increase in road traffic and pedestrian accidents. At the very siteproposed there is already a road junction where there was a road traffic accident as recently as20th April. The proposal has also failed to provide adequate parking facilities for potentialresidents, visitors and staff. The 65 spaces is wholly inadequate. This will result in residents fromthe development parking in adjoining roads where there is already inadequate parking and willincrease congestion in the area with a further risk to road safety. The overdevelopment of this sitealso fails to support SEND provision for children.I strongly object for all the above reasons. In addition this significant overdevelopment fails tocomply with the Council development management policy DM 26 as it is not subservient in heightor scale and would cause negative impact to the character, appearance and safety of the existingcommunity.
on 2022-05-19 OBJECT
Considerable environmental impact of a development like this in this area.Site could be far better used - redeveloped/reused as a vitally important and needed SEN facilityrather than retirement apartments
on 2022-05-19 OBJECT
We are frequent visitors to the Westbury Park area as we have family living there andalso enjoy spending time on the Downs.The proposed development will have an immensely negative impact on the historic area some ofwhich is a conservation area.It is not in keeping with the architecture, and proposes buildings that are far too tall and out ofplace. It will make the currently quiet area far too busy.Traffic and parking are already issues and it would be inevitable that this would greatly increase.The proposed vehicle entrance at the junction of Bayswater Avenue, Etloe Road and St HelenaRoad is dangerous, it already is a difficult junction. There are also primary school, and a nurserynearby which means that increased traffic would make it less safe for the children. There wouldalso be an increase in pollution/exhaust emissions from increased traffic.Further there will be negative impact to the wildlife, and it is inappropriate to propose the felling of58 of the trees on site including the beautiful copse on the Bayswater Avenue/Etloe Road side(replacement trees to be planted don't make up for this in any sustainable way and is incompatiblewith BCC's climate change targets I understand).The proposed buildings will also be visible from the Downs completely spoiling the currently niceview.
Further to this, it is also incomprehensible how, considering the severe lack of SEND facilities inBristol, no continued provision for this is made on site, especially considering that I understandthat according to 'Land Use Principles', the current lawful use of the site is for SEND facilities.
on 2022-05-19 OBJECT
This development will result in an 8% net reduction of the biodiversity of the area (TreeForum) with the loss of mature trees and wildlife habitat. This is unacceptable with today's climatecrisis and contravenes Bristol City Council's climate policies. It will increase air pollution fromincreased traffic. Bristol already has significantly high air pollution which needs to be broughtdown, not increased. The increase in traffic will also increase the risk of road traffic accidents forchildren and elderly people/people with mobility issues.The loss of green space will reduce opportunities for people to nurture their mental and physicalhealth.The size and style of the proposed buildings is out of keeping with the architectural heritage of thearea.
on 2022-05-19 OBJECT
We need more SEN school places in and around Bristol. Not more retirement villagesfor people that can afford to live elsewhere!
on 2022-05-19 OBJECT
I have serious concerns about the current development plans for two main reasons;
1) the site backs onto both a primary school and a nursery, both buildings and play areas, and thechildren will be heavily impacted by the noise and the dust under the current plans. Issues duringthe construction phase must be considered for these areas as this differs from the need ofresidents. Suitable restrictions must be put in place during the construction phase.
2) the proposal to use the site entrance on Bayswater Avenue is not suitable. This entrance isimmediately adjacent to a nursery, next to the school and there is also another preschool on thisroad. The road is already extremely narrow with no passing places and is a junction with poorvisibility. This section of road has already been flagged as problematic in the council roadfeedback website a number of times in recent years.
Further comments are below:
1)The St Christophers site at the rear backs onto and runs alongside particularly the primary schoolbut also a children's nursery. As a result any construction work will directly impact very youngchildren whilst they both learn and play. The development site backs directly onto their playgroundareas, and is also very close to the buildings in which they learn.
The noise and dust will therefore be of health concern to those children in their learning
environment for what I suspect will be an extended period given the size of the development.
Please can this be borne in mind when determining the development plans. There should be noconstruction anywhere close to these boundaries, ideally those areas would be left as garden, andnot used during the construction phase for storage or vehicles etc. In essence there should be asignificant 'buffer' zone between the children and the site.
I see on the satellite image that there is also a building already present behind the schoolplayground boundary. This should be sensitively dealt with, whether that be renovation ordemolition. For example work on this should only be undertaken in the school holidays. Of courseif there is anything such as asbestos removal required, this must absolutely be done in the schoolholidays only, to avoid children who are literally on the other side of the fence being potentiallyaffected. Contractors need to be aware of the proximity of the school in this scenario and theschool informed beforehand of any work of this type.
I also dispute that any building should be above three stories. No other buildings in the area arehigher than three stories and also because the higher the building the more disruptive to thechildren and other local residents.
In the development plans the buildings are quite spread over the site, but it may be better toconsider developing new buildings closer to the Redland and Westbury Park Road side i.e. theDowns end, and a larger communal garden buffering the school nursery and residents on the rearside. This will also benefit residents in the future, as the children are very noisy!
2)In addition, there are plans to use the entrance on Bayswater Avenue. This is immediatelyadjacent to the nursery. It is also opposite the junction with St Helena Road. It has poor visibilityand is of a single car width, there is no space for large vehicles to turn in and out of the site. Thissection has already been flagged a number of times on the Bristol Council Road Feedbackwebsite.
It is also on the same road and very close to the primary school and another preschool. This roadis extremely busy at school run times with small children crossing the road. It is difficult enough asit is as it is extremely tight, there are parked cars on both sides with no passing places. The onlysection wide enough to enable passing other vehicles is immediately outside the school gate!Bayswater Avenue continues into Etloe Road which is even narrower, this then goes on to Northview. North view is being proposed to be made for buses only! So really this is not a route forconstruction vehicles. At the other end, access will come from Coldharbour Road. Again this isimmediately adjacent to a preschool and the primary school and the roads are extremely busy withchildren on the pavements here who often spill out into the road as there is insufficient space. Fewchildren attend the school by car and therefore the roads must be safe for pedestrians.
Therefore this entry should not be used during the construction phase at all. I also dispute if itshould be used once the site is finished for residents/deliveries for all of the above reasons.
Please can the above points be taken into account in the development process. Westbury Park isvery much a residential area, but it is very densely populated with Victorian and Edwardian erainfrastructure and so there are a number of factors to take into account.
As a final point, I would question whether assisted living accommodation is what is truly needed inWestbury Park. There is actually little suitable housing if you have any kind of accessibilitydifficulty. The buildings are all Victorian and Edwardian which have narrow corridors anddoorways, steep stairs, split levels and small gardens!
I would say that a development of more accessible buildings would be suitable to a mix of agesand that the site should be developed for a much wider and mixed demographic with accessibilitybeing at the forefront of the design (and arguably a legacy to the site's previous use).
on 2022-05-19 OBJECT
I object to this development for the following reasons:- The planned apartment blocks are too big - 3-6 storeys and close to low rise neighbourhoodhousing, and the highest block could be seen from the Downs. We should not be putting up suchhigh rise accommodation now, when it is out of keeping with the neighbourhood and will towerover bordering properties.- I understand that the plans would mean an overall loss of biodiversity, with 50% of treesremoved, which are home to much wildlife, which the Council should be trying to preserve.Planting new trees in NO WAY compensates.- I live 2 roads away, and already struggle to park near my house much of the day, which isbecoming more of a problem as I become less mobile. We are crammed with cars, and thiscauses dangers for local families trying to get to school and nursery /playgroups etc., in BayswaterRoad. Putting a development with so many flats in will exacerbate this in all sorts of ways.-Why is BCC spending millions of pounds sending children with special needs out of the countywhen you should be using this site for what it was originally intended.- Why is BCC not ensuring there is affordable housing on site when this is a key target of BCC?
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I don't want this eyesore built in such a lovely part of Bristol.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
Concerns regarding opening an entrance to the site on Bayswater road and the effectthis will have on highway safety in the area which has already congested neighbourhood streets,and particularly with concern for the safety of school children whose school is also on Bayswaterroad. The neighbourhood is not able to withstand increased traffic, congestion, harmful emissionsand increased demand for parking as it is already too busy and child safety in this school andfamily neighbourhood must be a top priority. The site entrance on Bayswater road during theconstruction phase of the project will also pose a harm to the safety of school children by anyconstruction vehicles using the entrance and local roads.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I have attended the developers open evening and followed the conversation around thisdevelopment with great interest. I live a few streets away, not immediate but enough to beimpacted by the development / change of use to a busy residential unit. I would not usually beagainst the use of a property which has been empty for so long, especially to needed residentialunits, nor would I be against the updating and modernisation (along with necessary / appropriateexpansion to provide best use) of a plot such as this. However this is the issue, it is notappropriate. A number of changes and curtailments are needed, which will be covered in far betterdetail than I could provide by other people, but suffice it to say that this development proposal isnot appropriate, in keeping or suitable for the area based on current plans. It should be rejected onthe basis of size, height, impact and parking repercussions and the developers should have toreconsider their designs in order to proceed.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
foolish idea would change the identity of the area and make the difficulties alreadypresent much more pronounced (eg major parking issues, litter across the downs etc)
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I would like to object to the current proposal for the development of St Christopher's sitedue to concerns about the impact this will have on traffic, parking and road safety in the area.Undoubtably, this proposal will lead to an increase in vehicles in the area. With a large primaryschool situated on Bayswater Avenue, immediately behind the St Christopher's site, there will bean increased risk to children walking to and from school, as well as everyone else in thecommunity.
We have lived in Westbury Park for 25 years and have seen an increase in traffic and parkingproblems over this time which has had a negative impact on us and other local residents. If thecurrent proposed development goes ahead, this will further contribute to the current problems asthere is insufficient on-site parking provision and residents, their visitors and deliverys will all beadding to the road use in the area.
I have looked at the plans and the scale of the buildings are not in keeping with the local area andwill damage the heritage context of Westbury Park. I was also not able to see any inclusion ofaffordable housing which questions the justification for approval of this proposal.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
This site should be returned to its original purpose. The developer states that there isalready enough SEN provision in the area, when parents of these children know this isn't the case.Battles for the most basic support for their children, when schools are being closed, sold off anddeveloped. The area doesn't need a retirement village, it needs to continue to support SENprovision.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
My son is currently in an SEN school and I am looking to move him. I have been toldthere are no places available in North Somerset or Bristol. There are so many children who are inneed of an SEN place and there are none available now or in the future. There are manyretirement homes and options for older people, but the limited SEN resources are quickly runningout. There's no way this development should be allowed to go ahead.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
There is a huge shortage of specialist SEND provision in BCC, leading to numerousschools being shipped off to other counties. At great expense (and this doesn't include the legalcosts that the council wastes trying to object to children going to specialist settings).
There are already loads of retirement properties surrounding the Downs. Rather, the need is toreinstate the site to what it was previously. See Dorset council's precedent in recognising that it'smore cost effective to make use of existing spaces for their SEND provision.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
This building should be a special school. We are desperately short of places (don'tbelieve the twaddle in the developers statement - we are hundreds of places short) Giving it awaynow would be yet another admission that Bristol couldn't care less about SEN kids.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
Bristol is known to have a deficit in special school places (over 200 in the last set offigures that I saw). How can a developer possibly argue with a straight face that Bristol has"enough special school places"? This simply isn't true.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I object strongly to this development - it is a massive overdevelopment of the site and Ibelive should be rejected as it stands.The scale of the development is completely out of proportionon a senstive site in a conservation area, with additionl environmental impact from destruction ofmultiple mature trees. The traffic implication is enormous for the surrounding area, and parkingprovision is compoletely inadequate. This willhave a huge negative impact to the surroundingarea, as well as safety concerns from the inadequate ingress/egress provision. The proposalincludes no affordable housing and is not supported by any evidence to justify such lack ofprovision. In the context of an increasing need for SEND accommodation in Bristol, the developershave failed to comply with council policies that seek to safeguard community facilities.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
Too many retirement homes in the area already.
Redevelop into new school, community area, green space or affordable home for LOCAL youngfamilies or LOCAL young professionals.
Don't make this another Finzel Reach, Factory No1, Chocolate Factory, General Hospital, CanonsGate or other new development outrageously overpriced low quality builds openly marketedtowards people working in London.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
It is clear that the developers are not providing sufficient parking to avoid catastrophicimpacts on the neighborhood.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
Although extra-care residential developments are needed to fill the gap for those with aspecific special need living in society with carers visiting daily and those who live in care homes,the proposal to build such a facility on the former St Christopher's site is completely out of place.
I strongly oppose the siting of such a development because of the negative impact the proposalswould have on the Downs as a heritage site and on the local residential area. According to plansthe development would result in excessively high extra buildings that would dominate the skylineand the existing homes of residents in Westbury Park and would be completely out of place withthe local neighbourhood.
I am also strongly opposed to the negative arboreal impact of the development across the site andparticularly in the area close to Bayswater Avenue, Etloe Road and St Helena Road. The existingtrees are magnificent and are well over 100 years old and even if replaced by saplings of the samevariety they would clearly take many decades to even approach the magnificence of those alreadyin situ.
The site and its surrounding area are within the Downs conservation area and clearly the felling oftrees and additional buildings on the site would inevitably have a detrimental impact on bio-diversity which would clearly fail to meet any requirement for a net gain in this area.
In addition Westbury Park is an area under extreme pressure with regards to parking. Terracedhousing with some homeowners requiring two cars due to work commitments already make life
incredibly difficult for those living in the area. The proposed 65 parking spaces on-site fall wellbelow what would be needed to provide for those who would live, work and visit the extra-carefacility. Clearly there would be overspill into streets in the local area whilst existing space would bereduced by the extra vehicular access into and from Bayswater Avenue with the necessary spacerequired for turning left or right.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
This is too dense in an area of already relatively dense suburban housing provision, andwill negatively impact the green space adjacent with parking and traffic escalations.Westbury Park (the road) as it meets North View and White Tree roundabout is already a point ofmajor congestion and this development would require reconsidering these roads - leading todamage of the Downs.This is an unneeded greedy overdevelopment and needs rethinking.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
The proposed site is in an area which is already suffering from severe traffic andparking issues. There are daily traffic jams on the surrounding roads and the area is overparked,making it very difficult to navigate the pavements without having to walk on the road (especiallywith pushchair or wheelchair). The proposed development will lead to more traffic in the area, notjust from residents, but also visitors to the site.
Westbury Park primary school and Harcourt preschool already suffer from road safety concernsgiven that the overparking and 'rat run' traffic on Bayswater Ave and Etloe Rd is so severe.Introduction of further traffic to this area is going to put schoolchildren at greater risk of injury orworse. The proposal does not appear to competently address the issues of lack of sufficientparking, lack of safe access to the site and lack of traffic safety.
The proposal will also result in loss of natural habitat and well established, high quality, maturetrees - this will be of detriment to the area in terms of air and noise pollution, especially given theproximity to the busy/polluting A4018 (plus frequent standing traffic on nearby roads). The removalof trees and habitat would also result in loss to local wildlife and negative impacts on theappearance of the Conservation Area.
The scale, mass and design of the proposal is insensitive to the existing, protected buildings onthe site, as well as the larger surrounding townscape and should not be permitted as it wouldresult in significant damage to heritage assets.
In summary, I believe that the proposal would result in overdevelopment, overcrowding,dangerous road conditions and damage to the environment.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I would like to see an appropriate redevelopment of St Christophers, which is animportant site adjoining the Down's that has been providing special needs schooling within theWestbury Park community for many years.
I do not believe the submitted application is appropriate for the following reasons:
- The proposed scale, mass and bulk of the proposals is inappropriate within this sensitiveheritage context and will give rise to unacceptable impacts on heritage assets and townscape.The scale, massing and height of the proposed development would unacceptably alter the existingcharacter and street scene along Westbury Park, Royal Albert Road, Etloe Road, The Glen,Bayswater Avenue and Belvedere Road, where the scale of existing development ispredominantly 2/3 storeys. The scale and bulk of the proposal sits uncomfortably within the plotand would constitute a cramped form of development.At 6 storeys in height, elements of the proposed development are up to 4 storeys taller than manysurrounding buildings in the area. This is inappropriate in design terms, failing to respect the richand historic character of the existing townscape. The proposed development itself will result in asubstantial degree of change which will have a notable impact on the street scene and will sit atodds with the important elements of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, thusimpacting upon its overall heritage significance.The proposed development would be harmful to the existing townscape character by virtue of theincreased height and stark uninteresting residential form of the scheme which will mean thedevelopment will be visible from, and within the context and setting of designated heritage assets
adjoining the Downs. Furthermore, the removal of existing trees which currently provide screeningto the site would cause further harm to the visual impact of the development on the surroundinglandscape
- In the context of an increasing need for SEND accommodation in Bristol, the applicant has failedto satisfy the requirements of BCS12 and DM5 which seek to safeguard community facilities;
- The extent of tree loss proposed in inappropriate, particularly so in terms of high quality individualspecimens which make a valued contribution to the character and appearance of the ConservationArea. A total of 82 individual trees were surveyed on site and summarised in terms of their qualityin accordance with the recommendations of the BS5837 quality category. The developmentproposes to retain 43 urban street trees, with 39 individual trees, plus 3 groups of trees and fourhedges being proposed for removal, equating to approximately 50% of the existing trees on site.The tree survey states that 18 of the 39 trees proposed for removal are of moderate to high-quality (4 high-quality, 14 moderate quality) with their retention therefore desirable in accordancewith the BS5837 guidance.Whilst it is acknowledged that the removal of trees is an inevitable consequence of development,the loss of so many high-quality trees is not deemed to be essential to the redevelopment and hasnot been appropriately justified. It is considered that such an extent of loss is again indicative of adesign proposal that constitutes overdevelopment of the site.In light of the above, the proposal is considered to cause significant damage to the local greeninfrastructure network and environment, with the quantum of tree removal not deemed necessaryfor the redevelopment of the site. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies BCS9 of theCore Strategy and DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Local Plan.
- The proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms, owing to insufficient on-siteparking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements, which will increase the roadsafety risks in an area where there is already a significant concern.Policy DM23 (Transport Development Management) of the Local Plan outlines that newdevelopment should not give rise to unacceptable traffic conditions and will be expected to providesafe access to the highway network. The policy also outlines that new development should beaccessible by sustainable transport methods such as walking, cycling and public transport.Furthermore, the policy sets standards for parking provision.The planning application does not provide any estimates of the actual expected parking needs ofthe residents, staff and visitors for a new Extra Care scheme, and does not claim to be able tomeet these without any overspill on to surrounding roads. Instead, the proposed number ofparking spaces is based on:- an interpretation of the parking standards for C2 (residential care homes where residents don'thave cars);- comparison with parking provided at a small number of non-similar schemes; and- a comparison with the number of cars parked in a small non-comparable (social rent) shelteredhousing scheme, in a small town in Northern Ireland, on one day in early 2019.
The proposal is for 122 units comprising 111 two-bed and 11 one-bed dwellings. The TransportStatement estimates approximately 15-20 staff on-site at any time. The applicant has onlyincluded 65 spaces for a site of 122 primarily 2-bed apartments, which could accommodate up to244 residents. None of the supporting information provided within the transport Statementsuggests that this will be enough to accommodate for all residents, staff and visitors. TheTransport Statement in the application does not demonstrate that the parking provided will besufficient to avoid overspill.The applicant justifies their plans with numerous subjective assertions, but these are notevidenced by any quantified assumptions, data or research to show the actual likely parkingrequirements of the residents, staff and visitors. A more realistic estimate has I understand beenproduced by SCAN which estimates parking requirements for the development would be 116spaces, made up of:- - -
76 spaces for residents' cars2 car club and 1 mini-bus space37 spaces reserved for staff and visitors.It is well known that the residential roads surrounding the site already face issues with over-demand of parking, and the associated road safety issues. These roads have no spare capacity toaccommodate the likely over-spill from the new development, and the extra volume of cars lookingfor spaces will exacerbate the current safety concerns.Obviously, the ultimate parking needs will be based on a number of factors and cannot bepredicted with 100% accuracy. However, it should be recognised that the nature of the location -closely surrounded by residential roads - means that if the estimates lead to insufficient parkingon-site, residents, staff and visitors will seek to park on the neighbouring roads, and this impactcannot be managed by the developers (or BCC) once the site is occupied.There must therefore be a clear onus on the applicant to provide sufficient parking, based onrealistic estimates, to reduce, as far as reasonably possible, the risk of this occurring. Instead,their provisions are, at best, based on unenforceable best case wishful thinking. Most of theapplicant's case seems to rely on a suggestion (Transport Statement 6.21) that "parking provisionis in line with other similar schemes". However, the amount of parking provided on these othersites is not relevant in determining the actual parking needs of this site.Appendix E to the Transport Statement indicates that the comparison site is TRICS ref TY-03-P-01. The referenced site is a small retirement housing scheme in a small town in Northern Ireland,providing socially rented housing. No care is provided, solely an (off-site) alarm service, and thereare no community facilities. Units are primarily single occupancy, distorting the pro ratacalculation.This site is clearly not sufficiently similar to St Christophers Square to provide any meaningfulcomparison data. The context of the site has not been remotely taken into consideration within theassessment, with no regard for existing environmental factors such as the presence of a PrimarySchool (Westbury Park) & Nursery (Daisychain) and existing parking conditions & trafficmovement.Finally, it should be noted that the applicants themselves do not claim that there will be no
overspill on to surrounding roads - their plans appear to be justified primarily by a highly tenuousand limited comparison with 1 day of trip analysis at a completely non-comparable site. For adevelopment of this size and complexity, this cannot be seen as anything approaching a reliablebasis for the limited parking provision. The plans presented in the first pre-app included 120spaces, and even then, they referred to the potential need for a residents parking scheme to avoidover-spill into the surrounding streets. This suggests that the applicant is in fact aware of the likelynumber of parking spaces required to avoid overspill, but has reduced the planned provision from120 to 65 for their own undefined reasons.The road safety issues within the vicinity of the site have been acknowledged by Bristol CityCouncil, who rejected two recent planning applications - 19/93194/F and 20/06030/F - due to theadditional parking demands they would place on these roads, and the impact on road safety.Additionally, the report from the Planning Inspectorate in response to an appeal on 19/93194/Fupheld the Council's decision, summarising that "I found that parking is at a premium, which iscurrently causing significant hazards for all users of the highway1."The parking issues on these roads are even acknowledged by the applicant, who states(Transport Statement 6.7) that "Roads to the south such as The Glen and Belvedere Road are onthe edge of the residents parking zone and have issues with lack of on-street parking forresidents". A recent poll of local residents found that 81% of the 298 respondents see issues withparking in Westbury Park having a dangerous impact on road safety, with 67% having witnessedaccidents, incidents or near misses in this area (44% more than once). This can only increase witha further 50+ cars circling the roads competing for rare spaces. "The parking survey undertaken by local residents indicates a significant existing shortfall inexisting parking, with the parking pressures most severe during the working week, principallyowing to commuters who seek to avoid the restrictions imposed by the Residents Parking Zonewithin the locality. The parking situation often results in vehicles having to park in the middle of theroad, causing congestion and conflict which is exacerbated by the two-way carriageway whichcreates a hazard for all road users and residents. This issue is particularly pertinent as the peakparking pressures will coincide with the working hours for staff at the redeveloped St Christophers- where the proposed level of provision will not cater for staff demand.The proposed scheme does provide some negligible mitigation in the form of a raised speed table,implementation of double-yellow areas and dropped kerbs to assist pedestrian crossings,however, these limited benefits are not considered sufficient to justify the significant impact on theoperation of the local highway network, or indeed the resulting further reduction in the availabilityof on-road parking. Overall, it is clear that there is simply no basis for assuming that the plannedparking provision is sufficient for the parking needs at this location. There will be a significantoverspill, which will increase risks to road safety in the surrounding residential streets. Theapplicant has not provided any reliable information to support that 65 spaces will be sufficient forthe needs of all residents, staff and visitors to the site and the transport submission fails to identifythe full range of impacts. In consequence, its assessment of the impact upon the local roadnetwork is both incomplete and unreliable, with no evidence that the proposal is acceptable.Consequently, it is recommended the LPA take a precautionary approach when assessinghighway impacts.
It is also evident that the formal submission has not taken into account the advice from TransportDevelopment Management (TDM) in respect of the ongoing operation of the access from EtloeRoad. The formal advice issued at the Pre-Application stage was clear in that this must beaddressed, owing to the proximity to the existing Nursery and the St Helena Junction, which wouldgive rise to highway safety concerns for vehicles leaving the site. Residents are also concernedthat the proposed pedestrian access to The Glen would increase the risk of it being used foroverflow parking.Overall, it is therefore concluded that the proposal, as submitted, would harm highway safety.Policies BCS10, DM2 and DM23 of the Development Plan require safe streets integrated with thedevelopment, the regulation of parking impacts from shared housing and the avoidance ofunacceptable traffic conditions.Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that "Development should only be prevented or refused onhighway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residualcumulative impacts on the road network would be severe." It is clear that the developers are notproducing sufficient parking to avoid an unacceptable impact, and the application should thereforebe refused on these grounds.
- The proposal includes no affordable housing and is not supported by an unredacted ViabilityAppraisal to justify such lack of provision, which is contrary to the adopted Development Plan. Thestated reasoning for the lack of provision is not consistent with adopted policies or adoptedsupplementary planning guidance.For these reasons, it is considered that the submitted application should be refused by the LocalPlanning Authority.
For these reasons, it is considered that the submitted application should be refused by the LocalPlanning Authority.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
The proposed scheme will have a detrimental impact on traffic, road safety and parkingin the area. Any proposed development should have adequate on-site parking for all residents, aswell as staff, visitors and tradespeople during construction work. Vehicle and pedestrian accessshould only be allowed from the existing site entrances. The proposed site entrance on BayswaterAvenue (between the primary school and nursery) will pose a real danger to the large number ofchildren walking to/from school and local childcare settings (in addition to the nursery there aretwo pre-schools accessible via Bayswater Avenue).
The proposed development will also have a negative impact on nature and wildlife as severalmature trees will be lost and far too many high density buildings added. There is already extensivesimilar accommodation in the area, this site should not be overdeveloped and the majority of treesand green space should be retained. The developers have not given any real consideration to theinfrastructure, safety and conservation of the local area and the surrounding Downs.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
Current proposals are far too high density for site. No objection to Later Livingdevelopment on the site, but should be far more limited, and more in keeping with localneighbourhood.Currently proposed blocks of flats will be eyesore and will have significant negative impact on localarea.
Lack of on site parking can do nothing other than increase the already significant parking issues inthe surrounding roads. Local residents currently have real problems parking near their homes. Ilived in nearby road to St Christopher's for 29 years. I speak from personal experience.The proposed destruction of flora and fauna on the site is not in keeping with current ecologicalgood practice.Total disregard of the fact the site was categorised to provide Special Educational Needsprovision, which was recently identified as a priority for Bristol City Council???I hope Planning Officers will recognise the very strong opposition of local residents, Heritagegroups and many other interested parties to these unacceptable plans to overdevelop thisbeautiful, valuable site in the heart of our city.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I am shocked to hear that this school site will become housing etc.I appreciate the need for housing but there is also a huge need for schools in Bristol. EspeciallySEND provision. This site seems like it would be far better suited to another school.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
We wish to strongly object to the proposals put forward in this application for thefollowing reasons:-Firstly, the overall mixture of 'villas' aka apartment blocks and 'cottages' aka houses is far toooverbearing, imposing and densely packed especially for those residents of Westbury Park whowill be faced, literally, with the proposed buildings at the bottom of their gardens with the ensuingloss of privacy and light that that will entail. The whole thing is massively out of scale with theresidential properties and townscape of Westbury Park as the 'villas' aka apartment blocks will beenormous at 4, 5 and 6 floors high. We now realise why the developers didn't provide us with thepromised 3D models at their later meetings. Furthermore, one of the charms of Westbury Park isthe appearance of its buildings with their arched windows, decorative barge boards and bath stonefrontages - it doesn't look as though those aesthetics have been considered at all by thearchitects/developersSecondly, the traffic and parking. The impact of the development on the roads around the site willbe substantial. Already, due in part to the RPZs, more and more, car owners are using WestburyPark as a 'Park and Ride'. Unfortunately, not all drivers are as considerate as they could be andthis means that, especially on Etloe Road, many vehicles are parked inappropriately on thepavements, dropped kerbs and at road junctions such as Royal Albert Road/Etloe Road, andRoyal Albert Road/Westbury Park Road restricting both pedestrians and other road users. Attimes, especially in the morning rush hour, tempers flare and road rage is quite common. Theprospect of possibly a further 200 plus residents and all the associated ancillary staff, with theircars, driving around looking for parking places after the 65 spaces allocated on site, have beentaken, is unsupportable.
Thirdly, full time entrance and exit from Bayswater Avenue to St Christopher's site via what iscurrently an emergency access. It has already been highlighted many times that EtloeRoad/Bayswater Avenue have a children's Day Nursery and Westbury Park Infants and Juniorschool sited on them but, in addition, there are Harcourt Pre-School also on Bayswater Avenue,White Tree Pre-School at the other end of Etloe Road as well as The Red House Nursery justacross the Road from Bayswater Avenue on Cossins Road with the parents/carers and thechildren mainly walking /skipping/running up and down Etloe Road and Bayswater Avenue toaccess them. The emergency access is situated right next to The Daisychain Nursery andpractically opposite the junction of St Helen Road with Bayswater Road.. The idea of making this aregularly used entrance and exit for not only the future residents but also for the site workersduring the construction phase with the amount of pedestrians going back and forth is really illthought and shouldn't go ahead.Fourthly, the loss of mature trees and the impact on the biodiversity of the area. Many of thepeople who have responded to this application have written very eloquently about the site and theimpact that this development will have on the not only the site itself but its surrounds. So here'sour bit, St Christopher's site is part of a vital green corridor that runs from places like Leigh Woods,Kings Weston estate to The Downs, through St Christophers to Redland Green Park and beyondto Purdown, Oldbury Court and Snuff Mills and then out the other side of Bristol. These greencorridors are enormously important to wildlife, and, as a direct result, to us. Lose St Christopherswith its large, mature trees and grounds and we lose not only them but all the wildlife that they andthe site generally supports i.e. bats, owls, woodpeckers, foxes, fieldmice and shrews and a myriadof small garden birds. They, too, need places to live.Fifthly, the loss of SEND provisions. It has been noted by a lot of people about the lack of SENDprovisions in Bristol and bearing in mind that the St Christopher's site, and especially Grace Houseand the additional newer buildings, have been built specificially to help and support the peoplewith SEND needs then it does seem somewhat arbitrary to change the use of the site, when,perhaps with some careful thought the site could be kept as an SEND provider and even becomea hub for all the SEND children in Bristol to be able to visit and use.Sixthly - lack of affordable housing. There is no mention of any affordable housing at all. Does thismean that only the well off will be able to move in as the model for these type of places is a highleasehold purchase price and then substantial charges for all the ancillary services supplied?We are not against any development of the site but we are against development at any cost. Thesite is worthy of something much better.
Alice Huntbach and Glynn Holloway
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
This road and direct surrounding area already suffers from severe traffic and parkingissues. There are frequently build ups of traffic in the area, there is minimal parking alreadyavailable and these factors already mean that the pavements become less safe - densely packedcars and parking over the curbs means those with prams and wheelchairs have to go out on to theroad often. The proposed development will lead to more traffic in the area from residents, staffmembers and visitors.
Westbury Park primary school, Harcourt preschool and Daisy chain nursery (to name a few)already have road safety concerns due to severe congestion, overparking and cut through routeson Bayswater Ave and Etloe Rd. This is particularly evident at the beginning and the end of schooldays where traffic can come to a standstill. Increased congestion from this proposed site wouldonly amplify these issues and put schoolchildren at increased risk. The proposal does notsufficiently address the issues of lack of sufficient parking, lack of safe access to the site and lackof road safety.
The proposal will also result in loss of many mature trees and natural habitats for animals andnegative impacts the appearance of the Conservation Area. This in turn will lead to increased airand noise pollution, especially given the proximity to the main road A4018.
The scale and design of the proposal is inconsiderate to the current building on the side and wouldnegatively impact the larger surrounding townscape.
I oppose this proposal as it is too large and not in keeping with the local area. Most importantly itwould result in overdevelopment, overcrowding, dangerous road conditions and damage to theenvironment.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I have three concerns about this development:
1. The provision for parking is not nearly enough. Given the number of residences and the recentcuts to public transport services in the area I expect many more cars than the current number ofspaces.2. Given that this development is very close to school I worry about the additional traffic and extraparking pressures this will add to Bayswater Avenue. Creating potential hazards for young children
3. The loss of wildlife habitat and large trees is very sad. I see no evidence in the plans of acommitment to add environmental benefits to the space - new trees. Wildlife corridors etc. Thesewould be great for supporting biodiversity and surely add value to residents quality of life too?
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I am strongly against this new development. There are huge environmental implicationsto this building. By removing the green area it will have a negative impact on the local wildlife aswell as the mental health of people who use the space. It will directly affect those living next to thebuilding by casting their properties into shadow and causing a significant invasion of privacy. Thebuilding is huge and will not sit in well with the existing properties. It will also create a huge parkingissue, as parking is difficult enough in this area anyway, which brings up the issue of safety. It isan area filled with families, and road safety is a serious concern as there are many kids around.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I have read the objections submitted by Westbury Park Community Association and fullysupport all their objections.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
Bristol has a huge shortage of suitable specialist school places. Surely this should notbe being developed into flats when it could continue in use as a specialist setting under differentmanagement.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I object to this planning application. In simple terms, the proposals represent an over-development of the site. There are insufficient car parking spaces for the quantum of development,and inevitably, the lack of spaces on-site will only multiply the existing problem of a shortage of carparking facilities within the Westbury Park area.There is already a high demand for on-streetcarparking, from many local residents, who cannot provide car park spaces within the curtilage oftheir own properties, because of the 'tight' urban form occassioned by the existng, and in greatpart, terraced housing. The proposed development also does not respect local 'sense of place',having regard to form and scale, and particularly, the proposed new buildings are too high. Theproposed development will also compromise the value and importance of the existing historicbuildings that exist on site, and cause irreparable damage to the local Downs ambience.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I wish to object for the following reasons:-
Parking - There is insufficient parking on site, which will significantly impact residential parking onthe surrounding streets, in an area where parking is already overloaded.Traffic - there will be a significant increase in the flow of traffic in the surrounding streets of thedevelopment. The roads are already narrow and difficult for two cars to pass. An increase of trafficand parking will exacerbate this issue.Safety -The increase in parking and traffic will inevitably lead to safety concerns for pedestriansand especially families with young children who attend the local school and nurseries. The risk ordanger to life should not be overlooked.Schools/Nursery - The proposed entrance leading from the development onto Bayswater Road isdangerous. The entrance is very narrow and enters onto a busy traffic junction. It is also directlyadjacent to a nursery and school with a high volume of foot traffic.Nature of the Development - The proposal for retirement homes is not required in this location.Westbury Park needs family homes and affordable family homes. The recent development on thenearby Redland Hill has already provided for 64 retirement units, some of which remain unsold.Environmental impact - there will be a loss of too many trees leading to a detrimental impact onwildlife and air quality.Conservation Area - the proposed structures are insensitive to the surrounding buildings of theconservation area
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I would like to see an appropriate redevelopment of St Christophers, which is animportant site adjoining the Down's that has been providing special needs schooling within theWestbury Park community for many years.
I do not believe the submitted application is appropriate for the following reasons:
- The proposed scale, mass and bulk of the proposals is inappropriate within this sensitiveheritage context and will give rise to unacceptable impacts on heritage assets and townscape.The scale, massing and height of the proposed development would unacceptably alter the existingcharacter and street scene along Westbury Park, Royal Albert Road, Etloe Road, The Glen,Bayswater Avenue and Belvedere Road, where the scale of existing development ispredominantly 2/3 storeys. The scale and bulk of the proposal sits uncomfortably within the plotand would constitute a cramped form of development.The South side of Royal Albert Road will suffer light loss due to the proximity and height of theproposed development and trajectory of the sun. A combination of the height of the proposedbuildings and loss of trees will also introduce overlooking and loss of privacy for the propertiesimmediately bordering the site.At 6 storeys in height, elements of the proposed development are up to 4 storeys taller than manysurrounding buildings in the area. This is inappropriate in design terms, failing to respect the richand historic character of the existing townscape. The proposed development itself will result in asubstantial degree of change which will have a notable impact on the street scene and will sit atodds with the important elements of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, thus
impacting upon its overall heritage significance.The proposed development would be harmful to the existing townscape character by virtue of theincreased height and stark uninteresting residential form of the scheme which will mean thedevelopment will be visible from, and within the context and setting of designated heritage assetsadjoining the Downs. Furthermore, the removal of existing trees which currently provide screeningto the site would cause further harm to the visual impact of the development on the surroundinglandscape
- In the context of an increasing need for SEND accommodation in Bristol, the applicant has failedto satisfy the requirements of BCS12 and DM5 which seek to safeguard community facilities;
- The extent of tree loss proposed in inappropriate, particularly so in terms of high quality individualspecimens which make a valued contribution to the character and appearance of the ConservationArea. A total of 82 individual trees were surveyed on site and summarised in terms of their qualityin accordance with the recommendations of the BS5837 quality category. The developmentproposes to retain 43 urban street trees, with 39 individual trees, plus 3 groups of trees and fourhedges being proposed for removal, equating to approximately 50% of the existing trees on site.The tree survey states that 18 of the 39 trees proposed for removal are of moderate to high-quality (4 high-quality, 14 moderate quality) with their retention therefore desirable in accordancewith the BS5837 guidance.Whilst it is acknowledged that the removal of trees is an inevitable consequence of development,the loss of so many high-quality trees is not deemed to be essential to the redevelopment and hasnot been appropriately justified. It is considered that such an extent of loss is again indicative of adesign proposal that constitutes overdevelopment of the site.In light of the above, the proposal is considered to cause significant damage to the local greeninfrastructure network and environment, with the quantum of tree removal not deemed necessaryfor the redevelopment of the site. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies BCS9 of theCore Strategy and DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Local Plan.
- The proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms, owing to insufficient on-siteparking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements, which will increase the roadsafety risks in an area where there is already a significant concern.Policy DM23 (Transport Development Management) of the Local Plan outlines that newdevelopment should not give rise to unacceptable traffic conditions and will be expected to providesafe access to the highway network. The policy also outlines that new development should beaccessible by sustainable transport methods such as walking, cycling and public transport.Furthermore, the policy sets standards for parking provision.The planning application does not provide any estimates of the actual expected parking needs ofthe residents, staff and visitors for a new Extra Care scheme, and does not claim to be able tomeet these without any overspill on to surrounding roads. Instead, the proposed number ofparking spaces is based on:- an interpretation of the parking standards for C2 (residential care homes where residents don't
have cars);- comparison with parking provided at a small number of non-similar schemes; and- a comparison with the number of cars parked in a small non-comparable (social rent) shelteredhousing scheme, in a small town in Northern Ireland, on one day in early 2019.The proposal is for 122 units comprising 111 two-bed and 11 one-bed dwellings. The TransportStatement estimates approximately 15-20 staff on-site at any time. The applicant has onlyincluded 65 spaces for a site of 122 primarily 2-bed apartments, which could accommodate up to244 residents. None of the supporting information provided within the transport Statementsuggests that this will be enough to accommodate for all residents, staff and visitors. TheTransport Statement in the application does not demonstrate that the parking provided will besufficient to avoid overspill.The applicant justifies their plans with numerous subjective assertions, but these are notevidenced by any quantified assumptions, data or research to show the actual likely parkingrequirements of the residents, staff and visitors. A more realistic estimate has I understand beenproduced by SCAN which estimates parking requirements for the development would be 116spaces, made up of:- - -
76 spaces for residents' cars2 car club and 1 mini-bus space37 spaces reserved for staff and visitors.
I personally think that every new household purchasing at the start of this development will have atleast 1 car. These are not the sick and ill elderly- the property development rules do not allow forthe infirm to live there and the generation and socio-economic group that it will draw from are thecar generation who will still, quite rightly, be going out engaging in activities/social events but areunused to travelling by bus.
It is well known that the residential roads surrounding the site already face issues with over-demand of parking, and the associated road safety issues. These roads have no spare capacity toaccommodate the likely over-spill from the new development, and the extra volume of cars lookingfor spaces will exacerbate the current safety concerns.
Obviously, the ultimate parking needs will be based on a number of factors and cannot bepredicted with 100% accuracy. However, it should be recognised that the nature of the location -closely surrounded by residential roads - means that if the estimates lead to insufficient parkingon-site, residents, staff and visitors will seek to park on the neighbouring roads, and this impactcannot be managed by the developers (or BCC) once the site is occupied.There must therefore be a clear onus on the applicant to provide sufficient parking, based onrealistic estimates, to reduce, as far as reasonably possible, the risk of this occurring. Instead,their provisions are, at best, based on unenforceable best case wishful thinking. Most of theapplicant's case seems to rely on a suggestion (Transport Statement 6.21) that "parking provisionis in line with other similar schemes". However, the amount of parking provided on these other
sites is not relevant in determining the actual parking needs of this site.Appendix E to the Transport Statement indicates that the comparison site is TRICS ref TY-03-P-01. The referenced site is a small retirement housing scheme in a small town in Northern Ireland,providing socially rented housing. No care is provided, solely an (off-site) alarm service, and thereare no community facilities. Units are primarily single occupancy, distorting the pro ratacalculation.This site is clearly not sufficiently similar to St Christophers Square to provide any meaningfulcomparison data. The context of the site has not been remotely taken into consideration within theassessment, with no regard for existing environmental factors such as the presence of a PrimarySchool (Westbury Park) & Nursery (Daisychain) and existing parking conditions & trafficmovement.Finally, it should be noted that the applicants themselves do not claim that there will be nooverspill on to surrounding roads - their plans appear to be justified primarily by a highly tenuousand limited comparison with 1 day of trip analysis at a completely non-comparable site. For adevelopment of this size and complexity, this cannot be seen as anything approaching a reliablebasis for the limited parking provision. The plans presented in the first pre-app included 120spaces, and even then, they referred to the potential need for a residents parking scheme to avoidover-spill into the surrounding streets. This suggests that the applicant is in fact aware of the likelynumber of parking spaces required to avoid overspill, but has reduced the planned provision from120 to 65 for their own undefined reasons.The road safety issues within the vicinity of the site have been acknowledged by Bristol CityCouncil, who rejected two recent planning applications - 19/93194/F and 20/06030/F - due to theadditional parking demands they would place on these roads, and the impact on road safety.Additionally, the report from the Planning Inspectorate in response to an appeal on 19/93194/Fupheld the Council's decision, summarising that "I found that parking is at a premium, which iscurrently causing significant hazards for all users of the highway1."The parking issues on these roads are even acknowledged by the applicant, who states(Transport Statement 6.7) that "Roads to the south such as The Glen and Belvedere Road are onthe edge of the residents parking zone and have issues with lack of on-street parking forresidents". A recent poll of local residents found that 81% of the 298 respondents see issues withparking in Westbury Park having a dangerous impact on road safety, with 67% having witnessedaccidents, incidents or near misses in this area (44% more than once). This can only increase witha further 50+ cars circling the roads competing for rare spaces. "The parking survey undertaken by local residents indicates a significant existing shortfall inexisting parking, with the parking pressures most severe during the working week, principallyowing to commuters who seek to avoid the restrictions imposed by the Residents Parking Zonewithin the locality. The parking situation often results in vehicles already having to park onpavements and into the middle of the road on the roads surrounding the proposed site, causingcongestion and conflict which is exacerbated by two-way carriageways which creates a hazard forall road users and residents. This issue is particularly pertinent as the peak parking pressures willcoincide with the working hours for staff at the redeveloped St Christophers - where the proposedlevel of provision will not cater for staff demand.
During rush hour Westbury Park Road is used as a 'main road' for cars trying to get out of Bristoland heading towards White Tree roundabout. Cars currently queue twice daily creatingunacceptable/illegal pollution levels for current residents, adding to the car numbers will onlyexacerbate this issue. Furthermore cars frustrated by the queue on Westbury Park Road useRoyal Albert Road and Etloe Road to race down to try and 'beat the queue' by joining traffic onNorth Street which has right of way above those queuing on Westbury Park Road. They do notstick to the 20 mile speed limit in their desire to beat the queues. This combined with cars parkednose to bumper and on pavements is a dangerous combination for local residents (pedestrians,cycles and car users).The proposed scheme does provide some negligible mitigation in the form of a raised speed table,implementation of double-yellow areas and dropped kerbs to assist pedestrian crossings,however, these limited benefits are not considered sufficient to justify the significant impact on theoperation of the local highway network, and indeed will themselves result in further reduction in theavailability of on-road parking for current residents.Overall, it is clear that there is simply no basis for assuming that the planned parking provision issufficient for the parking needs at this location. There will be a significant overspill, which willincrease risks to road safety in the surrounding residential streets. The applicant has not providedany reliable information to support that 65 spaces will be sufficient for the needs of all residents,staff and visitors to the site and the transport submission fails to identify the full range of impacts.In consequence, its assessment of the impact upon the local road network is both incomplete andunreliable, with no evidence that the proposal is acceptable. Consequently, it is recommended theLPA take a precautionary approach when assessing highway impacts.It is also evident that the formal submission has not taken into account the advice from TransportDevelopment Management (TDM) in respect of the ongoing operation of the access from EtloeRoad. The formal advice issued at the Pre-Application stage was clear in that this must beaddressed, owing to the proximity to the existing Nursery, large Primary School and the St HelenaJunction, which would give rise to highway safety concerns for pedestrians & vehicles leaving thesite. Residents are also concerned that the proposed pedestrian access to The Glen wouldincrease the risk of it being used for overflow parking.Overall, it is therefore concluded that the proposal, as submitted, would harm highway safety.Policies BCS10, DM2 and DM23 of the Development Plan require safe streets integrated with thedevelopment, the regulation of parking impacts from shared housing and the avoidance ofunacceptable traffic conditions.Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that "Development should only be prevented or refused onhighway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residualcumulative impacts on the road network would be severe." It is clear that the developers are notproducing sufficient parking to avoid an unacceptable impact, and the application should thereforebe refused on these grounds.
As a minimum the research provided by Scan during this process illustrates the need for BCC tointroduce a Residents Parking Scheme in Westbury Park for current residents to mitigate thesafety issues by reducing the number of cares cruising the area for parking spaces and blocking
visual for pedestrians and cyclists (in particular children walking to school who are short and cannot see over cars). New residents on the St Christophers site (in whatever form the developmenttakes) should be provided with sufficient parking onsite giving regard to realism not an idealisticview of what either the developers would like to maximise profits the council thinking that everyonewill make do with a bike. On Westbury Park (Road) specifically this could take the form ofresidents parking perhaps mixed with some restricted hour parking (eg up to 4 hrs) for recreationaluse if this is deemed necessary (there is already provision elsewhere on the Downs in areas usedmore for recreational purposes). Some consideration should also be given to reducing the speedof traffic along Westbury Park Road and other roads within Westbury Park area- perhapsrestricting throughfare to residents only at certain times of the day, as has been introduced onother cut-through roads in Bristol - Westbury Park Road is a residential road not a B road.
Parking provision within the St Christophers site needs to include many electric charging points -not just a token 1 or 2, the deadline is fast approaching and provision is not increasing locally, allnew developments should be assuming all cars will be electric because that is the reality.
- The proposal includes no affordable housing and is not supported by an unredacted ViabilityAppraisal to justify such lack of provision, which is contrary to the adopted Development Plan. Thestated reasoning for the lack of provision is not consistent with adopted policies or adoptedsupplementary planning guidance.For these reasons, it is considered that the submitted application should be refused by the LocalPlanning Authority.
For these reasons, it is considered that the submitted application should be refused by the LocalPlanning Authority.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
This is an ill considered scheme without taking into account the impact increased trafficwill have on the already-clogged roads in the area, particularly those feeding White TreeRoundabout.
My other objection is that any new building scheme in this area should include affordable housingso the excellent facilities and amenities in the neighbourhood (eg green space on the Downs, localshops, cinema, library) are opened up to a more diverse mix of people - from a broader socio-economic background. This would help make the area more reflective of Bristol overall - ratherthan making it accessible to only a shrinking minority who can afford to buy property in this area.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I would be grateful if the following objections could be factored into your materialplanning consideration.
The proposed development will have considerable impact on the visual amenity, as defined by theGuidelines for Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment.
There is inadequate parking for the inhabitants of the 97 units, members of staff for the proposeddevelopment and visitors. The latter will included district nurses and carers. The area of proposeddevelopment borders areas of controlled parking zones and the parking on Westbury Park and theadjacent roads is already congested with the vehicles of residents and commuters. The proposeddevelopment will worsen the existing situation.
Lack of adequate parking is likely to increase traffic (time spent driving along on Westbury Parkand adjacent roads, not volume of cars) due to choked junctions.
The above is likely to contribute to reduced highway safety as the congestion creates thetemptation of parking illegally. A recent example of this occurred at a vaccination drive held at StChristopher's where people parked on the Downs opposite to St Christophers out of desperation.This situation is likely to be repeated if the above objection about parking is not upheld.
Other negative aspects include a loss of trees (to the detriment of nature conservation), the impacton the listed Grace House and the surrounding conservation area. The six storey development is
too high and out of character with the adjacent properties.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I would like to see an appropriate redevelopment of St Christophers, which is animportant site adjoining the Down's that has been providing special needs schooling within theWestbury Park community for many years.
I do not believe the submitted application is appropriate for the following reasons:
- The proposed scale, mass and bulk of the proposals is inappropriate within this sensitiveheritage context and will give rise to unacceptable impacts on heritage assets and townscape.The scale, massing and height of the proposed development would unacceptably alter the existingcharacter and street scene along Westbury Park, Royal Albert Road, Etloe Road, The Glen,Bayswater Avenue and Belvedere Road, where the scale of existing development ispredominantly 2/3 storeys. The scale and bulk of the proposal sits uncomfortably within the plotand would constitute a cramped form of development.
The South side of Royal Albert Road will suffer light loss due to the proximity and height of theproposed development and trajectory of the sun. A combination of the height of the proposedbuildings and loss of trees will also introduce overlooking and loss of privacy for the propertiesimmediately bordering the site.At 6 storeys in height, elements of the proposed development are up to 4 storeys taller than manysurrounding buildings in the area. This is inappropriate in design terms, failing to respect the richand historic character of the existing townscape. The proposed development itself will result in asubstantial degree of change which will have a notable impact on the street scene and will sit at
odds with the important elements of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, thusimpacting upon its overall heritage significance.The proposed development would be harmful to the existing townscape character by virtue of theincreased height and stark uninteresting residential form of the scheme which will mean thedevelopment will be visible from, and within the context and setting of designated heritage assetsadjoining the Downs. Furthermore, the removal of existing trees which currently provide screeningto the site would cause further harm to the visual impact of the development on the surroundinglandscape
- In the context of an increasing need for SEND accommodation in Bristol, the applicant has failedto satisfy the requirements of BCS12 and DM5 which seek to safeguard community facilities;
- The extent of tree loss proposed in inappropriate, particularly so in terms of high quality individualspecimens which make a valued contribution to the character and appearance of the ConservationArea. A total of 82 individual trees were surveyed on site and summarised in terms of their qualityin accordance with the recommendations of the BS5837 quality category. The developmentproposes to retain 43 urban street trees, with 39 individual trees, plus 3 groups of trees and fourhedges being proposed for removal, equating to approximately 50% of the existing trees on site.The tree survey states that 18 of the 39 trees proposed for removal are of moderate to high-quality (4 high-quality, 14 moderate quality) with their retention therefore desirable in accordancewith the BS5837 guidance.Whilst it is acknowledged that the removal of trees is an inevitable consequence of development,the loss of so many high-quality trees is not deemed to be essential to the redevelopment and hasnot been appropriately justified. It is considered that such an extent of loss is again indicative of adesign proposal that constitutes overdevelopment of the site.In light of the above, the proposal is considered to cause significant damage to the local greeninfrastructure network and environment, with the quantum of tree removal not deemed necessaryfor the redevelopment of the site. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies BCS9 of theCore Strategy and DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Local Plan.
- The proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms, owing to insufficient on-siteparking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements, which will increase the roadsafety risks in an area where there is already a significant concern.Policy DM23 (Transport Development Management) of the Local Plan outlines that newdevelopment should not give rise to unacceptable traffic conditions and will be expected to providesafe access to the highway network. The policy also outlines that new development should beaccessible by sustainable transport methods such as walking, cycling and public transport.Furthermore, the policy sets standards for parking provision.The planning application does not provide any estimates of the actual expected parking needs ofthe residents, staff and visitors for a new Extra Care scheme, and does not claim to be able tomeet these without any overspill on to surrounding roads. Instead, the proposed number ofparking spaces is based on:
- an interpretation of the parking standards for C2 (residential care homes where residents don'thave cars);- comparison with parking provided at a small number of non-similar schemes; and- a comparison with the number of cars parked in a small non-comparable (social rent) shelteredhousing scheme, in a small town in Northern Ireland, on one day in early 2019.The proposal is for 122 units comprising 111 two-bed and 11 one-bed dwellings. The TransportStatement estimates approximately 15-20 staff on-site at any time. The applicant has onlyincluded 65 spaces for a site of 122 primarily 2-bed apartments, which could accommodate up to244 residents. None of the supporting information provided within the transport Statementsuggests that this will be enough to accommodate for all residents, staff and visitors. TheTransport Statement in the application does not demonstrate that the parking provided will besufficient to avoid overspill.The applicant justifies their plans with numerous subjective assertions, but these are notevidenced by any quantified assumptions, data or research to show the actual likely parkingrequirements of the residents, staff and visitors. A more realistic estimate has I understand beenproduced by SCAN which estimates parking requirements for the development would be 116spaces, made up of:- - -
76 spaces for residents' cars2 car club and 1 mini-bus space37 spaces reserved for staff and visitors.
I personally think that every new household purchasing at the start of this development will have atleast 1 car. These are not the sick and ill elderly- the property development rules do not allow forthe infirm to live there and the generation and socio-economic group that it will draw from are thecar generation who will still, quite rightly, be going out engaging in activities/social events but areunused to travelling by bus.
It is well known that the residential roads surrounding the site already face issues with over-demand of parking, and the associated road safety issues. These roads have no spare capacity toaccommodate the likely over-spill from the new development, and the extra volume of cars lookingfor spaces will exacerbate the current safety concerns.
Obviously, the ultimate parking needs will be based on a number of factors and cannot bepredicted with 100% accuracy. However, it should be recognised that the nature of the location -closely surrounded by residential roads - means that if the estimates lead to insufficient parkingon-site, residents, staff and visitors will seek to park on the neighbouring roads, and this impactcannot be managed by the developers (or BCC) once the site is occupied.There must therefore be a clear onus on the applicant to provide sufficient parking, based onrealistic estimates, to reduce, as far as reasonably possible, the risk of this occurring. Instead,
their provisions are, at best, based on unenforceable best case wishful thinking. Most of theapplicant's case seems to rely on a suggestion (Transport Statement 6.21) that "parking provisionis in line with other similar schemes". However, the amount of parking provided on these othersites is not relevant in determining the actual parking needs of this site.Appendix E to the Transport Statement indicates that the comparison site is TRICS ref TY-03-P-01. The referenced site is a small retirement housing scheme in a small town in Northern Ireland,providing socially rented housing. No care is provided, solely an (off-site) alarm service, and thereare no community facilities. Units are primarily single occupancy, distorting the pro ratacalculation.This site is clearly not sufficiently similar to St Christophers Square to provide any meaningfulcomparison data. The context of the site has not been remotely taken into consideration within theassessment, with no regard for existing environmental factors such as the presence of a PrimarySchool (Westbury Park) & Nursery (Daisychain) and existing parking conditions & trafficmovement.Finally, it should be noted that the applicants themselves do not claim that there will be nooverspill on to surrounding roads - their plans appear to be justified primarily by a highly tenuousand limited comparison with 1 day of trip analysis at a completely non-comparable site. For adevelopment of this size and complexity, this cannot be seen as anything approaching a reliablebasis for the limited parking provision. The plans presented in the first pre-app included 120spaces, and even then, they referred to the potential need for a residents parking scheme to avoidover-spill into the surrounding streets. This suggests that the applicant is in fact aware of the likelynumber of parking spaces required to avoid overspill, but has reduced the planned provision from120 to 65 for their own undefined reasons.The road safety issues within the vicinity of the site have been acknowledged by Bristol CityCouncil, who rejected two recent planning applications - 19/93194/F and 20/06030/F - due to theadditional parking demands they would place on these roads, and the impact on road safety.Additionally, the report from the Planning Inspectorate in response to an appeal on 19/93194/Fupheld the Council's decision, summarising that "I found that parking is at a premium, which iscurrently causing significant hazards for all users of the highway1."The parking issues on these roads are even acknowledged by the applicant, who states(Transport Statement 6.7) that "Roads to the south such as The Glen and Belvedere Road are onthe edge of the residents parking zone and have issues with lack of on-street parking forresidents". A recent poll of local residents found that 81% of the 298 respondents see issues withparking in Westbury Park having a dangerous impact on road safety, with 67% having witnessedaccidents, incidents or near misses in this area (44% more than once). This can only increase witha further 50+ cars circling the roads competing for rare spaces. "The parking survey undertaken by local residents indicates a significant existing shortfall inexisting parking, with the parking pressures most severe during the working week, principallyowing to commuters who seek to avoid the restrictions imposed by the Residents Parking Zonewithin the locality. The parking situation often results in vehicles already having to park onpavements and into the middle of the road on the roads surrounding the proposed site, causingcongestion and conflict which is exacerbated by two-way carriageways which creates a hazard for
all road users and residents. This issue is particularly pertinent as the peak parking pressures willcoincide with the working hours for staff at the redeveloped St Christophers - where the proposedlevel of provision will not cater for staff demand.
During rush hour Westbury Park Road is used as a 'main road' for cars trying to get out of Bristoland heading towards White Tree roundabout. Cars currently queue twice daily creatingunacceptable/illegal pollution levels for current residents, adding to the car numbers will onlyexacerbate this issue. Furthermore cars frustrated by the queue on Westbury Park Road useRoyal Albert Road and Etloe Road to race down to try and 'beat the queue' by joining traffic onNorth Street which has right of way above those queuing on Westbury Park Road. They do notstick to the 20 mile speed limit in their desire to beat the queues. This combined with cars parkednose to bumper and on pavements is a dangerous combination for local residents (pedestrians,cycles and car users).The proposed scheme does provide some negligible mitigation in the form of a raised speed table,implementation of double-yellow areas and dropped kerbs to assist pedestrian crossings,however, these limited benefits are not considered sufficient to justify the significant impact on theoperation of the local highway network, and indeed will themselves result in further reduction in theavailability of on-road parking for current residents.
Overall, it is clear that there is simply no basis for assuming that the planned parking provision issufficient for the parking needs at this location. There will be a significant overspill, which willincrease risks to road safety in the surrounding residential streets. The applicant has not providedany reliable information to support that 65 spaces will be sufficient for the needs of all residents,staff and visitors to the site and the transport submission fails to identify the full range of impacts.In consequence, its assessment of the impact upon the local road network is both incomplete andunreliable, with no evidence that the proposal is acceptable. Consequently, it is recommended theLPA take a precautionary approach when assessing highway impacts.It is also evident that the formal submission has not taken into account the advice from TransportDevelopment Management (TDM) in respect of the ongoing operation of the access from EtloeRoad. The formal advice issued at the Pre-Application stage was clear in that this must beaddressed, owing to the proximity to the existing Nursery, large Primary School and the St HelenaJunction, which would give rise to highway safety concerns for pedestrians & vehicles leaving thesite. Residents are also concerned that the proposed pedestrian access to The Glen wouldincrease the risk of it being used for overflow parking.Overall, it is therefore concluded that the proposal, as submitted, would harm highway safety.Policies BCS10, DM2 and DM23 of the Development Plan require safe streets integrated with thedevelopment, the regulation of parking impacts from shared housing and the avoidance ofunacceptable traffic conditions.Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that "Development should only be prevented or refused onhighway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residualcumulative impacts on the road network would be severe." It is clear that the developers are notproducing sufficient parking to avoid an unacceptable impact, and the application should therefore
be refused on these grounds.
As a minimum the research provided by Scan during this process illustrates the need for BCC tointroduce a Residents Parking Scheme in Westbury Park for current residents to mitigate thesafety issues by reducing the number of cares cruising the area for parking spaces and blockingvisual for pedestrians and cyclists (in particular children walking to school who are short and cannot see over cars). New residents on the St Christophers site (in whatever form the developmenttakes) should be provided with sufficient parking onsite giving regard to realism not an idealisticview of what either the developers would like to maximise profits the council thinking that everyonewill make do with a bike. On Westbury Park (Road) specifically this could take the form ofresidents parking perhaps mixed with some restricted hour parking (eg up to 4 hrs) for recreationaluse if this is deemed necessary (there is already provision elsewhere on the Downs in areas usedmore for recreational purposes). Some consideration should also be given to reducing the speedof traffic along Westbury Park Road and other roads within Westbury Park area- perhapsrestricting throughfare to residents only at certain times of the day, as has been introduced onother cut-through roads in Bristol - Westbury Park Road is a residential road not a B road.
Parking provision within the St Christophers site needs to include many electric charging points -not just a token 1 or 2, the deadline is fast approaching and provision is not increasing locally, allnew developments should be assuming all cars will be electric because that is the reality.
- The proposal includes no affordable housing and is not supported by an unredacted ViabilityAppraisal to justify such lack of provision, which is contrary to the adopted Development Plan. Thestated reasoning for the lack of provision is not consistent with adopted policies or adoptedsupplementary planning guidance.For these reasons, it is considered that the submitted application should be refused by the LocalPlanning Authority.
For these reasons, it is considered that the submitted application should be refused by the LocalPlanning Authority.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
1) The building of flats up to six storeys high is too big for the environment. It would bevisible from the downs and would overlook numerous properties surrounding.
2) Parking in Westbury park is already a problem. Waste lorries delivery vans all struggle. Allsurrounding roads endure parking on both sides of the road with only one lane available to copewith traffic going both ways. To add to this by building 120 properties with only 60 parking spacesis wrong.
Development of St Christophers is fine but this is over development which will affect the area to itsdetriment
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I completely understand the commercial impetus to redevelop the St Christopher's siteand the reality of this in terms of what has been proposed.However, I would like to object as follows:
1. Inadequate provision for parking on the site relative to the number of new units. Even whencouples are retired, they may still own two vehicles and therefore there will be a knock on effect insurrounding streets both for traffic and pressure on parking. You will absolutely know that the areais already beyond capacity for residents' parking with so many people parking up on pavements.Even as things stand, it is very hard to get around with a pram/pushchair or wheelchair/mobilityaid.
2. This area is classed as a conservation area and so the construction of buildings with six floorsseems completely out of keeping, particularly if they are visible from the Downs.
I hope that the planners will consider these objections and that they form part of a review of thecurrent plans for the site.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
Where to start?
Totally insensitive design for the area.
Impractical residental capacity, which would completely overload both the surrounding streets andlead to excessive detrimental environmental impact on air quality - quite the opposite of what theCity says it wants.
There's little point highlighting totally insufficient parking provision and overloading of the localroad system as there should not be this type of housing in this area, unless it is affordable housingfor key workers. It comes across as greed and not the sort of message a heritage city like Bristolshould be encouraging: London developers can simply bribe/buy their way through local planningdepartments with little regard for the historical value of teh area.
The hell existing developments have foisted upon residents, from the noise pollution, to HGVvehicles clogging up the roads, to the dirt and total disregard to existing residents scream thiswould be insane to allow this development to proceed.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I am against this proposed development of the former St Christopher site due to thevast amount of new residents and their carers catered for. The local streets are alreadyoverburdened with the traffic volume and cars parking that the additional cars to be expected willcompletely overload this area. It is already very difficult to find a parking space close to ones homeand in the evening it can be very difficult to find anything even on the neighbouring streets. I wouldnot want this situation to worsen and be detrimental to the quality of life to the current residents.
In addtion the proposed multi storey new buildings are too tall and out of keeping with thesurrounding houses and will overshadow them significantly. Not an attractive outlook!
Furthermore I object to the very mature trees being felled for this development and the claim thatthere will be a net increase in biodiversity. This seems completely implausible.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
The education use of the site should be maintained as Bristol is in desperate need ofmore special educational needs (SEN) provision. SEN schools in the area are currently at fullcapacity, and the city and region faces a growing demand for more such schools. Morespecifically, I am currently at the early stage of establishing a SEN school focused on demandavoidant autism. On an initial assessment the St Christopher's site would look to be a very suitableoption for the school. My understanding is that finding a suitable site is perhaps the most criticaland limiting factor in trying establish a new school, and thus the loss of a potential site will havematerial impact on the likely success of my project. Overall, the development should be rejectedunder Policy DM5: Protection of Community Facilities, as reason for exemption (I) is not valid asthe loss of the existing community use would add to a shortfall in the provision of such uses withinthe locality and there is demand that is willing or able to make use of the building(s) and land (andthe other reasons for exemption are also invalid)
Additionally I would as a neighbour state that the proposed development is excessive in scale,with buildings out of proportion to the surrounding building and at inappropriately high density.Also the development of another gated community should be rejected - such communities suckthe life out of a neighbourhood, contributing nothing to the community (except traffic) - so insteadof a community asset we will have a community liability.
Note: this may be a duplicate comment - my first submission generated an error when submittedand I have had no confirmation so this a repeat.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
The Planning Inspectorate,
Temple Quay House,
2 The Square,
Temple Quay,
Bristol
BS1 6PN
18 May 2022
Dear Planning Inspectorate,
Community opposition to the proposed St Christophers development, reference: 22/01221/F
I'm writing to share my constituents' reservations about plans to build a luxury retirementcommunity at the St Christopher's School site in Henleaze in my constituency. Local residentshave noted the risk of environmental damage, lack of affordable housing and lack of SENprovision as concerns about this development.
I note that over 300 objections to this proposal have been submitted. While residents do notoppose developing this land with sustainable and affordable housing, I understand that thisdevelopment is a high-density, luxury and car-centric development.
Current plans allocate only 65 parking spaces for over 240 permanent residents and additionalcare staff and visitors. This area has limited public transport connectivity and constituents areconcerned that the lack of on-site parking in the proposals will worsen traffic, air pollution andpedestrian safety in the narrow neighbourhood streets surrounding the development.
I hope that appropriate consideration is given to the concerns raised by my constituents on thisissue.
Kind Regards,
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I have attended both site meetings on this development.
Changes in the proposal:There was a reasonable first open meeting onsite, with the original plans, but then I feel we were'hoodwinked' and major changes have been made to arrive at this current overdevelopment. Thescale, size and height of the buildings are far too demanding for such acreage, particularly in theseenvirons.Illustrations in the press romanticise the development, but in reality, it is a very poor addition to ourarea. Furthermore, it will severely impact particularly on adjacent properties and in the beautifuland currently architecturally harmonious area of Westbury Park.The adjacent properties will be threatened with overbearing structures and light loss, with themonstrous 5 and 6 storeys proposed. The first meeting stressed that proposed new structureswould not exceed the height of current buildings on the site.
SEND - Special Educational Needs:These vulnerable young people have been uprooted and dispersed far and wide creatingconfusion, and impacting on their welfare and that of their families. The closure of St Christopher'sand Aurora means that there will be no SEND residential provision in Bristol, and presents a poorindictment on our city.
Nature and planet:
Biodiversity will be severely impacted, trees are the essence of this area.
Traffic and parking overload:This is already a severely challenged area, with very narrow roads. This proposed developmentprovides woefully inadequate parking for the proposed occupants, let alone their visitors andattending care staff. This will further impact on the already challenged parking in Westbury Parkwhich currently cannot cope and presents a danger to all pedestrians, particularly those pushingbuggies, those in wheelchairs and those necessitating mobility scooters as a mode of transport.The new plans now include an access point near the nursery and school in Bayswater Rd,however, previous plans said that no access would occur there, sadly this has not been adheredto. It will present a real risk to young Primary school students, who are trying to gain independenceand confidence that is beneficial to their age and development.
Listed Conservation area:Planners and local residents are required to be responsible for tasteful sensitive heritage planning- this design falls far short of blending in with current period buildings in the area, particularly ofGrace House
Affordable housing:There is a desperate need in Bristol for this, however, no allowance has been made at all in thisdevelopment, the plans are aimed towards the monied members of society.
Ageing:This development falls short in the care of the ageing population that they are trying to appeal to.The upcoming elderly will face the insecurity of where to go after their health deteriorates shouldthey become infirm. This impact on future occupants will threaten their security at a vulnerablestage of their lives - where next? It will necessitate the further upheaval to another dwelling at asusceptible time of their lives. Sadly, this development does not support long term care for theoccupants who chance to suffer severe health decline and require the specialist provision, thismight be likely to arrive swiftly and alarmingly!
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
The council needs more Sen provision. This should be bought by the council toaccommodate some of the SEN kids with no school provision. Schools should not be turned intoflats!!!
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I object to this application as I believe the proposed buildings are too high -and quitestylistically unsuitable- for this area of late Victorian Bristol-and thereby too intrusive into thecurtillages of the surrounding properties (not just the adjacent properties) and would also bedetrimental to the Downs Conservation area in as much as the building are complete eyesores.300 metres away we already have several high and hideous blocks of flats erected in the 1960's -and we Bristol residents have no wish for further and additional eyesores.Secondly the additional traffic generated and parking required would put an additional burden onthe residents-and the regular Westbury Park road users.Thirdly I suggest that there already too many retirement homes and retirement flats in the vicinitythe most recent one being "The Vincent" which completed two years ago is still not full. Retirementresidential arrangements have no need to be put into or near, by their very purpose, urban orsuburban areas and can as easily located out of these areas.I conclude by suggesting to the Committee that they refuse this application forthwith with thesuggestion that something much more in keeping with the existing architecture-and with lowerdensity - is submitted if a re-application is made.Many thanks for the opportunity to object.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
Over-development in a conservation area. The proposed new buildings are obtrusiveand out of scale with the surrounding area.
Too great a loss of established trees and green space which have provided a safe habitat forwildlife over many years.
Parking space is already at a premium. The area cannot cope with greatly increased requirementsfrom residents, visitors and ancillary staff.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
The only reason for yet another gated community is as an educational establishment.We do not need more exclusive 'retirement living'.
There may be a demand for older people's housing and people ready to 'downsize' but when suchproperties are as expensive as larger houses, with exorbitant service charges, they won't bemeeting the needs of the average Bristol pensioner!
We desperately need more SEND provision. There are families in Bristol falling apart because theneeds of their children are not being met by Bristol's current offer.
This site is designated for education. It must remain so. If it is changed, the chances of findinganother site are minimal, let alone one with an existing education designation.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
This should be used as a SEN school. There is a crisis with not enough places in Bristolfor SEN pupils.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
Bristol could save millions in SEN costs in the long term if it rejects developer's plans forSt. Christopher's School. There are very reasonable grounds for this historic site being returnedfor use to the kind of families who set it up in the first place.Cllr. Tim Kent helped the Council to buy nearby St. Ursula's School so there's already a precedentand expertise.Please object here today to plans for more tree-destroying, high rise flats for the wealthy elderly.Ask the Council to enforce its requirement for SEN provision:
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I object on two counts as a previous resident of Bayswater avenue for over 30 years Ifear that the development will increase traffic around the area and westbury park school.
Secondly I object as I am a parent of a child with SEN who currently has to travel to southGloucester for his schooling because all the grant maintained special schools in Bristol are full thatcould meet his needs. There are over 250 children without a secondary place this year due toBristol not having capacity. The council needs to increase provision and the St Christopher's sitewould be a perfect location and setting for a new grant maintained school for children in Bristolwith Autism.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
There are aspects to this application which are to be commended. These include thebuilding in of community interests, and the underlying use of the site to offer support to a part ofthe community which needs it.However any value to the community is severely offset by the nature of the development itself.The density of the development is excessive even within its own terms of use, and the spatialimpact of the large buildings have a serious impact on the overall well being of the community andon the wider enjoyment of the area. In addition significant aspects of the development, such asassumptions on limited car use and parking needs, seem likely to exacerbate problems alreadyexisting in the area. The scale of this development needs to be seriously reviewed and modified.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I have read and support the submission by Professor Hambleton.
Damage to environment - the proposed development is grossly out of proportion to thesurroundings. The reference to "Villas", as Professor Hambleton has pointed out, is a distortion oflanguage and is misleading. Six storeys are in my opinion simply about maximising profit margins.Like most businesses, the developing company owes its first obligation in company law to itsshareholders, not to the community or even their own customers.
Road safety and parking - already an enormous problem locally. Many of us have had our vehiclesdamaged because of the narrowness of the available space. Pedestrians are impeded every dayas it is. The developers are looking to subsidise their scheme at the expense of existing residents -instead of devoting their precious space to parking on site - a clearly cynical move.
What will Bristol City Council spend its increased Council Tax income on? Better road surfaces,more local parking provision, parking charges or restrictions, other services for existing residents?
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I am a Bristol City Councillor, I currently sit on a scrutiny committee that looks ateducation including SEND. I am also a parent and advocate for my son who is autistic. I amobjecting to this planning application because the there are simply not enough Specialist schoolplaces to meet demand in Bristol and many children are without a school placement at all. Nothaving the required Specialist school placement effects the educational opportunity for some ofthe most vulnerable children with complex needs that cannot be met in a mainstream school, andthe consequences of those children's needs not being met are incalculable. Millions of pounds ofpublic money is being spent on Alternative Providers of education instead of specialist schools,this can't go on, children with disabilities desperately need financial investment in specialistschools including residential placements for the children with severe or complex needs otherwisethey end up in hospitals that aren't adequately equipped and with staff that aren't trained toeducate them. Education is a right not a privilege, a right that has already been stolen from somany children with additional needs in Bristol. Building homes on this site is not the answer, thereare many other sites more suited for this development. Building housing will only widen the gap inBristol's SEN provision and the ever increasing inequality children with SEND face, the families ofthese children already battling the local authority will be financially penalised through court actionfighting for a specialist school placement that currently doesn't exist.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I strongly object to the overdevelopment of this site and the negative impact it will haveon the whole community, not just those who live closest to it.
* The high rise blocks will be visually jarring and will irreparably damage the wonderful tranquillityof the area which benefits both residents and visitors. The loss of trees (we should be plantingmore - not cutting them down!) will make the situation worse.
*The surrounding roads cannot possibly cope with the inevitable increase in traffic and that isbefore the issue of inadequate parking on site is considered.
* Parking is already virtually impossible especially in late evening and car ownership is a necessityand not a luxury as the public transport system is not fit for purpose.It is not safe, especially for women, to have to walk the streets at night from where the nearest busstop is - assuming the bus turned up at all!
* Planning Departments should have a duty to protect the quality of life and wellbeing of residentswhen considering such proposals.Greedy developers are only concerned with maximising their profit and do not consider or evencare about the impact on the communities affected.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I would like to object to the proposed planning application on the basis that it is a severeoverdevelopment of the area. 4-, 5- and 6-storey buildings are totally out of keeping for the areaand would overlook neighbouring gardens which currently have a high degree of privacy. Thecurrent villas are historically significant buildings which should not be dwarfed by huge towerblocks, which are likely to be under-utilised as the recent development of The Vincent nearby isalso luxury retirement accommodation and has not been fully utilised.
I agree with the comments made by FODAG, particularly relating to the loss of trees and habitatsfor biodiversity with almost half of the trees being taken out for the development. The area beingpart of a conservation area (with literature being written on the historical nature of the area) it isimportant that any development needs to be in keeping and keep the necessary level ofbiodiversity for future generations. Trees take decades to become established and should not beremoved unless necessary, as they provide excellent habitats for numerous species.
I object to the proposal for an on-foot entrance at the end of The Glen, which is likely to makeparking on this road even worse as people will park and walk through to their property. Currentlymany houses on the road do not have drives, so it is necessary for them to park on the road andfrequently have to park a distance away. The proposal as it stands does not have enough parkingplanned, and would cause further strain on local parking.
Overall, the proposals need significant amendment to be suitable for the area.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
There are so many levels on which to object to this application that I hardly know whereto begin.
Heritage and Environment Impacts
Perhaps the worst aspects are the proposed impacts on Heritage and Environment. The proposalswould bring very acute overdevelopment in this conservation area. The proposed scale, mass andheight of the buildings are incongruous within the vulnerable heritage context of Westbury Parkand the listed Grace House. These buildings would be visible all over Westbury and would beoppressive and ugly for Westbury Park residents. I dread it.
Of course, this overdevelopment can only be made at the expense of the trees and habitats thatexist within the proposed development site. Too many trees would be lost to us, many of themvaluable specimens that make an immeasurable contribution to the character and appearance ofthe area. The proposal would without question make a very harmful impact on the nature andwildlife of Westbury Park.
Loss of SEND provision / Too much Retirement Provision
I am familiar with both of these.
First, I have known people who have had children resident at St. Christophers and my wife and I
brought up a niece with Special Educational Needs. We know well that there is a critical shortageof Special Educational Needs and Disability infrastructure and facilities in the Bristol Area. Ourcommunity should not be losing SEND provision; it should be growing it.
Second, my wife was admissions manager at the enormous St. Monica Trust, a world famous careand dementia home, just a few hundred yards away from Westbury Park, across the Downs. Alsowithin a few hundred yards are numerous other, smaller care homes and facilities offeringexcellent service and coverage.
It is clear that we have adequate Retirement Provision in the area and would be damaged bybeing swamped by more, densely packed into this development.
Road Safety, Traffic and Parking Impacts
Five members of our family, over two generations, have attended Westbury Park School.
Both of our two daughters live in roads that enter Bayswater Avenue and Etloe Road.
We are very familiar with the dangerous traffic environment in which the school has to operate andalso the dreadful parking crisis in Bayswater Avenue and Etloe Road.
The proposal is totally inadequate in its provision for transport, parking and highway access. Thisis because there is very self-evidently insufficient on-site parking provision and inappropriateaccess arrangements to the site. The proposed means of access onto Bayswater Avenue/ EtloeRoad near the Daisychain Nursey and opposite the entrance to St Helena Road causes thegreatest concern over the dangers that it will create to school children and residents.
The whole proposal, will increase the road safety risks in an area where this is already asignificant concern.
Parking is already a serious issue in Bayswater Avenue and Etloe Road. There is no sparecapacity to accommodate the road parking of large numbers of residents of the proposeddevelopment.
We already suffer from non-resident commuters parking in our community before onward travel towork in Bristol. We have no more capacity for non-residents, such as the potential occupants ofthis development.
Lack of Affordable Housing
There is no provision in the proposal for affordable housing for our younger community membersand no cogent reason is given for this lack of provision.
Conclusion
I object forcefully to this planning application and can find nothing in it to benefit or enhance ourcommunity.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
As a local resident, I am opposed to the current plans for development of the StChristopher's site for the following reasons:
- Impact of increased traffic accessing the site, resulting in detriment to local residents and safetyof pedestrians and pets, especially children as Bayswater proposed entrance is right next to localschool and the nursery. Safety, noise and pollution concerns. Proposed entrance on BayswaterRoad is the bigger problem. It will make our quiet residential streets much busier.- Impact to parking - there doesn't appear to be sufficient parking provision within the plans tosupport no. of residents, visitors and associated staff, overflow would be onto local streets that arealready crowded with no RPZ in place- Impact to privacy of surrounding properties with proposed height of development. This is out ofkeeping with properties in the area which is a conservation area. Proposed height of buildings willbe visible far from the site. Height should not exceed that of existing buildings (standard regulationwhen rebuilding on existing site)- Impact on biodiversity with removal of trees and wildlife habitat if development goes head to thedetriment of the environment.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
The scale of the proposed site is disproportionate to all its surrounding and theinsufficient parking facilities will mean even more pressure on parking and road safety in alreadyover crowded roads.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
We strongly oppose this.We live on St Helena Road and object to this development which is out of place in our area as it isnot in keeping with its historic character and overall size and type of buildings. It will also createmuch busier and noisier surroundings in what is currently a quiet area.
We have always loved the quiet, peaceful, local character of the area, and the historic nature ofthe buildings and the conservation area. This is what we have chosen to live in, not a much busierarea which is inevitable with the proposed development.
Similarly, this will also impact on the tranquility of Durdham Downs where I go for regular walksand take my grandson to play. At the moment it is a quiet and never too busy safe space which Iwould like to keep that way. It will also spoil the view from the Downs.
Parking and traffic are already an issue with narrow streets and often a lack of on street parking.The last thing the area needs is increased traffic and more cars trying to park. It will also make itless safe for the children attending the local primary school and nursery. We are also particularlyconcerned about the planned vehicle entrance at the junction of Etloe Road, Bayswater Avenueand St Helena Road which is very close to our property and would make that junction even moreunsafe than it is already. Increased traffic will also increase pollution locally.
The further environmental impact of the proposed development, with 50% of trees being felled andimpact on biodiversity is also completely unacceptable.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I would like to see an appropriate redevelopment of St Christophers, which is animportant site adjoining the Down's that has been providing special needs schooling within theWestbury Park community for many years.
I do not believe the submitted application is appropriate for the following reasons:
- The proposed scale, mass and bulk of the proposals is inappropriate within this sensitiveheritage context and will give rise to unacceptable impacts on heritage assets and townscape.The scale, massing and height of the proposed development would unacceptably alter the existingcharacter and street scene along Westbury Park, Royal Albert Road, Etloe Road, The Glen,Bayswater Avenue and Belvedere Road, where the scale of existing development ispredominantly 2/3 storeys. The scale and bulk of the proposal sits uncomfortably within the plotand would constitute a cramped form of development.
The South side of Royal Albert Road will suffer light loss due to the proximity and height of theproposed development and trajectory of the sun. A combination of the height of the proposedbuildings and loss of trees will also introduce overlooking and loss of privacy for the propertiesimmediately bordering the site.At 6 storeys in height, elements of the proposed development are up to 4 storeys taller than manysurrounding buildings in the area. This is inappropriate in design terms, failing to respect the richand historic character of the existing townscape. The proposed development itself will result in asubstantial degree of change which will have a notable impact on the street scene and will sit at
odds with the important elements of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, thusimpacting upon its overall heritage significance.The proposed development would be harmful to the existing townscape character by virtue of theincreased height and stark uninteresting residential form of the scheme which will mean thedevelopment will be visible from, and within the context and setting of designated heritage assetsadjoining the Downs. Furthermore, the removal of existing trees which currently provide screeningto the site would cause further harm to the visual impact of the development on the surroundinglandscape
- In the context of an increasing need for SEND accommodation in Bristol, the applicant has failedto satisfy the requirements of BCS12 and DM5 which seek to safeguard community facilities;
- The extent of tree loss proposed in inappropriate, particularly so in terms of high quality individualspecimens which make a valued contribution to the character and appearance of the ConservationArea. A total of 82 individual trees were surveyed on site and summarised in terms of their qualityin accordance with the recommendations of the BS5837 quality category. The developmentproposes to retain 43 urban street trees, with 39 individual trees, plus 3 groups of trees and fourhedges being proposed for removal, equating to approximately 50% of the existing trees on site.The tree survey states that 18 of the 39 trees proposed for removal are of moderate to high-quality (4 high-quality, 14 moderate quality) with their retention therefore desirable in accordancewith the BS5837 guidance.Whilst it is acknowledged that the removal of trees is an inevitable consequence of development,the loss of so many high-quality trees is not deemed to be essential to the redevelopment and hasnot been appropriately justified. It is considered that such an extent of loss is again indicative of adesign proposal that constitutes overdevelopment of the site.In light of the above, the proposal is considered to cause significant damage to the local greeninfrastructure network and environment, with the quantum of tree removal not deemed necessaryfor the redevelopment of the site. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies BCS9 of theCore Strategy and DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Local Plan.
- The proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms, owing to insufficient on-siteparking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements, which will increase the roadsafety risks in an area where there is already a significant concern.Policy DM23 (Transport Development Management) of the Local Plan outlines that newdevelopment should not give rise to unacceptable traffic conditions and will be expected to providesafe access to the highway network. The policy also outlines that new development should beaccessible by sustainable transport methods such as walking, cycling and public transport.Furthermore, the policy sets standards for parking provision.The planning application does not provide any estimates of the actual expected parking needs ofthe residents, staff and visitors for a new Extra Care scheme, and does not claim to be able tomeet these without any overspill on to surrounding roads. Instead, the proposed number ofparking spaces is based on:
- an interpretation of the parking standards for C2 (residential care homes where residents don'thave cars);- comparison with parking provided at a small number of non-similar schemes; and- a comparison with the number of cars parked in a small non-comparable (social rent) shelteredhousing scheme, in a small town in Northern Ireland, on one day in early 2019.The proposal is for 122 units comprising 111 two-bed and 11 one-bed dwellings. The TransportStatement estimates approximately 15-20 staff on-site at any time. The applicant has onlyincluded 65 spaces for a site of 122 primarily 2-bed apartments, which could accommodate up to244 residents. None of the supporting information provided within the transport Statementsuggests that this will be enough to accommodate for all residents, staff and visitors. TheTransport Statement in the application does not demonstrate that the parking provided will besufficient to avoid overspill.The applicant justifies their plans with numerous subjective assertions, but these are notevidenced by any quantified assumptions, data or research to show the actual likely parkingrequirements of the residents, staff and visitors. A more realistic estimate has I understand beenproduced by SCAN which estimates parking requirements for the development would be 116spaces, made up of:- - -
76 spaces for residents' cars2 car club and 1 mini-bus space37 spaces reserved for staff and visitors.
I personally think that every new household purchasing at the start of this development will have atleast 1 car. These are not the sick and ill elderly- the property development rules do not allow forthe infirm to live there and the generation and socio-economic group that it will draw from are thecar generation who will still, quite rightly, be going out engaging in activities/social events but areunused to travelling by bus.
It is well known that the residential roads surrounding the site already face issues with over-demand of parking, and the associated road safety issues. These roads have no spare capacity toaccommodate the likely over-spill from the new development, and the extra volume of cars lookingfor spaces will exacerbate the current safety concerns.
Obviously, the ultimate parking needs will be based on a number of factors and cannot bepredicted with 100% accuracy. However, it should be recognised that the nature of the location -closely surrounded by residential roads - means that if the estimates lead to insufficient parkingon-site, residents, staff and visitors will seek to park on the neighbouring roads, and this impactcannot be managed by the developers (or BCC) once the site is occupied.
There must therefore be a clear onus on the applicant to provide sufficient parking, based onrealistic estimates, to reduce, as far as reasonably possible, the risk of this occurring. Instead,their provisions are, at best, based on unenforceable best case wishful thinking. Most of theapplicant's case seems to rely on a suggestion (Transport Statement 6.21) that "parking provisionis in line with other similar schemes". However, the amount of parking provided on these othersites is not relevant in determining the actual parking needs of this site.Appendix E to the Transport Statement indicates that the comparison site is TRICS ref TY-03-P-01. The referenced site is a small retirement housing scheme in a small town in Northern Ireland,providing socially rented housing. No care is provided, solely an (off-site) alarm service, and thereare no community facilities. Units are primarily single occupancy, distorting the pro ratacalculation.This site is clearly not sufficiently similar to St Christophers Square to provide any meaningfulcomparison data. The context of the site has not been remotely taken into consideration within theassessment, with no regard for existing environmental factors such as the presence of a PrimarySchool (Westbury Park) & Nursery (Daisychain) and existing parking conditions & trafficmovement.Finally, it should be noted that the applicants themselves do not claim that there will be nooverspill on to surrounding roads - their plans appear to be justified primarily by a highly tenuousand limited comparison with 1 day of trip analysis at a completely non-comparable site. For adevelopment of this size and complexity, this cannot be seen as anything approaching a reliablebasis for the limited parking provision. The plans presented in the first pre-app included 120spaces, and even then, they referred to the potential need for a residents parking scheme to avoidover-spill into the surrounding streets. This suggests that the applicant is in fact aware of the likelynumber of parking spaces required to avoid overspill, but has reduced the planned provision from120 to 65 for their own undefined reasons.The road safety issues within the vicinity of the site have been acknowledged by Bristol CityCouncil, who rejected two recent planning applications - 19/93194/F and 20/06030/F - due to theadditional parking demands they would place on these roads, and the impact on road safety.Additionally, the report from the Planning Inspectorate in response to an appeal on 19/93194/Fupheld the Council's decision, summarising that "I found that parking is at a premium, which iscurrently causing significant hazards for all users of the highway1."The parking issues on these roads are even acknowledged by the applicant, who states(Transport Statement 6.7) that "Roads to the south such as The Glen and Belvedere Road are onthe edge of the residents parking zone and have issues with lack of on-street parking forresidents". A recent poll of local residents found that 81% of the 298 respondents see issues withparking in Westbury Park having a dangerous impact on road safety, with 67% having witnessedaccidents, incidents or near misses in this area (44% more than once). This can only increase witha further 50+ cars circling the roads competing for rare spaces. "The parking survey undertaken by local residents indicates a significant existing shortfall inexisting parking, with the parking pressures most severe during the working week, principallyowing to commuters who seek to avoid the restrictions imposed by the Residents Parking Zonewithin the locality. The parking situation often results in vehicles already having to park on
pavements and into the middle of the road on the roads surrounding the proposed site, causingcongestion and conflict which is exacerbated by two-way carriageways which creates a hazard forall road users and residents. This issue is particularly pertinent as the peak parking pressures willcoincide with the working hours for staff at the redeveloped St Christophers - where the proposedlevel of provision will not cater for staff demand.
During rush hour Westbury Park Road is used as a 'main road' for cars trying to get out of Bristoland heading towards White Tree roundabout. Cars currently queue twice daily creatingunacceptable/illegal pollution levels for current residents, adding to the car numbers will onlyexacerbate this issue. Furthermore cars frustrated by the queue on Westbury Park Road useRoyal Albert Road and Etloe Road to race down to try and 'beat the queue' by joining traffic onNorth Street which has right of way above those queuing on Westbury Park Road. They do notstick to the 20 mile speed limit in their desire to beat the queues. This combined with cars parkednose to bumper and on pavements is a dangerous combination for local residents (pedestrians,cycles and car users).The proposed scheme does provide some negligible mitigation in the form of a raised speed table,implementation of double-yellow areas and dropped kerbs to assist pedestrian crossings,however, these limited benefits are not considered sufficient to justify the significant impact on theoperation of the local highway network, and indeed will themselves result in further reduction in theavailability of on-road parking for current residents.
Overall, it is clear that there is simply no basis for assuming that the planned parking provision issufficient for the parking needs at this location. There will be a significant overspill, which willincrease risks to road safety in the surrounding residential streets. The applicant has not providedany reliable information to support that 65 spaces will be sufficient for the needs of all residents,staff and visitors to the site and the transport submission fails to identify the full range of impacts.In consequence, its assessment of the impact upon the local road network is both incomplete andunreliable, with no evidence that the proposal is acceptable. Consequently, it is recommended theLPA take a precautionary approach when assessing highway impacts.It is also evident that the formal submission has not taken into account the advice from TransportDevelopment Management (TDM) in respect of the ongoing operation of the access from EtloeRoad. The formal advice issued at the Pre-Application stage was clear in that this must beaddressed, owing to the proximity to the existing Nursery, large Primary School and the St HelenaJunction, which would give rise to highway safety concerns for pedestrians & vehicles leaving thesite. Residents are also concerned that the proposed pedestrian access to The Glen wouldincrease the risk of it being used for overflow parking.Overall, it is therefore concluded that the proposal, as submitted, would harm highway safety.Policies BCS10, DM2 and DM23 of the Development Plan require safe streets integrated with thedevelopment, the regulation of parking impacts from shared housing and the avoidance ofunacceptable traffic conditions.Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that "Development should only be prevented or refused onhighway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual
cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe." It is clear that the developers are notproducing sufficient parking to avoid an unacceptable impact, and the application should thereforebe refused on these grounds.
As a minimum the research provided by Scan during this process illustrates the need for BCC tointroduce a Residents Parking Scheme in Westbury Park for current residents to mitigate thesafety issues by reducing the number of cares cruising the area for parking spaces and blockingvisual for pedestrians and cyclists (in particular children walking to school who are short and cannot see over cars). New residents on the St Christophers site (in whatever form the developmenttakes) should be provided with sufficient parking onsite giving regard to realism not an idealisticview of what either the developers would like to maximise profits the council thinking that everyonewill make do with a bike. On Westbury Park (Road) specifically this could take the form ofresidents parking perhaps mixed with some restricted hour parking (eg up to 4 hrs) for recreationaluse if this is deemed necessary (there is already provision elsewhere on the Downs in areas usedmore for recreational purposes). Some consideration should also be given to reducing the speedof traffic along Westbury Park Road and other roads within Westbury Park area- perhapsrestricting throughfare to residents only at certain times of the day, as has been introduced onother cut-through roads in Bristol - Westbury Park Road is a residential road not a B road.
Parking provision within the St Christophers site needs to include many electric charging points -not just a token 1 or 2, the deadline is fast approaching and provision is not increasing locally, allnew developments should be assuming all cars will be electric because that is the reality.
- The proposal includes no affordable housing and is not supported by an unredacted ViabilityAppraisal to justify such lack of provision, which is contrary to the adopted Development Plan. Thestated reasoning for the lack of provision is not consistent with adopted policies or adoptedsupplementary planning guidance.For these reasons, it is considered that the submitted application should be refused by the LocalPlanning Authority.
For these reasons, it is considered that the submitted application should be refused by the LocalPlanning Authority.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I would like to submit my object to the proposed development of St Christopher's SchoolWestbury Park Bristol BS6 7JE.
- First of all I'm concerned about the loss of SEND provision. St Christopher's has been integral tolife in Westbury Park and has provided a school for children with special educational needs &disabilities for 70+ years and on a personal note this included my cousin who is now in his sixties.There is a duty on the Local Planning Authority to safeguard places for suitable accommodationand Development Plan Policies BCS12 and DM5 protect community facilities like St Christopher's.The developer has failed to satisfy the requirements of this policy.
- The plans offer no provision for affordable housing, even though it's a key target for Bristol CityCouncil and the Government. The developers have previously told us that affordable housing isnot compatible with their business model.
- Parking - the plans only provide 65 on-site parking spaces for more than 120 housing. Localroads have no spare capacity and this is likely to lead to increased hazards, like blockedpavements and choked junctions - especially close to the nurseries and Westbury Park PrimarySchool.
- The new apartment blocks will overwhelm the setting of the important listed building (GraceHouse). The plans are entirely inappropriate for a site within the Downs Conservation Area andinsensitive & out of keeping with the heritage & character of Westbury Park.
- The enormous size and scale of the proposed scheme is not in keeping with the surroundingconservation area or houses. The largest blocks of flats (up to six storeys high) will be visible fromthe Downs. The close proximity of new buildings will impact on the light, privacy, noise,overshadowing and amenity of existing properties nearby.
- 50% of trees on-site would be felled, including beautiful, mature specimens that would takedecades to replace. Loss of green space on the 'Granny Downs' with a new path cutting across it.Loss of much of the copse visible from Bayswater Avenue/Etloe Road. The site is home towoodpeckers, owls, bats and foxes. Extra vehicles and traffic congestion will inevitably have animpact on air pollution.
- Information about the development has been badly managed and inadequate communityconsultation - from the lack of transparency and proper recording of public sessions, to themisleading and insufficient information available at key points, to the biased questionnaires andonline surveys. There has also been a lack of response from the developers to the consistent andclear messages from the community and the developers have not explained why these mainconcerns have been ignored.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
Whilst I would support a sensitive and appropriate development of this site, the currentproposals are unsatisfactory. As a resident of a neighbouring street which is just outside an RPZ, Iam concerned that the development as currently proposed would exacerbate the current parkingcongestion. Although I cannot see the site from my address, I feel the height of the proposeddevelopment is wholly out of keeping with the character of the area, where dwellingscharacteristically do not exceed three stories. The visual impact on the surrounding area,particularly the view from the Downs, seems oppressive.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
Damage to Heritage: The proposals amount to severe overdevelopment in aconservation area. The proposed scale, mass and bulk are inappropriate within the sensitiveheritage context of Westbury Park and the listed Grace House, and the scheme will give rise tounacceptable impacts on the townscape.Damage to the Environment: There will be too many trees lost and a detrimental impact on nature& wildlife, losing high quality specimens that make a valued contribution to the character andappearance of the Conservation Area.Road Safety, Traffic & Parking: The proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms,owing to insufficient on-site parking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements,which will increase the road safety risks in an area where this is already a significant concern. Thiswill be exacerbated during the development phase of this project as entrance and egress from thesite by heavy plant, trucks and machinery will cause major disruption and increased road safetyissues in an area that is already of major concern.Lack of Affordable Housing: The proposal includes no affordable housing and is not supported byany evidence to justify such lack of provision.Loss of SEND provision: In the context of an increasing need for SEND accommodation in Bristol,the developers have failed to comply with council policies that seek to safeguard communityfacilities.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
It is clear that the planning approach of this development has maximizing profits as itshighest priority.
This development will have a detrimental effect on traffic and parking in the area. With two childrencurrently attending Westbury park school this is a concern. We already have a non-enforced 20mph limit on the local roads, with traffic regularly above these speeds especially alongColdharbour road. You can stand in our street in the morning watching commuters circle roundwaiting for residents to leave so they can park, a huge issue since the introduction of the RZPwhich boundary stops one street away. Driveways and junctions are regularly blocked byinconsiderate parking. All of these issues will only get worse.
How this development fits into a conservation area is beyond me. Surely the whole point of aconservation area is stop this sort of overdevelopment.
The area does not need another high end development for older citizens, The Vincent which hasbeen built around the corner is still half empty. This whole site would have been better used foraffordable housing.
Environmentally this is terrible with so many mature trees being removed, removing habitats, inthe current climate a disastrous move.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
The scheme is an over development of the site and will have a negative impact on thearea, both visually and environmentally. My primary concern is for the increased traffic anddemand for off street parking that the development will inevitably bring. The surrounding streetsare already heavily congested and the on site parking seems woefully inadequate. I would also beworried about having an access point to the site so close to both a nursery and a primary school.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
Aurora Group Objection to St Christopher's Development
Over development and over scaling
The proposed scheme is far too large for the area and is a clear sign of over development. It is toohigh and therefore dominates the sky line, and is completely inappropriate for the area. It is tooclose to the surrounding buildings and has too many units.
The development of this parkland site, should be within the character of the existing buildings, andthe scale should be subservient in height and aesthetic to the villas that make the area so special.The Downs conservation area works hard to ensure this, and this is a pure disregard for what wein the community are trying to protect.
The proposed 5 storey building that will overlook Hyde Lodge to the North-East will minimise lightand take away any character that was enjoyed in the garden. 5 storeys is out of character for thearea, as there is nothing of the size existing.
The scale and over development will also have a negative effect on the Grade II listed building,Grace House. And will ensure that it loses its charm if this development is carried out.
Traffic and Noise
This proposed overdevelopment will generate an unmanageable amount of traffic. Considerablymore parking will be required and will increase the risk to road safety. Westbury Park, the roadrunning parallel to the site is a tight road which can only fit one car down it at a time, as well ashaving parking on the road itself, I cannot see how any more traffic can cope. The access to thesite is via 4 narrow roads, which are 1 in and 1 out. This will cause constant traffic jams, as it didwhen the site had significantly less inhabitants and employees. Kerbs and verges will beconstantly mounted, creating issues with the council and requiring constant maintenance
In summary, the level of danger and risk to people's wellbeing will rise with this proposeddevelopment.
Safeguarding
Hyde Lodge, part of The Aurora Group, is an Outstanding registered adult care home for 18 - 65year olds who have a range of diagnoses, including Autistic Spectrum Conditions. The care homebacks on to the site of the proposed development, it is hugely important for the quality of life forthe residents that they have a secluded and private rear garden to enjoy, as they can onoccasions be unable to access the wider community when dysregulated or because the widercommunity is too fearful a place for them to be part of. The proposed development will completelyoverlook their safe space, this is very likely to distress them and trigger unwanted behaviours. Inaddition it is of paramount importance that our residents are safeguarded at all times, butespecially in their own home when they should be afforded the privacy we take for granted. Thelarge balconies proposed that overlook the site are a huge intrusion on the privacy, security andsafeguarding of the site. We are regulated by CQC and inspected on a regular basis, and havingpeople overlook the property to that extent may cause significant issues with them and the localauthority.
In summary
This proposal is of gross overdevelopment and over scaling which will have a significant effect onthe local area and character of the Westbury Park and the Downs. Traffic will be raised to anunmanageable level and the safeguarding and wellbeing of our very complex students. We atAurora, strongly oppose the proposed development and believe it should be rejected.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I am very much against the proposals for the development of the St Christopher's site.The several -storey buildings proposed are not in scale or in keeping with those in the surroundingarea. They would dominate the skyline to the detriment of the characteristics and ambience ofWestbury Park. There would be increased traffic in an area which is already congested with on-street parking. The proposals are insensitive and I wish to register my objections to them.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
Stop selling land buildings etc to help wealthy people and support people who areneeding it
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
My seriously disabled, 17 year old daughter, with complex needs is being educated outof county because there is no suitable residential placement for her in the Bristol area.
I do not have words to explain how disappointed I am that St Christopher's will no longer offer thisto our local community.
I have to travel a round trip of 6 hours whenever I need to visit her.
For a city the size of Bristol this is a shocking position for parents of disabled children & youngpeople to be in.
In my experience, & because my daughter is educated out of county, 3 hours drive away, thespecialist provision in Bristol is at, or even past capacity. I couldn't find a place for her anywhere &she was out of education for one year while I found a suitable place. There is currently noresidential SEND school in Bristol. Like my daughter, all SEND children are sent to 'out of county'placements. Because Bristol cannot provide in-county residential care, it spends millions ofpounds on" out of county" placements for pre-16s, and for post-16s.
The city of Bristol has one of the worst SEN provisions in the UK. They have been taken to courtfor breaking the law. However, Bristol remains a mecca for SEN families. Bristol need to increaseand improve the SEND provision - not give an established, valuable resource away to developers,leaving an even bigger gap in provision & lining the pockets of the developers. Leaving SEND
families high & dry.
200 children with an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) on the waiting list for school. 45% ofthem want a special school. A further 460 children are still waiting for an EHCP, their passport toget the education they require. The majority are seeking a special school, not simply a unit in amainstream school.
The need for residential and respite care is huge, and the gap could be filled by using the existinghomes already on site, specifically Carisbrooke Lodge and the modern respite hostel (ColumbiaLodge).
It's too late for my daughter but for all the others in my position, please consider the costeffectiveness of refusing change of use from an educational establishment and insisting on SENDand residential/respite provision.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
I understand that the developer's application states that there are 'enough' specialschool places in Bristol.
Being a local SEND parent I can state that this is categorically not the case.
My own child has not been in education for three years due to lack of specialist school places.After undergoing Tribunal against Bristol LA I have now secured a place in the only school thatcan meet needs. This is out-of- county and a return journey of 50 miles away. She will be shippedout every morning in a taxi with other Bristol children. Travelling distance is likely to mean that theplacement will fail. There will then be no school at all for my child within daily travelling distance.
Each year around 250 SEN children in Bristol do not have a secondary school place. Many moreare in totally unsuitable 'Alternative Provision' with little educational input and no prospect of re-integration back into education. Many of these children have statutory EHCPs which are blatantlynot being adhered to.
Every year Bristol is failing the most SEN vulnerable children. SEN children are missing theirentitlement to education along with social contact and peer contact. SEN parents are underconsiderable stress and financial pressure.
Bristol desperately needs a SEN school that is able to meet the needs of the local population.
I object to this site being re-developed for commercial gain when it could be retained as a SENschool which could considerably alleviate the above.
I would suggest the developers check exactly how many SEN children do not have a secondaryschool place at all this September 2022 before making further claims regarding SEN provision inBristol.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
This site offers a unique opportunity to create a small forward looking neighbourhood atthe heart of this well established community. It could be a chance to increase the range of housingthat is available in the area, including affordable homes. It could showcase sustainable living whilstbeing sensitive to the site's many attributes and its low-rise context.
Unfortunately this project is underpinned by a rather homogenous concept and is at the same timeover-ambitious in its scale. This has materialised into a proposal which would appear to impactimpact excessively on its surroundings without offering many benefits to the wider community.
The loss of so many mature trees and so much natural habitat as a result of the development isparticularly depressing and can't really be mitigated against.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
The proposed development will irrevocably destroy the historic context of this building,and will remove an essential asset from community access.
It will provide short term gain but in the long term will be damaging to the local economy, and tothe prosperity of the local community as it provides a " gated " community, in which the wealth ofresidents will be extracted primarily to the benefit of owners and not locals.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
This development would be a total travesty for the area. The plans for huge, tall modernlooking flats are totally out of whack with the beautiful heritage homes that make up the area.Bristol is home to some beautiful and historic neighbourhoods that have real local character whichdistinguish our city from others in the UK. Please let's stop building generic modern apartment andflats buildings every where and making every city look the same; take heed from Liverpool recentlyloosing its UNESCO world heritage status! Don't let Bristol be turned into a faceless metropolis,this is so out of keeping with everything else in the area- nothing around for miles is more than 3storeys high, it's just residential townhouses!The practical issues are terrifying in their range and breadth. One imagines a construction time tobe measured in months and years, over which the local infrastructure would burst at the seamswith the influx of construction traffic, workers and their vehicles. The roads around St Christopher'sare already have a high propensity for gridlock, and residents struggle to find parking in their ownstreet; we simply cannot be asked to cope with the inevitable HGVs pulled up on the kerbsblocking the roads for hours on end. Not can the locals be asked to fairly sacrifice their on roadparking for the enduring the staff of developers ruining their locality and neighbourhood. There issimply not the space. It should be pointed out that the local area is home to a multitude of carehomes- three on neighbouring Belvedere Road alone! Ambulance access along Westbury Park iscritically important to be open at all times- the blockage of these by builders' trucks and excesstraffic could have catastrophic consequences.Finally, what about when this supposed masterpiece is completed? 120 flats with a handful ofparking? Care facilities need huge numbers of visitors to keep them running; maintenance men,nurses, doctors, caters, chefs, cleaners, families and friends, not to mention the residents
themselves who will still wish to own a vehicle! Where are these excess vehicles going to beparked? It's simply impossible without acquisitioning most of the nearby downs and tarmacking itover for a parking lot! The area does not have the infrastructure for such a monstrosity. Pleaseplease for the love of Bristol, please don't let this go ahead.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
There is a huge lack of specialist provision within Bristol with a very high number ofpupils being sent out of county and many more in unsuitable provision awaiting specialist places.In addition, there are many pupils in alternative learning provisions (which are not specialistschools) who need specialist provision and many many EHCPs not yet finalised. There is noresidential schooling within Bristol. St Christopher's should remain a specialist school and be setup to meet some of the huge local need.
on 2022-05-18 OBJECT
The new buildings planned are totally out of keeping with the beautiful Victorian villasthat line the Downs. The plans resemble the blocks of flats that were allowed to be built during the60s/70s in Durdham Park when planning laws were less robust, so to allow these newdevelopments now would be a tragedy. The area cannot take additional road traffic or parking soto introduce such a large development should never be allowed.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I want to voice my objections to the plan for development of the St Christopher's site.
The buildings at 4, 5 and 6 storeys high are taller, bulkier and more massive than the existingsurrounding buildings and in particular will be built close to and will dominate the existing gracioushouses that were part of the school and which front onto the Downs. This development will impactnegatively the view from the Downs of the Westbury Park area. The view is a historic andimportant one and will be tragically lost if this development is permitted. It will be lost to the profitmotives of these particular developers.
I understand the proposal is for 120 dwellings. There is insufficient parking provided within thisproposed scheme. Whilst I believe parking may not be needed in decades to come due todevelopment of electric and shared cars, there will definitely be parking needed in the immediatefuture and this is not being planned. Parking in the surrounding streets is already under greatpressure. With so little spare capacity as it is, things will get very very much worse if 120 relativelyaffluent (car-owning) extra households are added to the mix. This will make crowded streets farworse and associated road safety risks will be augmented.We live on Florence Park and luckily have been able to create off-street parking in front of ourhouse which we use intensively. However visitors report to me that they find it near impossible tofind anywhere near us to park. Often having to park a couple of blocks away. Just a few extra carsadded by the development to this mix will put great pressure on the few available street parkingplaces and make parking for the existing community untenable.
I think that adding 120 high density dwellings to the community of Westbury Park is not anappropriate use of the historic area fronting onto the Downs. Rather than enhancing the existinghistoric area and amenity the current proposal overpowers, dominates and will supersede anddwarf the current historic strip.
The surrounds of the existing houses in that strip of houses facing the Downs have many tall andvery old trees in the gardens. I understand many of these will be lost in these development plans. Ifind this an unacceptable loss to the environment and detrimental to the character of WestburyPark.
I am bewildered as to why the regulators have allowed the SEND accommodation that wasprovided by St Christopher's to be utterly depleted like this. My understanding is that the currentdevelopers have failed to comply with council policies that seek to safeguard community facilitiesfor these children and their families. Provision of residential places for these families is anecessity, and it seems there is a dereliction of duty going on.
Further to this I am bewildered also as to why the provision of St Christopher's School wasallowed to close - without strong attempts to support and maintain it through a difficult period as aschool and resource for the society of Bristol. I fail to understand why it was allowed to be sold fora pitifully low price and why it is now that great profit is being made by those that seek to develop itas a site.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
Personal comments / own experience, etc.:
As a sixty-three year old resident of Westbury Park, I feel that I would greatly benefit from extracare provision - and would support the appropriate provision of this in my community.
However the Fore / Amicala / Socius proposal for the former St Christopher's site is UTTERLYINAPPROPRIATE for the site and for the Westbury Park community.
Hence I am OBJECTING to the proposal of Application number 22/01221/F.
I also want to point out that as an arts project creator and promoter, I had a number of excellentinteractions with Socius' Luke Martin regarding putting on my Heart of Christmas fundraisingproject at St Christopher's Grove Hall for 21st December 2021.The Heart of Christmas unfortunately had to be cancelled due to Covid restrictions.
Socius was a potential project partner with me in this venture - with mutual benefit.However this does not influence my OBJECTION to the Application number 22/01221/F proposal.
Loss of SEND provision:In the context of an increasing need for SEND accommodation in Bristol, the developers havefailed to comply with council policies that seek to safeguard community facilities.
The sequence of the loss of SEND provision by the demise is a SCANDAL.St Christopher's School originated as a private residential Steiner school for children with learningdifficulties - peaking to 50 children and young people.In 2016, St Christopher's was taken over by The Aurora Group.I understand that various decisions by the Aurora Group, including staffing changes, led to adegradation of services and provision for young people with learning difficulties, which in turn ledto poor Ofsted reports.Consequently this led to the school being permanently closed in March 2020 - and sold to thedevelopers FORE Partnership in May 2021.Young people with learning difficulties and their beleaguered families / relatives were sold downthe river.Who gains? - FORE Partnership by acquiring the site at a knock-down price, then developing andselling residential housing at a HUGE profit. This utterly stinks, and should be the subject of apublic inquiry.
Road Safety, Traffic & Parking:The proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms, owing to insufficient on-siteparking provision and inappropriate access / egress arrangements, which will increase the roadsafety risks in an area where this is already a significant concern.
Damage to the Environment:There will be too many trees lost and a detrimental impact on nature & wildlife, losing high qualityspecimens that make a valued contribution to the character and appearance of the ConservationArea.
Lack of Affordable Housing:The proposal includes no affordable housing and is not supported by any evidence to justify suchlack of provision.
Damage to Heritage:The proposals amount to severe overdevelopment in a conservation area. The proposed scale,mass and bulk are inappropriate within the sensitive heritage context of Westbury Park and thelisted Grace House, and the scheme will give rise to unacceptable impacts on the townscape.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I'm concerned about these plans for a number of reasons. Firstly, this is a conservationarea and the scale of the development is out of keeping with the heritage of the area. Secondly Ihave environmental concerns; the plans involve the removal of too many trees which will have animpact on nature and wildlife. Thirdly, the transport, traffic and parking impacts will be significant(in an already busy area).
I'm not opposed to any development here, but this scheme is truly a significant overdevelopmentand will have a detrimental impact on the area.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I strongly object to the proposed development at St Christopher's School, WestburyPark.The proposals represent a high-density development of enormous scale. There will be asignificant, negative impact on the environment and wildlife due to the loss of 58 mature trees, thefelling of which contravenes planning policy BCS9. Whilst new tree planting is proposed, it will takeapproximately 50 years to recover the ecological and environmental value of the mature trees.Given the high density of the development, insufficient parking and infrastructure are proposed toadequately provide for residents, carers, administrators, ground and estate management andvisitors. This will necessitate high traffic overflow onto the surrounding roads. The surroundingroads are small and serve a residential area with large pedestrian flow for local schools andnurseries. The increase in overflow traffic and parking for the proposed development will have astrong negative impact on road and pedestrian safety.I strongly object the the enormous scale and high-density of the proposed development of StChristopher's School and ask you to refuse the current plans.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I strongly object to the massive overdevelopment of this site and the irreparabledamage it will do to the heritage of the area .Consultation by the developers has been a farce carried out in process only. We still haven't seena viability report with only 2 days to go until the comments deadline .
The number, density and height of the buildings is inappropriate. They tower over the existingresidential properties and over Grace House .Many trees will be lost and there will be damage to wildlife.
Totally inadequate parking on site will inevitably increase safety risks on surrounding roads.Already congested the extra traffic will increase pollution and lead to even more illegal parking.Where exactly will residents, visitors, carers and other service providers park?To open up vehicular access on Bayswater Avenue will add to road chaos and even moreaccidents are inevitable. ( the last accident at the St Helena junction only a couple of weeks ago. )This is a road with a school, 2 playgroups and a Nursery.
I am so disappointed that this site isn't been used for much neede SEND provision . As aWestbury Park resident for 34 years, presumably a target potential resident for the new site, Iwouldn't consider living in the development for the above reasons.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
Proposal is out of keeping with the area
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
This development would compromise the safety of parents and young children ofWestbury Park School.Bayswater Ave and Etloe Rd see cars parked both sides of the road and on pavements every day,with the inadequate provision of parking on this this development it would cause devastating trafficissues to these roads.To plan a road junction leading into Bayswater by a nursery and local garage is a danger to allaround this location.The is a huge overdevelopment of this site and inappropriate for this conservation area.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I strongly object to the over development of this site in an already busy area. Westburypark already has serious parking issues, which and this will just amplify them.The provision for yet more accommodation for more mature people is simply not necessary asthere is already a glut of unsold properties for the over 55s unsold within a mile of the site.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
This development will be blocking light to existing homes, massively increasing trafficfumes and parking problems in an area already suffering from these, and risks having a significantimpact on the Downs which is an oasis of wildlife all Bristolians should be trying to pass on tofuture generations.
I believe a proper air quality assessment of the impact should take place before permission isgiven to ruin this area for greed.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
A developer submitting an planning application is one thing, but to do it using supportingdocuments which are wholly misleading to the point of questionably dishonest is not acceptable.
The report regarding Special Educational Needs provision in Bristol is simply inaccurate andmisleading and should not be used as a basis for making decisions on this development.
There is a critical shortage of specialist school places in the city, with children and young peoplebeing forced out of county. Those who require residential places are left with even fewer options.
The situation in Bristol became so dire that the mayor had to promise 450 extra places. So far, just142 of those have been created, with the LA having to look for more options to meet that target.
For a report to state there is a surplus of places is not only wrong, it is grossly offensive to everyfamily, child and young person whose lives are being detrimentally impacted by either having tolive and/or be educated miles from home or who are unable to even access education at all.
There are clearly many issues with this development all impacting on different communities. Butthis planning going ahead based on reports which do not honestly or fairly represent the realitiesof Bristol must not be allowed.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
While the principle of an appropriate and acceptable development at this site has meritthe current application, due to its sheer amount, height, mass, bulk and stark out of character formwill cause enormous visual harm and cannot be considered to conserve or enhance the characterof the Downs Conservation Area and is therefore contrary to Section 72 of the Planning (ListedBuildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and policies BCS22 and DM31.
It is also clear that the proposed development would give rise to an unacceptable level of transportand road safety issues, loss of residential amenity by an overwhelming sense of overbearing andloss of biodiversity due to unnecessary extensive removal of high-quality mature woodland trees inthe highly valued Downs Conservation area.
The development also does not contribute towards the Affordable Housing targets or SENDprovision, which Bristol clearly needs.
What is the justification for developing at this scale, mass and amount in the context of a highlyvalued conservation area?
It appears the applicant is stating their commercial business model can't operate, as desired, ifthey sympathetically adjust their design plans and have less flats.
The below was reported in The Bristol Cable last December at a public consultation, the developerwas quoted as stating: -
"The total number of units has been reduced to 125 to 120, which are made up of a mixture ofcottages and apartment blocks. But Martin said this total can't be reduced further, becauseotherwise the care model won't work, as residents will have to be charged more for their servicecharge. "
However, this appears to be an issue for the applicant's own financial decision making and not aplanning justification to approve a multi harmful development in a heritage conservation area,where no other application would stand a chance of being approved.
Furthermore, the applicant has not provided a viability assessment to qualify this position. Withoutsuch information Bristol City Council are unable to verify the justification for development at thisscale. They are being asked to establish that a developer's individual business model, and needfor financial return by building large bulky blocks of flats on The Downs, is more important thansafeguarding the conservation status of a heritage asset for future generations. If established,Bristol City Council may well then have no control over similar applications that might be submittedby other residential care developers in the location who want to build overbearing bulky new flatroof apartments to make their own operating model work.
Would the proposed development be out of scale or context with the surrounding area?
Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 indicates thatdevelopment proposals should conserve or enhance the character and aesthetic of designatedConservation Areas.
Policy BCS20 sets out the development should exhibit densities informed by characteristics of thesite and local context.
Policy BCS21 states that new development should deliver high-quality urban design whichcontributes towards the character and identity of the area.
Policy BCS22 states that development proposals should not undermine the character, significanceor setting of any designated heritage assets.
Policies DM26-27 (inclusive) of the Site Allocations & Development Management Policies requiredevelopment to contribute to the character of an area through its layout, form and building design.
Policy DM30 states that development proposals should respect the character, scale and form ofthe host property and preserve traditional architectural features.
Policy DM31 states that development proposals should not give rise to any unacceptable impactson the character or setting of designated heritage assets.
Any site visit taken by Planning Officers or City Design Group members will clearly identify theapplication design is in conflict with all these policies. The unsympathetic design is not in keepingwith the aesthetic of the Conservation Area and would cause visual harm from both long, andshort-range, views. To suggest otherwise by the applicant's own Heritage Assessment Statementwould be inaccurate.
Bristol City Council City Design Group and Planning Offices should consult with the applicant toidentify a high quality, conservation style design which respects and enhances the character of thearea.
In its current form the development would reinforce poor quality design which would be visuallyincongruous to the character of the buildings and its immediate surroundings
Is the impact of the proposed development on transport and highways acceptable?
Policy BCS10 states that development should be designed and located to ensure safe streetswhere traffic and other activities are integrated.
Policy DM23 outlines that development should not give rise to unacceptable traffic conditions andwould be expected to provide safe and adequate access onto the highway.
Policies BCS10 and DM23 outline that development should not give rise to any impact on parkingor vehicle access.
The application does not accord with these policies. Owing to insufficient on-site parking provisionand inappropriate access/egress arrangements, which will increase the road safety risks in anarea where this is already a significant concern.
Bristol City Council Transport Development Management should be highly concerned and has aDuty of Care over road safety. It is not acceptable in terms of highways and transport impacts.
Would the proposed development give rise to any unacceptable impacts on residential amenity?
Policy BCS21 states that new developments should safeguard the amenity of existingdevelopments.
Policy DM30 states that development proposals should not prejudice the existing and futuredevelopment potential of adjoining sites.
The proposed development would be of an unacceptable scale and mass and would give rise toan unacceptable sense of overbearing. The proposed new build section will unreasonably
overlook and dominate all the surrounding homes on the roads affected.
Does the proposed development give sufficient consideration to its environmental impact?
While the development is likely to accord with sustainable design and build standards such asPolicy BCS13, BCS14 and BCS15. There will be a significant, unjustified, loss of many maturewoodland trees and a detrimental impact on nature & wildlife. Losing high-quality specimens thatmake a valued contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Thisunique area requires safeguarding for future generations.
Furthermore, the lack of SEND provision and Affordable Housing creates an imbalance in the localcommunity.
While there is merit for an acceptable and appropriate development at this site, the harm thisparticular application will cause in its current form and scale cannot be considered acceptable andwarrants being refused.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
The buildings would be way too tall!
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I object to this planning application on the following grounds:- It will be out of keeping with the beautiful, historic buildings of the area.- It will create significant traffic and parking demand in an area ill-equipped to deal with it. TheDowns are a pleasure and exercise destination for so much of Bristol's population -- filling it withadditional traffic, and traffic fumes, will ruin this.- Given the climate emergency, cutting down even one tree, or compromising one natural beautyspot, is unconscionable. I object to this on every level.- Little heed has been given to the compromises suggested by local residents at an earlier stage inthe project. The developer is looking to maximise their investment, over and above anyneighbourhood or local considerations. It will not act as a community space or resource.- There is little shortage of accommodation for older people in and around the Downs. There is noadequate need for this project.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
Comment: I have the following concerns and comments regarding the proposeddevelopment:1. Its size is insensitive to the current buildings and environment. The proposed development isout of character as it is far taller than the local surrounding buildings. The maximum height shouldbe no higher than surrounding buildings.2. I am very concerned with the additional traffic, road safety and parking implications that thedevelopment might generate, in particular as there already issues in the local residential area.Westbury Park, including Cossins Rd, is the first non/RPZ area outside of the current RPZ areasso there are no requirements for permits and there are no parking restrictions. Apart from localresidents, the area is regularly used by:a. local residents and students from nearby RPZ zones parking vehicles and often for longperiods,b commuters who work in central Bristol and park up in the area and walk or take the bus in,c. staff working at the local primary school and pre-school settings,d. children and parents travelling to schools and pre-schools,e. staff and visitors to care homes in Belvedere Rd,f. builders and tradespeople who work locally,g. delivery drivers.Most roads in the area are narrow which often leads to pavement parking or inconsiderate parking.Vehicle and pedestrian movements are often hindered by parked vehicles.Therefore,- any provision for vehicle parking on-site must be more than sufficient to cater for all residents,
staff and visitors, and tradespeople during construction work, to prevent any overspill into analready congested residential area.- there should be no vehicle access/egress to the proposed site from Bayswater Ave.3. The number of mature trees lost is significant and unacceptable.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I object strongly to the proposals because they amount to severe overdevelopment in aconservation area. The height, number and size of the buildings are totally out of scale and arecompletely inappropriate for this residential area. They would be an eyesore and a blight on thelandscape.
The impact on the local traffic would be enormous. Roads which surround the site, such asWestbury Park, Clay Pit Road, Belvedere Road, The Glen, Royal Albert Road, plus many othersleading off them, are already completely full with parked cars and only allow flow of traffic oneway, regardless of the time of day, as a result. Overspill parking from the new site would havenowhere to go, and the increase in the overall volume of traffic would be bad for the environmentand increase the road safety risks, which are already bad with so many parked cars. Plus theincreased traffic would be bad for the environment in terms of vehicle emissions.
The loss of trees from the area would impact negatively on the area visually and be negative forthe local bird and wildlife.
I am not against the site being redeveloped, but it needs to be done with sensitivity to the localenvironment and on a scale which is appropriate.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
Road safety and traffic - there aren't enough parking spaces to accommodate proposedresidents, visitors, carers, administrators, maintenance and delivery personnel. This will impact thelocal area as additional parking will be needed on surrounding streets, which is already at apremium. There will be additional congestion and there is a high population of children inWestbury Park whose safety I would be concerned about. If there is an entrance betweenWestbury Park school and Daisy Chain Nursery that would increase my concern.
Impact on properties adjacent to the proposed site - the cottages will completely overshadowproperties on Bayswater Avenue. Whilst the plans show two storey buildings, they do not take intoaccount the difference in ground levels between Bayswater Avenue (lower) and proposed site(higher) creating an imbalance and a loss of light and privacy.
Damage to the environment - loss of trees and habitat for wildlife in the area is worrying.
Impact of the site being overdeveloped - the middle buildings are overpowering in height anddesign and the buildings aren't in keeping with the surrounding area.
Impact of noise - Westbury Park school backs onto the development and there could be anegative impact on the children's education if building work prolonged.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I wish to object to this proposal on several grounds.
Firstly, the scale of the proposed development is such that it will overwhelm the existing buildingsand neighbouring streets, and will have an adverse effect on the Downs Conservation Area.
Secondly, the number of parking spaces proposed is completely inadequate, and this willinevitably lead to traffic congestion, as well as parking and access problems on existing roads,which are already overcrowded.
Thirdly, the loss of mature trees will have a damaging effect on biodiversity and wildlife.
Finally, there is no provision for affordable housing in the development.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
As a local resident I object to the planning application proposed on the St. Christopher'sSite. I have included my main objections below but I would like to stress that the development, ascurrently planned, will have a negative impact on the wildlife of the area, the wellbeing of its localresidents and will cause parking chaos for an area which is already pushed to breaking point.
Damage to Heritage: The proposals amount to severe overdevelopment in a conservation area.The proposed scale, mass and bulk are inappropriate within the sensitive heritage context ofWestbury Park and the listed Grace House, and the scheme will give rise to unacceptable impactson the townscape.
Damage to the Environment: There will be too many trees lost and a detrimental impact on nature& wildlife, losing high quality specimens that make a valued contribution to the character andappearance of the Conservation Area.
Road Safety, Traffic & Parking: The proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms,owing to insufficient on-site parking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements,which will increase the road safety risks in an area where this is already a significant concern.
Lack of Affordable Housing: The proposal includes no affordable housing and is not supported byany evidence to justify such lack of provision.
Loss of SEND provision: In the context of an increasing need for SEND accommodation in Bristol,
the developers have failed to comply with council policies that seek to safeguard communityfacilities.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
We live at number 16 The Glen, the rear of our property backs onto the St Christophersite adjacent to Konig house.- A row of five 2-storey 'cottages' are proposed at the back of 16 The Glen, with windows lookingEast directly towards the large windows of our main living areas, main bedrooms and also ourback garden. This would result in a serious loss of privacy in our main rooms and amenity space,which is where most of our time is spent.- Block C (5 storeys high) and Block D (4 storeys) are considered to be very tall and overbearingbuildings, taking the place of a number of tall, mature trees and completely changing the trajectoryof the skyline. Block C would have multiple windows and balconies with views towards the mainwindows of no 16 and Block D looks directly towards the private back garden. Again, this would bedetrimental to our privacy.- 16 The Glen has its seven main habitable rooms facing west, all with large windows facingdirectly towards the cottages and diagonally towards block C. We use the private garden at theback of No 16 frequently throughout the year for gardening and recreational purposes. Wecurrently enjoy a high degree of privacy, which we value greatly.- In short, the proposed development would significantly impact upon the privacy of both theupstairs, downstairs and private garden space of 16 The Glen, for ourselves and any futureresidents.- I am also concerned about the potential for light pollution into our home from windows, stairs,and outside lighting on the site.I oppose the proposed development as the buildings are overbearing and out of character with theDowns conservation area and the character of Westbury Park.
Re the provision of access to the St Christopher site via the Glen. I oppose any vehicular orpedestrian access from the Glen as this will make the problem of parking in The Glen andBelvedere Road worse than ever due to overflow parking for the site, particularly for theneighbouring blocks of flats. The Glen is a cul de sac, with parking on both sides, and driversfailing to find a space at the far end have to reverse back down the narrow road and try to turn atthe junction of The Glen and Belvedere. This junction frequently has cars or vans parked on thecorners obstructing the view and making turning quite treacherous, particularly in reverse.Additional relevant points regarding this access are made in the submission by CSJ Planning onbehalf of SCAN Action Group - see item 2.2 on pages 75 & 76 of their submission. In particularthey quote the history on the current state of affairs in which access is not currently permitted forvehicles, and why access should not be allowed for either vehicles or pedestrians in the future.There has been discussion, and its not clear whether it is in current proposal, about accessthrough the end of The Glen to a community garden within the St Christophers site, whereWestbury park infant school also have access to the same space. Once parents find that there isaccess to the school via this route, there will be traffic chaos as parents drive up a cul de sac todrop off children and then reverse back out. On the grounds of safety and sensibility I object toaccess from the Glen that will lead to chaos and the safety risk to young children.The proposed development will involve removing half of the trees on the site, including a 2.8 metregirth Lime and 2.2 metre girth Sycamore. 58 trees of the total of 121 trees on the site, would beremoved as part of the development. This is a serious loss to the biodiversity of the Downsconservation area, and the proposed replacements, which may be sited elsewhere in Bristol, willnot provide an equivalent biodiversity habitat for many years. The change from a quiet leafy sitewith extensive biodiversity in a conservation area to a stark dense urban landscape will beregretted by many local Westbury park residents and Bristol Downs users.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
The proposed development at St Christopher's threatens the very core and being ofliving in the Westbury park area. We must declare total war against the developers, who areclearly pawns of big business that want to weaken and subjugate the locals of Bristol. Theinnumerable wildlife and human lives that will be lost when their "construction" (attack) begins isnot acceptable. I urge the community to go forth and enact justice by their own means upon thecontractors and developers.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I must object on multiple grounds. While the site is in need of development, the scopeand scale of this is out of all proportion to the area. This is a clear case of overdevelopment.Buildings should be no higher than existing ones.
That said, there is no consideration for affordable housing that I could see. There is extensiveequivalent or similar accommodation in established and newer developments throughout this area.
Loss of biodiversity, tree felling and landscaping as already commented by experts in this areae.g. the holding objection from the conservation officer.
Poor consideration of traffic, parking, and access. The number of residents is one thing but thenumbers of care, medical, maintenance staff as well as visitors puts the traffic and parkingsituation to an unsustainable level.
Given the number of pre-schools and a primary school almost adjacent to the site- in that regardaccess onto Bayswater Avenue should not be allowed. Any vehicle and pedestrian access shouldsurely only be from the existing entrances. There is a real danger to the large number of childrenin the area.
I also support the WPCA and SCAN objections.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
An appalling proposed development. I have the greatest sympathy with local residentsand fully support their campaign against what is planned.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I am objecting to this development proposal on several bases. These are:
1. Overdevelopment (Heritage) - the Downs is in a conservation area and these proposals are notin keeping with this. The buildings are too high, too close to each other (not in line withregulations) and far too close to existing dwellings reducing their light and privacy which isunacceptable. These proposals would result in damage to the character and aspect of the Downstogether with damage to Grace House, a listed building.
2. SEND Provision - it is hugely regrettable that Bristol currently does not meet it regulated SENDrequirements (paying huge costs to send children outside of the county) and these proposals failto comply with council policies that seek to safeguard. community facilities. The 5 villas on thedevelopment site were generously gifted for the provision of SEND services and therefore this siteshould not be used to cater for mature adults with the ability to pay for high quality housing andservices. This is a total disconnect.
3. Road Safety, Traffic and Parking - the proposal has insufficient on-site parking provision whichcannot be accepted given the current traffic and parking difficulties already being experienced.With nursing homes, a school and a densely populated surrounding area this will undoubtedlyincrease the road safety risks in the area which are already a concern. Please note that the latestplanning application for the nursing home on Belvedere Road was rejected on the basis of theimpact it would have on parking in the local area which involved the loss of only 1 parking space.
4. Damage to the Environment - the proposals do not meet several regulations in terms of ecologye.g. BCS9 and DM17, 19 and 50. There will be a loss of 58 mature trees which will be replaced by165 trees which will take 50 years to replace the loss. The plans also do not say where the treeswill be planted. The biodiversity calculation shows there will be a net loss of 7.3% which is not inline with either the national Climate or Ecological Environmental Plan.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
As a local resident I am very concerned about the detrimental impact this proposeddevelopment will have on our neighbourhood and community.1) The proposed scale, mass and bulk of the development is totally out of keeping with thecharacter of Westbury Park. The multi storey blocks will tower over the surrounding residentialproperties, depriving them of light and privacy, and be highly visible from afar.2) The inadequate on-site parking provision for the number of residents, carers, administrativestaff, visitors etc will inevitably lead to significant additional traffic and greatly increased parkingdemand in our already very congested and narrow roads.3) The loss of many mature trees and habitat for wildlife will badly affect biodiversity in thisbeautiful conservation area.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
Extremely concerned regarding the planning application and how it will affect thesurrounding streets, especially for parking. Etloe Road is a very narrow road and people park onboth sides of the street leaving very little room for manouvre. In addition, there's a nursery andschool on the same road and it's important that people drive slowly and with care. Adding anotherdevelopment will only add to the traffic and cause a lot of blockage through the road plus there willbe even fewer spaces to park. Please rethink the development.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
Comment:I wish to object to the development proposal for the former St Christopher'sSchool site for the following reasons:
1. The whole area around Westbury Park is already extremely congested in terms of vehicleparking, being outside the RPZ. Safety, parking and access issues are already extremely bad forresidents and more residents will compound this further.2. No provision for affordable housing as part of the project.3. The removal of trees and natural habitat will negatively impact the environment of the localarea.
4. The scale and size of the proposed development is not sensitive to the surrounding area andproperties.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I don't want the disruption, more traffic (difficult enough as it is), even more parkingdifficulties, cutting down mature trees, view of the Downs spoilt, etc. Please build somewhere else.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
My primary concern is that the application provides for no off-site public infrastructure orhighways improvements.
The streets - Westbury Park, Royal Albert Road, Bayswater Avenue, Clay Pit Road and EtloeRoad - are all Victorian in construction with very limited foundations, dilapidated kerbstones andpavements, and are of limited inadequate width for the volume of construction, resident deliveryand service traffic that the application will generate.
Particularly, the main frontage road Westbury Park is wholly inadequate. it is too narrow for twoway traffic before the scheme, and has only one pavement. The Downs grassland are unprotecteddue to the absence of kerbstones and pavements.There should be a S.106 Agreement (or its modern equivalent) with BCC for off-site infrastructureand Highways improvements.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I am the Proprietor and Registration holder for two local businesses. Torwood HouseSchool and Daisychain Children's Day Nursery, the latter is adjacent to the proposed BayswaterAvenue entrance of the new development.
Whilst I am personally in support of creating a sustainable housing development on the site, Iobject to the fact that there is already a lack of parking and cannot see how the proposed numberof dwellings can be supported.
Running a care and educational establishment for the past 27 years within the local community, Iam disappointed to read a 'glossed over' proposal for traffic, parking, staffing (this being acomplete joke when there is a national crisis of 20% deficit within the care sector already. I myselfclosed my admissions last December 2021 and have now had to write to parents to explain thatunless there is some miraculous change within our regulatory guidance, I will not be able to offerchildcare to all of our existing children in attendance and it will be offered on a rotation basis only.There are no staff able or willing to work locally and therefore, those employed by the Care Villagewill use their own transport and have to park at the closest available space, or very often travelusing at least two buses which does deter people attending. I often struggle to employ agencystaff also owing to their negative experience with transport and the cost of parking if they can.
Staffing, parking and over development are my biggest concerns.
The location of the entrance is also a worry. I do not feel that even with the triangle of land
retained from the sale of the house at 25 Bayswater Avenue in 2012, that it is a wide enough areaand will be unsafe for the children and public using the nursery and school. This property was soldby St Christopher's School to a private individual, but the triangle of land was retained in case offuture development. This will be adjacent to the entrance to Daisychain Nursery which has seenan increase in commuter traffic and parking since the introduction of the RPZ in Redland.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
As a local resident, I feel very strongly that this development is inappropriate in the siteproposed for the following reasons:
1. Road Safety, Traffic & Parking: The proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms,owing to insufficient on-site parking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements,which will increase the road safety risks in an area where this is already a significant concernespecially so close to Westbury Park Primary school and 2 nearby nurseries/pre schools. Theplans appear to indicate that on-site parking will be insufficient for the number of units and therewill be no capacity for overspill in surrounding roads.
2. Damage to Heritage: The proposals amount to severe overdevelopment in a conservation area.The proposed scale, mass and bulk are inappropriate within the sensitive heritage context ofWestbury Park and the listed Grace House, and the scheme will give rise to unacceptable impactson the townscape.
3. Damage to the Environment: There will be too many trees lost and a detrimental impact onnature & wildlife, losing high quality specimens that make a valued contribution to the characterand appearance of the Conservation Area.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
The concept itself is fine, however I object because of concerns about access viaBayswater Road which should not be allowed. The road is busy and dangerous at present with toomany commuters parking there already. I also do not think there is enough parking provision onthe scheme, particularly given many people now drive well into their 70's, 80's and even older,something which does not seem to have been considered. So my 2 injections are related toaccess and parking.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
A development of this scale and height is a huge concern with regard to the historicbuildings in front of the development being both compromised and dwarfed due to the plannedsize of the complex.The amount of traffic this development will create can only bring huge disruption to the residents ofthe area and the local school, especially as the access points for both facilities and visitors isconfined which raises issues of safety.The area can surely not accommodate extra overspill traffic from the development as it doesn'thave the same amount of spaces available as it does accommodation units on offer. Along withstaff parking the volume of traffic will be much higher causing congestion and safety issues to thelocal residents and school children.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I strongly object to the proposal.The severe overdevelopment of the site in a conservation area will damage this area and have anegative impact on the important heritage of this site. There will be irreversible damage to theenvironment to a site that has mature and established trees, and is an important site for wildlifeadjacent to the Downs.There is a significant safety impact with roads already congested, lack of places to park which willonly get worse. The significant proposed increase in cars will risk road safety in an area with botha local school and nursery. The proposal for vehicle access into Bayswater avenue will onlyexacerbate this and further risk safety.There is a complete lack of understanding of the current road and traffic pressures to suggestincreasing this congestion and increasing the risk to safety .The proposal does not comply with the need for SEND educational provision and it does notprovide affordable housing. The proposal does not benefit the local community.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
The neighborhood doesn't need another residential structure for over 50 but affordablehousing for families in dire need in the area.The building work will be detrimental to the safety of schools and nurseries in the proximity.There will be a notable increase in traffic and road pollution, also with cutting trees and damagingthe local wildlife
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
This large tract has potential to make a positive impact on the local community, howeverthe current plans:
Bring overdevelopment and buildings that are too large and too tall. They will have a negativeimpact on local people.The large number of trees on the site will be reduced and traffic to an already congested areaincreased.
The plans do not take local objections in to consideration and plan to squeeze as much profit aspossible out of a valuable site.
On behalf of my family, I object.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
The number and height of the dwellings coupled with lack of parking show this cynicalapplication up for the exercise of corporate greed that it is.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I have a number of objections to the proposed development of the St Christopher's site:1) I am extremely concerned about the effect the development will likely have on parking andtraffic in the Westbury Park area. The increased traffic due to the development is a safety issue forchildren attending Westbury park school on Bayswater Road. This will only be exacerbated shouldthe proposed bus gate on North View go ahead. In addition, parking is already chaotic in the area,with many properties converted into flats and commuters parking their cars nearby during the day,since it is on the edge of the residents' parking zones. The lack of sufficient provision of parkingspaces in the proposed development will have a disastrous effect on parking in the local area, withthe new residents likely parking their vehicles on the streets roundabout. It will result in carsparked dangerously and blocking streets and driveways.2) I am also objecting to the site on the grounds that I consider it an overdevelopment of a site in aconservation area. What is the point of a conservation area if not to stop this type of development?It would appear from the plans that some of the new buildings are taller than those existing on thesite and will be visible from the Downs. This is not acceptable in a conservation area as it altersthe character of the area.3) There are a large number of matures trees on the site, many of which will have to be cut down. Ido not believe they are diseased or a danger to the public, so they should therefore remain, beingin a conservation area. They provide valuable habitat for wildlife.4) There is insufficient provision in the plans for affordable housing. It is a national embarrassmentthat such a wealthy city as Bristol has so many homeless people. You only need to look across theDowns from the St Chrisophers site to realize this is a problem. On the Downs and dotted aroundother neighbourhoods in the city large numbers of people live in caravans and camper vans
because they can't afford to rent. We need more affordable housing. We do not need anotherhigh-end retirement community, as there are already a number of them, plus several nursinghomes, in this part of Redland and Westbury Park.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
Whilst there is a need within the area for assisted living, I object to this proposal for thesite at St Christophers on the following points:
Environmental and Ecological: the felling of 58 mature trees within the site boundary will have anegative ecological impact for nearly 50 years, with little plans to rectify this issue.
Over Development: the size and scale of the new blocks proposed are totally inappropriate for thesize of the site, resulting in an excessive density within the proposals. Furthermore the height ofthe proposed blocks will have a negative impact on the view of the existing villas in Westbury Parkas seen from The Downs.
Traffic and Parking: the provision of 63 parking spaces within the confines of the site toaccommodate administration, maintenance, service and visitors is totally inadequate, which willlead to a parking and trafic problem in the surrounding neighbourhood, the majority of which arenarrow residential roads.
For the above reasons I object to the proposed plannning application
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I think that the proposed development is out of keeping with the local area. It is too largeand will be an eyesore, it will lead to the unnecessary destruction of trees, wildlife and have anadverse impact on the environment both in terms of pollution and impact on road safety in thearea, particularly as there is a nursery very close to one of the proposed entries. Traffic is alreadybad enough and parking is getting more difficult by the week.My objections are summarised below.
Heritage:The plans amount to an overdevelopment of the site. The new apartment blocks of between 3-6storeys are too big, too high and too close. The highest block would be visible from the Downs &would unquestionably damage the Downs Conservation Area. The crowding of the blocks wouldcause serious damage to the setting of the listed Grace House building - and cause broaderdamage to the character of Westbury Park.
Damage to our Environment:The plans would mean an overall LOSS of biodiversity of 7.3% on site and this is not compliantwith the Climate or Ecological Emergencies or the Emergency Action Plan which puts nature atthe centre of all decisions. Too many trees (50%) are being removed from the site, and plans toreplace them either on and off-site are not in line with Bristol City Council policy. The copse oftrees on Bayswater Avenue - a key local landmark - would be reduced. It would mean harmfulimpact to the Downs SNCI (Site of Nature Conservation Interest).
Risk to our road safety & potential parking chaos:65 spaces for 122 units is simply not enough. Local roads have no spare capacity and this is likelyto lead to increased hazards, like blocked pavements and choked junctions - especially close tothe nurseries and Westbury Park Primary School. There are particular concerns about theproposed driveway from Bayswater Avenue/Etloe Road and pedestrian access from The Glen.
Loss of SEND provision:Hundreds of children in Bristol are waiting for a place in a special school. Existing schools inBristol are swamped by enquiries from desperate families. St Christopher's was Bristol's lastresidential special school - now the city council spends more than £8m a year sending vulnerablechildren to out of county placements. The developers have no plans to honour the legacy of 70+years of SEND provision on site.
No Affordable home provision:It's a key target for Bristol City Council but these plans provide no affordable housing on site.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
Parking is already an issue in Westbury Park and with 120 new housing units parkingwill only get worse. I am also heavily against the proposed entrance to the site on The Glen asmany young children play in the road. As someone who has lived in Redland my whole life, Iwould be incredibly disappointed to see such a beautiful part of Bristol be destroyed bydevelopers. The tall buildings will block sunlight to local areas and gardens will be overlooked.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
1 Overdevelopment:Too high, too close to neighbours. It has negative impacts -(a) in heritage terms on our area and on The Downs (the site and its surrounds are in The DownsConservation Area),(b) on the setting of the Grade II listed Grace House(dramatically overwhelmed by 6, 5 and 4 storey buildings very near it),(c) on the privacy and outlook of neighbouring houses and(d) on the serious loss of trees in the highly significant 'copse' visible from the corner of BayswaterAvenue and St.Helena Road.
2 Parking:Parking in the area is already a safety issue - pavement parking, reduced access for emergencyvehicles, poor visibility for cyclists and pedestrians. The 65 parking spaces proposed for thedevelopment will not be sufficient and that would lead to significant overspill onto surroundingstreets, with relatedtraffic problems
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
Far too high buildings and very concerned by the traffic & parking impact on all localresidents.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
Sirs, My objections to the planning application for St Christopher's School are -1. The overdevelopment of the site into what will be a 'retirement village' with the building of 6storey flats overlooking the Downs Conservation Area. The area does not need another'retirement home' and 6 storey buildings are not in proportion to other buildings in the area and willbe a eyesore for future generations to suffer. There are many other areas of Bristol whereplanning has been approved to the detriment of existing neighbourhoods. Please do not make thesame mistakes of previous council members.2. The cutting down of mature trees (40 I believe) when the world is in the middle of climatechange. I strongly object to the destruction of trees when the country is being asked to 'plant a treefor the jubilee'.3. The development of the site to this degree and the inadequate parking which has been plannedwill make the entire area a traffic nightmare. There appears to have been no consideration of thelevel of traffic currently, which during peak times is heavy and the additional delivery,maintenance, and care staff which will be required into a 'village' with only 1 space per 2 units.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
In the face of a climate emergency any development that leads to the destruction of oldand diverse ecosystems is to be opposed. Air quality and bio diversity are key concerns foreveryone in the area - either we just pay lip service to these issues or actually prioritise them whenwe get the chance.This is a greedy and insensitive over development of the site that is driven primarily by profit.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I strongly object to this development on the following grounds:
- the development is out of keeping with the architecture of the area - this is a conservation areaand an area of natural beauty and the plans show some very ugly highrise buildings
- this is going to increase pollution and traffic to a small community with a large amount of schoolchildren and EYFS children in the immediate area. Driving and too many cars on the narrowstreets is already a huge concern
- this will have a huge affect (noise, dust, pollution) on the local school and nursery with youngchildren who have already suffered so much disruption
- parking is already a huge issue in the area. The lack of parking in the plans is a real concern.Where will all the carers, staff and visitors park?
- the houses that back onto this site are largely not overlooked. They now face huge blocks of flatsinvading their privacy. This is hugely unfair
- the development is not eco friendly as is being claimed. A large amount of green space and treeswill be removed if this goes ahead. A huge amount of wildlife will be disrupted by this development
- St Christopher's was an important and much needed school for children with learning disabilities.
Where is this provision now? We don't need more elderly in the area (which is saturated withresidential and care homes) but Bristol desperately needs more schools like St Christopher's
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I believe that the proposed development will have significant deleterious impacts uponthe local environment. There are several key points that I would want to highlightI have lived in the Westbury Park area for approximately 10 years and during that time I havebecome increasingly aware of the burden additional cars have on the ability to safely park within areasonable distance from my home. Cars are frequently now parked on pavements and close tojunctions which both provides potential obstructions to large vehicles and severely restricts accessfor wheelchair users and anyone using a pushchair or mobility scooter. From my review of theplans that have been submitted there is vastly inadequate parking provision incorporated on sitefor staff, residents and visitors and the only option will be to further spill out into the immediateenvirons further compounding the existing problems. I believe should this happen there will besignificantly increased risk to pedestrians, car owners and the wider population of Westbury ParkAs an Occupational Therapist I am extremely concerned about the resulting lack of SENDprovision following the closure of St Christopher's. Lack of local provision will impact upon localfamilies and force families to seek appropriate facilities much further afield. Consequently therewill be significant impacts on abilities to maintain normal family relationships, roles and this willhave a massive impact on wellbeing for students and their loved ones. These facilities must besafeguarded and remain accessible for those at greatest need in their community.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
The project will significantly affect local parking in an area which already struggles tocope with the number of vehicles and available space - It will add to traffic volume and congestionin the area with possible risk to children in the nearby primary school and nurseries. I understandthat there will be serious environmental consequences as a result of the loss of a number of trees ,as well as the increased local air quality degradation caused by increased traffic.Anecdotally the projects are reported widely by the local community as being unattractive, too highand inconsistent with the local architecture, a view I share.I have read and endorse the submissions by SCAN, dated 6.5.22
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I would like to object to the proposed massive overdevelopment of the St Christopher'ssite in Westbury Park on the following grounds:
Damage to heritage
This is a proposal for a development that is far too big for the site. Its impacts on the heritage ofthe area, backing onto an old drover's road (Bayswater Road) on one side and with the GrannyDowns on Claypit Road on the other. It is out of keeping with the surrounding buildings, which aremostly cottages and small terraces, which is will loom over. It will also impinge on listed GraceHouse and will compromise what is an attractive, historic and characterful part of Bristol.
The proposed buildings will be visible from The Downs, to the severe detriment of the existingConservation Area, and urbanise the skyline from other directions as well.
Environment and climate change
Speaking as an expert in gardens, plants and landscapes, the environmental and amenity impactof this development would be extensive.
The development would cause the destruction of an iconic North Bristol skyline. The cluster ofpine trees on the site are visible from across Henleaze and along much of the length of KellawayAvenue, breaking up the urban landscape and adding greenery that cannot simply be 'replaced'.
The area is part of a network of green space that supports a range of wildlife. I often hearwoodpeckers and owls, and see long-tailed tits, holly blue butterflies, bats and a range of beesincluding hairy-footed flower bees and mason bees. Every bit of landscape that is built upon,concreted over or 'landscaped' - unless it is done very carefully and sensitively - represents a lossof habitat and an environment that is diminished both for the wildlife and for their humanneighbours. With insect life collapsing, and many species under threat from habitat loss, this is nota decision that should be taken lightly.
Greenery is known to actively improve air quality, not least by capturing particulate pollution andremoving it from the air that we breathe, making the city a healthier place to live. Given that Bristolis known for its poor air quality, removing area of trees which filter out pollution must surely becontrary to the spirit and letter of the Council's own Green Infrastructure policies.
At a time where climate change is causing unprecedented warming events, trees and vegetationare invaluable. Greenery cools the air, helps maintain a comfortable level of humidity and providesshade. This keeps the air cooler, reduces the temperature of surfaces such as tarmac and pavingand the shade of trees helps to stop buildings overheating too, thus mitigating the heat islandeffect that is making cities increasingly challenging to live in.
On the St Christopher's site, to exchange the environmental deliverables that trees and plantsprovide for yet more buildings, concrete, hard landscaping, vehicles and tightly-packed residentswould be an extraordinarily short sighted, investment in human discomfort and an exercise inmaking the neighbourhood, and Bristol as a whole, considerably less habitable for everyone.
Road safety and parking issues
Westbury Park is already a very densely populated area, with narrow streets and limited parking.The local roads have no spare capacity for workers arriving by car and deliveries coming andgoing from such a large site.
There is nowhere for extra cars to park and provision for parking in the plans is clearly insufficient -there will be overspill onto local residential roads. Already, when cars meet going in oppositedirections down the road, somebody has to reverse a considerable distance for the other car to getpast. This happens many times a day and deliveries of any sort exacerbate it: the area is atcapacity.
Going in and out of the roads onto either Coldharbour Road or North View will becomeincreasingly difficult as the junctions will be even more choked. The residential roads willeffectively be gridlocked, making life difficult for existing residents to go about daily activities andmaking access difficult for emergency vehicles, too.
There are also safety issues. There are a large number of families in the area and, in addition toWestbury Park primary and Redland Green School, there are several nurseries in the immediatevicinity.
At school times and generally, there are many, many people out on foot. Parents with buggies andseveral young children, often on bikes or scooters, together with older children and youngteenagers taking themselves to school, walking on the pavements and crossing the roads.Increasing the amount of traffic would be dangerous; road safety would be significantlycompromised and risk of accidents would be increased. This is not acceptable.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
As a resident of nearby Bishopston, I have great concerns about the impact that the StChristopher's development will bring to local wildlife, residents. The developers have proven to beacute liars, as the Bristol Tree Forum have calculated there will be a net loss in biodiversity on thesite of more than 8%, rather than a gain of 43% as the developers claim.
Furthermore, the drawings and design of the building itself are just straight up ugly and would bean impermissible eyesore for all residents. Not forgetting the swathes of traffic congestion andsubsequent parking and pollution nightmares the site would bring. It's time for Bristol to bandtogether and have our say by all proportionate means
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
While recognising that the site must be developed, I object to the current plans becausethe proposed development is just too big. It doesn't fit with the surrounding vernacular and willdwarf its surroundings. I feel the size and height of the blocks and their proximity to the perimeterof the site is overbearing. Even more so once so many of the existing mature trees have beenremoved, devastating for the environment for humans and wildlife alike.I will also point out that there is currently no pedestrian or vehicle access to the site via The Glen,this should not change! It would only encourage residents and staff to park on The Glen and shortcut on to the site. Although the plans anticipate residents giving up some of their cars and usingother options parking planning for the site is inadequate. The site is planned with only 65 parkingspaces for 120 units + 12 (staff at least) + multiple car club vehicles + few minibuses, this planningdoes not even allow for any visiting friends or family.Throughout this process I have found the developers to be disingenuous at best, using largeillustrative images at the open day that the developers own architect team member I spoke toadmitted were inaccurate.
on 2022-05-17
I just wanted to say that SCAN seems to be overreacting and fearmongering.I won't comment on the developer's proposal.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
The main reason I object to this project is road safety and parking. I have two childrenaged 4 and 6 that attend Westbury Park School. Traffic is ridiculous in the morning and roadsafety is a worry for us. We had hoped that our children would be able to walk by themselves toschool in a few years but I really don't see how this is possible with this massive construction sitethey are proposing. Westbury Park is a lovely area full of nature and this will also suffer if thisproject continue. Please, reconsider. Thank you.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
We strongly object to this application.
IntensityThe intensity of the provision on the site: There will be 120 2-bed units - 26 in the convertedlodges, 11 new 2-storey cottages, and 84 in four new blocks of flats. This is more than wasproposed in the original consultation. These high rise blocks are higher and more numerous thanwe were lead to believe would occupy the site in the 'consultations'.
Height & density of buildingsThe large one at the end of The Glen is 4-storeys, the one between this and the Lodges (behindBelvedere Road) is 5-storeys, the central one is 6-storeys. This is too high and too concentrated.Even the developers themselves are aware of this. I was personally shown around and told thatthere would be one 3 storey high rise to the rear of the Glen. The developers have beendeliberately mis-leading from the very beginning and know this is too high and dense, otherwise,why not just tell the truth from the beginning? The truth of the matter is, that they know the numberof units are too many to be sustainable on the site and the height of these blocks is too high forthis residential area.
ParkingOnly 65 parking spaces on site - this will almost certainly be insufficient for about 120-200residents, plus staff and visitors, the population of which have a pre-requisite for a certain numberof hours of care per day, leading to over-spill on to surrounding roads. These roads are already at
breaking point. This is a real problem that the developers underestimate, or have simply chosen toconveniently ignore. Residents already tolerate a level of traffic and parking that can be describedas dangerous.
Pedestrian AccessPedestrian access from St Christopher's to The Glen will encourage over-spill parking on TheGlen and Belvedere Road, as well as increased traffic looking for places to park. The roads arenot linked at the moment and the residents have live in equilibrium with this. I do not see key fobsbeing the answer. No to pedestrian access. Access is plentiful at multiple points on WestburyPark. Any access brings the impacts of the St Christopher's development unnecessarily on tothese roads. Limit the impact on these roads.
Cottages/housesLet us call them what they are - houses. There will be about 6 2-storey houses in the "pan-handle"area directly behind 16 - 18 Belvedere Road. There are security issues at play here. From thedevelopment plans, we can see that trees are being removed. Further privacy and security issues.
Vehicular access through the GlenThere is currently no vehicular access from The Glen. We want to ensure this doesn't change infuture iterations. Keep all access to the multiple adequate Westbury Park entrances. Limit theimpact of this development on the surrounding roads. We do not support any access whether it bevehicle or pedestrian in any form through The Glen. We do not support the keypad access.Creating any kind of access is creating a change in entry. There is ample access from WestburyPark. Any additional access will feed the inevitable parking situation that will be furtherexacerbated by the lack of sufficient parking on site.
EnvironmentalToo many trees are proposed to be felled. Bristol can not claim to be a green city if this applicationis supported. There is a thriving ecosystem that feeds across this area from this site. Years ofconstruction are proposed adjacent to Westbury Park Primary School of 420 pupils. Having livedopposite a building site for two years here, I know the detrimental impact of noise, vibrations anddust on mental and physical health. This will impact these children - no question. Years ofunnecessarily intense construction on this site is unacceptable. Bristol City Council shouldseriously consider the impact on the community of such an intensive and prolonged constructionphase on a site that is purely pushing for maximising profits. If a smaller project is noteconomically viable for this consortium, then they need to seriously consider if this is the right sitefor their plans.
We strongly object to this application.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
Increased traffic in the area and around schoolDevelopment and destruction of buildings
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
We moved to Westbury Park for its leafy streets and quiet neighbourhood away fromthe bustle of the centre.
I object to the planning submission for several reasons firstly for the traffic and parking congestionthe proposed housing with pose in an area which is already struggling with parking for residentsand seeing too many cars parked badly and driving too fast around our school and nurseries.
Another factor I'm not happy about is the Damage a development would do to our heritage and'look' of Westbury Park with talle apartment blocks which are all crammed in to the site. Also, theremoval of beautiful, mature trees will have an awful impact on wildlife and the environment andruin the beautiful skyline and view that we all cherish here in Westbury Park.
The fact there are no affordable Homes to be provided in these plans which is against many ofmine and my neighbours feelings which is to keep Westbury Park diverse and a thrivingcommunity which comes together.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I object to the scale of the proposed development. The height of some of the villas willoverdominate the existing on site buildings and homes in the surrounding streets, which will beoverlooked, thus affecting residents' privacy. The design of the villas is not in keeping with thearchitecture of Westbury Park or the Downs conservation area and will over develop the area.
The proposed number of parking spaces (65) is insufficient considering the parking requirementsof service providers, residents and visitors to the extra care facility. Inevitably this will lead tooverspill with workers and visitors to the facility parking in the neighbouring streets, which arealready over parked. This will result in congestion, gridlock and confrontations. The likely increasein traffic through the surrounding area will affect the safety of pedestrians, especially children inBayswater Avenue where there is a primary school and pre school nursery.
The flow of traffic exiting Westbury Park onto North View Road by the Whitetree roundabout islikely to increase and this junction is already problematic with tailbacks along the entire length ofNorth view during peak hours.
The intention to fell many mature trees on the development site will have a hugely detrimentalaffect on the wildlife, birds and biodiversity of the area, the planned re planting can never replacethe loss of such a valuable and treasured amenity .
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
I strongly object to the proposed development at St Christopher's.
In the first instance I would like to comment on the community engagement meetings held face toface in October 2021 and then online in January of this year.
Most of the first meeting was spent asking members of the local community to list the things thatwere special about the site. Following this, we were asked to list the things that we thought wouldbe most important to preserve in any development of the site. The developers then presentedplans, ignoring all that had been said, and which were in contradiction to everything that had beendiscussed for most of the meeting. However, no elevations or projections demonstrating the sizeand scale of the development were presented. It was also difficult to determine the heights ornumbers of storeys of each building which were represented by shades of grey. This resulted insignificant concern and numerous views were then expressed suggesting that the developerswere taking the local population 'as fools' and that attendance was mainly to demonstrate andphotograph a community engagement event taking place. It appeared that the WPCA had beenmisled as to both the number of units proposed as well as the total scale of the development. As aresult, there was a complete breakdown in trust with the local community.
The second community engagement meeting in January 2022 was held online. It was not possibleto see who or how many members of the community were attending. Submitted questions wereread out by a mediator. However, these questions were not read our verbatim and were toneddown in language and strength of feeling. Often, the responses were evasive or specifically
ignored the question. It was then not possible to ask timely or meaningful follow up questions or tochallenge the responses given. As a result, again the meeting felt like a controlled exercise insimply 'ticking a box'. The 'revised' plans that were presented did nothing to reassure thecommunity and did not appear to have taken any of the feedback given at the previous meetinginto account. It became clear that the developers viewed at least 120 units as being required tomake the development economically viable and they were therefore unwilling to consider anyreduction in scale.
The need for such a large development of 'high end' retirement or enhanced care accommodationin this area is also questionable. The immediate area already has a high density of care relatedaccommodation. Other planning proposals to increase care capacity in the area have beendeclined with the impact on congestion, parking and road safety in the local area cited. In addition,many apartments in other similar developments (The Vincent) remain unsold. The developmentalso has no proposals for affordable housing.
The planning proposals and change of use do not take the historical context of the site intoaccount. This is despite the fact that there is a crisis in terms of provision of residential care foryoung people with special needs or disabilities within the city of Bristol.
Historically, the St Christopher's site provided this accommodation. Sadly, the school was closedby Aurora following allegations of poor care. The way in which the parents of the children andyoung adults were contacted and given less than 24 hours to collect their children resulted inconsiderable distress for already highly vulnerable individuals and was covered in the NationalPress at the time. It seems that no attempts or action plans were made to improve care. A simpleinternet search at the time demonstrated that the majority share owner of Aurora was a later lifecare provider. This at least suggests that the school may have originally been purchased to realisethe investment potential of the site. Whilst this may have no bearing on a subsequent planningapplication, this heightens the sense that something profoundly wrong is occurring hereparticularly given the desperate shortage of accommodation for young people and adults withspecial educational needs. I find it hard to see how such a change of use could be justified in thiscontext.
We welcome any proposed use of North Lodge by Westbury Park School. Westbury Park Schoolis integral to the local community and any proposals to enhance their facility would be welcomed.However, we would object to this area, which is directly adjacent to our rear side boundary, beingfreely open to the public for reasons of security and privacy. School use would necessitate secureaccess.
It has also been suggested that the building or garden area of North Lodge might be open to thepublic for booked events. This area is directly adjacent to our rear garden. I have asked thedevelopers for a meeting to discuss the planned usage of North House but we have had noresponse. I seek clarification around what the public usage of these buildings and gardens would
be.
Throughout the consultation process, the residents of The Glen were repeatedly assured thatthere would be no vehicular or pedestrian access to the St Christopher's site from The Glen.However, the plans now include access for emergency vehicles and pedestrian access.
Previous planning developments on the St. Christopher's site were only granted on condition thatthere was no vehicle or pedestrian access from The Glen. Rare emergency access needs resultedin ambulance vehicles parking at the end of the Glen as the entrance is too narrow to admit morethan a small car. Occasionally, this would block access from our driveway. However, both my wifeand I are doctors and require vehicle access from our drive at all hours.
Should pedestrian access be granted to the St Christopher's site from the Glen, this will result inincreased parking and double parking on The Glen, particularly at the end of The Glen (deliveries,care workers, friends visiting, residents unable to park on site). A relatively infrequent problem withdouble parking and blockage of our driveway at the end of The Glen may become a more frequentoccurrence. Irrespective of our access being blocked, I am very concerned that access throughThe Glen to St Christopher's will result in increased parking and congestion on The Glen andsurrounding streets.
The Glen is an established Cul de Sac. We and many other families bought these propertiesspecifically for this reason. Many young children live on the road and regularly play in the road.The street is also often used for community events. Understandably, other local residents object tovehicular access through Bayswater Road. However, should site access plans ever be revised (asa result of other objections) to allow full vehicular access from the Glen, I would strongly opposethis. The Glen is already a narrow and dangerously crowded road.
The scale of development and number of Units proposed is completely out of character with andproportion to the local Westbury Park environment. The heights of the buildings have not beentaken from the existing villas in Bayswater, Royal Albert and the Glen. The high points of theproposed buildings even exceed the heights of the Westbury Park Lodge buildings and will bevisible from the Downs and from all surrounding streets. The buildings will impact on line of site inall directions.
The proximity of buildings to neighboring homes is far closer than many other local authority areasrecommend. With buildings of this size, height and scale there will be considerable impact onprivacy and loss of amenity. The character of the surrounding streets will change completely. Thebuildings are two high, two dense, too close and would dwarf nearby homes and completelyoverwhelm the community.
My daughter has previously been hit by a car whilst crossing at the Coldharbour Road zebracrossing on her way to school. This resulted in A and E attendance and a lasting psychological
impact. The proposed development has inadequate car parking spaces for a development of thissize and scale. The proposed 65 places will be inadequate and half that likely to be required.Inadequate parking on site will result in over flow parking by residents, staff, visitors and deliveries.This scale of over development will inevitably increase traffic and have a negative impact on publicsafety and parking in what is already a busy residential area, with so many children travelling tonursery, primary or secondary school on foot. The roads are already unsafe.
The use of facilities by the local community has been proposed. However, the area is already wellserviced with cafes, restaurants and other social venues. The additional facilities suggested arenot welcome or required. There are other venues for 'coffee and cake'.
This development will result in the destruction of a unique green space adjacent to the Downs andwithin the Downs Conservation Area. I am very concerned by the number and size of the maturetrees that will be lost, completely changing the character of the site. The loss of so many verylarge protected mature trees, together with the scale of the development, will have a major impacton local wildlife including foxes, bats and owls and other bird life. Bats are clearly visible flyingfrom the site and through adjacent gardens each evening at dusk. The loss of such a number oflarge mature trees cannot be compensated for by planting new trees. It is not just the number oftrees it is the size and age of the trees that will be lost that matters.
The current proposals strike me as an act of environmental vandalism. I find it difficult to believethat this would be allowed.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
2
2. Extra-care and support for residents
I note that all the accommodation in the lodges, the ‘cottages’ and the new-build flats are to be designated as Use C2 class owner-occupier accommodation, resulting in the statutory obligation for CQC to carry out inspection visits of the whole site. Some of the accommodation should not be designated as ‘cottages’, in an attempt to rusticate the site. These units should be described as either semi-detached houses or terraced two-and a half storey houses.
There is a minimum eligibility criterion demanded of prospective residents to be able to purchase the individual units. This is stated as a need for 2 hours personal care per week. It is unclear whether this eligibility extends to both members of a couple or is satisfied by only one of them receiving this initial level of care. There is also a statement that an Integrated Retirement Community, as defined by the applicant and as St. Christopher’s Square is designated and presented by the applicant, always has 24-hour live-in staff. This does not look to be the case on the St. Christopher’s site since there is no staff accommodation and only an application for 24-hour onsite carers. This means that the carers and other support staff must come in from outside in a shift system, although presumably fewer numbers of carers will be needed at night.
3. Care Quality Commission Regulation of St. Christopher’s Square and site administration
The status of ARCO, described in the application as a company which is an ‘extra-care industry regulator’, I find confusing and contradictory. Amicala and Allegra are described as ‘Accelerated Member Companies’ belonging to ARCO [Planning Report P3, S1.7 and 1.9], which is equally confusing. To be clear, Regulators of any industry or organisation are, by their very nature in the UK, independent of any other body, company or organisation. How can a ‘member company’ be properly ‘regulated’ if it has a subsidiary or business relationship with its own regulator? I submit that a conflict of interest must be inherent in such a relationship. If the CQC were to act as regulator for Amicala and Allegra, as the administrative organisations of St. Christopher’s Square, then ARCO could not also act as Regulator. ARCO may have used the term ‘regulator’ to describe its relationship to its Accelerator Companies that means something different to the term ‘regulator’ that is used in describing the CQC. Clarification is needed.
There is also a lack of clarity as to the relationship between those carers employed by Amicala and those from local private care companies, or indeed, from the local Social Services, which some residents may prefer, as is envisaged in the application. When the application states that all the carers will be fully trained, does this mean that all will have at least an NVQ in Care & Management or Health and Social Care, or an equivalent degree? The recruitment by Amicala of so many fully-trained care staff which the project will require seems extremely problematic in the foreseeable future, given the current and post-Covid dearth of such staff as is experienced throughout the UK.
A Clinical Manager employed by Amicala is the person stated in the application who undertakes the assessment of the care needs of prospective residents. There is no indication of any other role played by Amicala. Will Amicala be the administrator of the
3
site and therefore responsible for the oversight and governance of its management ? This is important for the CQC who will be required to make inspection visits and subsequent reports. Do prospective residents have to provide medical certification of mental health or physical disability, such as dementia or progressive neurodegenerative disease to Amicala? Is the Clinical Manager the one who decides that any given resident has reached the upper boundary of Extra Care provision available at St. Christopher’s Square and needs to progress to a Registered Care Home with nursing care? Does a prospective resident have a clause in their Lease Agreement with Amicala, making it clear what their position or ‘rights’ in such a situation is?
4. Impact on housing for Bristol residents, NHS and Social Services
First, the application mentions that this project would help the housing needs for Bristol. It is difficult to see how this would have the required effect if applicants for the accommodation come from outside Bristol. Will there be an eligibility criterion for purchasers to be Bristol residents for the applicant to be able to achieve that proposed ambition to help meet Bristol’s housing needs? Second, while arguments are made in the documents labelled ‘Housing Need Report’, by citing research which attempts to prove that an extra-care facility can significantly lessen the number of hospital admissions and the financial and capacity pressure on Bristol Social Services, the inferences drawn from the full research report actually do not show any significant lessening of pressure on either organisation and are not persuasive. The statement on P49 of the Planning Statement that there is ‘Moderate Benefit’ from “Economic benefits to NHS and government services arising from improved health of residents” is therefore exaggerated, given the particular situation in Bristol with regard to hospital capacity, low GP numbers and long response times, as well as limited Social Services provision. 5. Mixing of pedestrians and vehicles
From the map of the proposed public and private spaces, there appears to be a likelihood of confusion and involuntary mingling, despite planted barriers and path surface differentials. I have already commented on the likelihood of dangerous crowding in the public spaces. I am also concerned about the mixing of vehicular and pedestrian access on Westbury Park, with two narrow openings, allowing one vehicle at a time using the entrance/exit to mix with pedestrians accessing or exiting [Section 5.20 Policy DM23].
In addition, there is in the application the heavily promoted linkage of St. Christopher’s Square with the Downs across Westbury Park. There is no pedestrian crossing in the road at the Westbury Park side of the site and visibility for traffic along this public road is diminished by parked cars. In effect, any ‘link with the Downs’ as indicated on the application, is made especially dangerous for elderly people with poor sight or hearing and/or mobility problems.
It is unclear to me what constitutes the ‘transport services’ to be supplied onsite [‘Lifestyle and flexibility services’, Planning Report, P11, S4.1]. Does this mean bicycles, ‘buggies’ and/or shuttle bus, adding to the crowding of the public pathways?
6. Involvement of the wider community
4
There is mention of St. Christopher’s Square not offering any educational sector on-site, [see Section 6.26] yet there is mention of its educational value, promoted on a basis of ‘wider community involvement’. It is difficult to see how some of the ambitions, such as ‘improved employability of young and vulnerable people’ or the involvement of ‘medical students’, can be realised. Having been a medical teacher who often took one or two students to peoples’ homes for a domiciliary consultation, I was always very aware of the sensitive nature of such visits. Respect for confidentiality, patient choice and impact had to be observed. The indication in the application of groups of medical students visiting the site, even if supervised by a teacher, would be both educationally unsound and violate social and professional norms. The same applies to any other students carrying out experiential learning or research. I am unclear who will provide the rather vague facilities of ‘medical support initiatives (menta and physical)’ as quoted in the Planning Statement P15, S4.8.
7. Affordable Housing
I note that the Bristol City Council had asked the applicant to make 40% of the accommodation into ‘affordable housing’ units but it is clear that the applicant has realised that this will not be possible in St. Christopher’s Square, as 40% affordable housing would not make the project viable, although there is currently no financial viability report available in order to assess this. In addition, all residents will have to pay service charges for the ‘community services’ provided, as it seems that this service charge is a criterion of purchase of any unit. Any person only able to pay for an ‘affordable’ unit would be unlikely to be able to afford the service charge, which given the rather grandiose range of amenities available, is likely to be high. On P40 Section 6.83, the applicant indicates an uncertainty as to the exact number of affordable housing units, if any, which can be agreed with the City Council. This limits the applicant’s ambition of providing the benefits of the project for Bristol housing policies.
Summary
Despite some efforts at reducing the heights of one building, there still appears to be a significant massing of large, 4 – 6 storey buildings which are out of character for the area with too many accommodation units, leading to overcrowding and excessive circulation of both residents and public likely to be involved on site. The loss of trees onsite in order to place the large buildings means less carbon sink. Parking space numbers for the large number of people likely to be onsite is totally inadequate, so the number of units must be reduced. While the idea of extra-care provision is laudable and meets a need in Bristol, this application fails to make the case for the appropriate governance, administration and resources which will make such a project thrive and be of material benefit to Bristol.
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
on 2022-05-17 OBJECT
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
I am a local resident and parent of 3 at Westbury Park School.
I do not agree with the proposals which are excessive and will cause harm locally.
I object based on:1. Damage to Heritage: The proposals amount to severe overdevelopment ina conservation area. The proposed scale, mass and bulk are inappropriatewithin the sensitive heritage context of Westbury Park and the listed GraceHouse, and the scheme will give rise to unacceptable impacts on thetownscape.2. Damage to the Environment: There will be too many trees lost and adetrimental impact on nature & wildlife, losing high quality specimens thatmake a valued contribution to the character and appearance of theConservation Area.3. Road Safety, Traffic & Parking: The proposal is not appropriate in transportand highway terms, owing to insufficient on-site parking provision andinappropriate access/egress arrangements, which will increase the roadsafety risks in an area where this is already a significant concern.4. Lack of Affordable Housing: The proposal includes no affordable housingand is not supported by any evidence to justify such lack of provision.5. Loss of SEND provision: In the context of an increasing need for SENDaccommodation in Bristol, the developers have failed to comply with
council policies that seek to safeguard community facilities6. Insufficient mitigation of impact on the children of the school who will be affected by pollutionand air quality.
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
I am concerned that insufficient provision has been made for increased traffic andparking arising from the proposed development in an area where these pressures are alreadyhigh.I am concerned about the lack of affordable housing included in the development proposals andthe loss of provision for people with special needs. The area already has a large proportion ofdwellings for wealthy senior members of the population.The density and height and look of the proposed development is out of keeping with thesurrounding area.
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
I am strongly against the plans for the following reasons;1. The traffic in the vicinity is heavy already. Parking is already difficult. My sister lives inBayswater Avenue and iIhave personal experience of already needing to park some distance fromher road .The existence of a primary school and church on her road and cars parked on both sidesmeans there exists an increased risk of accidents due to congestion. Adding the new developmentwill be a disaster for the safe movement of traffic and parking in the area.2. The plans for the buildings are overdevelopment which will not provide affordable housing.3. the destruction of trees and nature will have impact on wildlife and conservation and is not inkeeping with the area.
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
I have the following concerns regarding the proposed development:1) it is insensitive to the current buildings and environment - the proposed development is out ofcharacter with the rest of the local buildings being taller and bulkier.2) the number of mature trees lost is significant and unacceptable3) I am deeply concerned with the traffic, road safety and parking implications, particularly with theproposal to have an entrance on Bayswater Avenue as there is a nursery and primary school onthat road. Whilst parking provision on-site may be sufficient for residents, there is not enough forstaff and visitors, which will then impact on local parking, which is already an issue. Residentsparking permits would go some way to rectifying this.4) Use of site - there are an abundance of care homes locally with vacancies, I'm unclear what therationale is for another one. Is there clear evidence of the demand for this service? I'm alsoconcerned that special educational needs provision in Bristol is already limited and the closure ofthis provision will significantly impact local families.
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
be managed (see Desifgn and Access Statement (DAS) pages 61, 95 and 106). Also, there is a note on the Landscaping Masterplan drawing simply stating that our existing rear garden stone boundary wall will be retained and made good (NB: this wall is miss described as a 2m high brick wall on the topographical survey embedded as an Appendix in the Drainage Strategy Report. Also this wall is jointly owned and we have had no request to do any work to it) and propsals for the planting of small trees against this boundary. Without sections there is no clear indication of whether merely retaining the existing wall will indeed be at all adequate to maintain and provide adequate private amenity. The documents submitted acknowledge that the boundary to Bayswater Avenue is “sensitive” (DAS page 42) and that design constraints are imposed by existing development (page 43). This is indeed well illustrated by an aerial photograph in the DAS (page 38); the fourth picture on page 40 and the fourth Verified Image. The Verified image clearly illustartes how close and dominant the Cottages will be to our properties and in the image, combined with the block beyond, how grossly overlooking, overbearing and contrasting they will be particularly to the private side garden of No. 25 but also to all the rear elevations and indeed the public street itself. Since the Consultation Event the proposed Cottages (H02) have merely been slightly angled away from the boundary but both blocks are still far too close resulting in a significant adverse impact on our outlook and a wholly unacceptable physical relationship resulting in mutually unacceptable overlooking and overshadowing. Also, the provision of active public public garden spaces directly on our boundaries will compound the above by reason of noise and general disturbance. Our back garden at No. 25 is very shallow with its principal private amenity space being to the North. Nos. 23 and 21 have more typical back gardens but No. 23’s is still shallow. Our gardens are approximately 1 to 2m below the level of the application site such that our garden walls are part retaining. All three properties are typical two storey (it is not clear whether this is acknowldeged – see DAS page 41) but all also have roof space accommodation and dormer rear elevation windows. All three of our properties have grond floor kitchen and living accommodation and first and second floor rear bedrooms. These first and second floor bedrooms have direct line of sight down into and over the application site. Our current outlook is pleasant with open areas and significant trees and related wildlife interest. At the present time there is no unacceptable window to window overlooking or overshowing and our gardens are private. The proposed “Cottages” are two storey but we currently do not know at what level they are proposed. If we assume they are built at ground level then they will have a dpc between 1 and 2m higher than our properties. As we state above we cannot see any directly related section(s) to accurately illustrate the relationship. The SOCI in this respect makes reference only to “increasing distances” (page 45) and “respected and preserved as much as possible” (page 50 our undelyning). The DAS at page 59 states, “The heights of the proposed cottages are lower than the existing heights in Bayswater Avenue and The Glen.”, but again the actual heights are not illustrated having regard
to existing ground levels. (NB: this is also not consistent with the previously published Section C-C, which shows the “Cottages” at the same height as our properties even allowing for the garden level differences.) The Planning Statement at para 6.47 states, “…significant overlooking or overshaowing does not occur…” and “…buildings have been re-orinetated to seek to reduce impacts on neighbours.” (again our underlyning). The language used is not based on stated distances and acknwowledges harm but considers it a reasonable impact. Our measurement of “back to back” and window to window distances scaled form the submitted Proposed Ground Layout plan are:-
• Between 8.5 and 9.5m from rear elevation of H03 semi-pair to garden boundary of No. 25 and a 15m angled view from rear elevation to side (north) elevation of No. 25;
• 15m from northernmost plot of H02 terrace rear elevation to garden boundary of No. 25 and between 16.5 and 17.5m to rear elevation;
• A 10.5m garden depth and a distance of 15.5m from the rear elevation of H02 terrace to the rear kitchen of No. 23 and 20m and 21m to the rear elevation;
• An 8m garden depth and a 21.5m distance to the rear elevation of No. 21.
The above distances are reflective of the oblique relationship of both the proposed and the existing development to the dividing boundary. The distances demonstrate that the development is far too close even if this were a flat site with a standard 1.8m boundary and a parallel relationship. However, the application site is higher that the ground level in Nos. 21-25; the relationship is oblique and we all have second floor roof accommodation. We disagree with the Planning Statement that “…proposed offset distances are considered to be acceptable and would not cause an unacceptable loss of light or amenity to surrounding neighbours” (para 6.47). Our side and rear private amenity areas will be severely overlooked; there will be severe overlooking to and from rear elevation windows; the new rear gardens will be severely overlooked by our first and second floor bedroom windows and we will all be overshdowed by the proposed “Cottages”. The provision of “active public areas” on our boundaries will also add noise and disturbance particularly for Nos. 25 and 21 and the scale of development and proposed small trees immediately on the boundary will result in overshowing. The submitted report says that the development is compliant with BRE Guidelines and that there is thus no unacceptable overshowing / loss of light. We do not see the evidence to support this. Indeed in the submitted Daylight & Sunlight Report (22 February 2022) drawings 2613 03-01, 02 and 03 (Appendix 1) do appear to show significant overshadowing to at least the side garden of No. 25. Also, in the published figures (Appendix 2) there is a noted reduction in sunlight and daylight to all the windows in Nos. 25 and 23 (NB: there are no figures published for No. 21). Then in Appendix 4 there is no reference at all to Nos. 21-25. On the basis of the above and as many people and SCAN and WPCA have said the proposal is an “overdevelopment” with too much and too high development too close to the site boundaries. While we accept and have previosly stated that we do not oppose redevelopment in principle, in
accordance with both National and Local Policy this must be done while both delivering acceptable and protecting existing residential amenity. The developers pre-application consultation has turned out to be a sham with promised quality and application detail not forthecoming. This manifests itself in the lack of level and section detail submitted and the hollow words in supporting reports, acknowledging adverse impact but concluding that this is the best that can be done and is therefore acceptable. We do not agree that the impacts are either accepotable or ourtweighed by the socio-economic benefits potentially delivered by redevelopment. Bristol Core Strategy Policy BCS21 states that development will be expected to, “Safeguard the amenity of existing development and create a high-quality environment for future occupiers.”
Paragraph 4.21.13 of the plan supporting Policy BCS21 then states, “A high quality built environment should consider the amenity of both existing and future development. Consideration should be given to matters of privacy, outlook, natural lighting, ventilation and indoor and outdoor space.” Bristol Development Management Polciy DM26 states in relation to Infill development that proposals will be expected to have regard to, “..the prevailing character and quality of the surrounding townscape….Infill developments on return frontages should be compatible with the open character of corner sites and be subservient in height, scale and massing to the primary frontage building” In relation to “backland” development it states that development, “..will be expected to be subservient in height, scale, mass and form to the surrounding frontage buildings. It should not prejudice the opportunity to develop the adjoining land of similar potential nor should the proposed access arrangements cause adverse impacts to the character and appearance, safety or amenity of the existing frontage development.” Policy DM27 states that development “…will be expected to….enable existing and proposed development to achieve appropriate levels of privacy, outlook and daylight; and policy DM29, interestingly referenced in the residential amenity section of the Planning Statement but not more formally in the Planning Policy section, states that development, “will be expected to…..ensure that existing and proposed development achieves appropriate levels of privacy, outlook and daylight”. Overarching local policy is consistent with guidance in the NPPF which champions “good design” and states at paragraph 130 that, “Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.” On the basis of our review we conclude that the development is indeed a poor response to site context and an overdevelopment. This manifests itself in critical adverse impact on our residential amenity by reason of direct and perceived overlooking both to private gardens and by reason of direct window to window distances; overshadowing and the additional harm caused by reason of the location of quasi public spaces immediately on our boundaries.
These direct future impacts are compounded by the loss of existing trees and the erosion of the residential amenity and outlook we currently enjoy. The proposal lacks detail and on that basis we reserve our position to review and comment again on any additional information provided. However on the basis of the application as submitted we consider that it is by reason of adverse residential amenity impact contrary to prevailing planning policy and should be refused on this basis alone. Yours sincerely Mr Phil Gittins Dr Laura Paterson 25 Bayswater Avenue Appendix 1: letter to FORE Partnership 22 December 2021
21 / 23 / 25 Bayswater Avenue Westbury Park
Bristol BS6 7NU
22nd December 2021
FORE Partnership
Reference: St Christopher’s Public Consultation Following our attendance at the St Christopher’s Public consultation. We the residents of Nos 21, 23 and 25 Bayswater Avenue have grouped together to provide a single shared response to the consultation. These are independent of any comments you may receive at this stage from the WPCA and SCAN groups. Notwithstanding, we are aware of the 6 “principles” agreed by WPCA and SCAN and we support these.
• RESPECT THE LOCAL HISTORY AND CONTEXT: Recognise the two distinct parts of the site – enhance and protect the villas at the front, and ensure that development in the rear land, behind the villas, reflects the scale and character of the 2-storey housing in adjacent streets.
• DO NOT MAKE OUR TRAFFIC AND PARKING ANY WORSE: Ensure that any development will not lead to any additional traffic or parking in surrounding streets - road safety must be prioritised.
• RESPECT OUR HOMES: Safeguard the privacy of properties surrounding the site - no new buildings should be taller than existing buildings in the rear land.
• BE GENUINELY GREEN: There should be a net gain in biodiversity; protecting existing trees, landscape and wildlife. Plans must respond to the current global climate and ecological emergencies.
• DO NOT OVERDEVELOP THE SITE: This largely green space should not be overdeveloped but should maintain and enhance the unique and special character of Westbury Park, which is a designated Conservation Area.
• KEEP OUR CHILDREN SAFE: Recognise that, in the interests of public safety, there should be no access to the site from Bayswater Avenue or The Glen.
Thank you for undertaking this pre-application consultation and we appreciate the time, effort and cost associated with running such events. However, our representations submitted now are Without Prejudice to any comments we may make to the submitted Planning and Listed Building Consent applications in due course.
The comments we submit are necessarily focused on how the development will directly affect us and are therefore somewhat negative in tone. However, as an introduction we appreciate the site needs to be redeveloped and support this in principle. While we therefore support the retention and conversion of the Westbury Park villas; the retention and conversion of the listed Grace House and the opportunity that presents itself for some demolition and new building this must be undertaken with due respect to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the area more generally and the character and setting of Grace House; involve the retention (and safeguarding) of all important trees (whether the subject of a current TPO or not) and must cause no harm to, and potentially improve, the residential amenity of all local residents. Within this context our first substantive comment is that the information displayed at the consultation event was to a large extent indicative and therefore vague. While the proposals have positively developed since the initial consultation and no doubt will develop further it was genuinely difficult to understand what the key elements of the current proposal were. While those consultants at the event, presenting on behalf of the developers where helpful, some questions could not be answered definitively and some left key issues unresolved. In the above context, our view is that describing the development as an “integrated retirement community” is vague and does not hide the fact that what is proposed is simply a residential re-development. Alongside this there was of course no reference to on-site affordable housing provision. At this stage and while the price and management costs of the eventual accommodation and services may dictate who can afford to live at the site, we assume that the City Council will insist on the provision of a substantial proportion of affordable housing. We also assume that as the site was bought on the open market with full knowledge of the physical and planning policy context that no credible viability argument could be mounted against the provision of a policy compliant percentage and mix of affordable housing. In due course we would therefore be very interested in the form and location of this on the site. The quantum of development was also unclear on the presentation boards although we were separately advised that the total development was 120 units (25 via conversion and 95 via new build) with “approximately” 65 parking spaces. Also, apart from via two indicative and unscaled sections, there was very little detail on the scale of the buildings and their external appearance. The relevant boards looked like they had subsequently been marked in pen with storey heights noted as ranging from 4-6 storeys with 2 storey “cottages” and the conversion of the existing Villas. The nature of the use and the quantum and mix of development obviously also affects car parking and again it was unclear, with the use class undefined, how the “approximately” 65 parking spaces referred to were derived. Also, the issue of public access was also somewhat unclear. While we support the public (or bookable) use of any facilities to be provided within Grace House we object to any east – west public vehicular or pedestrian through route, which would have the potential to adversely impact our residential amenity. Consequently, we object to the retention and upgrading of the existing access to Etloe Road / Bayswater Avenue and request that this be permanently abandoned / appropriately closed.
Only “approximately” 65 parking spaces are referred to and there was no breakdown between allocated residents parking, visitors or staff or service vehicle parking. Only 65 parking spaces for 120 apartments is approximately half the maximum standard required by the Council (if all the units were 1 bed) and this does seem woefully inadequate even allowing for the potential age profile and sustainable location of the site. If on site parking is in any way inadequate to serve this housing development; if the existing Etloe Road / Bayswater Avenue access is retained and upgraded or if a “public” through pedestrian / cycle or vehicular access is proposed, then there will be significant direct and indirect highway, residential amenity and security impact for us and the other local residents. All existing trees of any merit (whether TPOd or not) must be retained and protected from harm immediately and in the long term. The trees are visually and environmentally important to the character and appearance of the area; biodiversity and existing residential amenity. This will also assist the “net zero” claims; bio-diversity gain requirements and sustainability generally. We welcome the proposed restoration of the old cottage maintaining its current footprint and form and proposed use by the community. The plans displayed showed two terraces of “cottages” facing the rear of our homes but the only other detail provided was that gleaned from the indicative section, which appeared to show a two storey scale with rear gable design (perhaps taking a reference from the dwellings on Royal Albert Road). We have assumed that these “cottages” are indeed single dwellings rather than a collection of apartments. We support a two storey design approach and would promote that across the whole site in the interests of our and other residents residential amenity; the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of Grace House. However, land levels are not clear and the rear gables of these dwellings appeared to be not as wide and of a steeper pitch that those that exist along Royal Albert Road, therefore removing any claim that they are a design reference, and have windows shown implying roof space accommodation. Related to the above is the distance these properties are from the site boundary and the rear elevations of our homes. The existing relationship is not typical in that the boundary is at an angle and this is not reflected in the layout. We haven’t been presented with scaled plans; accurate cross sections or elevations drawings but our estimate is that the proposed rear gardens are all less than 10m deep and that in some cases the rear elevation to elevation distance may be as short as only 12m. This would clearly and obviously be wholly unacceptable for us and the residents in any new properties. This would be further compounded if second floor roofspace accommodation was also proposed and is also in addition to our significant objection to the loss of trees in this north eastern part of the site. While the two storey scale of development proposed by these “cottages” is supported in principle any such accommodation must be sited sympathetically to the existing trees and sufficiently distant from our properties (having regard to their scale and orientation) such that reasonable landscaping can be accommodated and our privacy and general residential amenity is unaffected by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, noise or light spill.
The siting and orientation of these two blocks of proposed dwellings means that our existing verdant outlook is removed; we are significantly overlooked and are at real risk of being significantly overshadowed by development so close to the sites eastern boundary. We would be grateful if you could consider the above and therefore reconsider your proposals. We would be happy to review any revised plan you may prepare but would ask that these be clear in respect of tree removal and new landscaping, accompanied by appropriate existing topographical information; be drawn to scale and be clearly marked with proposed levels and dimensions. Yours sincerely Mr Phil Gittins Dr Laura Paterson 25 Bayswater Avenue
Mr Jon Kay Mrs Francesca Kay 23 Bayswater Avenue
Mr Dan Comerford Mrs Emily Comerford 21 Bayswater Avenue
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
I wish to object strongly to this development. It is inappropriate in the surroundingconservation / heritage setting - it is too bulky and on a scale that should not be considered here.
It will also cause the loss of much valuable natural heritage through the felling of trees. GivenBristol's commitment to defeating the ecological and climate crises, it appears not enough thoughthas been given to the impacts and how this fits with Bristol's other objectives.
I also object to the loss of vital SEND facilities close to the heart of Bristol. Having worked forFreeways, a charity that sprang from St Christopher's, I know how vital all these services are.
I see no sign that this development addresses our need for affordable housing. Therefore, Iquestion the whole rationale behind the proposal. I look forward to hearing that it has beenrejected.
Yours faithfully
Nikki Jones
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
I object to the planned development for the following reasons:-
1.Damage to Heritage: The proposals amount to severe overdevelopment in ea conservation area. The proposed scale, mass and bulk are inappropriate within the sensitiveheritage context of Westbury Park and the listed Grace House, and the scheme will give rise tounacceptable impacts on the townscape.2.Damage to the Environment: There will be too many trees lost and a detrimental impact onnature & wildlife, losing high quality specimens that make a valued contribution to the characterand appearance of the Conservation Area.3.Road Safety, Traffic & Parking: The proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms,owing to insufficient on-site parking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements,which will increase the road safety risks in an area where this is already a significant concern.4.Lack of Affordable Housing: The proposal includes no affordable housing and is not supportedby any evidence to justify such lack of provision.5.Loss of SEND provision: In the context of an increasing need for SEND accommodation inBristol, the developers have failed to comply with council policies that seek to safeguardcommunity facilities.
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
The proposed development will overpower the surrounding buildings, adverselyincrease the density of buildings and thus impact the neighbours' well-being. This will alsonegatively affect the wildlife currently in the area.
The number of proposed dwellings is excessive for the land foot print and does not providesufficient parking facilities. At a minimum, there should be at least one parking space per dwellingplus ~20% extra for visitors/tradesmen/deliveries etc.
Not only will parking in the immediate area be adversely affected, the predicted increase in thenumber of cars will further impede traffic flow in an area that is already extremely busy at peaktimes.
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
I would like to think that Bristol's planners, when determining this application, will bear inmind the recent announcement of Government policy to involve local residents more in planningapprovals.
I object to this proposal on the grounds detailed below and, believing that planning is a rationalprocess...more than just counting numbers...and that the best-reasoned arguments will thereforecarry most weight - I have explained my grounds. Including pointing out the flaws in the TransportStatement's assertions on parking.
ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.No-one - NO-ONE - entitled to vote can today make a credible admission of ignorance of thehuman impact on the climate and the environment. The City of Bristol declared a climateemergency 2 years ago. And yet despite this knowledge, and declaration of intent, very littleACTION can be seen.
There is NO DISCRETIONARY ACTION in this application to improve the carbon footprint of thesite (I am ignoring the non-discretionary compliance with Building Regs). Just the opposite. Weknow that it takes 20-25yr (=nearly until 2050) for a newly-planted tree to become a significantcarbon sink and yet in this proposal, many already mature trees will be lost, with commitment onlyto the planting, in partial 'replacement' by shrubs or saplings.
This is an immediate and unequivocal loss of wildlife value - the currently resident birds will not
find the necessary cover to nest in saplings, and the woodpeckers will not drill in young trees. Sothey will all be disposessed.
Moreover, there are no guarantees given of the saplings' future survival or retention: the over-development of the site with new blocks means that new trees will NEVER be permitted to grow tomaturity (and so to become useful carbon traps as well as things of urban beauty) because of theirproximity to new buildings.
Trees as green trinkets, manicured to prevent unruliness, is just tokenism, and is NOT looking outfor, and protecting the natural world. Only reducing the development's density will address thisfundamental problem.
As if this were not enough, this proposal will also be a detriment to the visual environment in whatis currently an exceptionally beautiful area of the city. Beautiful because of the juxtaposition ofmature trees and grand houses.
DAMAGE TO HERITAGE.Westbury Park and Grace House have great heritage value, and the gross overdevelopmentproposed - its scale, density and especially height are utterly out of keeping with the housing of thearea. This is not six storey Regent Street in London - it is suburban Westbury Park. To propose sixstoreys in some blocks when none of the nearby housing has more than three is (even if it is topermit a cynical gesture of a concessional reduction to five storeys on appeal) a gross insensitivityto the heritage of the area. The proposals should be restricted to three storeys as are the existingmain houses and those of the neighbourhood, or four if accomodated within the same height.
In addition to the height and density problems, the design of many of the buildings is impoverishedand stark in comparison with the heritage buildings of the area. An example (there are others) ison p68 of the D&A statement - the design of the 'Cottages' makes reference to houses in RoyalAlbert Road. But all that is imitated is the shape and roofline. Without the embellishments aroundthe windows & door openings and the barge boards around the gables, there is nothing to breakup the blocky appearance and to give it character. This makes the whole edifice look stark, meanand minimalist, and is not respectful of the local heritage.
TRAFFIC, PARKING, ROAD SAFETY.I passed St Christophers every single day on my lockdown walks and cycle-rides and the habithas become a long-term one. I see the existing parking problems and I breathe the air of thebacked-up cars queuing for access to the Downs' roads. It is already a traffic hotspot, and thisproposal will make things much, much worse.
I have professional experience of care homes & extra care facilities and new residents who canafford privately-funded care and who look ahead and downsize in a planned way WILL arrive inposession of, and using, a car. As their health declines to the point where they no longer drive,
their cars' movements are replaced by the cars of their concerned relatives visiting, and the visitsof carers and clinicians. With increasing specialisation, a dizzying variety of these now exists.
The traffic movements of carers and staff will make the existing problems in Westbury Parkmaddening for motorists and the fumes intolerable for the many others who like me use it as awalking or cycling route to the Downs. And the consequence will be a deterioration in road andpavement safety. It is a traffic problem that stems from overambitious overdevelopment plans.
The parking provision is grossly inadequate and the analysis to support this is flawed in severalways. The Transport Statement (p20-23) uses both the wrong guidance AND the wrongcomparator development.
The first flaw is in the use of guidance for nursing/residential care homes, which makes theassumption that car ownership among residents will be the exception rather than the norm. This istrue for nursing and residential homes, whose occupants in the past 2 decades have become onaverage steadily older and more frail. But Extra Care is for older people who start out (as everynew resident here must) with full or nearly full independence. If every bed is occupied, there will be233 residents in 122 units: it is ludicrous to suggest that the current provision is enough.
The guidance which should have been used is Design Principles for Extra Care Housing (3rd Ed)by the Housing Learning and Improvement Network (HLIN) (https://tinyurl.com/4b7vu2tk). It shows(p13) that other factors not mentioned in this submission affect the parking need such that thesimple calculation presented is inadequate. And that private developments are likely to aim for 1:1(100%) or more in parking provision. Indeed in the documents of preliminary discussions with BCCPlanners I saw reference to the difficulty of finding 120 spaces (I cannot now find this reference).The assertion in para 6.7 that 65 spaces "is over the standard" is invalid and incorrect.
The second flaw is in presenting Waverley Gardens (BS13 8EL) as a valid comparison site forparking provision without mention of its limitations. It is inappropriate because car ownershipamong elderly residents of one of the poorest suburbs of Bristol is lower than in Redland, one ofthe most affluent suburbs. In addition, the shared equity arrangements for the 20 units there whichARE available for fit elderly occupants are designed as affordable housing (St Christopher's Sqhas none, which itself might be cause for complaint). The HLIN guidance above shows that privatedevelopments need more parking provision than does affordable housing.
Further, all of the remaining units at Waverley Gdns are only available on referral from BCC topeople who already have a significant care requirement, and who are therefore far less likely to becar-drivers than the people St Christophers wishes to attract. In its blandishments, the TransportStatement mentions NONE of these limitations.
Finally in its conclusion, Para 6.20 states "Car parking provision is higher the maximum standardsbut would reduce the risk of overspill parking affecting local residents." This sentence is
unintelligible and is therefore worthless.
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
We object to the loss of wildlife habitat including owls, bats, hedgehogs, badgers andfoxes due to the proposed felling of 50% of the trees on the St Christopher site many of which aremature and can never be replaced. In addition, the Horse Chestnuts on the Granny Downs, whichhave to be removed to create a wide and needless path across the Granny Downs. This additionalelement of development is entirely unacceptable and there has been no consultation on this.On Westbury Park itself (where the site's proposed main entrance is) there are already long traffictailbacks from the White tree roundabout. With the extra site traffic the road will come to a grindinghalt. The idling engines from this constant stationary queue of traffic will pollute the entireconservation area, specifically the Granny Downs and nearby nurseries and schools. It's a deathsentence for asthmatic children and adults in the area and will have a huge impact on the airquality in the immediate surrounds.There are only 65 parking spaces provided for residents, carers, workers and delivery truckswhose number will be up to 300. The overflow parking in the vicinity will heavily pollute the areaand congest the roads and junctions. Anti-social parking and people leaving their cars onpavements is already a major issue for people - not least families with prams and wheelchair userswho have to then venture onto the road. With this additional development the problem is going toget far worse leaving local families to pick up the real cost.
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
I would like to object on the basis that the development is not in keeping with the areaas it is too dense, too tall and overall too many dwellings. I also believe that it will add to conjestionon Westbury Park which is already an issue as is road safety as it is a single lane two way road.There are also already serious parking issues in this area and as somebody who owns a propertyon Westbury Park I can already no longer find a parking space due to parking restrictionsintroduced in Clifton. I think it is also poorly thought out in terms of affordable housing andreplacing a useful local facility with yet more retirement homes - which are in plentiful supplyalready in the area
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
I often visit The Glen by way of adjacent streets and very rarely can I reach mydestination without being confronted by a vehicle blocking the road particularly Belvedere Road.The heights and density of the proposed units are way out of scale and will have an overpoweringand over shadowing effect on the adjacent neighbours. This proposal is totally unacceptable in aconservation area and should most definitely be opposed.
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
I wish to object to the development proposal for the former St Christopher's School sitefor the following reasons:1. I do not believe there is capacity for yet more vehicles without a very negative impact on roadsafety. Westbury Park and Redland already suffer from severe parking issues as much of the areais outside the RPZ. Where I live, for example, most people already have to park at least partiallyon the pavement so that traffic can get through, and it is very difficult for residents to park on thestreet during work / school hours. With this development proposed for more than 200 newresidents along with their visitors, carers, deliveries etc... the parking provision is simply not there,and the inevitable additional cars will clog up the streets even more and also add to the pollutionwhich BCC is trying to reduce with its Clean Air Zones. It does not make any sense.2. Bristol has a significant housing problem particularly as regards the lack of affordable housing.The proposed development does not offer any affordable housing at all, despite this being a keytarget for BCC. Why not? It would seem that the drive for private profit might override the need forpeople to have a roof over their heads - which would be morally wrong, particularly in view of thecurrent cost of living crisis.3. BCC is apparently paying large sums of money to send vulnerable children who have specialneeds to placements outside the county. It is a sad reflection of our society that there is now noprovision for a residential special school within the city, given the size of Bristol. How refreshing itwould be if the site were to be redeveloped appropriately for children with special needs....4. The plans also entail a loss of biodiversity and are therefore not compliant with the Climate ofEcological Emergencies. Trees, plants and natural habitats will be removed and this will negativelyimpact the Downs as a Site of Nature Conservation Interest. Surely with the current climate crisis
there should be a focus on preserving nature rather than replacing it with oversized buildings?5. Finally, I object to the scale and size of the proposed development. Apartment blocks of 3-6storeys are too high, too large and too close to neighbouring properties and will damage theDowns Conservation Area. Any development needs to be done sensitively and to take thesurrounding environment into consideration which the current plans patently do not do.I hope my views will be taken into consideration. I see the current proposal as very short sighted,and I believe it will, if accepted in its current form, have a very negative long term impact on boththe environment and the neighbourhood.
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
Hello. Our house backs onto the site and we share the concerns you've heard manytimes around over-development, our property becoming overlooked, impact on local parking and ageneral lack of transparency and good-faith engagement by the developers.
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
I have been a BS6 resident for 20 years, the last 17 in Devonshire Road. I walk past the St.Christopher's site every day. Having had the opportunity to consider this planning application, myobjections are as follows:1) To me, the site looks overdeveloped. The 5/6 storey blocks will dwarf nearby residentialterraced streets.2) There looks to be insufficient parking provision, with likely knock-on effects on local traffic,residential parking, access, and schools.3) There will be an adverse impact on local flora and fauna.4) There appears to be no provision for affordable housing or alternative SEND facility/ies.
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
The proposed high rises overshadowing neighbouring buildings will negatively impactthe surroundings. Their style is totally out of keeping. Mature trees will need to be felled. Theproposed new path across the Granny Downs will also mean loss of vegetation. Traffic alongWestbury Park is often backed up. More cars in the road will worsen this. Parking in the area isalready at a premium.
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
My objections to the proposed planning application for the St. Christopher's site are asfollows: -1. It is a high-density scheme of 4 apartment blocks up to 6 storeys high plus villas which will beharmful to the character and appearance of the Westbury Park Conservation area and the historicview from the Downs.2. It will dominate the area and is completely incompatible with the Victorian & Edwardiancharacter of Westbury Park.3. Parking facilities of 65 spaces for 122 dwellings is completely inadequate. The occupants maybe over 65 but so am I and I still drive. Residents will either have a car or will need support fromancillary persons who by necessity will arrive by car. Also, there will be many visitors many ofwhom will arrive by car. When the car spaces are full residents and guests will attempt to use thesurrounding roads. As a parking survey has demonstrated these roads are invariably or verynearly full already with parked cars. If St Christopher residents and their visitors do find a vacantspace - driving around the area causing pollution and increasing the road safety risk in the process- then local residents will be displaced from theirs and they in turn will be forced to search theirneighbourhood for a space leading to further pollution, a further increased road safety risk andfrustration.4. The entrance proposed from Bayswater Avenue is located at a junction with St. Helena Rd.which already has very poor site lines. An accident happened here very recently, and anotherentrance will only increase the danger. This threat is not only to motorists the road has a schooland two nurseries with many children and parents using the pavements.5. There will be considerable environmental impact with a loss of biodiversity as many trees and
habitats will be lost. It will take many years for any new planting to grow and mature.6. The loss of SEN provision is particularly concerning given Bristol's appalling lack of places forSEND children. Surely with a purpose-built facility like Grace House it would be a much betterutilised as a centre for SEN.7. There is no provision for affordable housing and the cost of these apartments is likely to bebeyond the budget of most pensioners apart from the very wealthy.
This cannot be an acceptable development of this site there must be a better use that offersbenefits to both the local community, the elderly and the environment.
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
In my opinion this is a gross overdevelopment of the existing site, which is notsympathetic to the surrounding conservation area, and will be detrimental to the environment andwildlife; it is typical of developers trying to maximise profits with scant regard to the impact on thelocal community. I respectfully request you refuse this application in the strongest possible termsplease.
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
There are numerous business activities taking place at the care homes in BelvedereRoad; doctor visits and ambulances attending emergencies, deliveries day and night, regularwaste removal, and traffic jams due to staff shift changes. This proposal will result in extrabusiness transactions just around the corner, which in turn will increase disturbances for the localcommunity. The current arrangements for parking are woefully inadequate and this proposal willonly exacerbate the problem, adding to the current parking challenges for local residents. Thearea suffers from enough vehicle traffic; we don't need any more. I'd ask that the soul andcharacter of Westbury Park not be irreparably damaged, so please reject this unsuitableapplication.
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
We strongly object to the application on the former St. Christopher's site application no.22/01221/F for the proposed development of the site including, internal and external alterations oflisted house building and conversion of lodges fronting Westbury Park; demolition of buildings andthe erection of new buildings to provide integrated Retirement Community (Class C2) for olderpeople; together with landscaping, car parking, refuse and other associated works (major).
We object on the grounds of:
Parking, Road Safety & Traffic
Bristol City Council (BCC) Planning Department have already shown real concern at the traffic andparking situation on Belvedere Road and The Glen. In regard to planning application 19/D1251/Hfor a dropped kerb on The Glen which was REFUSED, In BCC Planning Department's own words:
'The application would create one off street parking space and the loss of up to two on-streetparking spaces. This would be a net loss in an area where there is already over demand forparking spaces and would increase the risk of motorists parking in a dangerous manner. Theapplication is thus recommended for refusal on the grounds of highway safety. This would be a netloss in an area where there is already over demand for parking spaces.' (Planning application19/D1251/H)
The proposed application at the former site of St. Christopher's allows for only 65 parking spaces
for 120 units. The overspill through insufficient parking provision, visitors to both residents andamenities on the site, parking for care providers for a community that has pre-requisiterequirements for a level of care that requires home carers to travel to the site, in an area alreadystruggling to accommodate the current population and local parking pressures presented by thenearby Residents Parking Scheme (RPZ), multiple care homes and commuter parking. The loss ofONE parking space was grounds for refusal on the grounds of highway safety. This application isdealing with parking pressures of certainly more than one car parking space.
Bristol City Council Planning Department REFUSED application 19/03104/F in June 2020 for achange of use to a 17 bed extension to the Glen View care home on Belvedere Road. In BCCPlanning Department's own words:
'The proposed development would result in an unacceptable increase in demand for parking,leading to inappropriate on-street parking activities, safety concerns and the obstruction of accessto private driveways. This would be contrary to Policy BCS10 (Transport and AccessImprovements), Policy DM2 (Residential Sub-divisions, Shared and Specialist Housing) and PolicyDM23 (Transport Development Management).'
This proposed application on Belvedere Road was seen to have an significant impact on this area.The proposed application on the former St Christopher's site is even more demanding on this areathan a 17 bed extension to a care home. It is 120 units and a number of amenities that will requirestaff, workers, care providers, attract customers, attract visitors, and will have car ownershipamong those who reside there. The demand for parking in the surrounding roads, safety concernsand obstruction of roads and access to private driveways already exists. The intensity of thedevelopment and the lack of parking will further aggravate already over burdened residentialstreets that border the application site.
Hence followed a Planning Appeal on Belvedere Road: The Planning Inspectorate visited the siteof 7 Belvedere Road in February 2021 (Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/W/20/3263935). The appeal wasdismissed.
To quote the report: 'The main issues are: the effects of the proposal on parking and highwaysafety and; the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including theConservation Area, noise, disturbance, recycling/refuse'.
This application 22/01221/F for the former St Christopher's site will impact parking and highwaysafety as this is already an issue, evidenced by the refusals of the above applications.
Heritage Impact
Bristol City Council Planning Department have already shown real concern at the degradation ofthe Down's Conservation Area, specifically on Belvedere Road and The Glen. A planning
application on Belvedere Road, bordering the site, to replace windows on a basement flat beneathstreet level was REFUSED (14/03655/F). In the BCC Planning Department's own words:
It was stated that the replacement of these windows were an 'unsympathetic alteration to the hostproperty and appear incongruous within the street scene. The proposal would fail to safeguard thecharacter and setting of this part of the Downs Conservation Area, detrimental to the visualamenity of the area'.
This, tiny in comparison, application of a window replacement was seen by BCC to have a cleargrounds for refusal in this area. Bristol City Council Planning Department can apply much of thissame wording to this current application of a three storey, four story, five storey, six storey blocksthat are being proposed on the former St Christopher's site. Not only are these high rise blockscompletely out of character for this area, they are architecturally of a poor standard, are too high,packed too densely and degrade the heritage of the area substantially. This application has cleargrounds for refusal in that it 'appears incongruous within the street scene', 'fails to safeguard thecharacter and setting of this part of the Down's Conservation Area' and is 'detrimental' by sheersize and impact on surrounding properties and the wider area.
To conclude
This application 22/01221/F for the former St Christopher's site will impact the character andappearance of this area - including the Conservation Area, due to the height, intensity and designof the buildings proposed. The seriousness with which this is taken by BCC on a number ofdifferent scales is evidenced by the refusals of the above applications.
Bristol City Council Planning Department should REFUSE this application 22/01221/F for theproposed development of the site including, internal and external alterations of listed housebuilding and conversion of lodges fronting Westbury Park; demolition of buildings and the erectionof new buildings to provide integrated Retirement Community (Class C2) for older people; togetherwith landscaping, car parking, refuse and other associated works (major).
To not refuse this application will show inconsistency, double standards and will call into questionthe integrity of the Planning Department at Bristol City Council.
We object strongly to this application.
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
106). Also, there is a note on the Landscaping Masterplan drawing simply stating that our existing rear garden stone boundary wall will be retained and made good (NB: this wall is mis-described as a 2m high brick wall on the topographical survey embedded as an Appendix in the Drainage Strategy Report. Also this wall is jointly owned and we have had no request to do any work to it) and propsals for the planting of small trees against this boundary. Without sections there is no clear indication of whether merely retaining the existing wall will indeed be at all adequate to maintain and provide adequate private amenity.
The documents submitted acknowledge that the boundary to Bayswater Avenue is “sensitive” (DAS page 42) and that design constraints are imposed by existing development (page 43). This is indeed well illustrated by an aerial photograph in the DAS (page 38); the fourth picture on page 40 and the fourth Verified Image. The Verified image clearly illustartes how close and dominant the Cottages will be to our properties and in the image, combined with the block beyond, how grossly overlooking, overbearing and contrasting they will be to the private gardens of No. 21, 23 and 25 but also to all the rear elevations and indeed the public street itself.
Since the Consultation Event the proposed Cottages (H02) have merely been slightly angled away from the boundary but both blocks are still far too close resulting in a significant adverse impact on our outlook and a wholly unacceptable physical relationship resulting in mutually unacceptable overlooking and overshadowing. Also, the provision of active public public garden spaces directly on our boundaries will compound the above by reason of noise and general disturbance.
No. 25 has a very shallow back garden with its principal private amenity space being to the North. Nos. 23 and 21 have more typical back gardens but No. 23’s is still shallow. Our gardens are approximately 1 to 2m below the level of the application site such that our garden walls are part retaining.
All three properties are typical two storey (it is not clear whether this is acknowldeged – see DAS page 41) but all also have roof space accommodation and dormer rear elevation windows. All three of our properties have ground floor kitchen and living accommodation and first and second floor rear bedrooms. These first and second floor bedrooms have direct line of sight down into and over the application site.
Our current outlook is pleasant with open areas and significant trees and related wildlife interest. At the present time there is no unacceptable window to window overlooking or overshowing and our gardens are private.
The proposed “Cottages” are two storey but we currently do not know at what level they are proposed. If we assume they are built at ground level then they will have a dpc between 1 and 2m higher than our properties. As we state above we cannot see any directly related section(s) to accurately illustrate the relationship. The SOCI in this respect makes reference only to “increasing distances” (page 45) and “respected and preserved as much as possible” (page 50 our undelyning). The DAS at page 59 states, “The heights of the proposed cottages are lower than the existing heights in Bayswater Avenue and The Glen.”, but again the actual heights are not illustrated having regard to existing ground levels. (NB: this is also not consistent with the previously
published Section C-C, which shows the “Cottages” at the same height as our properties even allowing for the garden level differences.) The Planning Statement at para 6.47 states, “…significant overlooking or overshaowing does not occur…” and “…buildings have been re-orinetated to seek to reduce impacts on neighbours.” (again our underlyning). The language used is not based on stated distances and acknwowledges harm but considers it a reasonable impact.
Our measurement of “back to back” and window to window distances scaled form the submitted Proposed Ground Layout plan are:-
• Between 8.5 and 9.5m from rear elevation of H03 semi-pair to garden boundary of No. 25 and a 15m angled view from rear elevation to side (north) elevation of No. 25;
• 15m from northernmost plot of H02 terrace rear elevation to garden boundary of No. 25 and between 16.5 and 17.5m to rear elevation;
• A 10.5m garden depth and a distance of 15.5m from the rear elevation of H02 terrace to the rear kitchen of No. 23 and 20m and 21m to the rear elevation;
• An 8m garden depth and a 21.5m distance to the rear elevation of No. 21.
The above distances are reflective of the oblique relationship of both the proposed and the existing development to the dividing boundary. The distances demonstrate that the development is far too close even if this were a flat site with a standard 1.8m boundary and a parallel relationship. However, the application site is higher that the ground level in Nos. 21-25; the relationship is oblique and we all have second floor roof accommodation. We disagree with the Planning Statement that “…proposed offset distances are considered to be acceptable and would not cause an unacceptable loss of light or amenity to surrounding neighbours” (para 6.47). Our side and rear private amenity areas will be severely overlooked; there will be severe overlooking to and from rear elevation windows; the new rear gardens will be severely overlooked by our first and second floor bedroom windows and we will all be overshdowed by the proposed “Cottages”.
The provision of “active public areas” on our boundaries will also add noise and disturbance particularly for Nos. 25 and 21 and the scale of development and proposed small trees immediately on the boundary will result in overshadowing. The submitted report says that the development is compliant with BRE Guidelines and that there is thus no unacceptable overshadwing / loss of light. We do not see the evidence to support this. Indeed in the submitted Daylight & Sunlight Report (22 February 2022) drawings 2613 03-01, 02 and 03 (Appendix 1) do appear to show significant overshadowing to at least the side garden of No. 25. Also, in the published figures (Appendix 2) there is a noted reduction in sunlight and daylight to all the windows in Nos. 25 and 23 (NB: there are no figures published for No. 21). Then in Appendix 4 there is no reference at all to Nos. 21-25.
Specifically relating to the proposed restoration of ‘North House’ (also referred to as ‘the old cottage’), this building is located directly upon the rear boundary of No 21 Bayswater Avenue. We support the initiative to restore this buiding back to a safe and usable condition in-keeping with the style of the local conservation area, but only if there is no increase to the outside envelope
of this building, no loss of privacy due to overlooking and no potential disturbance from the proposed use of this building at such close proximity (less than 1 metre) to our small and currently very private garden. During the developers pre-application consultation it was verbally confirmed twice that there would be no increase to the envelope of the ‘North House’ / Old Cottage, but we have not seen any written confirmation of this. We insist that no restoration work shall commence on our shared boundary wall, nor the parts of North House that integrate with our shared boundary, without our prior consent.
On the basis of the above and as many people and SCAN and WPCA have said the proposal is an “overdevelopment” with too much and too high development too close to the site boundaries. While we accept and have previosly stated that we do not oppose redevelopment in principle, in accordance with both National and Local Policy this must be done while both delivering acceptable and protecting existing residential amenity.
The developers pre-application consultation has turned out to be a sham with promised quality and application detail not forthecoming. This manifests itself in the lack of level and section detail submitted and the hollow words in supporting reports, acknowledging adverse impact but concluding that this is the best that can be done and is therefore acceptable.
We do not agree that the impacts are either accepotable or ourtweighed by the socio-economic benefits potentially delivered by redevelopment.
Bristol Core Strategy Policy BCS21 states that development will be expected to, “Safeguard the amenity of existing development and create a high-quality environment for future occupiers.”
Paragraph 4.21.13 of the plan supporting Policy BCS21 then states, “A high quality built environment should consider the amenity of both existing and future development. Consideration should be given to matters of privacy, outlook, natural lighting, ventilation and indoor and outdoor space.”
Bristol Development Management Polciy DM26 states in relation to Infill development that proposals will be expected to have regard to, “..the prevailing character and quality of the surrounding townscape….Infill developments on return frontages should be compatible with the open character of corner sites and be subservient in height, scale and massing to the primary frontage building” In relation to “backland” development it states that development, “..will be expected to be subservient in height, scale, mass and form to the surrounding frontage buildings. It should not prejudice the opportunity to develop the adjoining land of similar potential nor should the proposed access arrangements cause adverse impacts to the character and appearance, safety or amenity of the existing frontage development.”
Policy DM27 states that development “…will be expected to….enable existing and proposed development to achieve appropriate levels of privacy, outlook and daylight; and policy DM29, interestingly referenced in the residential amenity section of the Planning Statement but not more formally in the Planning Policy section, states that development, “will be expected to…..ensure that existing and proposed development achieves appropriate levels of privacy, outlook and daylight”.
Overarching local policy is consistent with guidance in the NPPF which champions “good design” and states at paragraph 130 that, “Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.”
On the basis of our review we conclude that the development is indeed a poor response to site context and an overdevelopment. This manifests itself in critical adverse impact on our residential amenity by reason of direct and perceived overlooking both to private gardens and by reason of direct window to window distances and significant overshadowing.
These direct future impacts are compounded by the loss of existing trees and the erosion of the residential amenity and outlook we currently enjoy.
The proposal lacks detail and on that basis we reserve our position to review and comment again on any additional information provided. However on the basis of the application as submitted we consider that it is by reason of adverse residential amenity impact contrary to prevailing planning policy and should be refused on this basis alone.
Yours sincerely
Mr Dan Comerford Mrs Emily Comerford 21 Bayswater Avenue
Appendix 1: letter to FORE Partnership 22 December 2021
21 / 23 / 25 Bayswater Avenue Westbury Park
Bristol BS6 7NU
22nd December 2021
FORE Partnership
Reference: St Christopher’s Public Consultation
Following our attendance at the St Christopher’s Public consultation. We the residents of Nos 21, 23 and 25 Bayswater Avenue have grouped together to provide a single shared response to the consultation.
These are independent of any comments you may receive at this stage from the WPCA and SCAN groups. Notwithstanding, we are aware of the 6 “principles” agreed by WPCA and SCAN and we support these.
• RESPECT THE LOCAL HISTORY AND CONTEXT: Recognise the two distinct parts of the site – enhance and protect the villas at the front, and ensure that development in the rear land, behind the villas, reflects the scale and character of the 2-storey housing in adjacent streets. • DO NOT MAKE OUR TRAFFIC AND PARKING ANY WORSE: Ensure that any development will not lead to any additional traffic or parking in surrounding streets - road safety must be prioritised. • RESPECT OUR HOMES: Safeguard the privacy of properties surrounding the site - no new buildings should be taller than existing buildings in the rear land. • BE GENUINELY GREEN: There should be a net gain in biodiversity; protecting existing trees, landscape and wildlife. Plans must respond to the current global climate and ecological emergencies. • DO NOT OVERDEVELOP THE SITE: This largely green space should not be overdeveloped but should maintain and enhance the unique and special character of Westbury Park, which is a designated Conservation Area. • KEEP OUR CHILDREN SAFE: Recognise that, in the interests of public safety, there should be no access to the site from Bayswater Avenue or The Glen.
Thank you for undertaking this pre-application consultation and we appreciate the time, effort and cost associated with running such events. However, our representations submitted now are Without Prejudice to any comments we may make to the submitted Planning and Listed Building Consent applications in due course.
The comments we submit are necessarily focused on how the development will directly affect us and are therefore somewhat negative in tone. However, as an introduction we appreciate the site needs to be redeveloped and support this in principle. While we therefore support the retention and conversion of the Westbury Park villas; the retention and conversion of the listed Grace House and the opportunity that presents itself for some demolition and new building this must be undertaken with due respect to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the area more generally and the character and setting of Grace House; involve the retention (and safeguarding) of all important trees (whether the subject of a current TPO or not) and must cause no harm to, and potentially improve, the residential amenity of all local residents.
Within this context our first substantive comment is that the information displayed at the consultation event was to a large extent indicative and therefore vague. While the proposals have positively developed since the initial consultation and no doubt will develop further it was genuinely difficult to understand what the key elements of the current proposal were. While those consultants at the event, presenting on behalf of the developers where helpful, some questions could not be answered definitively and some left key issues unresolved.
In the above context, our view is that describing the development as an “integrated retirement community” is vague and does not hide the fact that what is proposed is simply a residential re-development. Alongside this there was of course no reference to on-site affordable housing provision. At this stage and while the price and management costs of the eventual accommodation and services may dictate who can afford to live at the site, we assume that the City Council will insist on the provision of a substantial proportion of affordable housing. We also assume that as the site was bought on the open market with full knowledge of the physical and planning policy context that no credible viability argument could be mounted against the provision of a policy compliant percentage and mix of affordable housing. In due course we would therefore be very interested in the form and location of this on the site.
The quantum of development was also unclear on the presentation boards although we were separately advised that the total development was 120 units (25 via conversion and 95 via new build) with “approximately” 65 parking spaces. Also, apart from via two indicative and unscaled sections, there was very little detail on the scale of the buildings and their external appearance. The relevant boards looked like they had subsequently been marked in pen with storey heights noted as ranging from 4-6 storeys with 2 storey “cottages” and the conversion of the existing Villas. The nature of the use and the quantum and mix of development obviously also affects car parking and again it was unclear, with the use class undefined, how the “approximately” 65 parking spaces referred to were derived. Also, the issue of public access was also somewhat unclear. While we support the public (or bookable) use of any facilities to be provided within Grace House we object to any east – west public vehicular or pedestrian through route, which would have the potential to adversely impact our residential amenity.
Consequently, we object to the retention and upgrading of the existing access to Etloe Road / Bayswater Avenue and request that this be permanently abandoned / appropriately closed.
Only “approximately” 65 parking spaces are referred to and there was no breakdown between allocated residents parking, visitors or staff or service vehicle parking. Only 65 parking spaces for 120 apartments is approximately half the maximum standard required by the Council (if all the units were 1 bed) and this does seem woefully inadequate even allowing for the potential age profile and sustainable location of the site. If on site parking is in any way inadequate to serve this housing development; if the existing Etloe Road / Bayswater Avenue access is retained and upgraded or if a “public” through pedestrian / cycle or vehicular access is proposed, then there will be significant direct and indirect highway, residential amenity and security impact for us and the other local residents.
All existing trees of any merit (whether TPOd or not) must be retained and protected from harm immediately and in the long term. The trees are visually and environmentally important to the character and appearance of the area; biodiversity and existing residential amenity. This will also assist the “net zero” claims; bio-diversity gain requirements and sustainability generally.
We welcome the proposed restoration of the old cottage maintaining its current footprint and form and proposed use by the community.
The plans displayed showed two terraces of “cottages” facing the rear of our homes but the only other detail provided was that gleaned from the indicative section, which appeared to show a two storey scale with rear gable design (perhaps taking a reference from the dwellings on Royal Albert Road). We have assumed that these “cottages” are indeed single dwellings rather than a collection of apartments. We support a two storey design approach and would promote that across the whole site in the interests of our and other residents residential amenity; the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of Grace House. However, land levels are not clear and the rear gables of these dwellings appeared to be not as wide and of a steeper pitch that those that exist along Royal Albert Road, therefore removing any claim that they are a design reference, and have windows shown implying roof space accommodation.
Related to the above is the distance these properties are from the site boundary and the rear elevations of our homes. The existing relationship is not typical in that the boundary is at an angle and this is not reflected in the layout. We haven’t been presented with scaled plans; accurate cross sections or elevations drawings but our estimate is that the proposed rear gardens are all less than 10m deep and that in some cases the rear elevation to elevation distance may be as short as only 12m. This would clearly and obviously be wholly unacceptable for us and the residents in any new properties. This would be further compounded if second floor roofspace accommodation was also proposed and is also in addition to our significant objection to the loss of trees in this north eastern part of the site.
While the two storey scale of development proposed by these “cottages” is supported in principle any such accommodation must be sited sympathetically to the existing trees and sufficiently distant from our properties (having regard to their scale and orientation) such that reasonable landscaping can be accommodated and our privacy and general residential amenity is unaffected by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, noise or light spill.
The siting and orientation of these two blocks of proposed dwellings means that our existing verdant outlook is removed; we are significantly overlooked and are at real risk of being significantly overshadowed by development so close to the sites eastern boundary.
We would be grateful if you could consider the above and therefore reconsider your proposals. We would be happy to review any revised plan you may prepare but would ask that these be clear in respect of tree removal and new landscaping, accompanied by appropriate existing topographical information; be drawn to scale and be clearly marked with proposed levels and dimensions.
Yours sincerely
Mr Phil Gittins Dr Laura Paterson 25 Bayswater Avenue
Mrs Francesca Kay 23 Bayswater Avenue
Mr Dan Comerford Mrs Emily Comerford 21 Bayswater Avenue
on 2022-05-16 OBJECT
be managed (see Desifgn and Access Statement (DAS) pages 61, 95 and106). Also, there is a note on the Landscaping Masterplan drawing simplystating that our existing rear garden stone boundary wall will be retained andmade good (NB: this wall is miss described as a 2m high brick wall on thetopographical survey embedded as an Appendix in the Drainage StrategyReport. Also this wall is jointly owned and we have had no request to do anywork to it) and propsals for the planting of small trees against this boundary.Without sections there is no clear indication of whether merely retaining theexisting wall will indeed be at all adequate to maintain and provide adequateprivate amenity.
The documents submitted acknowledge that the boundary to BayswaterAvenue is “sensitive” (DAS page 42) and that design constraints are imposedby existing development (page 43). This is indeed well illustrated by an aerialphotograph in the DAS (page 38); the fourth picture on page 40 and the fourthVerified Image. The Verified image clearly illustartes how close and dominantthe Cottages will be to our properties and in the image, combined with theblock beyond, how grossly overlooking, overbearing and contrasting they willbe particularly to the private side garden of No. 25 but also to all the rearelevations and indeed the public street itself.
Since the Consultation Event the proposed Cottages (H02) have merely beenslightly angled away from the boundary but both blocks are still far too closeresulting in a significant adverse impact on our outlook and a whollyunacceptable physical relationship resulting in mutually unacceptableoverlooking and overshadowing. Also, the provision of active public publicgarden spaces directly on our boundaries will compound the above by reasonof noise and general disturbance.
Our back garden at No. 25 is very shallow with its principal private amenityspace being to the North. Nos. 23 and 21 have more typical back gardens butNo. 23’s is still shallow. Our gardens are approximately 1 to 2m below thelevel of the application site such that our garden walls are part retaining.
All three properties are typical two storey (it is not clear whether this isacknowldeged – see DAS page 41) but all also have roof spaceaccommodation and dormer rear elevation windows. All three of ourproperties have grond floor kitchen and living accommodation and first andsecond floor rear bedrooms. These first and second floor bedrooms havedirect line of sight down into and over the application site.
Our current outlook is pleasant with open areas and significant trees andrelated wildlife interest. At the present time there is no unacceptable windowto window overlooking or overshowing and our gardens are private.
The proposed “Cottages” are two storey but we currently do not know at whatlevel they are proposed. If we assume they are built at ground level then theywill have a dpc between 1 and 2m higher than our properties. As we stateabove we cannot see any directly related section(s) to accurately illustrate therelationship. The SOCI in this respect makes reference only to “increasingdistances” (page 45) and “respected and preserved as much as possible”(page 50 our undelyning). The DAS at page 59 states, “The heights of theproposed cottages are lower than the existing heights in Bayswater Avenueand The Glen.”, but again the actual heights are not illustrated having regard
to existing ground levels. (NB: this is also not consistent with the previouslypublished Section C-C, which shows the “Cottages” at the same height as ourproperties even allowing for the garden level differences.) The PlanningStatement at para 6.47 states, “…significant overlooking or overshaowingdoes not occur…” and “…buildings have been re-orinetated to seek to reduceimpacts on neighbours.” (again our underlyning). The language used is notbased on stated distances and acknwowledges harm but considers it areasonable impact.
Our measurement of “back to back” and window to window distances scaledform the submitted Proposed Ground Layout plan are:-
• Between 8.5 and 9.5m from rear elevation of H03 semi-pair to gardenboundary of No. 25 and a 15m angled view from rear elevation to side(north) elevation of No. 25;
• 15m from northernmost plot of H02 terrace rear elevation to gardenboundary of No. 25 and between 16.5 and 17.5m to rear elevation;
• A 10.5m garden depth and a distance of 15.5m from the rear elevationof H02 terrace to the rear kitchen of No. 23 and 20m and 21m to therear elevation;
• An 8m garden depth and a 21.5m distance to the rear elevation of No.21.
The above distances are reflective of the oblique relationship of both theproposed and the existing development to the dividing boundary. Thedistances demonstrate that the development is far too close even if this werea flat site with a standard 1.8m boundary and a parallel relationship. However,the application site is higher that the ground level in Nos. 21-25; therelationship is oblique and we all have second floor roof accommodation. Wedisagree with the Planning Statement that “…proposed offset distances areconsidered to be acceptable and would not cause an unacceptable loss oflight or amenity to surrounding neighbours” (para 6.47). Our side and rearprivate amenity areas will be severely overlooked; there will be severeoverlooking to and from rear elevation windows; the new rear gardens will beseverely overlooked by our first and second floor bedroom windows and wewill all be overshdowed by the proposed “Cottages”.
The provision of “active public areas” on our boundaries will also add noiseand disturbance particularly for Nos. 25 and 21 and the scale of developmentand proposed small trees immediately on the boundary willresult in overshowing. The submitted report says that the development iscompliant with BRE Guidelines and that there is thus no unacceptableovershowing / loss of light. We do not see the evidence to support this. Indeedin the submitted Daylight & Sunlight Report (22 February 2022) drawings2613 03-01, 02 and 03 (Appendix 1) do appear to show significantovershadowing to at least the side garden of No. 25. Also, in the publishedfigures (Appendix 2) there is a noted reduction in sunlight and daylight to allthe windows in Nos. 25 and 23 (NB: there are no figures published for No.21). Then in Appendix 4 there is no reference at all to Nos. 21-25.
On the basis of the above and as many people and SCAN and WPCA havesaid the proposal is an “overdevelopment” with too much and too highdevelopment too close to the site boundaries. While we accept and havepreviosly stated that we do not oppose redevelopment in principle, in
accordance with both National and Local Policy this must be done while bothdelivering acceptable and protecting existing residential amenity.
The developers pre-application consultation has turned out to be a sham withpromised quality and application detail not forthecoming. This manifests itselfin the lack of level and section detail submitted and the hollow words insupporting reports, acknowledging adverse impact but concluding that this isthe best that can be done and is therefore acceptable.
We do not agree that the impacts are either accepotable or ourtweighed bythe socio-economic benefits potentially delivered by redevelopment.
Bristol Core Strategy Policy BCS21 states that development will be expectedto, “Safeguard the amenity of existing development and create a high-qualityenvironment for future occupiers.”
Paragraph 4.21.13 of the plan supporting Policy BCS21 then states, “A highquality built environment should consider the amenity of both existing andfuture development. Consideration should be given to matters of privacy,outlook, natural lighting, ventilation and indoor and outdoor space.”
Bristol Development Management Polciy DM26 states in relation to Infilldevelopment that proposals will be expected to have regard to, “..theprevailing character and quality of the surrounding townscape….Infilldevelopments on return frontages should be compatible with the opencharacter of corner sites and be subservient in height, scale and massing tothe primary frontage building” In relation to “backland” development it statesthat development, “..will be expected to be subservient in height, scale, massand form to the surrounding frontage buildings. It should not prejudice theopportunity to develop the adjoining land of similar potential nor should theproposed access arrangements cause adverse impacts to the character andappearance, safety or amenity of the existing frontage development.”
Policy DM27 states that development “…will be expected to….enable existingand proposed development to achieve appropriate levels of privacy, outlookand daylight; and policy DM29, interestingly referenced in the residentialamenity section of the Planning Statement but not more formally in thePlanning Policy section, states that development, “will be expectedto…..ensure that existing and proposed development achieves appropriatelevels of privacy, outlook and daylight”.
Overarching local policy is consistent with guidance in the NPPF whichchampions “good design” and states at paragraph 130 that, “Planningpolicies and decisions should ensure that developments: create places thatare safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being,with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.”
On the basis of our review we conclude that the development is indeed a poorresponse to site context and an overdevelopment. This manifests itself incritical adverse impact on our residential amenity by reason of direct andperceived overlooking both to private gardens and by reason of direct windowto window distances; overshadowing and the additional harm caused byreason of the location of quasi public spaces immediately on our boundaries.
These direct future impacts are compounded by the loss of existing trees andthe erosion of the residential amenity and outlook we currently enjoy.
The proposal lacks detail and on that basis we reserve our position to reviewand comment again on any additional information provided. However on thebasis of the application as submitted we consider that it is by reason ofadverse residential amenity impact contrary to prevailing planningpolicy and should be refused on this basis alone.
Yours sincerely
Mr Phil GittinsDr Laura Paterson25 Bayswater Avenue
Appendix 1: letter to FORE Partnership 22 December 2021
Westbury ParkBristol
BS6 7NU
22nd December 2021
FORE Partnership
Reference: St Christopher’s Public Consultation
Following our attendance at the St Christopher’s Public consultation. We theresidents of Nos 21, 23 and 25 Bayswater Avenue have grouped together toprovide a single shared response to the consultation.
These are independent of any comments you may receive at this stage fromthe WPCA and SCAN groups. Notwithstanding, we are aware of the 6“principles” agreed by WPCA and SCAN and we support these.
• RESPECT THE LOCAL HISTORY AND CONTEXT: Recognise thetwo distinct parts of the site – enhance and protect the villas at thefront, and ensure that development in the rear land, behind the villas,reflects the scale and character of the 2-storey housing in adjacentstreets.
• DO NOT MAKE OUR TRAFFIC AND PARKING ANY WORSE:Ensure that any development will not lead to any additional traffic orparking in surrounding streets - road safety must be prioritised.
• RESPECT OUR HOMES: Safeguard the privacy of propertiessurrounding the site - no new buildings should be taller than existingbuildings in the rear land.
• BE GENUINELY GREEN: There should be a net gain in biodiversity;protecting existing trees, landscape and wildlife. Plans must respond tothe current global climate and ecological emergencies.
• DO NOT OVERDEVELOP THE SITE: This largely green space shouldnot be overdeveloped but should maintain and enhance the unique andspecial character of Westbury Park, which is a designatedConservation Area.
• KEEP OUR CHILDREN SAFE: Recognise that, in the interests ofpublic safety, there should be no access to the site from BayswaterAvenue or The Glen.
Thank you for undertaking this pre-application consultation and we appreciatethe time, effort and cost associated with running such events. However, ourrepresentations submitted now are Without Prejudice to any comments wemay make to the submitted Planning and Listed Building Consent applicationsin due course.
The comments we submit are necessarily focused on how the developmentwill directly affect us and are therefore somewhat negative in tone. However,as an introduction we appreciate the site needs to be redeveloped andsupport this in principle. While we therefore support the retention andconversion of the Westbury Park villas; the retention and conversion of thelisted Grace House and the opportunity that presents itself for somedemolition and new building this must be undertaken with due respect to thecharacter and appearance of the Conservation Area and the area moregenerally and the character and setting of Grace House; involve the retention(and safeguarding) of all important trees (whether the subject of a currentTPO or not) and must cause no harm to, and potentially improve, theresidential amenity of all local residents.
Within this context our first substantive comment is that the informationdisplayed at the consultation event was to a large extent indicative andtherefore vague. While the proposals have positively developed since theinitial consultation and no doubt will develop further it was genuinely difficult tounderstand what the key elements of the current proposal were. While thoseconsultants at the event, presenting on behalf of the developers wherehelpful, some questions could not be answered definitively and some left keyissues unresolved.
In the above context, our view is that describing the development as an“integrated retirement community” is vague and does not hide the fact thatwhat is proposed is simply a residential re-development. Alongside this therewas of course no reference to on-site affordable housing provision. At thisstage and while the price and management costs of the eventualaccommodation and services may dictate who can afford to live at the site, weassume that the City Council will insist on the provision of a substantialproportion of affordable housing. We also assume that as the site was boughton the open market with full knowledge of the physical and planning policycontext that no credible viability argument could be mounted against theprovision of a policy compliant percentage and mix of affordable housing. Indue course we would therefore be very interested in the form and location ofthis on the site.
The quantum of development was also unclear on the presentation boardsalthough we were separately advised that the total development was 120units (25 via conversion and 95 via new build) with “approximately” 65 parkingspaces. Also, apart from via two indicative and unscaled sections, there wasvery little detail on the scale of the buildings and their external appearance.The relevant boards looked like they had subsequently been marked in penwith storey heights noted as ranging from 4-6 storeys with 2 storey “cottages”and the conversion of the existing Villas. The nature of the use and thequantum and mix of development obviously also affects car parking and againit was unclear, with the use class undefined, how the “approximately” 65parking spaces referred to were derived. Also, the issue of public access wasalso somewhat unclear. While we support the public (or bookable) use of anyfacilities to be provided within Grace House we object to any east – westpublic vehicular or pedestrian through route, which would have the potential toadversely impact our residential amenity. Consequently, we object to theretention and upgrading of the existing access to Etloe Road / BayswaterAvenue and request that this be permanently abandoned / appropriatelyclosed.
Only “approximately” 65 parking spaces are referred to and there was nobreakdown between allocated residents parking, visitors or staff or servicevehicle parking. Only 65 parking spaces for 120 apartments is approximatelyhalf the maximum standard required by the Council (if all the units were 1 bed)and this does seem woefully inadequate even allowing for the potential ageprofile and sustainable location of the site. If on site parking is in any wayinadequate to serve this housing development; if the existing Etloe Road /Bayswater Avenue access is retained and upgraded or if a “public” throughpedestrian / cycle or vehicular access is proposed, then there will besignificant direct and indirect highway, residential amenity and security impactfor us and the other local residents.
All existing trees of any merit (whether TPOd or not) must be retained andprotected from harm immediately and in the long term. The trees are visuallyand environmentally important to the character and appearance of the area;biodiversity and existing residential amenity. This will also assist the “net zero”claims; bio-diversity gain requirements and sustainability generally.
We welcome the proposed restoration of the old cottage maintaining itscurrent footprint and form and proposed use by the community.
The plans displayed showed two terraces of “cottages” facing the rear of ourhomes but the only other detail provided was that gleaned from the indicativesection, which appeared to show a two storey scale with rear gable design(perhaps taking a reference from the dwellings on Royal Albert Road). Wehave assumed that these “cottages” are indeed single dwellings rather than acollection of apartments. We support a two storey design approach and wouldpromote that across the whole site in the interests of our and other residentsresidential amenity; the character and appearance of the Conservation Areaand the setting of Grace House. However, land levels are not clear and therear gables of these dwellings appeared to be not as wide and of a steeperpitch that those that exist along Royal Albert Road, therefore removing anyclaim that they are a design reference, and have windows shown implyingroof space accommodation.
Related to the above is the distance these properties are from the siteboundary and the rear elevations of our homes. The existing relationship isnot typical in that the boundary is at an angle and this is not reflected in thelayout. We haven’t been presented with scaled plans; accurate cross sectionsor elevations drawings but our estimate is that the proposed rear gardens areall less than 10m deep and that in some cases the rear elevation to elevationdistance may be as short as only 12m. This would clearly and obviously bewholly unacceptable for us and the residents in any new properties. Thiswould be further compounded if second floor roofspace accommodation wasalso proposed and is also in addition to our significant objection to the loss oftrees in this north eastern part of the site.
While the two storey scale of development proposed by these “cottages” issupported in principle any such accommodation must be sited sympatheticallyto the existing trees and sufficiently distant from our properties (having regardto their scale and orientation) such that reasonable landscaping can beaccommodated and our privacy and general residential amenity is unaffectedby reason of overlooking, overshadowing, noise or light spill.
The siting and orientation of these two blocks of proposed dwellings meansthat our existing verdant outlook is removed; we are significantly overlookedand are at real risk of being significantly overshadowed by development soclose to the sites eastern boundary.
We would be grateful if you could consider the above and thereforereconsider your proposals. We would be happy to review any revised plan youmay prepare but would ask that these be clear in respect of tree removal andnew landscaping, accompanied by appropriate existing topographicalinformation; be drawn to scale and be clearly marked with proposed levelsand dimensions.
Yours sincerely
on 2022-05-15 OBJECT
This development will clearly be out of character for the local neighborhood. It willobstruct the downs view from The Glen, will create even more parking problems as if they are notbad enough already and will increase the number of elderly folk in an out of character area. Manychildren live in this area and an increase in the traffic could cause danger on the roads. Pleasereconsider the development for the sake of everyone in the local area.
on 2022-05-15 OBJECT
I object to the proposed development for the following reasons:
Damage to Heritage: The proposals amount to severe overdevelopment in a conservation area.The proposed scale, mass and bulk are inappropriate within the sensitive heritage context ofWestbury Park and the listed Grace House, and the scheme will give rise to unacceptable impactson the townscape. 2. Damage to the Environment: There will be too many trees lost and adetrimental impact on nature & wildlife, losing high quality specimens that make a valuedcontribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 3. Road Safety, Traffic &Parking: The proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms, owing to insufficient on-site parking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements, which will increase the roadsafety risks in an area where this is already a significant concern. on-site parking will beinsufficient, with no capacity for overspill in surrounding roads. 4. Lack of Affordable Housing: Theproposal includes no affordable housing and is not supported by any evidence to justify such alack of provision. 5. Loss of SEND provision: In the context of an increasing need for SENDaccommodation in Bristol, the developers have failed to comply with council policies that seek tosafeguard community facilities.
on 2022-05-15 OBJECT
I strongly object to this planning. Not only will it damage the heritage of Westbury Parkbut it will also damage the environment immensely - with lots of trees being lost, impacting wildlife,causing more traffic, pollution and parking problems in an already busy area.
on 2022-05-15 OBJECT
Strong objection.The proposed new buildings are too large and too ugly. Three storeys should be the maximumallowed height to fit in with their position and surroundings.The building footprint should be smaller to allow the retention of more trees and some chance ofimproving biodiversity.The travel plan does not address the parking requirements of so many residents, staff and guests.Typical residents may well be eligible for Motability cars and those would more than fill theavailable parking, especially as wide bays would be needed. I understand that Government policyis to reduce car use and ownership, but there is little indication of how the development wouldprovide alternatives.The neighbourhood consultation process has been misleading and deceitful, and readingcomments from authoritative parties that the developers claim to have consulted but did not, I feeleven more alarmed. Please be firm in ensuring that the scale of development is tightly controlledand kept in sympathy with the area.
on 2022-05-15 OBJECT
This project will decimate the local area. It is polluting and serves no purpose for thecurrent residents it cuts down trees and causes traffic issues which have not been evaluated .
on 2022-05-15 OBJECT
I think the proposed development is dangerous with the increased amount of traffic andthe height of the proposed flats in out of character for the area. The noise and pollution on theschool is terrible too.
The lack of housing benefit offered is not acceptable and needs to be looked at again.
on 2022-05-15 OBJECT
I object to this planning application for the following reasons:
1. Damage to Heritage: The proposals amount to severe overdevelopment in a conservation area.The proposed scale, mass and bulk are inappropriate within the sensitive heritage context ofWestbury Park and the listed Grace House, and the scheme will give rise to unacceptable impactson the townscape.
2. Damage to the Environment: There will be too many trees lost and a detrimental impact onnature & wildlife, losing high quality specimens that make a valued contribution to the characterand appearance of the Conservation Area.
3. Road Safety, Traffic & Parking: The proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms,owing to insufficient on-site parking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements,which will increase the road safety risks in an area where this is already a significant concern.Parking is already a nightmare in the area.
4. Lack of Affordable Housing: The proposal includes no affordable housing and is not supportedby any evidence to justify such lack of provision.
5. Loss of Special Educational Needs and Disability provision: In the context of an increasing needfor SEND accommodation in Bristol, the developers have failed to comply with council policies thatseek to safeguard community facilities. Particularly poignant here given that St Christopher's
School provided such accommodation.
on 2022-05-15 OBJECT
As the number of car parking spaces have been reduced within the plans of thedevelopment, the concern is over the parking on surrounding streets which will lead to safetyissues, especially around the school. Either an increase in spaces is required within the plans toaccommodate its own traffic and/or residents parking to the surrounding area.
Concern over the safety of vehicles crossing the pavement next to Daisy Chain nursery, especiallyduring school hours. For the safety of pedestrians, especially children, this should not be anaccess route for vehicles.
on 2022-05-15 OBJECT
Not fitting with the area, will cause additional parking issues which are already terrible,destruction of wildlife.
on 2022-05-15 OBJECT
- Downs conservation area: proposal is severe overdevelopment in a conservation area- Damage to Environment: too many trees lost, detrimental impact on nature & wildlife- Road Safety, Traffic & Parking: proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms, owingto insufficient on-site parking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements, which willincrease the road safety risks in an area where this is already a significant concern.
on 2022-05-15
I have concerns about this proposal on our doorstep1. This loss of SEND provision worries me. We should be proud of of our historic provision,prioritised on one of the most beautiful areas in the south west. The tranquility must only help themwith their needs.2. Environmental impact - significant negative impact on our wildlife3. Safety - at times currently the rush for parking places means that awareness of pedestrians andcyclists is reduced..if this becomes more challenging it is only a matter of time before there areserious accidents. Also on clay pit road traffic can be so stressful for drivers that on multipleoccasions I have felt vulnerable to "road rage" type incidents.
on 2022-05-15 OBJECT
Concern about serious & severe overdevelopment in a conservation area.Scales proposed are inappropriate for the locale, thereby causing unacceptable impacts on thelocal area. With the potential to cause environmental damage. The claim it is a "sustainable &green project" seems very at odds with detrimental impact on wildlife/nature and the number ofvehicles it will encourage once completed (staff, residents, visitors).
I am *extremely* concerned about Road Safety, Traffic & Parking. Especially with the talk of a busgate in North View (and this does not seem to have been taken into consideration).The proposal has not addressed appropriate parking, insufficient transport links/parking.The roads in front of and behind the proposed site are already a cause for concern. And theproposed development will increase the road safety risks even further which is very troubling withthere being a local primary school.
on 2022-05-15 OBJECT
The development is on too large scale for the size and location of the site.Totally inadequate parking provision both for residents and guests. There will also be numbers ofcarers cleaners delivery vans coming and going constantly creating a massive increase in traffic inan area that is already congested.The new buildings are unimaginative and much too tall.Whilst appreciating the site cannot remain in its present condition the whole plan needs to bescrapped and re done from scratch
on 2022-05-15 OBJECT
Damage to Heritage: The proposals amount to severe overdevelopment in aconservation area. The proposed scale, mass and bulk are inappropriate within the sensitiveheritage context of Westbury Park and the listed Grace House, and the scheme will give rise tounacceptable impacts on the townscape.
Damage to the Environment: There will be too many trees lost and a detrimental impact on nature& wildlife, losing high quality specimens that make a valued contribution to the character andappearance of the Conservation Area.
Road Safety, Traffic & Parking: The proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms,owing to insufficient on-site parking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements,which will increase the road safety risks in an area where this is already a significant concern.
Lack of Affordable Housing: The proposal includes no affordable housing and is not supported byany evidence to justify such lack of provision.
on 2022-05-14 OBJECT
This proposed development displays a complete lack of consideration for the heritageand conservation of the existing landscape, especially in relation to neighbouring buildings.In particular the proposed buildings are too high next to the neighbouring houses with too muchdensity and to close. They over power and over shadow existing homes and in particular thehouses in the Glen.Additionally, the area simply cannot take the volume of cars and traffic associated with such adense site. Westbury Park Road is already gridlocked during rush hour and busy throughout theday and this is before most people return to working in the office again. The surrounding roads, inparticular The Glen, are already difficult to navigate and any extra traffic from the development -and potentially opening access ways such as the proposed emergency and pedestrian access atthe end of The Glen - would make it dangerous.As stated in many comments on the application process, I would reiterate the opinion that thedevelopers have not conducted a fair and appropriate consultation process: it has been done topush an agenda.In summary, I cannot object strongly enough to this proposal.
on 2022-05-14 OBJECT
I have known St. Christopher's all my 91 years. It has been extremely sad to see it go.The impact of the present plans do not affect me as it would a close neighbour but I am a keensupporter of any plan which is sympathetic to the site, these proposals are NOT. The developersare being greedy, overdeveloping the site, destroying lovely trees and losing a great deal of thegreenery. The proposed flats are ugly. I'm not sure a care home with these facilities is is required.The nearby St. Vincent still hasn't sold all their flats and in desperation are letting some at greatcost. Westbury Park itself is.full of parked cars and occasional van and caravan,.
on 2022-05-14 OBJECT
I wish to strongly object to this planning application for the following reasons -1 - Road access and parking - this area is already difficult to drive in with the narrowness of theroad(s) given parking is allowed on both sides of Bayswater Avenue. With more visitors and/orresidents undoubtedly trying to access this will be an ongoing nightmare leading to driveraggression and accidents in a quiet residential area with schoolchildren accessing Westbury Park.
There is not enough parking provision made for this application within the boundaries of theintended plot. This will lead to people, visitors, residents and workers, seeking parking etc withinthe local area. This is a total disaster looming.2 - adverse impact on existing housing - the plans must not allow any development higher than theexisting buildings i.e. 2 stories max 33 - all mature trees should be kept to allow the current ambience and therefore not disturb thebalance of nature and wildlife etc4 - the plans suggest over development and this must be allowed to proceed as such due to thedelicate nature of the road access, road safety and general nature of the area.Thank you.
on 2022-05-14 OBJECT
I am very much opposed to the planning application for the redevelopment of StChristopher's School.It is an inappropriate and unacceptable overdevelopment. With 50% of existing trees being felledthis will have a dramatic negative effect on the local wildlife. As a conservation area this is neithersympathetic nor beneficial in any way.The sheer volume and size of the proposed dwellings will seriously overwhelm the adjacenthousing impacting on their light and privacy.The inadequate parking facilities will make the already appalling parking for residents in WestburyPark infinitely worse. Between the van dwellers, camper vans, caravans and commuters it isgetting increasingly difficult for residents to park in their street let alone outside their own home.The proposed exit from the site onto Bayswater Road is inviting further danger to theschoolchildren and other pedestrians already forced to walk in the road because of the multiplecars parked well onto the pavement.All in all I cannot see a single benefit to the residents of Westbury Park that this development willbring. The negatives, however are numerous.
on 2022-05-14 OBJECT
After seeing the proposed plans for this development and living in the neighbourhood Imust strongly object to any decision to proceed with this project.Aesthetically the development is not in keeping with the surrounding buildings and would spoil theexisting buildings charms and character, not to mention the negative effects on the nature which itis so very precious.The roads in the area have recently become busier so any further development would causeridiculously slow traffic on the Westbury Park road and surrounding side roads. Although the road Ilive on, just a few minutes walk from the proposed project is under permit parking it is still verydifficult to park and we often have to park along Westbury Park as there is not enough spaces forexisting residents who pay for permits to park. I am certain the added strain of more cars wouldmake the situation intolerable.We are all learning the impact of losing trees, increasing traffic/cars with their pollution. Let's notkeep making the same greedy mistakes that spoil what is a beautiful area that is alreadychallenging with increased population.
on 2022-05-13 OBJECT
I have been a resident on Belvedere Road for over 17 years, my garden is one gardenaway from St Christopher's and I have friends who have worked there in its capacity as a specialschool.
I have followed the consultation process by the developers of the St Christophers developmentand I have to say that much of what they have presented has been very carefully done to concealthe full extent of their ambitions.
Whilst I am in favour of this area being developed as a later life residential centre, there are anumber of elements about this particular proposal which are completely unacceptable and onlypresent to ensure extreme profit rather than reasonable profit for the developers.
I am aware that the SCAN organisation has provided excellent detailed information in regard to allof the areas that I am concerned about so I will simply highlight those areas here and point you atthe SCAN reports for more details.
Over-development and intensification is extreme with this development, the sheer scale of the newbuildings will dwarf the existing properties substantially and negatively impacting on theenvironment in the area. The height of some of the buildings is absurd in this location particularlywith reference to the concept of overlooking neighbouring homes. In addition to the height, theclose proximity and density of the buildings to each other and the boundaries is totally out ofcharacter.
What this intensification also leads to is the destruction of a significant number of mature treeswhich are providing valuable ecosystem support, air purification and general amenity value to thearea. These trees support all manner of wildlife and given this is a conservation area, I wouldsuggest that this aspect is taken very seriously indeed.
Again in direct relationship to the density of the building, by any measure there are woefully fewparking spaces to accommodate the residents and visiting staff. This means that the overspill willimpact directly on the non-existent parking available on our street. I should point out that theinspector who refused the local Glenview nursing home extension last year refused it mainly onthe grounds of not making local streets any more dangerous or congested.
Lastly, as a long-term conservationist, I am appalled at the proposed loss of trees and generalwildlife habitat and species. This development will drive local species away from their establishedhomes and leave the area barren. Given that its part of the Downs Conservation Area and createsa valuable wildlife corridor currently, the proposed plans are highly destructive in this regard.
The team at SCAN have delivered a detailed and policy driven response which I would supportand refer you to for details. In the meantime I hope you will refuse this application in its currentstate and seek to dramatically reduce the scale of the development (height and density) tosomething considerably more in keeping with its environment and sympathetic to the surroundingproblems and environmental assets.
on 2022-05-13 OBJECT
I object to the planning application being made in respect of St Christopher's School. Isupport the objections raised by SCAN. I live on Westbury Park ( the road) and am thereforeimpacted by the proposed development. I object on the following basis:
The development of what is in essence a retirement village is inappropriate on this particular site.The area is already saturated with various types of retirement accommodation for the elderly mostof which have vacancies. If successful the development would fundamentally change the nature ofWestbury Park.The number of units proposed is excessive for the site. The tall overbearing tower blocks of flatsare inappropriate in a conservation area.Insufficient parking is provided on site for residents, staff and visitors. The streets of WestburyPark are already littered with commuters and others who for various reasons ( good bus links orthe fact that they live in an RPZ themselves and park extra cars for "free" in Westbury Park) parkfor very long periods of time causing occupiers of Westbury Park and their visitors to havehorrendous parking issues. The inevitable pressure from owners of flats, staff and visitors willimpact on the already difficult parking situation. Local residents would need to be protected by anR PZ.The removal of mature trees is environmentally unacceptable and will impact on the natural habitatof bats, owls etcThe area is already polluted by queuing cars each morning and evening as commuters try to avoidthe Westbury Road. The queues already stretch back to no 3 Westbury Park from the White Treeroundabout and the queue will become even longer due to the sheer number of residents, visitors
and staff. The queuing on Westbury Park is at times more severe than on Westbury Road. Theresidents of Westbury Park have a right to clean air- a matter which should no longer be ignored.
on 2022-05-13 OBJECT
A concern for the Friends of the Downs and Avon Gorge (FODAG) is adverse change tothe visual scenery of the current lodges alongside the Westbury Park frontage to theGranny Downs, and more information was requested by FODAG to alleviate concernsduring the consultation phase. The verified view 6, shown in fig 19 of the document'verified views', clearly shows the proposed villas well above the height of the lodges.The branches of two large mature trees help to soften the protruding building outline inthe picture, however these trees, trees 52 and 65 on the St Christopher site, arescheduled for removal in order to build the villas, hence the picture is quite misleading.The comments on the visual impact of the buildings from the Downs that is eloquentlyreported in both the Historic England comments, and section 6 titled 'The HarmfulImpact on the Character of The Downs Conservation Area' in the Westbury Parkcommunity Association submission are fully supported, and not covered here forbrevity.- 58 trees of the total of 121 trees on the site, would be removed as part of thedevelopment including a 2.8 metre girth Lime and 2.2 metre girth Sycamore. This is aloss to the biodiversity of the Downs conservation area and the proposed replacements,which may be sited elsewhere in Bristol will not provide an equivalent biodiversityhabitat for many years.- In the 'Transport statement' is proposed a 3.6 metre wide path across the Granny downsfrom the central site entrance, linking up with the current diagonal path (2.1m wide),which would require the removal, or seriously compromise the root system, of one ofthe Horse Chestnut trees that lines Westbury Park road. This path would not be in
keeping with any current routes across the Granny Downs and would constitute aneyesore. The proposed path is also likely to be little used as the ground falls and rises by0.5m over the length of the proposed route and the existing level path is a shortdistance along the road in the direction of White tree roundabout.- There is in the design and access statement (part 4, p107), a sketch of a new Ironworkarch carrying the St Christopher's name, positioned over the pedestrian entrancegateway, which has no visual precedent in the Downs conservation area.- In the social values statement document, FODAG is listed as a 'community partner'under SCS47, which refers to 'environmental and biodiversity conservations', in thecategory of 'Enhance the natural environment'. FODAG would like to work with thedeveloper to improve the biodiversity in this Bristol Downs conservation area, but so farhave had no further involvement than attending a consultation event, which thenresulted in reservations being expressed about the negative impact of the proposeddevelopment on the visual impact and the biodiversity.Robert Westlake (Chair)Friends Of the Downs and Avon Gorge (FODAG)
on 2022-05-13 OBJECT
The current proposal is too large for the site. The buildings are much too high. This willlead to much higher traffic levels in the area creating pollution and congestion. Parking is already amajor issue in the area and this will severely add to the problem. It will change the whole characterof the area which is situated just by the downs.
on 2022-05-13
Westbury Park School plays an important role within the community. Nothing is moreimportant to us than the wellbeing and safety of our children, their families and the widercommunity.
Whilst recognising only a small section of the proposed site borders the school we believe theplanned design could have a disproportionate effect on everyday school life. The design willdefinitely affect our outlook but we also have questions around the construction phase of theproject and then the longer term environmental and wellbeing impacts for the community.
Our main points of view are:
1.Noise and Air Pollution during construction
The scale of the construction will naturally involve significant building works. Whilst we recognisethe developer will respect the appropriate legislation we would like to highlight the close proximityof the school to the site. Some of our pupils suffer from severe asthma and we have a number ofchildren with sensory needs that would need additional care if noise/disturbance levels becametoo much.
To lessen the impact on the children's health and wellbeing, we would propose that:
· Any preparation works near to the school take place during the school holidays.
· The best screening and dust dampeners are used to protect the children's and staff's health.· The school is offered regular access to clean up teams who will clean the windows, playgroundsetc. to lessen the impact of the construction works.· There are opportunities for the children to learn about building and design practices withsustainability at their heart. This could be facilitated through the construction phase.
2. Increase in traffic
In an already very narrow and busy area, even a small increase in traffic, especially during schoolpick up and drop off times, will add considerable risk to children's journey to and from school. Carsalready line the pavements, which can force pedestrians onto the road and makes crossing safelymore difficult.
Mitigations may include the following:
· addition of double yellow lines,· a pedestrian crossing or zebra crossing· safety beacon lights and· better school signage for Bayswater Avenue and surrounding roads.
We consider it essential that any additional traffic be kept out of Bayswater Avenue both duringand after construction. This can be achieved by ensuring the following:
· The Bayswater Avenue entrance is allocated for purely emergency vehicular access only(including access to the sub power station).· The Bayswater Avenue entrance is designated as a pedestrian entrance and a crossing isconstructed to improve safety after the construction only.
Finally, the school greatly appreciates the efforts of the developer to engage directly with theHeadteacher and Governing Board. We have started engaging in robust conversations with thedevelopers about these issues and look forward to working with them and other stakeholders toshape the future centred around the community.
on 2022-05-13 OBJECT
We have been asked by local members to review this proposal. In doing so, we haveconsidered the submitted application documents and the responses to consultation published onthe planning application portal.
We note and agree with the strong level of concern expressed locally. Development on the site,including any necessary redevelopment which must be fully justified having regard to its impact oncarbon emissions, should respect the context in which it sits. The submitted proposal fails to relatesensitively to the Grade II listed Grace House and would harm the character and appearance ofthe Downs Conservation Area. We are particularly troubled by the proposed massing and height ofthe flat block. Historic England comment on this in detail. We are also concerned by other aspectsof the proposal which, in combination with the flat block, risk adversely dominating the streetscene and existing residential amenity. The impact when seen from Viewpoint 5 showing the viewfrom the Downs is a case in point.
We also agree with the concerns of the Bristol Tree Forum. More attention should be given tobiodiversity and to reducing the proposal's impact.
In conclusion, the Society objects to the application in view of the harm it would have upon thecharacter of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Listed Building. The Society is notopposed to the principle of development on this site to enable it to contribute to Bristol's housingsupply but a less intensive approach more sensitive to the Conservation Area, the Listed Buildingand the biodiversity of the site is required.
on 2022-05-13 OBJECT
As a resident of The Glen, I wish to object to this application on two grounds:
1. The proposed pedestrian access to and from The Glen will inevitably increase the numbers ofpeople seeking to park in The Glen. This is because the provision for 65 parking spaces proposedin the application is clearly inadequate for a development of this magnitude. It follows, therefore,that staff, residents and visitors will all see The Glen is a convenient parking location, adjacent to ashort walking route into the site.BCC will be well aware of the severity of the parking problem in The Glen and the associated roadsafety issues. I would like to draw attention to the Council's refusal of a recent planning applicationin Belvedere Road (20/06030/F) and the upholding of the Council's decision, following appeal, bythe Planning Inspectorate. It was precisely on account these parking and road safety issues thatthe Inspectorate upheld the decision. I would like to refer the Planning Officer to the extensivesurvey data that was supplied by local residents in support of their objections to this application,which documents the full extent of these issues. The pedestrian access to and from The Glenproposed in the application to develop the St. Christopher's site will seriously aggravate an alreadyserious problem.During an online consultation with the local community, held on January 20th 2022,representatives of the developers stated clearly that removing pedestrian access to and from TheGlen would be removed 'if that is what the community wanted'. Following this, 61 households inThe Glen and Belvedere Road were asked in a survey whether they wanted pedestrian access.Nearly 50% objected and no one was in support. Given the commitment already made by thedevelopers to respect the wishes of the community, and in light of the detrimental impacts of the
proposed access, this element of the application should be refused.
I am also concerned about the proposed emergency access from The Glen, which is currently acul-de-sac. Given the road safety issues already identified, to open up The Glen for thesepurposes, when the site already has a main entrance, makes no sense at all and will onlyexacerbate existing dangers.
2. The height of the proposed new buildings in the development, especially those of 6 stories, willdwarf the surrounding residential areas. This is not consistent with the aims and objectives of theDowns Conservation Area, within which the site is situated. It will have a particularly detrimentalimpact on the outlook at the end of The Glen. The proposed new building developments should berejected in their present form.
on 2022-05-13 OBJECT
The proposals are a massive overdevelopment - put simply, the proposed scale, massand bulk are not in keeping with the surrounding area, in particular the height of the proposedbuildings disrupt the landscape as well as create an overbearing presence for the immediateneighbours (and those who will be able to see its prominence from afar!)
In addition, there seems to be insufficient acknowledgement of the trees that will be lost which willhave a detrimental impact on nature & wildlife.
We are also particularly concerned about Road Safety, Traffic & Parking. The on-site parkingprovision is wholly insufficient for a proposal this size - where will the excess traffic go - into thesurrounding roads, which not only already have a massive parking issue, but it will become evenmore dangerous than it already is for the school and nursery children in the immediate vicinity.This will particularly be the case if the access road onto Bayswater Avenue is approved.
on 2022-05-12 OBJECT
22/01221/F | Proposed development of the site including, internal and externalalterations ofListed House building and conversion of lodges fronting Westbury Park; demolition ofbuildings and the erection of new buildings to provide an integrated Retirement Community(Class C2) for older people; together with landscaping, car parking, refuse and otherassociated works (major). | St Christophers School Westbury Park Bristol BS6 7JE- A concern for the Friends of the Downs and Avon Gorge (FODAG) is adverse change tothe visual scenery of the current lodges alongside the Westbury Park frontage to theGranny Downs, and more information was requested by FODAG to alleviate concernsduring the consultation phase. The verified view 6, shown in fig 19 of the document'verified views', clearly shows the proposed villas well above the height of the lodges.The branches of two large mature trees help to soften the protruding building outline inthe picture, however these trees, trees 52 and 65 on the St Christopher site, arescheduled for removal in order to build the villas, hence the picture is quite misleading.The comments on the visual impact of the buildings from the Downs that is eloquentlyreported in both the Historic England comments, and section 6 titled 'The HarmfulImpact on the Character of The Downs Conservation Area' in the Westbury Parkcommunity Association submission are fully supported, and not covered here forbrevity.- 58 trees of the total of 121 trees on the site, would be removed as part of thedevelopment including a 2.8 metre girth Lime and 2.2 metre girth Sycamore. This is aloss to the biodiversity of the Downs conservation area and the proposed replacements,
which may be sited elsewhere in Bristol will not provide an equivalent biodiversityhabitat for many years.- In the 'Transport statement' is proposed a 3.6 metre wide path across the Granny downsfrom the central site entrance, linking up with the current diagonal path (2.1m wide),which would require the removal, or seriously compromise the root system, of one ofthe Horse Chestnut trees that lines Westbury Park road. This path would not be inkeeping with any current routes across the Granny Downs and would constitute aneyesore. The proposed path is also likely to be little used as the ground falls and rises by0.5m over the length of the proposed route and the existing level path is a shortdistance along the road in the direction of White tree roundabout.- There is in the design and access statement (part 4, p107), a sketch of a new Ironworkarch carrying the St Christopher's name, positioned over the pedestrian entrancegateway, which has no visual precedent in the Downs conservation area.- In the social values statement document, FODAG is listed as a 'community partner'under SCS47, which refers to 'environmental and biodiversity conservations', in thecategory of 'Enhance the natural environment'. FODAG would like to work with thedeveloper to improve the biodiversity in this Bristol Downs conservation area, but so farhave had no further involvement than attending a consultation event, which thenresulted in reservations being expressed about the negative impact of the proposeddevelopment on the visual impact and the biodiversity
on 2022-05-12 OBJECT
on 2022-05-12 OBJECT
on 2022-05-11 OBJECT
As a local resident I am very concerned about the over development of this site and theimpact on the community. The proposed buildings are far too high and will have a negative visualaesthetic. The high number of proposed residents and the lack of parking for them ,visitors,workers and carers will be inadequate. Lack of parking in the area is already a big issue. Theincrease in the number of cars and traffic locally will have an impact on safety especially aroundthe school and in an area where a high number of elderly people and adults with disabilities live . Itwill destroy much of the habitat for wildlife in the area through the loss of trees and green spaces.We all enjoy sharing our space with foxes, badgers, owls and a large variety of other birds.Westbury Park is a very unique part of the city and I would be very disappointed if the overdevelopment of the area is allowed to go ahead.
on 2022-05-11 OBJECT
Planning Application 22/01221/F
I firmly object to this development.
Parking in this area is already dangerously scarce.
The plans only create 65 parking spaces, for 122 properties. That's 0.53 cars per household.
The current national average is 1.2 cars per household.The latest government figures suggest that only 16% of households have 0 cars, even in Urbanand City Areas. A greater percentage actually have 2 cars.
A lot of property sites that already exist here contain several households, and we estimate thatthere is already a parking deficit in excess of 2.5 cars per site. So for every site in the immediatearea, there are 2.5 cars being pushed into streets further away.
If 1.2 cars per household is correct, then we would be expecting 146 cars, which is 81 cars MOREthan can be accommodated, which the plans expect to safely spill into the nearby streets.
That could push the deficit up beyond 4 cars per site. This is going to cause a significant amountof stress as it increases the difficulty in getting parked.
Personal transport is essential for some people.
As I'm self-employed who works both in and outside of Bristol, I am required to drive, and almostalways unable to park within our immediate area; Often I am needing to park not just 2 streetsaway but sometimes 3-4 and all the way down the other end, which can result in a 10-15 minutewalk. This is the current situation.
Many neighbours who are parents of babies and young children are unable to park anywhere neartheir properties due to selfish daily commuters and vehicle owners who leave their cars for monthson end outside my home as its the nearest road outside the RPZ. I have personally seen to havingcars regularly removed by the council that have been dumped untaxed with no MOT. Currentlythere are 2 immediately outside 14 Blenheim Road that have not been moved for over 3 months!
This is all unacceptable, currently, and I cannot agree to a greedy developer making this issueworse by a factor of at least 2, even regardless of heritage issues; Heritage appears to be rankedhigher, by the council, than considerations to what can be considered SAFE parking.
I need the current situation to be improved, not made worse. I cannot even obtain planningpermission to create our own private parking area, because the rules around planning permissionrequire a minimum space that doesn't reflect the majority of cars; The average length of car iscloser to 4 metres but the council require 4.8-5.3 metres, because of a number of people whohave massive SUVs for 1-2 people to bumble around and commute in.
The whole thing is very upsetting and adds to the dangers of simply trying to safely come and go,or cross the road. Please do something to help the existing residents before you help an alreadysuccessful developer to line their pockets even more.
Nick Moran
on 2022-05-11 OBJECT
I am a resident of The Glen and wish to strongly object to the current application for thedevelopment of land on the St Christopher's School Site.
Firstly I would like to stress that I am not aware of one resident of The Glen that supports apedestrian access route to and from The Glen into the site.
The reason for this is simple. Giving access to staff and residents from the site will undoubtedlyonly exacerbate the already huge problems we have with displaced parking. There is a totallyinadequate number of spaces for cars on site in this planning application and we will undoubtedlysuffer all of this overspill. This is not unfamiliar to us. Our residential road is already completelycongested with cars. These cars extend way beyond those belonging to the road's residents. Theybelong to:
+ Commutes who park here and cycle/walk or bus into the city. This is because we are the firstroad outside of the RPZ this side of the city centre.
+ Teachers and parents using Westbury Park School and Redland Green School.
+ Staff who work at the three large care homes on Belvedere Road.
+ Staff, visitors and parents to Torwood House School which is less than 200m and located in theRPZ.
+ Students who live in the RPZ and do not wish to pay for a parking permit.
+ Residents who live in the RPZ and do not want to pay the higher surcharges for additional carsparked in the RPZ.
Visitors to the Downs which has controlled parking during the day. This is particularly commonwhen there are large scale public events on the Downs. This is frequent during the summermonths.
This issue is not something that BCC is unfamiliar with and the council is well aware of theproblems any road faces when it borders an RPZ as we do.
This situation on our roads has been the grounds for refusal of recent planning applications onneighbouring Belvedere Road. It has been raised by residents to local councillors in the form ofcommunity meetings (I attach the minutes of one of these meetings at the bottom of my objection).We have asked time and time again to BCC to look at the issues we suffer, with my over-ridingconcern being the safety of our roads for those who use them.
I have three young children and often find it hard to cross The Glen safely due to cars beingparked across all corners on the junctions. BCC are aware of this as cars are ticketed for illegalparking almost daily. Frustrated drivers who cannot park drive around these roads at speed. I dobelieve it is only a matter of time until there is a serious accident.
A commercial development of this scale on the St Christpher's site just can not exist next to aresidential community already experiencing such high pressures and demands on it'sinfrastructure.
If this development has its own restricted parking zone we in The Glen are effectively sandwichedbetween two RPZ's so will take all the overspill not only from Redland (as we currently do) but alsofrom this site.
The concerns about road safety are felt broadly by the local school community. 420 pupils attendthe school that neighbours this site. A recent parking and road safety survey supports this.
In addition to my concerns about pedestrian access and road safety and traffic management I alsowish to object on the following grounds.
The houses at the end of The Glen belonging to my neighbours will be massively overlooked bythe scale of the buildings in the development. A building of 6 floors is unthinkable to me.
I have huge concerns about the loss of habitat, trees and environmental damage from the works.
I am concerned about the level of pollution, noise and dirt that the building works will create, thesite is adjacent to a large primary school.
Thank you for your time in reading my objections.
Minutes from parking meeting follow:
Minutes from Parking Meeting with Councillor Fi Hance and 28 local residents of The Glen andBelvedere Road. 27/02/2019Meeting: To discuss parking issue in The Glen and Belvedere Road and agree potential actionsLocation: 7 The GlenDate: 27th February 2019, 8.00 pmAttended by: Laura McEwan (LM) - ChairFi Hance (FH) - Redland Ward Councillor (Green Party)Kevin Chidgey (KC) - Westbury Park Residents Association ChairDani ??? - Police Community Support OfficerResidents of The Glen and Belvedere RoadThe meeting started with LM summarising the objectives of the meeting, which were to determineany actions which could be taken to improve the parking situation.
LM summarised the issues being experienced with parking in The Glen and Belvedere Road.The difficulties with parking seem to have been exacerbated by two recent factors:The extension of the Redland RPZ to the area surrounding our area, leading to The Glen,Belvedere Road and Blenheim Road being the only three roads in the immediate locality which arenow outside itThe opening of the 46-bed nursing home on Belvedere Road.The large number of problems experienced included:Residents struggling to park their own carsVisitors being unable to parkTradesmen being unable to parkCars being damaged due to crowded parkingDriveways being blockedCars blocked in by other cars being parked bumper-to-bumperDangers crossing roads due to bad parkingAggressive driving from 6am onwards as non-residents arrive on their way to work and start tryingto park in the roadsIncreased pollution and noise with cars constantly moving around or sitting waiting with enginerunning until a space becomes available
Service vehicles and ambulances struggle to get accessWaste vehicles cannot get access - missed collections - and have damaged cars due to lack ofturning space.The roads are effectively being used as parking for a wide variety of cars including:Residents and their visitors and tradesmenStaff and visitors to the several nursing homes on Belvedere Road and at 1 The GlenNon-residents who use these roads as a "park and ride" or "park and bike", leaving their cars hereduring the working dayCars belonging to residents of the neighbouring streets which are in the RPZ, to avoid the RPZchargesVehicles left here as free long-term parking, sometimes for weeks or months.LM has surveyed residents of The Glen and Belvedere Road and believes that the residents ownapproximately 55 cars requiring road parking. At full capacity there is space for approximately 104cars to be parked in these two roads, so there should be sufficient for everyone if the otherproblems did not exist.LM summarised the views of the residents, that they had been let down by Bristol City Council dueto the previous extension of the Residents Parking Zone which simply shifted an existing problemto our roads with no consideration for the issues it would cause us.It was also noted by a resident that the parking problem is particularly bad in this immediatelocality due to the location of the Downs bus-stop with frequent buses to and from all parts ofBristol, which make this a prime area to be targeted for "park and ride" - and that thereforeextending the RPZ further out would not necessarily have such a bad impact on roads furtheraway.
FH presented a number of points:She has been local for 10 years and seen a number of iterations of parking plans over this period.She is aware of and understands our issues, which are similar to those experienced in Bishopstonand St Andrews (BOSA).Her role is not to advocate for or against RPZs but to understand people's opinions.The Mayor of Bristol, Marvin Rees, was elected on a policy of reviewing existing RPZs and notimposing new ones without overwhelming support, and he appears to be sticking to this verystrictly.There appears to be a lengthy process to gain approval for a new RPZ, including demonstrableoverwhelming support, not just from residents in the area but from those in the neighbouring areastoo. She didn't know if there was a different weighting applied to views of residents vs non-residents. No new RPZs have been approved since the election of Marvin Rees.In BOSA a report was produced and submitted which indicated significant support. There was alsoa public meeting with the MP Thangam Debbonaire, and the report was sent to Vari. Supposedlyhighways officers were going to visit the area to discuss the issues but they never turned up.Marvin Rees rejected the case on the basis that there was not sufficient overwhelming evidence.BOSA had carried out door-to-door surveys as part of the evidence gathering. They had been toldthat they could not ask a Yes/No answer in terms of "do you support a new/extended RPZ?" but
could ask "thermometer" type questions, ie "On a scale of 1 - 10 how do you feel about...." and FHrecommended this approach.
There was a discussion about the history behind the exclusion of the local roads from the RPZ. KCsummarised that the original definition of the Redland RPZ had included the local roads, but thatdue to initial disagreement from many residents and the local shops on Coldharbour Road, theboundaries had been redrawn to exclude the local roads. Following the implementation of thereduced RPZ, the council then sent postcards to residents in 2015 asking for their view on carparking. The consensus drawn from the responses was that residents of the roads adjoining theinitial RPZ (such as Manor Park) were very vocal in identifying the problems they wereexperiencing and in asking for the RPZ to be extended to cover them. Residents of the roadsslightly further out (ie including The Glen and Belvedere Road) did not respond so strongly.Therefore the extension was put forward, and subsequently approved, for the immediateneighbouring roads only.
A number of residents expressed significant concern about this process, in particular:Not all residents remembered receiving the postcards from the CouncilSome residents had responded to the Council to make it clear that if there was an extension, ifshould cover the whole area rather than just knocking the problem further outA notice had been posted on a lamp-post detailing the proposed limited extension, and a numberof residents had responded to the Council at this stage to raise concerns about the knock-onimpact and to request that either it was not approved or that it was extended to cover the full area,but this had been ignored.
KC commented that the adjoining roads (eg Bayswater Avenue and Etloe Road) are in theWestbury Park Ward, rather than Redland, and they have been doing their own structured surveyabout parking concerns. Once he has the results, he will feed back to this group.
KC reported that at least 1000 households were needed to form a new RPZ, and that the areaunder discussion was not big enough to form an RPZ on its own. It was questioned whether wewould need a new RPZ or whether this could not be considered a further extension of the originalone, similar to the limited extension approved two years ago. FH believed that this may not bepossible - the previous extension had been possible because the original definition of the largerRPZ, ie including all the local roads, was still "current", however she believed it may now haveexpired. She was asked if the Redland RPZ could be subject to a review, given that a review ofRPZs was one of Marvin Rees' pledges, but she explained that this was seen to have alreadytaken place, resulting in the current limited extension.Action: FH to check the status of the current RPZ as to whether a further extension can besubmitted rather than requesting a new RPZ.FH said that she could help with putting together a survey to poll the local streets forevidence/support, using the BOSA one as a starting point, but removing the party logo.Action: LM to create a survey to be used for local residents, taking input from FH and the
highways officers as appropriate.LM commented that she had been looking for confirmation from the meeting that the generalconsensus of the residents was to start the process for a RPZ, given the issues beingexperienced. It seemed clear from the meeting that this was supported. She said that only oneneighbour had a view that it could make matters worse. A resident explained this was due to aconcern as to whether the number of spaces available would be reduced due to the way thecouncil marked the spaces, and also that it would not necessarily address problems experiencedin the evenings. KC commented that residents in Manor Park had also expressed both concernsbefore the extension into their area, but both had proved unfounded; the number of spaces hadnot reduced, and the situation had improved both day and night. It was commented that theresidents can help define the way the spaces are marked, if it were to proceed, based on expectedusage.
FH commented on the process for putting together a case for a new RPZ which would need to bepresented to the transport committee and to the Finance rep (Ky Hunter), before being presentedfor discussion at council. The nature of overwhelming evidence was difficult to ascertain, since noproposal had yet been successful. However, she commented that this could include anecdotalinformation as well as statistical surveys based on residents' views. She believed that getting thepress involved may be useful, and it would be beneficial for the drive for this to be seen as comingfrom a local pressure group rather than from the Councillors, to avoid political concerns. Anothersuggestion was to involve students in the research. It was important to elicit a high response ratefrom residents and also to provide as much evidence as possible, this could include reporting allincidents to ensure that these were logged. Dani commented that where there was obstruction ofthe pavement or access, residents could call 101 and email a photo of the offending car. FHreported that the next election was in May 2020; evidently the Mayor's policy was unlikely tochange before then, but it was possible that a groundswell of concern may help influence futurepolicy.
Stuart asked if he could provide some input from his experience. He lives on Cossins Road, buthas a flat in The Glen too. Cossins Road experiences similar issues to the roads under discussion,being on the threshold of the Redland RPZ, with extensive public parking due to the Churches,schools and park. As a result, 100% of the residents had wanted an RPZ extension, but had got tothe point where they believed that as a single street they had no chance of having this approved,either as an extension or new RPZ. As a result they had decided to look at other aspects ofimprovement, such as trying to re-establish the ambience of a community/residential road, withplanters and street paintings. However, they were now driven to returning to RPZs as the only realsolution.His view was that in order to succeed, this would need full engagement with everyone in thelocality, ie residents of all the roads currently affected should work together with an aim for a singleproposal to cover the whole area. It would also be important to consider the whole community (ienot just the roads currently suffering) in order to avoid creating more knock-on problems in future.He also stressed the importance of media engagement, with 2020 elections approaching.
FH was asked about the finances of RPZs and responded that they were set up to break evenafter 8 years, although many were being paid off sooner than this as the budget hadn't includedparking fines. Therefore there was no rationale for the Council to say they could not afford toimplement more RPZs. She also supported a single campaign for the whole Westbury Park area,joining up Cossins Road, The Glen/Belvedere Rd/Blenheim Road and Bayswater Avenue, butcautioned that not everyone in the area would necessarily be in support of increased RPZs,especially those roads not currently affected by the issues.Action: FH to put Paul Bullivant from BOSA in touch with LM to share their experience to date.The meeting closed at 9.30; all residents thanked LM for organising and chairing the meeting.
on 2022-05-11 OBJECT
I am a resident of The Glen and wish to object to the current application for thedevelopment of land on the St Christopher's School Site.
I do not support a pedestrian access for staff and residents to and from The Glen. This is becauseour road will then be used as a car park for the site for staff and visitors. The number of parkingspaces (65) in the application is totally inadequate. Not all residents may own a car but thedeveloper massively underestimates the amount of vehicle movements that will incur from:
Deliveries - medical and personal such as internet shopping, groceries etc.Care givers (Doctors, Chiropodists, Hairdressers, Therapists, Nurses etc)Waste removalTaxi'sVisitors of those in the site.Ambulances and emergency vehicles.Maintenance Vehicles
We live opposite three care homes on Belvedere Rd and are only too familiar with the hugenumber of vehicle movements 'care' developments generate. It has been for these reasons thatwe have successfully won in our objections to any further care development on Belvedere Rd.Developers have submitted three applications since 2019 and all applications have been refusedon the grounds that the infrastructure of our roads just can not support any more commercialdevelopment.
I would consider our roads to already be at breaking point and an accident is inevitable if BCC donot look to resolve the problems we face. Any new development next to The Glen needs to besensitive to this situation and must be able to exist without an impact to the road infrastructure inthe surrounding area.
It is important to note that The Glen is currently adjacent to Redland RPZ and suffers all of theconsequences of this in terms of overspill, it is something we are all too familiar with.
The number of units in this development is extortionate and the height of the buildings is totallyunacceptable. This site is part of The Downs Conservation Area and I can not begin to see howthis application fits within the remit of this type of protected land area.
The developer is clearly trying to maximise revenue in the scale of this application and has nosensitivity to the surrounding area.
on 2022-05-11
Dear Mr Chick,
Planning application ref: 22/01221/F at St Christopher's School, Westbury Park, BS6 7JE
I live in 16 The Glen, one of the closest neighbours to the development site and wish to object to the proposals on the following grounds:
General:o Overdevelopment of the site and insensitivity to the surrounding area. The height and size of the proposed buildings is insensitive to the surrounding buildings and heritage of the area. They would dominate over the beautiful period houses in the roads around, belittling even the large villas on the site itself, let alone the smaller houses nearby. They would be dominant from all the roads around and also from the Downs. Any development in this conservation area needs to be in keeping with the heritage of Westbury Park and the villas on the site, so as to complement them and not be overbearing.o Removal of beautiful mature trees and destruction of existing biodiversity:o Too many mature trees are proposed to be removed, along with all the species which currently rely on those trees. This will have a detrimental visual impact from all around as so many of these trees have a fantastic amenity value to all those who live around the site and visit the area. Some are beautiful in their own right and others form very special groups.
o One may argue that the developers will plant more trees, but young trees are more prone to pests and diseases and it will take decades for newly planted trees to reach any size to clean our air for us and have any sort of habitat for wildlife, including birds, beetles and insects. With the climate change issues and Bristol promoting itself as a green city, how could it possibly be acceptable to fell so many mature trees in order to cram as many bulky buildings as possible into this special enclave? Reduce the density of the buildings and be more respectful to the site.o This area is full of honey-fungus which makes it difficult to establish many varieties. We are struggling to get any trees to live longer than 7 years in our back garden (which is adjacent to the site) and therefore any mature trees in this area need to be cherished.o The main pedestrian access between Alveston Lodge and Hampton Lodge seems to have an extra footpath heading out straight across the Granny Downs where there is no footpath at present (see, for example Landscaping - General Arrangement). The proposed line on the drawings runs straight through a large horse chestnut on the edge of the Granny Downs. I trust this tree will not be removed, nor its roots disturbed.o Insufficient car parking being provided. The residents of the development are expected to be fairly active and independent, requiring up to only 2 hours of care per week. Therefore, I would expect a large proportion to be drivers, wanting to bring their own cars with them and wanting to have a car-parking space on site. If there is insufficient car-parking space on site for residents, staff and visitors then they will want to overspill onto surrounding roads, where there is simply not the capacity. This would increase the risks to road safety while people cruise around looking for elusive car parking spaces.o We have noticed significant extra pressure on the parking in the area since becoming just outside the Cotham North Residents Parking Zone. We are now seeing more 'stress' parking on corners and dropped kerbs, which is making these roads more and more dangerous, especially for children and the elderly.o Access from The Glen: I oppose any vehicular or pedestrian access from the Glen as this is likely to increase the risk of The Glen and Belvedere Road as being a first choice for overflow parking, particularly for the neighbouring blocks of flats. The Glen is a cul de sac, with parking on both sides, and drivers failing to find a space at the far end have to reverse back down the narrow road and try to turn at the junction of The Glen and Belvedere. This junction frequently has cars or vans parked on the corners obstructing the view and making turning quite treacherous, particularly in reverse. Additional relevant points regarding this access are made in the submission by CSJ Planning on behalf of SCAN Action Group - see item 2.2 on pages 75 & 76 of their submission. In particular they quote the history on the current state of affairs in which access is not currently permitted for vehicles, and why access should not be allowed for either vehicles or pedestrians in the future.
Specific to 16 The Glen:o 16 The Glen is situated to the East of the cottages in the southern, jutting out, part of the site and bordering the site itself.o A row of five 2-storey 'cottages' are proposed at the back of 16 The Glen, with windows looking East directly towards the large windows of our main living areas, main bedrooms and also our back garden. This would result in a serious loss of privacy in our main rooms and amenity space, which is where most of our time is spent.o Block C (5 storeys high) and Block D (4 storeys) are considered to be very tall and
overbearing buildings, taking the place of a number of tall, mature trees and completely changing the trajectory of the skyline. Block C would have multiple windows and balconies with views towards the main windows of no 16 and Block D looks directly towards the private back garden. Again, this would be detrimental to our privacy.o 16 The Glen has its seven main habitable rooms facing west, all with large windows facing directly towards the cottages and diagonally towards block C. We use the private garden at the back of No 16 frequently throughout the year for gardening and recreational purposes. We currently enjoy a high degree of privacy, which we value greatly.o In short, the proposed development would significantly impact upon the privacy of both the upstairs, downstairs and private garden space of 16 The Glen, for ourselves and any future residents.o I am also concerned about the potential for light pollution into our home from windows, stairs, and outside lighting on the site.
I fully support SCAN and Westbury Park Community Association in their work and comments on the proposals.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs Serena Jones
on 2022-05-11 OBJECT
on 2022-05-11 OBJECT
on 2022-05-10 OBJECT
I do consider the amount and height of the development does not accord with planningpolicy given the Conservation Area status of the area. The height of the buildings will undoubtedlyhave a detrimental effect on the surrounding Townscape of historical houses; a monstrouscarbuncle dominating the Granny Downs and Westbury Park.
My principal concern is otherwise the arbitrary nature of the parking provision and access/egress,particularly around Etloe Road/St Helena Road.
65 spaces is clearly inadequate for a community of 122 flats, of which the majority are 2 bed flats.The knock-on effect of cars choking up the surrounding roads searching for spaces will haveenvironmental and societal cost in terms of fumes, the potential for accidents and further parkingacross kerbs and near corners etc. The planning authority should ensure the community isadequately protected, not seek to ensure the scheme is as munificent as possible for a developerwho has already managed to bypass its social debt with no affordable housing in the scheme.
My other overriding concern is the effect the lack of parking and service access from Etloe Roadwill have, where there is a nursery and very significant footfall of parents and children to WestburyPark School. The school has battled to minimise any rat run but given the already congestedstreets the impact of further cars, vans and lorries would be deleterious to the local environmentand cause a very significantly greater risk of accidents. At the very least this element of thescheme must be stopped so pedestrian access only is possible from this part of the site.
on 2022-05-10 SUPPORT
support to enable residents to live independently. This can include 24-hour-siteassistance (alarm) and a warden or house manager.
• Extra care housing or housing-with-care: This usually consists of purpose-builtor adapted flats or bungalows with a medium to high level of care available ifrequired, through an onsite care agency registered through the Care QualityCommission (CQC). Residents are able to live independently with 24-hour accessto support services and staff and meals are also available. There are oftenextensive communal areas, such as space to socialise or a wellbeing centre. Insome cases, these developments are known as retirement communities orvillages - the intention is for residents to benefit from varying levels of care astime progresses.
• Residential care homes and nursing homes: These have individual roomswithin a residential building and provide a high level of care meeting all activitiesof daily living. They do not usually include support services for independent living.This type of housing can also include dementia care homes.
These classifications are similar to those used widely in the sector, for example ARCO’sillustration for Living Options for Older People, which I have enclosed.
ARCO represents schemes in the ‘extra care or housing with care’ category, now widelyknown as Integrated Retirement Communities. The Integrated Retirement Communitysector in the UK is currently very small, with only approx. 0.6% of over-65s being able toaccess this model of integrated housing, care and support, while in other countries thisfigure has reached 6% or more.
The Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the Department of Healthand Social Care, the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and the CountyCouncils Network are actively encouraging our private and not-for-profit members toexpand provision in this area.
You may also be aware that the Government has recently reaffirmed its commitment toexpanding provision of wider housing options for older people, including IntegratedRetirement Communities. The White Paper, People at the Heart of Care, published on 1December 2021 officially adopts as Government policy the intention to give older peoplea good range of housing and support options, including Integrated RetirementCommunities. The Government has expressed a desire for more cross-Governmentworking at all tiers to help achieve this. Indeed, the recent Levelling Up White Paperannounced that the Government would be putting in place a dedicated task force forhousing for older people, in order to encourage the expansion of housing options forolder people that sit between care homes, and care at home.
This follows a recent open letter to the Prime Minister from more than 40 high olderpeople’s charities, investors, Parliamentarians and academics highlighting the need forthe sector to grow and to play a bigger role in future social care provision. This letter(also enclosed) includes signatories from AgeUK, the Residents and Relatives
What are Integrated Retirement Communities?
Integrated Retirement Communities offer older people the opportunity to liveindependently in their own home as part of a wider community. Lifestyle, wellbeing andcare services are available to support people’s independence and aspirations.
How are these communities integrated?Apartment homes are available for purchase, part purchase or rent, alongside a range ofchoices:• Integrated Lifestyle: Facilities like restaurants, bars, gyms, cinemas, community
halls and gardens offer optional activities and social opportunities• Integrated Well-being and Care: Personal and domestic care can be delivered
within people’s homes if they wish. Dedicated staff teams are on site 24/7• Integrated with Wider Communities: Connections with wider communities through
family, friends, intergenerational, volunteering or leisure opportunities are valued andcherished
How are Integrated Retirement Communities different from other forms ofRetirement Living?
2
the form of a task force. Crucially, this would be a low-cost initiative bringingtransformative effects, at a time when the Government has been spending tofight Covid-19 and boost the economy.
Announcing this commitment and setting up the mechanisms for growth wouldbe a profoundly positive statement of the Government’s intent to improvechoices for our ageing population. The decade ahead can and must be abrighter one.
Yours sincerely,
Parliamentarians• Damian Green MP (Conservatives)• Rosie Cooper MP (Labour)• Lord Shipley (LibDem)• Lord Best (Crossbench)• Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)• Dr. Lisa Cameron MP (SNP)• Lord Cormack (Conservatives)• Lord Alton (Crossbench)• Lord Bird (Crossbench)• Bob Blackman MP (Conservatives)• Baroness Blackstone (Independent Labour)• Siobhain McDonagh MP (Labour)
Researchers & academics• Baroness Sally Greengross, Chief Executive, International Longevity
Centre UK• Professor Les Mayhew, the Business School (formerly Cass) and Head of
Research at International Longevity Centre UK• Dr James Brown, Aston Research Centre for Healthy Ageing• Judy Martin, Chair, Global Ageing Network• Sir Muir Gray, Visiting Professor, Nuffield Department of Primary Care
Health Sciences, University of Oxford and Director, Oxford OptimalAgeing Programme
Trade associations• Melanie Leech, Chief Executive, British Property Federation• Jane Townson, Chief Executive, UK Homecare Association• Professor Martin Green, Chief Executive, Care England
3
• Vic Rayner, Executive Director, National Care Forum• Kate Henderson, Chief Executive, National Housing Federation• Cllr David Fothergill, Adult Social Care Spokesman, County Councils
Network• Nick Sanderson, Chair, Associated Retirement Community Operators
(ARCO)• Jeremy Porteus, Chief Executive, Housing Learning and Improvement
Network• Huw Edwards, CEO, UKActive
Organisations representing the interests of older people• Caroline Abrahams, Charity Director, Age UK• Judy Downey, Chair, Relatives and Residents Association• Paul Cann, OBE, Co-founder, Campaign to End Loneliness• Deborah Alsina MBE, Chief Executive, Independent Age• Lisa Ray, General Secretary, Civil Service Pensioners’ Alliance• Eamonn Donaghy, CEO, National Federation of Occupational
Pensioners• Steve Edwards, CEO of the National Association of Retired Police
Officers• Stephen Burke, Director, United for All Ages
Charities delivering services to older people• Jane Ashcroft CBE, Chief Executive, Anchor Hanover Group• Mick Laverty, Chief Executive, Extra Care Charitable Trust• Sam Monaghan, Chief Executive, Methodist Homes for the Aged• Bruce Moore, Chief Executive, Housing21• John Galvin, Chief Executive, Elderly Accommodation Counsel (EAC)• Steve Allen, Chief Executive, Friends of the Elderly
Health & social care infrastructure investors• Nigel Wilson, Chief Executive, Legal & General• Justin Travlos, Country Head UK & Ireland, AXA Investment
Management
on 2022-05-10 OBJECT
This feels like an over development of a beautiful and historic part of Bristol which is notin keeping with the historic nature of Westbury, It is also right on the edge of the Downs and issure to inpact the wildlife and ecology of the area. The addition of more cars and traffic in the areawill be a burden on the surrounding streets and the people that live in the area.I walk up this road to work every day, it is an unspoilt and beautiful part of the city, please turndown this overdevelopment plan which will spoil this area for everyone.
on 2022-05-10 OBJECT
Though I approve of the facilities that are proposed and are long over due, I write torecord MY OBJECTION to this planning application on the following grounds:
1.) Density and Architecture of housing:
The 4 new blocks of flats are too close to each other, too tall - one block 6 stories high -featureless and incompatable with the buildings being retained on and adjoing the site [GraceHouse excluded] which date from c.1850's. The 3 terrances of houses have no architectural meritwhat so ever.
2.) On-site parking:
Only 65 Car parking spaces are provided. No mention is made of car parking facilities for day &night staff, only for residents and it is questionable as to whether this number is suffoicient forthem. It should not be assumed that all staff will be able to travel to the site by walking, cycling orby public transport and not by cars.
3.) Off-site parking:
The streets surrounding the site are already filled by the kerb side parking of vehicles. In EtloeRoad, that bounds the northeast corner of the site, motorists have now started to park on bothsides of this narrow road, many mounting the pavements to leave sufficient room for cars and
vans to pass. Fire engines and ambulances could have difficulty driving down this road.
4.) Additional traffic in Westbury Park and White Tree Roundabout, Westbury Road:
The movement of traffic serving the site will increase the general traffic levels in Westbury Parkand create even more problems at its junction with North View, where the latter's junction with theWestbury Road roundabout is already under review { part of No. 2 bus route improvements]because of the holdups of traffic in North View due to the narrowing of the roadway onto theroundabout a few years ago - ie from 2 lane access to single lane access on to the roundabout.
on 2022-05-10 OBJECT
All units proposed are far too high and have an overpowering and overshadowing effecton neighbouring properties.The impact on Heritage Buildings and the over- development of site istotally unacceptable especially in a conservation area. The proposal is not appropriate regardingtransport and parking,in particular the pedestrian and emergency access from The Glen. Ifconsidered it must be limited and controlled to ensure it is not more widely used causing completetraffic chaos and 'over parking'
on 2022-05-10 OBJECT
I would regard this proposed development as totally unacceptable, especially being in aconservation area.
The buildings proposed are far too high, far too dense, over powering and over shaddowing, whichwould have a highly detrimental impact to all neighbours & surrounding area.
Also the impact of heritage buildings and the over development of site would be totally out ofplace.
With regards to transport and highway issues there is insufficient onsite parking and inappropriateaccess. In partciular the proposed pedestrian and emergency access from The Glen must belimited and controlled to ensure it is not more widely used as access to the site which would causetraffic problems and over parking.
on 2022-05-10 OBJECT
I object to the current proposed development of the site. I live very close to the site andfeel that the proposal in its current form does not account for the increased level of vehicles thatwill need to use the area for parking. Parking is an absolute nightmare around the area. BristolCity Councils refusal to extend the residents parking scheme from the top of Redland Roadonwards hjas resulted in the roads around the area being used as over spill and car parking for thealready saturated residents parking on other streets. The area cannot take any more. I alsobelieve the current proposal is an overdevelopment of the site. The new buildings are too high andtoo close to the local school causing pollution and disturbance to the local community.I do not object to the development of the site, but I think the developer could and should bemaking more effort to consider the local area and proximity to the protected Downs conservationarea.
on 2022-05-09 OBJECT
We have attended meetings with the developers, Westbury Park CommunityAssociation, St Christopher's Action Network (SCAN) as well as a number of public consultations,We object to the planning application submitted on the grounds of mass and the overall height ofthe tallest building. In addition we have significant concerns about the usage of the Downs whichrequires separate approval in addition to the planning process, and parking and traffic issues, inan area that is already dangerously congested.
Most local residents would like to see the old St Christopher's site developed, but have expressedconcerns over the scale of the development and it being out of keeping with the surroundingproperties. We share those concerns. Whilst recognising that the site will be developed, webelieve it is important that any proposal is appropriate to both the Downs environs and the existingbuildings within Westbury Park and we do not believe the current application recognises either ofthose aspects.
Geoff Gollop, Steve Smith and Sharon Scott
Councillors for Henleaze and Westbury-on-Trym
on 2022-05-09 OBJECT
I object to the plans.There are too many trees that will be lost and the proposed blocks of flats are too high for thesurrounding area.
on 2022-05-09 OBJECT
The Panel strongly objects.
There would be significant damage to the setting of the listed Grace House and the unlistedbuildings facing Westbury Park. The scale and height of the new buildings would be too great. Theproposed mansards and flared dormers would be very prominent and overbearing and Block Bwould be actually a 6 storey flat roofed building.
The arrangement of the new buildings would not refer to the setting and symmetry of the listedbuilding in any way. Any new buildings must be subservient to the listed building and morerestrained in appearance. Further details of the works to the villas, which should be classified asUnlisted Buildings of Merit in the Conservation Area, such as replacement of plastic windows,should be provided.
The loss of existing trees, some Grade A and some subject to TPOs, would change the characterof the site and was not acceptable The proposed planting should be moresubstantial with larger trees.
on 2022-05-09 OBJECT
I wish to object to this both as Chair of Rescare nationally, and as a Bristol resident of32 years, with a daughter with Downs Syndrome.
We have seen an explosion in Bristol's learning disability population, partly due to the Children'sHospital and rising rates nationally. At the same time the wonderful special school system, ofwhich St. Christopher's residential was a national beacon of hope, has been driven down bypolitical mainstreaming-for-all ideology, giving Bristol a reputation as one of the worst SENprovisions in the country. With the abrupt closure of the school Bristol children were forced to findexpensive out-of-county placements, which cost millions. St. Christophers was built with moneyfrom SEN families and philanthropists, elderly widows who donated million pound Grade 2 listedbuildings. Let's protect their legacy and memory and reject giving away the SEN family silver.
If the Planning Committee is persuaded to follow its own development policies BCS12 and DM5,which protect community facilities like St. Christopher's, then there is hope that we can worktogether to use existing specialist housing to create something to meet this growing SEN need.Planning has a unique opportunity to reject a Change of Use for the entire site, with no fear of anappeal to the Secretary of State, because protection is policy already. And it can insist on retentionof SEN provision.
The wealthy elderly, with need for a few hours "extra care," American-style, is NOT properresidential care, as developers claim. It is a far cry from severely disabled children needing 24-hours-a-day. As adults, they are not allowed to own property, because they lose all state benefits.
So holding onto the excellent Carisbrooke Lodge, and the modern respite hostel, at least, isextremely cost-effective. The only respite centre for desperate families, School Road, was closedeight years ago.
An ambitious mixture of co-housing, social housing, Shared Lives, Supported Living and fullresidential for learning disabled children and adults are all possibilities-as long as this applicationis soundly rejected.
460+ children are without their essential Education and Heath Care Plan (ECHP), their passportfor suitable education. The majority want a special school, not just a tacked-on unit in mainstream.Providing more special schooling would help keep teachers. A National Union of Teachers surveyfive years ago revealed that being forced to teach SEN children in mainstream was the majorcause for them leaving the profession. School exclusions show the failure of specialist provision,because a disproportionate number have learning disabilities.
The beautiful grove of trees at the back was planted to provide shade for the children'splayground. Keeping its rich greenery, perhaps for the special adult playground, for which 50,000people petitioned BCC, is another possible way to follow development policies.
Before the creative work can begin, let's all work together to reject this planning application.More information at www.rescare.org.uk.
on 2022-05-09 OBJECT
With this summary we enclose a formal letter of objection to this planning application provided by ourplanning consultant (CSJ Planning). This includes the formal SCAN objection on highways grounds(Appendix B)
Please also note:
1. We fully support the Report of Community Engagement submitted by the WPCA. SCAN is alsoextremely disappointed with the badly managed and inadequate community consultation - fromthe lack of transparency and proper recording of sessions, to the misleading and insufficientinformation available at key points, to the biased questionnaires and online surveys. There hasbeen a lack of response from the developers to the consistent and clear messages from thecommunity, particularly with regards to the unacceptable scale of the buildings, the loss of treesand the inadequate provision of parking spaces on site. The developers have not explained whythese main concerns have been ignored.
2. We are fully aligned with the general principles of the WPCA’s ‘Over Development Objection’ and‘Comments on Parking’ reports.
Thank you for considering our reports and we hope the planning officers and councillors will understandthe concerns of the community, as represented by SCAN, and reject this unacceptable application. Wealso hope that the reasons for refusal will be robust and compelling so that these developers, or anyother developers, will realise that any future scheme to overdevelop this site will also be rejected.
Enc.1. Letter of objection from CSJ Planning on behalf of SCAN & BS6 community
Community Planning Principles
Community’s statement of planning principles for the development of the St. Christopher’s Schoolsite, Westbury Park, Bristol BS6 7JE
Formal submission to Bristol City Council by the Westbury Park community, 3 November 2021
Purpose of this statement
Two residents’ groups have collaborated in the preparation of this statement: 1) The Westbury ParkCommunity Association (WPCA, representing the Westbury Park community as a whole) and 2) The St.Christopher’s Action Network (SCAN, a local action group set up to achieve sensitive and appropriatedevelopment of the site).
Our stance in relation to the St. Christopher’s site
The St. Christopher’s School site, which comprises approximately five acres of mainly green open space,with many mature trees, is located in Westbury Park. This area of Bristol has a very attractive townscape,one that stems from the long history of the area, and much of Westbury Park, including the site, isincluded in the Downs Conservation Area. The site itself is bounded on three sides by mainly 2-storeycottages and houses (Royal Albert Road, Bayswater Avenue, The Glen and Belvedere Road), while thefourth side (Westbury Park) is occupied by mainly 2-storey Victorian villas, which lie within thedevelopment site. The villas are, themselves, adjacent to the extensive Durdham Downs public openspace.
In our view, if this site is developed in an appropriate way, meaning one that is fully sensitive to the localtownscape and the existing, high-quality architecture of the area, the development can add to andimprove the quality of life of people living in Westbury Park, as well as provide attractive homes for thenew residents. Such a positive outcome can only be achieved if the following planning principles areused to evaluate any proposals that might be made for the development of this site.
Community-based planning principles for the development
In line with the agreed Bristol One City Plan, which seeks to create a ‘fair, healthy and a sustainable city’,and in line with Bristol City Council’s established planning policies for the area, notably Local Plan CoreStrategy Policies BC20 and BCS21, Development Management Policy DM26 and the Conservation Areastatus of the site, the community of Westbury Park ask Bristol City Council to apply the following sixplanning principles when they: 1) Offer planning guidance to any developer who may bring forwardinterim proposals for the St. Christopher’s School site, and 2) Evaluate any scheme that may be formallysubmitted as a planning application:
1) Adhere to design principles that recognise the two distinct parts of the site.
The site must be recognised as comprising two distinct parts: 1) The Victorian villas located onWestbury Park, and 2) The rear land behind the villas. The villas must be sympathetically refurbishedand converted to provide residential accommodation, and the front gardens and boundary structuresretained. The remainder of the site, the rear land, should be developed in a way that reflects the scaleand character of adjacent streets (largely 2-storey cottages and terraced housing). Design andmaterials of any new buildings should respect the historic character of the surrounding vernaculararchitecture, all of which is in the Downs Conservation Area.
2) Avoid adverse impacts from additional car parking on surrounding streets.
The development must not result in an increase in car users (made up of residents, cleaning andmaintenance staff, care and medical staff, community centre workers, delivery vans and visitors)impacting the neighbourhood around the site. Road safety must be prioritised, and adequate on siteparking must be provided, as well as easy access to all parts of the site for emergencyvehicles.
3) Avoid adverse impacts on properties adjacent to the site.
The aspect of any new building must safeguard the privacy of neighbouring properties, minimise visualimpact, and should not deprive existing properties of light. Any buildings near the perimeter of the siteshould not be higher than 2 storeys, nor be located within 20 metres of adjacent property curtilages, andthere should be no buildings above 3 storeys anywhere on the site.
4) Respond to the current global climate and ecological emergencies.
Any development must be in line with Bristol’s One City Climate Strategy (2020) and Bristol’s One CityEcological Emergency Strategy (2020). It should bring about a net gain for biodiversity. Many, if not all,mature trees should be retained. In order to protect the ecology of the site, a substantial area of greenspace should be retained.
5) The site should not be overdeveloped.
To enable delivery of the principles listed above the site must be developed in a way that is subservientin height, scale, mass and form to the close proximity of properties in Royal Albert Road, BayswaterAvenue, Etloe Road, The Glen and Belvedere Road. This means limiting the number of new dwelling unitsto ensure the development respects and maintains the distinctive character of the area.
6) Site access and road safety.
In the interests of public safety, and in recognition of the fact that there is a children’s nursery adjacentto the corner of the site and a primary school nearby, there should be no new vehicular access to thesite from either Bayswater Avenue or The Glen. Any development must not generate further traffic andparking pressures on narrow local roads where there are already serious road safety concerns.
Conclusion
Any scheme that does not adhere to these six planning principles should be rejected.
Sources
Bristol One City Plan. March 2021. More: https://www.bristolonecity.comBristol One City Climate Strategy (2020)Bristol One City Ecological Emergency Strategy (2020)Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy – Adopted June 2011Bristol Local Plan – Site Allocations and Development Management Policies – July 2014Bristol Local Plan - The Downs Conservation Area Enhancement Statement – 1993.Westbury Park Character Assessment and Design Statement – Westbury Park Community Association,2014
on 2022-05-09 OBJECT
Page 2 of 14
www.csj-planning.co.uk
Similarly, S72 prescribes a general duty in respect of Conservation Areas, which are also
designated heritage assets. In this instance, legislation requires that ‘special attention’ shall be
paid to desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.
These legislative requirements are mandatory, not discretionary. It is incumbent upon the Local
Planning Authority to pay special attention and regard to preserving or enhancing heritage assets
within an application for development.
The application site at St. Christopher’s contains a Grade II Listed building, Grace House, and
lies within The Downs Conservation Area. Case Law is relevant in identifying the importance of
heritage considerations as it has provided interpretation of how the duties should be applied. In
particular:
Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v E.Northants DC, English Heritage, National Trust & SSCLG
[2014] EWCA Civ 137
The judgment in Barnwell Manor emphasised that “there is a need to give considerable
importance and weight to any harm…when carrying out the planning balance”.
R (on the application of) Forge Field Society & Others v Sevenoaks DC & Interested Parties
[2014] EWHC 1895 (Admin)
Forge Fields reiterated Barnwell Manor’s approach, finding that the statutory duty imposed under
section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special
regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their settings requires that
‘considerable weight’ must be accorded to any harm to listed buildings or their settings. The
judgment concluded:
‘The presumption is a statutory one. It is not irrebuttable. It can be outweighed by
material considerations powerful enough to do so. But an authority can only properly
strike the right balance between harm to a heritage asset on the one hand and planning
benefits on the other if it is conscious of the statutory presumption in favour of
preservation…’
Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Local Planning Authority to afford considerable importance
and weight to heritage impacts when considering the applications at St. Christopher’s.
In this regard, para 7.156 page 76 of the submitted Built Heritage Statement is relevant. It
asserts:-
When considering all elements of the development proposals and of The Downs
Conservation Area as a whole, it is not considered that the change will impact upon the
overall character and appearance of heritage significance of the asset.”
This statement is alarming. It is somehow intended to justify the proposed new build elements.
Whilst the articulation and design of facades may indeed have some ingredients that respect
some local character, there is no assessment of the sheer amount, height, mass, and bulk of the
proposed new-build built form.
Page 3 of 14
www.csj-planning.co.uk
The proposal is a considerable over-development and effective cramming of as much
accommodation on the site in buildings far too tall for their context. The 6-storey block in
particular will dominate the Listed Building of St. Christopher’s and cause harm to the building
itself, its significance and its setting.
The Built Heritage Statement also appears to provide extensive analysis of the changes to the
listed building internally, but no satisfactory assessment of the impact of a multitude of new
buildings set in close proximity to the listed building, some of which are very tall and will
undoubtedly dominate the listed building itself. Accordingly, SCAN consider that the proposals
will cause ‘less than substantial harm’, towards the upper end of the spectrum of this
classification.
The term ‘less than substantial harm’, derives from the NPPF and does not indicate that such
harm is of low importance. Quite the reverse is true, as explained in case law identified above ,
which is reflected within NPPF para 199. In short, the proposals will be most damaging to the
listed building and its setting.
The Built Heritage Assessment also seeks to identify harm to The Downs Conservation Area. The
commentary describes views of the site from the wider conservation area in an attempt to justify
the proposals. It does not satisfactorily address the proposed density of built form in this locality,
or whether this respects the local spacious character. Neither does it provide a meaningful
quantum analysis of the increase in floor space proposed and the impacts that this will have on
the designated heritage assets.
The conclusions of the Heritage Statement, particularly paragraph 8.1, outlines the following in
respect of the overall heritage impact “when taking into account all aspects of the scheme, it is
concluded that the proposed development would result in less than substantial harm, at the
lower end of the spectrum, to the overall architectural and historic interest of the Grade II Listed
Grace House”.
Notwithstanding that it is SCAN’s contention that the extent of the harm caused is at the higher
end of the less than substantial scale, the extent of harm caused by the proposals, as evidenced
by the Heritage Statement and Planning Statement has neither been afforded ‘great weight’ or
been justified.
NPPF paras 199 and 200 between them requires that any harm, in accordance with the pertinent
Case Law, is afforded great weight. It further sets out that any harm to, or loss of significance
of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.
Within the suite of documentations submitted for consideration, there is neither any recognition
that the extent of harm caused requires the application of ‘great weight in decision making’, nor
any express reference to justifying the harm caused. On this basis alone, the application is
incomplete in heritage terms.
The Planning Balance exercise undertaken within the Planning Statement makes no reference
whatsoever to the starting point of ‘great weight’ being afforded to the recognised heritage
harm. Instead, it simply seeks to apply the test of whether there are public benefits that
Page 4 of 14
www.csj-planning.co.uk
outweigh the acknowledged harm, to allow for a determination that the titled balance within 11d
of the NPPF is applied. This approach is flawed, as there is no prior acknowledgement of the
requirement to apply great weight to the harm caused, and the requirement to provide clear
and convincing justification for such harm. In the absence of such assessments, the starting
points for the balancing exercises required by the NPPF is inappropriate and does not adequately
apply the conclusions from Barnwell Manor or Forge Fields.
Again, and notwithstanding the above position, SCAN consider that ‘less than substantial harm’
is at a higher degree than as stated within the submission, principally due to the quantity, height,
mass, and bulk of new buildings proposed in the Conservation Area, which will be an intrusive
and unwelcome addition to the built fabric within The Downs Conservation Area. On this basis,
the level of justification required, in accordance with NPPF 200, is at an even higher scale than
what is already absent from the application.
In conclusion, the proposals are clearly contrary to Policies BCS22 and DM31. The proposal will
result in an unacceptable level of heritage harm to designated heritage assets , which have not
been justified, which do not conserve or enhance the assets themselves nor their settings.
LAND USE PRINCIPLES
The application seeks to articulate an overwhelming need for extra care accommodation whilst
also suggesting that the current lawful use of the site for SEND facilities has been adequately
provided elsewhere and is not suited to this site in any event.
Paragraph 6.27 of the Planning Supporting Statement, notes that the applicant has considered
the issue of SEND education provision and commissioned a report by EFM to provide an
assessment for such educational facilities. Section 8 of the EFM report assesses a suitability of
existing buildings, noting their shortcomings for SEND accommodation in the modern era.
In particular, paragraph 8.9 notes that the site layout has grown up in an unplanned, organic
way, which is not ideal for children with special educational needs of any type. It also highlights
maintenance and servicing arrangements that are not cost effective. It concludes that a new
SEND School would require a good deal of rationalisation and rebuilding necessary to make the
school efficient and meet DFE requirements.
Whilst such EFM conclusions may be understandable, that does not necessarily lead to a
conclusion that Policy BCS12 & DM5, regarding the protection of community facilities, have been
satisfied. The application has not demonstrated that there is no longer a need to retain the SEND
use, and in this instance no alternative provision has been made.
In paragraph 6.26 of the Planning Supporting Statement, it notes that the Council strategy
includes ‘finding smaller pockets of provision’ for SEND accommodation across the city. The
Bristol Schools Forum agenda meeting of 29th March 2022 (enclosed at Appendix A), notes,
amongst other things, budget constraints and the impacts of long tail Covid resulting in higher
numbers of children joining education from a ‘lower baseline’.
At paragraph 3.4, page 15, it is noted:-
Page 5 of 14
www.csj-planning.co.uk
“Although good progress has been made, providing suitable and sufficient Special
Educational Needs and Disability places remains a major challenge.”
Paragraph 4.23 states:-
“There has also been a rise in demand for specialist provision with a large increase in a
number of educational health care plans. The rise is significantly above that which would
be expected from the rise in the general school population. Existing specialist provision
across the city is at, or very close to capacity and will require substantial capital
investment.”
Paragraph 4.24 notes:-
“In October 2020 census there was 1,211 pupils in Bristol special schools compared to
1,119 in October 2021.”
Accordingly, it is evident that SEND requirements are increasing in Bristol and therefore not
catered for. Past statements of sufficient capacity may now be outdated. In this context, it is
evident the SEND need is still evident and therefore the Local Planning Authority should
safeguard such places for suitable accommodation. The opportunity to re-use the existing
premises or re-building should be afforded substantial weight.
In conclusion, the applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Development Plan Policies
BCS12 & DM5 regarding the protection of community facilities and therefore there is an in-
principle policy conflict.
OVERDEVELOPMENT OF SITE & TOWNSCAPE IMPACT
The appeal site is within the Downs Conservation Area. This is notable for the consistency of the
stone buildings with rich detailing, the formality of the layout of the streets and the abundant
street trees. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
(the Act) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the
character or appearance of conservation areas.
The proposed development is considered to represent overdevelopment which responds poorly
to the site. It would be entirely out-of-keeping with the scale and form of nearby development
and would consequently be harmful to the local townscape character.
Although an update to date Conservation Area Appraisal has not been prepared to-date, the
Conservation Area Enhancement Statement issued as part of the Local Development Framework
identifies that its character is derived from “for its small buildings and street furniture, trees,
quality and consistency of limestone building materials and traditional boundary walls. The
buildings are well proportioned so that they harmonise with the street as a whole”. This character
will be markedly eroded by the proposed development.
The scale, massing and height of the proposed development would unacceptably alter the
existing character and street scene along Westbury Park, Royal Albert Road, Etloe Road, The
Glen, Bayswater Avenue and Belvedere Road, where the scale of existing development is
Page 6 of 14
www.csj-planning.co.uk
predominantly 2/3 storeys. The scale and bulk of the proposal sits uncomfortably within the plot
and would constitute a cramped form of development. The plot coverage is significant and out -
of-keeping with the more well-balanced existing plot arrangement.
At 6 storeys in height, elements of the proposed development are up to 4 storeys taller than
many surrounding buildings in the area. This is considered to be inappropriate in design terms,
failing to respect the rich and historic character of the existing townscape. The proposed
development itself will result in a substantial degree of change which will have a notable impact
on the street scene and will sit at odds with the important elements of the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area, thus impacting upon its overall heritage significance.
The proposed development is considered to be harmful to the existing townscape character by
virtue of the increased height and stark uninteresting residential form of the scheme will mean
the development will be visible from, and within the context and setting of designated heritage
assets and key views through the city. Furthermore, the removal of existing trees which currently
provide screening to the site would cause further harm to the visual impact of the development
on the surrounding landscape.
The Townscape & Visual Impact Assessment (TVIA) outlines that there are 4 No. key townscape
receptors of medium and medium-high sensitivity and 5 No. key visual receptors, also of medium
and medium-high sensitivity. As the TVIA notes, higher levels of sensitivity are associated with
a higher receptor susceptibility to change. On the basis of the identified receptor s, they are all
at the medium to higher end of the scale, which indicates that they are subject to greater impacts
arising from changes to the townscape.
The TVIA concludes:
• Overall levels of effects for townscape receptors range from moderate (for the
character of the site), through slight-moderate (for Local character area – Westbury
Park Frontage Villas), to slight (for Local character areas – Cottages and Houses and
St Alban’s and Redland Garden Estates). Adverse effects are associated with the
change to the height, scale and mass of the buildings within the site.
• Adverse visual effects are associated with the addition of new buildings of increased
height and mass within the site, and in certain locations, tree removals, which open
up views into the site. Overall levels of effects are judged as varying slight to
moderate-substantial adverse (for receptor groups B, C and D) and slight adverse (for
receptor groups A and E)
The stated conclusions are clear in that the ‘effects’ on the townscape revolve principally around
the scale, height and mass of the proposed buildings and the loss of existing tree cover. This is
endemic of a proposal that is out of character with its locality and is reliant on tree removal that
is a valuable existing townscape feature and is a key component of the character and appearance
of the Downs Conservation Area.
Ultimately, the conclusions arising from within the Townscape & Visual Impact Assessment, do
not correlate with the conclusions within the Planning Statement, whereby it asserts that the
Page 7 of 14
www.csj-planning.co.uk
proposal is neutral in design terms within the wider balancing exercise. This inconsistency is
alarming.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION
The proposal is deficient in respect of the provision of on-site affordable housing. As such it fails
to accord with the Development Plan. Affordable housing is probably the single most important
strategy of Bristol City Council, evidenced by the recent publication of Strategy 1000, which is
in effect the City’s most recent corporate strategy for housing, including affordable housing,
delivery through to 2025.
A failure to propose a suitable on-site response is worthy of refusal. The application site is within
the Inner West area of the City where 40% affordable housing is sought by adopted policy
BCS17.
In the absence of a Viability Assessment to justify the proposed affordable housing ‘offer’, in
accordance with the adopted Validation Checklist, SCAN consider that the application should not
have been validated by the Local Planning Authority. The adopted Validation Checklist confirms
that where below policy-compliant affordable housing is proposed, the Affordable Housing
Statement (or Heads of Terms, as submitted) must be accompanied by a full un-redacted
Viability Appraisal. No such information is forthcoming and the extent of the de tail in respect of
affordable housing is set out within the Planning Statement.
Paragraph 5.9 identifies Policy BCS 17 and the 40% target delivery for affordable housing in the
Inner West wards. In the absence of such provision, a full development viability appraisal is
required. No such appraisal has been submitted. The proposal therefore evidently falls short of
policy requirements.
Paragraph 5.26 acknowledges the Affordable Housing Practice note, presumably the 2018
edition. It does not specifically reference the policy guidance within 3.3 namely that “The
developer is expected to provide affordable homes on site without any public subsidy in line with
the Council’s affordable housing policy”.
Paragraphs 6.83 – 6.85 provide the applicants response to affordable housing within this
proposal. It states “the particular model of care to be provided at the site means that, in
principle, the scheme is unable to provide on-site affordable housing. This is because residents
will be required to pay a service charge toward communal facilities, wellness services and the
general management and upkeep of the extra care Integrated Retirement Community”
The Affordable Housing Practice Note 2018 spells out the Council’s approach to service charges
at paragraph 3.6, page 10. This states “The service charge is the amount payable on an
affordable home in addition to rent/mortgage which includes all estate management charges,
ground rents, services, repairs, maintenance and improvements of a communal nature and the
insurance of the building. The level of service charge can be a material planning consideration
as this affects the relative affordability of the unit. The Council will seek to ensure via the s106
agreement that the total occupation costs to affordable housing occupiers remain affordable in
the long term. The Council would not expect a service charge to exceed £250 per annum in
Page 8 of 14
www.csj-planning.co.uk
respect of a house and £650 per annum in respect of a flat (Index linked (CPI) respectively).
Early consultation is recommended as good design can overcome the need for high service
charges.”
The application is clearly at odds with the Practice Note guidance and contrary to policy with no
on site affordable housing provision. There is no good explanation on why the model of care
proposed cannot cap the service charge for affordable units and any deficit effectively cross
subsidised by private owned units. Such an approach is commonplace in Bristol.
It is not explicit in the application why the applicant’s consider that Extra Care proposal should
be excluded from policy requirements. They should not. Nor should the Local Planning Authority
enter into negotiations with an applicant to search for an off-site or financial solution that is
contrary to the Practice Note and adopted policy requirements.
Accordingly, the proposal should be refused on a failure to comply with policy BCS17 and its
accompanying supplementary guidance.
ROAD SAFETY AND TRAFFIC / PARKING
Section 4 of the NPPF outlines that transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating
sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives.
Policy DM23 (Transport Development Management) of the Local Plan outlines that new
development should not give rise to unacceptable traffic conditions and will be expected to
provide safe access to the highway network. The policy also outlines that new development
should be accessible by sustainable transport methods such as walking, cycling and public
transport. Furthermore, the policy sets standards for parking provision.
A full Transport Objection Statement has been produced by SCAN Group, provided as Appendix
B. A summary of the detail within the accompanying Statement is provided below:
Firstly, the applicant does not provide any estimates of the actual expected parking needs of the
residents, staff and visitors for a new Extra Care scheme, and does not claim to be able to meet
these without any overspill on to surrounding roads. Instead, the proposed number of parking
spaces is based on:
• an interpretation of the parking standards for C2 (residential care homes where
residents don't have cars);
• comparison with parking provided at a small number of non-similar schemes; and
• a comparison with the number of cars parked in a small non-comparable (social rent)
sheltered housing scheme, in a small town in Northern Ireland, on one day in early
2019.
The proposal is for 122 units comprising 111 two-bed and 11 one-bed dwellings. The Transport
Statement estimates approximately 15-20 staff on-site at any time. The applicant has only
included 65 spaces for a site of 122 primarily 2-bed apartments, which could accommodate up
to 244 residents. None of the supporting information provided within the transport Statement
Page 9 of 14
www.csj-planning.co.uk
suggests that this will be enough to accommodate for all residents, staff and visitors. Section
1.2 of the accompanying statement explains why the information in their Transport Statement
does not demonstrate that the parking provided will be sufficient to avoid overspill.
The applicant justifies their plans with numerous subjective assertions, but these are not
evidenced by any quantified assumptions, data or research to show the actual likely parking
requirements of the residents, staff and visitors. Section 1.3 uses reliable data sources to
indicate that a reasonable estimate of parking requirements for the development would be 116
spaces, made up of:
• 76 spaces for residents’ cars
• 2 car club and 1 mini-bus space
• 37 spaces reserved for staff and visitors.
It is well known that the residential roads surrounding the site already face issues with over -
demand of parking, and the associated road safety issues. Section 1.4 of the accompanying
document provides further detail in this respect. These roads have no spare capacity to
accommodate the likely over-spill from the new development, and the extra volume of cars
looking for spaces will exacerbate the current safety concerns.
Obviously, the ultimate parking needs will be based on a number of factors and cannot be
predicted with 100% accuracy. However, it should be recognised that the nature of the location
– closely surrounded by residential roads – means that if the estimates lead to insufficient
parking on-site, residents, staff and visitors will seek to park on the neighbouring roads, and
this impact cannot be managed by the developers (or BCC) once the site is occupied.
There must therefore be a clear onus on the applicant to provide sufficient parking, based on
realistic estimates, to reduce, as far as reasonably possible, the risk of this occurring. Instead,
their provisions are, at best, based on unenforceable best case wishful thinking. The estimates
provided within the accompanying statement are based on defined and reasonable (not worst
case) assumptions, as detailed further in Section 1.3.
Most of the applicant’s case seems to rely on a suggestion (Transport Statement 6.21) that
“parking provision is in line with other similar schemes”. However, the amount of parking
provided on these other sites is not relevant in determining the actual parking needs of this site.
Appendix E to the Transport Statement indicates that the comparison si te is TRICS ref TY-03-P-
01. The referenced site is a small retirement housing scheme in a small town in Northern Ireland,
providing socially rented housing. No care is provided, solely an (off-site) alarm service, and
there are no community facilities. Units are primarily single occupancy, distorting the pro rata
calculation.
This site is clearly not sufficiently similar to St Christophers Square to provide any meaningful
comparison data. The context of the site has not been remotely taken into consideration within
the assessment, with no regard for existing environmental factors such as the presence of a
Page 10 of 14
www.csj-planning.co.uk
Primary School (Westbury Park) & Nursery (Daisychain) and existing parking conditions & traffic
movement.
Finally, it should be noted that the applicants themselves do not claim that there will be no
overspill on to surrounding roads – their plans appear to be justified primarily by a highly tenuous
and limited comparison with 1 day of trip analysis at a completely non-comparable site. For a
development of this size and complexity, this cannot be seen as anything approaching a reliable
basis for the limited parking provision. The plans presented in the first pre-app included 120
spaces, and even then, they referred to the potential need for a residents parking scheme to
avoid over-spill into the surrounding streets. This suggests that the applicant is in fact aware
of the likely number of parking spaces required to avoid overspill, but has reduced the planned
provision from 120 to 65 for their own undefined reasons.
The road safety issues within the vicinity of the site have been acknowledged by Bristol City
Council, who rejected two recent planning applications – 19/93194/F and 20/06030/F – due to
the additional parking demands they would place on these roads, and the impact on road
safety. Additionally, the report from the Planning Inspectorate in response to an appeal on
19/93194/F upheld the Council's decision, summarising that "I found that parking is at a
premium, which is currently causing significant hazards for all users of the highway1."
The parking issues on these roads are even acknowledged by the applicant, who states
(Transport Statement 6.7) that “Roads to the south such as The Glen and Belvedere Road are
on the edge of the residents parking zone and have issues with lack of on-street parking for
residents”. A recent poll of local residents found that 81% of the 298 respondents see issues
with parking in Westbury Park having a dangerous impact on road safety, with 67% having
witnessed accidents, incidents or near misses in this area (44% more than once). This can only
increase with a further 50+ cars circling the roads competing for rare spaces. "
The parking survey undertaken by local residents indicates a significant existing shortfall in
existing parking, with the parking pressures most severe during the working week, principally
owing to commuters who seek to avoid the restrictions imposed by the Residents Parking Zone
within the locality. The parking situation often results in vehicles having to park in the middle of
the road, causing congestion and conflict which is exacerbated by the two-way carriageway
which creates a hazard for all road users and residents. This issue is particularly pertinent as
the peak parking pressures will coincide with the working hours for staff at the redeveloped St
Christophers – where the proposed level of provision will not cater for staff demand.
The proposed scheme does provide some negligible mitigation in the form of a raised speed
table, implementation of double-yellow areas and dropped kerbs to assist pedestrian crossings,
however, these limited benefits are not considered sufficient to justify the significant impact on
the operation of the local highway network, or indeed the resulting further reduction in the
availability of on-road parking.
1 Application 17/06914/F on the Bristol City Council Planning Portal: “Costs Decision”
Page 11 of 14
www.csj-planning.co.uk
Overall, it is clear that there is simply no basis for assuming that the planned parking provision
is sufficient for the parking needs at this location. There will be a significant overspill, which will
increase risks to road safety in the surrounding residential streets. The applicant has not
provided any reliable information to support that 65 spaces will be sufficient for the needs of all
residents, staff and visitors to the site and the transport submission fails to identify the full range
of impacts. In consequence, its assessment of the impact upon the local road network is both
incomplete and unreliable, with no evidence that the proposal is acceptable. Consequently, it is
recommended the LPA take a precautionary approach when assessing highway impacts.
It is also evident that the formal submission has not taken into account the advice from Transport
Development Management (TDM) in respect of the ongoing operation of the access from Etloe
Road. The formal advice issued at the Pre-Application stage was clear in that this must be
addressed, owing to the proximity to the existing Nursery and the St Helena Junction, which
would give rise to highway safety concerns for vehicles leaving the site. Residents are also
concerned that the proposed pedestrian access to The Glen would increase the risk of it being
used for overflow parking.
Overall, it is therefore concluded that the proposal, as submitted, would harm highway safety.
Policies BCS10, DM2 and DM23 of the Development Plan require safe streets integrated with the
development, the regulation of parking impacts from shared housing and the avoidance of
unacceptable traffic conditions.
Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that “Development should only be prevented or refused on
highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual
cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.” It is clear that the developers are
not producing sufficient parking to avoid an unacceptable impact, and the application should
therefore be refused on these grounds.
IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Section 11 of the NPPF (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) states that the
planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by
minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible,
contributing to the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including
by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future
pressures.
Policy BCS9 (Green Infrastructure) of the Bristol Core Strategy outlines that the integrity and
connectivity of the strategic green infrastructure network will be maintained, protec ted and
enhanced. Opportunities to extend the coverage and connectivity of the existing strategic green
infrastructure network should be taken.
Policy DM17 (Development Involving Existing Green Infrastructure) outlines that development
should integrate important existing trees. It is suggested that where tree loss or damage is
essential to allow for appropriate development, replacement trees of an appropriate species
should be provided in accordance with the standard set out within Policy DM17.
Page 12 of 14
www.csj-planning.co.uk
The proposed scheme is considered to be in conflict with the above policies for the following
reasons owing to an extensive loss of trees, including high quality individual specimens, which
has not been adequately justified
The Development Plan requires appropriate mitigation for any lost green infrastructure assets
will be required. Development should incorporate new and/or enhanced green infrastructure of
an appropriate type, standard and size. Where on-site provision of green infrastructure is not
possible, contributions will be sought to make appropriate provision for green infrastructure off
site.
The development has been supported by an Arboricultural Report tree survey and Impact
Assessment undertaken by Barton Hyett, which has informed the design of the Proposed
Development.
Paragraph 6.94 of the Planning Statement notes that design rationale has been to identify and
retain the best quality trees wherever possible, replacing those of low quality. A total of 82
individual trees were surveyed on site and summarised in terms of their quality in accordance
with the recommendations of the BS5837 quality category. The development proposes to retain
43 urban street trees, with 39 individual trees, plus 3 groups of trees and four hedges being
proposed for removal, equating to approximately 50% of the existing trees on site.
The tree survey states that 18 of the 39 trees proposed for removal are of moderate to high-
quality (4 high-quality, 14 moderate quality) with their retention therefore desirable in
accordance with the BS5837 guidance. This clearly conflicts with paragraph 6.94 and the stated
intention to retain trees of quality, with over half of those proposed for removal mature trees of
good condition and desirable for retention.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the removal of trees is an inevitable consequence of development,
the loss of so many high-quality trees is not deemed to be essential to the redevelopment and
has not been appropriately justified. It is considered that such an extent of loss is again indicative
of a design proposal that constitutes overdevelopment of the site.
In light of the above, the proposal is considered to cause significant damage to the local green
infrastructure network and environment, with the quantum of tree removal not deemed
necessary for the redevelopment of the site. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies
BCS9 of the Core Strategy and DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Local
Plan.
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
This formal representation has been prepared by CSJ Planning for and on behalf of St
Christophers Action Network (SCAN) and has been provided in response to the formal submission
of planning application ref: 22/01221/F. The application seeks planning permission for 122 self-
contained extra care residential units with associated works, including car parking and
landscaping
Page 13 of 14
www.csj-planning.co.uk
SCAN’s stated purpose is to seek the appropriate redevelopment of St Christophers , however, in
summary, they consider that the submitted application is not appropriate for the following
reasons:
• The proposed scale, mass and bulk of the proposals is inappropriate within this
sensitive heritage context and will give rise to unacceptable impacts on heritage
assets and townscape;
• In the context of an increasing need for SEND accommodation in Bristol, the applicant
has failed to satisfy the requirements of BCS12 and DM5 which seek to safeguard
community facilities;
• The extent of tree loss proposed in inappropriate, particularly so in terms of high
quality individual specimens which make a valued contribution to the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area;
• The proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms, owing to insufficient
on-site parking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements, which will
increase the road safety risks in an area where there is already a significant concern;
• The proposal includes no affordable housing and is not supported by an unredacted
Viability Appraisal to justify such lack of provision, which is contrary to the adopted
Development Plan. The stated reasoning for the lack of provision is not consistent
with adopted policies or adopted supplementary planning guidance.
For these reasons, it is considered that the submitted application should be refused by the Local
Planning Authority.
I would appreciate if you are able to confirm receipt of this submission and I would be grateful
to be kept informed of the progression of the application in due course.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Orr BA (Hons), BPL, Dip UD, MRTPI
Director
mo@csj-planning.co.uk
Page 14 of 14
www.csj-planning.co.uk
APPENDIX A – BRISTOL SCHOOLS FORUM AGENDA MEETING OF
29.03.22
Bristol Schools Forum
Agenda Tuesday, 29th March, 2022 at 5.00 pm Virtual Meeting via Zoom
Start Item Action Owner Paper 1. 17:00
Welcome
A Chair
2. 17:05
Election of Vice-Chair
De Chair
3. 17:10
Forum Standing Business (a) Apologies for Absence
(b) Confirmation meeting is quorate
(c) Appointment of new members/Resignations:
New members – to be updated at the meeting
Resignation – Rob Davies, Nursery Governor
Representative
(d) Notification of Vacancies:
To be updated at the meeting
(e) Declarations of Interest
A Clerk
4. 17:15
Minutes of the Previous Meeting (a) To confirm as a correct record
(b) Matters arising not covered on agenda – to
include an update on de-delegated insurance
services
A Chair 3 - 9
5. 17:20
Presentation by Director of Education and Skills
Di AH
6. 17:40
DSG Management Plan Update
Di AL 10 - 14
7. 18:00
Place Planning
Di IB 15 - 40
8. 18:20
DSG Budget Monitor P10
I AL 41 - 44
9. 18:30
Any Other Business
Chair
(*) A = Admin, I = Information, De = Decision required, C = Consultation, Di = Discussion Clerk: Corrina Haskins email: corrina.haskins@bristol.gov.uk Chair: Sarah Lovell (contact via clerk)
Public Document Pack
FUTURE MEETINGS
Date Items 24 May 2022 12 July 2022
Bristol Schools Forum Thursday, 13 January 2022
1
Bristol Schools Forum
Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 13th January, 2022 at 5.00 pm at Virtual Meeting via Zoom
Present: Melanie Bunce Maintained Primary Headteacher Rep, St Barnabas Simon Eakins Academy Primary Head Rep, Cathedral Primary Simon Holmes Nursery Head Rep, St Phillips Marsh Nursery Tracy Jones Academy Primary Headteacher Rep, Merchants Academy Sarah Lovell (Vice-Chair) Academy Secondary Headteacher Rep, Bristol Brunel Academy Kate Matheson Maintained Primary Governor Rep, St Barnabas Steve Mills Non School Member, UNISON Aileen Morrison Pupil Referral Unit Rep, St Matthias Park Chris Pring Maintained Primary Headteacher Rep, Cabot Primary Emma Richards Maintained Special School Headteacher Rep, Claremont Cedric Sanguignol Maintained Primary Governor Rep, Bishop Road Primary Cameron Shaw Academy Secondary Head Rep, Bristol Metropolitan Simon Shaw Maintained Secondary Head Rep, St Mary Redcliffe & Temple Liz Townend Diocese of Bristol Board of Education Stephanie Williams Academy Primary Head Rep, Bannerman Road Community Academy In attendance from Bristol City Council: Abioye Asimolowo (AA) Finance Manager Councillor Asher Craig Cabinet Member for Children Services, Education and Equalities Paul Dury (PD) Risk and Insurance Officer Corrina Haskins (CH) Clerk to Schools Forum Alison Hurley (AH) Director of Education and Skills Denise Murray (DM) Director of Finance Angel Lai (AL) Finance Manager (Children’s and Education) Travis Young (TY) Principal Accountant
Action
1. Welcome
SL (Vice-Chair) welcomed everyone to the meeting.
2. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
The Clerk reported that 1 nomination had been received for the position of Chair, Sarah Lovell, and that, if appointed, the position would be for a two-year period, as set out in the constitution. AGREED – that Sarah Lovell be appointed as Chair of Bristol Schools Forum. SL took the chair and asked for nominations for Vice-Chair, preferably from the maintained
Page 3
Agenda Item 4
Bristol Schools Forum Thursday, 13 January 2022
2
primary sector to balance her position as a secondary academy representative. There were no nominations, and it was agreed to defer this to the next meeting. Simon Eakins indicated that he would be willing to take on the role in the absence of any nominations from the maintained sector.
3. Forum Standing Business
a. Apologies for absence
Apologies for absence were received from: Rob Davies, Nursery Governor Rep, Speedwell and Little Hayes Nursery Federation Trish Dodds, Academy Primary Governor Rep, Fishponds Academy David Otlet, Recognised Teaching Professional Association (NEU) Rebecca Watkin, Academy Special School Headteacher Rep, LearnMAT
b. Quorate The Clerk confirmed the meeting was quorate.
c. Resignations
There were no resignations to report.
d. Appointment of New Members There were no new Members to report.
e. Notification of Vacancies
The following vacancies were noted: 2 x Academy Secondary Governor Rep Academy Primary Governor Rep PRU Governor Rep Clifton Diocese Rep
f. Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest.
4. Minutes of the Previous Meeting
RESOLVED - that the minutes be confirmed as a correct record Matters Arising Free School Meals Eligibility Checks In response to a query raised at the previous meeting, AH confirmed that Free School Meal eligibility was not collected on a weekly basis but 3 times a year as part of the census, and that the 2018 changes to Universal Credit had protected children who were eligible before and during the roll out of Universal Credit until the end of the roll out period. In response to further queries from CP about a software which enabled schools to check eligibility on a regular basis, AH undertook to look into this and provide CP with a response. Written Statement of Action RAG Rating
AH
Page 4
Bristol Schools Forum Thursday, 13 January 2022
3
AH undertook to send Schools Forum Members a link to this information.
AH
5. Verbal update from the Director of Education and Skills
AH referred to the proposal for phase 3 of the Education Transformation Programme that was discussed at the previous meeting and updated as follows:
1. Following the in-principle decision to transfer 0.5% from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block at the last meeting, further work was being undertaken to develop the school based element of the proposal.
2. This included scoping work to look at the wide range of school-based programmes and interventions across the education system in Bristol to identify how to improve the effectiveness of education for children with SEND and how best to meet needs.
3. There was a recognition that there was a lot of good work going on in mainstream schools, Alternative Provision and special schools and a wealth of knowledge and expertise in the sector.
4. School leaders were looking at ways to meet needs within a community/locality to work across schools in a collaborative way.
5. Bids would be invited from schools for projects that would reflect the priority themes: a) early intervention and support. b) emerging needs across the system e.g. social and emotional health and speech and
language. c) building on workforce development and capability and how to expand on that and
share expertise across the system. d) reducing exclusions and improving attendance of children with SEND.
6. The proposals would need to demonstrate value for money and be sustainable. 7. In terms of timelines:
a) Between now and April a panel would be set up with Local Authority officers, parents and carers, school leaders and Schools Forum members.
b) A further update would be provided at the March meeting. c) The details would be circulated to Forum Members prior to the March meeting with
a request for feedback. d) From April onwards there would be a move into the cycle of monitoring and quality
assurance. In response to questioning, AH confirmed:
1. The information would be circulated through the weekly Heads’ Bulletin, and through networks such as Heads’ briefing and the Excellence of Schools group.
2. In terms of whether nursery providers would be involved, there was a need to check parameters in terms of the funding requirements, but the preference would be that this sector should be involved, along with the Health sector due the key work on early identification and intervention.
AGREED – information be circulated to Schools Forum in advance of the next meeting for first comment prior to wider circulation.
AH
6. Dedicated School Grant (DSG) 2022-23
TY introduced the report and drew attention to the following:
1. The allocations were announced by ESFA on 16 December as set out in table 1 of the
Page 5
Bristol Schools Forum Thursday, 13 January 2022
4
report. 2. Subsequent to this, the ESFA announced an additional £325m for High Needs including
£2.651m for Bristol. 3. This changed the figures in tables set out in the report with £78.2m for High Needs
(rather than £75.52m), an increase of 13% from the previous year. 4. Central School Services Block: This block was funded in two parts, for ongoing and 5. historic responsibilities. The funding for historic commitments had been reduced again
by 20%. 6. Early years: The 3- and 4-year-olds funding rates were unchanged, 2-year-olds increased
by 21p and this would be passed on directly to providers as requested during the consultation process.
In taking a decision, Forum Members noted the feedback from schools as part of consultation process. In relation to comments to Cabinet and Council, Forum noted the additional funding for High Needs and awaited proposals from the Council as to how this funding would be utilised going forward as part of the Education Transformation Programme or to support the cost pressures in the High Needs Block. AGREED –
1. That the 2022/23 funding levels be noted. 2. That the final transfers between blocks be approved. 3. That the EYNFF be approved. 4. That the Central School Services Block allocations be approved:
a. LA Core Functions £1.139m (as per Appendix 1). b. School Admissions £0.557m. c. Schools Forum £0.023m. d. Combined Services £0.596m (as per Appendix 2).
5. That the following feedback be given to Cabinet and Council, for their consideration in making final decisions on the Schools Budget for 2022/23: The Bristol’s Schools Forum noted the additional funding for High Needs and awaited proposals from the Council as to how this funding would be utilised going forward as part of the Education Transformation Programme or to support the cost pressures in the High Needs Block.
7. School Block Funding Formula
TY introduced the report which asked Forum to approve the funding formula for submission to the ESFA. LA officers answered the following questions raised by Forum Members: Is there any further information on whether there would be a hard NFF next year? There was no further update, but the indications were that there would be a move towards a hard NFF What would happen over the next few years in relation to the Growth Fund especially in view of the difficulty in finding places in Bristol, especially secondary places in the East/Central area? The 70 places mentioned in the report was the current situation with 1 new and growing school and going forward, growth funding was also under review. The LA would look at how to apply growth funding under any new requirements of ESFA.
Page 6
Bristol Schools Forum Thursday, 13 January 2022
5
From a strategic perspective, it was challenging to find out about the Growth Fund on an annual basis, but the LA was creating a Place Planning Strategy to look at next 5-10 years (under the Belonging Strategy). In the short term, the LA was responding to a capacity issue with the delay in the building of a new free school in East Central. The new South Bristol secondary school was on track to open in September 2023 albeit in temporary accommodation. There was a report to Cabinet on 18 January to approve spend of a capital grant from DFE to deliver additional school capacity in order for the council to continue to meet its statutory obligations.
It was agreed that Place planning for Secondary/Primary places in the City was an important issue and a progress update in this regard would be brought to the Schools Forum meeting in March.
Why was there a delay in the opening of the school in East Bristol? The school was part of the Silverthorne Lane development which had been called in by the Secretary of State following an objection on the planning application from the Environment Agency due to flood risk concerns about flood risk. AGREED
1. That the proposed arrangements for the 2022/23 mainstream funding formula, including the amount set aside for the Growth Fund be approved.
2. That the following feedback be given to Cabinet and Council, for their consideration in making final decisions on the Schools Budget for 2022/23: Place planning for Secondary/Primary places in the City is an important issue to look at and a progress update in this regard needs to be brought to the Schools Forum meeting in March.
8. De-delegation - outstanding items
The Chair asked Maintained Primary Representatives to consider the following outstanding items which had not been agreed at the previous meeting:
a) Employee and Premises Insurance It was noted that there was a request for further information at the previous meeting about why joining a separate scheme such as the RPA was cheaper and how cover compared between that and the option proposed by Council. The Council’s Risk and Insurance Officer confirmed that the RPA cover did not include engineering inspection services/motor insurance and would also mean an additional administrative burden of schools dealing directly with insurers rather than through the Council’s Insurance and Risk Team. In response to a question about whether Bristol City Council had considered taking up RPA as an authority-wide scheme like some other LAs, he confirmed that this wasn’t the recommended option at the current time. It was agreed that if Forum was minded to support de-delegation, the Council would seek the most value for money option and explore RPA as part of that process before committing to a 3 year contract. AGREED that Employee and Premises Insurance be de-delegated and that the Council would seek the most value for money option and explore RPA as part of that process before committing to a 3 year contract.
Page 7
Bristol Schools Forum Thursday, 13 January 2022
6
b) Education Psychologist
On voting on whether this service should be de-delegated, there were 2 in favour and 2 against. The Chair used her casting vote to support the proposal following feedback that the service was valued by SENCOs but asked that further information be provided on the details of the service provided to schools to ensure that the service was value for money. AGREED (3 in favour and 2 against) – that the Education Psychologist service be de-delegated. In response to a question from CP about how schools could access the TU fund, AH undertook to report back with details.
AH AH
9. Dedicated School Grant (DSG) Budget Monitor (P8)
AL introduced the report and drew attention to the following:
1. The report summarised the DSG budget position as of November 2021. 2. There was a £10m deficit from previous year as of November, this had risen to £16.7m. 3. The reason for the increasing deficit was the demand in the High Needs Block, in
particular top-up funding and placements and there was also some pressure on Early Years SEN.
4. A cumulative forecast of £26.7m was predicted by the end of the financial year. It was noted that the deficit was an ongoing concern and the next iteration of the DSG Management Plan would be discussed at the next meeting. Councillor Craig confirmed that the growing deficit was an issue of urgency for the Council and asked Forum to have a robust discussion at the next meeting. AH confirmed that the High Needs and Early Years Task and Finish Groups would be meeting in advance of the next meeting to look at the DSG Management Plan in detail. She asked other members to consider joining these groups and further details would be circulated to all members. In response to a concern raised about information in the press relating to local authority powers to recoup money from maintained schools, it was noted that this may either refer to the recent consultation to withdraw funding to Local Authorities (Brokering Grant) for school improvement or the balance control mechanism to control surplus balances. SS undertook to forward the news articles to AH for clarification at the next meeting. In response to a question about the reason for the variance in relation to the closure of 3 schools and opening of a new school, TY confirmed that the 3 schools had been fully funded for 12 months but closed at the end of August and the new school was opened without any funding and so a new allocation was worked out using the unspent money from the closed schools and the variance was the net result. Further questions were asked in relation to the increase in top-up funding to Resource Bases, whether spaces were filled and also the reason for the difference in terms of funding and outturn for special schools. AH confirmed that in relation to both Resource Bases and Special Schools, the increase was needs led and the Council was not funding empty spaces as had happened previously. She advised that there had been a significant increase in requests and
Page 8
Bristol Schools Forum Thursday, 13 January 2022
7
the complexity of needs had also driven costs up. In response to further questions about whether this increase would be built into next years’ budget, AH responded that some of the forecasting had been worked into the budget and there was ongoing work about mitigations and the assumptions around the mitigations. She confirmed that the increase associated with the Covid pandemic and associated lockdowns would slow down as children returned to education settings. AGREED That the in-year 2021/22 position for the overall DSG be noted.
10. Financial Regulation for Schools with Delegated Budget
AA introduced the report containing the revised financial regulations for maintained schools and asked Forum Members to share the information and respond to the Clerk with any comments. It was agreed that the deadline for comments be extended to 3 February. It was noted that the document would also be available on the Council’s website and advertised through the Heads’ Bulletin and circulated to business managers. AGREED - that the draft regulations be noted, and comments from maintained schools be welcomed up to 3 February 2022 with the final regulations coming into effect from 01/04/2022.
The meeting closed at 6.23pm.
Page 9
Bristol Schools Forum 29th March 2022 Supporting paper for agenda item number 6
Report name: DSG Management Plan Update 1 Author: Angel Lai Report date: 29th March 2022
Bristol Schools Forum DSG Management plan updates
Date of meeting: 29 March 2022 Time of meeting: 5.00 pm Venue: Virtual meeting
1. Purpose of report
The purpose of this report is to present latest DSG Management Plan (“the Plan”) to the Schools’ Forum for information. Updates within this report is subsequent to the Plan presented in November 2021 Schools Forum’s meeting.
2. Recommendation(s)
Schools Forum is invited to note the following: the latest updates in the Plan feedback and comments on proposed mitigations the next update will be provided to the Schools Forum in May 2022.
3. Background
Local Authorities with an overall deficit on their DSG account at the end of a financial year must be able to present a plan to the DfE for managing their future DSG spend. The ESFA have designed a template to help local authorities manage their DSG and Bristol is using the template.
The Plan is intended to help LAs to develop evidence-based and strategic plans covering the provision available for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. Completion of the Plan will enable us to:
• comply with paragraph 5.2 of the DSG: conditions of grant 2020 to 2021 • monitor how DSG funding is being spent • compare data on high needs spend between LAs • highlight areas that may require a ‘deep dive’ to ensure resources are being
used efficiently and best value is secured
4. Developments since November 2021 Schools Forum meeting
Subsequent to November 2021 Schools Forum meeting, ESFA announced 2022/23 DSG allocations in December 2021 and additional funding to High Needs block in January 2022, along with suggested income growth projections for High Needs block (2023-24: 5% uplift and 3% uplift for subsequent years).
Page 10
Agenda Item 6
Bristol Schools Forum 29th March 2022 Supporting paper for agenda item number 6
Report name: DSG Management Plan Update 2 Author: Angel Lai Report date: 29th March 2022
DSG management plan was updated to reflect these changes. The unmitigated deficit forecast was reduced to £85.5m from £89.1m for year 2025-26 in the version reported to the Forum in November 2021. This is primarily due to £9.8m increase in High Needs block funding in 2022-23, offset by reductions in High Needs funding growth assumptions beyond 2023-24.
As illustrated in Table 1, ESFA confirmed 2022-23 DSG funding allocation, which is an uplift of £17.847m or 4.4% from 2021-22 allocation. However, as additional £8.928m is for Schools Block where majority of the funding is passported to schools and will be fully spent. £78.214m for High Needs Block representing £9.848m, including additional £2.69m for High Needs block announced in January 2022 representing 14.4% uplift from 2021-22, this is not sufficient to cover current forecasted annual need or contribute to the accumulated historic deficits. The DSG deficit forecast is anticipated to rise further until mitigations plans can be fully developed, consulted on, and begin to take effect in the coming years. As a result, this additional £2.69m allocation cannot be re-directed to other use.
Table 1 - ESFA DSG funding allocation
by block analysis
2021-22 DSG
allocation
2022/23 DSG
allocation as
at Dec2021
Increase Increase notes on changes:
£m £m £m %
Schools block (£s) 297.264 306.192 8.928 +2.9%unit funding has gone up by 2.5% & 2.8% plus
secondary numbers increased by 3.2%; offset by
slight primary number reduction.
Central school services block (£s) 2.774 2.742 -0.031 -1.1%historic responsibilities was 599k & 147k in
2020/21, but £147k element no longer exist
(Prudential borrowing)
High needs block (£s) 68.366 78.214 9.848 +14.4%mainly driven by increase in numbers.
Early years block (£s) 35.286 34.388 -0.898 -7.5%Based on participation, numbers participating is
reducing.
403.690 421.537 17.847 +4.4%overall 3.3% increase in funding allocationTotal DSG allocation (-ve:
reduction) as at January 2022
DSG Management Plan deficit is forecasted to increase further due to an increase in current year deficit forecast. Without mitigations and increased government funding the current trends indicate that this would result in an unmitigated cumulative DSG deficit of £26.792m for 2021-22.
In order to deliver service needs on a sustainable footing, work and collaboration continue with Transformation Programme working groups to finalise mitigation proposals for consideration by the Schools Forum in 2022-23, and further work and engagement thereafter and where appropriate consultation on the co-design of these potential mitigations for development and implementation in subsequent years. Further details on mitigation proposals and developments on potential opportunities to expand further outside Transformation Project Programmes such as engaging with the
Page 11
Bristol Schools Forum 29th March 2022 Supporting paper for agenda item number 6
Report name: DSG Management Plan Update 3 Author: Angel Lai Report date: 29th March 2022
Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) on Delivering Better Value (DBV) for SEND programme is covered in the Education Director’s report.
Table 2 below provide high level calculations, for illustration purposes only of the potential variation in the financial position if the hypothesis being considered and including additional government funding where implemented.
Table 2 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 TOTAL
Demand management -£910,748 -£9,571,059 -£19,171,074 -£29,652,881
Supply of provisions -£2,680,259 -£3,908,224 -£4,140,912 -£10,729,395
Total -£3,591,007 -£13,479,283 -£23,311,986 -£40,382,276
Based on the work completed to date mitigations of £0.871m originally outlined in the 2022-23 financial year has been removed to enable further work. This has been offset by increased funding in HNB confirmed by ESFA in December 2021 and in subsequent announcement in January 2022, resulting in an indicative total mitigation of £40.382m as sumarised in Table 2.
The projected DSG deficit position after factor in changes described above, is illustrated in Table 3 and graph below.
Table 3 2018-19£,000s
2019-20£,000s
2020-21£,000s
2021-22£,000s
2022-23£,000s
2023-24£,000s
2024-25£,000s
2025-26£,000s
Mitigated DSG position (surplus)/deficit reported in March 2022 -£1,962 £2,893 £10,004 £26,792 £31,528 £43,162 £52,811 £62,187Unmitigated DSG position (surplus)/deficit -£1,962 £2,893 £10,004 £26,792 £31,528 £46,753 £66,290 £85,499
Total mitigations: -£3,591 -£13,479 -£23,312 -£40,382
DSG Summary of end of year positions as at March 2022
Page 12
Bristol Schools Forum 29th March 2022 Supporting paper for agenda item number 6
Report name: DSG Management Plan Update 4 Author: Angel Lai Report date: 29th March 2022
-£10,000
£10,000
£30,000
£50,000
£70,000
£90,000
2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26
Chart 1 - Mitigated & Unmitigated DSG Deficit £
Unmitigated Unmitigated Forecast Mitigated MitigatedForecast
5. Risks and Challenges
The forecast presented above is laden with some risks and challenges. Some of these are presented in bullet points below
• Long awaited national SEND Review may be of little consequence or positive impact
• Ofsted re-inspection may highlight new areas to address (as inspection framework is tightened and strengthened)
• Some of the thinking on mitigations may not deliver or may deliver at amount lower than originally anticipated.
• Introduction of National Hard Funding Formula • Long tail of Covid – high numbers of young children joining education from
lower baseline
6. Opportunities
The opportunities within the current system are summarized below:
• ESFA Delivering Best Value for SEND initiative will offer long term solution to manage existing cost pressures and enhance financial sustainability.
• Launch of Belonging Strategy (Belonging in Education) • Impact of the announcement of £2.6 billion over the SR21 period for new
school places for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in England.
• Impact of additional possible yield from SR21 on revenue funding for High Needs Block has not been factored in.
Page 13
Bristol Schools Forum 29th March 2022 Supporting paper for agenda item number 6
Report name: DSG Management Plan Update 5 Author: Angel Lai Report date: 29th March 2022
• Schools Forum choose to invest in 2022/23 Phase 3 (focusing on sector-led innovation and commissioning)
• Proactive Schools Forum engagement via Early Years and High Needs Task & Finish Groups
• Phase 1 and Phase 2 interventions land and mature • SEND Reviews delivers policy reform with positive impact
7. High Needs & Early Years Funding Task & Finish Groups
Two Task & Finish Groups continued to meet throughout the summer has provided invaluable support, challenge, and input into shaping the latest forecast.
Schools Forum members are asked to join the T&F group to provide necessary stakeholders engagement to this work.
8. Equalities Impact Assessment
Equalities Impact Assessments have been produced, or are underway, for the planned interventions and initiatives that may contribute to the management of the deficit position. A cumulative EquiA will be produced as part of HN recovery plan.
9. Financial Implications
No financial implications arise from completing the DSG Management Plan template. It is, however, expected to be a valuable tool in developing an effective response to the DSG deficit recovery requirements. The road to financial recovery will become clearer and more specific as the Plan evolves and becomes fully populated.
The Schools Forum has invested in the Education Transformation Programme by using 0.5% top-slice of the Schools block in 2021/22 and 2022/23 (£1.4m and £1.531m) to fund initiatives and activities that will ensure cost drivers are better understood and outcomes contained in the SEND Written Statement of Actions (WSoA) and wider Education Transformation programmes are delivered. Although no explicit savings are attributed to this programme of work, it is expected to deliver improved outcomes throughout the SEND system, achieve value for money and set the course towards financial sustainability over the medium to longer-term.
Page 14
Bristol Schools Forum School Places
Date of meeting: Tuesday 29th March 2022
Time of meeting: 5.00 pm
Venue: Virtual Meeting
1. Purpose of report
1.1 To update Schools Forum on school place planning across Bristol.
2. Recommendation
2.1 That Schools Forum note the contents of this report.
3. Summary
3.1 The city continues to experience rising in demand for secondary school places. A significant amount of work has already been undertaken to ensure all pupils continue to be offered a school place. Delays to the delivery of a new free school means further temporary places are required for September 2022 and possibly 2023.
3.2 Offers of places at secondary schools were made on 1st March 2022. 4,549 places were offered in Bristol schools, with 93% receiving an offer of a school named as a preference and 77% receiving an offer for their 1st preference school.
3.3 Numbers of pupils requiring a place in Reception continues to fall, offers of places for Reception in September will made on 19th April.
3.4 Although good progress is being made, providing suitable and sufficient Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) places remains a major challenge.
3.5 The increased numbers of pupils entering secondary schools will begin to impact on demand for post-16 places.
3.6 A 10 Year Strategy is currently being developed to cover all areas of provisional though the continuing uncertainty around secondary places makes this aspect more complicated.
4. Context
4.1 Bristol has previously seen a dramatic rise in primary school pupil numbers. Reception admissions peaked in 2016 and since then numbers have continued to fall, mainly due to falling birth rates.
4.2 These higher primary school numbers have been impacting on secondary schools for a number of years. Many schools have already been expanded and other schools are taking more pupils than their Published Admissions Number (PAN). Taking more pupils than the Page 15
Agenda Item 7
capacity is not sustainable in the longer term, without significant capital investment.
4.3 The planned development of a secondary free school at Temple Quarter continues to experience serious delays and will not be opening in temporary accommodation for September 2022. The school is part of a wider planning application which was subject to a Public Inquiry. A decision from the Secretary of State is expected in early May and there remains a possibility that the application may not achieve consent.
4.4 The DfE has previously confirmed that it can only pursue opening the new school in temporary accommodation once there is certainty of delivery for the permanent scheme and planning permission has been secured. If planning is granted soon, the earliest any temporary accommodation could be available is September 2023, this would slip to 2024 with any further delays.
4.5 The Oasis Academy South Bristol is planned to open on a temporary site in September 2023, with the new build school on Daventry Road due for completion the following year. This will provide up to 6 additional forms of entry (180 places per year).
4.6 It should be noted that the current economic conditions around the construction industry generally mean that project costs and timescales are being significantly affected. Prices have risen considerably and many projects are experiencing delays due to the impacts of COVID and Brexit. The current rise in energy prices and war in Ukraine will have an additional impact.
4.7 Although BCC is not the responsible body for the development or opening of new free schools, it does retain the statutory duty to provide sufficient school places and continuing to offer all pupils places has been very challenging. Academy Trusts and individual schools have played a major role in supporting the LA by agreeing to admit additional pupils to meet the shortfall caused by delays to the free school projects.
4.8 Having already admitted over PAN for a number of years and/or already being at capacity there has been a need to make capital investments in a number of schools. These projects have focussed on ensuring there is sufficient space for both learning, particularly specialist spaces such as science, and other activities such as dining to minimise the impact on the pupils’ experience.
4.9 In January, Cabinet approved £6m for capital projects to support admissions in September 2022. It should be noted that the price rises and workforce availability issues mentioned above will also have an impact on these projects.
4.10 A number of the schools where additional places are required to meet the shortfall caused by delays to the Temple Quarter project are PFI schools. The financial model is complex and there are significant revenue costs as well as legal processes to complete for these schools to accommodate pupils in excess of the PFI contract figure. These factors are already affecting the timescales for delivery of the planned capital projects.
4.11 Although sufficient spaces have been created to offer all pupils a place at secondary school transfer there is very little space within secondary schools across the city. There are whole areas of the city without places in some year groups. This has impacted on the in-year admissions with an increase in school appeals and placements through ‘Fair Access’ arrangements, putting these systems under increasing strain. There will be very few available places in any year groups for pupils moving into the city or requiring a change of school.
Page 16
Where pupils are offered places in schools that are not preferences and/or are some distance from home can affect behaviour and attendance. This can then result in increasing demand for SEND and Alternative Learning Provision.
4.12 Following a peak in 2016, numbers requiring places at primary schools continue to fall and places will need to be managed to avoid large numbers of empty places. Willow Park School was opened in September 2021 to replace St Michael’s and St George C of E Primary Schools, reducing excess capacity in the city centre. St Pius X Schools was closed in August 2021, reducing places in the south of the city.
4.13 Additionally, a number of schools have already reduced their PAN and others are considering this. Officers continue to work with schools to manage the places. The places are not removed permanently but makes it easier for the schools to plan staffing levels with more certainty. Alternative uses of any empty space needs to be considered, including for SEND provision, id appropriate.
4.14 There are no indications that the falling birth rate will rise in the foreseeable future and the delivery of new homes, particularly in south Bristol, has been slower than anticipated and is not yet impacting on demand for primary school places.
4.15 Pupil projections are prepared annually for the DFE School Capacity Survey. These projections are used to allocate capital funding (‘Basic Need’) and also contribute towards decisions to approve the opening of new ‘Free Schools’. Basic Need allocations are likely to remain for single years, making long term capital finance planning very difficult. The allocations relate purely to mainstream places and there is no direct equivalent source of capital funding for SEND provision.
4.16 Birth rates are the main factor used in the pupil projection, with factors such as the effect of new housing and historical trends of gain/loss as pupils move through the school years being incorporated. The projections also take account of net ‘loss’ of pupils to schools in neighbouring local authority areas and the numbers of pupils opting for independent schools.
4.17 Year 7 pupil projections and capacities within PANs are shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Year 7 pupil forecasts and capacity 2021 - 2025 Year 2021 Oct Census
and Projections
Year 7 Capacity
2021/22 4,421 4,269 2022/23 4,612 4,276 2023/24 4,672 4,276
2024/25 4,684 4,276
2025/26 4,527 4,276 Oasis Temple Quarter and South Bristol not included.
4.18 Actual numbers in Year 7 in October were lower than those previously forecast. This is at least partly due to the availability of places restricting the numbers starting at schools. This will also mean that when projections are revised in the summer, they are likely to be slightly lower than those shown above.
4.19 Demand for secondary places is projected to start to fall after 2024, in line with primary school numbers. Demand in north continues to be in excess of places for some time. If both new free Page 17
schools (Oasis Academy Temple Quarter and Oasis Academy South Bristol) are opened it is unlikely that further additional secondary places will be required in east and south in the medium to longer term.
4.20 Planning for secondary school place requirements is carried out using 3 geographical Planning Areas. Primary forecasts use 14 areas, each made up of a number of council wards. To ensure comparability with other LAs these areas comply with DfE guidance and can only be changed with the Department’s permission. Pupil projections for each area are included in Appendices 1 and 2.
4.21 Reception pupil projections and capacities within PANs are shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Reception Year pupil forecasts and capacity 2021 - 2025 Year 2021 Oct Census
and Projections
Reception Capacity
2021/22 4,943 5,746 2022/23 4,989 5,596 2023/24 4,798 5,536 2024/25 4,612 5,536 2024/25 4,480 5,536
4.22 Reception admissions peaked in 2016 when 5,581 children started school. Although there is variation some years (there was a small increase in applications for 2020 for instance) the long term forecasts indicate that, without a change to birth rates, demand will continue to fall.
4.23 There has also been a rise in demand for specialist provision with a large increase in the number of Education and Health Care Plans. The rise is significantly above that which would be expected from the rise in the general school population. Existing specialist provision across the city is at or very close to capacity and will require substantial capital investment.
4.24 In the October 2022 Census there were 1,211 pupils in Bristol special schools, compared to 1,119 in October 2021.
4.25 Significant progress has been made to increase SEND provision. The majority of these new places will be available from September 2022 onwards.
4.26 There is no direct ‘Basic Need’ capital grant funding for SEND places. The DfE have announced further capital for SEND places. It is not yet known how this will be distributed. Previous funding has been allocated based on overall pupil numbers with every LA receiving a relatively small amount rather than a bidding system to target funding.
4.27 Demand for places post-16 is forecast to rise in line with secondary school numbers. The current Year 11 has approximately 3,666 pupils, compared to around 4,421 for Year 7. The current projection only takes account of pupils registered in school sixth forms in Bristol and does not include pupils attending CLF post-16 provision, City of Bristol College or St Brendan’s College. The projections below may be higher than actual numbers as place availability in the more popular provisions is restricted and students unable to gain a place choose to attend a college provision rather than smaller school sixth forms.
4.28 Projections for School Post-16 are shown in Table 3 below. Page 18
Table 2: School Sixth Form pupil forecasts and capacity 2021 - 2025 Year 2021 Oct Census
and Projections
Year 12 & 13 Capacity
2021/22 2,876 2,700 2022/23 3,048 2,700 2023/24 3,302 2,700 2024/25 3,381 2,700 2024/25 3,430 2,700
4.29 Post-16 numbers vary considerably with many sixth forms operating well above the notional capacity, with more flexibility of timetabling and others well below capacity.
4.30 Trinity Academy will have a sixth form in future and plans for Oasis Academy Temple Quarter also include sixth form provision. Although there is more flexibility with accommodating post-16 pupils, some additional capacity will eventually be needed.
5. Financial Implications
5.1 There will continue to be a requirement for the Growth Fund for the foreseeable future. Most primary schools have now completed their growth and do not require further funding but the funding requirement for additional secondary school places is rising. Delays or variations to actual pupil demand will affect the funding required.
Appendices:
Appendix 1: Primary School Pupil Forecasts Appendix 2: Secondary School Pupil Forecasts
Page 19
Slide 1Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
Primary School Projection 2021
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
Page 20
Slide 2Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
Establishment PAN 2020/21 PAN 2021/22 PAN 2022/23 NOR Jan 2021
Bannerman Road Community Academy 60 60 60 57
Barton Hill Academy 90 90 90 49
Cabot Primary School 30 30 30 22
Easton C of E Academy 60 60 60 59
Evergreen Primary Academy 30 30 30 13
Fairlawn Primary School 60 60 60 38
Hannah More Primary School 30 30 30 30
Sefton Park Infant School 60 60 60 59
St Barnabas C of E VC Primary School 30 30 30 10
St Nicholas of Tolentine Catholic Primary School 30 30 30 20
St Werburgh's Primary School 56 56 56 55
The Dolphin School 60 60 60 34
Sefton Park Junior School** 0 0 0 0
Total 596 596 596 446
1. Ashley & Lawrence Hill
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
Academic Year Year R Projection
2020/21 446
2021/22 452
2022/23 428
2023/24 480
2024/25 443
2025/26 430
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26
Year R Projection PAN
**Junior School. Intake from Year 3
Page 21
Slide 3Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
2. Eastville, Frome Vale & Hillfields
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
Academic Year Year R Projection
2020/21 431
2021/22 433
2022/23 430
2023/24 359
2024/25 380
2025/26 369
Establishment PAN 2020/21 PAN 2021/22 PAN 2022/23 NOR Jan 2021
Begbrook Primary Academy 90 90 90 89
Chester Park Infant School 90 90 90 87
Fishponds C of E Academy 60 60 60 49
Frome Vale Academy 30 30 30 25
May Park Primary School 90 90 90 72
Minerva Primary Academy 60 60 60 56
St Joseph's Catholic Primary School 30 30 30 31
Avanti Gardens Primary 60 60 60 22
Chester Park Junior School** 0 0 0 0
Total 510 510 510 431
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26
Year R Projection PAN
**Junior School. Intake from Year 3
Page 22
Slide 4Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
3. St George & Easton
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
Academic Year Year R Projection
2020/21 444
2021/22 449
2022/23 449
2023/24 473
2024/25 462
2025/26 447
Establishment PAN 2020/21 PAN 2021/22 PAN 2022/23 NOR Jan 2021
Air Balloon Hill Primary School 120 120 120 118
Redfield Educate Together Primary Academy 60 60 60 60
St Patrick's Catholic Primary School 30 30 30 30
Summerhill Infant School 60 60 60 58
Two Mile Hill Primary School 90 90 90 89
Whitehall Primary School 90 90 90 89
Summerhill Academy** 0 0 0 0
Total 450 450 450 444
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26
Year R Projection PAN
**Junior School. Intake from Year 3
Page 23
Slide 5Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
Establishment PAN 2020/21 PAN 2021/22 PAN 2022/23 NOR Jan 2021
Avonmouth C of E Primary School 30 30 30 27
Nova Primary School 60 30 30 46
Oasis Academy Bank Leaze 30 30 30 28
Oasis Academy Long Cross 60 60 60 53
Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic Primary School, Bristol 30 30 30 30
Shirehampton Primary School 60 60 60 59
St Bernard's Catholic Primary School 30 30 30 28
Total 300 270 270 271
4. Avonmouth & Lawrence Weston
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
Academic Year Year R Projection
2020/21 271
2021/22 265
2022/23 270
2023/24 258
2024/25 249
2025/26 243
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26
Year R Projection PANPage 24
Slide 6Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
5. Bishopston & Ashley Down, Cotham & Redland
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
Academic Year Year R Projection
2020/21 360
2021/22 362
2022/23 339
2023/24 323
2024/25 294
2025/26 285
Establishment PAN 2020/21 PAN 2021/22 PAN 2022/23 NOR Jan 2021
Ashley Down Primary School 60 60 60 59
Bishop Road Primary School 120 120 120 113
Brunel Field Primary School 60 60 60 59
Cotham Gardens Primary School 90 90 90 69
St Bonaventure's Catholic Primary School 60 60 60 60
Total 390 390 390 360
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26
Year R Projection PANPage 25
Slide 7Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
Establishment PAN 2020/21 PAN 2021/22 PAN 2022/23 NOR Jan 2021
Cathedral Primary School 60 60 60 60
Christ Church C of E Primary School 60 60 60 56
Hotwells Primary School 30 30 30 23
Ss Peter and Paul RC Primary School 30 30 30 24
St George C of E Primary School* 15 0 0 7
St Johns C of E Primary School, Clifton 75 75 75 73
St Michael's on the Mount C of E Primary School* 30 30 0 15
Willow Park Primary School* 0 0 30 0
Total 300 285 285 258
6. Central, Clifton & Ashley Down & Hotwells & Harbourside
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
Academic Year Year R Projection
2020/21 258
2021/22 242
2022/23 279
2023/24 264
2024/25 240
2025/26 233
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26
Year R Projection PAN
*St George C of E & St Michael’s on the Mount C of E Primary Schools closedIn 2021 and amalgamated to create Willow Park with a total PAN of 30
Page 26
Slide 8Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
Establishment PAN 2020/21 PAN 2021/22 PAN 2022/23 NOR Jan 2021
Badocks Wood Primary School & Children's Centre 45 45 45 23
Blaise Primary and Nursery School 60 60 60 60
Brentry Primary School 30 30 30 30
Fonthill Primary School 30 30 30 30
Henbury Court Primary Academy 60 60 60 41
Little Mead Primary Academy 60 60 60 60
Total 285 285 285 244
7. Henbury & Brentry & Southmead
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
Academic Year Year R Projection
2020/21 244
2021/22 249
2022/23 255
2023/24 196
2024/25 206
2025/26 200
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26
Year R Projection PANPage 27
Slide 9Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
Establishment PAN 2020/21 PAN 2021/22 PAN 2022/23 NOR Jan 2021
Elmlea Infant School 90 90 90 90
Henleaze Infant School 90 90 90 87
Sea Mills Primary School 30 30 30 28
St Ursula's E-ACT Academy 90 90 90 90
Stoke Bishop C of E Primary School 60 60 60 60
Westbury Park Primary School 60 60 60 60
Westbury-On-Trym C of E Academy 60 60 60 61
Henleaze Junior School** 0 0 0 0
Elmlea Junior School** 0 0 0 0
Total 480 480 480 476
8. Stoke Bishop & Westbury-on-Trym & Henleaze
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
Academic Year Year R Projection
2020/21 476
2021/22 427
2022/23 432
2023/24 388
2024/25 357
2025/26 348
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26
Year R Projection PAN
**Junior School. Intake from Year 3
Page 28
Slide 10Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
Establishment PAN 2020/21 PAN 2021/22 PAN 2022/23 NOR Jan 2021
Filton Avenue Primary School 120 120 120 93
Glenfrome Primary School 60 60 60 59
Horfield C of E Primary School 60 60 60 60
St Teresa's Catholic Primary School 30 30 30 30
Stoke Park Primary School 30 30 30 30
Upper Horfield Primary School 30 30 30 28
Total 330 330 330 300
9. Horfield & Lockleaze
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
Academic Year Year R Projection
2020/21 300
2021/22 284
2022/23 290
2023/24 307
2024/25 257
2025/26 249
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26
Year R Projection PANPage 29
Slide 11Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
Establishment PAN 2020/21 PAN 2021/22 PAN 2022/23 NOR Jan 2021
Broomhill Infant School & Children's Centre 60 60 60 53
Holymead Primary School 90 90 90 90
St Anne's Infant School 90 60 60 81
The Kingfisher School 30 30 30 24
Broomhill Junior School** 0 0 0 0
Wicklea Academy** 0 0 0 0
Total 270 240 240 248
10. Brislington
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
Academic Year Year R Projection
2020/21 248
2021/22 221
2022/23 229
2023/24 220
2024/25 264
2025/26 257
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26
Year R Projection PAN
**Junior School. Intake from Year 3
Page 30
Slide 12Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
Establishment PAN 2020/21 PAN 2021/22 PAN 2022/23 NOR Jan 2021Cheddar Grove Primary School 60 60 60 60
Fair Furlong Primary School 60 60 60 60
Four Acres Academy 45 60 60 59
Hareclive E-ACT Academy 60 60 60 58
Headley Park Primary School 60 60 60 60
Merchants' Academy 60 60 60 36
St Peter's C of E Primary School (VC) 60 60 60 60
St Pius X RC Primary School* 30 0 0 11
Total 435 405 405 404
11. Bishopsworth & Hartcliffe & Withywood
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26
Year R Projection PAN
Academic Year Year R Projection
2020/21 404
2021/22 401
2022/23 364
2023/24 346
2024/25 300
2025/26 291
*St Pius X RC Primary School Closed in 2021
Page 31
Slide 13Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
Establishment PAN 2020/21 PAN 2021/22 PAN 2022/23 NOR Jan 2021
Greenfield E-Act Primary Academy 60 60 60 43
Hillcrest Primary School 60 60 60 60
Ilminster Avenue E-ACT Academy 45 45 45 48
Knowle Park Primary School 90 90 90 89
Oasis Academy Connaught 60 60 60 41
Oasis Academy Marksbury Road 60 60 60 60
Parson Street Primary School 60 60 60 41
School of Christ The King Catholic Primary 30 30 30 26
St Mary Redcliffe C of E Primary School 60 60 60 60
Victoria Park Primary School 60 60 60 59
Total 585 585 585 527
12. Filwood, Knowle & Windmill Hill
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
Academic Year Year R Projection
2020/21 527
2021/22 542
2022/23 495
2023/24 453
2024/25 491
2025/26 477
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26
Year R Projection PANPage 32
Slide 14Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
Establishment PAN 2020/21 PAN 2021/22 PAN 2022/23 NOR Jan 2021
Ashton Gate Primary School 120 120 120 116
Ashton Vale Primary School 30 30 30 30
Compass Point: South Street School and Children's Centre 30 30 30 21
Holy Cross RC Primary School 30 30 30 25
Luckwell Primary School 30 30 30 18
Southville Primary School 90 90 90 86
Total 330 330 330 296
13. Bedminster & Southville
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
Academic Year Year R Projection
2020/21 296
2021/22 305
2022/23 310
2023/24 326
2024/25 277
2025/26 269
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26
Year R Projection PANPage 33
Slide 15Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
Establishment PAN 2020/21 PAN 2021/22 PAN 2022/23 NOR Jan 2021
Bridge Farm Primary School 90 90 90 90
Bridge Learning Campus 60 60 60 55
Oasis Academy New Oak 30 30 30 30
Perry Court E-Act Academy 60 60 60 60
St Bernadette Catholic Voluntary Aided Primary School 30 30 30 30
Wansdyke Primary School 30 30 30 30
Waycroft Academy 60 60 60 60
West Town Lane Academy 90 90 90 90
Woodlands Academy 30 30 30 22
Total 480 480 480 467
14. Hengrove & Whitchurch Park & Stockwood
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
Academic Year Year R Projection
2020/21 467
2021/22 415
2022/23 417
2023/24 406
2024/25 393
2025/26 382
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26
Year R Projection PANPage 34
Slide 16Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
Primary Projection Citywide
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28
Year 7 Projection PAN
Academic Year Year R Projection
2020/21 5,172
2021/22 5,046
2022/23 4,989
2023/24 4,798
2024/25 4,612
2025/26 4,480
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26
Year R Projection PAN
Page 35
Slide 1Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
Secondary School Projection 2021
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
Page 36
Slide 2Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
Secondary Projection East Central
Establishment PAN 2020/21 PAN 2021/22 PAN 2022/23 NOR Jan 2021
The City Academy Bristol 195 195 195 222
Bristol Brunel Academy 232 232 232 262
Montpellier High School 140 140 140 140
Bristol Metropolitan Academy 180 180 180 221
Total 747 747 747 845
Academic Year Year 7 Projection
2020/21 845
2021/22 876
2022/23 904
2023/24 916
2024/25 918
2025/26 887
2026/27 880
2027/28 893
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28
Year 7 Projection PAN
Page 37
Slide 3Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
Secondary Projection North
Establishment PAN 2020/21 PAN 2021/22 PAN 2022/23 NOR Jan 2021
Bristol Free School 200 200 200 202
Orchard School Bristol 185 185 185 204
Blaise High School 189 180 180 176
Cotham School 243 243 243 241
Fairfield High School 216 216 216 216
St Bede's Catholic College 207 207 207 208
Redland Green School 216 216 216 235
Bristol Cathedral Choir School 150 150 150 153
Oasis Academy Brightstowe 160 160 160 159
St Mary Redcliffe and Temple School 216 216 216 218
CST Trinity 120 180 180 121
Total 2102 2153 2153 2133
Academic Year Year 7 Projection
2020/21 2133
2021/22 2211
2022/23 2281
2023/24 2311
2024/25 2317
2025/26 2239
2026/27 2221
2027/28 2255
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28
Year 7 Projection PAN
Page 38
Slide 4Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
Secondary Projection South
Establishment PAN 2020/21 PAN 2021/22 PAN 2022/23 NOR Jan 2021
Bridge Learning Campus 180 180 180 123
Oasis Academy Brislington 270 270 270 270
Ashton Park School 216 216 216 219
Bedminster Down School 216 216 216 215
St Bernadette Catholic Secondary School 150 150 150 150
Merchants' Academy 182 182 182 169
Oasis Academy John Williams 162 162 162 188
Total 1376 1376 1376 1334
Academic Year Year 7 Projection
2020/21 1334
2021/22 1383
2022/23 1427
2023/24 1445
2024/25 1449
2025/26 1401
2026/27 1389
2027/28 1410
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28
Year 7 Projection PAN
Page 39
Slide 5Department Name HereTeam Name Here (go to View – Master – Slide Master to change)
Secondary Projection CitywideAcademic Year Year 7 Projection
2020/21 4312
2021/22 4469
2022/23 4612
2023/24 4672
2024/25 4684
2025/26 4527
2026/27 4489
2027/28 4559
Education and SkillsSchool Place Planning
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28
Year 7 Projection PAN
Page 40
Bristol Schools Forum 29th March 2022 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 8
Report name: DSG Budget Monitor P10 1 Author: Angel Lai Report date: 29th March 2022
Bristol Schools Forum DSG Budget Monitor 2021/22 P10
Date of meeting: 29 March 2022 Time of meeting: 5.00 pm Venue: Virtual meeting
1 Purpose of report
1.1 This report provides information of the forecast financial position for the DSG overall as at Period 10 (to end of January 2022).
2 Recommendation
2.1 Schools Forum is invited to:
a) Note the in-year 2021/22 position for the overall DSG.
3 Background
3.1 The report updates Schools Forum on the financial position at Period 10 (end of January 2022).
4 Budget monitoring 2021/22
4.1 The DSG ended the 2020/21 financial year with an overall deficit of £10.004m.
4.2 This period 10 monitor is showing that the in-year forecast net deficit is £16.788m, which when added to the brought forward balance will give a total net deficit to carry forward at the end of the 2021/22 financial year of £26.792m. The variation is predominantly attributed to the High Needs block which is forecasting an in-year overspend of £17.653m and £0.614m in Early Years’ SEN; offset slightly by Schools’ Block underspend of £0.96m.
The Period 10 position is set out in Table 1 with more detail set out in Appendix 2.
Page 41
Agenda Item 8
Bristol Schools Forum 29th March 2022 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 8
Report name: DSG Budget Monitor P10 2 Author: Angel Lai Report date: 29th March 2022
Table 1: Forecast position on overall DSG for 2021/22 at Period 10 (as at January 2022) All figures £’000 b/f
Deficit
DSG Funding 2021/22
Forecast Outturn
Period 10
2021/22
In-year variance
Forecast Carry-
forward Period
10 2021/22
Schools Block (619) 295,864 294,903 (960) (1,579) De-delegation (553) 0 66 66 (487) Schools Central Block 2,627 2,627 0 0 Early Years (621) 35,286 35,316 30 (591) High Needs Block 12,609 68,513 85,953 17,440 30,049 Education Transformation
(812) 1,400 1,613
213 (599)
Funding (403,690) (403,690) 0 0 Total 10,004 0 16,788 16,788 26,792
4.3 Schools Block (-£0.960m underspend). The formula funding for maintained mainstream schools and academies has been fully allocated. Scope for variation is in the growth fund, or if schools close during the year. Three schools (St Pius X, St George and St Michael on the Mount) have closed at the end of August 2021, and one new school (Willow Park) opened on 1st September. These movements accounts for £0.454m forecast variance on Schools Block. Growth commitments are expected at £2.5m against funding of £2.861m, an underspend of £0.507m.
Underspends at year end are not designated by block but treated as a whole for the DSG, and therefore will be utilised to partially offset the DSG deficit.
4.4 De-delegated resources (£66k overspend). This is the cost incurred for Trade Union facilities time which will be offset by the reserves brought forward as no funding was collected from schools in the current year.
4.5 School Central Services Block (£nil variance) Current forecasting indicates that all of the services in this block will spend to budget.
4.6 Early Years Block (£30k forecast overspend). Early Years income and expenditure is based on participation throughout the academic year, and as such the reported position was updated based on ESFA January 27th 2022 funding announcement where total allocation was reduced by £1.899m due to low participation in 3-4 years’ old (£1.394m), 2 years’ old (£0.137m) and early years’ pupil premium (£0.259m). Early Years is experiencing significant pressure in emerging SEN; the current overspend in this area is forecasted to reach £0.613m at the end of this financial year.
Page 42
Bristol Schools Forum 29th March 2022 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 8
Report name: DSG Budget Monitor P10 3 Author: Angel Lai Report date: 29th March 2022
4.7 High Needs Block (£17.653m forecast overspend). The High Needs block is currently forecasting an in-year overspend of £17.653m for the 2021/22 financial year including £0.213m on Transformation Project.
4.8 Top-up funding remains the single greatest pressure, with a significant forecast overspend of £12.342m, followed by forecasted overspend in Placements totalling £3.712m and Commissioned Services of £0.927m; offset slightly by underspends in Core Place funding -£0.688m.
Detailed breakdown of HNB Top Up overspend is summarised in Appendix 1.
4.9 The Education Transformation Programme commenced in 2020-21 and is primarily concerned with consequently the High Needs Block, the programme aims to improve outcomes and achieve long term sustainability. Nationally High Needs funding continues to be challenging and in Bristol this has been exacerbated by work to clear the backlog of EHCP and complexity of need.
4.10 Following agreement of Forum, the amount transferred from the Schools Block in 2021/22 is being earmarked to the Education Transformation Programme and we are currently forecasting that this funding of £1.4m will be fully utilised in 2021/22.
4.11 Funding (Nil Variance). £403.690m is the latest DSG amount notified by the ESFA as at 27th January 2022.
B
r
o
u
Funding
2021/22
Outturn
Period 08
2021/22
In-year
movement
£
'£'000 £'000 £'000
HNB: Special Schools 15,823 21,726 5,903HNB: OLA 1,648 2,800 1,152HNB: GFE 2,213 3,632 1,419HNB: Top Up - Resource Bases 1,885 2,154 269HNB: Top Up - MainstreamSchools 9,134 12,505 3,371
HNB: Top Up - PRUs 1,334 1,562 228HNB: Top Up 32,037 44,378 12,342
Appendix 1 - High Needs Block top up
funding breakdowns by settings:
Page 43
Bristol Schools Forum 29th March 2022 Supporting paper for agenda item number: 8
Report name: DSG Budget Monitor P10 4 Author: Angel Lai Report date: 29th March 2022
Appendix 2 - Forecast position for Overall DSG 2021/22 as at Period 10 (Block financing position)
Brought
forward
1.4.21
Funding
2021/22
Outturn
Period 10
2021/22
In-year
movement
Carry
forward
31.3.22
£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000
Maintained Schools 84,395 83,941 (454)Academy Recoupment 208,608 208,608 0Growth Fund 2,861 2,355 (507)Schools Block (619) 295,864 294,903 (960) (1,579)De-delegation Services (553) 0 66 66 (487)Admissions 526 526 0 0Centrally Retained 2,101 2,101 0 0Schools Central Services 0 2,627 2,627 0 0National Formula 27,766 27,249 (517)2 Year Old Funding 3,360 3,356 (4)Pupil Premium (EYPP) 279 279 0Additional Support Services 500 476 (24)SEN Top up 1,275 1,888 614Staffing 1,986 2,016 30Disability Access Fund 121 52 (69)Early Years Block (621) 35,286 35,316 30 (591)Commissioned Services 2,301 3,228 927Core Place Funding 9,507 8,819 (688)Staffing 1,160 1,563 403Top Up 32,037 44,378 12,342Placements 9,044 12,756 3,712Pupil Support 814 1,558 744HOPE Virtual School 236 235 (0)Academy Recoupment 13,415 13,415 0Education Transformation 1,400 1,613 213High Needs Block 11,797 69,913 87,566 17,653 29,450Funding (403,690) (403,690)Total 10,004 0 16,788 16,788 26,792
Appendix 2 City of Bristol DSG
Financial Position:
Page 44
APPENDIX B – SCAN OBJECTION ON HIGHWAY/TRANSPORT GROUNDS
Application 22/01221/F – Objection from SCAN on Highway Grounds
Summary
This document provides the basis for SCAN’s objections on the following grounds:
1. There will be insufficient on-site parking to avoid the risk of overspill on to surrounding roads,
which have no spare capacity to accommodate this, and which will therefore increase current
road safety concerns.
2. The proposed new accesses at Etloe Road and The Glen will increase road safety issues and
exacerbate existing parking stresses. The applicant has not defined under what circumstances
they would be used for emergency access, whether this is feasible, or how this will be limited
and controlled.
1 There is insufficient on-site parking to avoid overspill and associated adverse impact and road
safety concerns on neighbouring roads
1.1 Summary
The applicant does not provide any evidence or estimates of the actual expected parking needs of the
residents, staff and visitors for a new Extra Care scheme, and does not claim to be able to meet these
without any overspill on to surrounding roads. Instead, the proposed number of parking spaces is
based on:
• an interpretation of the parking standards for C2 (residential care homes where residents
don't have cars);
• comparison with parking provided at a small number of non-similar schemes; and
• a comparison with the number of cars parked in a small non-comparable (social rent)
sheltered housing scheme, in a small town in Northern Ireland, on one day in early 2019.
We are sure BCC will not see this as sufficient evidence on which to base such a decision, where if the
on-site parking proves insufficient, it will have a major impact on road safety in a residential area.
The applicant has only included 65 spaces for a site of 122 primarily 2-bedroom apartments (which
could accommodate up to 244 residents). Section 1.2 explains why the information in their Transport
Statement does not demonstrate that the parking provided will be sufficient to avoid overspill.
The applicant justifies their plans with numerous subjective assertions, but these are not evidenced
by any quantified assumptions, data or research to show the actual likely parking requirements of the
residents, staff and visitors. Section 1.3 uses reliable data sources to indicate that a reasonable
estimate of parking requirements for the development would be 116 spaces, made up of:
• 76 spaces for residents’ cars
• 2 car club and 1 mini-bus space
• 37 spaces reserved for staff and visitors.
It is well known that the residential roads surrounding the site already face issues with over-demand
of parking, and the associated road safety issues. Section 1.4 provides further detail and evidence.
These roads have no spare capacity to accommodate the likely overspill from the new
development, and the extra volume of cars looking for spaces will exacerbate the current safety
concerns.
Obviously, the ultimate parking needs will be based on a number of factors and cannot be predicted
with 100% accuracy. However, it should be recognised that the nature of the location – closely
surrounded by residential roads – means that if the estimates lead to insufficient parking on-site,
residents, staff and visitors will seek to park on the neighbouring roads, and this impact cannot be
managed by the developers (or BCC) once the site is occupied. There must therefore be a clear onus
on the applicant to provide sufficient parking, based on realistic estimates, to reduce, as far as
reasonably possible, the risk of this occurring. Instead, their provisions are, at best, based on
unenforceable best case wishful thinking. The estimates we have provided above are based on
defined and reasonable (not worst case) assumptions, as detailed further in Section 1.3.
Finally, it should be noted that the applicants themselves do not claim that there will be no overspill
on to surrounding roads – their plans appear to be justified primarily by a highly tenuous and limited
comparison with 1 day of trip analysis at a completely non-comparable site. For a development of this
size and complexity, this cannot be seen as anything approaching a reliable basis for the limited
parking provision. The plans presented in the first pre-app included 120 spaces, and even then, they
referred to the potential need for a residents parking scheme to avoid overspill into the surrounding
streets. This suggests that the applicant is in fact aware of the likely number of parking spaces required
to avoid overspill, but has reduced the planned provision from 120 to 65 for their own reasons.
Overall, it is clear that there is simply no basis for assuming that the planned parking provision is
sufficient for the parking needs at this location. It is very likely there will be a significant overspill,
which will increase risks to road safety in the surrounding residential streets.
Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that “Development should only be prevented or refused on highway
grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative
impacts on the road network would be severe.” It is clear that the developers are not producing
sufficient parking to avoid an unacceptable impact, and the application should therefore be rejected.
1.2 Issues with applicant’s justification for provision of 65 spaces
This section details why there is no reliable evidence to suggest that 65 spaces will be sufficient to
avoid parking overspill on to surrounding roads.
1.2.1 Inappropriate reliance on Bristol City Council Parking Standards
During the consultation process, the applicant referred to the on-site parking capacity being restricted
by BCC parking standards. In this application (eg Transport Statement 6.7 and 6.20) they have
repeatedly stated that they are providing more spaces than would be allowed by the BCC parking
standards. This is misleading, due to their use of C2 parking standards, which relate to residential care
homes, and have significantly different needs to an Extra Care scheme.
Transport Statement 6.5 states “Car parking is set as the following for ‘Hospitals/Nursing Homes and
Residential Care Homes’, with ‘Convalescent and residential car homes’ having the following standard.
C2 1 space per 2 Full time staff
1 space per 6 bed space”
This paragraph omits to mention that the allowance of “1 space per 6 bed space” is set for visitors,
not for residents, who presumably are assumed (in a care home) not to be able to drive. The C2
parking standards are clearly therefore not appropriate for a scheme in which many residents will be
capable of driving, and which will be marketed as having rentable on-site parking spaces.
We are not clear why the scheme should be defined as C2 rather than C3. The proposals do not even
comply with Bristol City Council’s definition of Extra Care, which is “to be eligible you should have care
and support needs of at least five hours a week.1” as St Christophers Square would have a minimum
requirement of just two hours a week.
It should be noted that the C3 parking standards allow for the following:
One bed house/flat: one space per dwelling
Two bed house/flat: 1.25 spaces per dwelling
Section 1.2.2 of the Travel Plan states that “In total there will be 111 two-bed apartments/cottages
and 11 one-bed apartments”, so C3 planning standards would allow for 150 car parking spaces.
It may be seen that the Extra Care development does not easily fit into either a C2 or C3 category – in
particular, there will be a need for residents’ parking spaces, which are not allowed under C2, while
there will be an additional need for staff parking, which is not recognised under C3. We hope that
even if BCC agree to the C2 classification, they will consider this challenge when determining how
much parking they expect and allow.
1.2.2 Comparison with highly limited trip analysis data at one dissimilar scheme
The applicant states (Transport Statement 6.21) that “a parking accumulation calculation shows that
based on surveys of existing sites, the development has sufficient parking”.
They are basing this statement – which is the entirety of their case that there is sufficient parking – on
one day of data from one retirement scheme, which is in no way similar to the proposed St
Christophers Square Extra Care scheme.
Their Appendix E indicates that the comparison site is TRICS ref TY-03-P-01. Further details of this site
are provided in 1.2.4 below, showing that this is a small retirement housing scheme in a small town in
Northern Ireland, providing socially rented housing. No care is provided, solely an (off-site) alarm
service, and there are no community facilities. Units are primarily single occupancy, distorting the pro
rata calculation.
This site is clearly not sufficiently similar to St Christophers Square to provide any meaningful
comparison data. Even if it were, we cannot imagine that 1 day of data from 1 scheme, 3 years ago,
would be considered a sufficient basis for estimating the entire parking needs of a scheme of this
magnitude and significance.
(NB Transport Statement 6.16 refers to a comparison with site ref CH-03-P-01, despite Appendix E
showing data for TY-03-P-01. In fact, CH-03-P-01 is a care home, further details below.)
To summarise, the applicant has not provided any reliable information to support that 65 spaces will
be sufficient for the needs of all residents, staff and visitors to the site.
1.2.3 Meaningless comparison with provision at dissimilar schemes
Most of the applicant’s case seems to rely on a suggestion (Transport Statement 6.21) that “parking
provision is in line with other similar schemes”. However, the amount of parking provided on these
other sites is not relevant in determining the actual parking needs of this site.
1 https://www.bristol.gov.uk/social-care-health/extra-care-housing - section “How to get a place”
• Firstly, the amount of parking provided at any other site does not indicate this is sufficient to
meet the actual demand; it is quite possible that there may be overspill at these other sites,
or other usable parking close-by. Alternatively, it may be that the location of the site (eg out
of town) actually prohibits overspill – which is not the case at the St Christophers Square
location, being surrounded by residential streets with unrestricted parking.
• Secondly, the limited number of sites referred to are not sufficiently similar in nature, location
or demographics, to be comparable to St Christophers Square (as elaborated further in 1.2.4
and 1.2.5 below).
1.2.4 Reference to non-similar TRICS comparison sites
Transport Statement 6.10 refers to the use of comparison data from TRICS, which is said to contain six
schemes for “assisted living”. Transport Statement 6.11 suggests that the range of spaces for these
was from 0.375 to 0.545 per dwelling, which they have used to justify a provision of 65 spaces.
The sites which the applicant has quoted are in no way comparable to the proposed Extra Care
Scheme. Three of the sites are identified on Page 67 of Transport Statement and the following table
provides further details of each:
TRICS ID TRICS Stated Location
Full name of Scheme and website Description of Scheme
CH-03-P-01 Chester Way, Northwich, Cheshire
Daneside Court Care Home, Chester Way, Northwich CW9 5JA https://www.carehome.co.uk/carehome.cfm/searchazref/20003518DANA
Care Home with nursing, providing single rooms for 64 people.
DV-03-P-01 Garfield Road, Paignton, Devon
Abbeyfield Park House, 13 – 15 Garfield Road, Paignton, Devon, TQ4 6AX https://www.abbeyfield.com/supported-housing/abbeyfield-park-house-in-paignton-at-tq4-6ax/
11 en-suite single rooms with meals provided. No provision of care, solely alarm calls to off-site Careline service. No additional facilities.
TY-03-P-01 Limekiln Lane, Cookstown, Tyrone
Sperrin Court, Limekiln Lane, Cookstown, County Tyrone NI, BT80 8TS https://housingcare.org/housing-care/facility-info-11164-sperrin-court-cookstown-northern-ireland
Rented (social landlord) retirement housing. 41 flats (mix of 1-bed and 2-bed). No care provided. No additional facilities.
It is clear that none of these examples are suitably similar to the private Extra Care arrangements that
St Christophers Square is offering: the first one is a care home, in which no residents would have cars;
the second and third are different forms of retirement housing which do not provide care, and cater
for a substantially different demographic and need than the proposed residents of St Christophers
Square. The units are primarily single occupancy (which distorts the pro rata calculations). Neither
do these sites provide the extra community facilities proposed for St Christophers Square, which will
require more staff and attract more visitors.
(Although the applicant only references three of the supposed six in this TRICS category, their lack of
relevance suggests that TRICS simply does not include Extra Care facilities, implying that the other
three schemes will be no more suitable for comparison purposes.)
1.2.5 Reference to other “Extra Care” scheme in Bristol
Transport Statement 6.14 refers to parking provision at the site covered by Bristol Application
17/06914/F in Bishopsworth, which was approved with 22 spaces for 62 units.
However, the demographic of residents of this scheme (Brunelcare Waverley Gardens) is entirely
different from that proposed for St Christophers Square. The majority of the units are single-
bedroomed, and the site provides 100% affordable housing to applicants on Bristol City Council’s
health and social care waiting list2. This is totally different from the private ownership of largely 2-
bedroomed flats in St Christophers Square. Neither does the scheme provide the proposed additional
community facilities, with the associated additional staff and visitors of St Christophers Square.
Furthermore, the amount of parking provision at this site does not prove that it is sufficient for all
parking requirements or that there is no overspill. In fact, the Bishopsworth application shows that
the applicant based their own parking estimates on comparison date (from TRICS) for residential care
homes3, which do not allow for parking spaces for residents. While there may have been a reason
why this was seen as valid in the case of Waverley Gardens (eg to cater purely for the additional staff
requirements), this does not make it comparable to St Christophers Square, which is being marketed
with available residents’ parking. In fact, BCC commented on the application that “there must be
measures in place to maintain this low level of parking demand and prevent an increase, which if
overspilled onto the surrounding highway could create congestion”. None of this is comparable with
St Christophers Square.
It is notable that the applicant has avoided comparison with a far more similar local site - the Westbury
Fields Sommerville Retirement Village two miles away, which provides private retirement
accommodation. This is one of Bristol City Council’s approved Extra Care Housing sites4 and is
registered by the CQC to “provide care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing”5,
with only a slightly lower minimum age of 60 compared to 65. This development provides more than
one parking space per dwelling.
1.2.6 Meaningless comparison with occupation by guardians
The applicant states (Transport Statement 7.10) that “90 ‘guardians’ are currently living in the
buildings, providing round the clock live-in surveillance. Effectively this is the same as 90 separate
residential units operating from the site, and likely to have a higher impact on parking and traffic
movements than the proposed use.”
2 From Application 17/06914/F on the Bristol City Council Planning Portal: “Affordable Housing Statement” and “Housing Delivery Response” 3 From Application 17/06914/F on the Bristol City Council Planning Portal: “Trip Rate Calculation” 4 https://www.bristol.gov.uk/social-care-health/extra-care-housing - Section “Where you could live” 5 https://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-126473607#accordion-1
This comparison is simply ridiculous, and is yet another subjective assertion with no evidence base or
relevance.
• Firstly, this application can only be judged on the additional parking requirements from the
previous approved use – as a residential school for disabled children, where the only parking
requirements were for staff – rather than on a comparison to an unapproved interim situation.
The applicant appears to be implying that there has already been de facto approval for 90
residential units on the site – this is obviously incorrect, and clearly should not be taken as an
approved starting point for further increases.
• Secondly, the applicant provides no evidence or rationale to support their assertion that the
new Extra Care facility would have a lesser impact than the current use by guardians. We have
been told by one of the guardians that only about 10 of them have vehicles, which are able to
be kept on-site, and rarely used apart from to travel to festivals. There is in fact no
comprehensible reason why 90 individual guardians – largely young people, looking for cheap
temporary accommodation – would require more parking than the occupants of 122 primarily
2-bedroom apartments intended for relatively wealthy retired couples and individuals,
together with the supporting staff and visitors of an Extra Care facility.
1.2.7 Summary
Overall, it is clear that the applicant has provided no reliable evidence to indicate that 65 spaces will
be sufficient to avoid parking overspill onto neighbouring roads.
1.3 Research-based estimate of likely parking requirements
As the applicant has not produced any actual estimates or evidence of the likely parking requirements
for the site, this section provides a basis for making a reasonable estimate of the parking needs for
each category of site user.
This results in a total estimated demand for parking for 116 vehicles. This number is explained in detail
below, together with references to the supporting research.
1.3.1 Residents’ parking requirements
The applicant justifies the low number of parking spaces by suggesting that “car ownership levels
within an integrated retirement community are far lower than an open market housing
development6”. However, they do not provide any evidence to justify or quantify this statement.
On the contrary, all sources we have identified show there are continued high levels of car ownership
throughout retirement, as evidenced below. The data sources referenced, and defined assumptions
below, indicate a likely need of 76 parking spaces for residents.
Firstly, it should be noted that the applicant states that there will be “a minimum age of 65 for lead
residents; although experience confirms the average age of residents at the point of entry will be late
70’s and on a needs basis.”7 Unfortunately, the applicant provides no sources to evidence the
6 Statement of Community Involvement Part 1 Page 50 (or Page 51 of PDF) 7 Planning Statement Page 14 Paragraph 4.2 (Page 17 of PDF)
“experience” which supports this assertion, which cannot therefore be treated as a reliable basis for
estimates.
In fact, the proposed Heads of Terms8 confirms that the minimum age is 65 for lead residents, but also
shows that there is no minimum age or care requirement for a cohabitee (who may continue to live
in their property following the death of the lead resident). The applicant has promoted the
development as being appropriate for couples where one partner may be younger and more
independent, while the other is starting to need some care.
There is no data to indicate that car ownership of this demographic will be low. In fact, a survey by
Statista9 in 2017 states that “British people aged 60 years and older were the age group with the
highest share of car ownership”.
Furthermore, the ONS dataset entitled “Table A47 - Percentage of households with cars by income
group, tenure and household composition – UK, financial year ending 2018”10 shows a high percentage
of car ownership amongst retired adults. In particular, for retired couples who are not mainly
dependent on state pension (the key likely demographic for St Christophers Square), 89% of retired
couples own one or more cars as shown in the following extract:
There is no reason why car ownership for the population living at St Christophers Square would be any
less than these figures demonstrate. In fact, Department of Transport data11 shows that while the
number of “car trips as driver” (NB – this refers to individual trips, not car ownership) may decrease
with age, there is a corresponding increase in “car trips as passenger”, indicating that as the care needs
of one person increase, they become more reliant on their partner (or carer) to be able to drive them,
so are still likely to retain their cars.
The nature of the development (the applicant refers to it being aimed at retired people “who want to
still live independently”12, and their website claims that “The services will help residents to live
independently for longer13”) and its location, surrounded by residential streets with non-restricted
parking, suggest that many potential buyers would see it as a benefit that they can retain their cars,
parked either on-site or very close by. (This is not the case for out-of-town retirement schemes, where
8 Draft Heads of Terms Page 2 (Page 4 of PDF): Definition of “Qualifying Person” 9 https://www.statista.com/statistics/682596/consumers-who-own-a-motor-vehicle-in-the-united-kingdom-uk-by-age/ #:~:text=British%20people%20aged%2060%20years,were%20planning%20on%20purchasing%20one. 10https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/expenditure/datasets/percentageofhouseholdswithcarsbyincomegrouptenureandhouseholdcompositionuktablea47 11 NTS0601: Average number of trips (trip rates) by age, gender and main mode 12 Transport Statement Paragraph 5.2 13 https://www.stchristophersbristol.com/benefits-of-extra-care
there is no viable alternative to parking on-site and car ownership is limited to the actual on-site
provision.)
Assuming that 50% of the 122 flats at St Christophers Place are occupied by two adults (although it
may well be more than this initially), and 50% by a single adult, and that all have income above state
pension level (as is likely to be necessary), the ONS figures indicate that an average of 70% of flats will
have occupant(s) owning one or more car. Even assuming that this would be limited to only one car
per individual or couple (which may be reasonable, if not enforceable), this would result in a potential
85 cars to be accommodated.
The applicant proposes the use of a car club (with 2 allocated spaces) to reduce car ownership, which
is appreciated, but there is no data to support the likely take-up of this. It is interesting that the
applicant proposes (Transport Statement 7.11) that Bristol City Council will be solely responsible for
promoting this to residents – showing that the applicant takes no responsibility for encouraging car
ownership reduction through its usage. However, as an estimating assumption only, if a further 10%
of residents give up their cars due to the availability of 2 car club cars, this would lead to a reduced
estimate of 76 residents’ cars needing to be accommodated.
1.3.2 Staff parking Requirements
Travel Plan 1.1.1 and Transport Statement 6.6 refers to the site having between 15 and 20 staff on site
at any one time and apply BCC’s standard of “1 space per 2 Full time staff” to this figure (rather than
to the 33 FTE shown in the Application Form). However, there is no rationale or evidence to support
either figure, which are at best unvalidated and unenforceable. In fact, 15 – 20 on-site staff is likely
to be a significant under-estimate, particularly at peak hours. The following analysis shows that an
estimated 38 staff are likely to be on site during peak hours.
A fairly optimistic estimate of 50% of staff travelling by car suggests the need for at least 19 car park
spaces for staff.
As the applicant has not produced any supporting information to explain the number of permanent
staff on site, or to indicate the basis for estimating the likely number of carers who will be required to
support the residents, this section provides some research basis for likely estimates of what staffing
will be required.
The only information about levels of care provision is given on Page 14 of the Planning Statement,
where paragraph 4.4 states that “residents must have a minimum package of 2 hours support per
week”. There is no maximum, and residents may ultimately receive 24-hour care, with paragraph 4.1
confirming that “residents may also organise night service or care companions for episodic care of
permanent appointments”.
It is surprising that the applicant has not conducted more detailed research into the amount of care
they are likely to be providing. Fortunately, there are a number of research documents indicating the
patterns of care provision in Extra Care communities. A commonly expressed view is that effective
Extra Care communities typically provide a balance of care across the entirety of the range, eg “extra
care providers often aim for a balance of care needs among residents, such as one third each with
high, medium and low needs”14 and “Keeping a community balance of high, medium and low care
needs is likely to be vital”15.
14Cambridge University Press - Extra Care Housing: The Current State of Research and Prospects for the Future - 11 Nov 21 15 ILC-UK - Establishing the extra in Extra Care - September 2011
This indicates that a range of care requirements should be expected at St Christophers Square, from
the lowest to the highest needs; in other words, the care requirements are likely to fully cover the
range from 2 hours a week to 24 hours a day. One study states that “on average any extra care -
housing scheme for older people should be based on an average of 12 hours per resident of care and
support per week. This should give ample scope to offer less care to those who will not require it and
to offer intensive care when people are experiencing a crisis and not coping very well with personal
care.”16
This seems a reasonable assumption on which to estimate the care hours to be provided at St
Christophers Square. Assuming that 50% of the 122 flats at St Christophers Place are occupied by two
adults, and 50% by a single adult, there would be 183 residents, requiring an average of 12 hours care
per week, leading to an average provision of 2196 hours care a week, or 313 hours a day. If this was
spread evenly over a 12-hour day, this would equate to 26 carers on site throughout the day.
However, the care requirements of individuals mean that care is unlikely to be spread evenly
throughout the day. Residents will expect to receive care when they need it, rather than to fit in with
a smooth resource profile, and can choose to use their own carers if necessary. By far the most
common care requirement is assistance in the morning with getting up, and in the evening with going
to bed, so there are normally significant peaks between 7am to 9am and again from 5pm to 7pm, with
the majority of the remaining care likely to be spread in between.
Assuming that a third of the residents need an hour of care morning and evening (in line with a third
having high care needs, as referenced above – although in practice many of those with medium needs
may also need care during these hours), and there are 183 residents (as assumed above), this would
lead to the need to provide care to 61 people during each of these 2-hour periods, which would equate
to 30 carers being on site during peak hours.
The above suggests that the number of carers on site may range between 24 to 30 throughout a
normal day.
It should be noted that the peak hours coincide with the busiest times in the surrounding roads, when
commuters are arriving and leaving, and when children are being dropped at the neighbouring
Westbury Park Primary School, when the roads can least absorb any additional parking demands, or
accommodate extra traffic from cars searching for spaces. It is therefore important to plan for the
parking demands of these key hours.
As well as the care staff, there will be other on-site staff providing the following functions:
Management, Admin, Concierge, Food & Beverage Provision, Activities. The applicant does not
provide a break-down of the proposed 33 FTE; a minimal assumption of 25% being for non-care related
activities would suggest a further 8 staff on site during working hours.
Together this leads to a likely total of 32 to 38 (at peak hours) staff on site throughout a normal day.
The applicant does not estimate the number of staff who would be expected to drive to work, although
they imply that the proximity of local bus-stops would reduce this. They have also suggested that they
could reduce the number of staff driving to work by using a mini-bus to pick up staff (Transport
Statement 6.8 and 7.8). However, there is no evidence that this would be successful, and
unfortunately these suggestions do not reflect the nature of care work.
16 Institute of Public Care at Oxford Brookes University - Predicting and managing demand in social care Discussion paper - April 2016
Carers normally aim to minimise all travel time, as it is unpaid, and frequently arrive at work early in
the morning and leave late in the evening, or at night. For this reason, public transport is unattractive,
and they are equally unlikely to drive to a pick-up location in order to be collected, or wait at the end
of their paid hours for the next arranged mini-bus, as this will simply lengthen their day and unpaid
hours. Amicala cannot force their staff (or those of other care agencies which residents may choose
to access) to use the mini-bus or public transport. It is also interesting that the applicant proposes
(Transport Statement 7.11) that responsibility for reducing car usage amongst staff would lie with
Bristol City Council.
Nonetheless, it is assumed that there will be some take-up of public transport and mini-bus facilities,
so it is estimated that only 50% of the staff will drive to the site. It could well be much more than this,
and it is obviously impossible to enforce this estimate. This would lead to a need for a minimum of
19 on-site parking spaces being required for staff.
1.3.3 Visitors Parking Requirements
Although the applicant does not provide any estimate of likely visitor numbers, they use the C2
standards for visitors parking spaces, which suggest (for a care home) 1 visitor space per 6 beds. With
11 x 1-bedroom apartment and 111 x 2-bedroom apartments, this comes to the 39 spaces referred to
by the applicant in Transport Statement 6.5.
It is possible that this guideline could be applied differently for 2-bed apartments, in which two
residents may be expected to be related and have visitors in common. Applying the guideline to
dwellings rather than bedrooms would reduce the requirement to 20 spaces.
It is also recognised that visitor numbers may be slightly lower than those for residential care homes
(assuming that many of the residents are mobile enough to be driving, as covered in section 1.3.1),
and a reduced ratio of 1 visitor space to 8 dwellings (which we understand is used by some Local
Authorities) would result in 15 spaces being required for visitors.
However, it is likely that the number of visitors may be higher than this at popular times.
1.3.4 Requirements for Visitors to Community Facilities
The applicant refers to the site including “outward facing facilities open to the wider community”17.
They state that the site “will be open to the public, providing … community facilities in the restored
Grace House”18 and that “The deli/café and bar will be open to the public”19. Amicala have also
publicly stated the site will “provide a new social and leisure hub for Westbury Park, opening up the
site and offering a wide range of facilities for residents and local people to enjoy20.”
If the site is providing such a wide range of publicly accessible facilities, this will also lead to increased
parking demands. The applicant appears not to have considered this in their estimates.
Without knowing more about the facilities on offer, which have not been elaborated in the planning
application, it is difficult to assess the parking requirements, but it would be reasonable to assume a
minimum of 3 spaces for external visitors to the site (although it could be a lot more at certain times
of day).
17 Planning Statement Paragraph 1.3 18 Statement of Community Involvement Part 1 Page 54 (Page 55 of PDF) 19 Planning Statement Paragraph 6.37 20 Bristol Post 21st March 2022 https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/major-85m-development-could-built-6804183
1.3.5 Total Parking Requirements
The above estimates and assumptions result in the following minimum parking requirements.
Residents’ spaces 76
2 car-club + 1 mini-bus 3
Staff (including carers) 19
Residents’ visitors 15
Visitors to facilities 3
TOTAL Required Spaces 116
It should be noted that the estimates used in this section have been made on as reasonable a basis as
possible and are not maximums/worst case scenarios. We have assumed that some reductions will
be able to be made on the base estimates from our research; without this, a total of 140 - 150 cars
(or more) could require parking during peak hours, and this is still possible, given that none of the
estimating assumptions are enforceable in practice.
1.4 The neighbouring roads cannot accommodate any extra cars
Section 1.3 provides a reasonable estimate of the parking requirements at St Christophers Square as
116 spaces. The applicant currently plans 65 spaces, which would result in an overspill of an estimated
51 cars trying to park on surrounding roads.
The surrounding roads simply do not have the capacity to absorb any more cars. All roads in the area
are already normally filled with parked cars, especially during the working day, because:
• The area suffers from being just outside the Cotham North Residents Parking Zone. It is
frequently used for commuters to Bristol City Centre, who use the free parking in these roads
and then take the bus (or walk/cycle) into the city
• The roads immediately surrounding the site contain a primary school, five nurseries and
preschools, three nursing homes and two assisted living facilities21, leading to a high demand
for parking from staff, parents and visitors to these facilities.
We understand that Bristol City Council are aware of the resulting parking stresses in these roads.
The issues with high demand for parking already lead to road safety concerns. The constant hunt for
limited parking spaces leads to traffic circling the area. The roads are narrow (including cul-de-sacs),
with parking on both sides, and cars coming in opposite directions normally have to reverse to let one
pass. This is made more difficult due to the density of parking, and the parking on corners and on
pavements. Obstructive parking limits drivers’ visibility and causes a real hazard to all users of these
roads.
1.4.1 Existing road safety concerns
The road safety issues are particularly concerning because there is a primary school and five
preschool/nurseries very close to St Christopher’s Square. Children walk down these roads on their
21 Westbury Park Primary School, Daisychain Nursery, Harcourt Preschool, White Tree Preschool, Red House Nursery, Torwood Lodge Nursery, Belvedere Lodge, Meadowcare, Glenview, Abbeyfield, Freeways-2 The Glen
way to school, and the obstructive parking on junctions, and volume of cars looking for somewhere to
park, increases the risk of accidents.
SCAN commissioned Mindset Research22, an independent market research company, to undertake a
survey of parents of children attending the school or nursery, as well as other local residents, and ask
for their views about local road safety. There were 298 respondents, of whom 282 live in the area
between Westbury Park (road), Coldharbour Road, Linden Road and North View. 134 have children
attending Westbury Park Primary School or Daisychain Nursery.
The full results are provided in Annex 1, but in summary, of the respondents:
• 63% believe the roads in the area to be very unsafe or fairly unsafe
• 81% see parking in Westbury Park having a dangerous impact on road safety (comments
referred to obstructive parking, as further described in section 1.4.2 below, and driver stress)
• 67% said they had witnessed accidents, incidents or near misses in this area (44% more than
once).
• The top two issues were reported to be:
Issue % of respondents reporting this as an issue
% of respondents reporting this as their number one issue
Children struggling to cross roads safely
72% (rising to 80% of parents with children at Westbury Park Primary or Daisychain)
33%
Lack of parking available 89% 30%
It is clear there is a high degree of local concern about the impact of parking issues on road safety, and
these issues will only be exacerbated with the volume of additional cars competing for spaces.
1.4.2 Existing issues with obstructive and dangerous parking
There are frequent examples of dangerous and obstructive parking including:
• cars parked on corners and right up to junctions, and on double yellow lines
• cars blocking dropped kerbs (preventing wheelchair users from safely crossing the roads, as
well as blocking people’s drives)
• cars parked in restricted areas (such as disabled spaces)
• cars parked along the pavement, making this unusable for people with wheelchairs and
pushchairs.
The obstructive parking leads to blocked visibility at junctions, leading to safety concerns.
This type of parking also demonstrates the current over-demand for parking space, as, typically, most
people will park legally if there is a space available. This can only be exacerbated if there is an
increased demand from c 50 more cars.
Annex 2 provides photographic evidence of this type of parking, taken during March 2022.
22 https://www.mindsetresearch.co.uk/
1.4.3 Evidence of lack of capacity to absorb more cars
We believe it is the applicant’s responsibility both to identify the amount of parking which may be
required and to demonstrate that the surrounding roads have capacity to absorb any overspill.
Unfortunately, they appear to have done neither.
Therefore, a number of local residents have attempted to provide our own data and evidence to
demonstrate the current lack of parking availability in these roads.
The applicant is proposing five pedestrian entrances around the perimeter of the site. There are 12
residential roads which fall (either fully or partially) within 150m of one of these entrances, which
forms a significant area. We obviously do not have the resources to undertake simultaneous surveys
of the whole area ourselves, or to commission an independent survey. However, we have undertaken
a number of different surveys which together demonstrate the density of parking and lack of spaces
throughout a typical day and week.
Two 1-hour surveys of the whole area
A resident has undertaken two surveys of the entire area, at approximately the same time on two
separate mornings in March, in which any available spaces were counted. This was evidenced by
photographing all cars parked in the roads. It took an hour to get round all the roads, so the available
spaces were those found over the course of this hour, and not necessarily all available concurrently.
These two surveys showed
• 6 spaces during the hour on 24th March
• 5 spaces during the hour on 28th March.
1-week survey of each road
A number of residents of the surrounding roads have undertaken surveys of the parking situation in
their own area, supported by photographs, and we have collated the results in this submission. The
results show a week in March for each road (with one count a day). The number of spaces available
for each road were as shown below. (NB, due to residents’ differing availability, these were not all
taken during the same week or at the same time of day; the numbers are not intended to show
concurrent availability, but to demonstrate the typical lack of availability in each individual road.)
Road Weekday spaces available Mon, Tues, Wed, Thurs, Fri
Average avail. weekday spaces
Weekend spaces available Saturday, Sunday
Westbury Park 0,1,0,0,0 0.2 3,0
Clay Pit Road 0,0,0,0,0 0 1,1
Belvedere Road 0,1,1,0,1 0.6 10,3
The Glen 0,0,3,0,1 0.8 7,4
Bayswater Avenue 0,1,2,1,1 1.0 6,7
St Helena Road 1,1,1,0,0 0.6 0,1
Ladysmith Road 0,0,1,0,0 0.2 0,0
Florence Park 1,0,0,0,0 0.2 0,0
Etloe Road 1,0,0,0,0 0.2 -,2
Queen Victoria Road 1,-,4,0,- 1.7 -,-
Royal Albert Road 1,2,2,2,0 1.4 6,7
Redland Road 0,0,0,0,0 0 -,-
There were also cars parked obstructively in most of these roads when the surveys were undertaken,
suggesting that when those cars arrived there were no valid spaces.
Further details of surveys
Annex 3 explains the methods used and includes the detailed data from each road, showing the
date/time that it was surveyed and the number of spaces available at that time, as well as the
concurrent obstructive parking. There is photographic evidence supporting each count.
The results of the surveys indicate that there were sometimes 1 or 2 spaces in some of the roads. This
is not surprising, as cars obviously come and go throughout the day, and there will be spaces available
for a short period before another car arrives. However, it is the cars searching these roads for the
limited spaces which cause the additional traffic and road safety issues, and this can only increase
with the additional c50 cars connected to St Christophers.
1.5 Potential loss of car parking spaces on Westbury Park
The map on Transport Statement Page 35 indicates an increase in double yellow lines along Westbury
Park and Royal Albert Road. It appears likely that this may reduce the available road-side parking in
these roads, although unfortunately the applicant has not made this clear.
Although this would be likely to be subject to a separate TRO, it should be expected that the need for
this, and the effect on surrounding roads of a further reduction in publicly available spaces, would be
considered with this application, so that the net impact on local parking can be considered in its
entirety.
There is also no mention of whether the large emergency access to the site from the end of The Glen
would involve removal of the current on-road parking space in front of 15 The Glen, or whether it
would require further parking restrictions along The Glen to enable access for large emergency
vehicles. We ask it is confirmed as a condition that this new access point will not lead to any reduction
on current on-road parking on The Glen.
Overall, we ask that the current application is updated to confirm exactly how many existing on-road
parking spaces would be lost due to the proposed development, and that the impact of this is
considered along with the additional parking requirements.
2 The proposed new accesses at Etloe Road and The Glen will increase road safety issues and
exacerbate existing parking stresses.
2.1 Vehicular access at Etloe Road will increase road safety risks in the vicinity
It is proposed that there will be an entrance from Etloe Road, which will “serve 4 proposed parking
spaces.”23 This access point has not previously been used for normal vehicular access to the site, and
is in a dangerous position for regular use, being very close to the junctions of Etloe Road with Royal
Albert Road, and Bayswater Avenue with St Helena Road, as well as adjacent to Daisychain Nursery
and close to Westbury Park Primary School.
Etloe Road and the adjoining Bayswater Avenue are heavily used by children of Westbury Park Primary
School and the five local nurseries, as well as by commuters competing for the highly limited parking
spaces. Residents’ concerns about the existing road safety issues are reported in Section 1.4.1 and
Annex 1. This survey also shows that 91% of the respondents with children at Westbury Park Primary
School or Daisychain Nursery stated that their children walk to school, and 63% of these respondents
believed the road environment near the school to be very unsafe or fairly unsafe. The safety risks can
only be exacerbated by cars entering and leaving St Christophers Square at this point.
As recently as 20th April 2022 there was a road traffic accident involving a collision between two cars
right outside the proposed entrance. Police were called and both ends of Bayswater Road were closed
while the accident was dealt with. The applicant refers to an accident where a pedestrian was injured
by a reversing car at the junction of Etloe Road with Royal Albert Road, at 08:35 am24 (ie school drop-
off time). The applicant also states that their details of Personal Injury Accidents only include those
reported to the Police, and our survey results show that there are frequent incidents and “near
misses”.
In Bristol City Council’s response to the applicant’s earlier pre-application (8th November 2021) they
stated “Currently the site has a vehicular access point on Etloe Road which the applicant proposes to
retain in order to serve a small car park for residents only. As this is directly next to the Daisychain
Nursery and adjacent to the junction with St Helena Road, thereby requiring motorists to undertake a
significant amount of checking before pulling out, it must be abandoned and the footway reinstated
to full kerb height to reduce the risk of pedestrian/vehicle conflict.” This advice has been ignored by
the applicant.
The applicant states that “The traffic generated by the car parking spaces [for the Etloe Road entrance]
is in the order of one car or less an hour at peak times, and nine two-way movements over a day”.
However, there is no evidence to support this and this obviously cannot be enforced in practice.
Overall, the applicant has not justified that vehicular access can be established from Etloe Road
without increasing the risk to road safety in this area.
2.2 Creation of a new access point at The Glen will exacerbate current road safety issues in The
Glen and Belvedere Road
The applicant is proposing to create a new entrance to the site from The Glen, for pedestrians and
emergency vehicles. Their claims (Travel Plan 3.1.5 and Transport Statement 2.3) that “There is also a
gated access from The Glen” are misleading. The gate referred to was only allowed to be used during
the construction phase of a previous application (02/00500/F/N and 02/00501/LC/N). The applicant
23 Planning Statement Paragraph 6.87 24 Transport Statement Paragraph 2.15 and Appendix A
at the time stated in a letter to BCC (Mr McCamphill), dated 3/4/02, "Once the work is finished the
access will be sealed.... The Glen entrance cannot and will not be used even when we develop the
North House" and subsequently a condition of the approval (SC44) was that "Means of vehicular
access to the permitted building after construction shall be from the main entrance of Carisbrooke
Lodge, Westbury Park only" and this condition was complied with.
Local residents appreciate and welcome that there will be no regular vehicular access from The Glen,
which is a narrow cul-de-sac. Concerns about the proposed emergency access are covered in Section
2.3 below.
Creating a new pedestrian gate between St Christophers and The Glen will encourage residents, staff
and visitors to use The Glen and Belvedere Road for overflow parking, particularly for the neighbouring
blocks of flats. Section 1 makes it clear that 65 on-site spaces will not be enough for all users of the
site, and Travel Plan 1.2.2 states that on-site parking “spaces for residents would be rented/leased,
rather than owned by tenants.” This further incentivises residents to park off-site, and The Glen will
be perceived as free and unrestricted parking, which is actually closer to one block than some of the
on-site parking.
There are existing road safety issues on these roads, caused by their location on the edge of the
Cotham North residents parking zone and the additional traffic created by the three nursing homes
on Belvedere Road and assisted living homes on The Glen.
Cars are frequently parked dangerously and obstructively. This is evidenced by the frequency of PCNs
issued in Belvedere Road. In 2021 there were 85 PCNs issued on Belvedere Road, with one or more
PCN being issued on 45% of the traffic warden’s visits25. Even for Westbury Park this is high! Annex 2
(pages 2 – 6) provide photographic evidence of the frequent dangerous parking on junctions.
Belvedere Road is frequently blocked by ambulances and delivery vehicles visiting the three nursing
homes. Cars looking for parking in The Glen have to reverse back down this cul-de-sac, past the
junction with Belvedere Road, where visibility is often obstructed by cars parked on the corners. All
of this will be made significantly worse by the overspill of another c 50 cars circling the roads trying to
find spaces.
The road safety issues on these roads have been acknowledged by Bristol City Council, who rejected
two recent planning applications – 19/93194/F and 20/06030/F – due to the additional parking
demands they would place on these roads, and the impact on road safety. Additionally, the report
from the Planning Inspectorate in response to an appeal on 19/93194/F upheld the Council's decision,
summarising that "I found that parking is at a premium, which is currently causing significant hazards
for all users of the highway26."
The parking issues on these roads are even acknowledged by the applicant, who states (Transport
Statement 6.7) that “Roads to the south such as The Glen and Belvedere Road are on the edge of the
residents parking zone and have issues with lack of on-street parking for residents.”
Installing a pedestrian gate on The Glen makes parking on these roads significantly more accessible
and attractive to residents and staff of St Christophers Square; the resulting increased parking
demand, and traffic circling looking for spaces, can only increase the existing road safety issues for all
residents and other road users (including children walking to the nearby Westbury Park Primary
School).
25 FOI request 23900191 26 Application 17/06914/F on the Bristol City Council Planning Portal: “Costs Decision”
2.3 The proposed emergency access points from The Glen and Etloe Road have not been justified
as essential or feasible, and would require enforceable conditions to prevent them being used
unnecessarily
The applicant refers to there being a “gated emergency vehicle access27” from The Glen as well as
showing the entrance from Etloe Road as providing emergency access. However, they do not make
clear under what conditions either entrance would be used for emergency access or how this would
be limited and controlled.
The plans show two primary entrances allowing vehicular access to the site from Westbury Park, which
provide more spacious access points for emergency vehicles than either The Glen or Etloe Road. This
is demonstrated by the plan showing the waste collection vehicle route swept paths28, which shows
that large vehicles can access all accommodation blocks from the Westbury Park entrances. It is
therefore unclear what further benefit is provided by the additional entrances from The Glen and
Etloe Road.
Large vehicles accessing the site from either road would have to manoeuvre round tight corners
(frequently blocked by obstructive parking) and enter through narrow roads with parking on both
sides (with The Glen being a cul-de-sac). The applicant has provided no feasibility study to indicate
whether this is even possible, or whether it would be necessary to further restrict parking on either
road in order to enable access.
If the proposed emergency entrances cannot be evidenced as being both feasible and necessary for
safety reasons, they should not be established, as they risk becoming used for other purposes and
increasing traffic and road safety issues on the respective roads.
If the proposed entrances are proved to be both essential and feasible for use by emergency vehicles,
there should be clear conditions for the applicant to ensure that they are only used for this purpose.
These should include:
• confirmation as to the specific types of emergency vehicles which would be granted access
(which should be limited to fire and/or ambulance responding to 999 calls, and not
ambulances, or other vehicles, for any non-emergency purposes)
• agreement of the limited conditions under which either entrance would need to be used
instead of one of the primary entrances on Westbury Park, and how this will be enforced
• confirmation that implementation of the new entrances will not involve removal of any
existing on-road parking
• commitment that the access will never be used for any other purpose than the agreed
emergency vehicles
• agreement of a clear physical mechanism which will prevent the access being used for any
other purpose or by any staff or residents under other conditions.
Clearly, if the entrances are essential and feasible for safety or emergency purposes, this use has to
be acceptable. However, for many residents, the concern is that new entrances are being established
which may become increasingly widely used in future, creating further traffic and road safety issues.
27 Planning Statement Paragraph 6.88 28 Transport Statement Paragraph 5.10 and Figure 3
2.4 Applicant’s failure to abide by commitments made during Consultation Process
The applicant has told Westbury Park residents on a number of occasions that pedestrian access from
The Glen was not required for the purposes of the development itself, and would only be implemented
if this was seen as a benefit by the existing community (eg by providing a short cut from The Glen to
Etloe Road). This was communicated in the first meetings in July 2021 and repeated in the second
webinar on 20th January 202229.
However, this commitment has not been honoured. An analysis of all feedback included in the
applicant’s “Statement of Community Involvement Part 3” shows that there was significantly more
opposition to the gateway (for the reasons given in Section 2.2 above) than support (which was limited
to a small number of comments primarily about public access). Notably a poll of residents of The Glen
and Belvedere Road (61 households, more than 100 residents), who would be most likely to benefit
from any “improved connectivity”, showed no support for the access and raised many concerns. This
was submitted to the applicant in January.
Furthermore, the proposed access is stated to be limited to use by St Christophers residents only, so
is clearly of no benefit at all to other local residents.
It is disappointing that, in the one aspect of the development where the developers committed to
base their decision on the local residents’ preference, they are knowingly doing the opposite to the
vast majority of the feedback received.
29 Minutes included in Statement of Community Involvement Part 3 Pages 160-161 (Page 85-86 of PDF), also stated on the Applicant’s website, and recordings of webinars available on the Applicant’s website
ANNEX 1 – ROAD SAFETY SURVEY
Quantitative research findings April 19th 2022
Project MS1573
SCAN Research 2022
Emma Grove-White / Martin Olver
Mindset Research
The Old Bakery
Chock Lane
Westbury-on-Trym
Bristol
BS9 3EX
Tel: 0117 962 4547
Mobile: 07905 134103
Email: info@mindsetresearch.co.uk
Web: www.mindsetresearch.co.uk
For more information:
Contact:
Objectives and methodology
• Measure perceptions of how safe the road environment is in Westbury Park, particularly near Westbury Park Primary School
• Better understand traffic issues that apply to Westbury Park • Evaluate how available parking is in the Westbury Park area and how this
impacts road safety • Investigate how road safety could be improved in Westbury Park
• Total of 298 online survey responses• All who responded were Westbury Park residents and / or parents of children
attending Westbury Park Primary or Daisy Chain Nursery
• Online survey, taking around 10 minutes to complete• Survey invite & link distributed via community / school / nursery social media
April 2022
Objectives
Who completed the survey?
How?
When?
2
Sample profile: Demographics
Q1a Do you live in the Westbury Park area?Q1b What road do you live in? Q15 To which of the following age groups do you belong?
3
1%
1%
7%
33%
25%
16%
13%
4%
1%
Under 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75 years plus
Prefer not to say
Age?
Yes, 95%
No, 5%
Live in Westbury Park?
Base: 298
12%
8%
7%
7%
7%
7%
6%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
23%
Devonshire Road
Bayswater Avenue
Florence Park
St Albans Road
The Glen
Westbury Park (Road)
Coldharbour Road
Berkeley Road
Belvedere Road
Etloe Road
Queen Victoria Road
Royal Albert Road
Blenheim Road
Linden Road
St Helena Road
Other
Live on which road?
Base: 282 Base: 298
Children at school / nursery and mode of transport
Q2 Do you have children at Westbury Park Primary School or Daisychain nursery?Q3a How do your children usually travel to school/ nursery? Please specify their main mode of transport.Q3b When driving to school/ nursery, how close do you normally park?
4
Parking distance from school
Yes -Westbury
Park Primary School, 38%
Yes –Daisychain nursery, 7%
No , 58%
Children at school / nursery?
Base: 298
Mode of transport to school
Base: 124 Base: 10
70%
20%
10%8%
1%
91%
1%
2%
21%
25%
19%
13%
12%
14%
45%
48%
43%
18%
15%
21%
Total sample (298)
Parents with children at WP Primary /Daisychain Nursery (124)
Westbury Park residents, with nochildren at WP Primary / Daisychain
Nursery (174)
Very safe Fairly safe Neither safe nor unsafe Fairly unsafe Very unsafe
5
Road safety in Westbury Park (particularly near Westbury Park Primary)
Q4 In your opinion how safe is the road environment in Westbury Park, particularly near Westbury Park Primary Base: 298
Why do you say that?
Q5 Why do you say that? 6
Too many parked cars causing
poor visibility.
There is no safe place for children to cross the road.
It is very busy with cars right outside the school.
Cars block driveways and drivers get frustrated so drive more dangerously.
Bayswater has cars parked both sides of the road and there’s no crossing for the children from one side of Bayswater to the other to
funnel movement so children spring out everywhere from
between parked cars.
Coldharbour Road zebra crossing is often dangerous as cars are busy concentrating
on traffic turning from Cousins Rd/ Bayswater Av they don’t notice the
crossing. I have had several near misses. Bayswater Av often has builders vans,
lorry’s and other large vehicles using it. Many small children and hazards that could result in serious injury or worse. I
would love for the Road to be one way to reduce the risk on so many families and
make it a much safer road.
Parking on corners restricting visibility, parking on pavements. Volume of
traffic generally is high with commuters cruising for spaces at peak times.
Excessive parking leads to dangerous parking on pavements and road
junctions, and to traffic circling the roads looking for any available spaces, which all provide hazards for children
around the school area.
Traffic drives too quickly for the environment during school drop
off and pick up times.
Most days cars will drive through the zebra crossing between Harcourt Road and
Bayswater Road and there is nothing we can do about it. I will not even now let my 11 year old cross using that crossing. He is well versed
in how to use a zebra crossing but it seems drivers consistently aren’t. There just isn’t
enough parking to make the streets safe for so many small children.
Westbury Park traffic issues
Q6 In your opinion, which of the following traffic issues apply to Westbury Park? Please tick all that apply.Q7 Which of the issues you have ticked are you most concerned about? Please rank your top three. 7
89%
79%
72%
70%
65%
63%
44%
10%
90%
81%
80%
64%
69%
69%
45%
6%
88%
77%
67%
74%
63%
59%
44%
12%
Lack of parking available
Road Congestion
Children struggling to cross roads safely
Parking on pavements
Speeding vehicles
Pollution caused by traffic
Double Parking
Other problems
Total sample (298) Parents with children at WP Primary / Daisychain Nursery (124) Westbury Park residents, with no children at WP Primary / Daisychain Nursery (174)
Base: 298
64%
57%
35%
38%
9%
49%
25%
% ranking top 3
3%
30%
33%
12%
9%
2%
9%
5%
% ranking ‘first’
1%
‘Most concerning’ traffic issues in Westbury Park
Impact of parking on Westbury Park road safety
Q10 Do you see parking in Westbury Park which you would consider to have a dangerous impact on road safety?Q11 Please use this space to make any comments that will help us understand your previous answer. 8
81%
8%
11%
81%
6%
13%
81%
9%
10%
Yes
No
Unsure
All WP residents (298)
Parents with children at WP Primary /Daisychain Nursery (124)
Westbury Park residents, with no childrenat WP Primary / Daisychain Nursery (174)
Base: 298
Parking on corners and right up to junctions obstructs drivers' views and limits manoeuvrability, both of which
cause safety risks. Parking over dropped kerbs forces people in
wheelchairs into the road. Parking on pavements forces people (in
wheelchairs and with pushchairs) to walk on roads, which is also
dangerous.
Cars are parked on corners, you have to pull out too far
before you can turn. The whole thing is a massive
accident waiting to happen. I consistently want to move away as I am afraid for my
children.
Parking is a problem -there are already a huge
number of parked cars and this makes it difficult to
cross roads safely particularly with small children and buggies.
Double parking. Blocked views. Pavements
smothered. Poor visibility. Stressed motorists. Incredibly
dangerous.
Parking on corners is a frequent and dangerous
activity for both pedestrians and all road users.
Witnessed any accidents, incidents or near misses
Q12 Have you witnessed any accidents, incidents or near misses involving pedestrians caused by motor vehicles in Westbury Par k?Q13 Please use this space to make any comments that will help us understand your previous answer. 9
44%
23%
33%
51%
22%
27%
40%
24%
37%
Yes – on more than one occasion
Yes – on at least one occasion
No
All WP residents (298)
Parents with children at WP Primary /Daisychain Nursery (124)
Westbury Park residents, with nochildren at WP Primary / DaisychainNursery (174)
Base: 298
The visibility, large trees and double parking on Bayswater Av
makes crossing difficult. Paths are often congested due to volume of
pedestrian traffic so using road becomes an alternative in school
rush time-can be dangerous. Coldharbour Rd cars drive very fast
and often ignore the zebra crossing.
At the zebra cross on Coldharbour Rd by St Albans church. Cars are not careful enough
when children cross this road to go to school or home. This Rd is extremely busy
at school start and end of day.
Several times we have seen near misses by adults
and children by cars. I have nearly been hit by a car when cycling to work
after dropping the children.
We live near the school. I have seen several near
misses with children trying to cross road and not being able to see traffic because views blocked by badly and
illegally parked cars.
My sister was hit by a car while using the zebra crossing on Coldharbour Road a few years ago. I have also heard many accounts of incidents
involving speeding cars. A mum at my primary school (Westbury Park) started
a petition for traffic lights after her daughter was hit by a car.
Suggestions to improve road safety
Q14 Do you have any suggestions as to how road safety could be improved in Westbury Park? 10
Blocking roads to limit
traffic.No through road dead end
roads to avoid rat runs. Less space for cars and
more space for people, less parking and more
pavement space, cycle space, safe space for
children.
Parking permits would be a huge help in improving the
lack of parking in the area. As Westbury Park is one of the
first areas with no permits, I'm sure that people park their
cars here who don't live in the street which makes it really
difficult to find a space.
Residents parking zones and also block the volume of
building being proposed for the St Christopher’s site
which would lead to even more overspill parking.
Make Devonshire Road one way from the
Coldharbour Road end. Put a speed camera or 2
on Coldharbour Road and one on Devonshire Road.
It needs a residents permit, this should remove the
numerous cars and vans being left and commuters parking on
pavements causing safety issues for children and older
people who have to going the road to get past them.
Slow down traffic on Coldharbour. Make Bayswater Av one way road to stop cars
using as a thoroughfare to the Downs/White Tree roundabout.
Introduce Residents Parking Zone to stop
the area being used as "park and ride" by city
commuters.
Traffic calming measures on Bayswater Ave near the school, and a
clear crossing point on Bayswater where there are no cars on either side. A clamp down on people using the zig
zag lines at the school to drop off. Instead a designated drop off zone egby St Albans church . A clamp down
on parking on pavements esp on cousins road. Some passing points on
St Albans road.
SCAN Research 2022
End of presentation
Emma Grove-White / Martin Olver
Mindset Research
The Old Bakery
Chock Lane
Westbury-on-Trym
Bristol
BS9 3EX
Tel: 0117 962 4547
Mobile: 07905 134103
Email: info@mindsetresearch.co.uk
Web: www.mindsetresearch.co.uk
For more information:
Contact:
ANNEX 2 – OBSTRUCTIVE PARKING
1
Annex 2 – Obstructive Parking
This appendix shows some examples of the frequent obstructive parking throughout the area
around the St Christophers site. This is due to the high demand for the existing parking spaces,
which leads many people to park obstructively when there are no valid spaces available. This leads
to safety concerns with frequent parking on corners, as well as parking over dropped kerbs and on
pavements making the roads less accessible for those in wheelchairs or with pushchairs.
Some examples are included of parking on the Downs/grassy area outside St Christophers.
These photos were taken by residents during March 2022. NB there are normally multiple
occurrences on most days, these photos by no means indicate all occurrences, but represent just a
small sample which were photographed for the purpose of this study.
JPEGs of photos are available if required by Bristol City Council for validation purposes.
2
Belvedere Road & The Glen – frequent parking on corners, and across dropped kerbs, at junctions with The Glen and Westbury Park
5th March 5th March 8th March 8th March
8th March 9th March 9th March 9th March
3
10th March 10th March 10th March
11th March 11th March 12th March 12th March
4
12th March 13th March 16th March
18th March 18th March
5
20th March 21st March 23rd March
24th March 24th March 26th March 26th March
6
26th March 30th March 6th April
7
Clay Pit Road – there is a dropped kerb providing wheelchair access to the path to the bus-stop, frequently blocked by parked cars
6th March 7th March 8th March 10th March
12th March 13th March 16th March
8
19th March 24th March 24th March
30th March
9
Westbury Park – frequent parking on corner with Belvedere Road, also over restricted places and on the Downs
13th March 13th March 13th March
23rd March 23rd March 24th March 24th March
10
26th March 2nd April
#
11
Bayswater Ave, St Helena Rd, Florence Park and Ladysmith Rd parking survey.
March 2022
Examples of ‘stress-parking’
As a part of the parking survey within 150m of the proposed new traffic entrance to the St
Christopher’s site, we also collected these examples of ‘stress-parking’.
These roads are often full, yet the demand for spaces does not stop there. So, in addition to
counting spaces each day, additional photographs were taken of cars parked illegally, demonstrating
“stress-parking”, on the basis that these cars would not have parked so badly had they been able to
find a space.
Stress-parking included vehicles parked on double yellows, school zigzags during restricted times,
blocking access ramps, overlapping junctions , blocking access and so on. Some pictures below cover
several categories in one instance.
Clearly there have been many other such offences committed, these were just the ones a small
number of residents were able to photograph when they were out, demonstrating the sort of
regular inconveniences, and safety hazards, that users of this road (cars and pedestians) face today,
without the extra pressure of St Christophers.
Double Yellows
9th 9th 15th
16th 16th 18th
22nd
12
School Zigzags during restricted periods
Multiple offences every weekday, too many to capture them all. Many of them are short drop-off
stays, but are also exactly what parents would not be doing if they could find proper space to park.
9th 16th x2 17th
21st
Junction overlaps
16th 17th 21st
22nd 22nd 23rd
23rd 24th 25th
13
25th 27th 27th
Blocking access/dropped kerbs/garages
22nd 24th 25th
26th
Pavement
13th for 2 weeks 23rd 23rd
29th
14
Etloe Road
Etloe Road is too narrow for cars to be parked on both sides without obstructing traffic flow.
However, cars are frequently parked on the pavement on one side of the road, causing hazards and
preventing access for wheelchair and pushchair users, as well as on corners and double yellow lines.
15th
22nd
15
22nd
24th March double yellow lines
28th (double yellow lines, pavement and corners)
ANNEX 3 – PARKING SURVEYS
1
Annex 3 Residents’ Parking Surveys
Local residents have undertaken their own surveys to demonstrate the typical lack of parking available in the
surrounding roads. This Annex provides photographic evidence for the figures in Paragraph 1.4.3 of our statement.
The following describes the methodology we have used.
• We have identified the roads (and sections of roads) which fall within 150m of any proposed entrance of the
site. We do not have precise measuring tools, so this is our best estimate from local maps. Figure 1 (page 3)
shows a map of the area covered. This also shows areas unsuitable for parking, such as driveways, dropped
kerbs, and other restricted areas.
• As a result we have surveyed the following roads:
Westbury Park
Clay Pit Road
Belvedere Road
The Glen
Royal Albert Road
Queen Victoria Road
Etloe Road
Bayswater Avenue
Saint Helena Road
Ladysmith Road
Florence Park
NB – the area of Redland Road which falls within the 150m range is covered by a Residents Parking Zone, so has
been excluded from our survey, as no day-time parking spaces are available for non-residents of Redland Road.
• As well as counting spaces, we have counted cars parked obstructively, ie on a corner, dropped kerb, double
yellow line or other restriction or pavement, which normally indicate there were no spaces when that car
arrived. Please note that the BCC standards for Parking Surveys do not count spaces within the first 10m of a
road junction as available. The photographs show frequent occurrences of this – however, these have not been
highlighted or counted as obstructive (unless blocking a dropped kerb or the corner) as this is simply normal in
these roads. Excluding these would reduce the number of available spaces still further.
• JPEGS of photos (confirming date/time taken) are available if required by BCC.
Survey 1: 2 x 1-hour surveys of entire area
A resident walked round the entire area at the following times:
• 24th March 2022 between 8:10 and 9:10
• 28th March 2022 between 7:30 and 8:30
Photographs were taken of all roads, aiming to show all cars parked and any spaces which were available for
parking. The photos also show areas unsuitable for parking (such as drive-ways and dropped kerbs) – these are
also identified on the map in Figure 1.
The following table shows the spaces available.
2
Date Time Road Spaces Available
24th March 8:24 Royal Albert Road 1
24th March 8:37 Saint Helena Road 1
24th March 8:40 Florence Park 2
24th March 8:43 Etloe Road 2
28th March 7:41 Saint Helena Road 2
28th March 7:44 Florence Park 2
28th March 7:54 Royal Albert Road 1
The photographs for both days are provided in Attachment 1. They have been annotated to identify the valid
spaces, as well as highlighting clear cases of obstructive parking.
Survey 2: 7 days of surveys for each road in the area
In order to demonstrate the continuous typical parking density for all roads in the area, we have also undertaken
further surveys of each individual road, as follows:
• Over the course of a week, a resident has assessed parking availability in the road at a point in each day when
they have time to do so. Although this has had to fit with each resident’s availability, broadly, we have tried to
ensure that each set of readings includes:
o Some different times of day
o Some repeated times of day
o Some approximately common times of day across all roads
to ensure that the readings are as fair as possible a reflection of the situation throughout a day and week.
• The resident has also taken photographs of the street at that time, to show the density of parking and any
spaces that were identified. This was limited to 2 or 3 photos per road – it was simply not practical for
everyone to take photos of every car parked along every road – but we believe these fully demonstrate the
density of parking.
• We have only counted parking spaces in which a car could reasonably park. Some of the gaps in the photos are
not included as spaces, as they are across a driveway (which are shown in Figure 1), or are too small to be
parked in.
• The surveys were undertaken over a week in the second half of March, although the actual week was
determined for each road based on the resident’s availability. There are a very small number of days which
were omitted due to no-one being available on those days.
• Finally, we recognise that this is not a full statistical survey, but hope it is understood that we have done the
best we can with very limited resources. What we have tried to achieve is simply a demonstration of the
general density of parking throughout the week, showing that there is no spare capacity to absorb another 50
or so cars looking for spaces in which to park.
• The photographs for each road are provided in Attachment 2. Clear cases of obstructive parking are
highlighted.
• A table providing all results is shown in Figure 2 (page 4).
3
Area of Survey – c150m
from St Christophers
entrance (shown with *)
Double Yellow Lines
Dropped kerb
Figure 1 – Map of Area Surveyed (150m range of proposed St Christophers entrances)
Residents
Parking
Zone
Road too narrow for
parking both sides
4
Figure 2 – Details of dates, times and counts on each road in Survey 2
“Obstructive parking” refers to cars parked on dropped kerbs, double yellow lines, pavements, corners etc. It does not include other cars parked within
10m of a junction.
Road Survey w/c
Time SpacesObstructive
Parking Time SpacesObstructive
Parking Time SpacesObstructive
Parking Time SpacesObstructive
Parking Time SpacesObstructive
Parking Time SpacesObstructive
Parking Time SpacesObstructive
Parking
Bayswater Avenue 14th March
14 Mar
08:45 0
15 Mar
12:00 1
16 Mar
08:15 2
17 Mar
13:00 1
18 Mar
09:50 1
19 Mar
12:00 6
20 Mar
11:00 7
St Helena Road 21st March
21 Mar
18:00 1 1
22 Mar
18:30 1 1
23 Mar
19:15 1 1
24 Mar
09:30 0
25 Mar
09:45 0 1
26 Mar
10:30 0 1
27 Mar
18:45 1
Ladysmith Road 21st March
21 Mar
18:00 0
22 Mar
18:30 0
23 Mar
19:15 1
24 Mar
09:30 0
25 Mar
09:45 0
26 Mar
10:30 0
27 Mar
18:45 0
Florence Park 21st March
21 Mar
18:00 1
22 Mar
18:30 0
23 Mar
19:15 0
24 Mar
09:30 0
25 Mar
09:45 0
26 Mar
10:30 0
27 Mar
18:45 0
Etloe Road 11th March
14 Mar
16:00 1 9
15 Mar
14:50 0 3
16 Mar
09:00 0 6
17 Mar
09:00 0 4
11 Mar
16:00 0 4
12 Mar
15:00
13 Mar
08:45 2 2
Queen Victoria Road 14th March
14 Mar
16:00 1
16 Mar
09:00 4
17 Mar
09:00 0
Royal Albert Road 14th March
14 Mar
10:30 1
15 Mar
09:55 2
16 Mar
09:45 2
17 Mar
09:15 2
18 Mar
16:35 0
19 Mar
16:55 6 1
20 Mar
17:00 7
Westbury Park 14th March
14 Mar
08:10 0
15 Mar
09:50 1 1
16 Mar
11:50 0 1
17 Mar
09:50 0
18 Mar
14:20 0 1
19 Mar
15:30 3
20 Mar
10:05 0 1
Clay Pit Road 17th March
21 Mar
11:50 0 1
22 Mar
08:55 0 1
23 Mar
15:50 0 1
17 Mar
12:25 0 1
18 Mar
10:30 0 1
19 Mar
16:30 1 1
20 Mar
09:25 1 1
Belvedere Road 17th March
21 Mar
11:50 0 1
22 Mar
08:15 1
23 Mar
15:50 1 1
17 Mar
12:20 0
18 Mar
10:30 1 1
19 Mar
16:25 10
20 Mar
09:20 3
The Glen 17th March
21 Mar
11:55 0
22 Mar
08:15 0
23 Mar
16:00 3
17 Mar
12:20 0
18 Mar
08:45 1
19 Mar
16:25 7
20 Mar
09:20 4
Saturday SundayMonday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
5
Key to following photos:
Dropped kerb (or disabled bay)
Obstructive parking
Valid space
6
Attachment 1a – 24th March 2022
Westbury Park Royal Albert Road towards North View
Westbury Park Royal Albert Road towards Clay Pit Road
7
8
Clay Pit Road
Belvedere Road (Westbury Park end)
9
Belvedere Road (The Glen end)
10
The Glen
11
12
13
Bayswater Avenue – from Westbury Park School towards Etloe Road
14
15
16
Royal Albert Road – from Etloe Road to Westbury Park
17
Royal Albert Road – from Westbury Park to Etloe Road
18
St Helena Road – from Bayswater Avenue towards Florence Park
19
20
Ladysmith Road – from St Helena Road towards Devonshire Road
Florence Park – from St Helena Road towards Coldharbour Road
21
22
Etloe Road – From St Helena Road towards North View
23
24
Queen Victoria Road – East from Etloe Road
Queen Victoria Road – West from Etloe Road
Attachment 1b – 28th March 2022
Westbury Park – Walking from No. 12 towards junction with Belvedere Road
Clay Pit Road
Belvedere Road (Westbury Park End)
The Glen (walking from St Christophers towards Blenheim Road)
Belvedere Road (The Glen end)
St Helena Road – walking down from Bayswater Avenue junction
Ladysmith Road
Florence Park
Royal Albert Road (walking from Etloe Road to Westbury Park)
Queen Victoria Road - East
Queen Victoria Road - West
Bayswater Avenue (walking from Coldharbour Road towards Etloe Road)
Etloe Road (walking from Bayswater Avenue towards North View)
Annex 3 Attachment 2 – Photos of Weekly Surveys
Westbury Park
Monday 14th March 2022 – 8:10
Tuesday 15th March 2022 – 9:50
`
Wednesday 16th March 2022 – 11:50
Thursday 17th March 2022 – 9:50
Friday 18th March 2022 – 14:20
Saturday 19th March 2022 – 15:30
Sunday 20th March 2022 – 10:05
Notes on Residents’ Parking Survey – covering 150m from the proposed new entrance on Etloe Road
(going East – West is covered by separate survey) – March 2022
This survey was carried out by residents of Bayswater Avenue and St Helena Road. Each day
photographs were taken and a count was made of the number of legal, parkable spaces available.
These roads are often full, yet the demand for spaces does not stop there. So, in addition to
counting spaces each day, additional photographs were taken of cars parked illegally or without
consideration, demonstrating “stress-parking”, on the basis that these cars would not have parked
so badly had they been able to find a space. (Stress-parking = double yellows, school zigzags,
overlapping junctions , blocking access, excessive pavement parking etc)
Note - Bayswater Ave
The residents felt that a special case needs to be made for surveying Bayswater Avenue. This survey
answers the ‘exam question’ with results as required for the 150m from the proposed new traffic
entrance (next to the Daisy Chain Nursery) to number 8 Bayswater Ave. But we also added an extra
survey from number 8 Bayswater covering the approx. 70m to Coldharbour Rd.
This was done because in our view Bayswater needs to be looked at in totality. This stretch of road
has two children’s nurseries, the church, church hall and of course a large primary school. The road
is also long, straight, and relatively wide and is often used as a ‘fast cut-through’ my motorists at all
times of day. Not only is parking an issue in Bayswater, but speed too and concern for safety both
residents and also school users etc. Speeds well in excess of the 20mph are witnessed often.
We have not just surveyed at 9am and 3:30pm at the start and end of each school day largely
because that is obviously when the road is at its absolute worst. Two 20-25 min periods each
weekday seeing significant numbers of parents and children walking down the road, as well as the
pavements; all car parking taken and significant (short term) selfish parking across many driveways,
and off road parking spaces; as well as multiple offences from parents of parking on the yellow
school zigzags. Every day of the week, twice a day.
The photos included show the following views:
Bayswater Ave
For each date…
• Photograph 1 – from no 8 Bayswater to Coldharbour Rd (outside the 150m)
Within 150m
• Photograph 2 – from no 8 Bayswater looking down the 150m to Daisychain nursery
• Photograph 3 – from the proposed new entrance looking back towards (2)
• Photograph 4 – from same spot as (3) looking from the entrance toward Etloe Road
St Helena Rd and Ladysmith Rd
For each date…
• Photograph 5 – from the junction with Bayswater Ave looking down St Helena
• Photograph 6 – looking up St Helena Rd from the junction with Ladysmith Rd
• Photograph 7 – same place as (6) looking down St Helena Rd cul-de-sac
• Photograph 8– same place as (6) looking down LadySmith Rd
Florence Park
For each date…
• Photograph 9 – From house number 32 on Florence Park (150m limit) towards St Helena
The remainder of photos in this section cover the following roads:
Etloe Road
Queen Victoria Road
Royal Albert Road
Bayswater Avenue
Monday 14th March 8:45am
1 2
3 4
Tuesday 15th March - 12pm
Weds 16th March - 8:15am
Thurs 17th March - 1pm
\
Friday 18th March - 9:50am
Saturday 19th March - 12pm
Sunday 20th March - 11am
St Helena Rd and Ladysmith Rd
Monday 21st March - 6pm
5 6
7 8
Tuesday 22nd March - 6:30pm
Photograph 6 missing/lost for this date
Wednesday 23rd March - 7:15pm
Thursday 24th March - 9:30am
Friday 25th March - 9:45am
Saturday 26th March - 10:30am
Sunday 27th March - 6:45pm
Florence Park – towards St Helena Road
Monday 21st March - 6pm
Tuesday 22nd March - 6:30pm Wednesday 23rd March - 7:15pm
Thursday 24th March - 9:30am Friday 25th March - 9:45am
Saturday 26th March - 10:30am Sunday 27tt March - 6:45pm
Etloe Road
Friday 11th March 2022 – 16:00
Sunday 13th March 2022 – 8:45
Monday 14th March – 16.00
Tuesday 15th March – 14:50
Wednesday 16th March – 9.00
Thursday 17th March – 9.00
Queen Victoria Road
Monday 14th March 16.00
Wednesday 16th March – 9.00
Thursday 17th March – 9.00
Royal Albert Road
Tuesday 15th March – 10:40
Wednesday 16th March – 11:26
Thursday 17th March – 8:52
Friday 18th March – 16:35
Saturday 19th March – 16:55
Sunday 20th March – 17:00
on 2022-05-09 OBJECT
I object to this development on the following grounds;1. Overdevelopment. The proposed buildings are too tall, too large & too crowded together.2. Environmental damage. Many trees will be lost which will also cause damage to wildlifehabitats.3.Road safety, traffic and parking. There is insufficient allocated parking for the number ofpremises which will cause a massive problem of overcrowding in the surrounding streets whichare already seriously overcrowded.
on 2022-05-09
The BS6 and BS8 areas of Bristol have a distinct lack of accommodation options forolder adults.
The model proposed at St Christophers is trying to address a unique need in our area. Manyhousing developments focus on families and working-age adults.
Older people want to remain in their own homes for as much of their lives as possible. The ExtraCare development will support individuals to live in the own accomodation for as long as possible.Older people do not want to move out of the area that they live in, have connections with and havecalled 'their home'. Due to the lack of options for older people, many have to move away from thearea that they have called 'their home' due to lack of capacity in this patch of Bristol.
Loneliness is a significant problem in the elderly population and an integrated retirementcommunity should help address loneliness as a factor that contributes to poor health. Bunchingelderly people into traditional care homes does not promote personal choice, independence and asense of being part of a wider community. The location and space at St Christophers with itsproximity to many local amenities will promote activities that will benefit the residents of StChristophers and the wider community.
on 2022-05-09
Whilst in principle I support the proposals for Assisted Accommodation on the site,providing much needed local elderly care, I have concerns as to the level of accommodation andaspects of the design.
The density of the blocks appears excessive and out of character with the conservation area.
The elevational treatment is poor with a lack of hierarchy to the flats.
Little regards have been given to residents' amenity, and in particular the visual and physicalconnection of the ground floor units and gardens.
Although I support a balance between sustainable transport and residents parking, I would expectthat visitors require access to parking space. I would encourage a financial contribution, by thedevelopers, to the creation of a 'Home Zone' along Bayswater Avenue, part of Etloe Road andRoyal Albert Road. This will slow traffic and enhance the environment.
I welcome the commitment to a community space and look forward to further details regarding itsavailability and costs.
on 2022-05-09 OBJECT
I object to this proposed development due to the detrimental effect it would have on thesetting of the listed Grace House, and also the area generally. The proposed buildings are muchtaller than those nearby and are also very close to existing buidlings both on the site and outsideit.
I am also concerned about the proposed loss of many mature trees, and the likely effects of theproposal on biodiversity and the environment generally.
Finally, I wonder how the proposed access via The Glen being emergency vehicle access only willbe policed - I am concerned that this entrance will end up being more widely used in practice,having a detrimental effect on The Glen and Belvedere Road which are already congested due tothe traffic and parking problems related to the 3 care homes.
on 2022-05-08 OBJECT
I object to this proposal as it fails to comply with Local Plan policies BCS9, DM15,DM17, DM19 and the Planning Obligations SPD. The proposal also fails to satisfy the requirementthat proposals should demonstrate that there is no loss in biodiversity, having a net loss of over8% once the developers arithmetic and methodological errors are corrected. As this planningapplication gives no reason why these policies or requirements might be overruled, planningpermission should be refused.
Non-Compliance with BCC green infrastructure and conservation planning policy
Planning policy (BCS9) states that trees should be retained "wherever possible". The developershave not demonstrated that it is not possible to retainall trees on the site, and therefore this proposal does not comply with BCS9.
Only when loss of trees is unavoidable should developers instead apply planning policy DM17.This policy states that "replacement trees.... should beprovided", in accordance with the Tree Compensation Standard, and the Planning ObligationsSupplementary Planning Document (SPD) further requiresthat replacement sites are identified. There is no policy basis whereby payment into Councils(S106) funds satisfies DM17. As it is unlikely that theoffsite trees can be replaced within the required area, and no sites have been identified, thisproposal does not satisfy DM17.
The cost of the replacement trees is also defined in the Planning Obligations SPD. The applicationassumes that replacement planting will be in open ground, at a cost of £765.21 per tree. However,as no sites have been identified, the assumption should be that replacement planting will be inhard standing, at a cost of £3318.88 per tree. As such the payment into S106 should be £122,798rather than the £28,312 that the developer has offered.
The site is adjacent to a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) and part of the West ofEngland Nature Recovery Network Woodland network. As such there is an expectation that thedevelopment should improve connectivity to existing Strategic Green Infrastructure Networks(DM15). Therefore, with the net loss of trees on site, this proposal does not comply with DM15.
Similarly, DM19 states that any application which has a 'harmful impact on the nature conservationvalue .... will not be permitted.' Because of the location alongside the SNCI and within theWoodland Network this proposal does not comply with DM19.
Non-compliance with Biodiversity net gain requirements
It is a current requirement that any development achieves Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) of no lessthan zero, with an aspiration of a 10% net gain. The developers erroneously claim a BNG of43.03%. There are a number of arithmetic and methodological errors in the developer'scalculations.
The developers have attributed the site habitats to be of Low Strategic Significance. However, asthe site is adjacent to the SNCI which form part of the Bristol Wildlife Network and lies within theWest of England Nature Recovery Network Woodland network, this site should be given a statusof at least Medium Strategic Significance.
The developers wrongly give a figure of 0.35 Ha of new on-site urban tree habitat comprising 128small trees. The correct figure for this is 0.0127 Ha. The fact that some trees may reach aneventual Medium to Large size is irrelevant when creating new habitat.
The total habitat units (HUs) created in Table 6 of the report is incorrect. The column adds up to5.03 HUs not 7.75 HUs.
Four existing ornamental hedges are identified with a combined length of about 77 metres. Theseshould be, but are not, included on the applicant's baseline calculation.
A three-year delay in starting habitat creation should be, but is not, included to allow for theconstruction period.Having corrected the methodological and arithmetic errors in the BNG calculations, the actualfigure shows a net loss in biodiversity of 8.08%
on 2022-05-08 OBJECT
I object to the plans for the st Christopher's site - as they destroy the character of thebuildings and take away much needed resources which would be better kept as a community usefor children.This looks like profits before community.The plans do no make best use of the site or preserve the character of the buildings nor respectthe history of the site.
on 2022-05-08 OBJECT
I oppose the change of use of this vary rare asset, intended to benefit children withspecial needs. It would deprive these young people of precious opportunities to develop -educationally, socially and spiritually. I write personally, both as the brother of a man living with thedisadvantage of an intellectual impairment and as a trustee of the Alliance for Camphill, a charitywhich works to provide such opportunities for adults,.
on 2022-05-08 OBJECT
This is a completely insensitive planning application which does not take into accountthe size and nature of the site, totally unsuitable for the community which is already experiencingchallenges with traffic and parking, not to mention the damage and disruption to local heritage andenvironment. It will have a particularly negative impact on children in the community particularlythose attending Westbury Park Primary School and localNurseries.
on 2022-05-08 OBJECT
For the impact this plan will have on road and traffic safety in the area,overdevelopment and impact on environment, I object to this development. We already have ahuge parking and traffic issue in the area. Thank you for your consideration
on 2022-05-07 OBJECT
I wish to object to the submitted proposal to redevelop the St Christopher's site.I am a local business who should in theory welcome development which would bring morepotential customers to the area.In this case I am opposed to the development because it will damage the area in many ways.The two most significant concerns I have are around thenegative impact the inadequate on site parking provision will bring. There is already significantpressure with on street parking particularly at night. The disparity between parking provision on thedevelopment and the number of dwellings will lead to overspill which simply cannot beaccommodated.The second concern which I believe is evidenced by the first is that the proposal is a significantoverdevelopment of the site. This not only relates to the number of dwellings but also to theproposed height of the blocks which are totally out of character with the surrounding buildings.I also have concerns relating to the environmental impact particularly loss of tress and wildlifehabitats.I would ask BCC to reject the existing proposal.
on 2022-05-07 OBJECT
I would like to submit an objection to the proposed redevelopment of the SaintChristophers site.
It is disappointing that the site previously used for local SEND provision within Bristol has is notbeen developed to provide any facilities or contribute to the local area or community. Surely, withthe development of such a large site there should be some expectation that it contributespositively to the local community, and that there should be some community benefit from thedevelopment of the site in terms of facilities.
I have three children who attend Westbury Park primary school and red and green school. I haveconsiderable concerns about the impact of the ridiculously limited number of parking placesoffered by the new st Christopher's development. 67 parking spaces seems completely out of kilterwith the size of the development of over 100 2 bed apartments. It will not provide enough parkingfor the people who live and will work in that in the development.
Living opposite the school witness on a daily basis the challenges Families face trying to get theirchildren to school safely. I have witnessed two near misses, in the last year. The schools zig zaglines are often used by people to park especially by people making deliveries to the school andlocal houses.
The local streets are at capacity when it comes to on street parking as we sit just outside theresidential parking scheme and people use the area to park their cars and then walk or commuting
to Bristol. There is no extra capacity to absorb any of the overspill from the Christopher site if itdoes not provide an appropriate level of parking for the number of people who will be living andusing the site.
My final objection is that the proposed buildings at Saint Christophers are not in proportion with thesurrounding buildings.Westbury Park Road is a beautiful road overlooking the downs with stunning Georgian villas itdoesn't seem appropriate to have them overshadowed and overlooked by six story apartmentblocks. It would be much more in keeping to have houses or blocks of similar size and proportionsso that it is not detrimental to the look of this Area. The downs is one of the crowning glory is inBristol and it's aesthetic should be preserved.
on 2022-05-07 OBJECT
Although I don't live in the immediate area relating to the proposed development I wouldlike to object to the scale of the development. It would seem more appropriate to develop theexisting buildings and for more affordable housing. I second the SCAN objections to the increasein traffic and parking issues it is likely to cause in the immediate area. I also strongly object to theimpact it will have on the environment:- loss of trees and habitats. We should be preserving ourgreen spaces.
on 2022-05-07 SUPPORT
We need more appropriate accommodation for our ageing population and for thehouses they occupy to be released for families. This development would replace a dilapidatedassortment of buildings to boot.
More developments like this please.
on 2022-05-07 OBJECT
I object mainly on the grounds of the extra volume of traffic that the development willcreate and the extra pressure on parking. As it is, Etloe Road is difficult to drive along and so isWestbury Park. Roads like mine often don't have a parking space available for those of us wholive here. Even Westbury Park is often choc-a-bloc with parked cars and caravans / camper vans.As for the photograph of the proposed buildings, they look rather enormous and out of keepingwith the style of architecture in the area. They will certainly spoil the skyline. It's a shame that theyhave to be so tall.
on 2022-05-07 OBJECT
The plans display an intent for severe overdevelopment which amongst other thingswould have a negative impact on the townscape .The destruction of such a vast number of treeswould destroy the character and appearance of the conservation area and have a severedetrimental impact on both the nature and wildlife in the surrounding area
on 2022-05-07 OBJECT
I have the following objections:It is an over development in a sensitive area and out of keeping with the surrounding buildings.There are not enough parking places planned for residents. This will cause chaos as Westburypark is already saturated with on street parkingBio diversity will be badly affected by the felling of numerous mature trees.
on 2022-05-06 OBJECT
I believe that the enormous size and scale of the proposed scheme is not in keepingwith the surrounding conservation area or houses. The largest blocks of flats (up to six storeyshigh) will be visible from the Downs. The close proximity of new buildings will impact on the light,privacy, noise, overshadowing and amenity of existing properties nearby. I fully support SCAN andthe Westbury Park Community Association and they call the scheme an "inappropriate andunacceptable overdevelopment"
on 2022-05-06 OBJECT
This is an over development of this site. I would be happy for some development of thesite, but can not support the current scheme. Conservation of the green area and mature trees isessential (in view of climate change and the ecological emergency). The proposed buildings aretoo large.
on 2022-05-06 OBJECT
Please, please do not go ahead with this completely unjustified development. I reallydon't understand the need for another luxury retirement home when just down the road there is theVincent which has literally just gone up and by no means looks full. The area is already crammedwith retirement homes and as a result parking already a nightmare. I am also very concerned forthe impact on the environment the development will have and road safety as the home is built. Itseems there has been absolutely no regard given to the destruction of the surrounding nature andwildlife. I am also very concerned about the lack of consideration for the local community,especially the SEND community that has been served in this area for years.This really seems like a needless development, planned in the most insensitive way and onlylooking to benefit no one but, the pockets of a few.
on 2022-05-06 OBJECT
I don't in principle object to the use of this site for the purpose proposed, but I am veryconcerned that the current scale of development proposed will be hugely detrimental to thecommunity for all of the reasons set out below.
Over development
The Sheer Scale of the development on this beautiful site. The height and density proposed aretotally out of keeping with the size and scale of the site and the vernacular scale of the propertiesin the surrounding area. I am particularly concerned about the visibility of the high rise buildingsfrom the Downs.
Parking/Road Safety
A transport adviser was hired, presumably at great cost, by the applicant. Are the comparisons onwhich the anticipated car numbers/journeys used really the best that professional can find? Thesites with which the comparisons have been made are, even from a lay perspective, totallydifferent to the index site and go against more widely available evidence to the contrary.
I can only assume these inaccurate comparators have been "cherry picked" to try to disguise thetrue level of the impact on parking and traffic in the (already congested) surrounding community.Even with these inaccurate comparisons it is accepted that there will be an impact on thecommunity in terms of parking and therefore road safety. The local community is already facing
frequent issues in terms of dangerous parking and the applicant accepts that roads in the vicinityare already congested.
The proposal to rent parking spaces on site (such as are available) to residents is clearly anincentive to future residents to park off site on surrounding roads. The suggestion that siteemployees (carers) will not travel to work by car is entirely contrary to my experience of seeingcare (and other staff) working in local residential homes (Belvedere Road and Redland Road)trying to park on the roads adjacent to the St Christopher's site multiple times each day.
With parking issues in mind, and specifically given the acceptance that The Glen and BelvedereRoad are particularly badly impacted by parking issues already; I strongly oppose pedestrianaccess to the site from The Glen. The concept of "key fob" access to acres of the community is ananathema to me, but my concern is that this will encourage parking on these already busy roads.The applicant has at least amended their previous plans in this regard that inaccurately indicatedthat this access point was at the desire of local residents (a survey of local residents has beensubmitted that confirms this is not the case). Earlier plans also indicated that access via The Glenwas an existing access point, this too is incorrect, the gates have been locked and there has beenno access for cars or pedestrians in the 13 years I have lived adjacent to them.
I face issues with parking on a daily basis. I am also concerned that, for example cars are nowparking on junctions even more than previously, this happens regularly on the junction betweenBelvedere Road and Redland Road making it very dangerous to pull out of that junction. Theseare streets that are used heavily by pedestrians, some of them unaccompanied children travellingto the adjacent school, and cyclists as they form a cut through from a large part of Westbury Parkand Redland onto the Downs.
I am also concerned at the suggestion that there should be emergency vehicle access via TheGlen, this would certainly be new access as it has not been present previously and given theparking issues and the nature of the roads they are unsuitable for use by emergency vehicles. Thesize and scale of the new gates proposed onto The Glen as a result of this proposal are out ofkeeping with the vernacular of the Glen and scale of adjacent properties.
If I can cope with the tech I will submit an album of phots showing the frequently encountereddangerous parking already occurring in the locality.
Heritage
Grace House may not be everybody's cup of tea but it has been listed and will be dwarfed by theflats proposed so close to it. Although not listed the buildings of the same style as Grace houseare important in its context and should be retained.
Although not listed the beauty of the Italianate villas that overlook the Downs will be
overshadowed by the modern flats overbearing them.
Environmental
Bristol is renowned as a "Green City"; the Downs'; is one of its "lungs". The site falls within theDowns Conservation Area and brings the trees and wildlife into the heart of Westbury Park. Livingin a road adjacent to the site we benefit from the presence of badgers, foxes, bats, sparrowhawks, swifts and woodpeckers, I see these in my garden and those of my neighbours.
It is astonishing that despite their "Eco" credentials the developers intend decimating the trees,including many mature trees on site. For the inhabitants of the City of Bristol it really is not ofbenefit for trees to be planted off site. The development should be sufficiently modest to retain thetree numbers on site, through replanting on site not offsite (if any have to be taken down).
I also don't accept the claims that the site is going to be genuinely carbon neutral and eco-friendly.How do the developers calculate the number of years over which their "carbon neutral" site willhave to function in order to offset the loss of trees and the demolition of existing buildings and thebuild itself? There should be more use of the perfectly habitable buildings already on site. Greenspace should be retained through lower density development and use of under croft parking andpermeable pavers to allow grass to grow if ever the spaces are not being used (but see above).
Community
It is a real missed opportunity that the developer has not properly engaged with the communityand has made no effort to include anything to benefit the adjacent Westbury Park School even ifnothing for SEND can be incorporated into the current plans.
It is also disappointing that there is no provision for affordable housing particularly in the light ofthe applicants proposed s106 agreement terms. This seeks to restrict sale of the flats to residentswithin the city of Bristol for only a 3 month period. The applicants appear to be relying on the City'sneed for housing (if not affordable housing) to justify this overdevelopment, but on this basis therewill be minimal sales of the new flats to those from the city of Bristol. I assume that this s106proposal is due to concerns that there will be insufficient demand for this type of property and notethat properties remain unsold in similar local developments such as "The Vincent". I wouldquestion the suggestion therefore that this development will have an position impact on thehousing issues within our city, the argument that the applicant uses to try to justify the densityproposed.
There is no evidence to support the suggestion that the development is not "viable" in the absenceof the applicants demands, is this just greed?
Community Consultation
I know it is not strictly a planning issue but I think it is indicative of this applicants approach thattheir "community consultation" was so lacking in transparency, timed so it fell over Christmas andthen for the Planning response period to fall over Easter. This really goes against the communitycentric ethos that the applicant has been pedalling, as does their ignoring the communityfeedback/failing to provide accurate drawings (such that have been provided were only providedvery late and are in a weird twilight) and provision of inaccurate drawings in key areas,(to fronttheir leading Facebook survey and "community consultation" meetings). Sadly throughout theentire process they have been disingenuous to the point that I approach all of the applicantspositive claims with caution.
on 2022-05-06 OBJECT
I am very concerned about the proposed development at St Christopher's. I live nearbyand my main objection is to the size and density of the proposed blocks . 6 stories is excessiveand will dominate the view from the Downs. In addition there will be loss of too many trees andbiodiversity.Please reject this application in favour of a reduced proposal
on 2022-05-06 OBJECT
Absolutely object to the development. Don't want the disruption of the build around ourroads and the chaos after it is built. No parking already before more flats are built. Roads not safefrom frustrated drivers constantly searching for a space then parking blocking drives and corners.We already have lorries and vans blocking our road and don't need more building vans adding tothat. The proposed building is way too big and I don't think the old building should be removed. Noand no again. This is not good for the area.
on 2022-05-06 OBJECT
This development is would be detrimental to the local area. It will create noise, trafficand pollution in an area which already struggles to cope with the existing infrastructure. Thebuildings are not in keeping with the rest of the local area.
on 2022-05-06 OBJECT
The proposed overpowering and over shadowing buildings onto neighbour's properties,particularly The Glen, is simply unacceptable, especially in a conservation area. The buildings arealso far too high and mass density. There are clear heritage issues and severe conservation areaconcerns. The proposal is not appropriate regarding Transport and Highway issues. There isinsufficient onsite parking and inappropriate access, in particular the Pedestrian and EmergencyAccess from 'The Glen'. If this happened it would cause complete traffic chaos and overparking inThe Glen and adjacent roads.
on 2022-05-05 OBJECT
These plans are unacceptable to me for a number of reasons. The scale and height ofthe redevelopment is completely inappropriate to the locale. The unattractive designs are out ofkeeping with the surrounding architecture. The proposed plans will create considerable negativeenvironmental impact through the loss of trees and biodiversity and increased noise.
As a local resident I'm well aware of the existing traffic problems and lack of parking in the area;this will be hugely exacerbated by this new development, which will also increase theinconvenience and dangers of traffic around Westbury Park School. I've been appalled at the lackof SEND provision or affordable housing in the plans - this is a backward step for residential careand community diversity in Bristol.
Furthermore, the disengaged, obstructive and frankly dishonest way the developers haveconducted themselves throughout the consultation process has also been notable, giving theimpression of stereotypical greedy developers with no regard to the consequences on the localcommunity and surrounding environment.
Of course, cities are dynamic and ever-evolving places. But our urban spaces are handed down tous for safe keeping, and it is our responsibility as a society to ensure that they are well looked afterfor generations to come. As such, I believe it would be a complete dereliction of duty to allowthese short-sighted and insensitive proposals to be passed in their current form.
on 2022-05-05 OBJECT
We firmly object to this development.
Parking in this area is already dangerously scarce.
The plans only create 65 parking spaces, for 122 properties. That's 0.53 cars per household.
The current national average is 1.2 cars per household.The latest government figures suggest that only 16% of households have 0 cars, even in Urbanand City Areas. A greater percentage actually have 2 cars.
A lot of property sites that already exist here contain several households, and we estimate thatthere is already a parking deficit in excess of 2.5 cars per site. So for every site in the immediatearea, there are 2.5 cars being pushed into streets further away.
If 1.2 cars per household is correct, then we would be expecting 146 cars, which is 81 cars MOREthan can be accommodated, which the plans expect to safely spill into the nearby streets.
That could push the deficit up beyond 4 cars per site. This is going to cause a significant amountof stress as it increases the difficulty in getting parked.
Personal transport is essential for some people.
As a professional who works both in and outside of Bristol, I am often required to drive, and almostalways unable to park within our immediate area; Often I am needing to park not just 2 streetsaway but sometimes 3-4 and all the way down the other end, which can result in a 10-15 minutewalk, unless I can afford to keep paying for parking in the Clifton North or Redland RPZs, every 2hours. This is the current situation.
Also, as a parent of a baby, I have to be able to park safely and close enough to the home tosafely load and unload her, and all the goods that go with her, as well as food shopping and thelike. In order to do this I cannot just pull up outside the home, because I cannot then leave her onher own at home or leave her in the car on her own as I unload everything else, and so we areoften really completely unable to come and go to get, or to do, what we need to.
This is all unacceptable, currently, and we cannot agree to a greedy developer making this issueworse by a factor of at least 2, even regardless of heritage issues; Heritage appears to be rankedhigher, by the council, than considerations to what can be considered SAFE parking.
We need the current situation to be improved, not made worse. We cannot even obtain planningpermission to create our own private parking area, because the rules around planning permissionrequire a minimum space that doesn't reflect the majority of cars; The average length of car iscloser to 4 metres but the council require 4.8-5.3 metres, because of a number of people whohave massive SUVs for 1-2 people to bumble around and commute in.
The whole thing is very upsetting and adds to the dangers of simply trying to safely come and go,or cross the road. Please do something to help the existing residents before you help an alreadysuccessful developer to line their pockets even more.
on 2022-05-05 OBJECT
Object because the road to the White Tree roundabout is always very busy since theridiculous, unused, cycle lane was installed at the junction of the White Tree. The scale of theproposed development will only make matters worse. Also if it does go ahead, which I expect itwill, the choice of dark bricks in a sandstone area beggars belief.
on 2022-05-05 OBJECT
Currently there is a congestion and parking problem in the area, particularly around theWestbury Park school and surrounding streets. At peak times this leads to a dangerous situationfor Children and drivers. The St Christopher's Development does not have adequate provision forparking and would lead users of the site seekingparking in the surrounding streets adding to this already dangerous situation.
The developers have underestimated the parking requirements for:Resident visitor ParkingStaff ParkingSuppliers parkingAmazon delivery parkingUsers of the Cafe parkingUsers of the wellness facility parkingUrban Village Hall parkingUser of the gym
The developers need to rethink the proposed parking scheme.If it proceeds as proposed there is a high probability of congestion and risk of serious accidents.
on 2022-05-05 OBJECT
on 2022-05-05 OBJECT
I am writing to object to the current plans to develop the St Christopher's site.
I walk past this site daily and it is full of wildlife. In the day there is an abundance of birdactivity...jays and woodpeckers are among many species I see on a regular basis. In the eveningsthere are bats and foxes and I have heard owls. The destruction of trees and habitats would bemassively detrimental to the wildlife and quite frankly, unforgivable. Mature trees are irreplaceableand plans involve felling a massive 50% of trees of site.
Traffic and parking are another issue. There will undoubtedly be increased traffic, and thereforepollution, in the area with such a high number of new residences. Parking is already problematicand cars already park illegally; parking on corners which dangerously obscures the vision ofdrivers and pedestrians, blocking dropped curbs which makes crossing roads much more difficultfor people with mobility issues and people with prams etc.
Finally, the site is being overdeveloped with blocks that are much too high for the area. Six storeyblocks are entirely inappropriate and will not compliment the surroundings. Existing residents insurrounding roads will be negatively impacted by such high building in terms of privacy and light.
Westbury Park is only a small area and such a large development will change the area drastically.Whilst I appreciate the site needs to be developed in some way, there needs to be a much moresensitive development planned than the one currently being submitted.
on 2022-05-04 OBJECT
Having attended two 'open days' for the St Christopher's development I was assuredBOTH times by more than one member of the development team that there would be NOVEHICULAR ACCESS at the rear of the development onto Bayswater Road/Etloe Road/St HelenaRoad junction EXCEPT for potential ambulances of course. A nursery and primary school areimmediate neighbours and adding more traffic to an already very busy T-junction would make iteven more dangerous for pedestrians, lots of whom will be children, as well as other motorists.Vehicular access CAN ONLY SAFELY BE FROM THE DOWNS ENTRANCE.
Parking is already a huge problem in this area - cars are even left parked on pavements with EtloeRoad as a case in point! There will be no on street parking available for residents or staff! Anyparking required MUST BE SUPPLIED ON SITE.
While I appreciate the site needs to be developed I believe it must be done to complement itssurroundings. The existing villas can be refurbished to their original standard and any other newconstruction should complement them and certainly not be six storeys high!! Three storeys wouldbe ample any taller would constitute over development, totally swamp the site and severelyoverlook the homes and gardens of local residents - impeding not only on their privacy but also theprivacy of residents in St Christopher's.,
Being careful not to overdevelop this site would also enable the fantastic mature trees to remain insitu. We need to continue to support and further develop the wildlife in this urban area as well asbenefit from the wonderful air cleansing properties of these trees. Bristol is proud to promote itself
as a green city and the council planners should stand by its beliefs.
on 2022-05-04 OBJECT
The enormous size and scale of the proposed scheme is not in keeping with thesurrounding conservation area or houses. The largest blocks of flats (up to six storeys high) will bevisible from the Downs. The close proximity of new buildings will impact on the light, privacy,noise, overshadowing and amenity of existing properties nearby.
There is insufficient parking available and it will lead to great difficulties on the nearby roads.
The plans offer no guarantee of provision for young people with Special Educational Needs &Disabilities (SEND).
There is no affordable housing which further limits young people's opportunity to live in the area.
on 2022-05-03 OBJECT
Unacceptable plans destroying wildlife and not providing the necessary housing. Purelyfor profit. It will create road safety issues for my young family and have a huge impact on parking
on 2022-05-02 OBJECT
I object to the current plans for St Christopher's for the following reasons:1. The 'blocky' design of the proposed new buildings is not in keeping with the existing attractiveperiod houses. As can be seen in a number of locations around Bristol the type of design chosenby the developer age badly and begin to look shabby after as little as 5 years.2. A six storey building in this location will adversely affect the outlook from this semi rural areaadjoining the Downs. It will stand out but not in a way that benefits or enhances the area.3. The parking situation in the area around At Christopher's is already very difficult. If as few as10/25% of the new residents own a car it will become extremely difficult or impossible.4. In addition to parking the additional congestion generated by car ownership will be considerablein particular the road leading to white tree roundabout.I hope my observations will be taken into account.Kind regards.N Miller
on 2022-05-02 OBJECT
I feel this development will cause severe parking problems in an already jammed area.Also there are schools and preschools in the area and this will be dangerous for the children. Thebuildings are too tall and will block many peoples views and possibly light . They should be amaximum height of 3 stories. Am unaware of the building design but if it is allowed should be inkeeping with the general style that is here.
on 2022-05-02 SUPPORT
I am writing in support of the planning application for the former site of the St.Christopher's School. As this site has become vacant, there is no doubt that it will be developed,and the present plans have considerable advantages over possible alternatives.
Points in favour of these plans are:1 The developers are sensitive to the environment and include the retention of as many trees aspossible and replacement of those which must be taken down, as well as their zero carbonapproach.2 The plans include assets to be shared by the local community, including a café, the gardens andaccess for Westbury Park School to green spaces, which the children do not at present enjoy.3 The provision of attractive housing alternatives for older people from this area, who become inneed of more support or care.4 The residents and staff are likely to take advantage of the many excellent independent shops innearby Coldharbour Road and North View, which will increase the long term viability of thesebusinesses.
I believe that the downside to these plans has been exaggerated:1 I do not think that anyone's enjoyment of the Downs will be affected by the new buildings, whichwill be set back behind Westbury Park road.2 I think that any extra traffic engendered by this development will be less than that which wouldbe produced by housing for the general public, in that older people are not likely to have two carsand often give up driving altogether.
3 I understand that the developers have made concessions already, as regards moving plannedbuildings farther away from the perimeter and reducing the height in some cases.
In conclusion, I am happy for this development to go ahead and am willing for a small number ofextra people to share the benefits of living in this lovely area with us.
on 2022-05-02 OBJECT
My husband and I strongly object to these plans. Our main concern relates to theincrease in traffic and cars that will come with such a large complex. We have a baby who willattend nursery in Westbury Park and likely the primary school also and are extremely concernedof his safety along with all other children in Westbury Park. The parking is already difficult sothere's no doubt that such a large development would cause utter carnage on the surroundingroads, there simply is not enough room. We have a private parking space at the rear of ourproperty which currently gets used inappropriately by other people, so we can only imagine howmuch worse this could get if the development goes ahead! The plans would lead to a huge loss oflight and privacy, causing an overshadowing of neighbouring buildings, and increased noise. Theproposed buildings are no where close to be in keeping with the area they would most definitelydecrease the quality and character of the area. The design and appearance are pretty horrificconsidering the beauty of surrounding historic buildings. Not to mention the huge loss to thegreenery and wildlife - where is the consideration towards conservation? It would be criminal toallow this to go ahead.
on 2022-05-02 OBJECT
I object to the proposal on the following grounds:There will potentially be increased traffic in the area due to staff maintaining the property andpeople providing care for, or visiting residents. This raises safety concerns, and environmentalones such as air pollution.Presumably there will be increased demand for amenities such as energy, water, sewage andwaste disposal - all having potentially harmful effects on the environment.The appearance, nature and character of the area will be changed - such a detriment to what issupposed to be one of the city's beauty spots and an area of rest and recreation for Bristol'sresidents.
on 2022-05-02 OBJECT
The new development will increase traffic and there will be a possibility of more roadaccidents. I use this route daily to take my young children to school. Traffic is very dangerous, lastweek on the way to school we witnessed a multi vehicle crash and saw a cyclist crash to theground. We have experienced many near miss occurrences in the area and this development willmake traffic conditions worse. I am worried about a child safety and I believe this development willnegatively impact this.
on 2022-05-02 OBJECT
The new development will increase traffic and there will be a possibility of more roadaccidents. I use this route daily to take my young children to school. Traffic is very dangerous, lastweek on the way to school we witnessed a multi vehicle crash and saw a cyclist crash to theground. We have experienced many near miss occurrences in the area and this development willmake traffic conditions worse. I am worried about a child safety and I believe this development willnegatively impact this.
on 2022-05-01 OBJECT
This is massive overdevelopment in an area that is already crowded. Parking andpeople would. Massively put strain on the.area. We need more affordable homes for our youth inthe city not .ore old.peoples homes.The development is also not environmentally friendly and. Is further destruction of a nature reservethat has trees and wildlife that is much needed.Bristol is undergoing massive development at Filton and the volumes of people that will bring in toBristol and. No infrastructure development will combine to cause a rise in air pollution which thegovernment has pledged to reduce. We need to preserve the cities lungs where we can.So ease realize the size of the development is just too big.
on 2022-05-01 OBJECT
The proposal is completely inconsistent with the nature of the area. The height of somebuildings (6 storeys) will overshadow adjacent houses and spoil the outlook from/ to the downs.The blocks will be a dominating and incongruous blot on the landscape.
And I agree with the views already expressed:
The proposed parking provision of 60 places is completely inadequate for proposed 120+residents, support staff, deliveries and visitors. The neighbouring streets already have a traffic andparking problem; this proposal will make it unsafe.
The proposed plan will involve the destruction of many mature trees; the proposed environmentalmitigation measures are inadequate and would have negative effects for decades.
on 2022-05-01 OBJECT
I am concerned about the proposed plan to this site. The environmental impact of somuch extra traffic in an area that is already heavily congested will have negative consequences fornearby residents, and the environment.The Downs is an important green space for the whole city and a proposed high rise block willchange this landscape and the sanctuary that this green space provides for all.There is already a lot of provision for retirement living in the area, much of which is still vacant. Forexample The Vincent on Redland Hill. Any proposed development should be in character withexisting buildings and enhance the facilities available in the wider community.
on 2022-05-01 OBJECT
The proposed development is excessive and out of keeping with the surrounding area.This is an over development with high population density and inadequate parking for the numberof units proposed. Traffic will increase considerably and will create congestion on roads withalready poor lines of sight for pedestrians.
High value retirement accommodation is not the priority need for Bristol. First time buyers, youngfamilies and poorer elderly people are priced out of the area and there is already local provision forolder, affluent people at The Vincent and St Monica's.
The buildings are too high and will dwarf existing listing buildings. I object strongly to the loss ofmature trees including natural habitat for local wildlife including owls and woodpeckers.
This development will create major congestion on already narrow and one-way roads.
There is no reprovision for SEND. I object strongly to this new development which does notinclude an element of truly affordable housing. Bristol Northwest has the greatest inequality interms of health, longevity and affluence compared to the other five Integrated Care Partnerships.This development does not in any way improve equality or access to amenities in our city.
on 2022-05-01 OBJECT
This development is unnecessary and inappropriate.
The size and design of the proposed buildings are out of character for the local area (the DownsConservation Area) and will have significant impact on the nature of the local area.
The development would have a significant environmental impact on local wildlife, especially on thesite, due to the felling of mature trees and other habitats, and the increased human population andlight pollution. The felling of mature trees is bad enough.
The significant increase in population density in the immediate area would cause considerableparking and traffic problems in an area already nearly overwhelmed. The effect on the immediatelocal area would have significant consequences for the surrounding area too. This is a particularconcern given the proximity to local schools and nurseries. The local roads are already a risk forlocal school-children.
And what about affordable housing? House-prices and rents are approaching crisis levels in theBristol area, particularly North Bristol. this development will do nothing to alleviate this.
Please reject this application.
on 2022-05-01 OBJECT
Overbearing size and bulky design totally unsympathetic to the environment and space.Impact on adjacent roads in respect of traffic, pedestrian safety and parking demands are allserious concerns.
on 2022-05-01 OBJECT
Completely against this development, which is against the style and ethos of the currentbuildings and houses. I am not against development overall but do not want to create a set ofunaffordable houses where only the new landlords would win out
on 2022-05-01 OBJECT
I object to the proposals on the grounds that the plans represent a massiveoverdevelopment of a sensitive site for the purpose of profit generation.Those fortunate to have funds already have options for retirement living available to them . Ifanyone needs newly built provision it is people without funds/ social care support for whom thereare no / few options and young people needing supported housing but I imagine there wouldn't bemuch profit in that ?If the Council were to develop a proper community care centre , in scale, on behalf of the City, thatmight be more appropriate .
on 2022-05-01 OBJECT
I object to the proposed development for a number of reasons. The size of thedevelopment will have a negative impact on the local amenity. There are no other buildings in thisarea of this size (the Vincent building is in a different area). The new buildings will be visible fromthe downs and will not fit with the area.The volume of housing units is far too high and will lead to serious problems with parking andtraffic in an area where this is already a problem. This is a safety issues with large numbers ofwalkers, runners, children etc in the area throughout the day. It will probably also interfere with thenumber 2 bus route.The design prioritises profit over amenity by trying to fit in as many housing units as possible at theexpense of parking, wildlife, local amenity and safety.
on 2022-05-01 OBJECT
The size of this development is very concerning.
The height and design of these buildings will completely dominate Westbury park and the area ofthe downs immediately surrounding it and have a huge impact on the character of theneighborhood. This is an area of the downs that provides peace and calm and was a personalfavourite
on 2022-05-01 OBJECT
The size of this development is very concerning.
The height and design of these buildings will completely dominate Westbury park and the area ofthe downs immediately surrounding it and have a huge impact on the character of theneighborhood. This is an area of the downs that provides peace and calm and was a personalfavourite during lockdowns. The proposed development will greatly impinge on this due to thevolume of traffic, lack of sufficient parking and access.
on 2022-04-30 OBJECT
The site must be developed but the proposal isn't in keeping with the area. The newbuilds are too big and too densely packed together.
on 2022-04-30 OBJECT
Concerned as I am at prospects for SEND education in Bristol, I am objecting to thechange of use from educational to residential. Thank you.
on 2022-04-30 OBJECT
These buildings are excessively high and will dwarf the surrounding buildings. Thenumber of residents for which this caters is likely to cause chaos with traffic and parking which isalready at its limits in the surrounding area.
on 2022-04-30 OBJECT
The proposal is a joke, a perfect example of over development by a greedy andopportunistic developer. Clearly someone is out to maximise the square foot area and make asmuch money as possible out of the site, without any consideration of the impact both visibly and tothe infrastructure of the local area. The council's focus should be the conservation of WestburyPark and the surrounding Downs, rather than to allow it to be blighted by poor planning decisions,again. This proposed development is ugly, a gross over development of a key site and totally outof context. It would simply be a large blot on the landscape. I strongly oppose.
on 2022-04-29 OBJECT
My objections are two-fold:
1. The height and scale of the buildings, they are not in keeping with the area. They should 2storeys maximum2. Proposed plans by the developers to ease impact on local schools
on 2022-04-29 OBJECT
1. The height of some buildings (6 storeys) will overshadow adjacent houses and spoilthe outlook from/ to the downs.2. The proposed parking provision of 60 places is completely inadequate for proposed 120+residents, support staff, deliveries and visitors. The neighbouring streets already have a traffic andparking problem; this proposal will make it unsafe.3. the proposed plan will involve the destruction of many mature trees; the proposedenvironmental mitigation measures are inadequate and would have negative effects for decades.
on 2022-04-29 OBJECT
on 2022-04-29 OBJECT
on 2022-04-29 OBJECT
on 2022-04-29 OBJECT
on 2022-04-29 OBJECT
When will it end ? The amount of building that is going on in Bristol, will mean we will berats running around a cage. I cannot believe the idea of high blocks of flats in an area where thereare ordinary rows of semi detached and terraced houses. The facilities in surrounding areas willnot sustain this sort of overcrowding.Please reconsider the site , where are the green spaces the space to breath?
on 2022-04-29 OBJECT
I live locally to the St Christopher's site. I am very concerned about theoverdevelopment, most particularly with regard to the impact of much increased traffic flow, andthe effect on parking . There is not adequate provision of parking on the site. Parking in this areacan be very difficult. Frequently motorists park on the pavements, often blocking vision for a driverto attempt driving into Bayswater Avenue or Etloe Road.Small children are using BayswaterAvenue and adjoining roads to travel of necessity to and from school. Many parents have toaccess these roads to deliver their children to school. I have seen cyclingproficiency lessonstaking place on these roads . To introduce more traffic appears to me foolhardy, even dangerous.There simply is not any spare area into which parked cars would be able to be placed. Theproposed site has not enough provision for cars of residents, families, service vehicles, anddeliveries.which would be needed daily.I woul.d suggest reconsideration number of parking places needed on site ,and a reduction of theoverall occupancy numbers.The proposed height of the buildings on site is in my opinion too great and needs to be scaleddown to fit in with the surrroundings.
on 2022-04-29 OBJECT
Overdevelopment and insensitivity to the surrounding conservation areaThe scale and size of the proposed development is utterly insensitive to the character of the area,St Christopher's is mainly surrounded by beautiful period - principally Victorian - houses. Adevelopment of six, or even five storeys would be oppressively large, would tower over existingdwellings, and would also be visible from the Downs, thus having deleterious consequencesbeyond the immediate environment.
There has been a tendency in the last few decades to approve large buildings in this area whichare unsympathetic in scale and design to the character of the area: the AXA offices at RedlandHill/Blackboy Hill; the Vincent, the Praedium. These previous permissions should not act asprecedents to legitimise further unsympathetic development in the area. Developers will often tryto maximise their profits by fitting as many dwellings into a development as they hope to get awaywith (often by submitting permission for far more than they know they will get, making anyreduction seem like a compromise). 120 residences in this space is far too many; the numberneeds dramatic pruning.
ParkingThe current application plans for 65 parking spaces. An assumption has been made that aroundhalf or perhaps more of the residents will not own cars. What is the evidence for this? If, as seemslikely, the number of parking spaces is insufficient to accommodate residents, staff and visitors,parking will spill over on the adjacent roads, which are unprotected by an RPZ. Since many of theperiod properties in the streets surrounding the St Christopher's site lack off-street parking, with
most residents parking on the street, there is little spare parking space. There is a school andseveral nurseries in the area, already creating competition for spaces and increasing trafficthroughput in these small side roads. Extra traffic pollution will result from would-be parkers drivingaround local streets in pursuit of a space; some local streets are already plagued by commuterparking, with pavements half occluded by parked cars. In short, parking is already difficult and thisdevelopment will exacerbate an already bad problem.
As a nearby resident, I frequently walk and cycle in the small roads around the St Christopher'ssite - Westbury/Etloe Rd, the Glen. Although already congested, these roads are at least quieterand less polluted than main roads. With vehicular/pedestrian access to the site created from thesesmaller roads, this will cease to be the case.
Pruning the number of residences permitted will reduce the effect in local streets of traffic to andfrom the site, and parking in the surrounding area.
Environmental destructionMature trees will be felled to make way for this development - 50% of the trees on this site. It hasbeen calculated that mature trees - depending on the species - absorb over 20kg CO2 annually.The carbon they have embodied in their trunks, branches and leaves is prematurely releasedwhen they are cut down (and rot or are burned). Trees are acknowledged as vital as part of astrategy to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Bristol City Council has acknowledged the climateemergency. How can it then sanction a development which sacrifices carbon-absorbing trees tosteel and concrete (both products with huge CO2 footprints) without being guilty of grossirresponsibility and hypocrisy? Developers are fond of saying that they will plant young trees toreplace felled mature trees. However, young trees absorb less carbon than mature trees and ittakes decades before they are large enough to absorb and store large amounts of CO2. In otherwords, planting young trees is not a replacement for leaving mature trees alone.
Then there is the question of the cost to biodiversity of felling mature trees. Mature trees at StChristophers have afforded habitat for woodpeckers, owls and bats, as well as other species.Woodpeckers, for example, create new breeding sites each year. The holes created in previousyears provide nesting sites for other bird species. Since woodpeckers nest only in mature trees,then the loss of mature trees has a major effect upon the habitat that is available for wildlife. Istrongly believe it is not acceptable to contribute further to the catastrophic loss of biodiversity thiscountry has suffered by taking decisions which fail to assess "in the round" the widerconsequences of development. The loss of biodiversity in this country has occurred incrementally,with every development of concrete, steel and tarmacadam nibbling away at the natural habitatthat used to exist. If we are going to arrest this still-continuing decline, we have to acknowledgethat if this assault on biodiversity is to stop, it is our actions now that matter. If we take the stancethat it is "just one development" and that "the wildlife can go elsewhere" we are doing nothingmore than continuing the process of destruction which has brought us to where we now are: oneof the most nature depleted countries in the world. (UK State of Nature reports).
I urge the planning officer to reject this insensitive, over-bearing and environmentally destructivedevelopment whose principal motivation is greed. The developer needs to return to the drawingtable in pursuit of a smaller (and less profitable) development that respects the character of thearea, that does not add to existing road and parking congestion and that does not destroy preciousurban wildlife habitat. And accept that profit does not always trump respect and care for theexisting built and natural environment.
on 2022-04-28 OBJECT
Dear Sir or Madam,I object to the development as it stands on the following grounds:
1. This is a high-density scheme that I consider to be harmful to the character and appearance ofthe Conservation Area, the setting of the existing Grace House (grade II listed building), and thevisibility of Grace House. I believe that the site is capable of being re-developed in a manner thatresponds positively to the setting of Grace House, while delivering a layout, massing and designthat is clearly more contextual than that currently proposed e.g. lowering the heights of theproposed 5 and 6 story villas such that the re-development of the site is more sympathetic to theexisting setting of Grace House and the Conservation Area. I agree with, and support HistoricEngland's advice, provided in Historic England's letter to Mr Paul Chick, Bristol City Council,reference: P01477694, dated 12th April 2022.
2. The existing narrow vehicular access to the site via Etloe Road/ Bayswater Avenue has verylittle/ ad-hoc vehicles passing through this access; namely service vehicles for access to thesubstation, and also provision for ambulances to access. This narrow access is directly adjacent tothe main front door entrance to Daisy Chain Nursery. Since living on Coldhabour Road anddropping off and picking up my children from Daisy Chain Nursery over the last 4 years I havenever seen a vehicle access this entrance. The developer's proposal to make this a pedestrianaccess to the site and a regular vehicular access to the site for circa four properties is likely toresult in an order of magnitude greater movement of vehicles transiting this narrow accessadjacent to Daisy Chain nursery. This will result in greater risk of parents and children being
potentially struck by vehicles entering and leaving this access due to poor visibility from pulling outfrom this access onto Bayswater Avenue/ Etloe Road. There is no evidence in the informationsubmitted by the developer that the splay and hence visibility of vehicles pulling out of this accessis an ALARP solution from a safety perspective. Further making this a pedestrian access mayresult in visitors/ staff looking for parking/ parking their vehicles on Bayswater Avenue/ Etloe Roadwhere parking is already a premium in the area. My recommendation is to keep this entrance foraccess to the substation only i.e. similar to its current use.
3. As the site was a previous educational setting, inadequate provision has been made in theproposed development for an outdoor/ open space and a facility for use by the Westbury ParkSchool and Daisy Chain nursery (which adjoin the development site), noting that Daisy Chain haslimited outdoor space. Daisy Chain and Westbury would greatly benefit from the use of a greenoutdoor space, e.g. a playing field, being included in a revised proposed development.
4. The proposed development does not provide affordable housing according to the requirementsof Bristol City Council's document "Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy". Policy BCS17in this Core Strategy states the following:
"Affordable housing will be required in residential developments of 15 dwellings or more. Thefollowing percentage targets will be sought through negotiation: n 40% in North West, Inner Westand Inner East Bristol; n 30% in all other locations; In residential developments below 15 dwellingsan appropriate contribution towards the provision of affordable housing may be sought (either as afinancial contribution or as on site provision) in accordance with any relevant policy in the SiteAllocations & Development Management Development Plan Document. Residential developmentsshould provide a mix of affordable housing units and contribute to the creation of mixed, balancedand inclusive communities. The tenure, size and type of affordable units will reflect identifiedneeds, site suitability and economic viability. All units provided should remain at an affordableprice for future eligible households or, if this restriction is lifted, for the subsidy to be recycled foralternative affordable housing provision. Where scheme viability may be affected, developers willbe expected to provide full development appraisals to demonstrate an alternative affordablehousing provision."
There are more than 15 dwellings proposed for the site: this development does not meet BristolCity Council Policy BCS17.
5. Noting that the proposed development only provides c.60 parking spaces for c. 120 dwellings(potentially c. 240 residents), plus staff, plus visitors, the transport plans presented in the transportrelated document provided in the developers planning applications do not clearly state howresidents, visitors, and staff will be encouraged to use alternative means of transport and not usetheir own vehicles to/ from the re-developed site, and therefore there is risk that there will begreater on-street parking in the local area, which is already suffering from a lack of on-streetparking.
Yours faithfully,
on 2022-04-28 OBJECT
Please take an empathetic, considerate approach to the St Christopher's development.Tall, larger scale dwellings will impact on the local residences. If you lived here would you wantthis?The T junction of St Helena and Bayswater is already busy and frequently conjested, thedevelopment will make this worse.Parking around the local area is an issue, there is not enough space for more cars.
Please consider the environment more:Bristol is fortunate to have many green spaces. Cutting down many mature trees should beavoided and in our current climate crisis we cannot afford to loose any trees.
A smaller scale, lower rise development, in my opinion, is the way forward.
on 2022-04-28 OBJECT
The development will lead to increased traffic and lack of parking in an area where it isalready a problem. The care workers and support staff will be in competition for parking along withteachers at the local three schools, residents and parents doing the school runs. With this willcome an increase in the likelihood of accidents involving children. The development willovershadow Westbury Park School and reduce daylight into the classrooms. The development isnot in keeping with the conservation area and will overshadow housing adjacent housing - it is justtoo big a construction. I don't object to new buildings but is should be three storey at most and bein sympathy with it's surroundings. The proposed scheme will result in a strain on the communityand will negatively impact the day to day lives of local residents.
on 2022-04-28 OBJECT
My concerns are:Archictural: the development is not in keeping with the existing housing, or suitable for aconservation area.Social: astonishingly I believe there is no provision for social housing. Furthermore I am concernedthat inadequate parking has been provided and the impact this will have on local roadsEnvironmental: I am concerned by the loss of willife habitat.
on 2022-04-28 OBJECT
I object to the proposal for several reason i) unsightly ii) dominates the area around iii)destruction of existing buildings iv) population density increase without provision in parking, shopsand other local amenities. Please reject this application.
on 2022-04-28 OBJECT
The scale is excessive. Westbury Park is a narrow road, one way in places. There isalready congestion at the junction with North View. How much traffic are all these new propertiesgoing to create?
Also, how many retirement properties do we need in this area? Isn't the Vincent enough?
on 2022-04-28 OBJECT
I have reviewed the plans and consider that they represent over development of thesite. There seems to be no justification to build apartments of this height on the site. I can certainlysee justification from the perspective of the developers, as it maximises the revenue from the site -but at this location adjacent to the downs it is unjustified and out of character with the surroundingbuildings. The developers have made little effort to present plans with sympathetic architecture tothe surrounding area of the listed property.Can I also point out the huge number of retirement properties that already surround the downs andthe local area - so you could question the need for more retirment housing vs. special educationalneeds schooling which is lacking in Bristol? This again is purely cost driven on behalf of thedevelopers, we should not be made to beleiev that this provision is somehow beneficial to thecommunity or in any way alturisticThere is also another issue with the proposed plans and that is the loss of mature trees from thesite and associated wildlife habitat. In the current global climate crisis there can be no realjustifcation for this.There is also the issue of parking and increased traffic on local streets one of which contains aschool and nursery. It is my belief that the council want to reduce traffic on these streets which arealready at capacity for parking - so how do these plans fit with that aim?There are far too few parking spaces for the likely number of staff and residents and again this isobviously cost driven as parking takes up a relatively lareg space in the proposed developmentsite. But it is the responsibility of the developer and the council that this doesn't impact negativelyon the existing residents. In my opinion it will lead to a significant negative impact on thesurrounding area.
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
Overdevelopment for an area of conservation
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
I completely object to this over development of the site. The tower blocks are not inkeeping with the area, and are over developed for the site. Due to the size of the plot available,they are developing skywards and will be a complete eyesaw and are completely incongruous tothe beautiful buildings around.The amount of people moving in would increase traffic problems and parking.We already have a supply of nursing homes, homes for the elderly, it is just not needed. There isno demand for this type of building.
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
- The density of the proposed development is too great for the area.
- The larger blocks are too tall.
- There is inadequate provision for parking. I walk past this area regularly and already have to walkin the road at times because of cars obstructing pavements.The proposed development is said to be for "residents to rent or own a property and to maintaintheir privacy and independence" whilst the parking requirement has been modelled on the needsof a "Hospital, nursing home or residential care home".The resulting estimate of parking required seems unrealistic, and worsening of the parkingsituation on local roads seems inevitable.
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
I wish to object strongly to the proposed development. I fear that the buildings will notbe keeping with the area as they will not be in keeping with the current style of architecture andare far too imposing. I believe that the increased traffic will present even more problems to thealready overcrowded streets surrounding the site and I am not convinced of the need to directmore housing at this age group when one considers the recent local developments in housing forthe elderly . We need a mixture of ages and people to keep this area alive and vibrant
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
proposed development is overbearing and not in keeping with the heritage of the area.Increased traffic to area with limited parking facilities. danger to pedestrians and schools andnurseries in surrounding area.No affordable home provisionDamage to environment with too many trees being removed.
on 2022-04-27 SUPPORT
I don't see what the fuss is about. It seems ok to me and does not detract fromWestbury Park at all. The houses have to go somewhere. They need to make sure there isunderground parking for every flat/house though.
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
I live on the edge of Durham Downs and walk around this conservation area on a neardaily basis. The roads around the Downs are already overwhelmed with traffic and parked vehiclesand if the proposed plans are implemented, it will contribute significantly to making this problemeven worse.
The proposal represents a gross over development of this conservation area and in my viewshould be radically scaled back to a level that is in keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood -and drastically reduces the inevitable impact on traffic levels and parked vehicles.
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
Whilst I appreciate that the St. Christophers site is prime land in a desirable part ofBristol I find the proposed plans poorly thought through. The buildings appear ugly, dominatingand not at all in keeping with the surrounding buildings. As a resident of this conservation area, werightly have to seek permission to build in our gardens, I'm astounded that this proposal hasreached such an advanced stage in view of how it will change the character of this area.We also have a great deal of congestion in this area with a limited number of parking spaces forresidents, these plans will exacerbate this issue greatly.Finally, I object to the knock effect to wildlife and green space, these plans do not take intoaccount the fact that we are trying to preserve wildlife not limit available spaces for species toflourish.
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
I object to this development for the following reasons:- The planned apartment blocks are too big - 3-6 storeys and close to low rise neighbourhoodhousing, and the highest block could be seen from the Downs. We should not be putting up suchhigh rise accommodation now, when it is out of keeping with the neighbourhood and will towerover bordering properties.- I understand that the plans would mean an overall loss of biodiversity, with 50% of treesremoved, which are home to much wildlife, which the Council should be trying to preserve.Planting new trees in NO WAY compensates.- I live 2 roads away, and already struggle to park near my house much of the day, which isbecoming more of a problem as I become less mobile. We are crammed with cars, and thiscauses dangers for local families trying to get to school and nursery /playgroups etc., in BayswaterRoad. Putting a development with so many flats in will exacerbate this in all sorts of ways.-Why is BCC spending millions of pounds sending children with special needs out of the countywhen you should be using this site for what it was originally intended.- Why is BCC not ensuring there is affordable housing on site when this is a key target of BCC?
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
I object to this development on the grounds of significant increased congestion to ourlocal roads and traffic, as well as placing even greater pressure on the local parking situation.
We already suffer from increased cars parked on roads in the immediate vicinity from the AXAbuilding development which was granted a few years ago. People commuting to the area for workpark with little care and attention, regularly blocking pedestrian access on pavements, around anarea highly populated by families with young children, and a local primary school (Westbury ParkSchool).
Bayswater Road in to Etloe Road is already a rat-run used by so many vehicles, not paying heedto speed restrictions. This will end in tragedy at some point. It is only a matter of time.
Westbury Park is currently 1 way after the Blenheim Road junction, with lengthy traffic queuesstacking up from the junction leading on to the White Tree roundabout. This in turns impacts onthe traffic entering the roundabout from North View. Traffic along North View often stacks up along way back down this road each morning, Monday to Saturday and every evening from 4pm to6pm.
The local roads, amenities and infrastructure simply cannot support the granting of thisdevelopment for so many additional residents in its current form. Please see sense and do notgrant it.
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
Dear Sirs
The plans detail only 65 parking spaces for 120 housing units - which is going to put hugepressure onto local roads for parking. Currently Westbury Park, Parry's Lane and Saville Road aresignificantly permanently parked upon already. This development puts too much focus on saleableliving space and is not considering the amount of parking required.
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
I live in downs park west, my place of business is in north view so I & my business areboth affected by the parking situation which is already difficult to live & work with. No planningapplication should be granted in Westbury park unless the applicants can make parking facilitiesavailable for every possibility.
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
I live just across the Downs from the proposed development and have been privilegedto enjoy this unique location for over 30 years.I am not a seasoned objector to development and consider change and the introduction of newand improved facilities important to any area.However I do object to this development for the following reasons:1 Over development of the site with new buildings being two to three stories higher thansurrounding buildings.2 Buildings out of character with surrounding buildings.3 No provision for affordable housing on site or perhaps the developer is offering to pay asubstantial financial contribution for the provision of affordable housing off-site under a S106agreement.4 Insufficient on site parking which will lead to congestion and health and safety issues insurrounding roads.5 It is disappointing that the development does not appear to provide for facilities for special needsrequirements due to the loss of the excellent St Christopher's School.6 The loss of mature trees which even if replace elsewhere will take many years to mature with theloss of habitat for wildlife.I consider that the planning officer should recommend the withdrawal of this scheme for redesignto something more appropriate and in-keeping in this residential area adjacent to the Downs..
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
I live just off the Downs so I am a close neighbour of the proposed development.I am objecting because of the major over-development of the site and the height of the newbuildings being considerably higher than surrounding properties and so ugly in appearance.I am also not happy about the loss of so many mature trees and the detrimental effect on birdsand other wildlife.Parking is already a problem in the area and with so few on-site parking places this willexaggerate the problem
on 2022-04-27 SUPPORT
I am broadly in favour of this development as Bristol is badly in need of housing, and thediverse mix of retirement and extra care homes proposed would be a good addition to the area.Local residents would also have access to the facilities and gardens proposed. Having seen theplans there is an emphasis on sustainability and biodiversity, which doesn't seem to pleaseeverybody, however it is better than what exists or is planned elsewhere, and does have to meetthe economic model. Spoiling the view from the Downs is a bit far-fetched as there are alreadymuch taller structures apparent, if one looks in certain directions, when they are not hidden by thetrees. Bristol is a most car-unfriendly city and parking in this area obviously needs a residents'parking scheme. A fair proportion of the development's proposed inhabitants probably would notwant cars anyway. Agreed the public transport system leaves a lot to be desired, hopefully this willbe sorted before the development is completed. One would also hope that more people will take tocycling and walking for the benefit of their health, and the upkeep of the health service. I wouldrather have a development like this on the doorstep, than 300 new houses/apartments built on thesite.
on 2022-04-27
The main concern is to make sure the development provides the same quality of life inthe area.Parking seems to be a big concern, so can we make sure the development has to provideunderground parking for example?
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
Having worked for some years at St Christopher's I feel that there is a huge shortage ofschools for children with complex learning difficulties. We also need more respite centres for thesechildren and young adults.The elderly are well catered for in this area as I know from others and my own experience.If this planning application goes through it will inevitably lead to more problems with parking in thisarea. We already have a huge raft of caravans, mobile homes and vans parked permanently onthe Downs.
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
As a parent who has raised three children in Westbury Park and spent many yearsdoing the school run at Westbury Park School on Bayswater Ave, I cannot agree with the planningapplication to develop the site on such a massive scale. The roads in the area are single lane withlots of congestion at the best of times. The roads will become even more unsafe for the childrenattending all of the local childcare settings: Westbury Park School, Daisychain nursery, WhitetreePreschool and Harcourt Preschool.
Six story blocks will negatively impact the entire area which is a beautiful and historic space in theheart of the city, and if the developers are proposing only 65 onsite parking spaces this will beenormously detrimental to the surrounding streets, as well as profoundly affecting the local skyline.In my opinion there is no need for any development to be greater than three stories, in line withexisting buildings.
Many thanks.
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
destruction of trees and green space in this climate change time is inappropriate. Thisarea is also already populated, and is an area of listed buildings, historical importance and needsto be preserved. Already difficultparking willbe made worse (despite carparking area) therefore wewould like to object to these proposals
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
Over development of the site.No designated parking for staff to service potentially 200 residents.Not sufficient parking spaces for residents.200 residents retired or not will need minimum 180 car park spaces No affordable housinginsufficient argument to say it does not comply with business model.Minimum 20 percent of the site stock should be planned and designated to affordable housing abig opportunity to enable our children and others to live locally.Damage to the environment ,biodiversity, removal of trees.Increase use to local roads and the safety and the well being of local residents due to increasevehicle activity from new residents staff and visitors
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
Too many residential units! Is there evidence that this complex will be filled?
Design and height is not in keeping with the area. Keep the height limited to acceptable andreasonable limit, three stories.
Please don't destroy the trees and nature.
Have the developers walked along the pavements at school drop off and pick up times? Do theyrealise the children, siblings and parents will be subjected to significant levels of carbon monoxideand higher risk of traffic accidents? There is already a lot of movement of nursery, primary andsecondary children. Staff servicing the development and health care visitors will generateunacceptable levels of traffic and parking issues.
Please, please, please modify the development.
Thanks
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
The proposed development is too large. The narrow residential streets surrounding theapplication site were laid out in the 1800s and were never intended to accommodate the vehiclemovements and additional on-street parking that will be generated because of the proposal.
The Transport Statement prepared by Key Consultants makes the following statements: -
Paragraph 2.29. "There are no collisions reported close to any of the site access points, and theredoes not appear to be any safety issues with the local highway".
This statement is misleading as there are many collisions in the surrounding streets and close tothe entrances of the site which are not reported to the police. Key Consultants acknowledge thatthe statement is based on limited data only. The statement is therefore unreliable. I am aware ofmultiple collisions in the vicinity of the application site including one as recently as last week whena car hit a stationary van, at speed, close to the Etloe Road entrance. Like many other collisions,this would not appear in the statistics being relied upon by Key Consultants to support theapplication.
In Paragraph 7.6 Key Consultants acknowledge that "the proposal will lead to a slight increase invehicular traffic in the morning and evening peak hours, and over the course of the day".
According to Key Consultants' own data, which appears in the table below paragraph 7.6, thisstatement is incorrect. The increase is not slight. During the afternoon (PM) there is an increase in
vehicle trips from 4 (existing) to 19 (proposed). This is an increase of 375%. The statement shouldbe corrected by Key Consultants to read "the proposal will lead to a 375% increase in vehiculartraffic in the evening peak hours".
The table below paragraph 7.6 also contains mathematical errors which further undermine thedata behind the Transport Statement.
The Transport Statement submitted by the applicant is misleading and unreliable.
Due to the size of the development and the unacceptable increase in the number of vehicles usingthe surrounding residential streets, which also include a school and a nursery, the application mustbe refused by the Council
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
I walk past this site on a daily basis and the level of traffic around the area is alreadyvery high due to the increasing number of commuters using Westbury park and on this basisobject to the current plans. The lack of appropriate parking provision within the plans will mean analready busy residential area will be heavily impacted/overloaded by an overflow of parking fromthe site as well as increased traffic around nursery's and schools. The plans need considerablerevisions to appropriately cater for the parking needs of the development, which is readily possiblewithin the size of site in question. The council should also consider extension of the RPZ to coverthe Westbury Park area due to the increasing number of individuals parking in the area forextended periods.
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
Hello - I have seen the plans for the development of the St Christopher's site and . I cansee the rationale for the villas be redeveloped into residential flats, however I am most concernedabout the addition of the up to six storey flats in the area behind the villas. They appear completelyout if character with the local area, would be visible from the The Downs and would have a bigimpact on the heritage of the area. The large number of flats without even mitigation of affordablehousing seems a huge overdeveloped for the area.
I am also very unhappy that many mature trees will be felled in this development. At a time whenwe should be planting more trees it is a sad state of affairs that we are needlessly cutting themdown.
Finally it is diappointing that with the history of the site and the SEND facilities, that we cannotthink of a better use for this area. To me it feels like an opportunity to create an area which isaccessible to the community and builds on the heritage of the site rather than just creating luxuryapartments for which there is questionable demand.
Thanks Melanie
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
This development proposal would represent an over development of the site and localarea and the proposed buildings would overwhelm and be out of character with the current localenvironment.
On top of this traffic congestion on the already busy and difficult to navigate narrowed local roadswould be increased and parking at the edge of local CPZ would become even more chaotic. Roadsafety would end up being compromised especially given the high number of schools andnurseries in the immediate vicinity.
In addition, I now there is no meaningful provision for affordable housing.
on 2022-04-27 OBJECT
I have looked at the proposed plans and have several objections to them.
1) A new entrance to the site on bayswater avenue along with the proposed number ofappartments would increase traffic and congestion in an already congested area. This willincrease air pollution in close proximity to Westbury Park School school and the nursery next tothe proposed entrance directly affecting our children's health.
2) The mismatch between the number of appartments and parking spaces for residents staff andvisitors will lead to increase parking on roads around the site, where there is already insufficientparking and problems with traffic related to on-street parking.
3) The size and height of the proposed buildings is out of keeping with the site and is out ofkeeping with the area and imposing on the surroundings. The site appears to be over-developedadding more appartments than is appropriate.
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
I am writing to object to this application.I am concerned about overdevelopment of the site. The height of the proposed flat blocks will bevisible from the downs, as well as impacting nearby properties in terms of hugely reducing privacyand light. I am horrified at the proposal to remove a large proportion of trees from within the siteand the impact this will have on our environment. I am very worried about the suggestion to createa road adjacent to the local nursery and the risk this poses to young children and their familiesusing the nursery and local school. If you have ever travelled along Bayswater Avenue at drop offand pick up times you will know it is already chaos in terms of illegally parked cars. I believeincreasing traffic flow along this road by adding an entrance to the site is simply unsafe for allpedestrians, but particularly young children. I am worried about the number of properties proposedfor the site as there will not be enough parking to accommodate the associated number ofvehicles. The surrounding streets are already swamped for parking and there is no spare capacity.This often leads to pavements being illegally parked on during busy times, leaving theminaccessible to wheelchair users and those with pushchairs, forcing people into the roads.
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
I am very concerned about the impact of this development on traffic congestion andparking in the immediate area. The roads are already full to bursting with parked cars, the roadsaround are just out side the RPZ zone so are used by commuters. Cars already park on thepavements, blocking use by families with buggies, wheel chairs and blocking easy access foremergency vehicles. There is not enough parking provision in the developers plans, for residents,staff, visitors, service vehicles. Vehicles will overspill into the surrounding streets.The impact of an entrance to the site on Bayswater Avenue has not taken into consideration theincreased volume of traffic in this narrow road, and access for householders and residents in theroad, the school and the nursery and the ensuring traffic chaos, and potential danger topedestrians, and vehicle accidents.
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
As a student of environmental science I am very disturbed by the environmentaldamage that this development will do to Westbury Park and its eco-diversity. I am also extremelyconcerned by the noise and and light pollution that would result from the excessive height anddensity of the buildings proposed, and the extra traffic that will be generated as cars go round ourlocal streets looking for places to park. It's a terrible over-development that's being proposed.
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
I regularly visit my old family home in Westbury Park with my young children. Parking isalready problematic but this overdevelopment would exacerbate the position considerably, makingour visits with the children extremely difficult. The neighbourhood remains a nice one, despite toomany vehicles already going through, and I really don't want to see its character threatened bycommercial interests like the proposed development.
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
I strongly object to this development for a number of reasons.
The proposed number of parking spaces is just inadequate for the size of the development; thiswill result in even more constraint on already stretched parking availability in the area.Furthermore the additional traffic will create more opportunities for accidents and road blockages.
As a parent with young children we are often forced to walk on the road because the payment isblocked by cars and there is just no space for the pram. I have seen cars fly down with zerodisregard for local speed limits.
I am also very concerned that the high rise development will not only overshadow the historicalbuildings of the ares, but will be a lengthy build and will bring considerable noise and air pollutionto the area. Being in such close proximity to the local school this will greatly affect the learningenvironment of the children.
Additionally as mentioned by other neighbours the removal of considerable amount of maturetrees and no plans for re-planing will greatly affect the local environment and biodiversity ofbirds/animals/insects.
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
Far too few parking spaces . At least one per dwelling required . Excess of need couldease current parking difficulties for Westbury Park residents .
No building to be higher than those already there . This is the only way to retain the character andscale of the area.
Mock ups of the proposed architecture are " warehouse " in character .Insist that the developers look to the existing buildings and echo elements of these , in order tointroduce rhythm and continuity in the new buildings .
I essence , go back to the drawing board and listen to local people .
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
Redevelopment of the site is welcome, but it must be in keeping with the localresidential area. The proposal is far too large with parking for only 65 cars. The residents, visitorsand staff will inevitably try to park on the roads which are already crowded. They will not bearriving by bicycle.
on 2022-04-26
Some more thought needs to be done regarding the height/location of some largerbuildings.The car parking is unlikely to any worse than when St Christopher's was up and running needingover 400 staff albeit on shifts and should in theory be a lesser problem for neighbours.
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
I object to the proposed development on the following grounds:OverdevelopmentThe size of the proposed scheme is not in keeping with the surrounding conservation area. Thelargest blocks are several stories too high making them visible from the Downs which would havea detrimental in pact. The close proximity of new buildings will negatively impact on the light,privacy, noise, overshadowing and amenity of existing properties nearby.HeritageThe new apartments blocks will overwhelm the setting of the important listed building (GraceHouse) and are entirely inappropriate for a site within the Downs Conservation Area. Theynegatively detract from the character of the local area.Road safety, traffic and parkingThe provision of more than 120 housing units will undoubtedly cause worsening local traffic, withno additional road provision and a several lack of parking on site this is like worse local on roadcongestion.EnvironmentFor the proposed build a loss of trees and green space will undoubtedly have a negativeenvironmental impact and loss of biodiversity.No affordable home provision
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
Parking on our road is already very difficult and Cossins road is also often congestedand unsafe for RGS students walking to school.I feel that any development should fully cater for parking on site. I think that profit should not beput above the residents who live locally, pay their council tax and do not have residents parking.
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
1. 65 Car parking spaces is insufficient, leading to likely overspill on surroundingresidential roads, which have no spare capacity and which is not a Residents Parking area.2. Pedestrian access to The Glen will encourage residents & staff to use The Glen for overflowparking, due to being very accessible, particularly to the rear apartment blocks (and not restrictedto residents Parking).3. Emergency vehicle access to The Glen - not clear what the conditions of use are (ie limited tothe odd 999 call where for some exceptional reason the ambulance can't use the main entrances,or if it is expected to be used by all potential ambulances and possibly other vehicles too.) How willits use be limited and controlled so that it doesn't become more widely used, creating more trafficdown the cul-de-sac?4. Emergency access will in any case be difficult given over-parking and frequent blocking of TheGlen and Belvedere Road by ambulances attending local care homes, scaffolding lorries, deliverylorries, builders.
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
The damage caused by this development to the Downs conservation area alone shouldbe reason enough to stop this development.
The view of these huge tower blocks appearing over the lodges on Westbury Park will behorrendous. The loss of trees and wildlife will be massive.
Adding more pavement across the Granny Downs seems at odd with our climate crisis.
Why would a scheme cut down so many trees, dig up and pave over existing front gardens of thelodges and then pave across the Downs!?
The planning application should be rejected.
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
I do not support this development for the following reasons:
-It appears an overdevelopment of the site. Far too many residences with inadequateinfrastructure to support it.
-The site itself has too few parking spaces for the number of dwellings (including visitors to theresidents who will be living there).
-The proposed buildings are too high and will dwarf the surrounding properties and will affect thecharacter of the local area, including the greenery and wildlife around The Downs.
-There are no plans for affordable housing within the development which appears in opposition toThe Council's aspirations for new developments.
-If these homes are built as per the current plans it will lead to increased pollution, congestion andreduced air quality within the local area.
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
I object to the proposed development for a "luxury retirement village" on this site
Bristol is a city with a diverse community needing housing.
The percentage of elderly residents in the Bristol area is considerably lower than in neighbouringauthorities.
There is already a plethora of homes for the elderly in the vicinity.
Does Westbury Park need another 120++ elderly residents or a more diverse vibrant youngercommunity on this site? .
The proposed gross overdevelopment of this site will have a totally negative impact on theresidential amenity of all the adjacent properties and especially the residences on the boundarywith Grace House ( the "Hub" for this development) with its numerous leisure facilities.
The development will also adversely impact on the wider community by way of a huge increase intraffic, congestion, pollution , parking problems and environmental issues.
The current proposal in no way promotes a good standard of amenity for anyone and there is noprovision for affordable housing on the site.
The cumulative problems of the proposed development as it stands will outweigh any benefits tothe present or future residents of the area.
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
Yet another council that doesn't champion the retrofit approach.https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/introducing-retrofirst-a-new-aj-campaign-championing-reuse-in-the-built-environment
We can't keep building more and further destroying our environment. It seems that becausesomething may not be your problem in 50 years, you don't feel the need to care.The traffic (which is already bad in terms of the amount of cars and pollution) will simply worsen.The plans are not in keeping with the area and swallow up a huge amount of space in a way thatwill not benefit that many. We have already destroyed so much green space across the UK andyou are shamelessly a part of that.
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
No more retirement properties and no huge developments out of keeping with the localarea. This part of the Downs is quieter and used by lots of local people as well as dog walkers.The road is too busy to have more traffic parked on it and the trees and wildlife are really special.
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
I wish to express an objection in the strongest possible terms to this proposeddevelopment. Firstly, on heritage grounds: this development would not be in keeping with theexisting buildings in Westbury Park and the proposed six-storey blocks would tower over the listedbuildings on the St Christopher's site, ruining the skyline when viewed from the Downs andchanging the nature of the area for ever. Many of those of us who have chosen to buy a house inan area of character see ourselves as the custodians of these properties for future generations; ifthis development were to be allowed to go ahead, the area would be ruined for ever. Theproposed development would cause immense damage, and that damage could never be reversed.
Secondly, we have a significant problem with parking in Westbury Park and there is inadequateparking on the proposed development for residents and staff. This would mean an increasedoverflow on to our streets, not to mention an increase in the traffic using them. We are alreadystruggling with a lack of parking spaces and any increase of cars in the area would make thesituation intolerable.
Thirdly, I would object on ecological grounds; the removal of existing trees is unacceptable,especially in a day and age when we should be preserving the flora and fauna of ourneighbourhood.
This proposed development does not fit in with our neighbourhood and risks causing permanentdamage to our heritage, to our flora and fauna and to the daily lives of the residents of WestburyPark. I urge the Planning Committee to reject this application.
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
The planned number of car parking spaces is unrealistic. Cars are already regularlyparking dangerously on the curbs or too close to junctions in this area. The lack of spaces on thisdevelopment will make it worse. Some developments have carparking at ground level and thenaccommodation above which would help with this issue.
The higher level of traffic in the area will detrimental to area which has a significantly number ofyoung families who aim to encourage children to walk and bike to and from local amenities like theschool.
If the site was not so intensively developed some more of the trees could be kept.
The deceivingly named quartet of "Villas" each have a very large inappropriately imposing massas they are 4 to 6 storeys high. A maximum of 3 storeys would more in keeping with the characterof the local area.
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
With reference to the proposed development on the site of the former St Christopher'sSchool, Westbury Road, Westbury Park.An increase in the number of existing residents, will worsen an allready congested and difficultcircumstance with regards to parking, throughout the immediate area and beyond. The currentproposal is an imposing and overbearing feature, that is not sympathetic to the architectural styleof the existing area and looms over the private areas of the surrounding homes.An opportunity for mixed income housing is being lost to an increase in exclusive residentialproperties, where many already exist.Please consider these comments with reference to application -(Ref No:22/01221/F)
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
Parking is already very difficult in The Glen because of the high population density ofthis area, the parking needs of employees of care homes in neighbouring streets at all times ofday, and parents delivering/collecting children at Westbury Park Primary School. Insufficientparking in the new development means that this problem will grow worse, further exacerbated bythe proposed pedestrian access between The Glen and the development.
on 2022-04-26 OBJECT
Page 2 of 7
www.csj-planning.co.uk
• The proposal is not appropriate in transport and highway terms, owing to insufficient
on-site parking provision and inappropriate access/egress arrangements;
• The proposal includes no affordable housing and is not supported by an unredacted
Viability Appraisal to justify such lack of provision, which is contrary to the adopted
Development Plan. The stated reasoning for the lack of provision is not consistent
with adopted policies or adopted supplementary planning guidance.
SCAN are also in full support of the Historic England Objection on the grounds of the clear
overdevelopment of the site and the consequential heritage impacts.
Furthermore, The Cowell family would also like to raise their own personal objections in relation
to the direct impact of the proposed development on his own property at No. 15 The Glen.
LOSS OF AMENITY
Policy BCS18 of the Core Strategy states that development should provide sufficient space for
everyday activities and enable residential units to be flexible to the changing life circumstances
of occupants. Policy BCS21 states that development will be expected to safeguard the amenity
of existing development and create a high-quality environment for future occupiers.
The proposed development is considered to respond poorly to the existing windows and private
garden space of no. 15 The Glen. The scale and proximity of development close to the shared
boundary, along with the inclusion of numerous south and east facing windows and balconies,
will result in harmful impacts through overbearing, a sense of enclosure, overshadowing,
overlooking and loss of privacy. Many of the rooms with windows facing north and west are
habitable rooms, suggesting a greater vulnerability to amenity impacts.
It is considered that the proposed development would impact upon both the upstairs and
downstairs windows of No. 15 The Glen as well as the front and rear gardens, with multiple
windows and balconies from Block C (5-storeys) and Block D (4-storeys), plus the cottages to
the rear boundary (2-storey) effectively ‘hemming-in’ the subject property from every angle,
amounting to a complete invasion of privacy.
For clarity, Figure 1 overleaf highlights the proposed relationship between the application site
and No. 15 The Glen.
Page 3 of 7
www.csj-planning.co.uk
Figure 2 (below) shows the existing relationship between the application site and No. 15 The
Glen. The proposed arrangement is significantly altered, with development of 5, 4 & 2 storeys
now parallel with the shared boundary, including various windows and balconies directly
overlooking the house and garden at No. 15.
The impact of the proposed development in terms of residential amenity has been further
assessed below.
Overbearing impact
Figure 1: Proposed development with approximate distances between application site and No. 15
The Glen
27m
16m
12m
Figure 2: Existing relationship between application site and No. 15 The Glen
Page 4 of 7
www.csj-planning.co.uk
Collins Dictionary defines the term ‘overbearing’ as domineering or dictatorial in manner or
action.
In planning terms, an overbearing impact can occur where harm to amenity is caused by the
height, scale, mass, or bulk of a building or development in conjunction with its close proximity
to a receptor. In effect, an overbearing development is usually one that is too large and too
dense. Because of its characteristics, an overbearing impact often occurs in tandem with
overshadowing, loss of light or a sense of enclosure.
Mr & Mrs Cowell highly value the amenity space that the rear garden provides, utilising it
frequently throughout the year for gardening and recreational purposes. There is no formal
planning method for measuring overbearing impacts or defining the level of harm in regards to
external spaces. However, it is fair to presume that the more significant the increase in scale,
mass or bulk in proximity to a boundary, the greater the overbearing impact and detriment
caused to the amenity of the adjacent property.
Whilst the separation distances between No.15 and Blocks C & D are mostly over 20m, which
can in other circumstances be acceptable in planning terms, the extra distance is minimal and
any benefit is offset by the increase in height, scale and massing (from 1-storey and partly 3-
storey, to up 4 & 5-storey).
Mr Cowell and his family were provided with information regarding the distances of proposed
adjacent units and cottages (and heights) from No.15 via a 'Distances Plan' supplied by the
developers during the consultation stages back in January '22. However, their latest plans
submitted to BCC do not confirm these dimensions and all units are now located closer to the
shared boundary than previously stated. Furthermore, the Design & Access Statement (Page 42)
acknowledges both the northern and western boundaries of No. 15 The Glen as being ‘sensitive
boundaries’ with potential for overlooking. Under such circumstances, it is incomprehensible how
such a significant increase in scale and massing next to an identifiably sensitive boundary can
be justifiable.
When taking the above into account, it is clear that the significant increase in height and scale
near to the northern and western boundary will trigger an overbearing impact, which would
cause detriment to the amenity of No.15’s occupiers, especially in comparison to the existing
situation. In consequence, the proposal fails to satisfy policy BCS21.
Furthermore, the lack of a detailed assessment of the impacts on the property and the presence
of vagaries and omissions within the application package indicate that further information is
required in order for the LPA to properly assess the proposed development.
Overlooking & loss of privacy
There is no formal method for measuring ‘overlooking & loss of privacy’, however, there are
some industry tests that are commonly applied.
The 21m ‘rule of thumb’ test for overlooking and loss of privacy concerns window -to-window
distance between existing and proposed buildings. Typically, if the distance is greater than 21m,
Page 5 of 7
www.csj-planning.co.uk
there is unlikely to be a harmful overlooking impact or loss of privacy (depending on the height
and scale of development involved).
The distances between habitable windows belonging to Cottages to the rear and the proposed
dwelling, as well as the potential overlooking of the rear garden courtyard by Blocks C & D is
further explored below, with Figure 4 providing an indication of overlooking impacts.
The East Elevation of the proposed Cottages include several large second storey windows which
would potentially overlook several west facing windows as well as the majority of the rear garden
of No. 15. This presents a loss of privacy to habitable rooms and private amenity space of the
No.15 The Glen.
The floor plans for the proposed Cottages show a high proportion of the west facing windows
as serving habitable rooms. As such, the risk of amenity harm through overlooking and loss of
privacy to both existing and future occupiers, is considerable.
As demonstrated in Figure 1, the distances of existing and proposed windows between the North
Elevation of the proposed dwelling and the south elevation Block D are as little as 16m at the
closest point (central portion of block), falling considerably short of the 21m ‘rule of thumb’.
Figure 3 below shows the fenestration arrangement on the south elevation of Block D of the
proposed development, with the central portion of the block highlighted.
The proposed south elevation contains numerous windows and balconies across all four floors
which would not satisfy the 21m ‘rule of thumb’ separation distance and would overlook north
facing windows of No. 15 The Glen.
It is notable that the floor plans for the proposed development show a high proportion of south
facing windows as serving habitable rooms. As such, the risk of amenity harm through mutual
overlooking and loss of privacy, both to existing and future occupiers, is excessive, particularly
when the unsatisfactory separation distances are taken into account. There are also literally
dozens of other windows and balconies across Blocks C & D which would directly overlook the
rear garden of No.15 and amount to the total invasion of privacy of the private amenity space.
The Cowell family have also expressed concerns over the potential for light pollution into their
home from windows and access stairwells upon the adjacent high-rise façade of Block D, with
this increasingly likely at night due to the building’s function as a care home.
Figure 3: Block D South Elevation fenestration arrangement
Page 6 of 7
www.csj-planning.co.uk
The occupiers of No. 15 The Glen currently enjoy a high degree of privacy, with the built form
on the other side of the shared boundary being predominantly 1-storey. In contrast, the
proposed development includes 4 & 5 storeys to the northern boundary and 2-storey to the
western boundary of the site with numerous windows to habitable rooms. The impact on
amenity arising from overlooking of windows and the garden amenity space will therefore be
very significant.
Daylight & Sunlight
The submitted Daylight & Sunlight Assessment is not considered to provide sufficient evidence
that the proposal is acceptable, with some of the habitable rooms experiencing a 28% reduction
in daylight.
Overshadowing
The increase in height from predominantly 1-storeys to part 2, 4 & 5 storeys near the shared
boundary will cause overshadowing of the rear garden in the late afternoon and evening. This
impact is considered to be unacceptable, particularly when taken together with the overbearing
impacts, overlooking, loss of privacy and loss of daylight.
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
The occupiers of No.15 The Glen currently enjoy a high degree of privacy, with the surrounding
built form within the neighbouring St. Christopher’s School site being of predominantly 1-storey
and of a suitable separation distance. In contrast, the proposed development includes 2 , 4 & 5
storeys to the western and northern boundary of the site, with literally dozens of habitable
windows and balconies overlooking the property. In particular:
• The proposed development (Block D) includes numerous windows to habitable rooms
on the southern elevation that overlook existing windows to rooms within No.15 The
Glen. Some of the window-to-window distances are as little as 16m, which is
significantly less than then 21m ‘rule-of-thumb’ for overlooking impacts.
• As well as overlooking into windows of No.15, the proposed development will overlook
the rear garden of No.15 from the second, third, fourth and fifth floors of Blocks C &
D, as well as the second-floor windows of the Cottages to the rear of the property.
This would amount to a total invasion of privacy, with an abundance of windows and
balconies having vantage points over the family’s private amenity space.
• The development of large blocks on all shared boundaries would effectively be
‘hemming-in’ the subject property from every angle, leading to an overbearing impact.
• The increase in height and scale of built form close to the shared boundary and will
cast shadow over the rear garden and lead to an unacceptable loss of daylight to
some habitable windows.
• Cumulatively, the result of the above will be a significant detrimental impact to the
amenity of no. 15 The Glen and an unsuitable living environment to existing and
future occupiers.
Page 7 of 7
www.csj-planning.co.uk
In addition, the proposed design is considered to be out-of-keeping with development in the
surrounding area.
Overall, it is considered that the development as a whole, but particularly the element closest
to No. 15 The Glen, should be reconsidered in order to better respect the amenity of existing
and future residents, and the design and character of development nearby.
We trust that the above comments will be given due consideration. For the reasons provided, it
is considered that the development as proposed will conflict with Policies BCS18, BCS21 and the
aims of the Development Plan and that the application warrants refusal accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
CSJ Planning Consultants
www.csj-planning.co.uk
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
This will increase traffic and parking in an area that is very congested.The dangers for parents children and others needing to travel to schools, nurseries and parks willincrease.My road is already filled with cars by 8 am every weekday .
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I and my family are opposed strongly. This is not Nimbyism. I would be in favour of a farsmaller development. But this is far too big. The scale is insanely big for such a naturallycongested area. The traffic implications will be unmanageable. And the design is ugly and far toohigh. It cannot proceed as this size and scale. It will cause enormous harm to the area.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I have concerns about the proposals, based on two elements.1) Density. Looking at the plan, the density of the development seems to be in conflict with thelocal environment and the general height of surrounding buildings. Whilst accepting that the sitewill be developed, it should be developed in a sympathetic manner. It would be good tounderstand the amount of space/garden which will be left.2) Traffic/cars/parking. Parking is a major issue in the local streets. Safety of children/pedestriansis a problem locally. Does the proposal include improvements to the local road system. Parking isa MAJOR problem locally, as shown by the pavement parking in Cousins Road.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I wish to voice my strong objection to the plans for the development of St ChristophersSchool site in Westbury Park.
My main objections are as follows:
HeritageI live in Westbury Park and the reason I chose this area was its incredible architectural heritage,both along Royal Albert Road (where I live) and along Westbury Park (where St Christophers is).Its Bath stone-fronted buidings are what makes the area so special, and the buildings on StChristophers site are a heritage asset to the whole of Bristol. The insertion of 6-storey blocksbetween St Christopher's historic buildings would be visible above the Downs Frontage Lodgesand seriously damage the Downs Conservation Area as a whole. The crowding of the blockswould harm the setting of the listed Grace House building. While I understand the need to providehousing for Britol residents, I believe that here, developers should be restricted to developing theinteriors of the existing, historic buildings on the site - which would already represent a hugeincrease in number of residents above current levels. IF additional buildings are deemed essential,they must be in keeping with the scale of surrounding housing, and certainly not higher than twostoreys. Otherwise, serious damage woud be caused to the unique character and heritage ofWestbury Park.
EnvironmentFrom my garden I look onto the copse of ancient Scots pines that grow in the Bayswater corner of
the grounds of St Christophers and are precious landmark for residents in the area. If any of thesewere felled, it would have a detrimental visual impact, negatively affect my well-being, removeimportant habitats for wildlife, and impact climate change by removing important sequesterers ofcarbon. The site's mature trees and green space - important absorbers of carbon and pollutants -should be retained. Removing trees from the site is not in line with Bristol City Council's policy. Weneed more not fewer trees and green space in Westbury Park, especially as the road in front of StChristophers is already blocked with polluting cars every rush hour. Development should be in linewith Bristol's One City Climate Strategy (2020) and Bristol's One City Ecological EmergencyStrategy (2020), and should enhance, not deplete, biodiversity- but the current plans would meanan overall LOSS of biodiversity of 7.3%. There are many more imaginative ways the site could bedeveloped, for example, including food-growing plots for the new residents or wild areas to supportwildlife.
Safety & healthThis development will make traffic congestion and air pollution on Westbury Park even worse. Atthe moment, because of parked cars, it is impossible for two cars to pass at normal speed, so onehas to pull over. This is dangerous. This problem will be far worse if the number of residents livingon the site is increased.
Parking and traffic flow would also be seriously affected on Bayswater/Etloe and Royal AlbertRoads, so I strongly oppose vehicular access to the site from Bayswater Road. At present, parkingis already dire on streets like Royal Albert Road, where I live. The dropped curb (supposedlyprotected by yellow lines, but never policed) outside my house at No36 is continuously blocked byparked cars, especially at school drop off and pick up times, which is dangerous for pushchairusers, disabled, and parents with school children trying to cross. As a resident, I am often unableto find anywhere to park on my own street, as the road is heavily used by the local garage, nurseryand school. Etloe Road has now become impassable to two-way traffic because vehicles areparking on both sides, one of them being a pavement. More cars and pollution, which I believewould be inevitable if the current plans for the site go ahead, will further endanger the health oflocal residents.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I wholly object to this development with the following reasons:
The massing of the proposed blocks are totally inappropriate, adversely change the character ofthe local neighbourhood and do not have any context to the surrounding area.
The proposed roof lines of the proposed blocks are significantly higher than any other properties inthe adjacent areas. The wider Westbury area is generally made up two storey properties withmany extended into roof spaces. There are no properties over this level and the proposed heightof the new blocks is unacceptable, adversely impacting local homes and generally views aroundthe Downs.
The excessive height will cause significant overshadowing and loss of light (direct and indirect) toexisting properties.
The proximity of the proposed buildings will affect adjacent properties and be detrimental toexisting residence right to light.
The proposal does not make adequate provision for parking and will create detrimental localparking issues. With the proximity to a local primary school these additional parking issues couldaffect road safety for pupils who attend this school.
There are a number of trees on the site that will need to be felled to accommodate the proposed
residential blocks. The loss of these trees is unacceptable from an environmental carbonabsorption aspect for and the associated habit for local wildlife including bats, owls andwoodpeckers.
The development plans do not make any guarantees to maintain the provision of SEND services.As there is a short fall of this service across the City, why is this site being given up for Residentialuse and the site not being retained to deliver this important service?
The area around the Downs is unique and important to the heritage of Bristol. Please do not allowthis development to happen and spoil this area of inner city beauty.
On the basis of the above I object to this planning application and urge the Planning committee tofully reject the proposal.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
As Westbury Park residents, my wife and I strongly object to the plans submitted bydevelopers of the proposed retirement complex on the site of the former St Christopher's School.The three principal reasons for our objection are as follows:
1 The height and appearance of the proposed buildings are totally out of keeping with thetraditional residential properties which surround this sensitive and historic site, and will be closeenough to many homes to ruin and dominate views enjoyed for generations. Fuethermore thecharacter of the Granny Downs and Durdham Downs will be drastically changed by tall andunpleasant blocks looming above the handsome mansions along Westbury Park whichcharacterised St Christopher's School.
2 Traffic and parking problems around the site could hardly be worse, with prams, push chairs anddisabled vehicles often denied use of pavements because of all-day parking, with two wheels ofcars and vans invariably over the kerbs. With Westbury Park Primary School and a number ofearly years schools along Bayswater Avenue and Etloe Road, there are real dangers topedestrians and their children. And yet the developers have chosen to limit on-site parking toaround 65 spaces - clearly nowhere near enough for residents, visitors and staff. This suggestsrevenue models taking absolute priority over convenience and safety of road users behind thewheel and on foot. Grossly irresponsible.
3 Like many developers whose business is based elsewhere, early signs of their 'consultation'model gave false hopes to local residents. Having invited their views, the developers appear to
have absolutely failed to take any notice of them, largely failing to respond at all. The cynicism ofthis approach is all too evident.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I object to this planning application on several grounds;
- Insufficient parking/increased traffic - the serious lack of parking provision (65 spaces for theentire population + staff) will cause congestion and additional parking on surrounding streets.Traffic on the surrounding roads will also increase, which are already too narrow to cope withmodern day vehicles. This will have a direct impact on the safety of the roads, which containmultiple educational facilities for young children. The fact that a key entry point to a site that willrequire multiple daily deliveries and visitors is within 10 feet of a nursery is extremely concerningand bordering on negligent.
- Overdevelopment - the proposed plans are extremely overbearing. The apartment blocks are toohigh and will dominate the skyline in the Westbury Park area, not only irreversibly damaginghistoric views, but also resulting in loss of privacy for the surrounding homes.
- Environmental damage - the development would damage the surrounding conservation area andit's wildlife through the loss of established trees and green space, increased traffic and carbonemissions pollution.
- Loss of SEND provision - Bristol is already seeing a squeeze on the provision of SpecialEducation facilities. Westbury Park also houses numerous care homes for which there is notcurrently a shortage of resident spaces.
- No affordable housing provision - affordable housing is a key metric for Bristol City Council.These proposals fail to provide any affordable housing.
My final two observations are not legitimate grounds for rejection, but I hope they will be taken intoconsideration nonetheless;
- I have no doubt that this current planning application will be rejected, however I would not be atall surprised if the existing developers know this and have deliberately "overplayed their hand" witha view to settling on revised plans that will seem appropriate in comparison. I hope this is takeninto consideration for the inevitable revised plans.
- Finally, the fact that concerns from the local community have been completely ignoredthroughout the "consultation" (which included surveys designed to give positive bias) gives littlehope that any established facility would be empathetic to it's surrounding community goingforwards.
Alasdair Davies
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I wish to objrct for the following reasons.
1 Overdevelopment.The number of dwellings is too many for this conservation site. The new blocks are too highspoiling the aspect from the very popular area of the Downs.
2 Traffic and parking.the proposed entrance on Bayswater Avenue is a serious hazardous being so close to a largeprimary school and care homes. There is not enough parking provion for the for residents, staffand visitors. This in turn will have a major impact on the surrounding narrow streets which arealready jammed with commuter parking
3 Environment.loss of mature trees and a valuable wildlife haven
4 No provision for social or affordable housing
Whilst i think the idea of this type of care facility is good and i may even consider living there in thefututre, I think the plans should be revised and ammendments made.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
Looking at the proposed plans it is clear to that the development is unsuitable for thesite.
The height of the buildings is significantly larger than the surrounding structures. Far too imposingto blend in with the area not only aesthetically but this development will obviously producesignificant 'over-shadowing' issues for neighbours properties. Overshadowing is an issue for muchsmaller permitted developments/extensions so I fail to see how it can be justified in this case?
The proposed development will add significant population to already saturated area. Creatingmore parking issues (already a problem and not addressed in the plans), traffic and noise. This isa problem not only for residence, who already struggle to park near their own homes, but also asafety issue around the schools and nurseries. Mothers with prams and young children are oftenforced to step into the road because of parked cars. As a parent with a disabled child this alreadymakes our lives more difficult and an increase in traffic will limit our Childs life further.
In addition to the impact of traffic on the environments air pollution, the removal of trees will alsomean an unaccepptable loss of wildlife and greenery. Residents are already having to sponsor theplanting of new trees to maintain the greenery of the area so it seems ridiculous that large maturetrees will be removed to increase pollution!
Finally, as a parent of a child with disabilities, I find to distressing that this development will meanremoving provision for those with Special Education Needs and Disabilities. This is a group that is
already marginalise in most aspects of society so seems particularly distasteful that they will be'forced' out in exchange for an over-sized, under equipped, visually unappealing developmentwithin the Downs Conservation Area.
I object strongly to this development.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
hectare” the section on density concludes “Given the proximity to the A4018, it would seem reasonable to say that for this site, the optimum density could be more than 120 units per hectare”.
4.3 The 60 dwellings per hectare density figure relates to the overall site but the site is not a single coherent site. It has two very distinct parts - the frontage area and the backland - which must be treated differently on every aspect. Reasons why we believe this to be the case are set out throughout this submission and in Appendix 1 - The Historical Development and Character of the Site.
4.4 The Lodges, their front gardens and their original rear gardens area measure circa 0.9 hectare. The proposals are to convert the Lodges to 25 apartments – a density of circa 27 dwellings per hectare.
4.5 The backland is circa 1 hectare but a number of constraints mean that a significant part of the site is not developable, as the applicants themselves have accepted. In the first presentation made to the Design Review Panel in September 2021 the applicants included the drawing below:
4.6 The drawing shows three limitations on the area to be developed:
• Privacy distances to be maintained to neighbouring properties (the blue lines). • The Listed Building – Grace House – and a suggested area to protect its setting (in light blue). • The major ‘copse’ of trees to the north east and some key trees elsewhere.
The result of applying these limitations is the developable area of just 0.5 hectares shown in pink.
4.7 We regard it as a telling omission not to include in the application material the developable area plan above. Indeed, the design development section of the Design and Access Statement
makes no reference to this plan or explains how the distances, listed building setting and tree constraints seriously reduce the developable area.
4.8 While the City Council do not generally appear to use (net) developable areas when considering building density, we consider it important that the Council understand the development constraints on the backland and take these into consideration when faced with the claim from the applicant that the density level is modest. We strongly disagree.
4.9 The application proposes 97 units on the 0.5 hectare developable area shown in pink above and originally excluded from this applicant-defined developable area – a density of circa 195 units per hectare. Without any explanation provided, this has clearly been amended to reduce the setting area of Grace House and remove much of the area of trees in the north east of the site. We calculate this more generously defined developable area to be approximately 0.6/0.7 hectare, still giving a density of circa160/140 units per hectare.
4.10 Cramming 97 units into the amended developable area can only be achieved by building high with a high site coverage and this is what is proposed, much to the detriment of the neighbouring houses, the setting of Grace House, The Downs Conservation Area and the distinctive low density character of Westbury Park. An idea of the impact that the proposed apartments will have can be gauged from the image below (produced using architecture software and measurements from the applicant’s own plans).
4.11 Quite clearly the layout arrangement is building-led and not landscape-led as is unconvincingly claimed by the applicant and questioned by the Design Review Panel in their second response on the proposals made in December. The landscape is no more than the spaces left over after locating the new Villas and Cottages.
4.12 With regard to proposed Villas B and C located in the centre of the site, we agree with the City Council’s response to the applicant’s first Pre-Application Request that no buildings should be higher than the Lodges on the frontage. The applicant has failed to heed this advice - the cross sections in the Design and Access Statement (page 52) show that Villa B is two storeys higher than the Lodges, Villa C is one storey higher.
4.13 Paragraph 3.9 of the Planning Statement describes how the design of the scheme has evolved in response to comments received by the local community and other stakeholders during the pre-application discussions. The key changes to the scheme made in response to feedback include a reduction in building heights close to site boundaries, a reduction in the height of Villa A from four to three storeys, the repositioning of Cottages away from properties on Bayswater Avenue and the re-orientation and separation of the proposed Villas so that there is greater space between them.
4.14 While these changes are welcome they go nowhere far enough to address the major concerns expressed by the Community Association and many others over the past six months with regard to the overdevelopment of the site and the height, scale and location of the proposed new buildings. The overall number of residential units has not changed, the Villas are still far too high and will impact adversely on the character and distinctiveness of Westbury Park and The Downs Conservation Area, the privacy and outlook of existing houses in neighbouring road and the setting of the Listed Grace House. We therefore continue to adhere to the objections we have strongly and consistently expressed throughout the various developer-led consultation phases.
5 The Harmful Impact on the Character and Distinctiveness of Westbury Park
5.1 It is concerning, and perhaps indicative for a scheme so reliant on design issues, that the Planning Statement’s section on Planning Policy (from page 19) fails to mention two important and highly relevant recent additions to the national policy picture – The National Design Guide and the National Model Design Code. Both argue that a thorough understanding of local character must be the starting point for any development standards and proposals. Appendix 1 highlights important aspects on which the applicant’s understanding of local character is incorrect and incomplete, some of which are picked up below.
5.2 City Council policy DM26 specifies that the design of development proposals will be expected to contribute towards local character and distinctiveness by complying with a number of principles including: “(vi) Responding appropriately to the height, scale, massing, shape, form and proportion of existing buildings, building lines and set-backs from the street, skylines and roofscapes; and vii. Reflecting locally characteristic architectural styles, rhythms, patterns, features and themes taking account of their scale and proportion”.
5.3 The policy goes on to stipulate that: “Backland development will be expected to be subservient in height, scale, mass and form to the surrounding frontage buildings”.
5.4 The proposed development does not comply with this policy, arbitrarily extending as it does the pattern and scale of the Lodges into the distinctively different backland area rather than relating to the height and scale of houses bordering this area. The only rationale for what is proposed relates to the character of the frontage Lodges; no evidence is provided for why the subservience rule can be so completely ignored. While there may be arguments to be made about the precise status and meaning of policy DM26, it is our view that the rationale for development of the rear area should derive more from the smaller scale housing developments in surrounding streets than from the grander Lodges fronting Westbury Park.
5.5 We maintain that the rear land is formally backland and policy DM 26 above must be the starting point for any determination of the application. We believe that the policy provides sufficient grounds by itself to refuse the application as the proposed three to six storey Villas on the
backland are clearly not subservient in “height, scale mass and form” to the predominantly two storey houses which border the backland. 5.6 The Planning Statement makes an attempt (page 35) to argue why the rear development area is not backland and therefore not subject to Bristol City Council policy DM 26, starting with the following claim: “The backland guidance is clearly aimed toward sites that are typically formed by adding new development behind existing development, often by making use of garden land or small outbuildings”. 5.7 If anything, this argument makes rather than disproves the point that the rear part of the site is backland because it is behind what was, and largely still is, “garden land”.
5.8 Arguments are made about street frontage but the rear land does not have any (except for the tiny stretch on Bayswater Avenue).
5.9 It is then claimed that “the proposed development is not for additional development at the rear of existing buildings”. It clearly is exactly that.
5.10 Finally, it is stated that what is proposed “… is a very different approach to a typical backland development, that are (sic) usually private and closed off”. The rear land at St. Christopher’s is private and closed off.
5.11 We note that the City Council appears to share with us the view that the rear land is backland. In their 8th November response to the first pre application submission there were five references to backland in the first five pages of the response.
5.12 We are not arguing that development on the backland has to be no higher than the existing two to three storey houses in bordering roads but we do maintain that the building heights should not be set by the frontage Lodges which are the equivalent height of a modern
6 The Harmful Impact on the Character of The Downs Conservation Area
6.1 The proposed six storey building will have a significant negative impact on The Downs Conservation Area, particularly on the prominent Downs frontage.
6.2 The Heritage Statement has much to say about how the proposed works to the Lodges and frontages on Westbury Park will enhance the character and appearance of the Downs Conservation Area, concluding in paragraph 8.9 on page 78 that: “such works will have a positive impact on the character and appearance of The Downs Conservation Area in this location, and better ‘reveal’ the contribution that the villas and frontage make to both the Conservation Area and the Local Historic Park and Garden”. We accept that the proposed improvements to the frontage Lodges and gardens will bring positive conservation benefits providing the proposed new car parking areas will have a minimal impact on the appearance of the front gardens and the setting of the renovated Lodges.
6.3 Paragraph 8.9 then moves on to argue that: “views of the proposed new build from beyond the bounds of the site will be extremely limited and will not alter the overall dominance of the Westbury Park frontage or the contribution which it makes to these assets” (the Conservation Area). This conclusion follows on from the view expressed in paragraph 7.149 on page 75 of the Heritage Statement: “From further to the west (i.e. from The Granny Downs and Westbury Road), sections of the upper elements of Villa B will be visible atop of, and set behind, the Westbury Park villas – see View 6 of the ‘Visually Verified Montages’. Although introducing a new element of built form into the townscape in this location, the ability to view the upper elements of the new buildings will not alter the overall dominance of the Westbury Park frontage or the contribution which it makes to the character and appearance of the area”.
6.4 We disagree with this assessment and the conclusion “that the views will be extremely limited”. The image of the view from Westbury Road (below) presented in the submitted Verified Views document (page 22) clearly shows the six storey building (Villa B) standing head and shoulders above the existing Lodges and other buildings lining the St. Christopher’s and Westbury Park (the road) frontage. A six storey building protruding above the two storey frontage lodges is simply not going to blend in – it will be an eyesore.
6.5 The Verified Views document (page 25) then shows a carefully chosen far view from Stoke Road of the new development from the Downs with the six storey building very carefully hidden (with the hard-to-read blue lines) behind the only two very large trees along Westbury Road.
6.6 If the six storey building is visible from fairly close (Westbury Road) then it will unquestionably be even more visible further away and in the very many locations that do not have two large trees in the way. We note that in its assessment of the visual impact of the new buildings
on views from the Downs (page 46) the Heritage Statement chose to show a carefully considered near view from the Granny Downs which also had trees blocking the view to the six storey building. 6.7 In attempting to downplay the impact of the proposed development on the Conservation Area the Heritage Statement refers to existing high rise modern buildings in the Conservation Area “the asset (The Downs) is enclosed to the north, east and south by built form. Accordingly, outward views from the asset ….. are principally curtailed by such Victorian development, although examples of modern development are interspersed along the boundaries as well as modern high-rise development being visible beyond” (page 52).
6.8 Examples are given of the modern buildings - the Axa building and the (pre Conservation Area) Durdham Downs apartments. These buildings form a frontage to the Downs rather than being behind an older frontage and they do not impact visually on historic and distinctive frontage buildings which are instrumental in defining the character of the Conservation Area. In addition, there is only one modern building anywhere else around the whole length of the Downs perimeter that is marginally “visible beyond” the frontage, and that was built before the Conservation Area was designated.
6.9 In addition to assessing the views of the new buildings from the Downs the Heritage Statement considers the views from the south (The Glen) and the east (Etloe Road / Bayswater Avenue). Paragraphs 7.151 and 7.154 on page 75 read:
• “As demonstrated by View 6 of the ‘Visually Verified Montages’ (page19), Villa D will be visible in views north along The Glen”. “Despite being of a greater scale, when viewed within the context of the composition of the street as a whole, the proposed built form within the site sits comfortably with the massing of the existing buildings within The Glen --- “.
• “The ‘cottages’ proposed in the northeast of the Site will be visible from sections of Etloe Road / Bayswater Avenue” … “this will not detract from the overall character and appearance of the area”.
6.10 We disagree with both these statements. Villa D is at least one storey too high in this context and the six storey block is visible beyond it, and would be even more visible from views further along The Glen. The statement concerning the cottages significantly devalues the landmark importance of the copse of large trees on the site at this corner and, once again, the six storey block is clearly visible, as it is from Royal Albert Road on the north of the site (which is not mentioned in the Heritage Statement). 7 The Harmful Impact on the Privacy and Outlook of Neighbouring Houses
7.1 Bristol City Council policy DM 27 stipulates that the layout and form of development including the size, shape, form and configuration of blocks and plots will be expected to: “Enable existing and proposed development to achieve appropriate levels of privacy, outlook and daylight”. We contend that the proposed new Villas and Cottages, by virtue of their height and mass, and their close proximity to site boundaries, do not comply with this policy.
7.2 With regard to privacy we are not aware that the City Council sets specific privacy distances but other planning authorities do (e.g. Wrexham – 22 metres between habitable rooms, Essex – 25 metres, North Somerset – 21 metres). Overall figures generally range from 20 to 30 metres. Some authorities also stipulate that where the ground slopes an increased distance will be required of the order of two metres for each additional storey above three or more storey developments adjacent to single or two storey development. Some planning authorities also require separation distances to be greater where balconies provide significantly increased opportunities for overlooking when compared to windows and here there are changes in ground level down beyond a site boundary.
7.3 With regard to the situation at St. Christopher’s, some distances between the proposed new buildings and neighbouring houses were shown on a plan circulated by the applicant in the December 2021 exhibitions (though all were measured in different ways). However, none of the documents submitted with the planning application give the actual distances between the proposed new buildings and neighbouring properties, some of which (those in Bayswater Avenue and Royal Albert Road), are also lower by around one metre. It is therefore difficult to gauge whether the 20 metre distance standard has been adhered to. We urge the Council to check these distances.
7.4 Some changes to the height and positioning of buildings close to site boundaries were made following the public consultation round in December and January but, as some of the images in the submitted Verified Views document testify, the proposed new buildings will still have an overbearing effect on neighbours. People living in The Glen will be faced with a prominent four storey building close to the site boundary (page 19) and Bayswater Road residents will be uncomfortably close to the proposed Cottages, as testified by the Verified View of the cottages from St. Helena Road (page 16). 7.5 The two cross sections which appear in the Design and Access Statement (page 82) also show the proposed new buildings having a dominating presence. These cross sections have been carefully selected - no drawings or images have been submitted which show how the proposed new buildings will impact on the most affected parts of Royal Albert Road and Bayswater Avenue.
7.6 Moving away from the relationship between the proposed new buildings and existing houses there is also a privacy and outlook issue concerning the proposed new Villas themselves. The masterplan on page 81 of the Design and Access Statement shows the close proximity of Villas B, C and D. Quite remarkably, the distances between the Villas are not marked but they appear to be somewhat less, some far less, than the often-applied minimum standard of 20 metres!
8 The Harmful Impact on Grace House
8.1 City Council policy DM31 has the following to say about listed buildings: “Alterations, extensions or changes of use to listed buildings, or development in their vicinity, will be expected to have no adverse impact on those elements which contribute to their special architectural or historic interest, including their settings”.
8.2 The Council’s stance on Grace House was set out in their 8th November response to the first pre-application made by the applicant: “The scale and massing of the proposals should be respectful to the setting of Grace House. The proposed buildings should not cause harm through detracting from the significance of the designated heritage asset and retain its role as a primary focal building within the site”.
8.3 The Council commented that what is now the proposed building Villa A (reduced from four to three storeys) to the west of Grace House: “fails to respond appropriately to Grace House in terms of its height, massing and geometry impacting on the setting of Grace House. It would be overbearing and impact the primacy of Grace House. This approach is contrary to policy DM31 concerning heritage assets. The height, scale and massing of Villa A proposed at 5 storeys would similarly overwhelming Grace House due to its proximity.“
8.4 The comments were made on a previous design but although Villa A has been reduced from four storeys to three, it now occupies a larger footprint. What is now Villa B is six storeys high and has in fact been moved closer to Grace House.
8.5 The Submitted Heritage Statement quotes from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in relation to the significance of any designated asset, for example: “Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting” and “elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset” (Heritage Statement pages16 and 17). 8.6 The Heritage Statement also quotes a Court of Appeal decision stating that if: “a proposed development is to affect the setting of a listed building there must be a distinct visual relationship of some kind between the two – a visual relationship which is more than remote or ephemeral, and which in some way bears on one’s experience of the listed building in its surrounding landscape or townscape.”
8.7 Having stated these principles in section 5 the Heritage Statement moves on in section 7 to assess the impact of the proposed villas on Grace House:
• “Villa B results in the introduction of built form closer to the Listed Building to the southwest, and to a degree erodes the open surrounds of the asset” (page 71).
• “The construction of Villas A, B and C would result in the introduction of new built form exceeding existing buildings heights within the site in close proximity to Grace House. By virtue of their proposed heights, these buildings will result in a degree of ‘enclosure’ around Grace House, with this cumulating in a change from the existing and pre-1980s arrangement of the site. This change has the potential to detract from the ‘presence’ of Grace House within the site” (page 71).
• “…. when the proposed buildings are considered alongside the proposed ‘landscape setting’ for Grace House, as well as the contextual change from educational to residential use, it is concluded that the level of harm that would arise from the change to the overall experience of the asset would be at the lower end of less than substantial” (page 71).
8.8 We completely agree with the first two statements but find it remarkable that, having made these assessments and previously quoted national and local policy guidance stressing the importance of safeguarding the setting of listed buildings, the consultant somehow manages to conclude that the level of harm is “at the lower end of less than substantial”.
8.9 The proposed buildings will cause significant harm by detracting from the setting of Grace House and diminishing the presence of Grace House as the primary focal building within the site. This is even more the case with the six storey Villa B encroaching on an area shown as an area marked as “cannot build here” on the Sensitive Boundaries plan on page 42 of the Design and Access Statement. This plan shows a significantly reduced “setting” area to the west of Grace House compared with the developable area plan as shown in paragraph 4.5 above.
8.10 We note that the applicant has carefully chosen not to show images of Grace House set among its close and much taller neighbours. Not a single one of the 3D representations of the Villas part of the site presented in the Design and Access Statement (pages 79, 80, 135, 136, 137, 138, 152, 153) shows the relationship between Grace House and the Villas. 8.11 To address this shortcoming we present below two drawings aimed at demonstrating the significant negative impact of the proposed new buildings on Grace House. (These were produced by two different people to minimise any bias.) The one to the left barely shows Grace House given the significant impact of Villas A, B and C. The one to the right is the view looking out from the entrance to Grace House with Hampton Lodge to the far right.
9 The Loss of Trees
9.1 The copse of trees, some very large, to the north east of the site is significant in terms of on-site character as well as local character. The latter point is because of its significance to Bayswater Avenue near the junction with St. Helena Road. It is a known local landmark and a unique example of trees within an otherwise fully developed area. It is also within The Downs Conservation Area.
9.2 This group of trees was shown as excluded from the possible developable area in the plan referred to above (4.6) which has not been included in the supporting documents submitted with the planning application. The group of trees were also shown marked on a plan at the December 2021 exhibition as “retention highly desirable”.
9.3 The Design and Access Statement recognises the importance of this group of trees, stating on page 43 that: “There is a group of pine trees to the north east corner considered to be collectively of high quality and have the benefit of natural screening at this end of the site. Significant amendments have been made during the design process in order to accommodate existing trees where possible recognising these as an important visual asset”.
9.4 The exclusion of the group of trees from the originally defined developable area and the recognition in the Design and Access Statement of the importance of these trees would suggest that every effort was being made to retain these trees. Instead, the Tree Protection, Removal and Retention Plan produced by consultants Stride Treglown shows the removal of approximately half the trees (about a dozen) in the north east corner of the site solely to accommodate the cottages proposed in this area. In our view the design process has not gone anywhere far enough to protect this copse and the proposals reduce and damage its value in order to accommodate additional development.
10 Conclusions
10.1 The applicants have suggested that: “the overall site layout has arranged the proposed new built forms such that the proposals avoid or minimise impacts on key features on site (e.g. Grace House, key trees/vegetation) and minimise visual effects in views from adjacent existing built form/ residential properties and surrounding areas. The layout also allows for a high quality new external realm and landscape” (Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment page 22).
10.2 The applicants have also suggested that “overall, a sensitive design approach has been adopted, with a variety of mitigation measures incorporated within the proposals. The scheme responds to the local townscape character and the design process has sought to minimise adverse landscape and visual impacts and integrate with the local context” (Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment page 35). 10.3 As we have demonstrated in this submission these bold statements about minimising visual impacts on surrounding residential properties and minimising impacts on key features are not true.
10.4 The issue of over-high buildings has been a major concern for WPCA, SCAN and many residents living close and further afield from the site since the first drawings emerged at the September 2021 workshops (see the WPCA’s own Statement of Community Involvement submitted separately). There have been some changes to the design in the intervening six months (reducing the number of blocks from five blocks to four, reducing the height of Villa A to three storeys and moving the cottages further away from the eastern boundary, but these changes in response to consultation have been no more than cosmetic. The plan presented on page 64 of the Design and Access Statement shows that the number of buildings has been reduced and that buildings have been repositioned but it also shows that the average footprint of the buildings has increased. It does not show that the highest building proposed in September was five storeys high and that the new design includes both a five and a six storey building.
10.5 It is clear that the applicant’s objective from the outset has been to devise a design solution that delivers a total of around 120 apartments, although there was a suggestion in the property press from the applicants themselves to suggest1 that a scheme with a minimum of just 100 units may be sufficient to ensure the viability of a scheme including the essential supporting facilities.
10.6 Plans evolving since the scheme shown at the September workshops have varied above and below but always remain close to delivering the 120 units. The need to deliver this number of units to achieve financial viability, possibly linked to the fact that too much was paid for the site, is almost certainly the force that is driving the inappropriate building heights and erosion of an appropriate developable area. This should not be allowed to distort planning policy requirements.
Our community – and the city - should not have to pay the ‘price’ of a clearly overdeveloped site in order to enable the financial balance sheet to add up.
10.7 We believe we have produced overwhelming argument and evidence in this submission to demonstrate that:
The development as proposed would result in serious overdevelopment of the site to the detriment of the character and amenity of immediate neighbours and to Westbury Park as a whole, and harm to the fundamental heritage character of Grace House and The Downs Conservation Area.
1 Article in Property Wire, 09.12.2021
Appendix 1 Development of Area Character
A.1.1 The National Design Guide states that: “An understanding of the context, history and the cultural characteristics of a site, neighbourhood and region influences the location, siting and design of new developments. It means they are well grounded in their locality and more likely to be acceptable to existing communities. Creating a positive sense of place helps to foster a sense of belonging and contributes to well-being, inclusion and community cohesion”. There are examples in the supporting documents of statements that fall short of demonstrating such an understanding.
A.1.2 Page 100 of the Design and Access Statement purports to describe the historical development of the site: “To the east of the site, the boundary once formed the rural fringe and was open to expanses of countryside, until it was later developed for residential plots and further road infrastructure around the turn of the 20th Century”.
A.1.3 This is wrong. Up to the early 19th century, Westbury Park (the road) formed a boundary to the Downs. As development moved up from Clifton and Redland, frontage land to the Downs became high value so the initial developments were no more than a narrow strip of larger properties extending from the grounds of Redland Lodge right up to North View. There was no development to the rear of any of the frontage properties and their original gardens; this all remained farm land for some time with the exception of the gardens to Redland Lodge which extended behind what were originally seven frontage Lodges (five of which are now part of the application site). The site boundary did not therefore define the line between development and open country in the last part of the nineteenth century.
A.1.4 This is an important point of disagreement because a number of the supporting reports, most notably the Planning Statement and the Design and Access Statement, describe the site as if it has a single distinctive character. It does not; it is in two clearly different parts - a point forcibly made above in our objection to the proposed development on the grounds of overdevelopment. In making this claim we have support from the submitted Townscape Assessment. Page 11 of the Statement includes the statement: “The school site beyond the Lodges generally does not display the key characteristics of the Westbury Park Frontage Villas area”.
A.1.5 Another example of a “local character” error can be found on page 5 of the Planning Statement where it is claimed that: “Westbury Park is generally characterised by large properties set within generous size plots”. This is simply not true. There are some larger properties (e.g. the Lodges in Westbury Park, three storey properties in Belvedere Road) but most of Westbury Park, including neighbouring roads Bayswater Avenue and Royal Albert Road, comprise two storey dwellings (if with some with attic rooms). Indeed, the houses in Royal Albert Road are best described as cottages; indeed that word is picked up in the design proposals for some of the new buildings on the site. Most properties are also on average size plots, not “generous”; in fact gardens in Royal Albert Road are very small.
Examples of Misleading imagery Appendix 2
A.2.1 The use by the developers of misleading visual images has been a constant concern of the WPCA and the community throughout the public engagement programme that led up to the application. This concern in particular relates to the image below of a converted Grace House which has been used on the website, in various presentations to the community (it was the opening image at the December exhibitions), in the local free newspapers, in Bristol-wide newspapers and in articles in the professional press.
A.2.2 There are three key concerns about this image:
• It uses a distorted wide angle view which is incorrect in standard practice. (Compare this with the correct and careful use of 50mm images in the Verified Views report.)
• It distorts the chromatically ‘cold’ grey colour of the building into something more chromatically ‘warm’.
• It very carefully shows absolutely nothing of the new high buildings proposed close to and surrounding Grace House.
A.2.3 As a result of its use, the WPCA received a large number of comments along the lines of ‘what’s all the fuss about tall buildings; this looks OK?’. The very deliberate choice of an image that suggests it shows the development yet only shows an existing building and totally fails to show the adjoining buildings to Grace House is an appalling example of misleading information; so misleading that its use can only be deliberate.
A.2.4 Although the above is the worst example, it is not the only one.
A.2.5 As noted in para. 8.10 in the main text, the Design and Access Statement includes 8 visualisations* of the proposed development. However:
• Some are drawn in a curious morning(?) half-light, making it difficult to properly assess the nature of the project’s details, especially its materials.
• As shown in 8.11 in the main text, not a single drawing shows properly the relationship between Grace House and the large Villas.
• They all make it impossible in particular to assess the impact on surrounding properties.
(* Example overleaf)
A.2.6 In addition, as we have shown in para. 6.5 in the main text, even the supposedly very carefully prepared Verified Views include an example of a view carefully chosen to mislead.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
Too little parking provision in an an area already overwhelmed by traffic and parkingissues. There is more need for affordable housing for young families to feed into the 3 localprimary schools and 1 secondary. I don't feel we need any more retirement homes in this area. Ican't believe such an eyesore is being proposed in such a unique landscape which is aconservation area.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I strongly object to the plans to build several blocks of flats on the site of the old St.Christopher's residential home. The reasons are obvious: increased traffic congestion in an areathat is struggling with the knock-on effects of the nearby RPZ and the significant increase in thenumber of people living in the area around Bayswater Avenue will seriously affect the wellbeing ofthe current residents,
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
The promises made originally to maintain the character of this property have now beenforgotten. Furthermore, the proposal of the three to six floor buildings will ruin this area in manyways. Firstly, the number of residents who will move in will change the quiet rural nature of thearea. secondly, there will be too much damage done to the environment by removing too manytrees and destroying wild life habitats. Thirdly, the number of cars owned by new residents andstaff working in the homes will create traffic chaos. Already Westbury Park is struggling with anincrease of vehicles using the road for parking and the added number of vehicles will the roadsextremely busy and unsafe. The White Tree roundabout is already very busy and will becomeeven worse.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I object to the proposed development of the former St Christopher's School because it isan inappropriate, insensitive overdevelopment of the site, and is not in keeping with the historicnature of the wider Westbury Park context.
This is not an open piece of land. It is 'backland', the setting for a listed building and lies within theDowns Conservation Area, all of which, by definition, exert legitimate constraints. Any newdevelopment on this site should respect the scale and form of the existing properties and shouldbe subservient to them. These include the Edwardian villas bordering the Downs, the modest 2-storey Victorian houses on the remaining perimeter, and Grace House (the listed building) locatedwithin the site.
The developers are proposing to build 121 new housing units, far more than the site cancomfortably accommodate, therefore necessitating building blocks of flats that are up to 6-storeyshigh. These would be entirely out of character with the immediate local area and would be totallyout of proportion with existing homes.
These buildings will have a detrimental impact on homes immediately adjacent to the site, locatedin Royal Albert Road, Bayswater Avenue, The Glen, and Westbury Park, caused by the proximityand height of the new buildings, the dual aspect design of the flats and the introduction ofbalconies.
The proposed development would constitute a gross intrusion into these residents' privacy and
would deprive them of light to their homes and gardens. In addition, because of its scale andmass, the proposed development would have an adverse visual impact on the wider context ofWestbury Park - in particular, the skyline of the site as viewed from the Downs. In addition theblocks of flats would also significantly contribute to light pollution.
The removal of 45 mature trees from the site at a time when we are encouraging biodiversity isperverse. A promise to replace these with, what can be little more than saplings, will be of no useto the wildlife that depends on them for their habitat. The years of devastation and destructioncaused by this proposed development will do nothing to encourage, nor sustain wildlife in anyform. It is fantastical to imagine that wildlife would flourish in the future, with a possible 200 plusresidents, and very small green spaces in between which are over-shadowed by blocks of flats.This development would constitute a huge loss to the biodiversity and ecological sustainabilitycurrently provided by this site. The developers' claims to the contrary are disingenuous.
Lastly, I am also concerned about the impact which will result from insufficient provision of parkingspaces on the site. The number of residents, plus care workers, maintenance staff, medical staff,cleaning staff, community centre staff, visitors and delivery people will generate the need for farmore car parking space than is provided on the site. Therefore, there will be overspill parking ontosurrounding local roads which are already at capacity due to commuters leaving their cars inWestbury Park before getting the bus into town.
Cars and vans already regularly park illegally across dropped pavements and on street corners.Etloe Road residents suffer from cars and vans parking on the pavement blocking the foot path forwheelchair users and parents with buggies who are forced then into the road. We also have amuch-valued car repair garage which may not survive if there are even less places to park on thelocal streets.
The suggestion of an entrance to the site from Bayswater Avenue, adjacent to the Daisy ChainNursery, is also cause for concern. This would be directly opposite the junction of BayswaterAvenue and St Helena Road and only a few yards from the junction of Bayswater Avenue andRoyal Albert Road. At peak times these are very busy, congested junctions with poor visibility. Toadd another junction directly in the path of the preschool aged children attending the nursery, aswell as children going to Westbury Park Primary School, would be very dangerous.
My reasons for rejection so far have focussed on what the developers have included in theirproposal. I would also like to criticise them for omitting to include any affordable housing, for whichthere is a far greater need in this area rather than more care for the elderly. Neither is there anyprovision for special educational needs, which St Christopher's School has provided for the lastseventy years. This is a service which Westbury Park community has been sorry to lose.
To summarise, I would say that the number of housing units should be drastically reduced. Newbuildings should be no higher than 2-storeys. Buildings on the edge of the development should be
at least 20 meters from the boundary of any neighbouring property. There should be sufficient carparking on the site to serve all the residents, care staff and service personnel.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
This is a disastrous over development of a beautiful Victorian heritage site with uglyblocks of flats ruining the area by being excessive in their height, scale, bulk and closeness toother houses who will loose their privacy.
The loss of 50% of mature trees has ignored the Climate or Ecological Emergency, destroyingvaluable Bird, mammal and insect habitat. Replacing them with new trees immature trees either onor off site is not in line with Bristol City Council policy. There is a copse of trees on BayswaterAvenue which is a key local landmark would be reduced therefore harming the impact to thedowns SNCI (site of Nature Conservation Interest).
65 car parking spaces for 122 residents, ancillary staff, visitors, deliveries et cetera is just notenough. Do the developers really believe that occupants of the flats will only have one car? Olderpeople still want their independence and do not always go to the same places together! Thereforeresidents, visitors and staff will all be driving round the area looking for nonexistent parking places.
The prospect of having emergency vehicular access through to The Glen is also extraordinary asambulances, delivery vans, refuse lorries, taxis etc are often in the middle of the road causingqueues of traffic. Then on top of that the suggestion of having pedestrian access from SaintChristophers to The Glen is going to add to the chaos as those that should be parking within thedevelopment will be searching for car parking spaces as near to the Glen as possible.
There is no affordable home provision which is a key target for Bristol City Council.
Also the developers have no plans to honour the legacy of 70+ years of SEND provision on site.
May I also add that the meetings that we have had with the developers showing artisticimpressions have been deliberately misleading and we are only able to see the full scale of thismonstrosity now.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I have been a resident on Belvedere Road since 2001. I am writing to express andregister my objection to the planning application for the St Christopher's site development inWestbury Park BS6 7JE. Below are the main reasons for my objection.
1. Traffic, Parking and Highway safety issues - The highway issues in the Westbury Park area arewell known, in particular, I want to highlight the parking and highway safety problems on BelvedereRoad and The Glen. The safety on both roads have been severely impacted in recent years withthe increased number of nursing homes causing traffic chaos on a daily basis. The StChristopher's development proposes to build 120 residential units with only 65 on-site parkingspaces - the proposed amount of parking is totally insufficient to serve all their residents, carers,visitors as well as all the site staff. Since Belvedere Road and The Glen are not in the Residents'Parking Zone, the area is already being used by many city commuters as free parking. I believethe insufficient parking provision on the proposed St Christopher's site will cause their site usersand residents to end up parking on nearby roads, further exacerbating the already unacceptableparking situation on Belvedere Road and The Glen.
Living on Belvedere Road, my family and I are regularly faced with dangerous highway situations.For example, vehicles parked on corners due to the shortage of parking posing danger to drivers,cyclists and pedestrians. Also, due to the lack of parking in the area, our road is frequently blockedby cars, ambulances or delivery vans for a prolonged period, this means I often have to reversealmost the whole length of Belvedere Road onto Redland Road which is a busy main road, inorder to find alternative route to access my house - I have had to do this again this morning during
rush hour. My family and I should not be subjected to such danger on a regularly basis and Ibelieve the lack of parking on the proposed St Christopher's site will severely worsen the situation.
Furthermore, I strongly object to the proposed access on The Glen for pedestrians and emergencyvehicles for the St Christopher's site. Even if the pedestrian access is limited to site users orresidents only, it would make Belvedere Road and The Glen prime target parking areas for the sitethereby exacerbating the existing parking issues - this is not acceptable. There is also noperceivable necessity for emergency vehicles to access via The Glen when there is already goodaccess to all parts of the St Christopher's site via their other existing entrances. Hence I object tohaving any pedestrian or vehicle access via The Glen for parking and highway safety reasons.
2. Overdevelopment and harm to heritage - The proposed site comprises several large blocks offlats up to six storeys high. Such buildings are completely not in keeping with the character of thesurrounding houses in Westbury Park. I believe such a development will cause severe and longterm harm to the Downs Conservation area with its long established heritage which must bepreserved.
In summary, I firmly believe that the proposed St Christopher's development will cause immediateand long term harm to the heritage of Westbury Park area as well as exacerbate the severeparking/highway issues on surrounding roads, therefore I hereby register my objection to thisplanning application.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
Many things worry me about this application. The loss of nature and disruption to habitats. Theappearance of some of the buildings does not seem in keeping with the architecture in the area.Neither does the height which seems quite excessive. The extra traffic that the development wouldbring is worrying, particularly because of any effect on Westbury Park Primary school - Bayswateravenue/Etloe Road is already tricky to cross and a busy road. And also because of parking issuesin the area, it is already tricky to park as residents. Some kind of guaranteed outdoor space for thelocal school children to use should be included, as should some form of space to ensure a legacyfrom the previous use of the site as an SEND school for children to be able to make use of. Theschool is so close to the site I also worry about any construction period and the resulting effect ofpollution, dust, noise right next to the school. Plus more large construction vehicles in the area.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
From Patricia and Peter Crawford
We have lived in Westbury Park for 50 years - it is one of the reasons why we came to Bristol andwhy we love being part of this mature city environment so much.
Westbury Park is one of the few surviving areas of Bristol where there is a spatial and sociallycultural balance between the ever-growing need for residential homes and the increasing call forrecreational, environmental and emotional well-being.
This development proposal is the antithesis of all that.
Not only will the visual and spatial harmony of the area be irreversibly dismantled but theenvironmental and social integration of its human and its wildlife heritage will be damaged in a waythat no subsequent replacement strategy will be able to repair.
Westbury Park is renowned for its mature trees and rich variety of native plants and animals. As abiologist by training and a BBC wildlife producer by profession, I can vouch for the special natureof the balance between urban man and urban wildlife that is the hallmark of the Park where we livetogether - a long-established, functioning living equilibrium of which we are all proud and that mustcontinue to be treasured.
The imposition of new higher-rise buildings, the removal of mature trees, the loss of biodiversity,
the congestion of increased private transport and parking that inevitably will come with suchprivileged residential development - together with the loss of the social legacy that St Christopher'sSchool for handicapped and underprivileged children has brought to Westbury Park and the widercommunity of Bristol - will precipitate a damaging domino effect on the future of this special cornerof our city.
As passionate defenders of Westbury Park - its past, present and its future - we now implore theCouncil to reject this planning application and think creatively about the way this unique area ofour city can be more sensitively treasured and allowed to continue to thrive on a less violentcourse of balanced evolution.
Patricia and Peter Crawford
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
From Patricia and Peter Crawford
We have lived in Westbury Park for 50 years - it is one of the reasons why we came to Bristol andwhy we love being part of this mature city environment so much.
Westbury Park is one of the few surviving areas of Bristol where there is a spatial and sociallycultural balance between the ever-growing need for residential homes and the increasing call forrecreational, environmental and emotional well-being.
This development proposal is the antithesis of all that.
Not only will the visual and spatial harmony of the area be irreversibly dismantled but theenvironmental and social integration of its human and its wildlife heritage will be damaged in a waythat no subsequent replacement strategy will be able to repair.
Westbury Park is renowned for its mature trees and rich variety of native plants and animals. As abiologist by training and a BBC wildlife producer by profession, I can vouch for the special natureof the balance between urban man and urban wildlife that is the hallmark of the Park where we livetogether - a long-established, functioning living equilibrium of which we are all proud and that mustcontinue to be treasured.
The imposition of new higher-rise buildings, the removal of mature trees, the loss of biodiversity,
the congestion of increased private transport and parking that inevitably will come with suchprivileged residential development - together with the loss of the social legacy that St Christopher'sSchool for handicapped and underprivileged children has brought to Westbury Park and the widercommunity of Bristol - will precipitate a damaging domino effect on the future of this special cornerof our city.
As passionate defenders of Westbury Park - its past, present and its future - we now implore theCouncil to reject this planning application and think creatively about the way this unique area ofour city can be more sensitively treasured and allowed to continue to thrive on a less violentcourse of balanced evolution.
Patricia and Peter Crawford
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I strongly object to the plans submitted. It appears very little thought has been given tothe considerable traffic problems already evident in this area to which the proposed developmentwill only add more misery for residents and visitors alike,The sheer size of the proposed new buildings is not at all in keeping with the locality.Nor is there any affordable housing. Outrageous! And yet the scheme itself is not a badproposition basically. What a wasted opportunity to make it more acceptable to local residents.Please reconsider, consult widely and encourage the developers to submit a more acceptabledesign.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I would like to contribute my objections to this planning application.
As a local resident, I am familiar with the site and roads around it. There are several points onwhich I would like raise an objection.
My first objection is to the damage to our heritage and to the over development of the site. The 3-6storey building are too close together and some will be visible from the the Downs, thusunquestionably damaging to the Downs Conservation Area and the wider Westbury Park roads.
My second objection is to the lack of parking on the site for so many properties, some of which willhave two residents, thus two cars. The provision of 65 parking spaces for 122 flats is not enough.Leading to residents and staff parking on the already congested local roads.
My third objection is to the opening up of the entrance on Bayswater Avenue to vehicles. Thisentrances is narrow, beside a busy nursery and junction and is therefore a danger, only duringduring the past week was there a road traffic accident outside the preposed entrance. Thisentrance is likely to lead to increased hazards to to pedestrians, nursery users, car drivers and thelocal School user.
My fourth objection is the loss of trees and biodiversity on the site. Too many trees are beingdestroyed and wildlife been discouraged as a consequence. This would have a very harmful effecton the Downs SNCI.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I agree that finding space for housing old people is extremely important. I am elderlytoo.But what is proposed here is desecration of much needed and loved space for both the communityand our local ecology.The rationale for the scale of the proposed development is weak at best and clearly serves theinterests of an elite group and their economic priorities rather than the preservation of what is goodfor the community and wildlife.I am so sad to see the persistence of the developers, planners and committee members in theface of clear local disapproval.A smaller scale, environmental and ecologically respectful development might be acceptable.This proposal is not and smacks of vested interest power.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
This Application should not be allowed.It is a gross and ugly over-development of the St Christopher's site in such a visually sensitivearea close to ours and everyone else's precious Downs.It is environmentally unfriendly and will increase traffic flow and be harmful to the very nature ofthis area.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
Firstly, losing a special needs educational site when there are so many children withSEND awaiting a school place that meets their specialist requirements is foolhardy and goes toshow that children with special needs are not a priority for Bristol City Council.
Aside from the loss of a much-needed educational facility, the proposed scheme is not in keepingwith the nature of the Downs Conservation area. The buildings will be closely packed, and too tall,with up to 6 storeys dwarfing the houses around them and overlooking private gardens.
However, my main concern is the traffic. Whilst using the site for an assisted living communitycould be very good, the parking needs of this site cannot be viewed in isolation. There are plansfor only 65 parking spaces for all 120 housing units, with 200 projected residents, plus visitors andstaff. We already know that the developers are aware that this will not be enough, and there isprojected to be overspill into neighbouring roads.
The site is extremely close to the edge of the Cotham North Residents Parking Area (RPZ), andsince introduction of that RPZ, parking on the Glen, Belvedere Rd and Blenheim Rd in Redlandhas become very oversubscribed. The situation is also difficult in the very busy roads of BayswaterAve, Etloe Rd, and Victoria and Albert Roads, as well as Westbury Park itself where we havenoted already parking on the grass verge. Belvedere Rd and The Glen suffer particularly as thereare already three nursing homes on Belvedere Rd with no staff or visitor parking. Additionally,there are visitors to the Downs, unofficial park and ride cars of people getting buses into town fromThe Downs, and parking on Westbury Park of overflow from van dwellers on Parry's Lane.
Residents of the Glen and Belvedere Rd have tried with our councillors' assistance (Fi Hance,Martin Fodor) many times, over a number of years, to get an extension of the RPZ onto our roads.If I come back from work late, I often have nowhere close by to park, as I cannot park in the RPZ,and all other spaces are taken, so I have to sometimes walk a long way as a lone female in thedark. I cannot pave over my garden for a driveway as the area is a conservation area, and I wasadvised by the planning officer that a request would be refused. Likewise, I cannot do without acar, as I require my own vehicle for work, which is field-based. All attempts to get an RPZ havegone nowhere, and the Mayor is reluctant to extend or bring in new RPZs.
So, we have a huge problem, in that there is absolutely nowhere for cars from St Christopher's tooverspill to. The area is already dangerous, with ambulances blocking roads, and bin lorrieshaving to reverse the length of Belvedere Rd because they cannot make the turning into The Glendue to erratic car parking on corners. Clearly if a bin lorry cannot gain access to The Glen, a fireengine would also not be able to access. This has already caused delays to fire engines reachingemergencies in other parts of Bristol. Bayswater Avenue is home to Westbury Park PrimarySchool and a nursery school. It is already used as a rat run, and is dangerous, with peoplestopping on school zig zag markings and speeding along the road. We worry that a child will beknocked down on one of these streets due to the congestion and haphazard parking. There wasan accident last week at the junction of Bayswater Avenue and St Helena Rd just by the place thatthe developers proposed a new entrance to the St Christopher's site.
An extension of Glenview nursing home on Belvedere Rd has already been twice refused planningpermission due to these issues.
The developers need to come up with a novel solution to ensure parking provided on the StChristopher's site is more than adequate for the site needs. This may be by reducing the numberof dwellings, which would mean that buildings could be no more than 3 storeys, grasscretingparking areas, underground parking, and extensive car share/car club system for residents, with aban on residents owning a private car unless registered disabled. An electric car club car for every5 households would vastly reduce the capacity required, and furthermore give residents the optionto make savings by not having to buy and maintain their own vehicle. Currently they are onlyplanning for two car club cars.
There are also no plans for any of these housing units to be affordable which will put them out ofthe reach of all but the wealthiest retirees. The nearby St Vincent's site is incredibly expensive andelderly neighbours who considered moving there have found they cannot afford it. St Christopher'slooks like it will be similar.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I object to the proposed development of St Christopher's, Westbury Park by FOREPartnership as the design, height and density of development is inappropriate for the site and inparticular for the surrounding area.
For 'conservation area' to mean anything any new development must be appropriate to the qualityand character of the local area and not negatively impact the elements that contribute to theamenity of the area; and the quality of life of people living in it or visiting it.
FORE Partnership's proposed development includes a six storey building which would be anintrusive addition to the natural and heritage environment, being visible from surrounding streetsnear and far and prominent from almost any viewpoint on the Downs. Visually and spatially itwould diminish and overshadow neighbouring residents, schools and businesses.
Three additional four storey buildings of a similar sized footprint plus closely adjoining 'cottages'and the existing Grace House and lodges are proposed to accommodate 120 households. Thiswill I believe constitute overly dense development and negatively affect the quality of life ofpotential future occupiers as well as that of existing residents.
The St Christopher's site is positioned between narrow, densely-populated and densely-parkedresidential streets and Westbury Park; also residential and with pavement only on one side.Westbury Park is notorious for traffic congestion at junctions, for rat-runs, for pedestrians, joggers,school children and cyclists risking their lives competing with traffic, for van-dwellers and
inadequate parking capacity. Generally for being a beautiful area despoiled by the above pointsnot being meaningfully addressed for the past several years.
If approved, FORE Partnership's development, particularly their aspirational but utterly unrealisticparking and access provision, would only exacerbate all of the above problems.
For these reasons I object to FORE Partnership's proposal. In fact I question whether anotherretirement development is necessary when Westbury Park and Henleaze has a profusion ofretirement developments, care homes and 'assisted living' service providers. We are becoming amono-culture neighbourhood. A 'luxury' retirement development doesn't seem more essential thanaffordable homes or the much needed SEND school.
Not unlike the recent controversy when Grange Court Road residents found themselves at risk ofhaving two additional floors constructed over their roofs and over their wishes, Westbury Parkresidents must not have a design or business purpose imposed on them purely because it suits abusiness model or fills a development site. The business model should be made to fit the contextof the site and the needs of the local area; not vice versa.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
Having lived in this area for 58 years, I am appalled at the proposals for developing thissite and comment as follows:-1) This proposed area is comparatively small and the planning proposal is over developing anALREADY CONGESTED AREA due to its Victorian heritage.
2) CAR PARKING & TRAFFIC CONGESTION: An existing problem due to the restriction ofnarrow streets and residents' parking is paramount due to lack of garages. As well as this, theproblem of COMMUTERS using available space on Westbury Park, as the area is OUTSIDE OFTHE RESIDENTS' PARKING ZONE.
3) CAR PARKING PROPOSALS: Inadequate with the provision of only 65 SPACES FOF 120RESDIENTAIAL UNITS!!!
4) PROPOSED DRIVEWAY IN BAYSWATER AVENUE/ETLOE ROAD: NONSENSE!!! NO ROADSAFETY PROVISION for this proposal between 2 schools - WESTBURY PARK PRIMARYSCHOOL & DAISYCHAIN NURSEY SCHOOL.
5) LACK OF EXISTIN RESIDENTS' PRIVACY: Proposed HIGH RISE FLATS would overpowerthis concentrated area and take away residents' priviacy.
6) ENVIRONMENT & WILDLIFE: DEMOLIATION OF LISTED TREES AND HABITAT WOULD BECOMPLETELY DESTROYED!
7) THESE ARE DEFINITELY NOT ECO COMMUNITY PROPOSALS BUT GREEDYDEVELOPERS MAKING GREAT FINANCIAL GAIN WITHOUT ANY RESPECT FOR THE LOCALCOMMUNITY, SAFETY OF THE AREA & DESTROYING A NATURAL AND WELL RESPECTEDAREA OF OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
Sir,
There is major overdevelopment of the Site, the enormous scale of the proposed scheme is not inkeeping with the surrounding Conservation Area. Some of the new Blocks of Flats are to be 6storeys in height.Only 65 on-site Parking Spaces for 160 Housing Units this being for Residents not includingVisitors, Carers, Offices, Maintenance Staff,Deliveries, etc. Leading to parking in adjacent streetsalready overcrowded and blocked by excess and illegal parking.No Affordable Housing.Heritage - new Blocks overwhelming existing Listed Building, Grace House and inappropriate for aSite within Downs Conservation Area.50% of Trees to be felled together with loss of Green Space, huge Envoronmental impact onexisting local Bird and Wildlife.Loss of SEND provision.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I ask the Council Planning Department to reject the above planning application.The development is inappropriate and insensitive to the local area. The scale, size and height ofthe development does not respect the spirit of the Downs Conservation Area and wouldirrevocably change the nature of Westbury Park, where already dense habitation is just aboutcoping with the demands of existing building.The proposed housing development is in effect a large business and will attract all the trafficgenerated by such an entity: delivery lorries and vans, visitors, staff, health professionals andcarers, service providers: the increase in traffic will make the local roads unsafe, given the existingproblems already experienced by we local pedestrians on a daily basis.The loss of established natural environment and local biodiversity is not compliant with theEmergency Action Plan. The density and type of natural cover on the St Christopher's site is ahaven for wildlife and provides a nature coridoor between the Downs and the other surviving areasof open space in Redland. The planning application will harm the environment for no gain.Proximity to the neighbourhood school is very troubling, given the increase in traffic and airpollution, which is in crisis in Bristol. Our local children should be given every chance to have ahealthy childhood and the increase in vehicle pollution and on-road parking is very worrying.Conversely, the loss of Bristol's only residential SEND provision on this scale is an astonishingoversight and the alternative provision for young people with complex needs is not only damagingin that they are being moved out of the local area, but is also costing the council over a millionpounds a year.The proposed planning application is 'the path of least resistance' and lacks the imagination whichwe would hope and expect of our council, whereby innovative solutions for SEND provision, and
respect for the environment and for the integrity of a community at population density tipping point,are put at the forefront of decision-making.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
The proposed development will ruin the neighbourhood because:-
1) The lack of parking of only 65 spaces for staff, deliveries and residents is totally inadequate.The residents will need more than this, so WERE WILL THE OVERFLOW GO? The area isalready very badly congested without adding to it.
2) The design of the buildings with the 6 storey block in particular, dominating existing propertiesand be visible from the Downs.
3) The felling of trees on the site will hurt the environment and should not be allowed.
I find the whole plan to be undesirable, spoiling the local community with lack of car parking space,ugly buildings and far too much traffic for the local schools/community.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I object to the planning application due to the development being too large and out ofcharacter with the area, too close to neighbouring school with increased risk to children due toexcessive traffic, parking difficulties.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
ObjectionI object to the proposal for the following reasons.
Firstly we have the loss, a shameful event for the vulnerable children whowere able to grow and flourish here at Saint Christopher's .To be replacednow by yet another "Care"/ "Extra Care"/ retirement home, of whichthere are already several in the vicinity.
A) The proposed buildings, some of which are several storeys high,are uncomfortably densely packed. This is surely one of the mainproblems. although the density of buildings would obviously maximiseprofits for shareholders of all the developers.We all need space, however. We all also need light and privacy.These elements, essential for any quality of life, are clearlymissing in this development.
B) Mature trees are to be removed to make space for the buildings.The irreplaceable and invaluable loss of habitats for ourwildflife - songbirds, woodpeckers ,possibly even bats .If there arebats, are not these a protected species?. Who is monitoring this?New saplings are to be planted. These often never survive to replacelost habitats..
C) Clean AirThese mature trees are all contributing to Bristol stated desire ofClean Air, which we are rightly so focused on achieving. Thedestruction of these trees, most mature well-established trees andhabitats, is most undesirable and incompatible with achieving this.
All of this is clearly incompatible with many aspects of thedevelopment and there would appear to be here a parade ofsustainablity / zero-carbon , however one may wish to put it. Highdensity buildings, with the removal of mature trees, would create anunwelcome, uncomfortable effect for residents.There is an assumption that there are enough staff who would be involved inthe maintenace of this development, on all levels. Has this been assessed?There is also the question of the availability of affordable housing,which is not represented in this development. Another issue which thecouncil espouses.This development should be rejected.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
Without Prejudice:I believe the current proposal is too large for the site, for the community and for the city of Bristol.Local amenities and community services are already stretched to the limit. This will just add toexisting backlogs for health services.Traffic in the area is already at gridlock. Cars regularly speed dangerously along Etloe Roadwithout ANY policing. Another overstretched community service.I wonder whether Council is operating in good faith. It has given encouragement to developersexpecting to reap rewards for its tax base at the expense of the local community. This isduplicitous and reprehensible.I am not encouraged by the current state of the democratic process in this country at present thatanything good can come of this process.Respectfully Submitted,Chris Haynes
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
My objections are:This site would be very overdeveloped. There would be too many people in a relatively smallspace, as well as being over dominant giving rise to loss of privacy.
There would ensue a chronic lack of parking which is already a problem in this area. In turn therewould be added traffic on the roads around the Down. Again, we are at saturation point as it is.
We are supposed to be conserving trees, green spaces and wildllife. Therefore why fell trees. Thecan be no excuse. This development would uglify what is a pleasant part of Bristol.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
Very disappointing to see no plans to consider the loss of vital SEND provision followingthe closure of St Christopher. For over 70 years this residential special school has provided forlocal children saving BCC money on out of county placements so there should be some plans tohonour this legacy.A key target for BCC is affordable housing and again there's been no attempt by the developers toaddress this issue.It's a massive over development.... too big, too high and too dense. The crowding of the blockswould cause serious damage to the setting of the listed Grace House building.The plans would mean an overall loss of biodiversity of 7.3% on site and this is not compliant withthe Climate or Ecological Emergencies or the Emergency Action Plan which puts nature at thecentre of all decisions. Too many trees (50%) will be removed from this site and the replantingplans aren't in line with Bristol City Council policies.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
Whilst in principle I do not object to the idea of an 'Extra Care' development in this area,what I object to is the over development planned for this site. There are plans for 6 storey blocksas well as smaller ones which are going to be far too close to the existing houses on Royal AlbertRoad, Bayswater Avenue and the area backing on to the Glen.
There are plans to cut down mature trees to make way for buildings.
This area already suffers from an excess of cars as I know well having lived at 40 BayswaterAvenue for many years, until 2004. Two points here: an entrance on to Bayswater Avenue is toorisky when you take into account the proximity of the Daisy Chain nursery and the Westbury ParkSchool and the totally inadequate provision of parking places on the site.
This overlarge development will undermine the peace and tranquility of the Downs and nearbyresidents. I suggest that the developers come up with a less greedy plan.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I wish to object to the scale of this development and the positioning of the main accessto the site.Whilst acknowledging that this site will be developed, it needs to be less intrusive in terms of scaleand height so as not to be a blot on the landscape so near to the Downs.Additionally the building of 120 flats on a small site seems extreme when thinking of the number ofpeople and cars including staff that it will bring into the area. The roads are already heavilycongested with parked vehicles, many appear from out of the area as no RPZ here contrary toother local areas.Green areas and trees on the site should be maintained as far as possible i.e. footprintreplacement.Placing the main site access onto a narrow, quiet residential street right next to a Nursery andnear a Primary School flies in the face of common sense.Providing some guarantee of integration with the community in terms of shared site use would bewelcomed, eg as St Monica's have succeeded in achieving at the Chocolate Quarter.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I wish to raise a number of points in objection to the proposed development of the StChristopher's School site in Westbury Park.
It is clearly reasonable that the site is redeveloped and that housing is the most suitable use.However
1/ Traffic and ParkingThe area is just outside the Controlled Parking Zone, consists predominantly of narrow streetswhich are heavily parked up by residents and during the day by commuters who are attracted bythe good bus services on the Downs. This often results in a lot of pavement parking in somestreets especially Etloe Road. There also a tendency for non-local vehicles to be parked forextended periods - possibly belonging to residents within the CPZ who do not have permits.
The developers have only allocated 65 parking spaces for a minimum of 122 residents plus onsitestaff within the development which will inevitably lead to increased on street parking. Theargument that the residents will be people over 70 often without cars seems an improbable andageist one.
The traffic issues that concern me:
1.1 Westbury Park is intended to provide the main entrance and exit points for residents. This is anarrow road parked up on one side and at certain times of day blocked by commuter traffic
accessing the White Tree roundabout. As it stands no provision has been set out to resolve this.Whilst this is an ongoing problem it is only going to get worse with the increased use of WestburyPark by residents and staff of the new development.
1.2 Access to the site has been proposed from Bayswater Avenue at the junction of BayswaterAvenue, St Helena Rd, Royal Albert Road and Etloe Road. This is a well-known pinch pointexacerbated by pavement parking on Etloe Road. The children's nursery and its associated pickup and put down traffic is also sandwiched between the proposed access to the St Christopher'ssite and Royal Albert Road. The junction is heavily used at school drop off and pick up times tooand is a focal point on the rat-runs that are used by drivers avoiding congestion on WestburyRoad, North View and Westbury Park during busy periods.
1.3 Pedestrian access on Bayswater Avenue and The Glen is not in itself a problem but given thelack of parking on site it is inevitable that these will be primary focuses for on street parking.
2/ The scale of the development is excessive for the site. The blocks of flats are large and closelypacked in. The larger ones will be visible above the existing houses along the Downs edgediminishing the impact of the houses and detrimental to the Downs Conservation Area. The closepacking also dominates the other surrounding properties. Looking at the plans the lack of spaceand roadways within the site makes it difficult to see how deliveries (by delivery companies orresidents themselves) and ambulance, fire brigade access to individual properties would beachieved.
3/ Environmental damage. The area was originally largely gardens and the way in which the StChristopher's school has built within it has maintained a significant wildlife space and corridorbetween the Downs and the suburban space beyond. As residents we are all aware of our richwildlife community from foxes and owls to sparrowhawks, peregrine falcons and woodpeckers.Whilst development is not undesirable it is worrying to hear of a significant number of trees beingremoved. Replacement with new trees will take many years to effectively regenerate the area andthe wildlife won't wait around.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
Whilst I support the redevelopment of the site, I do object to the scale of thedevelopment on four grounds:1- Height and design: I believe the proposed new blocks are totally inappropriate in their designand height and are completely out of character of the local neighbourhood. The proposed rooflines of the new blocks are significantly higher than any other property in the adjacent areas. Thewider area is generally made up of 2-3 storey properties. There are no properties over this leveland the proposed height of the new blocks is unacceptable, adversely impacting local homes andgenerally the views across the Downs.
2- Destruction of trees and habitat, negatively impacting local wildlife and visual impact. The greenareas should be maintained as much as possible.
3- The proposal does not make adequate provision for parking and will create detrimental localparking issues. The development is too big for an area that is already congested.4 - Whilst I support the redevelopment of this space, I would have liked to have seen some kind ofoutdoor space for the local school children to use. This could form space to ensure a legacy fromthe previous use of the site as an SEND school.
The area around the Downs is unique and important to the heritage of Bristol. Please do not allowthis development to happen and spoil this area of inner city beauty and the Downs conservationArea.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I strongly object to this application.The much increased number of people and cars which this plan will lead to will seriouslyaggravate already existing traffic and parking issues in the area.The felling of trees and disturbance of the grounds will cause untold harm to the environment andto wildlife within and around the development.As a frequent user of the Downs for dogwalking and exercising the proposed dense and highdevelopment will cast a shadow over a beautiful and tranquil area as well as seriously harming thequality of life for the people living in close proximity.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
AThe Westbury Park development proposals.
I live very close to Westbury Park at the top of Redland Road.
I am disturbed by what has been proposed by the developers.
My reasons are the following:
Why is there no proposal for affordable housing? Bristol has a great need for accommodation forthose who can't pay very high rents.
What about the children with special education needs? St Christophers school had been meetingthose needs. What now?
Please have regard to the needs of children and their parents given the probable increase in trafficif the development goes ahead.
The proposed apartment blocks would have a damaging impact on the surrounding Downs area.They would be too high and out of tune with the area.
The cutting down of trees is also unacceptable. We need more trees!
____________________________
Tony Woode: tony@woodclan.org.uk
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
1. Overdevelopment: too much building, too high, too close to neighbours withconsequent negative impacts - (a) in heritage terms on our area and on The Downs (the site andits surrounds are in The Downs Conservation Area), (b) on the setting of the Grade II listed GraceHouse (dramatically overwhelmed by 6, 5 and 4 storey buildings very near it), (c) on the privacyand outlook of neighbouring houses and (d) on the serious loss of trees in the highly significant'copse' visible from the corner of Bayswater Avenue and St. Helena Road2. Parking: evidence strongly suggests that 65 spaces will not be enough and that would lead tosignificant overspill onto surrounding streets, with related traffic problems. Visitors and residentsare likely to park in nearby roads where it is already nearly impossible to find parking.3. Traffic: Bayswater Road not only hosts Westbury Park Primary school but also Harcourt pre-school and Daisychain. Extra traffic generated would greatly increase the danger to the hundredsof children using this area, and there is already a particularly dangerous junction at Bayswater/StHelena Roads, consequently vehicle access at the Bayswater Avenue corner (if only for fourresidents' cars) would greatly add to that danger.4. Ecology, biodiversity and wildlife: the tree loss in the site corner (above) is part of theoverdevelopment issue but many trees all across the site will be removed and - the developerssay - replaced. But, again, there is poor and unconvincing evidence about that and all otheraspects of ecology, including the site's role as a wildlife corridor. A 'net gain' in biodiversity is adubious argument.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
Comments: I strongly object for the following reasons:
Overdevelopment of the site:The layout, height and density of the proposed build will dominate the surrounding area and havean adverse impact on neighbouring residential properties through increase in noise, disturbance,light pollution in hours of darkness and loss of privacy.
Adequacy of Parking and Access:Parking is already at a premium within the local area. The proposed parking on site for 65 spacesis inadequate for residents, visitors, staff and deliveries. This will result in overspill street parkingand will have an adverse impact on parking, access and congestion in the area. Inevitably, this willplace unbearable additional pressure on limited street parking along busy narrow roads.
Traffic and Safety:The planned development will generate a significant increase in traffic movement from siteresidents, visitors, staff and deliveries and impact adversely on an already congested and busyarea. This will- add to noise disturbance and air pollution- put at risk the safety and well being of children and adults attending the popular local primaryschool and nursery- jeopardize emergency vehicle access to the residential area (Etloe Road pavement parking isalready hazardous).
Environment:The proposed development resulting in significant loss of trees will damage the naturalenvironment.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I object to the application on the following grounds:
1. Lack of sufficient on-site parking to avoid overspill on to the surrounding roads, increasing theroad safety risks in this area. My arguments are covered in full in the SCAN document objecting tothe development on Highway Grounds, and the following is a summary of the main points.
The developers have provided no evidence supporting that 65 spaces will be sufficient for allresidents, staff and visitors to the site. On the contrary, a reasonable estimate suggests that atleast 116 spaces would be required to reduce the risk of overspill to an acceptable level.
There is no spare capacity for any overspill parking in the area surrounding the site, let alone for50+ additional vehicles. Residents have provided evidence, through their own surveys, of the lackof available spaces on these roads throughout the day.Road safety is already a significant concern in this area. The parking stresses lead to frequentoccurrences of obstructive parking, on corners, across junctions and blocking dropped kerbs, aswell as pavement parking in roads too narrow to have parking on both sides of the road. Thisleads to limited visibility for drivers at junctions as well as forcing wheelchair and pushchair usersout on to the streets. This is of particular concern since the site is close to a primary school andfive nurseries.
A recent poll of local residents found that 81% of the 298 respondents see issues with parking inWestbury Park having a dangerous impact on road safety, with 67% having witnessed accidents,
incidents or near misses in this area (44% more than once). This can only increase with a further50+ cars circling the roads competing for rare spaces.
The application proposes to open a new entrance from The Glen to the site, to be used aspedestrian access (for St Christophers residents only) and emergency vehicle access. It is likelythat the pedestrian access will significantly increase the risk of The Glen and Belvedere Roadbeing a first choice for overflow parking for residents, staff and visitors, by making these roadshighly accessible to the rear apartment blocks. These roads are already acknowledged by BristolCity Council and the Planning Inspectorate (commenting on recent planning applications) ashaving no capacity to absorb more cars without increasing the existing safety concerns. Sadly, theapplicant has not honoured their earlier commitment, that this pedestrian access would only becreated if seen as a benefit by and for local residents.
The applicant provides no evidence that the new access from The Glen for emergency vehicles isnecessary or feasible, given that large vehicles will be able to access the site more easily from theentrances on Westbury Park. If the access is required for genuine safety reasons, the applicantneeds to agree clear conditions of use, as well as mechanisms for enforcing these, to ensure thatits use is limited to genuine emergencies under conditions where vehicles cannot access the siteusing any other entrance. It would be a significant concern if this access became used morewidely over time as an additional secondary access to the site, as The Glen is a narrow cul-de-sac, with parking on both sides of the road and frequent obstructive parking on junctions, whichcould not safely accommodate additional traffic.
2. Over-development of the site and impact on heritage buildings. The proposed apartment blocksare too tall for a conservation area, being higher than, and out of context with, the neighbouringhouses, and appear to be designed to simply maximise the number of dwellings they can fit intothis (previously largely green) space.
The applicant has not provided a financial viability report (as of the time this objection wassubmitted) but has suggested verbally that they would not be able to provide some of the facilities,including those said to be accessible to the wider community, if there were fewer apartments. Ifthis is genuinely the case, the cost/benefit of those facilities should be re-examined. What actuallyare these community facilities? No detail has been provided about what facilities may be availablefor the use of Westbury Park residents or on what terms - rather, the applicant appears to bedangling vague and unspecified community benefits simply to justify the over-development. It isdifficult not to suspect these will go the way of other commitments made during the consultationprocess, and that nothing of local value will materialise. It certainly seems unlikely that anythingwill be provided which can come anywhere close to compensating for the adverse impact on theneighbourhood.
Surely it should be considered whether they can just build fewer apartments, and/or make moreefficient use of the existing buildings, even if this means reducing additional facilities, which seem
unlikely to bring much, if any, benefit to the local community. It's worth considering that residentsof Westbury Park raise concerns about the roads and parking every day; I have never heardanyone say "what we need is yet another café....".
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I am a resident in the surrounding area and am opposed to the project for manyreasons. I will list these below.
Environmental: The impact of the proposed project appears to have a negative net effect onsurrounding wildlife environment. Examples are tree felling, loss of green space, loss of habitat foranimals in that area. Additionally there would be increased air pollution due to the heavymachinery needed for the works and subsequent increased traffic from residents and the servicesemployed by the residents.
Roads and Parking: There is already a lot of problem with congestion and parking in this area,creating a large residential complex would only exacerbate the problem. Local roads don't havethe capacity to cope with the undoubted increased demand and this would impact safety forwalkers, cyclists and drivers.
Overdevelopment: The sheer size and magnitude of the proposed buildings creates nothing lessthan an eye sore to a quaint landscape that is Westbury park. The height of these buildingsoverlook the two story houses in the surrounding area and infringe on the privacy of those livingnearby - this is unacceptable. Additionally, the site of the proposed project in the DownsConservation Area also renders it inappropriate and unpalatable.
Affordable housing: The proposed plans are not for affordable housing which is a key target forBristol council as well as nationally. How can we justify a housing complex being built only to
satisfy the requirements for the very wealthy at the expense of the community being disturbed?
I hope you take the above points into consideration. I have researched the topic thoroughly andhave lived in the wonderful city of Bristol for a nearly 7 years cumulatively. The prospect of theproposed works going through would surely not be in keeping with the spirit of the city and of theWestbury Park area. We must put the environment, wildlife, privacy and safety of residentsBEFORE profit in this wonderful conservation area.
Many thanks
Dr Nima Maleki
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
In principle I support the proposed Extra Care development on the St Christopher's site.However, I do have very specific concerns about the current proposals as outlined below:
OverdevelopmentI object to the proposal to build four "villas" and "cottages" ranging in height from three to sixstoreys to accommodate 97 units on the site behind the existing Lodges facing onto the Downs. Inmy view the plan to build this number of units is inappropriate and represents an unacceptableoverdevelopment of the St Christopher's site.
By virtue of their height, mass and positioning the villas will have harmful impacts on:
- The character and distinctiveness of Westbury Park.- The character and appearance of The Downs Conservation Area.- The privacy and outlook of existing houses in neighbouring roads.- The setting of the Grade II Listed Grace House.
I also object to the proposed removal of so many trees from the northeast corner of the site as thiswill be damaging to the character of the site and the local area, all of which is in The DownsConservation Area.
In my view the proposed development should not be any higher than the existing Lodges whenviewed from the Downs and not so close to the site boundary as to affect existing houses around
the site.
ParkingThe plan to provide just 65 parking spaces for the proposed development seems to be woefullyinadequate, given the need to accommodate residents, employees and visitors to the site. This willbe detrimental to local residents as this low number of spaces will almost certainly lead to overspillparking in surrounding roads which already have severe parking problems.
Whilst there may be limited availability of parking spaces in Westbury Park during the day,overnight these roads do not have the capacity to accommodate additional overspill parking. In myview this problem would not be addressed by introducing a Residents Parking Zone as this onlyaddresses daytime parking requirements and not overnight parking when Westbury Park roadsare full. If there is an evening event at the church or the school, it is impossible to find a parkingspace.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
There are several very clear problems with the current proposal, and the lack ofengagement by the developers in addressing these problems is not encouraging.
- the development is not in keeping with the area.
- the woeful lack of parking spaces on the site, along with these being on a leased basis, willencourage parking outside of the site and worsen the already chronic problems in the area
- pedestrian access via the Glen will particularly encourage parking on an already over-crowdedstreet, with subsequent issues of access for residents, emergency services, council supportvehicles etc.
- an increase in traffic due to the development will be a hazard to the nearby school
- no provision has been made for affordable housing
- no provision has been made to replace the care capacity lost due to the closure of StChristophers
- the environmental impact of the reduction in green space, destruction of habitat and loss ofmature trees go against every principle that council, the government and the world are uphold inour fight against climate change and loss of biodiversity
In short, the development plan as it stands will create a blight upon the historic - and conserved -area which will destroy the unique character of this corner of the Downs forever.
We most strongly object to the current proposals.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
My objections:
Flat block too large and incongruous to settingTraffic by primary school already poses a danger to children, this will worsen that issue
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I grew up on Bayswater Avenue and still return to visit my parents regularly. This willcompletely change the landscape and community for the worse. The development will turnWestbury Park into exactly that - a development/complex. It will also bring years of noise anddisruption to the area on top of the local school noise, regular downs festivals etc. I strongly objectto the development.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
Amenities
I have lived at this address since 1986. I am a recently retired GP. Over the years I watchedcountless young people with learning and physical disabilities from St Christopher's School beingtaken for walks along Westbury Park. I was always impressed by the patience and care shown bytheir young carers. I never saw a resident being mistreated. It was a huge regret that the schoolwas closed and that there is such poor provision for SEN care in the Bristol area.
Traffic and Parking
Since a residents' parking zone was created in Redland, the parking in Westbury Park has beenvery limited. Many commuters park here and then bus or bike into town. The situation is gettingworse after lockdown as more people return to their offices. Cars never used to park on both sidesof Etloe Road. This is now the norm with cars parked on the pavement making visibility whenturning onto Etloe Road very poor and the conditions impossible for wheelchair users.
As the proposed development is aimed at older people in good health, it is likely that manyresidents will own cars. The on site parking provision seems inadequate for residents, visitors andstaff and there will almost certainly be overspill onto already overfull local roads.
Driving up Westbury Park towards Redland Road is already difficult because of parked cars. Anyincrease in traffic will make this worse. The figures provided by the developers about numbers of
vehicles exiting the site seemed to me to be a huge underestimate.
Wildlife
A loss of mature trees is always regrettable but particularly now that we are aware of the climatecrisis. Offering to plant young trees elsewhere is not a sufficient recompense for the loss inWestbury Park. We should be improving conditions for wildlife, not making it worse.
Appearance
Westbury Park is characterised by its late 19th century and early 20th century buildings. In itsposition on the edge of the Downs Conservation Area it is imperative that its character ispreserved and enhanced. The size and particularly the height of the proposed St Christopher'sdevelopment is not in keeping with nearby buildings. Five and six storey villas will be visible fromthe Downs and will be overwhelming for those living on smaller adjacent roads. Little informationhas been provided about the detail of the buildings other than a modern style with reference to thevillas fronting Westbury Park. In my opinion, the tower blocks on Durdham Park should not havebeen erected and their existence should not be seen as a precedent for the erection of tallerbuildings on Westbury Park.
Summary
Could the current developers be obliged to provide an area of supported living for young peoplewith learning difficulties?
Why is there no mention of affordable housing for older local home owners who might then move,freeing up houses for families and younger people?
The size of the development is too large. Buildings with fewer storeys would have a smalleradverse effect on the local community and on the appearance of this heritage area. The totalnumber of apartments needs to be reduced significantly and the parking increased to lessen theimpact on local parking and road safety.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
Complete over development of an attractive, period, residential area. There are plentyof other spaces in and around Bristol where the impact on the surrounding areas would beconsiderably less.
The flats would make already overwhelmed streets completely over capacity.
To maintain the character of the area and to not let the streets get too congested this should notbe allowed
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I would like to object to the above planning applicationThe proposed development is far to ambitious. The buildings are too large and too dense on thesite. The proposed 6 storey building is far too high and will completely alter the look and feel of thesite. Some of the other blocks are far to tall and close to existing homes and will block light and beintimidating.The 'villas' backing onto 23 and 25 Bayswater Avenue are much too close to the existing buildingsand they are too tall. They will block the light to the existing houses. Importantly these are familyhomes and the new villas will be able to look straight into the living rooms and bedrooms of theexisting houses. The loss of privacy to the existing homes is completely unacceptable.The vehicle access onto Bayswater Avenue next to the nursery is potentially dangerous. Just lastweek there was an accident right at that point and with another access point the risk of accidentswill increase. Families and children go up and down Bayswater Avenue all day bit obviouslyparticularly at the beginning and end of the school day. Children run ahead of their parents or goalong on their scooters and they will not stop at this new entrance/exit point. Visibility will not begood for motorists there and a child could easily get hit.It is likely that the 65 parking spaces will be insufficient for the 120 units, guests, staff, carers anddelivery vehicles and cars will be forced onto neighbouring roads. Already some of these roadsare completely full and cars are parking on the pavement. Again, just last week a fire engine hadto attend a fire on Devonshire Road and I watched as it had a lot of difficulty accessing the roadfrom the North View end.The density of the buildings on the site and the large number of people based there will mean thatinevitably there will be a loss of trees and green space this will mean a reduction in the number
and diversity of wildlife and it will have a negative impact on climate change through loss of treesand reduction in biodiversity. Westbury Park is a designated Conservation Area and it's greenspaces should not be overdeveloped.As I write this on Sunday evening the BCC planning site is down again and so I am writing withoutbeing able to see other comments or the details of the planning application. It has beenunavailable for much of the time since I complained about this on Wednesday lunchtime. This iscompletely unacceptable and compromises the public's ability to comment fairly.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
This site is way overdeveloped if the existing plans go through. The height of the villasare excessive. Grace House which is meant to be listed and the main focal point of the place looksdwarfed surrounded by the tall buildings.The entrance in Bayswater Avenue is right beside a children's nursery and is congested alreadyand on a bend and also there is a primary school in the road and very little parking when theschool is operational with their staff parking etc. The best plans would be to have access throughThe Glen where it is much quieter. We need to keep this as a special school as Bristol has noplaces for boarders and St. Christopher's fulfilled this. It should never have been closed down. Itwas the best school in Bristol where staff and children were incredibly happy. This proposed sitewould be dreadful on the parking in the local area which seems to have an overflow of care homesetc - that all need staff. There will also be too many beautiful mature trees cut down. The site is ahaven for squirrels, foxes, badgers etc etc and the trees are laden with squirrels - I have spenthours and hours watching them playing and walking around the beautiful site when I worked at theschool until it closed.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
The new buildings are far too large. They will be visible from the Downs andneighbouring areas. The number of trees will be decreasing causing a significant change to thelocal area. The increase in traffic will not be safe for local children getting to school. There is notenough parking provided. Locals already cannot park on our own streets, this will only get worse.This project must not be allowed to be built.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
Dear Sir
My name is Dr Paul Rawlings and I live at 15 Belvedere Road (the side of the road backing ontothe St Cristopher's site). I strongly object to the current planning application and I urge you toreject it and to instruct the developer to come forward with a significantly revised and moresympathetic scheme. My grounds for objecting are as follows:
1. The Development Will Significantly Impact Parking and Highway Safety.The parking problems in this area are well known and, in particular, the problems in the Glen andBelvedere Road. These issues have previously led to the rejection of planning applications for anextension of the Glenview Care Home in Belvedere Road (20/06030/F) and even a proposal for asingle off-road parking space (19/01251/H) was rejected with the following comments from theTransport Development Manager: "The application would create one off street parking space andthe loss of up to two on-street parking spaces. This would be a net loss in an area where there isalready over demand for parking spaces and would increase the risk of motorists parking in adangerous manner. The application is thus recommended for refusal on the grounds of highwaysafety." The proposed development should be rejected in-line with these precedents because:1.1 Lack of On-Site ParkingThe proposed development has very limited on-site parking for the residents and staff (65 placesfor 120 units). This will inevitably lead to significant overspill parking in the surrounding roads.1.2 Pedestrian Access from the GlenThe proposal contains a plan for pedestrian access from the Glen. This should not be allowed
(even if it is only for residents and staff) as this will further encourage parking in the Glen andBelvedere Road. This would be made even worse if the public were to be able to use it as a cutthrough.1.3 Emergency Vehicle Access from the Glen.This should be refused. The Glen would make a very poor approach road for emergency vehiclesdue to the density of parking and it is unnecessary as there would be sufficient access from theexisting points of access to the site. There is also the likelihood that the operator would try toextend the usage of this access point to a general entrance for ambulances which would furtherimpact on road safety.
2. Scale of the Development and Effect on the Amenity of the AreaThe development is completely out of proportion to the area of land, the high-rise blocks willovershadow the listed buildings and change the current open and beautiful aspect from the Downsand surrounding areas and degrade this beautiful part of Bristol which is a key leisure area for thecity.2.1 Privacy. The high-rise residential blocks are far too close to neighbouring properties and willovershadow and infringe their privacy.2.2 Environment. The plans will lead to the removal of a significant number of mature tress as wellas open grassy and wild areas and will adversely impact the biodiversity of the area.
Please therefore reject this application due to the reasons listed.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
Concerned about the general increase in traffic and parking in the area. Etloe road,Royal Albert and Queen Victoria already have issues with parking and traffic, this scheme is onlygoing to make it worse. There is not enough provision within the scheme to accommodate all thecars.
I have a baby and majority of the time whilst walking around the neighbourhood I'm unable to usethe pavement as cars are parked up on the pavement, resulting in having to push the pram intothe road.
At least once a week, at the end of our road we have commuters dumping their cars. Often theyare parked poorly and not tight against the pavement. This means people have not been able topark near their homes or trapped trying to leave the street. This will remain a problem and getworse with the development as there is not enough parking to residents, visitors and staff whichwill mean an overflow onto our roads.
I have concerns for the safety of the children in the area making their way to the nursery andprimary school. The traffic will become greater with the development , and there's already issueswith Etloe road being busy in the mornings and late afternoon.
My other concern is the appearance of the development. It's not in keeping with the heritage andhistory of the local area. It's too high, no one will want to see this building above the tree linesurrounding the downs. The design needs to reviewed and the height lowered. It's particularly
unfair for the residents the circle the perimeter of the development, no one would like thisdevelopment at the end of their garden.
A suggestion to help involve the community in the future of the development would be to include acommunal green space and play area for the local children (something lacking in the area).
The council could also introduce residents parking scheme, this will ensure that commuters,visitors and staff for the development cannot park on our local roads.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
My objections are twofold.
I walk, cycle and sometimes drive past St Christophers'. The roads thereabouts are too narrowand too crowded already. The idea of 200 residents and staff (most of them) trying to drive andpark in the surrounding streets isa appalling.
It's too big. The Council might need the council tax income, but five stories is too high by onestorey.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I would like to express my concern over the plan.This area in Redland is a true gem due to the quiet, its old buildings, human residents a peacefulecosystem with precious plants and the presence of wildlife.Evidence based research shows the importance of trees in the quality of air and soil. Green areashave a key role in soil drainage, preventing the rain from causing too much erosion.Also parks, cycle paths, streets surrounded by trees are great facilities for the community. Weneed to make sure that not only they exist, but that they are looked after and safe.Another important thing to mention is that during the hottest season the trees offer shade, with apositive impact on the quality of air and temperature.This "development" could become a point of no return, increasing pollution, traffic, acousticdisruption and a worsening the quality of life of its inhabitants, both human and non human.I hope our voices will be heard.We can create different solutions together.I'd rather hear about plans to renew and insulate existing buildings, making accessible andaffordable homes.I'd love to read about giving a new purpose to neglected buildings in several areas of Bristol. I'dlike to see a true and heartfelt commitment to preserve the things that make Bristol so beautifuland special: nature, culture and community.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
Parking and congestion is bad enough around this green space already and yet anotherretirement property will just decrease air quality and increase congestion and parking issues. Thedowns is for the whole of Bristol and more congestion is a huge step backwards
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
This development is far too large for the site. The neighbourhood cannot support theamount of parking required and the increased traffic will reduce the safety of both pedestrians andmotorists using the area.The proposed development is completely out of character with area, and the loss of trees willdestroy the amenity.
on 2022-04-25 OBJECT
I am deeply concerned about the effects the proposed development will have on thelocal primary school, traffic congestion, parking issues and road access around Westbury Park.
The proposed development's height and scale is a serious concern. The proposed buildings willcause overshadowing and loss of natural day light to residents on Royal Albert Road andBayswater Avenue. It is not in keeping with the character of other buildings in the surrounding areaand will be detrimental to our conservation area status.
These homes will not be affordable and they will serve a small minority of the community. Similarnearby developments exist which still have units to sell, e.g. The Vincent.
on 2022-04-25
2
connectivity to existing Strategic Green Infrastructure Networks.
9. Even if the removal of trees were shown to be ‘essential’ and ‘compensate’ was the only
option left after the previous requirements of the Mitigation Hierarchy have been
exhausted, there is no realistic prospect that any of the trees lost will ever be replaced
offsite. As a result, these proposals fail because they do not comply with planning policies,
in particular with DM17.
10. The site is also within the West of England Nature Recovery Network Woodland network
(model)1 and so falls within the ambit of DM19 which makes it clear that development
which has a ‘harmful impact on the nature conservation value’ of the adjacent SNCI and
the Woodland Network, ‘will not be permitted.’
11. All these factors have an impact on the Biodiversity Net Gain calculation which we discuss
below. Quite apart from the arithmetic and other errors we have identified, the applicant
has failed to give sufficient weight to the strategic importance of the site or properly
measured the true extend of the Urban Tree habitat. They have also omitted the baseline
hedgerow habitat and failed to take the opportunity to factor in new Urban Tree habitat
offsite as well as failing to account for the likely delay between the development being
started and new habitat being created.
12. When their errors are corrected, their calculation shows a biodiversity net loss of 8.08%.
The planning context – see Appendix 1.
Bristol Tree Replacement Scheme (BTRS) Analysis
DM17: Development Involving Existing Green Infrastructure states that ‘Where tree
loss or damage is essential to allow for appropriate development, replacement trees of
an appropriate species should be provided’. The mechanism for achieving this is called
the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS).
In our view, the obligation imposed by DM17 to provide ‘replacement trees of an appropriate species’ falls wholly on the applicant. DM17 states that tree sites will be ‘identified through the planning approval process’ so this obligation cannot be considered discharged unless the applicant has identified all the suitable new planting sites required. Merely entering into a S106 agreement to pay for the trees to be planted does not discharge the applicant’s obligations under DM17.
The AIA identifies 121 trees on site of which 39 are in tree groups. The applicant proposes removing 58 to include 18 trees in the tree groups. We calculate that under BTRS, this will require 165 replacement trees to be planted (see Appendix 3). The applicant proposes planting 128 trees on site which means that new sites will need to
1 https://awt.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5cc11efcac3e448aa7e9ef2067b571a1
3
be found offsite to plant 37 trees. Table 1 gives a breakdown of the cost of planting 37 replacement trees offsite.
BTRS Tree Planting Costings
Replacement Trees (Select Standards)
BTRS
165
Planned Onsite Planting 128
Net Offsite Planting 37
Offsite BTRS Planting £ / Tree Tree Nos.
Cost
Tree in Open Ground £765.21 37 £28,312.77
Tree in Hard Standing £ 3,318.88 37 £122,798.56
Table 1 BTRS planting cost calculation
If the per tree cost is indexed to February 2022 this will increase to £996.83 for trees
planted in open ground and £4,323.46 for trees planted in hard standing. Given the lack
of available open ground sites, it is likely that most new sites will have to be found in
areas of hard standing. Thus, if no sites are identified, at the very least compensation
must be charged at the higher rate of £122,798.56 (indexed).
Whilst we estimate that there are only 26 tree planting sites currently available within
a mile of St Christopher’s,2 they are all sites where a tree once grew. This means that
planting in these sites would not replace what will be lost because of this proposal;
there will be no net increase in tree cover overall, even if all the other outstanding
S106 agreements also ‘competing’ for these sites are ignored. The developer’s proposal
to mitigate the loss of these trees by planting new trees offsite is therefore unviable
and unrealistic because there are insufficient alternative new sites currently available.
Also, the site is located just within the border of Area Committee One, which decides
on S106 expenditure on sites within its area, so the choice of possible sites is likely to
be further limited to just those within Area Committee One.
Our Biodiversity Net Gain analysis
Under Biodiversity Metric 3.0 (BM 3.0)3, the habitat area of an Urban Tree is assigned
to one of three Root Protection Area (RPA) sizes (Table 2).
2 https://bristoltrees.space/trees/home.xq?_path=search/tree&state=Available%20for%20Sponsorship&range=1609&latitude=51.476940&longitude=-2.613686 3 BNG 3.1 has just been issued - http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6049804846366720
4
Table 2 Table 7-2 from the Biodiversity Metric 3.0 User Guide
However, no guidance is given how to assign any given tree to these categories4. We use the MS Excel© formula: =IF(RPA<20 cm,"Small", IF(RPA>=40 cm,"Large","Medium")). On this basis and using the data contained in the applicant’s Arboricultural Impact Assessment5 (AIA), we calculate that the habitat area of the 121 Urban Trees growing on this site cover an area of 0.9265 hectares. Table 3 breaks this down as follows:
Table 3 Urban Tree habitat areas by size
This is nearly 17% less than the actual total calculated RPA of the trees on the site. We
calculate that the combined tree canopy cover of these trees is 0.5185 hectares, 26%
of the site.
58 of the trees on the site will be removed. These have a habitat area of 0.3301 hectares
leaving 0.5964 hectares or urban tree habitat to be retained.
Biodiversity Net Gain evidence has finally been produced to support this applicant - a
report produced by Ethos Environmental Planning dated February 2022. Using this, we
have been able to reproduce their calculation subject to the following observations:
4 We have commented on this - https://bristoltreeforum.org/2021/07/25/valuing-our-urban-trees/ 5 22_01221_F-ARBORICULTURAL_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT-3162696 – dated 18 February 2022.
5
1. The Applicant has calculated the baseline habitat area of the Urban Tree habitat
at 0.46 hectares but gives no explanation of how they arrive at this figure. They do
not report what area of this habitat (or indeed, of any habitat) will be retained.
2. We do not agree that the habitats on this site have Low Strategic Significance. As the Biodiversity Net Gain Results report observes, ‘the site is adjacent to the Clifton and Durdham Downs Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). This SNCI and Wildlife Corridor form part of the Bristol Wildlife Network and as such Policy DM19 in the Bristol Local Plan (adopted 2011) applies.’ Given its extensive, largely native, canopy cover (around 26%), the site is effectively part of this wildlife corridor. The site is also within the West of England Nature Recovery Network Woodland network (model). We have assigned Medium Strategic Significance to all habitats.
3. We have also factored in a three-year delay in starting habitat creation to allow for the construction period.
4. We have adjusted the Urban Tree habitat creation from 0.35 hectares to 0.0127 hectares as the is the correct habitat area allowed for planting 128 Small new trees on site. The fact that some may reach an eventual Medium to Large size is irrelevant when creating this new habitat.
5. We have calculated that under the Bristol tree Replacement Scheme (BTRS) a further 37 trees will have to be planted off site. We have assumed that these will be Small-sized Standards and allowed for 0.0167 hectares to be created off site. We have used the same parameters as those used for the onsite habitat creation and allowed for a three-year delay and set the spatial risk to Compensation inside LPA or NCA, or deemed to be sufficiently local, to site of biodiversity loss. This will create 0.46 habitat units.
6. The total habitat units (HUs) created in Table 6 or the report is incorrect. The column adds up to 5.03 HUs not 7.75 as Ethos reports. The habitat areas created total 2.59 hectares, not 2.24.
7. Four ornamental hedges are identified in the AIA. We estimate that they have a combined length of about 77 metres. These are not included on the applicant’s calculation. We have factored them into our baseline calculations.
8. As we have observed, no retained baseline habitat areas are provided. However, setting aside those habitats whose areas are additional to the ground-based habitats – Urban Trees and the Green roofs – the other habitats cover 1.99 hectares which is the declared size of the whole site. This suggests that no baseline habitats (save for Urban Trees) will be retained.
Subject to the above we have adopted the other habitats and parameters used in the
applicant’s BM 3.0 calculation. A summary of our calculations is set out in Appendix 2.
Even on the basis of the applicant’s own analysis (but factoring in the arithmetical area
errors), we calculate that the current proposals show a loss of 0.39 baseline habitat
units, a net loss of 7.16% of biodiversity.
6
Table 1 Applicant's BNG 3.0 calculation corrected
If we adjust the calculation based on our observations above, then our calculation of
baseline biodiversity shows a loss of 0.81 habitat units, a net loss of 8.08% of
biodiversity.
Table 2 BTF BNG 3.0 calculation
7
Appendix 1 - The planning context
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the Mitigation Hierarchy and Bristol’s core planning policies, BCS9 – Green Infrastructure, DM15: Green Infrastructure Provision and DM17 Development Involving Existing Green Infrastructure - the local policies upon which the goals of the Framework may be achieved – are set out below. This is the case whether the relevant sections of the Environment Act 2021 (EA 2021) have been enabled by the time this application is decided or not.
1. The National Planning Policy Framework
This Framework seeks to ensure that new development is sustainable. It stresses the importance of green Infrastructure as one of three overarching, interdependent objectives – economic, social and environmental. This means that sustainable environmental development is no less important than the economic and social development objectives. The whole emphasis of the environmental objective has become much more imperative with the publication of the latest version of the Framework last July. It now reads:
an environmental objective – to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, improving biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.
The status of habitat and biodiversity has also been given greater emphasis. Paragraph 181 c) now makes it clear that:
development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around developments should be integrated as part of their design, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity or enhance public access to nature where this is appropriate.
2. Biodiversity Net Gain
With the recent publication of Biodiversity Metric 3.06 (BM3.0), a new way of measuring and accounting for biodiversity losses and gains resulting from development or land management change has been adopted. The biodiversity metric defines Net Gain as an:
… approach to development that aims to leave the natural environment in a measurably better state than beforehand. This means protecting existing habitats and ensuring that lost or degraded environmental features are compensated for by restoring or creating environmental features that are of greater value to wildlife and people. It does not change the fact that losses should be avoided where possible, a key part of adhering to a core environmental planning principle called
6 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6049804846366720
8
the mitigation hierarchy.
When the EA 2021 takes effect most planning applications will be required to achieve at least a 10% net gain of a site’s baseline biodiversity.
3. The Mitigation Hierarchy
The hierarchy means that mitigation options regarding potential damage to biodiversity should be applied iteratively in order of preference, where any adverse environmental effects should firstly be avoided, then minimised, mitigated, and only as a last resort, with clear justification, compensated for; but enhancement must be secured wherever possible.7 See also the British Standard for Biodiversity (BS 42020: 2013)8.
4. Local planning policies
Local Planning Authorities have a duty to consider both the protection and planting Green Infrastructure when considering planning applications. The potential impact of development on biodiversity is therefore a material consideration. These are the key planning policies which relate to this application.9
a. BCS9 – Green Infrastructure
BCS9 states that ‘Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new development.’
When considering any planning proposal, the planning authority must ensure that:
• the integrity and connectivity of the strategic green infrastructure network will be maintained, protected and enhanced.
• opportunities to extend the coverage and connectivity of the existing strategic green infrastructure network are taken.
• individual green assets are retained wherever possible and integrated into new development.
• appropriate mitigation of the lost green infrastructure assets is required.
• development should incorporate new and/or enhanced green infrastructure of an appropriate type, standard and size.
• where on-site provision of green infrastructure is not possible, contributions will be sought to make appropriate provision for green infrastructure off site.
b. BCS13 - Climate Change
Development should contribute to both mitigating and adapting to climate change, and to meeting targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions…
7 https://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1563/biodiversityinplanningpracticeadvice2019.pdf page 20. 8 BS 42020:2013 British standard for Biodiversity – Code of Practice for Planning and development. (BSI, 2013) 9 https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/34540/Core+Strategy+WEB+PDF+(low+res+with+links)_0.pdf.
9
Development should adapt to climate change through measures including:
• Site layouts and approaches to design and construction which provide resilience to climate change.
• Measures to conserve water supplies and minimise the risk and impact of flooding.
• The use of green infrastructure to minimise and mitigate the heating of the urban environment.
• Avoiding responses to climate impacts which lead to increases in energy use and carbon dioxide emissions.
These measures should be integrated into the design of new development.
New development should demonstrate through Sustainability Statements how it would
contribute to mitigating and adapting to climate change and to meeting targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by means of the above measures.
c. DM15: Green Infrastructure Provision
The provision of additional and/or improved management of biodiversity will be expected as part of the landscape treatment of new development. The design, size and placement of habitats provided as part of the landscape treatment will be expected to take practicable opportunities to:
• connect the development site to the Strategic Green Infrastructure Network, and/or Bristol Wildlife Network
• assist in reducing or mitigating run-off and flood risk on the development site
• assist in providing shade and shelter to address urban cooling
• create a strong framework of street trees to enclose or mitigate the visual impact of a development.
d. DM17: Development Involving Existing Green Infrastructure
DM17 also recognises the importance of habitats which are considered valuable multifunctional green infrastructure assets - and makes provision for their preservation and replacement.
e. Policy DM19: Development and Nature Conservation
Bristol contains a wide range of important nature conservation sites that contribute to a
varied stock of natural habitats and species. The city has two sites of international importance. One is the Avon Gorge SAC.
DM19 makes it clear that Development which would be likely to have any impact upon habitat, species or features, which contribute to nature conservation in Bristol will be expected to:
i. Be informed by an appropriate survey and assessment of impacts; and
ii. ii. Be designed and sited, in so far as practicably and viably possible, to avoid any
10
harm to identified habitats, species and features of importance; and
iii. iii. Take opportunities to connect any identified on-site habitats, species or features to nearby corridors in the Wildlife Network.
Where loss of nature conservation value would arise development will be expected to provide mitigation on-site and where this is not possible provide mitigation off-site. Development on or adjacent to sites of nature conservation value will be expected to
enhance the site’s nature conservation value through the design and placement of any green infrastructure provided.
The proposed development is also on an SNCI. DM19 makes it clear that development which would have a harmful impact on the nature conservation value of a Site of Nature Conservation Interest will not be permitted.
11
Appendix 2
Baseline Calculation
12
Habitat Created
13
Offsite Habitat Creation
Hedgerow Baseline Habitat and Hedgerow Creation
14
Appendix 3 – BTRS calculation breakdown
Tree ID
Tree Category
Tree Count
Trees Removed
DBH (cm)
BTRS Tree Replacements
Totals 121 58 165
T1 C1 1 1 22 2
T2 B1 1 1 17 1
T3 B1 1 1 5 0
T5 C1 1 1 31 3
T10 C1 1 1 40 4
T11 A2 1 1 73 7
T12 B2 1 1 20 2
T18 A2 1 1 57 5
T20 B2 1 1 32 3
T21 B2 1 1 50 5
T22 B1 1 1 49 4
T23 B1 1 1 31 3
T24 B1 1 1 44 4
T26 B3 1 1 42 4
T27 C1 1 1 24 2
T31 C1 1 1 20 2
T32 B1 1 1 50 5
T33 C1 1 1 15 1
T34 C1 1 1 44 4
T35 C1 1 1 27 2
T36 C1 1 1 19 1
T38 B1 1 1 35 3
T39 B1 1 1 17 1
T42 B1 1 1 22 2
T43 C1 1 1 18 1
T44 C2 1 1 42 4
T45 C1 1 1 10 0
T46 C1 1 1 6 0
T47 C1 1 1 10 0
T52 A2 1 2 72 14
T64 C1 1 1 15 1
T65 A1 1 1 89 8
T71 B1 1 1 30 3
T72 C1 1 1 25 2
T78 B1 1 1 25 2
T79 C1 1 1 25 2
15
Tree ID
Tree Category
Tree Count
Trees Removed
DBH (cm)
BTRS Tree Replacements
T80 B1 1 1 38 3
T81 C1 1 1 15 1
T82 C1 1 1 10 0
G2 C2 4 4 45 16
G7 C2 2 2 70 14
G8 C2 12 12 24 24
on 2022-04-23 OBJECT
on 2022-04-22 OBJECT
I strongly oppose this development. I believe it is clear that the proposedoverdevelopment is not only completely inappropriate for and inconsistent with the character of thearea, but that the attitude of the developers has been in conflict with the values of Bristol CityCouncil and the people it represents. When local residents have previously raised concerns withthe developers regarding their proposals, we have been told that changes would "not becompatible with their business model". It is a concern of mine that this approach from thedevelopers has been extremely damaging and has led to a proposal that is completelyinappropriate for our community.
The proposal of over 120 housing units would be across three large buildings, ranging betweenthree and six stories high. The current site consists of low rise buildings, as is appropriate for thearea and indeed Bristol as a whole. The tallest building would be visible from The Downs and thiswould therefore clearly be a completely inappropriate development for The Downs ConservationArea. The huge overdevelopment would also have a negative impact on surrounding streets,including The Glen. The proposed buildings would be significantly closer than the current onesand the overshadowing of neighbouring properties would have a big impact on noise, privacy, andlight.
The huge overdevelopment would also have another significant impact on the local community inthe form of cars and pollution. With over 120 housing units, the proposed plans only provide 65on-site parking spaces. The impact of cars on the surrounding area would be undeniable.Westbury Park already has a significant problem with parking, traffic and road safety. Most roads
are double parked with cars, with many residents regularly unable to find a parking spaceanywhere near their home. The large number of cars is already having a dire impact on roadsafety. In 2019, my sister was hit by a speeding car on the zebra crossing of Coldharbour Road,one of the closest main roads to the proposed development. This resulted in being taken to A&Efor medical care, and has left a lasting psychological impact on her. There have also been otherfamilies I know in the local area who have also had family members, including young children, hitby cars. The idea of more cars descending on the area, one that is full of young families, schoolsand nurseries, is absolutely horrifying. It is important to be aware of the fact that the 65 parkingspaces will not only be completely insufficient for the 122 housing units present onsite, but also forvisitors, carers, office and maintenance staff, and deliveries.
I also have particular concerns about the proposed pedestrian access at the end of The Glen. Ithas long been the case that the door to the St Christopher's site at the end of The Glen is foremergency uses only. To have permanent pedestrian access at the end of The Glen wouldunfairly change the nature of the cul de sac. With many young families living on the street and inthe area, young children use the road to play and bond. Pedestrian access to the site from TheGlen would lead to an increase in car flow on the road as residents, staff and deliveries search fora parking space before popping through the pedestrian access. Due to my family's pastexperience with my sister being hit by a car on the roads close to the proposed development thisis of particular concern to me.
I am also very disappointed and concerned about the environmental impact that this hugeoverdevelopment would have on the local community. It is incredibly disappointing that thedevelopers have not taken any sufficient steps to increase the number of trees or amount ofbiodiversity present on the site. In actual fact, over 50% of the trees on the site would be brutallycut down including many beautiful, mature specimens that would take decades to replace.Furthermore, the plans would mean an overall loss of biodiversity of 7.3% and this is not compliantwith the Emergency Action Plan that puts the Climate and Ecological Emergencies at the heart ofall decisions. The supposed plans to replace the over 50% of trees that will be destroyed duringthis development are also not in line with Bristol City Council policy. The site is home to a hugeamount of wildlife, including woodpeckers, owls, bats and foxes. The proposed plans, along withthe undeniable increase that we would see in vehicles, traffic and air pollution would have a brutalimpact on the surrounding environment of the site and local area. These plans once again seem tobe in stark contrast to the values of the local community, one that deeply cares for ourenvironment. Given that the council has promised to put the climate emergency at the heart of alldecisions, it would be incredibly disappointing to see them support this development.
It is also incredibly disappointing that the developers have offered no provision for affordablehousing within this proposal, even though Bristol City Council and the government have bothclaimed that this is a "key target" of theirs. In actual fact, when local residents have previouslyshared their concerns with the developers regarding the overdevelopment and the lack ofaffordable housing within it, we have been told that affordable housing is "not compatible with their
business model". This approach from the developers raises serious questions about a conflict ofvalues of the council and the surrounding community, and that of the developers.
The plans also fail to guarantee any provisions for young people with Special Educational Needsand Disabilities (SEND). In light of the legacy of St Christopher's School, which provided care forhundreds of children over a seventy year period, it is incredibly disappointing that this use of thesite is not addressed by the developers. There are already many care homes and older agefacilities within the area providing valuable care for seniors, and this is therefore perhaps not themost suitable use of the site. Following the previous comments from the developers regardingaffordable housing not being compatible with their business model, I am concerned that thisattitude has meant they have failed to adequately consider what the best use of the site wouldactually be, and have instead focused simply on what they believe would deliver them the mostprofit. Despite the fact that Bristol City Council have said that they are attempting to improve thequality of service for SEND young people in the city, there are no longer any residential careplaces in Bristol for children who need support. The St Christopher's site is also directly next doorto a local primary school, Westbury Park Primary School, who have long been interested in havingmore space for their students. It is incredibly disappointing to me that the developers have failed totake a more holistic approach to their development, and have not considered what use of the sitewould be most valuable to the community. Local residents have been very understanding of theneed to develop the site, but the huge overdevelopment that has been proposed is completelyinsensitive to and inappropriate for the local area.
For these reasons, I am strongly opposed to the proposed development. Planning permissionshould be refused.
on 2022-04-22 OBJECT
As residents of Belvedere Road we would like to raise our concerns regarding theproposed development of the St Christopher site.
For a start the scale of the project is not at all in keeping with the area, bearing in mind it is withinthe Downs Conservation Area.The density of the housing (120 housing units) with blocks up to 6 storey- high will dominate thesurrounding streets and the proximity of some of the new housing will have a detrimental impacton existing properties in neighbouring streets. Much of the natural environment of the StChristopher site will be destroyed - 50% of trees amongst other things.
What concerns us most however is the road safety aspect, especially parking and trafficcongestion. The proposed access from the Glen, for emergency vehicles and pedestrian access,albeit restricted by key-fob to residents/staff only, is of considerable concern to us, just as theproposed access in Bayswater Avenue is to the residents in that street.Traffic problems in the Glen and Belvedere Rd have been well documented in the past. Situatedjust outside the Redland resident parking zone, both roads offer free unrestricted parking. Bearingin mind the small number of parking spaces allocated to the project, 65 on-site parking spaces formore than 120 housing units, spaces for residents, care, office & maintenance staff, visitors anddelivery vehicles. This is totally inadequate. Access from the Glen will only encourage peopleworking or visiting to park in the adjacent streets. This will exacerbate already existing problems.The Glen is a small cul-de-sac, where cars are tightly parked. Adjacent Belvedere Road isfrequently blocked by delivery vehicles and emergency vehicles to the existing care homes.
Service and trade vehicles frequently encounter problems accessing the area and residents areforced to park long distances from their homes
In addition these plans include no provision for affordable housing - a key requirement for BristolCity Council.St Christopher's excuse is that it does not fit their business model. Is this really an acceptableexcuse?
on 2022-04-22
I have no objection in principal to this type of development and feel it has potential tobenefit the community in the long term. I do have reservations about the height of the residentialblocks and fear that they would dominate views from the Downs and local streets. I am alsoconcerned about the loss of wildlife habitat. The parking in Westbury Park has always been achallenge and I doubt if this development would add significantly to this. Some of our streets haverear access lanes and these could be utilised more by residents for garages and off street parking;this will happen anyway in the fullness of time when we have a need to plug in our electric cars.
on 2022-04-22 OBJECT
I am very concerned about the inadequate parking for the number of units provided andincreased traffic. This development is very near to my children's and there is already lots of trafficand difficulties on surrounding roads. This will make things less safe. I am also unhappy about theheight of the proposed units. I would support a development with more sensitive construction andadequate parking safe access for the development
on 2022-04-22 OBJECT
This development is far too big for this area and overpowers the surounding homes andis totally out of character.Although the plans show 65 parking spaces this will not be enough for all those using this site. It isalready very difficult to find parking in the surrounding roads.There will also be an environmental impact with the felling of 50 trees and the loss of an areawhich is home to a lot of wildlife.
on 2022-04-22 OBJECT
I am hugely concerned about the scale of the proposed development - the density ofresidencies, the height of the blocks of apartments, and the visual impact they will have on theDowns and the adjacent roads.
The plans show that a large proportion of existing mature trees will be removed, including theconifers near Bayswater Avenue. The biodiversity of the area will be depleted and sufferconsiderably.
The proposals do not reflect the number of parking spaces the residents, staff and visitors willrequire. This development is being aimed at the over-50s, and many of that demographic (who willbe able to afford to live here) typically own multiple cars, including camper vans. The surroundingroads to the site, just outside the Cotham & Redland parking permit zone already contend withadditional parking from outside the area: student cars, second vehicles, camper vans, plusconverted vans that are being lived in.
The vehicular access from Bayswater Ave into the site is at a busy and difficult junction. It is nextto a nursery school, close to the infant entrances to school, and supported living for residents withlearning disabilities. The Avenue is used as a rat run from North View, and the visibility to turn outof St Helena Rd into Bayswater is already difficult.
on 2022-04-22 OBJECT
The proposed development of the St Christophers site is a massive overdevelopmentdriven by the developer's business model, which seems to be to extract the maximum profit anddepart leaving the local community to suffer the consequences.The proposed three large buildings of up to six stories are both too tall for the site and have toolarge a footprint. The tallest buildings will be visible widely from the Downs, surely inappropriate inthe Downs Conservation area? If the Council is minded to grant planning permission for aredevelopment of the site then the new buildings should be no higher than the existing buildingson the site - that is three stories.The footprint of the proposed buildings are also too large as they will involve excessive felling ofmature trees and serious encroachment on the amenity of local houses.The parking provision of only 65 parking places for 120 flats is ridiculous. The local roads arealready completely choked with parked cars and the proposed allocation would lead to up to 100extra cars trying to park on local roads. I live in a nearby block of apartments where most of theresidents are retired. All have cars on-site and two have two cars. The proposed flats are listed bythe developer as luxury flats and we can expect a similar proportion of cars owned by residents.Allowing for visitors, staff, etc I suggest that if permission is given for redevelopment parkingshould be required for 1.25 spaces per apartment. I know that some planners have the idea that ifthey don't provide parking people won't have cars, but we all know that is nonsense. Also with theincreasing move towards electric cars there will be an increasing demand for onsite charging.Without providing adequate facilities on site this will not be possible for residents.The loss of trees and green space on the site from proposed overdevelopment is also an issuethat goes against Council policies.
I oppose the proposed development and request that the Council refuse permission unless thedeveloper scales back the development to one more appropriate to the area.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
Westbury Park School currently has hundreds of children walking to school everymorning, there are difficulties parking and children are often having to walk out into the road toavoid the numbers of cars already parked on the pavements. We do not need anymore cars in thearea, it is already on the edge of the parking zone so many people come and park all day, thedevelopment would inevitably make this worse.This area is beautiful, the Granny Downs are a lovely peaceful area which many people enjoy. Thesurrounding buildings are all in keeping with the area and we do not need a 6 storey building,higher than anything else in the area. The plans show the destruction of many old trees in thearea, this is one of the few parts of Bristol which has a big open space and many old trees forpeople to enjoy.Where are the young people from St Christophers going to be rehoused? For years they havebeen looked after on this site. Are Bristol City Council buying another site for them?This enormous development without parking would be devastating for the area, already underpressure with dangerous parking. I object very strongly to this development.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
The plans amount to an overdevelopment of the site. The new apartment blocks ofbetween 3-6 storeys are too big, too high and too close. The highest block would be visible fromthe Downs & would unquestionably damage the Downs Conservation Area. The crowding of theblocks would cause serious damage to the setting of the listed Grace House building - and causebroader damage to the character of Westbury Park, an area I've lived in for 26 years.
The plans would mean an overall LOSS of biodiversity of 7.3% on site and this is not compliantwith the Climate or Ecological Emergencies or the Emergency Action Plan which puts nature atthe centre of all decisions. Too many trees (50%) are being removed from the site, and plans toreplace them either on and off-site are not in line with Bristol City Council policy. The copse oftrees on Bayswater Avenue - a key local landmark - would be reduced. It would mean harmfulimpact to the Downs SNCI (Site of Nature Conservation Interest).
Risk to our road safety & potential parking chaos:65 spaces for 122 units is simply not enough. Local roads have no spare capacity and this is likelyto lead to increased hazards, like blocked pavements and choked junctions - especially close tothe nurseries and Westbury Park Primary School. There are particular concerns about theproposed driveway from Bayswater Avenue/Etloe Road and pedestrian access from The Glen. Iused to live on Etlow Road and even then it was too congested. It's too dangerous around theprimary school and nursery schools. Do we have to wait for an accident to happen for commentslike this to be taken seriously.
Loss of SEND provision:Hundreds of children in Bristol are waiting for a place in a special school. Existing schools inBristol are swamped by enquiries from desperate families. St Christopher's was Bristol's lastresidential special school - now the city council spends more than £8m a year sending vulnerablechildren to out of county placements. The developers have no plans to honour the legacy of 70+years of SEND provision on site.
No Affordable home provision:It's a key target for Bristol City Council but these plans provide no affordable housing on site.
There is not enough infrastructure in the area to cope with a development such as this.
The area around the Downs is unique and important to the heritage of Bristol. Please do not allowthis development to happen and spoil this area of inner city beauty.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
We don't need more retirement villages in Bristol, there's a new one being build all thetime. If you're gonna turn it into flats at least don't make them student or retirement flats, buildthem for normal people to purchase.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
From the plans it is clear that the proposed apartment blocks between 3 and 6 storeysis bigger than any of the sorrounding buildings. The highest block will be visible from the Downsdamaging the Downs Conservation Area and the character of Westbury Park. Such a monstrousbuilding is a clearly a biodiversity loss and against the Climate or Ecological Emergencies or theEmergency Action Plan. The parking provision with 65 spaces for 122 units is obviously notenough. The proposed driveway from Bayswater Avenue/Etloe Road and pedestrian access fromThe Glen will lead to parking chaos as Local roads already have no spare capacity as well ashigher risk to our road safety, the latter in particular given the vicinity to the nurseries andWestbury Park Primary School. I would also add that hundreds of children in Bristol are waiting fora place in a special school. St Christopher's was Bristol's last residential special school and thedevelopers have no plans to honour the legacy of 70+ years of SEND provision on site, with theobvious implication that Bristol City Council will pay the price having to cover the cost to sendvulnerable children to out of county placements.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
St Christopher's School has provided that vital stepping stone for generations of ldchildren from childhood into adulthood.My brother, Down's and now 64 years old, is a case in point. He was ESN junior day schooleducated very successfully. Moved to ESN secondary school which was not successful. He wasbullied, failed to make friends. Fortunately we had a very happy, close knit home life.He left at 16 and went to Bristol as a boarder at St Christopher's on their Pupils' Training Course.This was a two year course designed to teach the life skills needed to help young people like mybrother move into adulthood.This was most successful. After the initial wrench which we all felt keenly, he settled in andenjoyed his two years, of course coming home for holidays .For my brother this was the equivalent of my going off to university.From there he went to live at Care Blackerton, subsequently at Care Rowde, in Wiltshire. This wassupposed to have been a home for life, but that is another story.My point is that although in early years education integration into the mainstream educationsystem may well be successful, by secondary education many are left isolated, bullied, fearful.A good special school is invaluable, and that is what Bristol loses with the closure of StChristopher's, a pioneering, second-to-none beacon of excellence for the education of ld youngpeople.This is a retrograde step. Do not take it.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
I agree with my local Campaign group St Christopher's Action Network with regards tothis Over development plan. This developer is just trying to maximise profits for themselves at theexpense of the local community. Not in keeping this area. The existing roads in Westbury Park areall ready heavily congested during the rush hours in the morning and afternoon with commutersparking in the streets so that they can walk into work.
Damage to our Heritage:The plans amount to an overdevelopment of the site. The new apartment blocks of between 3-6storeys are too big, too high and too close. The highest block would be visible from the Downs &would unquestionably damage the Downs Conservation Area. The crowding of the blocks wouldcause serious damage to the setting of the listed Grace House building - and cause broaderdamage to the character of Westbury Park.
Damage to our Environment:The plans would mean an overall LOSS of biodiversity of 7.3% on site and this is not compliantwith the Climate or Ecological Emergencies or the Emergency Action Plan which puts nature atthe centre of all decisions. Too many trees (50%) are being removed from the site, and plans toreplace them either on and off-site are not in line with Bristol City Council policy. The copse oftrees on Bayswater Avenue - a key local landmark - would be reduced. It would mean harmfulimpact to the Downs SNCI (Site of Nature Conservation Interest).
Risk to our road safety & potential parking chaos:65 spaces for 122 units is simply not enough. Local roads have no spare capacity and this is likelyto lead to increased hazards, like blocked pavements and choked junctions - especially close tothe nurseries and Westbury Park Primary School. There are particular concerns about theproposed driveway from Bayswater Avenue/Etloe Road and pedestrian access from The Glen.
Loss of SEND provision:Hundreds of children in Bristol are waiting for a place in a special school. Existing schools inBristol are swamped by enquiries from desperate families. St Christopher's was Bristol's lastresidential special school - now the city council spends more than £8m a year sending vulnerablechildren to out of county placements. The developers have no plans to honour the legacy of 70+years of SEND provision on site.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
I agree with my local Campaign group St Christopher's Action Network with regards tothis Over development plan. This developer is just trying to maximise profits for themselves at theexpense of the local community. Not in keeping with this area. The existing roads in WestburyPark are all ready heavily congested during the rush hours in the morning and afternoon withcommuters parking in the streets so that they can walk into work.
Damage to our Heritage:The plans amount to an overdevelopment of the site. The new apartment blocks of between 3-6storeys are too big, too high and too close. The highest block would be visible from the Downs &would unquestionably damage the Downs Conservation Area. The crowding of the blocks wouldcause serious damage to the setting of the listed Grace House building - and cause broaderdamage to the character of Westbury Park.
Damage to our Environment:The plans would mean an overall LOSS of biodiversity of 7.3% on site and this is not compliantwith the Climate or Ecological Emergencies or the Emergency Action Plan which puts nature atthe centre of all decisions. Too many trees (50%) are being removed from the site, and plans toreplace them either on and off-site are not in line with Bristol City Council policy. The copse oftrees on Bayswater Avenue - a key local landmark - would be reduced. It would mean harmfulimpact to the Downs SNCI (Site of Nature Conservation Interest).
Risk to our road safety & potential parking chaos:65 spaces for 122 units is simply not enough. Local roads have no spare capacity and this is likelyto lead to increased hazards, like blocked pavements and choked junctions - especially close tothe nurseries and Westbury Park Primary School. There are particular concerns about theproposed driveway from Bayswater Avenue/Etloe Road and pedestrian access from The Glen.
Loss of SEND provision:Hundreds of children in Bristol are waiting for a place in a special school. Existing schools inBristol are swamped by enquiries from desperate families. St Christopher's was Bristol's lastresidential special school - now the city council spends more than £8m a year sending vulnerablechildren to out of county placements. The developers have no plans to honour the legacy of 70+years of SEND provision on site.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
I strongly believe that the structure and height of the proposed buildings will be totallyout of keeping with the local area and an eyesore to all those living in the vicinity and all visitors tothe Downs.I also believe the on site parking provision falls woefully short of what will in practice be requiredcausing more demand for on-street parking in an area that has already exceeded reasonablecapacity in this respect.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
Whilst I would generally welcome the proposed development of this site i have anumber of concerns.The lack of carparking and provision for motor vehicles and associated electric charging points is agrave omission for the scheme. I understand the councils drive to reduce reliance on the motor carbut these units are designed for a demographic who's use of the car to maintain independence iscritical. Without increased parking provision on site ( at least one per residential unit) the adverseimpact on the local community and increased safety risks in an already congested residential areawill be catastrophic.The scale of the larger new blocks is out of keeping with the site and area generally. the density istoo great and overbearing casting large shadows and making large parts of the site dark. Theelevations and general architectural look and feel of the buildings seem to me to lack any sort of"merit" driven by commercialism rather than seeking to create a development commensurate or atleast respectful of the historic nature of the site.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
I would like to object strongly to the proposed development on the former stChristopher's school site in Westbury park.The proposed plans will damage the area in many ways - environmentally, architecturally, andsocially - there will be an increase in traffic and parking problems in an area which already hasthese problems, and thereby increase pollution in a residential area. The buildings proposed are inno way in keeping with the local architecture ( in a conservation area) , the use of the buildings willbring no social advantages to the area whatsoever either. We already have several residentialproperties for elderly people in the area. In fact that area of land was intended as a school andshould have been kept as such. The residents of st Christopher's benefitted from living in thecommunity and it was criminal to close it down on what I understand was a trumped up reason.If anything I feel the land should be used to extend the facilities of the existing primary school. Thesix storey buildings proposed will be an eyesore which should not be allowed to happen
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed development of StChristopher's school.
I live in the Glen, where problems with parking are particularly acute. Traffic congestion, duelargely to the number of service vehicles, staff and visitors associated with the nursing homes andsupported living accommodation in The Glen and Belvedere Road, causes serious problems on adaily basis. Cars parked on the corners of roads often create dangerous conditions forpedestrians, while delivery vans and ambulances frequently park in the centre of the road and canmake access to the Glen by car impossible. I am very concerned that the proposed developmentwill exacerbate these problems. The plan to include 65 parking spaces for 120 units is surelynowhere enough to meet the needs of residents, staff and visitors and parking in surroundingroads is therefore inevitable. The proposed pedestrian access to the site from The Glen meansthat those of us who live here and in nearby roads will be particularly badly affected.
I am also concerned that in it's current form, the development is totally out of proportion withhousing in the surrounding Downs Conservation area. The proposed six storey blocks are likely tobe visible from the Downs and will be wholly incompatible with the size and character of existinghomes.
While I have no objection at all to the development of the site or to an increase in the provision ofextra care housing in the area, I do feel most strongly that the site could be developed in a waythat is both more sympathetic to its' surroundings and has a less negative impact on local people.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
The proposals for the development of this site fail to maintain or enhance the characterof either the area of Westbury Park or the Downs. The size, scale and density of the tall apartmentblocks is entirely out of keeping with all other buildings in this area and the loss of so many maturetrees needed to permit this development does not appear to be in line with local authority policynor in step with the pressing need to do all we can at every opportunity to reduce the negativeimpacts of climate change.This area already has limited parking available and the provision of such a small number of onsiteparking spaces for all residents, staff, visitors and contractors will simply add to parking pressureand traffic congestion and increase road safety risks.The plans demonstrate that profit is the overriding factor driving this development. This should beobvious to all in spite of the efforts of the developers via press articles, so called "communityengagement" , glossy publicity and other tactics to persuade local residents as well as others inthe city and the Council otherwise. This is an entirely inappropriate development that purports tohelp the city meet its housing need but fails to offer affordable housing or SEND provision.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
I don't think the main new building should be so tall. It needs to blend into the currentenvironment.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
This is an over development in this area that is already saturated to the max. There isnot enough parking; the roads are dangerous with careless drivers fighting for parking; cars arebeing damaged already by large lorries and vans coming into the small roads; There will be morecars and more pollution.The school already has daily trouble with careless drivers and no places to park. The new buildingare way too big for the area and will be an eyesore. Not to mention the fact that historical buildingswill be demolished to make way for the development. There will be less trees and less nature inthe area.Absolutely no to the building of the new flats and no the disruption it will bring in the area to buildit.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
Far too many dowelling proposed. Completely out of proportion with the locality ,andthis will negatively effect the surrounding area, which is already very high density buildings
Local Primary School , and a Nursery School are both located in a Bayswater Avenue , wherethere will need to be access for vehicles.
Parking will be impacted, especially since this area is on the edge of the RPZ. Local roads aroundthe proposed site are all extremely narrow, and already create bottlenecks .
This very pleasant area will be irrevocably changed if the proposals go ahead.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
We have recently moved to Westbury Park and we're attracted to this area because ofthe quality of the environment. we are therefore distressed to learn of this new development.The new apartment blocks appear out of proportion and out of character with other properties inthe neighbourhood and would significantly damage the character of the area.Removing significant numbers of trees would mean that they are lost forever with detrimentalimpact on the wildlife in the area.The roads and parking in the area are already at full capacity.Sending vulnerable children to out of county placements is to remove them from their localcommunity with no plans for local provision to replace St Christopher's.The proposed new accommodation makes no provision fo affordable housing something urgentlyneeded in the area.For these reasons I and my wife oppose this development.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
22/01221/F | Proposed development of the site including, internal and externalalterations of Listed House building and conversion of lodges fronting Westbury Park; demolitionof buildings and the erection of new buildings to provide an integrated Retirement Community(Class C2) for older people; together with landscaping, car parking, refuse and other associatedworks (major). | St Christophers School Westbury Park Bristol BS6 7JE
I write to object to two features of the above planning application.
Firstly, there are only 65 on-site parking spaces for more than 120 housing units. It is difficult tosee how this will satisfy the needs of the residents, let alone their carer's, office & maintenancestaff, visitors and deliveries. Unless there is an increased parking provision on site then the roadsin the surrounding area will be significantly less safe. Currently there is no spare parking capacity,roads and pavements are often blocked by delivery vans, ambulances attending local care homesand Lorries attempting to navigate choked junctions. These hazards must be of particular concernto parent taking their children to the local nurseries and to Westbury Park Primary School.
The second is the height of the buildings. The site fronts a particularly attractive stretch of theGranny Downs and is surrounded by residential buildings in a variety of attractive styles. Theproposal to build blocks of apartments above the height of the existing building will have anegative impact. Light will be blocked from parts of the new development as well as surroundingproperties. Moreover, the height will intrude on the privacy of surrounding properties. At the initialneighbourhood consultation meeting we were assured that the height of the development would
not be much higher than the older lodge buildings that face the Downs. This commitment is nowshelved, presumably dictated by the need to have sufficient numbers of residents to allow thebusiness model of the retirement village to be financially viable. A further argument against theheight of development is that if allowed, it will set a precedent for high rise buildings on theperimeter of the Downs.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
My mother has lived in Royal Albert Road for over 4 decades and although I own theproperty along with my sisters the sunlight is really important to a elderly vulnerable person withadditional height causing shadow to her small garden she has carers 3 x per day and has beenhousebound for 6 months, the proposed planning will prevent sunlight and privacy to her backgarden, there will also be a problem with carers parking near the property. Westbury Park is asmall community with neighbours looking out for one another without the added problem ofcompeting with one another for parking.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
I strongly object to the current proposal for this planning application for the followingreasons:
Damage to our Heritage:The plans amount to an overdevelopment of the site. The new apartment blocks of between 3-6storeys are too big, too high and too close. The highest block would be visible from the Downs &would unquestionably damage the Downs Conservation Area. The crowding of the blocks wouldcause serious damage to the setting of the listed Grace House building - and cause broaderdamage to the character of Westbury Park.
Damage to our Environment:The plans would mean an overall LOSS of biodiversity of 7.3% on site and this is not compliantwith the Climate or Ecological Emergencies or the Emergency Action Plan which puts nature atthe centre of all decisions. Too many trees (50%) are being removed from the site, and plans toreplace them either on and off-site are not in line with Bristol City Council policy. The copse oftrees on Bayswater Avenue - a key local landmark - would be reduced. It would mean harmfulimpact to the Downs SNCI (Site of Nature Conservation Interest).
Risk to our road safety & potential parking chaos:65 spaces for 122 units is simply not enough. Local roads have no spare capacity and this is likelyto lead to increased hazards, like blocked pavements and choked junctions - especially close tothe nurseries and Westbury Park Primary School. There are particular concerns about the
proposed driveway from Bayswater Avenue/Etloe Road which sits at the junction of St HelenaRoad which already poses a hazard with poor visibility when cars park on the corners of the road.
Loss of SEND provision:Hundreds of children in Bristol are waiting for a place in a special school. Existing schools inBristol are swamped by enquiries from desperate families. St Christopher's was Bristol's lastresidential special school - now the city council spends more than £8m a year sending vulnerablechildren to out of county placements. The developers have no plans to honour the legacy of 70+years of SEND provision on site.
No Affordable home provision:It's a key target for Bristol City Council but these plans provide no affordable housing on site.
Although the developer tried to 'consult' the local community, it seems that none of our commentshave been taken into consideration which bears the question of how ethical the developer really is.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
I am strongly against this proposed development.My key concerns are as follows:
- Increased traffic / parking. However the developers spin it, there will clearly be an increase inparking in the local area. There is already a problem with road safety arising from the lack ofparking / volume of vehicles on the roads. Any development has to cover its own parkingrequirements.
- Not in keeping. The proposed development is not in keeping with the local area at all. There is nojustification whatsoever to materially change the current footprint of the site. I.e. same number ofbuildings / same profile (height/size).
- Proposed entrance on Bayswater Ave. This is an incredibly dangerous proposal and must nothappen. The proposed entrance is right next to a nursery, yards from a junior school and on aroad which is already struggling with access, speeding and parking issues.
- Purpose. The local area simply doesn't need this kind of development. There are two luxuryretirement complexes within walking distance, both of which aren't full!
- Strength of feeling from the local community. It's clear from the number of objections, the rallyingof WPCA and SCAN, and the local outrage at the way developers have 'engaged' with thecommunity that this proposed development is so out of touch with the local community. The
people must be heard.
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
Only 65 parking spaces for 120 units - parking is already a nightmare along WestburyPark Road and surrounding areas
The proposed access from Bayswater Avenue is not suitable for the existing road conditions with aschool, a nursery, challenging car parking and a very difficult junction at St Helena Road. Manytimes a day the road around this junction gets very congested with cars converging fromBayswater, Royal Albert, St Helena and Eltoe Road towards this junction and due to parked cars,the cars have had to back up to free up the road
Westbury Park road is already a difficult drive from Royal Albert Road to Redland Road dueparked cars essentially making the road a virtually single track road. So in almost every occasiondue to volume of traffic going down Westbury Park Road to Whitetree roundabout trying to driveup Westbury Park Road to Claypit road means having to pull in to spaces between parked cars toallow traffic to pass safely before resuming the journey - additional traffic into and out of theproposed site and additional parking will severely impact the route from Royal Albert road toRedland Road
Height of Villa A and impact on Royal Albert Road - the proposed balcony which will overlook theirgardens and similarly for houses on The Glen & Bayswater Ave
on 2022-04-21 OBJECT
The proposed plans are completely inappropriate; the buildings are not in-keeping withthe surroundings, they are far too tall and too dense, and they will dramatically and negatively alterthe skyline looking from all directions. Above that, I am particularly concerned about the proposedaccess onto Bayswater Avenue, the inevitable impact on parking, road congestion, and theconsequent impact on road safety.
We have already experienced the impact of increased traffic, congestion, and an increase inpavement parking in this locality as a result of the introduction a few years ago of a residentsparking zone ending just short of these streets. The consequences have been daily jams at thejunctions of St Helena's Road/Bayswater Avenue and Royal Albert/Bayswater Avenue/Etloe Road,and a massive increase in parking. Service vehicles such as bin lorries have been unable to pass(interrupting collections sometimes for weeks at a time), and emergency service vehicles would beunable to pass. Most alarmingly though, I have witnessed several near misses, and I havepersonally been involved in a terrifying situation where my children were nearly hit by a carreversing, without looking, to avoid oncoming traffic.
The addition of 120 separate dwellings with only 65 parking spaces to accommodate staff,residents, their visitors and associated service and delivery vehicles will enormously increase thepressure on the already hugely overloaded neighbouring streets, with my primary concern beingroad safety.
on 2022-04-21
1
Preamble This Statement has been prepared for the WPCA by Jeff Bishop (AA Diploma, HonMRTPI, FAcSS). Mr. Bishop is a long term resident of Westbury Park and Design and Planning Adviser to the WPCA. He is also regarded as a national expert on community engagement in planning. In fact he and a colleague developed the basic idea of Statements of Community Involvement for the government in 2002/3. In relation to community engagement he has also recently been an adviser to what was the MoHCLG and been on a team undertaking research for the Welsh Government. He has run training courses and produced practical guidance on engagement for planners, developers, communities and others and was commissioned by the RTPI to write their standard text on engagement: ‘The Craft of Collaborative Planning’.
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 As in Bristol City Council’s Statement of Community Involvement, applicants on major projects are required to submit, with their application, a Community Involvement Statement. This should summarise: “a) the community involvement undertaken; b) the main issues raised by the community; and c) how the proposal has been revised to take account of the issues raised and, where the application has not been revised, the reasons why not.” 1.2 If representative groups in the area affected by an application are dissatisfied with the involvement undertaken and how this is summarised in the applicant’s Statement: “Participants may provide a written statement of omissions and corrections which will be reported and considered by the council along with the Community Involvement Statement and/or consultation statement.” 1.3 We are submitting this report because the Westbury Park Community Association are totally dissatisfied with the quality of the involvement undertaken and believe that what is in the applicant’s Statement of Community Involvement completely fails to respond appropriately (i.e. with explanation and justification) to the views of the residents of our area. 1.4 As elaborated in the Executive Summary below, the Westbury Park Community Association (WPCA) have few concerns about the varied consultation activities undertaken by the applicants and featuring in their own Statement. The WPCA’s concerns are about their detailed delivery. As a result, this report has had to be quite lengthy (their Statement is 249 pages long) in order to highlight those very serious errors and what has been, in the WPCA’s view, deliberately misleading information and misrepresentation of community views. 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 Representatives of the applicants made contact with the WPCA soon after their purchase of the site, asking to meet. At that meeting they introduced staff from MPC - their PR Consultants. They wished to explain the project and their commitment to undertaking community engagement/consultation and discuss how best to do that. That wish to meet was greatly appreciated and the WPCA were reassured at that meeting not just that they had chosen to engage early but also by their initial proposals for the engagement events, activities and means of communication; all of which sounded highly promising. 2.2 The engagement started with one-to-one meetings with immediate site neighbours, followed by an open invitation for local people to visit what is, in the main, a hidden (even for
2
Westbury Park people) and very large site. Two invited workshops were held, by which time a project website had been set up. After further design work, the applicants then held two public ‘exhibitions’ at which people could see the now amended site plans and ask questions of project team members. The final stage was two online webinars showing more detail of the emerging and slightly amended plans. All through this, various forms of feedback methods were used to get consultee comments and ideas. This overall pattern of activities was all to be supported and is described in the main part of the applicant’s own Statement. 2.3 As elaborated in Section 3, all of the detailed delivery of the various activities was very badly managed (e.g. see 3.16 below about the disastrous workshops) and often included misinformation, notably the worst example of deliberately misleading information that this author has ever witnessed. Addressing the City Council’s ‘Ground Rules’ 2.4 In relation to the 10 ‘Ground Rules’ of community involvement in the City Council’s Statement of Community Involvement, the following were addressed reasonably successfully: • 1. Inclusive Invitation: In general terms this was well managed. • 2. Authorisation: We in WPCA confirmed the basis on which we were speaking on behalf
of members. • 3. Continuity: In general terms this was well managed. • 5. Early Involvement: This was done. (Ground Rule 7 is not applicable.) 2.5 There are, however, some very significant questions about conformity with the other Ground Rules: • 4. Independent Advice: The consultants appointed by the applicants (MPC) did not, at
any time, act with the required “client duty of care to all parties equally”. The MPC website states that their role is to ”motivate interest and support for our clients’ plans”. This means they were clearly appointed to do all possible to secure planning permission for the applicants not to listen fully to the community, as was illustrated in their highly biased feedback forms (e.g. see 3.35 below). While seeking suggestions and ideas on a regular basis from WPCA, MPC largely ignored these and continued with clear misinformation despite many requests to amend this (e.g. see 3.24 below).
• 6. Presenting Options: No options were ever presented and the information provided about the plans at two key stages was so minimal and inadequate that it was almost impossible for anybody, especially any lay person, to comment properly (e.g. see 3.36 below).
• 8. Consensus: There were no opportunities for the community as a whole to engage in a way that might reach consensus and “the reasons and the scale of disagreement” were never made “clear and specific”. The supposed group discussions at the September workshops (see 3.17 below) were so badly managed and recorded as to be useless.
• 9. Transparent Records: No reports were ever prepared or circulated by MPC back to contributors or the WPCA from a single event or activity until their inclusion – far too late and poorly presented across an incomprehensible 249 pages - in their Statement. There was therefore absolutely no way in which anybody could hold the applicants to account for their approach or the final results. Hence our decision to “provide a written statement of omissions and corrections” as here.
Changes from Consultation 2.6 Bristol’s Statement of Community Involvement requires applicants to say “how the proposal has been revised to take account of the issues raised and, where the application
3
has not been revised, the reasons why not.” In general, the applicants did not respond in any significant way to the many comments made by consultees, or explain why not. 2.7 The layout presented at the September 2021 workshops showed 121 apartments in several blocks (‘Villas’) varying in height from 6 storeys to 4 storeys, some clearly too close to immediate neighbours. No significant changes were made for the December exhibitions, other than some reorientation of the main blocks and an exchange of some ‘cottages’ for one of the original blocks. 2.8 Almost no changes were made for the January webinars. It was only at a private meeting with WPCA after the webinars and just before the planning application was submitted (hence with no opportunity for anything to change) that the WPCA were shown a new layout with one storey removed from one block and some additional distance created to the cottages to the east. 2.9 In fact, although the very final layout shown at this meeting had offered a reduction in height for one block, and hence a reduction in apartment numbers for that block, other design changes brought the total number of apartments back up to 122 by increasing the footprint (and therefore visual impact); 1 more apartment than presented at the December events. Despite the many concerns raised about the vehicular access from Bayswater Avenue, about pedestrian access from The Glen and Bayswater Avenue and about parking provision, no changes were made to any of these and no explanation given for why not. 2.10 The changes as above have been almost cosmetic and no serious attempt has been made to explain why the very many other comments submitted had not been taken on board. 2.11 Please note from what follows that the WPCA tried very hard throughout the process to advise and help the applicant’s engagement consultants to get the most and best possible results from their work and yet, with one exception, any advice and suggestions were completely ignored. 2.12 In summary: The applicant’s Community Involvement Statement may look strong because of the events and activities that they held, but it must be checked against the detail of what actually did and did not take place. Any engagement is only as good as its detailed delivery and, as the full evaluation in this report shows clearly, this was extremely poor, deliberately and dramatically misleading at times, even rigged. The work does not meet Bristol City Council’s high standards and cannot be given any credence. 3. EVALUATION IN DETAIL
3.1 The WPCA have no query with the range of approaches taken to the community engagement. It was started very early on and the programme was generally agreed with the WPCA; indeed one late request from the WPCA for further events led to the January 2021 webinars. Our concerns are with the details of delivery, the ways of providing feedback to the applicants, the lack of access to feedback results to check them, the lack of changes to the designs as a result of community input and the lack of justification for this. And all of this involved the frequent use of misleading information. 3.2 We present our comments in relation to each of the sections in the applicant’s SCI from their section 6 (10) on. Section 6: Social Value (their page 11) 3.3 This is unquestionably important but anything emerging from the work on social value can only be considered in parallel to but totally separate from the core planning aspects of
4
the application. Whatever social value is proposed, this cannot be used to argue for any reduction in standards set in basic planning policies and principles. 3.4 This is not relevant to the planning application. Section 7: Consultation and Engagement (pages 12-18) 3.5 The six pages in this section list specific meetings with groups or people representing them. Following from the point above, 27 of these meetings were clearly about issues of social value, not the planning application. Only 7 meetings were with planning-relevant people. Apart from the listed events covered below, there do not appear to be any notes, especially agreed notes, from these meetings other than those with WPCA. 3.6 Little of this is relevant to the planning application. Section 8.1.1: Near Neighbour Meetings (page 20) 3.7 No notes appear to have been taken of these meetings, casting doubt on the validity of the summary on page 19. There have in fact been two occasions on which, later in the process, near neighbours have queried, in both cases angrily, the accuracy of the summary when points from it were used in discussions. 3.8 The summary points in the applicant’s SCI were not put on the project website at that time to enable those involved to check the results. 3.9 Key quotes from participants: • The applicant’s representative “did not mention any apartment buildings at all - and
reassured us that Aurora’s plans for a large U-shaped care-block would not be part of Amicala’s plans”. He later apologised for ‘forgetting’ to mention the apartment block”.
• “A completely manipulative process”. 3.10 Without agreed notes, the summary must be questioned. Section 8.1.2: Guided site walkarounds (pages 21 and 22) 3.11 WPCA representatives attended these along with a number of local people. It was clear that the applicant’s team members present were not taking any notes of comments or questions. The WPCA representatives therefore decided to talk to as many people as possible and take notes. These notes were sent to the applicant’s team but there is no record of them being used. 3.12 A feedback form was available on site for those who wished to add comments. It is not clear how many forms were completed but there is only one page in the Appendices (page 100) with just 27 comments (but not necessarily from 27 people). There is no sign that the summary on page 21 of the applicant’s SCI draws from or relates to what was in the WPCA notes. 3.13 The summary points in the applicant’s SCI were not put on the project website at that time to enable those involved to check the results. 3.14 Key quotes from participants: • “This seems to sound like exactly the sort of development our community needs”. • “Looks good but I’ll only believe this when they actually deliver on what they are
promising”.
5
3.15 Without agreed notes, the summary must be questioned. Section 8.1.3: Community workshops (pages 23-28) 3.16 The six pages in the applicant’s SCI describe the purpose of the two workshops, how they were managed, the event programme and general results. They also offer an overall summary. This all presents a completely false picture of what took place, how it was received and the outcomes. 3.17 That is described more appropriately in the applicant’s SCI on pages 227-230. This is an evaluation of the workshops done by the WPCA and sent to the applicants in the hope of some better practice in subsequent stages. This evaluation listed many aspects on which the workshops were appallingly badly run. In summary: • Suggestions made by WPCA representatives at a briefing meeting in advance of the
workshops were almost all ignored, but what then took place reflected exactly the cautions and concerns raised by the WPCA at that briefing.
• The mix of people made one single format for both events inappropriate. • The venue was a disaster; people in groups could not hear each other or the facilitator
during feedback sessions. • The facilitator, though introduced as just that, was asked questions about project content
but was unable to answer them and project team members failed to take on that role. • The ‘warm-up’ exercise was very badly described and seen as a waste by all present. • The second exercise was also badly described and, by this time, annoyance was
increasing because people wanted to see the initial designs. • The presentation was just of one site layout, nothing more. • Despite the WPCA asking for this in advance, the site layout did not show building heights;
already known to be a key community concern. • All present agreed that they would wish to see and check the event report before it went
on the website. This was agreed by the applicant’s team at the time but it was not done. • The main ‘scribe’ clearly had no idea how to take summary notes so what emerged
shortly after the events on the website was almost totally incomprehensible. (NB. This is not the notes on pages 75-77 of the applicant’s SCI. They have been ‘polished’ since but it is not clear on what basis.)
3.18 While it is good to note the comment on page 26 of the applicant’s SCI about the unanimous vote taken at the end of workshop 2 rejecting the proposals, this hardly does justice to the strength of negative feeling at that point; a feeling also expressed, if not that dramatically, at the end of workshop 1. In addition, the concern was not just about the proposals but also about the way all of the engagement had been managed up to that point. Any (cautious) optimism and trust that may have been built up had now been replaced with almost total distrust. 3.19 Key quotes from participants: • “Complete waste of 90% of our time”. • “Patronising”. • “Total disconnect …. tick-box … offensive”. 3.20 These two workshops were a complete disaster on every possible level. Section 8.1.4: Community newsletter (page 29) 3.21 This was circulated widely in mid November 2021 mainly to promote the December public exhibitions. It prompted an immediate message back from the WPCA to point out that
6
(a) the first event was suggested for Wednesday 1st December, the same time as the extremely well supported and local Henleaze Christmas Fair – they had not consulted WPCA on the date, (b) stopping at 7.00 made it almost impossible for anyone working out of Bristol to attend and (c) a start time of 3.00 in winter would be difficult for older people. These comments were ignored. The WPCA also asked to see the presentation material in advance to try to ensure that concerns to date could be addressed. This did not happen. 3.22 The content of this invitation gave no recognition to key points from previous events. Section 8.1.5: Public drop-in events and 8.1.6: Feedback form (pages 30 and 31) 3.23 These were the first completely open opportunity for people to see the emerging designs, make comments, discuss with team members and offer feedback. 3.24 13 boards were on display around the room. 10 boards were about background (to site, applicants etc.). Only three of these boards showed the latest proposals: 1. A site layout with two cross sections. Despite regular requests (yet again) for the layout
plan to clearly show building heights and numbers of apartments, this was not done; a participant(!) had to resort to writing these on. The cross sections were very small and carefully chosen, and many people found them difficult to read.
2. Landscape and Ecology. This failed to highlight clearly how many trees were to be removed to make way for the development, or where they were.
3. Transport and Parking. This was very poorly presented; many people found it difficult to read.
3.25 Most significantly, the opening board and final board included a highly misleading coloured perspective of the Listed Grade II Grace House after its upgrading. (See the section on Imagery on page 10.) 3.25 After the Wednesday event, the WPCA had to press for more A3 copies of these drawings to be produced and laid out at the Saturday event. Copies were produced but none of the team even knew that they were there or why they were there. The team had to have that explained to them by the WPCA! 3.26 It was good to have a number of the applicant’s team present but it was reported quite often to the representatives of the WPCA (who were at both events) that people were hearing contrary details when asked for further information, notably about parking space numbers. 3.27 Many comments were made at the events to WPCA representatives, around 20 or so being about the inadequacy of the presentations of the designs (having only 3 out of 13 boards with proposals was a common comment). Several people commented on what they felt to be the rigged nature of the questions in the feedback form (the WPCA completely agree with this point). People felt that they had to force what they wanted to say into inappropriate question boxes. This was particularly disappointing because events up to that point had made it crystal clear what issues people wished to comment on, notably heights, parking etc. 3.28 Despite pressure from the WPCA, no event report was ever produced or shared back with participants. Very limited and carefully selected information was placed on the website. 3.29 Key quotes from participants: • “Apparently when we visit we will be requested to complete a questionnaire which has
been carefully designed to mislead us and provide fodder to the press suggesting we as a community are positive about this development.”
7
• “It remains a vast over-development.” • “The developers really haven’t listened to the community. 6 storey block, only 65 car
parking spaces and vehicle access from Bayswater Avenue. After all the consultation so far this is so disappointing. They are clearly still not addressing these and other major concerns.”
• “I've bypassed your questions as they appear framed to generate what you want to hear, not what you need to know.”
• “Data presented on some of the boards was completely wrong and misleading e.g. regarding the impact on hospital stays.”
3.30 Although a number of people were pleased to see that some changes had bean made, the majority were still unhappy with aspects such as heights and parking, and also unhappy with the lack of design detail and the carefully controlled format of the feedback form. Section 8.1.7: Community webinars (pages 32-33) 3.31 These were added to the programme at the very end of the consultation period at the request of the WPCA. (The consultation end date was also slightly extended.) In fact, what the WPCA requested was one or two more public drop-ins, but the concerns about Covid at that time rightly shifted the approach to webinars. 3.31 Although the scheme had not changed in any important way by this time (mid January 2022), more information was provided on the designs as a result of strong pressure from the WPCA – 15 slides were shown to address issues such as distances to neighbours, more cross sections, elevations, visualisations from surrounding streets and on site, tree retention and loss and (now more clearly) parking. 3.31 Although the webinars showed more information, this was never made clear to people who were invited. As a result, although many would have found it easier to join a webinar than to attend an exhibition, only 58 joined as compared with 208 at the public exhibitions. Following the presentation, the interactive session was carefully managed to prevent people from seeing each other or seeing the questions asked and answers given. 3.31 No report was produced and shared from the webinars. 3.32 Because it was not made clear that a lot more information would be shown, these events added little to the process and were far too late to enable anything other than tiny amendments to be made. Sections 9 to 11 (pages 34-36) 3.33 These do no more than explain the way the website and media links were used, so no comments are needed. Sections 12 and 13: Feedback results (pages 37-43) 3.34 These seven pages contain some information analysing the feedback comments from the hard copy form used at the public exhibitions and the ‘Give My View’ online form. We comment here on two aspects: the nature of the questions asked and the results presented. Forms and Questions 3.35 Some of the concerns about the feedback form used for the public exhibitions have already been covered above and they apply again here. The applicant’s SCI does not include details of the questions asked on the online form but the WPCA have a copy and it is
8
important to note that they were not the same as those asked on the hard copy form. The questions covered (just two are shown as direct quotes): 1. Facilities and public spaces 2. Priorities for improving Westbury Park 3. Impact of Covid on care for older people 4. Social benefits from the development 5. Amenities to go in Grace House 6. Possible use of the new outdoor spaces 7. “Design and Plans” 8. Landscaping 9. Most important aspects for you 10. Sustainability of the designs 11. Approach to restoring the Lodges 12. “What is your preferred development plan for this site?” 3.36 As with the boards at the public exhibitions providing only limited information about the designs (3 out of 13 boards), only questions 7, 10, and 12 (and perhaps 8) were about what emerged in the planning application. 3.37 Key quotes from participants: • “I've bypassed your questions as they appear framed to generate what you want to hear,
not what you need to know”. • “This is a questionnaire that forces people into answers that lean towards the answers you
want. Don’t dress it up as anything else.” • “Carefully put together survey which I suspect will be spun in the development’s favour.” 3.38 Given all that had emerged from the events prior to the public exhibitions and the start of the online survey, the list above, and what was in the hard copy feedback form, what is presented in this section is almost unbelievable and the approach taken was unquestionably about avoiding any detailed responses to the emerging designs. The online form in particular was totally inappropriate at any stage, certainly towards the end of the consultation. It was no more than a PR approach about “motivating interest and support”. Results Presented 3.39 For the results from both aspects of feedback, the pages provide some of the necessary information from which to judge the value of the comments (e.g. overall numbers and numbers per broad postcode). However, on almost all questions, the results simply show how many people responded on particular issues. They do not show anything about support or not or about the relative numbers supporting or not. 3.40 The one exception to this was with questions 1 and 2 on the feedback form where the small charts provide percentages of support – and these were about issues which, unsurprisingly, were long known to have wide support! 3.41 The misleading nature of this information can be shown from a simple analysis of the results from (just) the feedback form responses on selected issues. The chart below shows how many comments were made against or in support of specific aspects. (Figures must be treated with caution because of possible double-counting for example.) There were 14 pages of comments, 170 comments in total. The results showing points made regularly were: Topic Against Support Amount and density of development 21 1 Building heights 81 1
9
Proximity to neighbours and local character 28 0 Vehicle access from Bayswater Avenue 18 0 Pedestrian access from east and south 9 1 Parking provision on site 33 0 Traffic impacts 18 0 Facilities, inc. more/different 5 18 3.42 By way of example, almost 48% of comments were negative about heights, 20% negative about parking. This simple approach also highlights where there was good support, i.e. 10% supporting on-site facilities. 3.43 The applicant’s SCI includes 103 more pages of comments from other events/stages from early to the end of the engagement. At a quick look it is obvious that the results above are broadly replicated in these 103 pages and, potentially 1,200 other comments. It must however be noted that the scope for people to use the ‘Give My View’ form to comment on any of the issues above was almost totally restricted by the nature of the questions asked. 3.44 As one local person has commented, this is “transparency gone mad”. It was the applicants’ responsibility to analyse the many comments far more fully to show not just the focus of comments made but also their nature (i.e. support/object) and their links to each small postcode area to highlight comments from immediate neighbours as distinct from those from postcode areas as far away such as BS2. And this should have been done following each event and checked for accuracy with all those responding at that time. This analysis was requested but never received, nor - despite requests - were the WPCA sent the material at the time of each event to do our own analysis. To expect lay people (or anybody for that matter) to analyse potentially 1,200 comments is disgraceful and a deliberate way of ensuring that people cannot relate their input to the report’s conclusions. 3.45 This problem is then exacerbated by the boxes on pages 38, 39 and 42 which list supposedly typical comments. Though always, and rightly, including some negative as well as some positive comments, this is no substitute for a proper analysis and they present an entirely false picture of the balance of positive and negative comments. 3.46 Key quotes from participants: • “We view the consultation exercise to date as little more than a 'tick-box' / public
relations initiative and campaign. Few substantive changes have been made to the original plans as a consequence of it and the concerns expressed by the local community.”
• “Questions 1 through 4 are so open to interpretation in any way by the reviewer that I cannot answer them.”
• “This questionnaire is fundamentally biased such that statements are hard to disagree with.”
3.47 The presentation of the facts and figures from the main survey sources is highly distorted and highly selective, in particular by carefully excluding anything about the relative balance of positive and negative comments. Section 14: Response to feedback (pages 45-48) 3.48 Bristol City Council’s SCI requires applicants to show “how the proposal has been revised to take account of the issues raised and, where the application has not been revised, the reasons why not.” We comment separately on these two aspects.
10
Revisions made 3.49 Eight responses/changes are listed, all of which are valuable in their own right (in relation to distances to neighbours for example) but they completely fail to address the most significant issue – raised almost endlessly from the outset – about building heights generally (see chart above). There has been, from the start, concern about the heights of the proposed new villas in terms of impacts on neighbours and, to some extent, the wider local community. The core reason for this is almost certainly a requirement on the consultant team to deliver a scheme with 120 apartments, no doubt for viability reasons. This came very clear just a week or two before the submission of the planning application when (as noted above) Villa A was reduced to 3 storeys and yet the overall number of apartments increased to keep the total at 120! (These issues are addressed more fully in the WPCA’s objection about overdevelopment.) 3.50 It had also been clear from the very start that people were concerned about the likelihood of overspill parking onto surrounding streets, about traffic issues and about the loss of so many good trees. Not one of these clearly expressed concerns is addressed in this section of the applicant’s Statement. This is disgraceful. (These issues are addressed more fully in the WPCA’s objection about parking.) 3.51 The response from the consultation has been little more than cosmetic. Reasons for not responding 3.52 This is simply not addressed at all in this section! Section 15: Response to key themes (pages 50-57) 3.53 This section of the applicant’s SCI is rather odd. It has 15 boxes addressing “key themes” but its purpose is unclear because (a) it repeats many of the points made in the previous section, (b) it highlights a number of themes not addressed in any significant way at all in any of the remainder of the Statement up to that point (e.g. sustainability and construction impact) and (c) most of the text does little more than elaborate why the proposals are good and should be supported; the latter not being the point of a Statement such as this. In addition, some of the text, e.g. about density and parking, seeks to provide an explanation about why contributors’ comments have not been responded to, so that should have been in Section 14 as noted above. 3.54 This section has no genuine purpose other than MPC’s role for their clients in “motivating interest and support”. Information Management 3.55 Throughout the engagement, with the exception of early agreement on the overall programme, the applicants have very carefully managed the provision of information by not doing it at appropriate times, holding information back and providing misleading information. They have not demonstrated the necessary “client duty of care to all parties equally”; in fact they have clearly focused on delivering what the applicant organisations wanted – exactly as stated on MPC’s website. 3.56 Here are just three examples of this inappropriate practice from the long list of many. Event Reports 3.57 Despite a number of requests, not a single full report of an event or an activity has been produced, shared with those involved and therefore agreed by them at the
11
appropriate time, i.e. soon after the event to enable any corrections to be made. Almost all of the comments made are included in the Appendices to the Statement (199 pages long). This is unacceptable practice because (a) it prevented people (e.g. those involved with near neighbour meetings) from agreeing what was discussed, (b) inclusion in the Appendices is of no value to lay people who do not even understand what a Statement of Community Involvement even is and (c) being faced with over 100 pages of comments is a massive disincentive to anybody, notably local people – and even us as the WPCA - to do an analysis, especially when that job should have been done by the consultants. Imagery (Some of what follows is repeated in the WPCA’s objection on the grounds of overdevelopment.) 3.58 The image overleaf of a converted Grace House has been used on the website, in various presentations to the community (it was the opening image at the December exhibitions), in the local free newspapers, in Bristol-wide newspapers and in articles in the professional press. 3.59 There are, however, three key concerns about it because they shield issues around possible overdevelopment: • It uses a distorted wide angle view which is incorrect in standard practice. (Compare this
with the correct and careful use of 50mm images in the Verified Views report.) • It distorts the chromatically ‘cold’ grey colour of the building into something more
chromatically ‘warm’. • It very carefully shows absolutely nothing of the new buildings proposed close to and
surrounding Grace House. 3.60 As a result of its use, the WPCA received a large number of comments along the lines of ‘what’s all the fuss about tall buildings; this looks OK?’. This is clearly a very deliberate choice of an image that suggests it shows the development but it does not. It only shows an existing building and totally fails to show the adjoining buildings to Grace House. This is an appalling example of misleading information; so misleading that its use can only be deliberate. (This is the example mentioned in 2.3 – the worst this author has ever seen.) 3.61 In addition, the Design and Access Statement includes 8 visualisations of the proposed development, for example (overleaf):
12
3.62 These are not appropriate because: • Some are drawn in a curious morning(?) half-light, making it difficult to properly assess the
nature of the project’s details, especially its materials. • No drawing shows properly the relationship between Grace House and the large Villas. • All the visualisations prevent any assessment of the impact on surrounding properties. • Several are drawn from the first or even second floor rather than at ground level.
3.63 There is even one example in the Verified Views report which, even though technically accurate, uses the only viewpoint from across the Downs where two tall trees interrupt the view to Villa B. Design Details 3.64 Key information about the developing plans was withheld on various occasions. One minor example from amongst many was the continued refusal to properly show the heights of the proposed villas on layout plans; a small index plan was shown but with colours far too subtle for most people to work out. 3.65 More significantly, by the time of the December exhibitions and certainly the January webinars, lots more information must have been available but was not shared with anybody, including the WPCA. Given that the application was submitted only a matter of weeks after the webinars, information such as detailed elevations, images, floor plans, landscape details, traffic and parking data etc. etc. must have been completed or virtually completed by the date of the webinars, but it was not presented or shared – presumably deliberately. 3.66 There has clearly been a deliberate policy, throughout the engagement process, of very careful and minimal sharing of information and of misinformation, making it almost impossible for any ordinary person to properly assess the validity of the engagement. The consultants did not deliver on the City’s SCI “client duty of care to all parties equally”.
on 2022-04-19 OBJECT
I visit my family regularly and find traffic and parking congestion increasing on a year-by-year basis.
It seems ludicrous to approve a development which is so large.
A business will only be interested in profits and wont care if this massive development bringsadditional issues parking and traffic chaos to the area.
The number for flats beggar belief, considering it's in the Downs Conservation area.
It should be refused.
on 2022-04-19 OBJECT
I think they this application ruins the amenities of the site and neighbourhood. I thinkthat the buildings are too high, that there is not enough parking, that there will be too much noise,that the development is not in keeping with St Christopher's ethos. I think the design is tooimposing and not sympathetic with the surrounding historical buildings. I think that too many treeswill be felled.
on 2022-04-19 OBJECT
on 2022-04-18 OBJECT
The roads are already too busy around the area. The streets are narrow and there is aprimary school just around the corner.
The planning would also involve the demolishing of the beautiful Victorian villas that line the street.These should be preserved not torn down for profit.
on 2022-04-18 OBJECT
Dear Sir/MadamPlease take note of the following comments in relation to this planning application:
Overdevelopment:The plans involve too much building, far too high, and too close to neighbours.That overdevelopment has negative impacts -(a) in heritage terms on the area and on The Downs (the site and its surrounds are in The DownsConservation Area),(b) on the setting of the Grade II listed Grace House - as outlined in the letter you received fromEnglish Heritage on 12 April 2022 - (dramatically overwhelmed by 6, 5 and 4 storey buildings verynear it),(c) on the privacy and outlook of neighbouring houses(d) on the serious loss of trees in the highly significant 'copse' visible from the corner of BayswaterAvenue and St. Helena Roade) on the overall look and feel of the area - the buildings would tower over all others in the area.There is no other tall building within view of the site.
Parking Provision:The evidence from the Westbury Park Community Association which you will have no doubt seen,strongly suggests that 65 spaces will not be anywhere near enough, despite the plans for shuttlebuses, and common sense says so also, when you consider the number of staff and residents.The lack of adequate parking would lead to significant overspill onto surrounding streets, with
related traffic problems. There are already problems on Etloe Road with parking on the pavementand there is no capacity for extra on-street parking in the surrounding streets. If there is overspillparking, then the pedestrian gates onto The Glen and Bayswater Road, would make it tempting forpeople to park on surrounding streets then nip into the development. Vehicle access at theBayswater Avenue corner (if only for four residents' cars) would have a negative impact on theneighbourhood, with the dangers of extra traffic exiting onto a residential street, with a primaryschool and nursery.
Ecology, biodiversity and wildlife:The tree loss in the site corner near Bayswater avenue is part of the overdevelopment issue, andpersonally will be a loss as the ability to view these trees when walking up St Helena Road is apositive lift to my day. Many trees all across the site will be removed and - the developers say -replaced, though the loss of mature trees takes many, many years to recover. From what I haveread, there is poor and unconvincing evidence from the developers about that and all otheraspects of ecology, including the site's role as a wildlife corridor. It is hard to believe they will fulfiltheir legal requirement for a 'net gain' in biodiversity.
Affordable homes:There is no provision for affordable housing in the plan.
Community provision:The developers claim the community will be able to use some of the facilities on site. With theamount of development proposed, and the lack of mature trees, being in the site will not be apleasant experience, so the availability of a coffee shop or similar becomes a moot point.
Quality of community engagement:Although not a material planning consideration, it is clear from the extensive efforts of the localcommunity that the developers have done little to encourage and act on community feedback toany relevant degree. The level of incompetence and obfuscation that has been evident in this doesnot bode well for the quality of any development in the hands of this particular developer.
Please do not allow the developer to create this overbearing and over-populated provision. I wouldbe much more amenable if a much more modest, lower level development was proposed, withgenuine community engagement.
on 2022-04-18 OBJECT
This is a wholly inappropriate development for this sensitive site.
It will have a huge and negative impact on traffic, residential parking and road safety in an areaclose to a primary school and nursery. There is inadequate provision in the plans for parking onsite. It is difficult to park anyway, sometimes not possible, on the street we live in.
The designs and height of the proposed buildings are wrong and too high and will have anadverse impact on local homes and more generally views around the Downs.
Increased presence of additional buildings adds to light pollution in the immediate locality. Thecurrent proposal involves the loss of mature trees.
I am concerned that the legacy of St Christopher's School is not being maintained for vulnerablechildren.
I wholly object to the proposal as it stands.
on 2022-04-18 OBJECT
Comments on St Christopher's Development
1 The proposed development is not in keeping with the surrounding conservation area.2 There is not enough provision for the extra cars and other methods of transport which will berequired. Also, the local roads do not have the spare capacity for this extra traffic. I am extremelyconcerned about the traffic chaos which will result from this huge development.3 The buildings will overshadow the neighbouring buildings and impact detrimentally on their light,privacy and noise levels.4 There will be a significant effect on the immediate green space adjacent to the property,including a loss of habitat for wildlife. This is an area very close to where I live and I particularlyenjoy walking through the green space, which at present is a peaceful quiet and beautiful area.5. There is no provision for affordable housing - shocking!
on 2022-04-18
The sudden and sad loss of St Christopher's School was bad enough. What is proposedas its replacement is even worse.
Of course, this is a prime site for money-hungry developers but, more importantly, it is integral tothe beauty and history of the Downs, Bristol's prime green space and should take precedenceover those who'd seek to change the way of life here forever. I suspect the developers are 'tryingtheir luck' and, if rejected, would appeal with 'compromises', but no adjustment should beentertained.
To flood the area with new buildings, up to six storeys high, with no regard for the neighbourhoodwould be a travesty and I urge councillors and planners to rejected this proposal.
Commuters abandon their cars on this and surrounding roads all day, every day already becauseof a lack of an RPZ and this would make the situation even worse.
Inadequate parking provision for these flats would leave residents, visitors and staff parking allover the area because local transport is unreliable, ineffective and expensive.
The road system simply cannot withstand any more traffic. Road safety would be severelycompromised.
Please keep the insensitivity is this overdevelopment (without 'affordable' housing) at the forefrontof your mind and reject it.Thank you
on 2022-04-18 OBJECT
Parking is already a nightmare during the evening. This development with not enoughparking will make the situation worse. Not only that, there will be a huge increase of traffic wherethe width of the roads are only one car wide... hence gridlock. Right next to a school. I think thisdevelopment needs a complete rethink. I'm happy to be contacted.
on 2022-04-18 OBJECT
I write to object to the proposed development of the St Christopher's site.This development is is for the development of this beautiful and precious site and will causeirreparable damage, not only to the local area and its residents, but also to the environment, thewildlife of the area and the local community, which will be irreparably damaged by this project.The lives of those who live in the area will be blighted by this project.The plans submitted are totally inadequate and will cause damage to the local community. Thelack of adequate parking proposed will inevitably mean massive overspill onto local roads, alreadychoked on a daily basis and the development will greatly worsen this problem. The area hasschools and nurseries, with many young children, many of whom walk in already dangerous roadsto get to school. Pedestrians are already at serious risk, in narrow and congested roads, which willbe even more overcrowded by the inevitable influx of new parking, as aresuly=t of thisdevelopment.Pavement parking is already dangerous and will worsen.The proposed buildings on the new site, are massively overbearing and will overshadow existingroads and houses. The height of proposed buildings is complately unacceptable and unwelcome.This development is for the benefit of a dew, wealthy elderly residents, who will contribute nothingto the community from this 'ivory tower' but it will do huge damage to the locality.Wildlife will be decimated and we, who form this community, a vibrant and welcoming place, willbe damaged beyond imagining.Parking and access is a serious problem already and this development, so out of keeping with thearea will only cause further problems. The loss of green space and the vandalism to theenvironment and local wildlife is a terrible and permanent loss- all in the name of profit and comfort
and leisure for tjos who can afford it.I do not know what councillors will decide but I do know that they will not be forgiven for this bloton this community.
on 2022-04-18 OBJECT
I wish to object to the scale of the proposed development and have the followingcomments to make:
Overdevelopment
The proposed new 3 - 6 storey buildings are out of scale with the surrounding area and appearoverbearing when viewed from outside the St Christopher's site.The proposed new building elevations are visually out of scale when compared with thesurrounding area and offer a bland facade, which is out of keeping with the surrounding area.At the north east corner of the site, the proposed cottages would dramatically alter the aspectacross Bayswater Road from St Helena Road and render it more claustrophobic.
Ecology
There appears to be a significant loss of mature trees proposed across the site, especially in thenorth east corner of the site. Although the proposals include the planting of new trees, these willtake decades before they reach maturity. In the interim the local ecology will be adversely affectedand could lead to an overall loss of biodiversity.
Parking
On street parking is already a problem in the surrounding streets and the planned level of parking
provision within the development is most likely to exacerbate this. Despite the developers bestintentions, they will not be able to prevent staff, visitors and possibly some future St Christopher'sresidents parking in the streets adjacent if on site spaces are found to be inadequate.
on 2022-04-18 OBJECT
Loss of privacy and over shadowing: this development is placed in the midst of aresidential area; the proposed buildings are three, four, five and six storeys high creatingovershadowing of adjacent houses and their gardens and infringing the privacy of those who livethere.
Traffic and parking: the number of dwellings and those living, working and providing care willcreate a huge increase in the amount of traffic to the area; over the last few months the existingbuildings have been used to offer Covid vaccinations and this alone increased the parking so thatcars were double parked along the length of Westbury Park and their nearside wheels had to goonto the grass of the Downs in order to make space for any traffic passing through. This areaalready has dense parking due to the number of cars per household. Parking provision in thedevelopment is way below what will be needed i.e. 63 spaces for 122 dwellings plus carers andstaff so overspill onto surrounding roads is inevitable.
Highway Safety: the number of parked cars will obscure the view for anyone trying the crossWestbury Park and even more concerning is that there will be movement of cars from the site intoBayswater Road immediately next to a Nursery for pre-school children.At the southern end of Bayswater Road there is a primary school and their arrival time coincideswith the "rush hour".During the rush hour but also at other times, Bayswater Road which continues into Etloe Road is apopular cut through for traffic travelling from Coldharbour Road to North View; and Royal AlbertRoad provides a cut through from Westbury Park to Bayswater Road and Etloe Road. Trying to
pull out onto such a busy road with increased parking and increased traffic will increase the risk ofaccidents between vehicles and between vehicles and pedestrians including school children.
Wildlife: this development is immediately next the Downs an amenity enjoyed by those living in thearea and also many people who travel to it from other places in the city. It provides homes for ahuge range of wildlife which will be impacted to its detriment by a site of this size and those living,working and visiting with its inevitable increase in traffic flow.Plans for this development include the destruction of a high number of mature trees which have apreservation order on them. If permission to remove them is granted, the continued existence ofthe wildlife which depends on the trees for their habitat will be compromised and even thoughthere are plans to replant, it will take 50 years for the new trees to reach the a similar maturity.
Historic buildings: this site is very close to my own home which falls within a conservation area;the proposed buildings are out of character with other buildings in the vicinity both in size anddesign. It is a requirement for those living in the conservation area to ensure that the frontage oftheir properties is maintained so as to retain the original features. The size and design of theproposed buildings does not comply with this in any way.
on 2022-04-18 OBJECT
My first objection to this proposed development is the enormity of the building. Theproposed size of the building would not blend in with the local area at all and would be an 'eyesore', especially if not built in the same style as the surrounding houses. The size and the scale ofthe proposed scheme will not fit in with the conservation area and will create huge impacts onhouses close by. The proposed scheme will negatively impact light, privacy, noise, overshadowingand amenity of existing properties nearby. And not to mention the buildings would be visible fromthe Downs, further ruining the image of the local area.The new apartments blocks will overwhelm the setting of the important listed building (GraceHouse) and are entirely inappropriate for a site within the Downs Conservation Area. If buildingsare insisted on being built, then as a resident of the area I must insist that the buildings be built inthe same style and proportions as the surrounding period houses, to fall in line with the DownsConservation Area.
Another major concern of mine is road safety, traffic and parking. If you are only planning to build65 on-site parking spaces for more than 120 housing units, how do you expect this to impact thesurrounding roads? With overwhelming congestion and parking issues I expect. How does 65parking spaces accommodate for a 120 housing unit with the addition of parking being required byoffice & maintenance staff, visitors and deliveries and not just residents. I would strongly predictparking and road-safety chaos. Local roads have no spare capacity currently as it is without thisnew development. Therefore this new development will lead to increased hazards, like blockedpavements and choked junctions - especially close to the nurseries and Westbury Park PrimarySchool. Creating even more of a concern for the safety of the children in this area. I also have
concerns about the proposed driveway from Bayswater Avenue/Etloe Road and pedestrian accessfrom The Glen.
My third concern is the huge environmental impact this proposition will have. 50% of trees on-sitewould be felled, including beautiful, mature specimens that would take decades to replace.Considering that wildlife and nature is already hugely depleted in a city it is vital that what is left ispreserved. Especially in times like these with global warming and mass habitat loss for what littlewildlife we have left. The loss of green space on the 'Granny Downs' with a new path cuttingacross it, is inappropriate in regard to my previous point. I disagree with the proposed loss of muchof the copse visible from Bayswater Avenue/Etloe Road. This site is home to woodpeckers, owls,bats and foxes. And therefore it is paramount that we do not disturb what little nature there is left inthis area. Extra vehicles and traffic congestion will inevitably have an impact on air pollution,lowing the air quality of the local area.
These plans offer no provision for affordable housing, even though it's a key target for Bristol CityCouncil and the Government. And as the developers have previously stated that affordablehousing is not compatible with their business model, I think that it is even more outrageous thatthis building be potentially given approval for building.
The plans for this new building offer no guarantee of provision for young people with SpecialEducational Needs & Disabilities (SEND) despite the legacy of St Christopher's School whichlooked after hundreds of vulnerable children over a 70 year period. Bristol City Council is strivingto improve the quality of service but serious gaps remain and there are no longer any residentialcare places within Bristol for children who need specialist help.
on 2022-04-17 OBJECT
I object to this application based on the sheer size and scale of the buildings.
The residential nature of the area is low rise (as is Bristol) and this development should take intoconsideration the scale of surrounding properties. I'm concerned about the loss of privacy, outlookon a personal level.
I'm also concerned about the number of residents / staff / visitors and the resulting increase intraffic and impact on road safety. Parking is at such a premium in the area that dropped curbs,road markings are consistently ignored so road safety is already compromised.
The size of development should be massively reduced to ensure so that it matches the size andcurrent population density with the surrounding area.
on 2022-04-17 OBJECT
The Westbury Park Community Association (WPCA) object to the planning applicationon the grounds of overdevelopment and insufficient parking. This submission covers our objectionto the proposal on the grounds that the 65 parking spaces proposed by the applicant will lead tooverspill parking on surrounding roads which are already at full parking capacity (Section 1).
This submission also comments on the Travel Plan (Section 2) and the traffic analysis section ofthe Transport Statement submitted by the applicant (Section 3).
SECTION 1
Objection to the Planning Application on Parking Grounds
1 Our View
1.1 The Community Association object to the plan to provide just 65 parking spaces. This will bedetrimental to local residents as this low number of spaces will almost certainly lead to overspillparking in surrounding roads which already have severe parking problems. These roads do nothave the capacity to accommodate overspill parking.
1.2 Our objection is based on the following analysis and arguments:
(i) The parking analysis set out in Section 6 of the Transport Statement which concludes that 65
spaces would be adequate is seriously flawed:
- In estimating the number of spaces required for residents the City Council's parking standardswere totally misinterpreted.- In estimating the staff parking requirement the City Council's parking standard was applied to thenumber of staff on site at any one time (15-20 FTE) rather than the total number of staff (possibly33 FTE, possibly up to 40-45 FTE).- We cannot comment on the analysis of visitor parking requirements as there was no analysis orestimate of visitor parking requirements.
(ii) The Transport Statement failed to present basic information and analysis on the parking needsof residents, staff and visitors such as resident car ownership rates (and the factors affecting theserates), staff numbers and shift patterns, and likely visitor parking demands and patterns .
(iii) No explanation was offered as to how the parking spaces will be allocated. If a high proportionare allocated (at a charge) to residents the parking spaces available for staff and visitors will beeven more inadequate. If staff and visitor parking is prioritised the number of spaces for residentswould have to be rationed. Both scenarios increase the threat of overspill parking.
(iv) Far more attempt should have been made to present evidence of parking provision in otherextra care and retirement schemes (albeit accompanied, where appropriate, by cautionary notesas to why the parking requirements at these schemes might differ from what is required at St.Christopher's).
1.3 Our assessment in section 4 leads to the conclusion that 60 - 70 spaces will be required tomeet the parking needs of residents, 16-22 spaces to meet the needs of staff, 12-15 to meetvisitor needs and three spaces for the two car club cars and the minibus. We therefore estimatethat at least 91 and possibly as many as 110 on site parking spaces should be provided tominimise the risk of overspill parking.
1.4 Putting the above estimates into perspective the pre-application submission made by theapplicant in July 2021 actually proposed 120 parking spaces. Were the City Council's use classC3 parking standards to be applied the total number of parking spaces would be as many as 150.(This is based on 11 one bed apartments x 1 space per unit + 111 two bed apartments /cottages x1.25 spaces per unit.) Other extra care and retirement living schemes close to St. Christopher'sprovide the same number of parking spaces as the number of residential units.
2 Preamble
2.1 In challenging the Transport Statement Section 6 analysis and conclusions and making a casefor higher parking provision we recognise the difficulty in reaching a consensus on parkingnumbers for extra care schemes. Local authority parking standards relating to institutional and
residential use classes C2 and C3 are not applicable as these use classes do not specificallycover extra care or assisted living schemes. As a result many planning authorities take a flexibleapproach to assessing parking requirements, accepting that the level of parking provision on extracare housing schemes will vary depending upon a range of factors (e.g. the level of care provided,the availability of public transport, access to services and facilities on site and in the near vicinity).This approach has its advantages but will inevitably lead, as it does in the case of St.Christopher's, to differing claims by applicants and local residents / communities as to theappropriate provision of parking spaces.
2.2 In challenging the parking proposals put forward and attempting our own assessment ofparking requirements we have been forced to make more assumptions than we would have likedbecause of the failure of the applicant to provide key information and analysis (e.g. staff numbersand shift patterns, car ownership rates in the over 70 age group, information on the experiences ofexisting extra care schemes). Presenting "off the shelf "suspect information on parking numbers(the TRICS parking data) is a poor substitute.
3 Comments on the Parking Analysis and Figures presented in section 6 of the TransportStatement
3.1 The applicant's Statement concludes that a total of 65 parking spaces is sufficient to meet theneeds of residents, visitors and staff and it is claimed in paragraph 6.20 of the TransportStatement that this provision is higher than the maximum standard and would reduce the risk ofoverspill parking affecting local residents. We strongly disagree with this assessment.
3.2 The standard being referred to is the City Council's car parking standard for use class C2convalescent and residential care homes which is one space per 2 full time duty staff and onespace per 6 bed spaces for visitors. The Transport Statement reads "As the proposal is for 122units with an estimated 15-20 staff on site at any one time the site would require 39 spaces fortenants and ten for staff, totalling 49 spaces". Although not explained the 39 spaces fortenants/residents figure is calculated on the total 233 bed spaces divided by six.
3.3 This estimate of parking requirement based on the City Council's parking standard is seriouslyflawed. This standard is not for tenants / residents but for visitors. There is no comparative figurefor residents as the City Council assume that being a C2 care home use class no residents wouldrequire a car space. As stated above an extra care scheme does not fit the C2 residentialinstitution use class but neither does it fit the C3 residential use class. The transport consultanthas surprisingly nor spelt out this predicament and has instead chosen to use C2 parking standardfigures which are simply not applicable. There is no basis for the resident parking space figure asit is based on a total misreading of the City Council's parking standards.
3.4 With regard to staff parking requirements the City Council's standard should be applied to allstaff, not just to the 15-20 staff (FTE) on site at any one time. Just how many staff the standard
should be applied to is open to question as 33 staff (FTE) staff is cited in the planning applicationand 40-45 staff (FTE) was mentioned by a representative from Amicala at a meeting held inNovember 2021 (more on staff numbers in paragraph 4.7).
3.5 No attempt is made in the Transport Statement analysis to estimate visitor parkingrequirements. We estimate that 12-15 spaces will be required for visitor parking (see paragraphs4.9 - 4.12).
3.6 Paragraphs 6.10 to 6.12 of the Transport Statement cover TRICS comparisons withparagraphs 6.11 and 6.12 stating that "on average, the developments in TRICS had 0.42 spacesper dwelling, but ranged from 0.375 to 0.545". "Using the ratios above, and multiplying by theproposed development, the parking provision equates to between 47 and 69 spaces. Given thatthe proposed development is in a sustainable location, and the developer is providing a shuttlebus and car club spaces, the proposed provision of 65 spaces is considered appropriate".
3.7 The TRICS spaces per dwelling analysis poses more questions than answers as it is not clearwhether the "developments in TRICS' comparative figures are based on just extra care schemesor on all care related residential schemes, nor is it explained whether the spaces per dwellingratios relate purely to spaces for residents or total spaces. If the former, more parking would berequired for staff (at least 16 spaces) and for visitors (estimated 12-15 spaces assuming onevisitor space would be needed for every eight to ten dwellings).
3.8 Paragraph 6.13 of the Transport Statement reports that a brief review of other extra careschemes in Bristol was undertaken and reference is made in paragraph 6.14 to application17/06914/F in Bishopsworth for 62 units which included 22 spaces, a ratio of 0.35. TransportDevelopment Management commented that they "deem this quantum to be acceptable".Paragraph 6.15 concludes "applying the 0.35 ratio from the Bristol development would result in 44spaces across the site, which is lower than proposed".
3.9 The review of other extra care schemes was indeed brief judging by the odd decision to usethe extra care scheme at Bishopsworth for comparative purposes. The 22 new spaces related toan extension and were proposed primarily as an overspill to cater for the additional 25 FTE staff.The Bishopsworth scheme reveals little about the level of parking required for resident parking atSt. Christophers but it reveals a lot about the need to provide ample parking for staff.
3.10 Far more robust research should have been presented on parking / usage patterns in existingextra care / assisted living schemes that are at least broadly comparable to the proposed St.Christopher's development (albeit accompanied, where appropriate, by cautionary notes as to whythe parking requirements at these schemes might differ from what is required at St. Christopher's).
3.11 With regard to the parking accumulation analysis presented in paragraph 6.16 of the
Transport Statement we can point out that the reference to site CH-03-P-01 differs from the sitefeatured in appendix E (site TY-03-01). Appendix E proves nothing as there is no description ofthe site which has been chosen for comparison purposes except for the scheme having 32 units.No information is provided on the type and location of the scheme, no figures are given of the totalparking spaces and no information is provided on how spaces are allocated.
3.12 The reference in the conclusion (paragraph 6.20 of the Transport Statement) to "reducing" asopposed to removing the risk of overspill parking affecting local residents is revealing. Not eventhe transport consultant seems to be confident that 65 spaces will be adequate to preventresidents, staff and visitors from parking in surrounding roads.
4 Our Assessment of Parking Requirements
4.1 In the following paragraphs we attempt to estimate the parking requirement of residents, staffand visitors drawing, where appropriate, on parking standards applied by a number of planningauthorities and the views of transport experts. Our estimate of the parking space requirements foreach of these groups builds into a total parking space requirement figure in the range 91 - 110.
Resident Parking
4.2 Before moving on to an assessment of how many spaces are required to meet the parkingrequirements of residents it is pertinent to refer to what experts have to say about driving and olderpeople.
4.3 The Housing Learning & Improvement Network published a paper entitled "Better planning forcar ownership and well-being in old age" in May 2016 which contained the following observations:
"Most of the increase in travel among older people is as a car driver. The percentage of over 70year olds holding a drivers licence in Great Britain has grown from 15% in 1985 to almost 54% in2009, with males increasing from 34% to 76% and females 4% to 37% in that time. This rise isexpected to continue, and it is predicted that 10 million people over 70 in Great Britain will have adriving licence by 2050"
"Car ownership of senior people will increase during the coming years. This is due to the fact thatthe middle aged people of today probably will maintain their mobility behaviour in old age ("Ageingof travel intensive lifestyles"). It also expects that mobility levels (i.e. number of trips anddistances) will increase within the next years".
4.4 A technical report* drafted in 2010 by a transport consultant, Dr. Allan J Burns , relating to aretirement housing development in Basingstoke recorded that 0.47 of people in Great Britain aged70-75 owned a car; for those aged 75-80 the figure was 0.32.
4.5 Were just 65 spaces to be provided as proposed by the applicant there would be relatively fewspaces available for residents (estimated 30-35) once provision has been made for staff, visitorsand communal transport (an estimated 30-35 spaces or thereabouts). This equates toapproximately one space for every five residents or less than one space for every three units. Webelieve this level of parking provision to be far too low.
4.6 Trying to gauge the number of residents who will own a car and require a parking space istricky. On the one hand there are factors that will restrain the figure, for example some residentswill have medical conditions that prevent or deter them from driving, and the availability of ashared car and a minibus for occasional use will also have a dampening effect. On the other handthere will be residents in the higher car ownership 65 -70 age group and partners not sufferingmedical conditions. Weighing these factors and the projected age structure of up to 200 residentsat St. Christopher's (predominantly over 75 *) it seems reasonable to assume a relatively modestcar ownership ratio of the order of 0.30 - 0.35. Applying this range would mean that a total ofbetween 60 and 70 spaces would be required for residents' parking. The lower figure equates to arate of just over one space for every two units, the upper figure to almost six out of ten householdshaving a space.
* Stated by Amicala and used as the basis for making our estimate of resident parkingrequirements. We note, however, that the minimum age for residents is 65 and there is therefore apossibility that the age profile may be lower than that projected by Amicala.
Staff Parking
4.7 Applying the Council's C2 parking standard for staff in residential care homes - one space forevery two staff FTE - a total of between 16 and 22 spaces for staff would be required dependingon which number of staff figure is accurate (the 33 staff (FTE) cited in the planning application orthe 40-45 staff (FTE) mentioned at the meeting with the developers in November 2021). As therewill be well over 100 residents signed up to care packages and requiring a range of care supportthe number of care staff will be considerable while non care staff will also be needed for variousduties (overall management, running the communal facilities, maintenance, security, transport,etc). We believe the 33 staff (FTE) cited by the applicant is too low and that 40-45 staff (FTE) is amore accurate estimate of the staff required. It is frustrating that we have to speculate so muchabout staff numbers because of the failure of the applicant to provide a detailed breakdown andexplanation of staff numbers in their supporting documentation.
4.8 The applicant may claim that the parking standard level of provision is not required because ofthe plan to provide minibus transport for staff from pick up points but given that staff will almostcertainly be travelling to and from different directions and working different shift patterns it isdifficult to see how much this alternative travel option will actually be used. With regard to thepossible argument that spaces are only required for staff working on site at any one time it ispertinent to point out that parking spaces would be taken by both departing and arriving staff
unless shift times are staggered. Nowhere has it been stated whether this will be the case.
Visitor Parking
4.9 Trying to assess visitor parking requirements is another challenge. Allowance has to be madefor personal visitors arriving at similar peak times rather than being evenly spread, and visits bydelivery vans and health professionals might be on the relatively high side compared with a moretraditional residential development.
4.10 The City Council parking standard for residential care home visitors (one space per six bedspaces) is not applicable to extra care schemes. Residential care residents are housebound andare therefore dependent on receiving visitors: extra care scheme residents will be able to maketrips to friends, family, shops and services, etc.
4.11 Guidance from local authorities for assisted living / extra care schemes is variable. The fewauthorities who do set visitor space standards for assisted living/ extra care schemes tend tofavour the standard of one visitor space for every eight to ten units. The neighbouring localauthority, North Somerset, goes a few steps further, opting for a one space per four units for agerestricted dwellings.
4.12 Applying a one visitor space per ten units standard would mean providing 12 visitor spacesand a one visitor space per eight units standard would require 15 visitor spaces.
Communal Transport
4.13 Parking spaces will also be required for the minibus and two electric car-club cars that will beprovided on site for use by staff and residents Travel Plan (paragraphs 6.2.5 and 6.2.6)
The Total Parking Requirement
4.14 From the analysis above we estimate that the total parking spaces requirement for residents,staff, visitors and communal transport is in the range of 91-110 with the actual number requiredwithin this range depending largely on agreed staff (FTE) numbers and the age profile ofresidents.
4.15 The above figures may seem on the high side but:
(i) Were the City Council's use class C3 parking standards to be applied the total number ofparking spaces would be as many as 150 (11 one bed apartments x 1 space per unit +111 twobed apartments /cottages x 1.25 spaces per unit).
(ii) The pre-application submission made by the applicant in July 2021 actually proposed 120
parking spaces.
4.16 We accept that the full application of the C3 parking standard would be too generous aprovision given the likely age profile of residents but the 65 spaces proposed by the applicant (a43% application of the C3 standard) takes us far too much in the opposite direction.
5 Other Independent Living Schemes
5.1 We recognise that drawing parking provision comparisons with other independent livingschemes is fraught with difficulties given that schemes differ for all sorts of reasons - different agerestrictions, the different health care needs of residents, the different levels of health support onoffer, the location of schemes, the provision of public transport services, etc. Nonetheless, acursory study of two other age restricted schemes in Bristol does suggest that the proposedprovision of parking spaces at St. Christopher's is on the low side even allowing for the fact thatthe two examples selected both have lower age restrictions than St. Christopher's. The Vincentscheme in Redland has 65 residential units and the same number of parking spaces. WestburyFields Retirement Village comprises 98 units and a similar number of parking spaces (plus an offroad overspill car park next to the cricket pavilion).
SECTION 2
Comments on the Travel Plan
Almost completely devoid of detail and analysis, and shifting primary responsibility for bothplanning and implementation from the applicant to the City Council the so called Travel Plan issimply not fit for purpose. Very little effort seems to have been expended on drafting the TravelPlan, not even carrying out basic research on Travel Plans that have been produced for similarschemes such as The Vincent development on Redland Hill.
- There is no analysis of the likely travel patterns and needs of the three separate groups -residents, staff and visitors (number of residents, car ownership rates, number of staff, workpatterns, etc.).- No attempt is made to set modal split targets for residents, staff and visitors against which theeffectiveness of the Travel Plan can be measured.- The Travel Plan simply lifts the City Council's "off the peg" list of general outcomes set out in theCity Council's Travel Plan Guidance rather than devising outcomes more specifically geared to anextra care development.- Just three measures are specified in chapter 6 (Measures and Initiatives) to help achieve theoutcomes listed in chapter 4 of the Travel Plan but no details are given about how these proposedmeasures will be implemented, e.g. how will the car club scheme work and how will the mini busproposal operate and be funded?- What about other measures (e.g. travel packs for all residents and staff)?
- It is a requirement set out in City Council Guidance that a Travel Plan must include an actionplan and budget. Chapter 7 covering the Action Plan and Budget fails to comply with thisrequirement, comprising as it does just one short statement indicating that the City Council will notonly be appointed as Travel Plan Coordinator (which we acknowledge it can on payment of a fee)but will also be responsible for the action plan and budget.- As all of the key measures which are mentioned (the notice board, the shuttle bus and car-clubcars) will be the direct responsibility of site management why is not Amicala taking on the TravelPlan coordinator role ?
Consultation on the Travel Plan Action Plan and Budget
As the Travel Plan does not include an action plan or budget there is no opportunity to commenton these crucial elements during the planning application consultation stage. Will there be anyopportunity for interested parties to comment on the action plan and budget when these areproduced?
SECTION 3
Comments on the Traffic Generation Section of the Transport Statement
(i) The traffic generation figures presented in the paragraph 7.6 table purport to be based on theTRICS database of trip rates undertaken at various developments around the country. TRICSfigures are exhaustingly presented in appendices E and F without any clear explanation of howthese figures are used to forecast the traffic flows at St. Christopher's. Without such anexplanation and with some of the TRICS trip rate figures in Appendix 7 relating to care homesrather than assisted living schemes it is difficult to treat seriously the TRICS trip rate figures andhow they have been interpreted to arrive at the traffic generation figures shown in paragraph 7.6.
(ii) Taking into consideration the probable car ownership and usage rates of the residents weaccept that the traffic generation figures are likely to be relatively low compared with a morestandard residential development, although not as low as the figures shown in the table inparagraph 7.6. More staff are likely to drive to work than is being assumed by the developers, andservice and delivery vehicles will also contribute to traffic flows.
(iii) The site is currently being occupied by a significant number of security staff and transientworkers, possibly generating the level of traffic more in line with what might be expected with theproposed development than the previous educational use. Has any attempt has been made tomonitor the level and pattern of traffic generated by these occupants?
(iv) We also note that no attempt has been made to estimate the traffic capacity of Westbury Parkat different times of the day and to reach a conclusion as to how much the traffic generated by thenew development will impact on traffic flows at peak times.
Kevin Chidgey and Jeff Bishop on behalf of Westbury Park Community Association14th April 2022
on 2022-04-17 OBJECT
This proposed development is oppressively out of proportion to its surroundings. It isalso not sympathetic/compatible with the character of surrounding buildings nor its setting.Insufficient account has been taken of parking and traffic impact.This application should be refused.
on 2022-04-17 OBJECT
The sheer dominance of the proposal can only be considered absurd for this area.There have been many occasions where local residents have had their planning refused due tothe impact on the conservation area when the changes have been minimal. The scale of thedevelopment just shows the classic greed of larger development businesses, if extra housing isrequired, why not just build/convert the existing buildings to provide something.
I wholly object to this development with the following reasons:
1. This will not be in keeping with the conservation area appraisal2. There is not enough parking being provided to ensure the impact of parking on the surroundingareas is low. The increase of traffic to and from this site will surely increase the risk of an incidentgiven the locale to schools and residents.3. There is an environmental impact to felling trees on the site.4. It appears that no provisions for affordable housing have been provided.
on 2022-04-17 OBJECT
This area is peaceful and we take great pride in this. This space should be foreverybody, not just rich pensioners. This will ruin an area which for many people here is used as anice getaway location, to maintain a healthy mind. This seems like a money grabbing schemeabove anything else. The downs should remain a place for the locals.
on 2022-04-16 OBJECT
1. Insufficient parking planned for staff and visitors which will adversely impact thealready limited parking for residents and other workers in the area such as Teachers at the localprimary school and other care homes. 2. The height of the proposed buildings will overshadowand dominate older and more established local housing. 3. Being so close to other largeretirement home developments will inevitably start to change the demographics in the area - wewill become a retirement community lacking the current vibrant mix. 4. Increased traffic in analready congested junction and route into the city centre. 5. Removal of established trees whichwill change the character of the area .
on 2022-04-16 OBJECT
I object to the current proposals for the following reasons:
Traffic:The residential areas around the site do not have an RPZ. At present the residents struggle topark due to spaces being taken with commuters (who cycle or catch buses into the city, havingparked here), support staff and visitors for the various care homes on Belvedere Road, WestburyPark School and overflow parking from those homes within the RPZ but who have insufficientpermits. The site has 65 spaces, and the developer believes this will be enough for the 244residents, their visitors, daily delivery drivers, 8 care and support staff etc.It will not.Opening access from the Glen to the school will add to the morning congestion.
Building density:I feel that the developers have been misleading in their description of the building density of thesite. The buildings are to be 4,5 and 6 storeys, meaning they will tower over others in the area andare totally out of keeping with the existing residential properties. Why can't they be the sameheight as existing properties in the surrounding area? 1 or 2 storeys would be fine.
Environment:We have been told that new trees will be planted. Why destroy trees to plant new ones? It will takeyears for them to grow back. The loss of natural habitat for the variety of birds and small wildanimals in an area next to the Downs SNCI not acceptable.
SEN and Affordable HousingThe development seems to make no provision for affordable housing and SEN facilities, both ofwhich Bristol needs.
on 2022-04-16 OBJECT
The proposed scheme is far too high, too close and has too many units, representing acomplete overdevelopment.
As a "backland" site, within the Down Conservation area it is my understanding that new buildingsshould be "subservient in height scale, mass and form to surrounding frontage buildings".
The scale is disproportionate and will cause a detrimental loss of amenity to surroundingproperties including the Grade 2 listed Grace House.
Such overdevelopment will undoubtedly generate more traffic, more parking issues and increaserisk to road safety.
Access to the site is predominantly provided by Westbury Park which is a narrow road. So narrowits seems, that even after making substantial widening changes to the gateways fronting ontoWestbury Park the developers own traffic consultants show that refuse lorries will still not be ableto enter or exit the site without mounting the curbs!! See Key Transport Consultants Vehicle SweptPath Plots fig 3.
Furthermore, public views from the Downs and Westbury Park (road) will be massively impacted.The openness of the conservation area extends into this green site, (via the gateways of thelodges) but these public views will be heavily compromised by the complete infill produced bythese massive blocks of flats.
The scheme is a gross overdevelopment and should be rejected.
on 2022-04-15 OBJECT
I object to the development at St Christophers. The extra parking in the Belvedere Roadand Glen area will be unacceptable. The development will change the character of theneighbourhood.
on 2022-04-15 OBJECT
I think the present proposals would adversely affect the neighbourhood throughoverdevelopment and traffic.
on 2022-04-15 OBJECT
The Henleaze Society objects to this planning application.1. The proposed St Christopher's School development ignores the character of the surroundingWestbury Park Area. The Westbury Park Area Character Assessment and Design Statement,completed in 2014, describes, in detail, the character and the history of development of theWestbury Park Area. It has the full support of Bristol City Council and is used by planning officersto provide information when determining planning applications.2. The proposed development is over-development, because of the number of proposed buildings,their scale, mass and height. There are no existing blocks of flats or 6 storey buildings in theWestbury Park Area.3. No shadow diagrams have been submitted to show that there would not be unacceptableoverlooking and overshadowing at different times of day and during the different seasons of theyear, of properties in the streets adjacent to the site.4. The proposed development will not provide the same level of support to the environment as theexisting green garden spaces. The proposed landscaping plans will not restore fully thisenvironmental support.5. Car parking spaces remove green space, but provision should be made for on-site parking forresidents and visitors so that on-street parking in nearby streets will not be necessary.6. A proposed development requires fewer residences with scale, mass and height that fit thecharacter of Westbury Park Area, with necessary car parking and better environmental support.
on 2022-04-15 OBJECT
This is not at all in keeping of the amenity of the local area and will change a historicalpart of the city.
The property will be hugely damaging to the local wildlife and environment.
I cannot understand why there is no affordable housing and the idea of half the availability ofparking for an area unsupported by public transport is ridiculous.
Rethink thoroughly needed
on 2022-04-15 OBJECT
Please please do something to keep this development more in line with the beauty ofthe area, a small reduction in height and a design that suits the area would be so much better forthe mental health of all those who enjoy the downs and the local area.
on 2022-04-15 OBJECT
This proposal would completely alter the nature of the area and is not in keeping with it;it would dominate the area and lead to loss of nature (mature trees), much increased traffic andloss of parking for close neighbours, impacting a wide area surrounding the project. It is I'llconsidered and does not make up for the loss of SEND provision at the site.
on 2022-04-15 OBJECT
I strongly object for the following reasons:
Overdevelopment of the site:The layout, height and density of the proposed build will dominate the surrounding area and havean adverse impact on neighbouring residential properties through increase in noise, disturbance,light pollution in hours of darkness and loss of privacy.
Adequacy of Parking and Access:Parking is already at a premium within the local area. The proposed parking on site for 65 spacesis inadequate for residents, visitors, staff and deliveries. This will result in overspill street parkingand will have an adverse impact on parking, access and congestion in the area. Inevitably, this willplace unbearable additional pressure on limited street parking along busy narrow roads.
Traffic and Safety:The planned development will generate a significant increase in traffic movement from siteresidents, visitors, staff and deliveries and impact adversely on an already congested and busyarea. This will- add to noise disturbance and air pollution- put at risk the safety and well being of children and adults attending the popular local primaryschool and nursery- jeopardize emergency vehicle access to the residential area (Etloe Road pavement parking isalready hazardous).
Environment:The proposed development resulting in significant loss of trees will damage the naturalenvironment.
on 2022-04-15 OBJECT
Buildings too high. Over development. Insufficient parking spaces. No affordablehousing. Too many trees going.
on 2022-04-15 OBJECT
As a local resident and parent of two small children, I'm extremely concerned about thesize of this development, and in particular, about the impact on traffic, road safety and air pollution.Bayswater avenue, Etloe road and other surrounding streets are already suffering from too manyparked cars, slow moving traffic and limited visibility of pedestrians trying to cross. Thisdevelopment will clearly make that worse. Pavements blocked by badly parked cars areparticularly dangerous for wheelchair users or parents with buggies forced into the busy road. Mychildren attend daisy chain nursery and will soon go to Westbury park school, so it is clear thesechanges will potentially impact directly on their health and safety.
on 2022-04-15 OBJECT
The enormous size and scale of the proposed scheme is not in keeping with thesurrounding conservation area. The largest blocks of flats (up to six storeys high) will be visiblefrom the Downs. The close proximity of new buildings will impact on the light, privacy, noise,overshadowing and amenity of existing properties nearby.
50% of trees on-site would be felled, including beautiful, mature specimens that would takedecades to replace. Loss of green space on the 'Granny Downs' with a new path cutting across it.Loss of much of the copse visible from Bayswater Avenue/Etloe Road. The site is home towoodpeckers, owls, bats and foxes. Extra vehicles and traffic congestion will inevitably have animpact on air pollution.
on 2022-04-15 OBJECT
Parking is already at a premium within the local area. The proposed parking on site for65 spaces is inadequate for residents, visitors, staff and deliveries. This will result in overspillstreet parking and will have an adverse impact on parking, access and congestion in the area.Inevitably, this will place unbearable additional pressure on limited street parking along busynarrow roads.
Traffic and Safety:The planned development will generate a significant increase in traffic movement from siteresidents, visitors, staff and deliveries and impact adversely on an already congested and busyarea. This will- add to noise disturbance and air pollution- put at risk the safety and well being of children and adults attending the popular local primaryschool and nursery- jeopardize emergency vehicle access to the residential area (Etloe Road pavement parking isalready hazardous).
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
I strongly object to this scheme as this will have a huge and negative impact on the localand wider community.
The area already has insufficient parking, dangerous and narrow roads and congested livingconditions. By approving a scheme of this scale will have a catastrophic impact on the localcommunity and environment. The construction phase alone will cause years of disruption,excessive noise, pollution and mess in the local area and roads. Masses of heavy machinery andlorries will block roads and will struggle to navigate through the already heavily congested andnarrow roads. This will increase the risk and danger to local people and especially children.Numerous schools surround the proposed site making this area a very sensitive area. If a schemeis to be approved then it needs to be dramatically reduced in mass and scale. All associatedparking needs to be allocated on site and the access needs to be reassessed. The access viaEtloe road is unacceptable and will endanger nursery children accessing the local nursery.Furthermore, I have witnessed countless ambulances, fire engines and bin lorries becoming stuckon Etloe and Bayswater Road due to people parking on pavements due to the lack of parkingspaces. By approving this scheme will further worsen this issue and will have catastrophicconsequences. I plead to the Local Council, Local Councillors, Local Committees and The Mayorto step up and challenge this scheme. The local community and people of Bristol need yoursupport and protection.
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
Although I am in favour of the provision of extra care facilities for older people (likemyself) it seems to me that the current proposal is something of an overdevelopment. The sizeand proximity of the villas to each other would in my opinion negatively impact on the visualcharacter of the area.
I am also concerned about the potential impact of overspill parking in neighbouring streets. Iunderstand there are currently 65 parking spaces for 122 apartments, but these will also need tobe used by staff and visitors. Furthermore, the actual number available is likely to be reduced ifindividual residents opt to rent them.
In its present form therefore, I would object to the application as an overdevelopment.
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
I wish to register my strong objection to this planned development based mainly (but notexclusively) on the scale of the development. The plans as they are today are a significantoverdevelopment of this valuable site, with impacts on the character of the area, road safety andparking, and the ecology or the area overall.
I have lived in Bayswater Ave and before that in Etloe Rd for over 30 years, so know the area andits character very well. I am very concerned a development of this size is going to change anddamage the area in a way that is both dramatic and irreversible.
Whilst I would prefer to see the site used for the SEND needs of the city, I am comfortable that thechange of use to it being an integrated retirement community is a reasonable one.
What I am appalled and concerned about here is the sheer scale of the development. It is simplytoo big for the site. Commercial needs for profit seem to be blind to practical realities. Thebuildings are too big, there are too many flats, and priority seems to be given to more buildingsrather than adequate provision of parking on-site. A site twice the size might be more appropriateif this is what the developers need to feed their financial ambitions. Plans for this site need to besignificantly scaled back if it is to get my support. Smaller and fewer buildings, more trees, moreparking.
The Downs Conservation Area is not going to be conserved if these huge carbuncles are built. Ialso feel for those home owners and residents whose properties backs directly onto the site. Their
homes are going to be blighted by being overlooked, overshadowed by such huge buildings, manyvery near the perimeter. Noise pollution, light pollution, removal of 58 trees, privacy violation, alldamaging and irreversible.
I am also very concerned about traffic and road safety in the area as a whole and the impact on acommunity whose roads are only just able to copy right now. I refer you to the parking surveyscarried out in March by local residents. These show very clearly that today, there are very fewparking spaces available in any road surrounding the site. This leads already to many examplesevery day of illegal and dangerous parking of vehicles - across junctions, on double yellows, onschool zig-zags, on the pavement. If drivers had space available to park, they would clearly notpark in such dangerous and antisocial ways. Clearly at many times, they have no choice. Havingstudied the plans for development closely, it is clear that there is nowhere near enough parkingprovided on-site, so the developers think the surrounding neighbourhood will be able to absorb theextra cars and vehicles who need to park. These roads cannot absorb this increase.Bayswater Ave is home to two children's nurseries, a primary school, an active church and church-hall. Safety is going to be compromised for all these if the new development does not make moreway for parking on-site.
In summary, I am not against this site becoming an integrated retirement community. But the plansas they are a simply too big, and do not allow anywhere close to adequate parking.
Please help us preserve the very special character of Westbury Park and the Downs.
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
I am the manager of Daisychain Westbury Park, standing next to the grounds of the StChristopher's site. This nursery has been part of the local community for a number of years andhas welcomed hundreds of families and children in this time.
The demolition and overbuilding planned for the St Christopher's site is not only going to have anegative impact on the business, the staff, the local community, but also the health of the youngchildren we care for.
Building so many homes on this site will has a huge increase on the amount of vehicles having todrive up and down the road, meaning all of those extra fumes are going to be entering into ouryoung children who are as young as 7 months old. Something that in this day and age, we are alltrying to avoid as much as possible.
The staff who work here at the nursery already find it difficult to park around the area as do ourparents who are dropping off their children if they are not within walking distance. There is alreadya huge shortage in childcare staffing in the local area and if staff are unable to have an easycommute to work, I worry what this will mean for local nurseries. Where will all of the children go?How will parents work if there are no spaces at any of the local nurseries?
The multi-storey buildings will no doubt overlook our nursery and garden space, raisingsafeguarding issues for the children we care for. In the summer months, we love to be able toallow the children to play as much as possible in our garden, playing in minimal clothing
sometimes to help them regulate their body temperatures whilst playing in paddling pools etc.Once all of these tall buildings are built, we will have residents overlooking the garden andtherefore will have to stop this, depriving the children of fundamental experiences.
The business as a whole will be effected by this proposed building site. Why would parents wantto place their children in a nursery next to an overbuilt site, where the road is going to be evenmore dangerous and busy than it already is?I'm sure I read that the driveway/entrance to the site will be the entrance directly next to ournursery, this is not only extremely dangerous for any residents but for the small children of thearea who are still learning about road safety at such a young age.
I understand that the site is not being used and that it could be used to house lots of residents, butI think to the extent of the proposed buildings is far too extreme for such a small community whichis already very busy.
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
My children use the Daisychain westbury park and westbury park primary school andRoad safety in the area for children getting to and from these places is my primary concern. It's sobusy already and I have already seen near misses with children running out in the road.Parking for residents, staff and parents in the area on road is already so busy it's impossible tofind a spot if you need one. More cars would add to this problem.I would hate to the the old pine tree and wildlife in the area next to the nursery destroyed.I also don't think the new building will fit in with the period properties and will block light from theresidents and school and nursery.
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
I object to the proposed development at St Christopher's School, Westbury Park.It is agreed that there is a climate emergency, but the proposal as it stands does not comply with anumber of the City's Development Strategies, in particular BCS9 and BCS13.The proposal would be a significant overdevelopment, with some blocks too high in relation to thesurrounding area, and they are too close together. There would be detriment to the character ofthe whole area, including the Downs.In addition, it appears from research carried out by local residents that there would be a severenegative impact on parking in the area: it is certain that there would be more St Christopher's carsthan spaces envisaged, with consequent overspill onto already overloaded surrounding streets.
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
The plans for the developments on the St Christophers site are unacceptable for thefollowing reasons:
1. There is significant overdevelopment proposed. This is a backland area and so the buildingsbuilt behind the historic lodges on the front should be lower in height. The developable areacalculation should not include the front gardens of the lodges, nor the area immediatelysurrounding Grace House so the proposed density of the units is too high. The height of the unitswill block out the low winter sun, and hence light, for many properties in the surrounding area. Theblocks are too high and too close to neighbouring properties.
2. There is significant damage to the heritage of the conservation area. The tower blocks dwarf thesite and are easily visible from multiple angles not least from the Downs. The architectural designis not in keeping with the area.
3. There is significant damage to the ecology of the area proposed. Multiple mature trees whichare currently protected by TPOs are to be chopped down and replaced by a few small trees whichwill take years to capture the same amount of carbon. The sheer volume of the new buildings willreduce the natural habitat for the species living there.
4. Westbury Park is already short of parking, and there is currently no prospect of an RPZ beingintroduced despite significant local support. The area is used by commuters to avoid the RPZssouth of Westbury Park, and people catch the bus, walk or cycle into town. The parking and traffic
proposals are completely inadequate to deal with the number of residents, visitors, carers,maintenance staff and deliveries expected for so many units. When I raised this at one of theengagement events I was told that older people don't own/need cars. When I raised the fact thatlots of carers will need car spaces I was told that the residents won't need much care. I predict thatcar ownership rates will be high. This can be seen at the nearby sheltered housing developmentsof Falloden Way and Carfax Court - particularly among new residents. Also I think every newlybuilt housing unit should have an electric car charging point - as per incoming legislation.
5. The developments will have a significant adverse impact on traffic density and safety in thearea. The main entrance and exits are proposed to be from Westbury Park, which many carstravel along at much higher speeds than the local speed limit. The need to introduce more yellowlines to give exiting drivers a better line of sight will decrease further the public parking spacesavailable. The land directly in front of the St Christophers site is part of the Durdham Downs andhence protected by the Downs Act. None of this should be concreted over to make entry and exitby cars and refuse trucks easier. The proposed footpath cutting across the Downs would alsodamage the ecology of the area.
6. There is currently no affordable housing proposed. This is unacceptable.
7. It is lamentable that there is no replacement SEND provision proposed. I understand there is ashortage of such day and residential placements in Bristol. Even if there are no charities willing todevelop the site, thought should be given to approaching alternative providers such as CareTechto develop some local SEND provision on the site.
8. The case for Extra Care is not made. The reports quoted are industry financed and thedevelopers have not used the final data from the studies which actually shows no/marginal benefiton NHS usage and costs. In fact, there is an abundance of provision for older people locally - StMonicas, AbbeyField on Redland Road, Carfax Court, Falloden Way, St Vincent etc etc. There isno need to hardwire in provision of care with the buildings - there are multiple organisationsproviding care at home in this area eg Help at Hand, Home Instead, Alina Homecare, St MonicaTrust Care at Home and the list goes on and on. In fact, there is a risk that the developmentattracts more older people to live in the area and overwhelms local primary care services. A localGP practice (Helios) has recently closed with patients being dispersed to already overstretchedlocal GP practices.
9. There has been poor community engagement throughout. While there have been in person andonline events organised, none of the concerns raised have led to any significant change to theoverdevelopment proposed. Highly selective plans and sketches have been used which presentsa misleading picture.
The proposals are totally unacceptable and I urge the planning authority to reject the applicationoutright. The proposals represent a massive overdevelopment of the site with a reckless disregard
for the heritage and ecology of this conservation area.
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
Dear Sir/Madam
As a resident of the immediately neighbouring 1 Westbury Park, I write to object to this planningapplication for the following reasons:
1. The proposed height of the building is cleverly illustrated and does not properly take intoconsideration the relative ground levels of nearby properties. Therefore, the actual effect of theproposed buildings will be significantly greater than that suggested by the submitted drawings. Theimage of the verified view part 1 from Royal Albert Road clearly demonstrates the sheer change inscale both block A and B will have and the significant impact on adjacent properties comparedwith the current buildings. This will affect the outlook of these properties and daylight/sunlightlevels. Furthermore, the proposed scale and siting will lead to overshadowing of adjacentresidential gardens at certain times.
2. Balconies of block A should be removed as they will directly overlook nearby properties andgardens This will detrimentally affect privacy and would appear overbearing.
3. Given the local context, the application site is not within an area suitable for taller buildings butis within a conservation area. The new buildings should be subservient to the existing buildings onthe site and, therefore, reduced in height. The development should also not be able to be seenabove the different Lodge's from the Downs viewpoint. Given the buildings in the surroundingarea, no new building should be over 4 floors above ground.
4. Villa A is to be located only a few metres away from the rear of Westbury and Kenwith Lodge's.This relationship is not acceptable and will lead to detrimental amenity impacts throughoverbearing impacts and loss of daylight/sunlight. Given the close proximities and siting of thesebuildings, both Villa A and B will have detrimental shadow impacts on the adjacent lodges.
5. The villa's mansard roofs do not soften the effect of the top floors on the nearby properties. Thetop floors are very tall and boxy. Notwithstanding the comments above about overall heights, theheight of the buildings should be reduced by reducing the heights of the top floors. Also, thebuildings should have flat roofs which are set back from the outer edge of the building creating aparapet around the building.
If planning permission is permitted after the proposals have been amended to make them policycompliant, please ensure the following conditions are included:
1. No parking permits are to be allocated to the new flats for future RPZ zones.
2. A site survey and post occupation works are carried out to ensure all roads, front grass vergesand drop kerbs are returned to original condition. I am mindful that many large vehicles will needto be used to carry out the build and will cause damage to these areas. In the past builders oftenpark on the front grass verges and damage these areas.
3. Construction management plan- No development shall take place including any works ofdemolition until a construction management plan or construction method statement has beensubmitted to and been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approvedplan/statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.
Kind regards,
Dr Matthew Lee
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
On the basis of reviewing the document on Housing Need(HOUSING_NEED_REPORT-3162631) I oppose this planning application.
As an expert in urgent and emergency care research I would contest the assertions made inChapter 7, page 33, about the potential benefits of the proposed scheme on health and social careutilisation.
Evidence provided does not substantiate claims of benefit for health and social care systems:
In summary the research quoted does not substantiate the claims made by the developer withregard to a reduction in service utilisation. Indeed, rather than being 'beneficial' as the developerssuggest, the addition of several hundred frail elderly people into an area with overstretched GP,community and secondary care services is likely to be detrimental. It will result in increasedpressure on services and reduced quality of care and quality of life for other local residents whoneed this support from the NHS and social care.
The reasons for my concerns are set out below:
As the authors of the report admit, there is limited research on the benefits of 'Extra Care' in termsof health and social care use. There is some evidence that those entering extra care are lesslonely and have a higher quality of life, which is good for those living in the facilities.
Much of the evidence cited for the benefits for health and social care are based on workconducted by Professor Holland at Aston University and Lancaster Universityhttps://www.extracare.org.uk/media/1169231/full-report-final.pdf. This was paid for by the ExtraCare Charitable Trust. I note that the Extra Care Charitable Trust is a provider of Extra Care andso has an incentive to present the most beneficial picture. There is no evidence that the report waspeer reviewed by independent researchers or experts, which would be usual in publishing robustresearch findings.
Professor Holland's research was undertaken across two study periods were undertaken: 2012-2015 and 2015-2018. No report from 2012-2015 seems to be available but the results aresummarised and then elaborated upon in the final report which is the one available at the linkabove. The data cited in the planning document are from the 2015 interim (provisional) data notfrom the final study results.
The interim data suggest- a reduction of 38% in NHS costs - not confirmed in final report- that unplanned hospital stays reduce from 8-14 days to 1-2 days - not substantiated in finalreport- 18% reduced risk of falling - no data in final report- 46% reduction in regular GP visits - not confirmed by final controlled analysis which showed nodifference
However, these findings, which are selectively reported in the planning application do not takeaccount of the final report which qualifies the interim data from 2015.
The final report from 2018 found:Over the first 36 months, there was no overall reduction in healthcare costs. There was nosignificant difference between the groups, with both groups having high variance (p 27).Duration of stay in hospital is reported as a combined data for planned and unplanned admissions.There was no significant difference in hospital stays between Extra Care and control participants,nor was there a significant change over the 36 months (p 27)
There were no data regarding risk of falling and residence status (EC compared with control or riskreduction over time)There were no changes in unplanned nurse or GP visits over time, but there was an overallreduction in planned GP visits (although only marginally significant) and an increase in plannednurse visits, which was significant. Controlling for frailty, analyses did not discover a significantchange over a 3-year period in planned and unplanned GP visits, and planned and unplannedpractice nurse visits in the difference between Extra Care and control participants (p 25)
The study was longitudinal, non-randomised and compared Extra Care (EC) with control residents.the sample size was 193 at the start (162 EC, 31 controls) but was only 24 (22 EC and 2 controls)
at 5 years. This is concerning in terms of the very small sample size of the control population andthe attrition. I have not done a detailed analysis of the methods, but these factors alone wouldcause me to question the findings. There is also a risk of confounding given the non-randomisednature of the study.In summary the "research" quoted does not substantiate the claims made in the planningsubmission. The early promising data from 2015 was not confirmed by the full study.
Further evidence is cited from the following report: Identifying the Healthcare System benefits ofHousing with Care, Strezlecka D, Copeman I, Hastings R & Beech L, August 2019, SouthamptonCity Council and Housing LIN.
This non-systematic review of the literature summarises a number of small scale studies (ofaround 20 people) with no robust randomized controlled trial evidence. It highlights the need forfurther research to be certain of the potential benefits of Extra Care.
Again, the applicants have overstated the evidence base. For example evidence for reducedhospital admissions suggests that 'The incidence of annual hospitalisation was 4.8 nights per yearper person amongst those aged 80+ compared to 5.8 nights for those matched and living in thecommunity.' No statistical analysis has been conducted to indicate if this is a meaningfuldifference.
Another example is from McCarthy and Stone research which found: '0.13 fewer admissions perresident per year in their new housing with care scheme than previously'. That means for 10residents in extra Care (the new development) there may be one less admission a year comparedwith if those 10 people didn't have Extra Care. However, again no statistical data are presentedwhich allow scrutiny of this finding nor is the situation of the comparison group described.
This review refers extensively to the flawed report from Professor Holland cited above. Itconcludes:
The body of current research evidence in relation to housing with care and health care systems isrelatively limited.
Summary
- It is important that the misleading information contained in the document on Housing Need is notconsidered in support of the forthcoming planning decision.
- The impact of over 200 frail elderly on the health and social care system of Bristol needs to beconsidered - Bristol hospitals are currently the worst in the country for A&E waiting times:https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-hospital-ae-waiting-times-6890190 and alocal GP surgery has closed (Helios practice Spring 2022) and others are struggling to meet
demand https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/patients-give-up-trying-through-5980036.
- I oppose the application on the basis that this will add to the burden on local health and socialcare services, in addition to over developing the site, adding to traffic and parking chaos anddestroying natural habitat.
Kind regards
Professor Sarah Purdy
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
C Simmons 5 Belvedere RoadI have objections to the proposals to the development for the St Christopher site and will list below.
1 Overdevelopment:The size and scale of the development are huge and will unfairly dominate the residential area bythe enormous size and density of the buildings. The largest buildings will be visible from at leastthe Downs and surrounding area.
I live in a basement flat in Belvedere Road. The overshadow of the height of the buildings willmake my flat window darkened and this is unfair. They will be imposing on my access to lightwhich has been available to this flat since it was built. I am concerned that the top windows will beable to see into my window affecting my privacy.
2 Road safety, traffic & parking:The proposal only puts forward 65 onsite parking spaces for more than 120 housing units. This isthis is not just for the residents, but all their carers, office & maintenance staff, visitors and deliveryvehicles. Please look at the issues put forward in the recent planning refusal and refusal of appealfor the nursing home. It was established clearly then that the parking in this area is of particularconcern for what is supposed to be a residential area.
The idea of only 65 parking spaces is cynical and overreaching. Many of the households will havemore than 1 car. If the resident does not own a car, their carer or visitors will come by car.
Someone in each unit will have a car. The actual car parking provision should be more along thelines of a parking provision for each unit, which means the developer will need to make PROPERparking provision for each of its proposed units instead of squeezing every inch for profit.
SCAN will be submitting its own detailed research estimating an overspill of at least 50 cars atpeak times. Local roads have no spare capacity to cope. At present I fear to use my car as if Imove it, I lose the space and then it can take circling for a long time, using petrol and fumes towait for a space as the surrounding areas are RPZ and I cannot park anywhere else.
Will I be able to park in the St Christopher's site as they can in my road?
It is likely to lead to more pavements, junctions and dropped kerbs being blocked, causing safetyhazards, especially close to the nurseries and Westbury Park Primary School.
I have particular concerns about the proposed driveway from Bayswater Avenue/Etloe Road andpedestrian access from The Glen which will encourage people to park in these areas and walk intothe site. This will mean a lot more pedestrians passing by my flat with all the noise litter and loss ofprivacy in this quiet residential area.
3 Heritage Impact:This is a lovely conservation area. I have not been able to change my windows or the building Ilive in due to the conservation rules. It seems staggering that this is all thrown out of the windowbecause someone wants to make as much profit as they can from the long-held attractiveness ofthe area due to these rules, while they breach the spirt of the area. It will dominate the area anddestroy the attractiveness of the area by changing the nature of the heritage of the area.
The new apartment blocks are a completely different type and style to the historic Grace Houseand the Downs Conservation Area. The huge mass of the proposed new buildings is out ofcharacter with my period home and will damage the surrounding local townscape.
4 Environmental Impact:50% of trees on site would be felled, including beautiful, mature specimens that would takedecades to replace. There will be a loss of much of the copse of trees visible from BayswaterAvenue/Etloe Road. There will be a negative impact on the local wildlife. This site is home towoodpeckers, owls, bats and foxes.
This will affect the oxygen levels and pollution of the area. I understood the council has obligationsto cut pollution and has put in a no congestion area further down the hill. It is insane therefore toremove these trees which are the lungs, reducing the pollution in the area and will not assist thecouncil to reach its target of lowering the pollution in the area. The council will be fined for notreaching this target.
This proposal would be short-term thinking in the BCC's targets for the area in the long term as faras pollution goes.
5 No provision for affordable housing:The plans do not include any provision for affordable housing. I thought this was mandatory. Icould not afford one of the units even if I wanted to buy one and my children who cannot get ontothe market could not. The developers have previously told us that it would not be compatible withtheir business model. Affordable housing is a key target for Bristol City Council.
6 Loss of SEND provision:The plans offer no guarantee of provision for young people with Special Educational Needs andDisabilities (SEND) despite the legacy of the former St Christopher's School which looked afterchildren for more than 70 years. Bristol City Council is striving to improve the quality of service forSEND children, but serious gaps remain. There are no residential SEND places within the city -children are sent to 'out of area' placements sometimes far away from their families which isdevastating for the children and parents alike.
I am not entirely opposed to any building in the area, but it must be sympathetic to the area and ifit in keeping with the residential area, with buildings no higher than the surrounding houses,keeping the density of the population fitting in with the amenities in the area. Keeping the ecology,congestion, and pollution to a healthy level.
The car situation has to be faced and cannot simply be ignored as they have done here. It is justpiling up more problems for then next 10 years. I cannot see if there is provision for electriccharging of cars. This is not the city centre, this is a conservation area of beauty and needs to becherished, not cashed in on. The developer will profit at our expense. Please consider the localresidents needs in this.
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
Parking and traffic in this area is already too heavy
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
This is an outrageous proposal. It would compromise one of the last remaining greenareas in the city and make the traffic situation in what is already an overused rat run even worse. Itis clear the Council has no respect for these areas of the city, but this definitely takes the biscuit!
on 2022-04-14
Dear Sir,
22/01221/F - St Christopher's School, Westbury Park
The application fails to respond successfully to the site's location. The proposed changes would neither preserve and nor enhance the conservation area.
The height and mass of the proposed blocks of flats would be far too great and would constitute over-development. They would dominate the Victorian villas on Westbury Park, to which they should be subservient.
Similarly, they would not relate sensitively to the Grade II listed Grace House whose scale is appropriate to its context, and which should have informed the height and mass of the proposed blocks. The faux mansard roofs would appear massive and over-bearing.
The so-called verified views are unrevealing. As an example, view 5, which is from a spot on a pavement on The Glen, purports to show the four-storey block D; yet the view seems to show a shrunken building. Perhaps the perspective is askew. View 5 also obscures the proposed metal double-leaf gates that would occupy the entire width of the carriageway, which would surely be needlessly forbidding and grim.
Any application for this site should include accurate contextual elevations and sections
across the site that show both the existing and neighbouring buildings.
Too many substantial trees would be lost; too few stately trees are proposed.
Yours faithfully,Jeremy Newick
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
I object to the plans in their current form. I have no objection to the concept of aretirement facility of this nature in principle, but the scale and impact of these proposals will have asignificant detrimental impact on local residents and the environment.In summary,1. The Development is too large and should be scaled down2. The proposed blocks are too high and out of keeping with this are so close to the conversationarea and the Granny Downs. A low rise development would be far more in keeping with the type ofarea this is.3.The impact on already congested roads will be considerable, with limited parking on site it isessential that there is dedicated residents parking, especially in Westbury Park(road) that will alsoprevent the high number of camper vans parking in the area.4. Road safety impact report around Westbury Park school should be conducted.5. The environmental impact on trees and loss of habitat will be substantial with this size ofdevelopment.Roger Lake
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
The undeclared but real purpose behind this proposed over-development is to make asmall number of individuals extremely rich. Private gain at the expense of public good, bringingdamage to wildlife, increased traffic and parking problems, more noise, loss of light and privacy,and a permanent deterioration in the quality and character of the area.
Is this what councillors come into local politics to enable and facilitate? Of course it is not.
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
As a resident of the Westbury Park area for 14 years, I strongly object to the size andscale of this development. My concerns are road capacity, safeguarding of children, parking andconservation.
The roads in the local area cannot support a development of this scale, during neither theconstruction nor in-service phases. The location of the site is just outside the RPZ and issurrounded by already heavily congested local roads. The roads are already in excess of capacity- construction and in-service traffic will only make this significantly worse and likely intolerable.
The increase in traffic will negatively impact the safety of pedestrians, in particular children. Thereare a number of schools and nurseries in the adjacent area and a development of this scalecreates an unnecessary safety risk to these pedestrians in particular.
There is already insufficient parking on the roads in the immediate area - this development, with itsown insufficient parking plans on-site, will make this considerably worse. The area suffers frombeing just outside the RPZ - attracting commuters who travel by bus from the Downs, as well asthose who choose to park/abandon their vehicles on the local roads to avoid purchasing a permitfor the RPZ. The development must have sufficient on-site parking to cater for all of the in-serviceneeds of the facility, residents, support staff, visitors, etc. The surrounding area simply cannotcope with more vehicles. It is also not acceptable to expand the RPZ, as this will only shift theproblem to whichever streets sit outside the new RPZ - something we experienced first hand fromRoyal Albert Road.
Finally, the development is simply insensitive to the existing buildings, residents and theconservation area. On this point, I strongly agree with the comments already supplied by HistoricEngland "this is a high-density scheme that we consider to be harmful to the character andappearance of the Conservation Area." [Doc. Ref: P01477694, 12 Apr 2022]
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
The new development of the former St Christopher School would be one of the biggestchanges to my neighbourhood for generations and not for the better. I fear that it would diminishthe character of Westbury Park as the designs so far are not in keeping with the aesthetic of ourarea. Furthermore, not only will it visually pollute the area but it will lead to the loss of a number ofgreen spaces, wildlife, and trees which will have a huge impact on not only the well-being of theeco system but also alter views from the Downs. I'm addition, I worry about the impact that it'llhave on the safety of our neighbourhood in terms of traffic. In an already busy area, will addingmore flats, more people, and more cars really help road safety? Being so close to a prominentprimary school, I fear that the addition of more traffic and more cars could be even moredangerous to those living in this already busy area. Currently, parking in this area is challengingand if this development were to go ahead, this issue would become increasingly worse.
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
I strongly object to this development for so many reasons which I have outlined below.
Firstly, and first and foremost our three children go to westbury park school and I am extremelyconcerned about the noise, pollution and extra traffic this development will bring. It seemsmadness that what was a school (St Christopher's) which was there for years with no problemsand a positive impact on the local area is now going to cause such problems for the remainingprimary school and EYFS nursery and preschool that are on Bayswater Avenue and back onto thedevelopment.
Our school is a lovely nurturing environment but it does suffer greatly from lack of space especiallygreen space for these children so it would have been amazing had some of the land from stChristopher's instead been redirected to the children, our future, rather than to high rise buildingsof elderly people.
We are extremely worried the lack of parking spaces the developers are providing will cause evenmore chaos in an over saturated area for cars which sees daily problems for residents trying topark near their house. There is no parking as it is and adding this number of residents, plus theircarers and staff and visitors will hugely disrupt this peaceful residential area. Also I am worriedabout the traffic that will be brought to Bayswater Avenue through the proposed entrance next toDaisy Chain nursery - a street where our children walk to school and is already extremelydangerous due to the amount of traffic on a narrow road with very limited pavement spacessupporting 400 children walking to school plus those going to nursery and preschool. It's an
accident waiting to happen especially with the proposed new entrance causing a new crossing forchildren and their carers to cross.
Another thing that worries me is the level of green washing this developer is quite clearlyundertaking promoting this development as environmentally friendly when in reality 50% of all thegreen space at the current St Christopher's school is going to be destroyed. This is heartbreakingin an area which should be protected under conservation laws (as it is a conservation area) andmany of the trees have TPO's on them.
Lastly, the overdevelopment of the site concerns us greatly - it seems unnecessary andinappropriate in this conservation area and an area of natural beauty. The high rise buildings willbe visible from the Downs, spoiling the architecture of the area. We own a house on Royal AlbertRoad where we lived for a number of years - I feel devastated that our lovely sunny back gardenwill now be overshadowed and overlooked by huge blocks of flats (which is effectively what theywill be). To make any changes to the appearance of our house on royal Albert road we have to gothrough a rigorous approval through Bristol City Council yet these extremely large buildings whichare not in keeping with the area will be visible from not only our back garden and the street.
Lastly, I wanted to add that this is a part of Bristol already saturated with housing for elderly andcare homes. Yet the number of schools or provisions for SEND is disgraceful. So many of thosechildren who attended St Christopher's have now been sent far away causing a lot of heart achefor the families.
I am writing to request you reconsider these plans entirely - this will be a disaster for the localarea, school and community.
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
At a time when the whole world is rightly worried about climate change and we arebeing implored not to pave over our gardens; this proposal involves the loss of many trees andmuch green space. How can this be allowed?Since my arrival in Bristol 60 years ago to study at Bristol University, the area around the downshas always been cherished by me as an area of natural beauty and architectural beauty at theperiphery. To employ a phrase used by Prince Charles, the apartment blocks will be a carbuncleon the face of the downs.In addition, the acute parking problems in Westbury Park will be exacerbated exponentially by thisdevelopment. Bristol is, and has for many years been, regarded nationally as one of the best citiesin which to live. Let us keep it that way.
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
I object to the proposed re-development of the former St. Christopher's site for thefollowing reasons:
1.Heritage
The site is fronted by superb, historical buildings on Westbury Park. The new plans include a 6-storey block, which would rise above the line of the lodges and be visible from the Downs. Thiswould be contrary to the regulations relating to the Downs as a Conservation Area, as well asbeing a complete eyesore!
The whole site falls within the Downs Conservation Area. The proposed erection of 122 unitswithin its grounds represents a significant over-development of this historic site, changing thecharacter of the surrounding area, in addition to having detrimental consequences around privacy,parking and traffic flow for the local residents surrounding the site.
Contained within the site is a Grade 2 Listed Building - Grace House (so named after the founderof St. Christopher's, Catherine Grace.) The proposed construction of one of the units so close toGrace House would indicate no regard for the importance of this building within the wholecomplex. This unique building needs to have sympathetic space around it, rather than be toweredover by a completely unsympathetic construction.
2. Ecology
The proposed development entails the felling of 58 trees within what is a Conservation Area. Theproposal to replace these with over 100 trees, many of which would take 50+ years to reachmaturity, falls foul of many of the regulations surrounding tree replacement and represents aharmful development, which is compliant with neither the Climate nor the Ecological standards towhich Bristol City Council is committed.
3.Bristol's Needs
While I recognise the need for more specialist housing and care provision for an ageingpopulation, I would query who this development is for. As residents can only qualify foraccommodation if they need no more than 2 hours per week of care, this suggests that the unitsare for quite able, elderly people. In addition, as there is no proposed affordable housing includedwith the plans, this suggests that this is accommodation for those who can afford what will nodoubt be expensive living quarters in this 'prime location'! Does Bristol really have a needfor additional provision for the well-heeled, physically and mentally able elderly?
In contrast, the need within the city is for residential SEN provision, such as St. Christopher'sprovided for 70 years and which Bristol made such good use of over the years. St. Christopher'sSchool was a pioneering establishment, well-known, respected and appreciated not only within thecity but also further afield. This site is ready-made and available for the re-establishment of suchprovision with the city. Wishful thinking, maybe, but it would be nice to think that there were somepeople with vision sitting in the Council chamber!
Sheila Mapson
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
This development is wholly inappropriate for the area. The proposal will result in an overdeveloped residential site that doesn't provide affordable housing. The need for staff and visitorsto park close to the development will result in over crowding of cars, in an area that is alreadycongested and parking spaces over subscribed. My children attend Westbury Park Primaryschool, and before that Daisy Chain nursery, and I am concerned about the build up of cars andtraffic so close to a school.
I am also deeply concerned about the impact the development will have on the skyline of a muchloved and important Bristol Conservation Area. The development is not in keeping with thepredominantly three storey houses in the area and will effect the historic character of theneighbourhood.
Furthermore, the environmental impact of the development contradicts Bristol's commitment togreen principles. The loss of important habitat for wildlife, next to such an important green spacefor the city, is not sustainable. This sets a precedent for overdevelopment of The Downs.
The housing is not affordable and the offers of community communal spaces are tokenistic.
Please do not approve this wholly inappropriate development that will result in: loss ofenvironmental habitat and historic character; over crowding in the form of traffic and parkingdemands, unaffordable housing for wealthy residents.
Thank you, Ellen Harrison
on 2022-04-14 OBJECT
We object to the proposal for a number of reasons as noted below.
Scale & Density - The proposal is over developed & too denseIf the proposal was typical market housing, the level of density and lack of privacy, private amenityspaces, access & parking provisions would not be permitted. It appears that, as this is classed asRetirement Homes, a lower standard is acceptable. There is also currently no provision foraffordable housing. The statement related to this in the proposal is unclear and needs to beresolved prior to determination.
The main Villa Blocks (A, B, C & D) and cottages adj Villa D are in very close proximity, approx.15m apart, which affects the privacy & natural light of the dwellings. This is compounded for thelower units by the adjacent tall buildings.
In addition, the development will detrimentally affect the residents in the adjacent streets (inparticular Royal Albert Road). Daylight, privacy & views of local residents will be affected due tothe height & proximity of the proposal.
A less dense proposal with generous outdoor space and without a 6 storey building would bebeneficial to all.
Housing DemandsThere is reference in the documentation to housing demands and a huge requirement for
additional housing. I do not doubt this, however the proposal is not market housing, it is high endretirement. I understand that similar local retirement developments are not at capacity and there isa concern that the market may be saturated for this typology.
Parking, Site Access & EgressWe object to the parking provisions and transport plan, which are inadequate and detrimental tothe surrounding residential neighborhood.
A clear & accurate understanding of the existing roads & traffic is crucial to this scheme. Over thelast 5 years, the traffic and parking around the applicant site has become an increasing problem.The surrounding streets are fully occupied by parked vehicles, often on both sides of the road andon pavements, which restricts the traffic and makes pedestrian circulation a cause for concern.
Westbury Park Road is a cut through for many commutes and ends in a one-way road next to theroundabout resulting in traffic jams. This road already has issues with traffic flow, commutersdriving above the 20mph speed limit and the compromised width of the road, due to parking, limitssafe two-way access. Increased traffic, parking and a heavily used site entrance will causesignificant congestion. Royal Albert Road, and subsequently Etloe Road & Bayswater, suffer fromvehicles using them as short cuts to avoid the traffic build up at the roundabout. The adjacentschools & nurseries add considerable vehicular traffic and the children's' safety is of utmostconcern.
The situation is compounded by the fact that the streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposeddevelopment are not part of a residents' parking scheme, despite other schemes nearby. Parkingchallenges are exacerbated by people using the area to "park & ride", parking in the local streetsand using buses / bikes within vehicle boots to travel into the city. With the proximity of the Downs& the numerous events (festivals, circuses, music, etc) & general visitors, comes additionalparking pressure. A local garage on the end Royal Albert Road is a vital amenity for local residentsand this also has a requirement for parking.
Due to the large scale of this development (122 units and café & facilities), there will be asignificant increase to the local traffic (Residents, Staff, Visitors & Deliveries). The parkingprovision of 65 spaces for 122 units, Staff and visitors is laughably inadequate. In contrast, thenearby Vincent development at Queen Victoria House (Planning Reference 15/01681/F) providingnew accommodation for assisted living for older people comprised of 65 homes with 66 carparking spaces.
The applicant proposal is a high-end residential development for occupants aged from 65 yearsold. A high proportion of them will still be driving and wanting the independence of their own carand for shopping. The parking provision should therefore be based on normal residentialdevelopments, not care home standards. There is nothing in place to stop theoccupants/staff/visitors from utilising overspill parking on the adjacent streets, which are stretched
to breaking point. This is more likely given the parking spaces provided on site are rented to theusers at a cost.
The priority must be for the existing neighborhood & existing local businesses. The proposalshould provide sufficient parking for all its occupants and staff and not be based on an unrealisticparking ratio, which will result in a negative impact on under resourced neighboring communities.It should also be a condition that site parking can only be used for Staff, Occupants & Visitors andcannot be "sub-let" to commuters.
We also object to the secondary entrance proposed on Baywater Avenue, which is next to DaisyChain Nursery and in close proximity to Westbury Park School. The pavements are narrow, lackgood street lighting, are compromised by mature trees & dense parking. An additional entrance inthe middle of this pavement represents a significant & unnecessary risk to children, those withprams/buggies and wheelchair users. The developer states that this is only to service 4 parkingbays, however there is nothing to stop this being changed at a later date resulting in more traffic.
Arboriculture - The proposal includes the removal of 46 Mature trees which are home to a plethoraof wildlife. It is noted that 128 trees will be planted, however these will take a substantial time tomature and become suitable for the wildlife to habitat.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
Like many developments in Bristol at the moment, it's unclear to me how the currentinfrastructure will support a development like this. This is already a very congested area.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
I would like to make the following points in objection to the proposed plan for the StChristopher's Site
1. Impact on roads, traffic and parkingWhitetree Roundabout is a pinch point in the road system. It has long needed improving. Thedevelopment will impact on traffic density at this pinch point. Parking in surrounding areas isalready dire. Etloe Road and Bayswater are congested with pavement parking especially throughthe day. With only 65 designated parking slots for 120 housiing units will add critical pressure tothe infrastructure. To assume that senior citizen residents don't have vehicles (65 vs 120) is naive.Further traffic in the area contributes further to pollution levels.
2. OverdevelopmentThe size and scale of the development is outrageous. The size, height and number of buildings istotally out of keeping with the area. The 5 and 6 storey blocks will severely impact on local housingadversely affecting light, privacy and noise. The development will also be visible from the Downs -itself a Conservation Area.
3. Further commentsThere is no provision for affordable housing - a key issue for Bristol. Intense development of thesite in this plan has an adverse environmental impact - trees felled, loss of green space with a newproposed path on the 'Granny Downs'. There is a 'heritage impact' in that the site is within theDowns Conservation Area containing a listed historic building (Grace House) with the
development being totally out of character.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
Having looked at the plans submitted I strongly object the the size of the planneddevelopment which is too large for the designated area.The parking on Westbury Park is already dangerous with no control( large camper vans etc seemingly permantently, parked there) and certainly no extra room forextra residents and staff parking.I appreciate the need for development of the site but feel it must be carried out in a much moreenvironmentally manner in keepingwith the area and the future aspirations of Bristol.
Peter Williams
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
My first objection is that the scale of the proposed development is not suitable given thesurrounding road network. Westbury park is always full of parked cars (a combination of residentscars and people living in caravans). Etloe road/Bayswater Avenure are always full on both sideswith residents cars. This effectively makes Westbury Park and Bayswater single lane roads, notmuch wider than country lanes. These are the only roads that can possibly give access to the site.The traffic on Westbury Park already gets backed up half way at peak times (due to inadequatejunction with White Tree roundabout). Etloe road is used as a rat run which endangers scchoolchildren (there are two nurseries and a school on that road). This development will exacerbatethese traffic problems and increase air pollution due to the backed up stationary traffic onWestbury Park. Essentially the development contains too many apartments so this should bescaled back to a level that the road network supports and there should be more provision forsustainable transport (bike and e-bike parking, e-scooter parking, electric car charging).
My second objection is that the development removes too many trees from the site. We should beplanting more trees not fewer. I think they should not be allowed to remove so many trees withoutpaying to replace them with new ones on the downs (near Parry's lane caravan park there is roomfor plenty more trees).
My final objection is that the architecture is not at all in keeping with the conservation area. I wouldnot be allowed to modify my building to look like the proposed designs (and nor should I be). Thelargest of those buildings towers above the houses on Westbury Park, will be visible from thedowns, and does not match them architecturally. This eye sore will ruin the view from one of the
best green spaces in Bristol for everyone (not just residents).
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
As a daily walker over all the Downs, especially to Westbury where I have friends and Ishop, I am greatly concerned about the size of the new development - in the number of buildings,their height, the high rate of occupancy and so the unacceptable increase in traffic and demand forparking in the site and nearby. Not forgetting the degradation of air quality, noise pollution, andpressure on the plant and wildlife communities.Others have already given the details of the parking challenges, inappropriate designs, impact onthe area.The development appears to be excessive and out of keeping, when adjacent to one of the fewopen green areas so important for recreation, sport and conservation.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
I am really concerned with the proposed development. It doesn't seem sympathetic or inkeeping with the beautiful listed buildings that are currently on the plot. The proposal of 6 floors willmakes the flats really obvious and much taller than the buildings surrounding it.
The lack of parking within the development will create a parking problem in the area. Parking isalready an issue as it is.
The increased volume of traffic and therefore pollution in the area is also a huge concern.
on 2022-04-13
The following comments are submitted on behalf of Freeways Trust, owner of JonathanHouse, 19 Bayswater Avenue. The property is a residential care home for adults with a learningdisability.
One of the existing buildings to be refurbished, North House, abuts the boundary wall with theTrust's property. In order to fully understand the impact of the proposals on the Trust's propertyand residents we request clarification / further information on the following issues:
1. The sections information within the application is limited. We request further site sections alongour site boundary to understand the level differences and potential for overlooking impact.
2. A pedestrian connection between the rear of Westbury Park school and the corner adjacent toNorth House is indicated in the Design and Access Statement but not shown on the landscapedrawings. Please clarify the proposals for this link.
3. The extent of refurbishment to North House is not clear. Further information is requested on theproposed works to this building.
4. Please clarify the proposals for security, access and management of North House includingproposed community use so that we can be satisfied that security is maintained to the rearboundary of our property.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
Congestion on Westbury Park to the White Tree roundabout is already at its peak.
Residents living around this area currently face delays getting across the city. The roundabout atthe top of Whiteladies Road is often congested with queues back to Redland Road and White Treeroundabout can have queues back to Claypit Road in the rush hour.
The road network cannot support any more traffic.
Building high occupancy accommodation will only cause gridlock.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
I am against the proposed development which will mean fewer parking spaces in analready congested area, chopping down trees and new buildings which won't enhance WestburyPark.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
I wish to object to this planning application.
I have lived in Westbury Park since 2001. When the proposals for this development emerged, Iattended one of the on-site visits offered by the developers. The group who attended asked manyquestions, and the answers all seemed fair and reasonable at the time.
I am not against the principle of a community for later living BUT what has actually ended up in theplanning application massively contradicts the reassurance we were given face to face.
I wish to object on the follow points.
Overdevelopment:At the meeting we were assured that any new buildings would not exceed the hight of thosealready on site. That is clearly not the case with the largest building being six storeys high.They also talked about 'cottages' rather than six-storey blocks. What has ended up in theapplication is many more flats than they alluded to.The application feels way out of scale to the surrounding area, and at the scale currentlyproposed, will have an adverse impact for those neighbouring properties (privacy, noise,overshadowing and amenity).
Road safety, traffic & parking:In the many years I have lived here, I have had numerous insurance claims for people scraping
my parked car, and frequently have to park a few roads away from my house. That all happensnow, with the current population density and even after Covid with less people travelling into work.Again, at the meeting the representatives talked about being a carbon neutral site that would bus(electric bus) their staff in. However, even if that happens the current parking provision (only 65onsite parking spaces for more than 120 housing units) is woefully inadequate for the plans.Alongside the residents, there will be carers, office & maintenance staff, visitors and deliveryvehicles.I can forsee road safety issues (with the school) and a huge increase in parking problems. Parkingis already saturated in the area as very few houses have off-street parking.
Heritage Impact:It looks like the design of the whole scheme will overshadow and dominate in a setting of beautifulold buildings in the Downs Conservation area.
Environmental Impact:I was shocked to read that 50% of trees on site would be felled. Again, in the face to face meetingthere were assurances that the mature trees would be preserved.I am concerned that the increase in traffic at the same time as reducing trees will have a hugenegative impact on air quality, as well as negative impact on wildlife.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
I strongly object to the size of this development mainly due to lack of parking andpressure on the small surrounding roads already fully clogged and parking on pavements. This isa small conversation area in no need of a large development such as this. It will bring a lot moretraffic up small roads where children walk to school danger to local people living close by.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
I am lodging my objection to the proposed development at St. Christopher's site for thefollowing reasons.
Impact of extra traffic on the local area.
Parking provision for 65 slots in a 120 unit development is unrealistic and unreasonable in analready congested area. Where are the other vehicles and those of visitors expected to park? Thecongestion at White Tree roundabout already impacts on the pollution levels. The increasedpollution makes a mockery of the decision of the mayor to introduce a clean air zone in centralBristol, less than two miles from the affected site. The surrounding roads already suffer frompavement parking. In addition to the parking, a road exiting on to Bayswater Avenue can onlyexacerbate the existing hazards. I speak as a pedestrian who, with my grandchildren in a buggy,already risk our lives as I'm obliged to walk in the road along Etloe Road and Bayswater Avenue. Ifthe impact of congestion at White tree roundabout was a consideration in the decision not tolocate a new secondary school in Stoke Bishop in 2007, should it not be a serious considerationnow?
Overdevelopment not compatible with existing homes
The St. Christopher's site will be losing long established and irreplaceable trees, and the listedbuildings of St. Christopher's will be seriously impacted with out of character 5 and 6 storey blockstowering above them.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
This proposed development is totally out of proportion with the local neighbourhood.Allthese extra domiciles will put excessive pressure on the infrastructure and ruin the character of thearea.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
Regarding this scheme proposed in the conservation area, the design and scale are notin keeping with local architecture and it is too intensive, proposing too many units and somebuildings are certainly too high. The proposed view of the cottages from St Helena Road inparticular looks harsh and the design and materials do not match the surrounding buildings.
The trees and grounds are important for urban wildlife and should be conserved. It appearshowever that quite a lot of trees, many of which are mature, will be removed.
Regarding transport impacts, the roads in the area get very congested and increased traffic willmake this worse. The number of parking spaces appears insufficient meaning even more carsparked on the roads, already a problem on the school route.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
I don't own a car for environmental and financial reasons but even I, as a none driver,am concerned about this development. I already have bad experiences in this area from the traffic.I have had someone drive on the path to avoid another car which in turn has nearly hit me. I havehad to jump out of the way of an oncoming car who decided to drive straight through a red light.On a separate occasion I have also been hit on the back of my leg by another driver who wentthrough a red light. I have been living in Westbury Park for just two years. I reject this proposal asit will be having to bring more cars and drivers into this area.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
I am primarily concerned about the road safety and parking issues that thisdevelopment will no doubt cause. We already have a situation on Etloe Rd and Bayswater Avewhereby cars are parked on both sides of the pavement, preventing pedestrians from simplywalking down the road. Another 100+ dwellings with inadequate parking for residents, carers,visitors etc will only cause further issues.
I also do not believe that the plans are in keeping with the heritage and architecture of the localarea.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
If the Council is seriously considering giving permission for this abomination to goahead, then they are insulting the whole community.It seems to me the "architect" didn't even looked at their surroundings when designing thatmonstrosity.Only the developers are going to benefit from this BUT WE are the ones who pay the taxes andthe Council should then provide us with a better, cleaner, more environmentally friendly City - andthis project is none of of those. If this is allowed to go ahead, then I question the decision makers'integrity, ethics and moral.
on 2022-04-13 SUPPORT
St Christopher's siteI support the proposal. I have lived in Westbury Park for 54 years.
1) I think the concept of an Extra Care development is excellent. I like the fact that it willincorporate at its heart in Grace House, facilities for creativity, learning and socializing; allcontributing to a well-lived old age. Best of all, I'm enthusiastic about the emphasis on linksbetween the retirement village and the local community:
a) access to and from the site via Westbury Road, Bayswater Avenue and The Glen.b) the café, the pool and other facilities open to the local community.c) a connection with the local primary school via a gate in the wall they share so that a tarmac-onlyschool will be able to enjoy grass, trees and gardening; and pupils will have contact with oldpeople to their mutual benefit.
In all, the value to the mental health of the residents and the local community will be worth morethan gold. Inter-generational contacts are life enhancing. Anathema for me would be a gateddevelopment of luxury homes for the very rich on this site.I have no evidence to mistrust the Developer's promises.
2) Trees: more trees will be planted on this site by the Developer than have been planted in thewhole history of Westbury Park as a suburb of Bristol. Any loss of trees is sad but the gain inecological terms will be immense. I have no evidence to mistrust the Developer's promise.
3) Releasing Existing Houses: many 3 and 4 bedroom houses in WP are lived in by couples orsingle people who moved there long ago with young families. Some may wish to stay there; otherswould like to move to a smaller property and not leave this loveliest of all Bristol suburbs. StChristophers will give them the choice and inevitably release some local houses for families.
4) Parking: I do not believe this is a long-term problem. Car use and our subservience to the car ischanging all the time. It will continue to do so. The plan allows for one space per property. Manyresidents will not want a car and there will be spare places for staff and visitors. Many residentsmay like to join a car-share scheme. That will free more spaces. Perhaps the Developer couldincrease the 65 places. Traffic problems do not appear to me to be made any worse by thisdevelopment. I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water.
5) Height and "Overdevelopment": I constantly remind myself that we live here in an urbanenvironment and not on Salisbury Plain. The proximity of new buildings to the existing can beunsettling. I think the 6 and 5 storey buildings should be reduced in height. Would a reduction inthe larger blocks be possible and economically viable and therefore make the development moreacceptable?
In my opinion, the benefits of this development to residents and the local community far outweighthe drawbacks.
Thank you.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
I live in very close proximity to the proposed development of the site and I am deeplyconcerned with the proposed plans on the following basis:-
1. Traffic and ParkingWestbury Park is heavily congested by commuters parking, we struggle to find a parking spacedaily and this will be impossible with the proposed plans.Westbury park is a 'rat run' throughout the day and with the increased level of traffic from the siteincluding service lorries / vans etc the levels of pollution would be extreme.The area needs to have residents parking or allow our front to have off road parking. With smallchildren it is key to have a safe place to park in close proximity to our home. The area simplycannot manage anymore vehicles.
2. Conservation areaThis high density scheme is simply not in keeping with the beautiful historic conservation area. A 6storey building will be visible from the downs and will tower over the lodges . we must place anemphasis on history and not monetary gain.
3. EnvironmentThe loss of mature trees and the harm to wildlife is worrying.
We live in a beautiful city that encourages diversity, growth whilst being sympathetic to thepreservation of history. I question the demand for the site to be used as a retirement community
when locally this is saturated. Surely a better use of the site would be for affordable housing withample parking and in keeping with the local beautiful area with the heights of the buildings to be atthe same or at a lower level to the lodges.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
Whilst I am keen to see the site repurposed, and I recognise that there is an increaseddemand for senior living, having reviewed the plans I feel compelled to object for the followingreasons:
1. The designs are not in keeping with the character of the surrounding buildings. I note that one ofthe proposed blocks is 6 stories and another is 5 stories. The row of period houses alongWestbury Park are a delight to look at, having a 6 story building towering over them is going tohave a negative impact on the appearance of the area.
2. Traffic and parking around this area is already chaotic. At busy times, traffic can queue abouthalf way back down Westbury Park (as cars try to turn on to North View (which also often has longqueues)) to then access the White Tree roundabout, and traffic is parked along the full length ofWestbury Park making it essentially a one way road for its full length. Etloe road gets heavilycongested as well, and parking on it is a challenge. The junction between Clay Pit Road, WestburyPark and Redland Road is very busy (especially during rush hour), and I frequently see nearmisses and find it difficult to cross the road onto the Downs from where I live. Adding over 120homes to this area, is going to make an already chaotic situation much worse, especially as thereare only around 60 parking spaces being planned.
3. I understand that over 50% of the trees will be felled, which would be a great shame, especiallygiven that the Downs is a conservation area.
I would like to reiterate, that I am not against the redevelopment of the site, but the currentproposals have not been well thought through.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
Whilst I can support the overall proposal of the use of the site for an elderly assisted-living site, I have concerns about the scale and density of this development.
Traffic:The development will bring a high-density development into the area which will have a significantnegative impact on the surrounding area. The area is already blighted by cars. The streetssurrounding the site are just outside the existing RPZs and we already absorb commuter traffic(parking to use the buses that run into town from Westbury Road), parking for the School inBayswater Road, overflow parking from residents of the RPZ areas that do not have parkingpermits of their own, and the traffic generated by the various care homes in Belvedere Road.
The development proposals are for 111 two-bed homes and 11 one-bed homes. The proposalsstate that the development could house up to 244 people, plus the associated permanent on-sitecare team and on-site workers. The application does not seem to address the significant numberof visitors, casual health workers, family members and online delivery vehicle movements that thisdevelopment will bring, and notwithstanding the submitted traffic report, the provision of parking(65 spaces) seems wholly inadequate for what will happen in real life. Many of these residents willstill have cars. The proposed pedestrian access in The Glen is bound to generate significantadditional vehicle movements as visitors who cannot park on site, or who wish to avoid the trafficblockages on Westbury Park, will seek to park in The Glen and Belvedere Road first. Thepedestrian access in Bayswater Avenue / Etloe Road (next to the nursery) will also generate a lotof people looking to park in the area before using that pedestrian access, adjacent to Daisychain
nursery. The extra traffic movements in narrow, residential streets will pose a significantlyheightened risk to residents, passing pedestrians and children.
Westbury Park is already a significant traffic block where it joins White Tree Roundabout. It isnormal to see 100 yds or more of idling traffic trying to get out from Redland through this road, andthe vehicle movements from this development (during construction and thereafter) will make thismuch worse.
Most of the potential traffic problems would be fully addressed by extending the existing RPZs toinclude all streets surrounding the site. If visitors cannot park, they will not bring their cars in thefirst place. This would also have the additional benefit of reinforcing the Council's goal ofpreventing daily commuter traffic from entering the city as well, because they would not be able topark next to the bus-stops into town.
Building density:The plans confirm that, despite what is stated, and all the misleading promises made during thecommunity consultations, the buildings will impose over the area on all sides and be totally out ofcharacter with the immediate area. 6-storey buildings this close to existing residences is totally outof keeping with the area and is wholly unreasonable. The 4 and 5 storey buildings are close to theperimeter of the site and will loom over the adjoining houses and streets. Buildings with fewerfloors would be less intrusive.
The Grace Building (Grade II listed) will be lost within the site. The lodges will be dominated by thenew buildings and the new buildings will totally change the external aspect of the site when seenfrom Durham Down and the other streets.
Environment:Dense development of the site will mean that there is a significant loss of habitat, especially ofestablished mature trees. The site will be heavily landscaped with little provision made for theexisting wildlife. It will take many, many years for replacement trees to replace those that are lost.The development will constitute a major loss of habitat adjacent to the Downs SNCI.
SEN, Affordable Housing and early-stage Alzheimers:The development itself seems to make no provision for affordable housing, simply stating that it isnot suitable for affordable housing because of management fees. This focus solely on thosepeople who can afford this type of housing makes it more likely that the residents can afford cars,taxis and so on (vehicle movements) and will do nothing for the mix of the area.
The site makes no provision for SEN and seems to go against the original aims of the Grace Trustfoundations. Bristol is not over endowed with good SEN facilities. This site would be ideal for aBristol-wide SEN development. It also does not address the growing need for specialisedAlzheimers facilities as dementia becomes a significantly growing problem for the elderly.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
This proposal is a monstrosity. It will affect the already jam packed roads and parking,and therefore road safety, in Westbury Park. The roads are very difficult with people parking hereto catch the bus on the Downs, builders vans, people parking on pavements, obstructing dropkerbs and views. My son was in a wheelchair for a couple of years and more than once I had towalk him in the road due to how badly people had parked and how bad the roads are. The walk toschool with my son is often a very noisy, scary affair with people using Etloe Road and BayswaterAvenue as short cuts. They drive so fast, park so badly and vision is often obstructed, not onlywhen trying to cross roads but also when driving and pulling out of the side roads. Corners areparked over, as are driveways. It is dangerous and I worry for my son as he starts to walk byhimself to school. The proposal is ludicrous and will just make this situation far more dangerouswith more cars driving and parking nearby and the idea that access to this proposed housing isright beside a busy nursery and a hundred metres from a primary is quite frankly an accident (andquite possibly a death, probably of a child) waiting to happen.The environmental argument against this is huge too. I love walking my son to school and hearingthe birds and seeing the beautiful trees whispering above. It would be awful to lose all this to anugly, far too big concrete jungle. There is beautiful wildlife on this plot.The plans proposed are completely out of character both in size and style to those around themand will be an absolute eyesore in an beautiful, serene area.This just seems like complete monetary greed on the behalf of the developers with no thoughtgiven to the safety and well-being of the residents nearby. It seems to be a case of seeing howmany properties they can cram into one place to get the most money possible.Please do not allow this to proceed, it would damage the Westbury Park area and community
immensely.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
I object to this project, specifically for these reasons:
I am appalled that the plans would allow the destruction of 50% of the trees on the site. Theseprovide vital habitats for wildlife and carbon storage, at a time when science has proven a linkbetween the lack of biodiversity and climate change.
I do not own a car because the streets are already overcrowded so am concerned that the amountof extra cars on the road, due to the lack of parking that has been factored into the proposal, forthe number of residents and staff, will pollute the area and pose a safety risk for the schoolchildren and residents and parking chaos.
The impact on the architectural heritage of the area, with apartment blocks up to six storeys high,dwarfing the historic villas and being out of keeping with the feel of the neighbour hood, which isalso within the Clifton Downs Conservation area.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
As a resident of Westbury Park I wholeheartedly object to this ill-conceived overdevelopment of the former site of St. Christopher's school. I site 3 principal areas of objection:
1. The Downs Conservation Area
Each corner and area of the Downs retains a unique character that must be preserved andenhanced for this and future generations of the city. The principles of conservation cite thatdevelopment should preserve and enhance the environment and I see this development as doingneither for this particularly special part of the Downs and most pertinently our own Granny Downs.
Returning the 5 lodges to their former glory together with preserving the listed heritage of GraceHouse would be a huge asset to the area but to then have them dwarfed by 6 and 4 storey highdensity residential blocks built with little regard to the local architectural construct would be hugelydetrimental.
I would like to reference the commissioned Built Heritage Statement report undertaken by thePegasus Group which in section 8.1 states that the development would do "less than substantialharm" to the Downs Conservation area. This is a high bar to tolerate, and my view is that anyharm should not be facilitated by the council when there must be more sensitive developmentoptions.
As a minimum priority the lodges must be retained as the highest point on the site to preserve the
wonderful façade of Westbury Park (road) and the Granny Downs and this must surely be inconjunction with the construction materials used in the scheme giving due consideration to thewider built environment of this unique corner of Bristol.
2. Parking and traffic volume
The proposal to build 122 properties with a paucity of on site parking provision will add aninevitable and intolerable weight to an area which is already saturated with resident and non-resident vehicles. On any given day finding parking options in the vicinity of your home is nearlyimpossible due to the addition of daily commuters, due to RPZ schemes elsewhere which we aredenied, and the fact that Westbury Park and the surrounding roads appear to be the area ofchoice for all of North Bristol's campervan owners. The existing provision for 60 spaces is in alllikelihood wholly insufficient to meet the needs of residents, visiting family and friends, carers andother ancillary support workers. Westbury Park will bear the brunt of this overdevelopment andmiscalculation which will add to pre-existing parking problems and worsen road safety for all localresidents. The fact that parking spaces are available for rent/lease will also increase the likelihoodof local residents seeking free options around the development.
3. Environmental Impact
Given the awareness we all now have of our environmental impact surely the preservation of themost precious of our local resources should be prioritised. The thought of a new pathway being cutthrough the Granny Downs is quite frankly astounding. Add to this that the developers will cullmany of the mature on site local trees, which will take years to be replaced with new additions,surely calls into question the ecological credentials of this supposed Net Zero construction.
In summary I do not question the need for development on the site, my objections are that at everyturn the proposals fail to demonstrate any consideration for the local environment, heritage oroverburdened local parking provision. Surely it is not beyond the capability of the developmentteam to envisage a scheme which preserves and reconditions the 5 lodges and Grace House andwith the remaining space adds lower height and density new construction, with affordable housingconsideration, which complements and enhances the local area and housing proposition.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
I disagree with the proposed plans to develop Saint Christophers on the grounds ofoverdevelopment to high buildings restricted number of parking spaces in the development toomuch traffic in the area preservation of the trees and wild animals this is not a Suitable place ofthis magnitude
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
We have a number of concerns regarding the proposed development of this site. Weattended a focus meeting and feedback session where we raised all of the concerns listed in thisresponse.
The development is totally out of proportion to the surrounding landscape, properties and will havea negative impact on the local conservation area. The height of the 6 story buildings will lead tolight pollution, loss of light and privacy for neighbouring properties. They will be visible from thedowns, the spacing between the new buildings looks very small suggesting the site isoverdeveloped. The large size of the development will reduce the landscaped area of theproposed development and therefore will not provide a suitable green space for the proposedelderly residents. The felling mature trees and reducing the green space will have a negativeimpact on local wildlife and air quality including include ozone (O3), oxides of nitrogen (NOx),ammonia (NH3), sulphur dioxide (SO2)1. The trees provide valuable habitat for birds and otheranimals which provides a significant amenity to the local residents especially children, who learnthrough experiences and interaction with nature and wildlife. We can hear the birds in our gardenincluding woodpeckers, Jays and bats.
Due to the large scale of the development this will lead to an increase in traffic locally (staff,carers, deliveries, residents and visitors) up to 50 per day expected. This will therefore negativelyimpact the air quality and road safety especially close to Daisychain nursery and Westbury parkschool. Immature lungs are also more susceptible to pollution (asthma and lung UK)2.
The access point next to Daisychain nursery is of particular concern. We believe this representsan avoidable risk to very young children. It is currently an emergency access point and is virtuallynever used (gates have been locked). Children also walk along this stretch of footpath to attendWestbury Park School and The Redhouse Children's centre. Large vans are often left for longperiods due to the proximity of the area to the residents parking zone area of Redland. Theselarge vehicles obstruct the view of Etloe Road and Bayswater Avenue increasing the avoidablerisk to children and parents walking to school.There is no lighting on the same side of the road at the proposed entrance site further increasingrisk during seasons of low light level. The entrance is due to service only a few properties but oncethis access point is allowed there is no restriction on future development or changes in the plansthat could increase the number for vehicles using this entrance/exit. These points were madeexplicitly to the developers at the feedback session. There are suitable alternatives and thisrepresents a significant avoidable risk to children and families.
The traffic and parking situation in the local area already impacts road safety and local residentsand business amenity. The development is on the edge of the Redland residents parking scheme.Cars, campervans have been a left for long periods with at least two cars being removed recentlyas they had been abandoned on Royal Albert Road and Etloe road (the latter being left parkingacross 50% of the pavement). Commuters leave cars and vans on the local streets to then takethe bus, cycle or walk into areas that are now covered by the residents parking scheme (RPS).Commuters searching for a place to park increases air pollution in the vicinity of the Westbury parkschool and puts children at risk of harm.The situation has become so bad that cars have been left covering more than 50% of thepavement on Etloe road forcing wheelchair users and prams to cross the road unnecessarily at abusy junction (Photo attached). The development proposes more than 120 units with only 65parking bays on site for residents and staff. In contrast the nearby Vincent development at QueenVictoria House (Planning Reference 15/01681/F) new accommodation to provide assisted livingdevelopment for older people comprised of 65 homes with 66 car parking spaces. The proposeddevelopment will only increase the pressure on surrounding parking and decrease road andpedestrian safety. IT will have a negative impact on the local garage who will likely find it difficult tofind spaces for customers cars. The garage provides a vital amenity for local residents who havetrust in an honest and hardworking local business.
Regarding the access point on Bayswater Avenue: There is no street lighting on the side of theproposed access point next to Daisychain nursery, and is opposite another junction. 69% ofchildren killed or seriously injured is a result of being a pedestrian, and around 72% of childrenkilled or seriously injured are from accidents between the hours of 08:00am and 08:59am orbetween 3pm and 6:59pm (the times when children are walking to school). Pedestrians crossing aroad masked by stationary or parked vehicle is a significant risk factor3. Vans are often parked inthis area, which will reduce visibility in a narrow entrance. We therefore recommend that theaccess point next to Daisychain Nursery be rejected. The number of units should be reduced andparking bays increased to ensure there is no overspill onto surrounding roads from staff or
residents.In summary the proposal is extremely dangerous for children walking to the local schools andnurseries. It impacts local amenity and conservation area. The parking is inadequate and risks asignificant increase in the number of cars parked across pavements and obstructing residents'driveways and garages. The developers could fund the expansion of the residents parking schemeto prove they are committed to supporting local residents, improving the environmental impact ofthe site and reducing the risk of road related in injury or death to children. The height of the six-storey building should be reduced to three to be more in keeping with the local conservation areaand other properties and reduce overshadowing grace house and reducing the amenity of lightand privacy for local residents.
1. https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/urban-regeneration-and-greenspace-partnership/greenspace-in-practice/benefits-of-greenspace/improving-air-quality/.2. https://www.blf.org.uk/support-for-you/risks-to-childrens-lungs/air-pollution.3.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/442236/child-casualties-2013-data.pdf
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
I am very concerned about the density of population implicit in the proposal and theconsequences for traffic and environmental degradation that will follow. The developers clearlywant to maximise their profit but at what cost to the rest of us? I broadly support the observationsto be posted by Westbury Park Community Association.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
I walk, cycle and drive along Westbury Park every day sometimes twice a day. I havenoticed a build up of traffic before lockdown and now it has worse than it was in 2019. It is hard toget out to white tree roundabout now I can't imagine what it will be like when at least 120 morecars will be turning onto this road. Air pollution will rise there is a nursery school close by andmany older people walk along what we call Granny's tree walk. The trees here are very specialespecially the horse chestnuts .It is shocking that there is a plan to build high rises which will totally alter the views from theDowns.I do not want to be nimby but we really need to think about our children and their children and thisbuilding project is not doing that. There is a nice space why not make it for affordable housing foryoung people who are so desperate to find rental accommodation.
on 2022-04-13 OBJECT
As a local resident I object to the plans in full. There is a lack of clarity regarding theneed for such a development in this area given the number of other residences close by. Therealso appears to be a lack of analysis for what the impact to local infrastructure such as roads,parking and traffic will be. This development will only put more strain on an already congestedarea driving up pollution in the Downs conservation area and making the area less safe for us all(especially our children).
I also call into question the councils judgement regarding the use of this site for the proposedpurpose. Bristol is in desperate need of more secondary level education spaces which is notprivate; why not designate this site for that purpose?
on 2022-04-12 OBJECT
I've lived in Westbury Park for over 25years & I strongly feel that the enormous size andscale of the proposed scheme is not in keeping with the surrounding area. Buildings which are sixstoreys high & that will be visible from the Downs will be an eyesore on this beautiful andprotected area. This type of development might have been acceptable in the 60's/70's close to theDowns, but we must know better today.
I am also concerned that 50% of mature trees on-site would be felled and will take decades toreplace. And that the development will result in loss of green space on the 'Granny Downs' withthe new path. The trees & grounds are a sanctuary for urban wildlife
on 2022-04-12 OBJECT
The proposed development is too large - both the height of the buildings which willoverpower those around them, and the number of residences proposed. The local area is alreadycongested and does not have the capacity to absorb dozens more residents vehicles parked onthe roads, not to mention those of the carers/cleaners/home help that I understand the residentsmust have in order to qualify to live there. I understand that the site is considered primedevelopment land but the FORE proposal is overkill. Given that FORE have stated that thecommunity will be carbon neutral, if planning permission for this proposal is granted I would like itto be conditional on an extremely high penalty being due if either the construction work, or thecommunity of residents, do not meet the net-zero target. I would like BCC to make it clear to thedevelopers that a "target" is not the same as a commitment and to force FORE to live up toBristol's definition of ethical and green rather than their own.
on 2022-04-12 OBJECT
I've lived in Westbury Park for many years, and my main concerns are as follows-1)Parking-There is inadequate parking for the staff( the care team staff and cleaning staff),residents and visitors, meaning that parking will spill out into the road.2) For a development of this size, this offers nothing to the community. There are noimprovements provided to the downs or the surrounding area. Why is this acceptable?3) 50 per cent of the mature trees are being removed. This shouldn't be acceptable.4) Affordable housing is incredibly limited.I can see how this development provides a profitable return on investment for large companies,but it adds little to no value to local people.
on 2022-04-12 OBJECT
Submission for Planning Application 22/01221/F - St Christopher's Site - Westbury ParkDear SirsI object to the above proposed plans on the grounds of OVER DEVELOPMENT . The proposal willresult in a degradation of quality and character of the local area which up to now has managed toretain a sensible blend of green space and housing on the fringe of The Downs.If the development proceeds in its current form an excellent opportunity to enhance the area withthe refurbishment of villas and their gardens with the addition of a low-rise development at theirrear will be missed just because the developers are being too greedy.The model which should be aspired to is that of St Monica's Retirement Home not the recent over-development of the Queen Victoria Jubilee Convalescent Home site at the top of Black Boy Hill.Yours faithfullyR A PINDER
on 2022-04-12 OBJECT
I am not opposed to the idea of development in principle, however in its current form, Ido not support the proposal.
Height:There is little justification for the height exceeding the surrounding buildings in this area. Theargument for concealing height in the centre of the site doesn't float when the building would beseen in the long view across the Downs. In that respect, the form would be damaging with respectto the conservation area. Considering the height and density of housing stock in the immediatevicinity, I would be more supportive of the proposal if blocks B, C & D were 5, 4, & 3 storeysrespectively.
Quality of homes:Given the aspiration for net zero carbon, the orientation of the buildings does not seem to havebeen considered, with the long edges of buildings broadly facing north and south, this will causeissues. In plan there are a number of north facing, single aspect homes. These homes will not beof very nice quality and residents may need to keep lighting on throughout the day.
Justification for design:Having attended the public consultation (which incidentally felt very leading and manipulated), thereasoning and narrative for the unusual geometry was not clear.
Parking: I don't believe that 1:1 parking is required, and I would not expect all residents to have
cars. However, I would suggest that the proposal should offer at least as many parking spaces asare currently provided for residents living on the site.
on 2022-04-12 OBJECT
Traffic already very heavy between RedlandRoad to White Tree roundabout passing StChristopher's. Speed limit largely ignored. High rise and density of the proposed development onthe St Christopher's site will be detrimental both by ruining the current skyline and causing trafficchaos., not to mention loss of green space.
on 2022-04-12 OBJECT
The development at six stories high is far too tall and out of character with thesurroundings. It will cause parking issues and is likely to be a dominating eyesore seen from thedowns and the surrounding area.
Everyone I meet agrees it is a highly undesirable development. I think the councillors need to bearthis in mind, as their positions depend on votes from the electorate.
on 2022-04-12 OBJECT
These plans would have a negative impact on the environment, lead to more cars onroads that are already busy, and make parking worse, affecting families who already live in thearea. Roads onto Westbury Park are also already too busy.
on 2022-04-12 OBJECT
Objection based principally on the plans for 4-6 storey buildings: entirely out of keepingwith the architectural character/history of the area with respect to neighbouring streets, buildings,and green space.
I am not an immediate neighbour to the site but it is so obvious that the height of proposed newapartment blocks is inappropriate.
So many issues around transport/car parking arise: these are so obvious with the density of unitsthat are planned.
Please bear in mind that Westbury Park is a road where speed limits are routinely disregarded,and near misses at the Clay Pit Road junction are frequent (I hear car horns here regularly). Anydevelopment of the site would benefit from traffic calming measures more widely.
Issues of affordable housing seem to have been ignored.
There are many features of the plans which seem good but I am afraid for the reasons above, I amobjecting.
on 2022-04-12 OBJECT
OverdevelopmentI object to the size and density of the proposed development. It is not appropriate to the density orstyle of the existing local buildings and will dominate and detract from the amenity of the area forboth local residents and the wider community. It would be overbearing and dominant and is notcompatible with the existing Victorian housing, in the context of the Downs and Westbury Park.The proposed new buildings are too high and massive and would overwhelm the existingbuildings.The building of Nightingale House (the AXA offices) at the top of Blackboy Hill/ Redland Hill someyears ago has allowed a 'creep' of building to too high a level at this significant point on the locallandscape and the context of local architecture. This should not be allowed to spread further alongthe Downs.Environmental impactI am concerned at the environmental impact on the local environment both in the short and longterm, particularly through the loss of established trees and wildlife habitats which will not recoverfor many years, if ever, even if replanting and husbandry aims to replace and restore this. This siteis an important part of the green space and tree canopy around the Downs which is a significantand sensitive resource for the health and well being of the population of Bristol and wildlife.ParkingThe proposed provision for parking for residents, site users and visitors, is unrealistic and is likelyto result in increased road safety hazards and parking issues. Bayswater Avenue/Etloe Road arealready hazardous for pedestrians and road users, due to dense parking on a narrow road with aprimary school and nursery. This will undoubtedly also increase the impact on other local streets.
Affordable HousingThe proposal does not include any affordable housing despite the fact that this is a key target forBristol City Council and central government.
on 2022-04-12 OBJECT
The enormous size and scale of the proposed scheme is not in keeping with thesurrounding conservation area. The largest blocks of flats (up to six storeys high) will be visiblefrom the Downs. The close proximity of new buildings will impact on the light, privacy, noise,overshadowing and amenity of existing properties nearby.
With Only 65 on-site parking spaces for more than 120 housing units - this is not just for theresidents but all their carers, office & maintenance staff, visitors and deliveries, there will beparking and road-safety chaos.
on 2022-04-12 OBJECT
I have reviewed the plans and object for the following reasons :1. Impact on traffic, parking and environmental pollution
2 Children and families cycle to work and school and these roads will NOT Be safe. I a veryworried about this .
3Green areas removed and affecting wellbeing of local residentswho live here already
4. Parking is already an issue as BCC Moved boundary to local area with commuters using it topark+travel to work5 Additional cars, Parking issues . Fumes - adding to environmental pollutions-> affecting physical+ mental health of locals6 No allowance for extra resources GP? Health care provisions . Local practices lists full - Noplanning for this
on 2022-04-12 OBJECT
The proposed development of St. Christopher's will be detrimental to the surroundingarea causing impacton privacy due its planned increase in height, block light to neighbouring gardens, and theincrease in trafficwhile work is being carried out will be intolerable in an already busy area.
The development will be totally out of keeping to the local period properties and to the beauty ofthe downs.The parking situation in the area is already a big problem, and many local residents senior in age,have careworkers attend to them up to 3 times a day who already struggle to find a parking places.
Having work vehicles as well as residents vehicles etc will cause even more issues.Ambulances cannot park anywhere as it is, and the local roads are already often blocked bynumerous tradesmen.
St Christopher's is a beautiful property, and i am certain it can be improved using its existingfootprint withoutthe need of the proposed monstrosity.
Please also consider the trees and wildlife that will be affected.
on 2022-04-12 OBJECT
The proposed development of the St. Christophers School site is entirely at odds withthe local historic buildings that surround this community in Westbury Park. The development woulddamage the local townscape and is not in keeping with the local surroundings. The buildingswould be visible from the Downs, which would be detrimental to the enjoyment of this green spacefor everyone.
Additionally, the size and scale of the development is far too large for the local transport networkto cope with - already cars park on the pavements on very narrow, busy roads. It can be a strugglefor pedestrians to cross, prams and wheelchair users are already struggling with the parking,emergency vehicles would struggle to respond at any speed. This development would entirelyoverwhelm the neighbourhood with excess traffic. This feels very dangerous given the proximity tothe local primary school and pre-school nursery on Bayswater Avenue.
Further, the site houses several mature trees which I understand the developers intend to fell. Thiswould cause environmental damage and a loss of wildlife, in a green conservation area that isenjoyed by local residents and all Bristolians.
A smaller, more considered development would be extremely welcome.
on 2022-04-12 SUPPORT
Dear sir, madam,
I would rather remain anonymous because there is a huge campaign of intimidation going on here.I need to tell you about this. Mark Ashford personally knocked on my door and I told him to goaway, I don't support their tactics and don't want to be harassed, he refused and continued to yellat me telling my I was an idiot for supporting such overdevelopment. I honestly don't mind it, whatthey seem to be doing there is better than leaving a vacant lot where drug addicts and criminalsroam free. And it is far better than having a house builder turn up and build 200 or so homes. Whodoesn't like old people and what's the problem? It really is just the immediate neighbours whocomplain about their precious views (over a vacant lot.....). And this nonsense about parking, Ialways managed to get a spot. Why can't we have a controlled parking zone? It's these very samepeople who are voting against that, which would solve all the problems, and then they complainabout lack of parking! Go figure!! I'm sure they will be the first ones to apply to live there when it'sup and running. God speed, I say, to the project and I wish it every success. I support itwholeheartedly, and I know there is a silent, and intimidated minority like me who do, too.
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
The St Christophers development is going to impact severely on the traffic and parkingin the area. Already parking is a significant problem and as a resident of Florence Park, I often amunable to park in my street. There will be insufficient provision of parking for the new residents andstaff of the new development which will mean they will need to park in the surrounding streets.
The size and height of the new development is totally out of character with the surroundingbuildings.
Westbury Park primary school has provided a thriving local school for many years, despite beingcompletely cramped for space. It would benefit hugely from being given some of the space foreither play or additional classroom space.
We are regularly told that there is a great need for affordable housing in Bristol.There is no provision in this development for this.
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
Scale of Development
The proposed apartment blocks range from 4-6 stories which conflicts with the character of TheDowns Conservation Area where the street scenes are mainly 2-3 stories. These blocks willdominate the sky line from every side of the development site. They will take away the sense ofgreen space, for example the sense of space afforded by the gaps between the lodges onWestbury Park will be lost.
Building Design
The proposed design of the new apartment blocks fails to reflect the sense of place of theconservation area through appropriate use of external materials and colours, window styles andsizes (eg proportion of glazing to solid walls), elevations, variety in the street scene or roof shapes.
The Setting of Grace House
There would be a negative impact on the setting of the listed building Grace House, by the nearproximity of 4-6 story apartment blocks on two of its sides. By overshadowing and towering abovethis unique building there would be a significant loss of its amenity and contribution of character tothe area.
Affordable Housing
There appears to be no provision for affordable housing.
Westbury Park Primary School & Green Space
This popular school is very close to the development. One of its major weaknesses is that it hasno green space on site for the health and wellbeing of the hundreds of pupils and staff. Anopportunity has been lost to provide some dedicated and permanent green space. Although thedeveloper has said "where possible the site and its facilities will be accessible and available to thelocal community" this is not a commitment, gives no specific details and could be withdrawn at anytime.
The Pre-Application Consultation Process
I also wish challenge the fairness of the pre-app process which I took part in. I completed thedeveloper's online questionnaire but its' format did not allow me to express any opinion about themost fundamental planning issues of scale, design and impact. Secondly I took part in an onlinepresentation on 20 January 2022 where I could watch pre-prepared answers from pre-submittedquestions. All community participants were muted throughout and had no chance to quiz thespokespeople on their answers. Altogether a most frustrating process which seemed devised tominimise and marginalise the scale of objections resulting in a biased result.
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
My family and I live close to the proposed development, and are concerned with theproposals on few points.1. Overdevelopment in residential area, which is already busy due to nearby schools & retirementhomes. Traffic and availability of parking is already an issue for our family. I have have 3 earlyteenage children who enjoy cycling locally, most often to an from the Downs. I am concerned fortheir safety, and more so with increased traffic and pollution.2. Environmental impact. We need to protect the beautiful mature trees in our area and the wildlifethat habitat it. It's such a shame to fell mature trees.3. Heritage, there are beautiful listed building in the area and the proposed development will becompletely out of character with the existing building due to the height and scale of thedevelopment.
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
I have lived in Royal Albert Road for 46 years:I am now housebound and spend a lot of time in my garden.The proposed development will impact on my privacy and I fear that the sunlight and peacefulnessof my garden will be lost.I feel the building will be much to high and completely overpowering to the gardens in Royal AlbertRoad and other surrounding roads - it will be detrimental to the area of beautiful period propertiesand the delights of the downs. The increased volume of traffic and works being carried out will behorrendous and will last possibly years. The parking is already a huge issue and I have careworkers 3 times a day who struggle to find a parking place near my home, so more workersvehicles and residence etc will cause even more issues. ambulances cannot park in the road andthe road is already often blocked by builders and scaffolders etc I feel so upset and this is a greatworry to me at my advanced time of life ( 86 years old )This is beautiful area and the site can be improved using its existing footprint without the need ofthe proposed monstrosity.Please also consider the wonderful trees and wildlife that will be affected and allow commonsense rather than money making schemes that impact so may peoples lives
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
The enormous scale of this development is not in keeping with the surrounding areaand the close proximity of these new buildings will adversely affect neighbouring properties interms of light, privacy, noise etcParking, which already an issue in this area, will be drastically impacted upon - and road safety,particularly because of the local primary school and local nursery is a serious concern. There willbe considerably more air pollution, affecting everyone, but particularly the young children attendingthese provisions.Environmentally - it will have a very negative impact - the area will lose mature trees, green spaceand this will impact on wildlife. We need more green rather than less.There is no provision for any affordable housing - a key target for BCC.
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
The neighbourhood already has several problems with traffic and lack of parking, thisdevelopment will only make it worse. 120 flats means potentially 120 or more cars parking in ourstreets.
It would also be a great shame to loose green spaces and trees to yet another development.
Commented by a 26 year old local who has grown up here for twenty years and feels saddenedthat these developers are more interested in financial gain than the community and environment.
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
The size and scale of the development, particularly the multi storey apartment blocks, iswholly inappropriate in the conservation area. I would also question the demand for additionalretirement provision in the area given the extremely slow take up of the nearby 'Vincent'development. Also how can the developers side step the requirement for affordable housing on ascheme of this size?The parking provision is also woefully inadequate and will inevitably place pressure on an alreadycongested local parking environment.
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
65 car spaces for 120 units will cause massive demand for on road parking in an areawhich is already overstretchedSix storey building in the location of natural beauty is entirely inappropriate. Use should be madeof the existing buildings to accommodate residential units without destroying attractivearchitecture, natural beauty, trees, wildlife etc.Westbury Park is already used as a cut through for traffic from Redland/Cotham to White treeroundabout. This is a popular and useful cycling and walking route, which will now become adeath trap.I strongly object to this proposed overdevelopment and the developer's obvious greed.
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
The whole development is much too large.The height of the buildings is totally out of keeping with the area.
The small amount of parking spaces is inadequate. Etloe Road is very narrow and also carriesquite a lot of through traffic besides there being a childrens nursery and primary school in the road.
A beautiful area our city of which we are so proud is being ruined .
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
The proposed development looks to be out of proportion with it's surroundings. Theheight of the flats means neighbouring properties will be overlooked and will loose light. The fellingof beautiful, mature trees will have a negative impact visually and on the local ecology. We shouldbe striving to increase the green spaces not reduce them!
The roads in the neighbourhood are already congested. During the day commuters park here as itis on the edge of an RPZ and the majority of houses do not have off street parking. As many of theroads are narrow vehicles are frequently parked partially on the pavement, forcing pedestriansonto the road - particularly those with pushchairs, prams or wheelchairs. The proposeddevelopment can only add to this chaos as it offers inadequate parking for it's users and will attractmore traffic. There are several early years providers in the area plus a primary school and weshould be looking to protect the children from the environmental and safety hazards caused bytraffic.
There are already several older people's homes and a retirement 'village' (The Vincent) in thearea. I am concerned that another retirement development of this scale will have a negativeimpact on the demographics of the area. I'm sure the owners want to make as much profit aspossible but it should not be at the expense of the local residents.
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
1) There is insufficient parking provision for this development. The streets locally arealready crowded with residents, business and commuters cars. Etloe Road is now virtuallyimpassable because of pavement parking.2) There is no provision for Affordable Housing which appears to not comply with Bristol's policy.3) The height of the development is excessive given the nature of the surrounding buildings andthe historic nature of the area.4) The removal of trees will change the pleasant nature and air quality of the area.
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
I object for two main reasons.Firstly - the sheer size and scale of the development aren't in keeping with the neighbourhood.In addition, the plan has no guarantee of provision for young people with special needs.Our son was among the 70 young people with SENd who lived at St Christophers until it wasclosed in the summer of 2019. This proposed development will only worsen the appalling shortageof residential special needs places in the region.
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
I wholeheartedly object to the very ugly proposed design for St Christopher's. Not onlyare the almost prison like blocks too high but they are not sympathetic to the surrounding area.This proposed development will have a massive impact on the surroundings, this area of Bristolalready has a huge problem with too many cars parking and trying to drive around in narrowstreets, whataffect will this monstrosity have on us being able to safely drive around?
I am also absolutely disgusted to hear that there will not be any affordable flats, I know this is aaffluent area but the last thing anyone needs is another set of million pound flats that can't be sold,The Vincent being a prime example. If that can't be filled then what makes you think thiscommunity needs another huge luxury complex for retired people? I am also worried about thechange in demographics another retirement complex will have on the surrounding area for bothlocal businesses and current residents.
The hugely detrimental environmental impact also goes without saying. The massive loss of veryold and beautiful trees is devastating both to the aesthetic of the local area and our wildlife. TheDowns are a magnificent part of Bristol that we should respect and conserve, not blot it's viewswith ugly buildings.
One of my main concerns though is the safety of the roads. My child goes to Westbury ParkSchool, the narrow car filled roads are already a danger to navigate, what will they be like withanother possibly 200 cars right next to it. There was a terrible accident just around the corner a
few weeks ago caused by too many cars trying to get through narrow roads, the last thing we needis to add to this already very dangerous situation.
Also I am very shocked by the very ugly design. It isn't aesthetically pleasing what so ever, I'mvery surprised at how basic and blocky they look. There doesn't seem to be any beautiful designelements there at all, and they're not at all sympathetic to the existing building. The high andblocky design make them look more like a prison or old mill house.
I do hope you reconsider planning permission for such an unattractive, privileged and possiblydangerous complex. I understand that we need more housing, this country is desperate for it, butwhat it doesn't need is any more housing for very rich old people, there's certainly enough of thatalready.
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
I deplore the loss of the St Christophers as a special school.Certificate A forming part of the application shows the owner as St Christophers PropCo Ltd. Thelatest available land registry certificate we have seen today shows a different freehold owner. Thecertificate is potentially invalid.The plans forming part of the application include proposals that appear to be both outside theapplication area and outside the applicant's ownership. Thus, plans indicate access, potentialaccess widening and footpath proposals that are part of what is known locally as Granny Downand is common land. This surely makes the application invalid as ultra vires?Local user. The applicant's case is that the proposed development would improve the housingprovision in Bristol City. The opposite might well be the case as the developer will seek to sell inthe best market which is likely to attract residents from the wealthier Home Counties who couldafford both the purchase price and anticipated high service charge. The apparent slow take up ofthe nearby "Vincent" development rather demonstrates that Bristol is resistant to this type ofscheme. The developers show great confidence and the City Council should take them at theirword and impose a permanent local user restriction in the S106 agreement rather than the weakthe unenforceable proposal by the applicant.The proposed use of "integrated retirement community" is not a use class identified in the UseClasses order. If I have minor modifications to my flat to enable me to live independently in old ageand I employ a carer to help me does that mean I move to C2 use? Of course, it doesn't andtherefore this application is a residential application (c3) and should be treated as such.The proposal for parking provision is clearly grossly inadequate and there is no spare street
parking available. The lack of available street parking was the main reason for the PlanningInspectorate refusing the recent appeal to extend the nursing home at the nearby ` 7 BelvedereRoad (appeal APP/Z0116/W/20/3263935).I object to the design and layout of the proposal. The tower blocks will totally dominate thesurrounding area and are incompatible with the Conservation Area as they are totally out of scalewith three out of the four boundaries. The fourth (Westbury Park) elevation will show uglyprotrusions over the existing attractive Mid-Victorian Villas and will be clearly visible for the Downs.I note that air source heat pumps are proposed. The application is not clear if these are individualunits and if so, these should be shown on the proposed elevations. Ground source heat pumpswould be a quieter and a less intrusive solution.I am aware that the area has good wildlife including mammals (fox, badger hedgehog, bats) andwe see about 25 species of breeding birds close to St Christophers. It is not clear to me as to whatmeasures to protect these animals, most of which enjoy statutory protection, are proposed.Bristol deserves better.Please refuse this application.
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
I object to this proposal on several grounds:1) Overdevelopment on a grand scale. Far too crowded and a six storey building in this area isinappropriate.2) The development is too close to the Downs and will be an eyesore.3) it is already very difficult to park in this area and the development will make it so much harder.Also it will impact upon Westbury park school and the nursery nearby.4) Why is there no social housing involved?
This is an insensitive and unimaginative proposal which will undoubtably effect the general feel ofour area. Please please reject the application and ask for a rethink.
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
I object to the current plans due to the size and height of the development, and the lackof provision of parking spaces.The height of the development is out of keeping with the residential area and may block the lightand view of surrounding houses that benefit from being able to view the Downs. I think anydevelopment on the site should be sympathetic to aesthetic of the neighbourhood and certainlyshould not be higher than the houses in the area. Equally there should be more provision ofparking, especially given that the desired residents will likely require parking for themselves andfor wardens/carers. This will greatly impact the surrounding roads otherwise.
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
The proposed plans for such a high density and multi-storey complex are unrealisticwithin the settings of the surrounding area.
The area is already at saturation point for parking which is a daily challenge for residents. 65spaces for 120 units including residents, support workers and carers would appear to be wildlydisproportionate. Additionally, when factoring in school run traffic along these roads, this wouldhave a detrimental impact on the traffic in the area.
Secondly, the height and size of proposed designs are not in keeping with the surrounding areas.These will likely impede the existing skyline for local residents, but also disrupt the aspect ofheritage-style housing from the downs.
I'm not opposed to development on this site, however this seems to be a half baked proposal anddoesn't address more pressing development issues such as affordable housing across Bristol.
on 2022-04-11 SUPPORT
Objection to the plans due to the following reasons:-1. Size and scale of proposed development.2. Concerned re the impact on light, conservation and is absolutely not in keeping with thesurrounding area. The council appears to be obsessed with granting planing for ugly high risebuildings recently.3. The massive impact an road safety and parking in an already challenged area, particularly closeto schools nurseries and the many people who walk, run and cycle around the area.4. The environmental impact.
I have lived in this area for most of my life. The development on Coldharbour Road slipped pastme which saddened me. The thought of the beautiful site and area being destroyed by greedbreaks my heart.
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
Comments submitted earlier re my objection but it registered as I support which Iabsolutely don't !!!
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
I'm very concerned about the density and height of the proposed development alongwith the parking problems this will undoubtedly bring.
I believe the character of the area will be negatively impacted along with the wildlife and trees.
If there were fewer accommodation blocks with fewer floors, along with more green space andparking, I'd probably be more supportive of the application.
Martin
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
Westbury Park Primary School Needs Some Green Space
This school has no green space on site for the health and wellbeing of the hundreds of pupils andstaff. An opportunity has been lost to provide some dedicated and permanent green space.Although the developer has talked vaguely about access to the local community this is very shortof a durable commitment.
Over Development
The proposed apartment blocks range from 4-6 stories which conflicts with the character of TheDowns Conservation Area where the street scenes are mainly 2-3 stories. These blocks willdominate the sky line from every side of the development site.
Weak Design
The proposed design of the new apartment blocks fails to reflect the sense of place of theconservation area through appropriate use of external materials and colours, window styles andsizes (eg proportion of glazing to solid walls), elevations, variety in the street scene or roof shapes.
Impact on Listing Buildings
There would be a negative impact on the setting of the listed buildings in the area, particularly
Grace House. There would be several 4-6 story apartment blocks very close to this building on twoof its sides. This would overshadow this unique building.
Lack of Affordable Housing
Why is there no affordable housing on site?
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
I live 2 streets away, within sight and sound of the site, and would appreciate myobjections to this development, and those of other neighbours, being taken seriously.
Whilst I understand the desire for retirement community properties, I do not feel this developmenthas been appropriately planned. Parking on local streets is already busy enough, without enoughparking for residents, with an ever increasing number of cars. This is an even greater issue whenthe local primary school has parents dropping off and collecting children who do not live walkingdistance to their education establishment. In addition to the congestion, I foresee a safety concernwith construction traffic and children accessing the primary school.
The St Christopher's site proposes housing 120 residents, requiring staff and visitors to park onlocal streets as there are only 65 spaces proposed. In addition, the construction work will causeexcess traffic, soiling of roads and unwanted sound pollution for a significant period of time.
As a neighbourhood, we will be left with no choice but to apply for the surrounding roads to bemade residents parking only, with extended hours, to facilitate parking outside our own homes andto prevent others from the St Christopher's site from doing so.
This development is not supported by myself or most of the local community, as this site is notsuitable for such a large residential home.
on 2022-04-11 OBJECT
I wish to express my objections to the proposed development of the former StChristopher's School for the following reasons:-
TRAFFIC AND PARKINGThe plans allow for only 65 parking spaces for 120 flats, carers, visitors and delivery vehicles. Thisseems totally inadequate, with the inevitable consequence of visitors etc parking outside thedevelopment. Street parking in Westbury Park is already at saturation point due to the lack of RPZand lack of off-street parking. Also, as this area is just outside the Redland RPZ, it is used bycommuters for parking. It is difficult to see how these already congested streets could absorb anyoverspill parking from the St Christopher's site. Illegal parking and narrow streets used as rat-runsfurther compound traffic and safety issues in the area. With a primary school and two nurseriesclose to the development site, anything that worsens congestion, pollution and road safety is amajor concern.
SIZEThe proposed buildings are too large and too high: they will be visible from The Downs and are outof character with this area. Surrounding houses will lose privacy and their gardens will beovershadowed. Altogether it points to an inappropriate overdevelopment of the site which is notsympathetic to the surroundings.
THE ENVIRONMENTIt is a very sad thought, that to accommodate this development, mature trees which have enriched
the natural environment over a long period of time, will be lost forever.
on 2022-04-10 OBJECT
The character of the proposed development is totally out of keeping with thisconservation area. The low number of parking spaces proposed will have a detrimental effect onsurrounding roads as existing houses have no garages and parking is already a problem. Theblocks of flats proposed seem to be too high and will have an adverse effect on surroundingexisting properties. I am not against a retirement village in principle but object to the scale andnature of the proposed development particularly since one of the blocks of flats will be at thebottom of my garden and will overlook my property.
on 2022-04-10 OBJECT
I do not support the current application. The inclusion of apartment blocks of 4, 5 and 6stories will dominate the site and the neighbouring location and have a significant negative effecton the Downs conservation area. The impact of the development as currently planned on the lossof trees is also a concern. Parking is completely inadequate for the size of development currentlyplanned - notwithstanding comments about later living lifestyles, those residents will have visitorsand many will continue to drive, being physically unable to walk or cycle very far. The idea that carusage will be so limited seems fanciful and unrealistic.
on 2022-04-10 OBJECT
I object to the scale of the proposed development on the St Christopher's site for thefollowing reasons:
1. Providing only 65 parking spaces for 120 new residential units is ridiculous. We have alreadyseen the effects of this sort of policy with the development on the old Bristol Polytechnic site (nowThe Praedium) and many other smaller developments in this neighbourhood. Where do you thinkthat up to 240 residents, their carers and the staff are going to park their cars and vans? On thestreets nearby perhaps? The narrow streets of Westbury Park are already jammed with cars andthis development will make matters much worse.2. Traffic congestion in the area is already severe. The queues along Redland Road past the StChristopher's buildings to the White tree roundabout are dreadful. The extra traffic generated bythis development will make matters worse still.3. The height of the new blocks is excessive and quite out of keeping with the historic buildings inthis 'conservation' area. This will spoil the views from the downs and overshadow existing nearbyproperties.
on 2022-04-10 OBJECT
I believe this planned development will disrupt the every day life of the neighbourhoodfor a long period of time. The construction alone, at a time of many working from home, willprovide intense noise and traffic pollution. The local area prides itself on environmentalconsciousness and this destruction of nature should not be allowed to happen. I also believe theplanned building is monstrous and cannot replace the existing history stored in the localcommunity.People moved to this neighbourhood for its peace and greenery. This removes that both in thelong and short term.
on 2022-04-10 OBJECT
The roads and street parking are too full as things are, adding to this would be anightmare. Opposition to loss of trees and ecosystems is an obvious one. Additionally, they seemto be an obtuse eyesore in an otherwise lovely area - should they go ahead, at least keep in linewith the architecture and height of surrounding buildings.
on 2022-04-10 OBJECT
This development will cause huge issues with parking and safety in the area. There are2 nurseries and 2 pre schools with in a very close distance so there are a lot of children in the areawho would be put in danger from the extra traffic and cars driving in the area. The parking of 65 onsite spaces would barely cover staff parking meaning that parking in the area would beconsiderably impacted. Constant flow of services traffic and large lorries from waste disposalwould make the narrow streets dangerous, noisy and damage cars.
There is already a huge shortage of housing in the area so a retirement home is alsoquestionable. Reasonable housing development for families to buy would be a better use of theland.
on 2022-04-10 OBJECT
I do not agree at all to this development.
The fact there are only 65 parking spaces for more than 120 units is absolutely ridiculous.residents, carers, office and maintenance staff and deliveries will all be competing for thesecausing chaos for already busy residential roads. The parking in the area is already impossible forresidents and as a resident with a newborn in a pram, it is already dangerous crossing roads heredue to double parked cars meaning it is hard to see oncoming traffic. There is not enough space inneighbouring roads for the overspill which is estimated as 50 cars at peak times. I struggle to parknear my house as it is without having to compete with a further 50 cars. As an access point issituated between a school and nursery this is just downright dangerous not even mentioning theawful increase in air pollution from the extra traffic which will damage children's lungs.
The development is huge and not in keeping at all with the surrounding buildings or areas due tothe density and height of the buildings and will affect the ares especially as will be visible from thedowns. The buildings will also be very close to existing buildings adversely impacting light, privacy,noise, overshadowing and amenity.
The blocks will overwhelm the setting of the important listed historic building (Grace House) and isentirely inappropriate for a site within the Downs Conservation Area. The sheer mass of theproposed new buildings is out of character with existing period homes and will damage the localtownscape.
As a supposedly eco/green development it is laughable that they want to chop down 50% of treeson site including including beautiful, mature specimens that would take decades to replace. Theyare going to reduce green space on the 'Granny Downs' with plans for a new path cutting rightthrough it. This will have a massive impact on the wildlife in this area which is home towoodpeckers, owls, bats and foxes. The loss of trees will be visible from Bayswater Avenue/EtloeRoad.There is no provision for affordable housing which is a key target for BCC.
The plans offer no guarantee of provision for young people with Special Educational Needs andDisabilities (SEND) despite the legacy of the former St Christopher's School which looked afterchildren for more than 70 years. Bristol City Council is striving to improve the quality of service forSEND children but serious gaps remain. There are no residential SEND places within the city -children are sent to 'out of area' placements sometimes far away from their families.
on 2022-04-10 OBJECT
I don't object to a residential home here what I object to is the industrial size of thisdevelopment. The planned housing blocks are far too high and are out of keeping in thisresidential and beautiful area. It will also impact upon views of The Downs and spoil the viewswhen on the Downs.The size also means parking problems will intensify in this already car crowded area.The size of the development with the storied buildings will create homes for a few hundred peopleto the detriment of many thousands.
on 2022-04-10 OBJECT
My husband and I are against the development plans for the St Christophers Site for thefollowing reasons, in order, as they will impact on our lives.We are realistic and know that the site will be developed but we would like to see plans that addsomething to the area and not have a negative impact on those who already live here.
1 Increased traffic flow and parking.ParkingWe live on the corner of Royal Albert Road and Westbury Park (road). Ever since theestablishment of a Resident Parking Zone which ends at the start of Westbury Park (road) wehave had major problems with parking. As the developers know, we have a good bus service intoBristol from here which means that during the day time, commuters park here and in surroundingroads. With the addition of 122 housing units and only 65 parking places there will even morepressure.My experience of elderly people is that they are able to use their owns cars well into their 80s butwould find it increasingly difficult to board a bus. They need car parking, if not for themselves thenfor family/visitors.Local roads which are already saturated with cars will not be able to cope with the overspill of StChristopher's residents' staff's and visitors' cars.The introduction of an RPZ would help if it included all surrounding roads including Westbury Park(road).Traffic flowThere are serious problems about creating a road next to the nursery on Bayswater Avenue.
Visibility is already an issue when approaching Bayswater from Royal Albert Road and to addanother road, even if it is initially for a small number of vehicles, seems dangerous and reckless,given how difficult it is already for road users and equally for pedestrians, many of whom areyoung children.The developers have suggested that there might only be problems with increased traffic flow atpeak times - those of us who live here know that our roads are busy quite a lot of the time withRoyal Albert used as a rat run with drivers trying to avoid the queue (sometimes even atlunchtime) on Westbury Park (road) and cutting down Eltoe Rd to get to North View and then ontoWhite Tree round-a-bout. It is not rocket science to suggest that the addition of 122 housing unitswill make this situation worse.
2 Overdevelopment of the siteHaving seen the plans and having attended the developers' Zoom seminar we feel that theirproposed plans should be rejected because of the density and height of the buildings. Some of thebuildings are too close to existing houses and will tower above them. The 6 storey block is grosslyout of place in Westbury Park, a predominantly Victorian suburb. The 5 storey block is far tooclose to residents in The Glen. The mews cottages are too close both to those in The Glen andresidents in Bayswater Ave.
3 The loss of trees and ecology.Any development is bound to have a temporary effect on wildlife, trees and plants but the sheersize of this development will have a hugely negative impact.It would be a great pity to lose mature trees especially those in the corner where the developerswish to have an access road (for 4 cars) onto Bayswater Ave.In summaryIf the assisted living development is affordable it could offer something positive to the area and itcould free up local housing for families.But the density and height of buildings and traffic flow and parking problems make these planstotally unacceptable to ourselves who live in close proximity.
on 2022-04-10 OBJECT
As a local resident I object to the plans in their current form. The increment in roadtraffic and parking requirements is of significant concern. This does not seem to have beensufficiently considered by the developers. The current height and density of the proposed buildingseems excessive and not fitting with the local area.
on 2022-04-10 OBJECT
Huge concern re traffic and parking.Very dangerous at present with parking onpavements leading to poor pedestrian access and uneven surfaces.Little or no parking forcleaners gardeners ,carers at present for those who wish to remain in their present home ,many ofwhom do not have the finances to move into expensive retirement homes.Bus services need attention as some routes are not well covered while others have frequentservices.It is not possible for instance to visit friends over in Sneyd Park without car or taxi beingneeded.Roads often blocked by lorries for up to a whole day if building work being done.
on 2022-04-10 OBJECT
I am very strongly opposed to this substantial development of more than 120 housingunits and 6 story apartment blocks which is absolutely not in keeping with its surrounds. Theheight and density of the multi-story blocks and housing is wholly inappropriate for the heritagesite (Grace House), and the neighbourhood, would impact negatively on the surrounding housesand community, and will be visible from the Downs which is a Conservation Area. It would involvethe destruction of mature trees and the loss of wildlife. The developers have paid very littleattention to the concerns of the residents and have not been transparent when additionalinformation or clarity has been requested. One major concern was about parking with only 65 orso provided on site for more than 120 housing units, which would have to also accommodatecarers, relatives, office and maintenance staff and delivery vehicles. There is a thriving primaryschool in very close proximity to the proposed development, as well as a number of localnurseries. Double parking, marking across driveways, blocked road, etc are all traffic problemsalready experienced by the residents of Westbury Park due to narrow roads, amount of traffic, etc.This development will only exacerbate the problem, making the streets more dangerous,increasing tension and making getting around the neighbourhood (and even to work sometimes)really difficult with cars and delivery vans already parking in the middle of the road. The proposalsfor this development will really impact negatively on the quality of life for residents. There isalready substantial provision for elderly people in this area so surely this cannot be a priority.There is absolutely no provision for affordable housing in this development which should be moreof a priority and something this city desperately needs.
on 2022-04-10 OBJECT
I am very concerned about the massive over development of this area. Nothing in thearea is close to the height that is being proposed. With a daughter who will soon go to theWestbury Park Primary School, the ridiculous lack of parking and the proposal to open a newentrance on Bayswater Avenue I am very worried about the huge increase in the number of carsparking on residential roads. Parking is already a huge problem and adding more cars willintroduce more stress and frustration to drivers on these roads. Not what you want out side aprimary school and nursery.
on 2022-04-10 OBJECT
I am a local resident and do not agree with the proposed development for manyreasons.
Firstly the sheer amount of properties with the lack of parking. The roads are highly congestedalready and we often struggle to get a car parking space. This is going to worsen the situation.
The roads also cannot handle the sheer volume of people, they are often heavily congested andcars are often trying to squeeze by causing many to have windows knocked off.
The proposal is unsightly and the amount of floors in the buildings will look unsightly in the areaand tower over Westbury Park. It will really ruin such a beautiful area and completely tear apartthe lovely skyline. We were hoping our children would go to school but knowing that will tower overmakes it a unfavourable location. It's really going to ruin the local area.
on 2022-04-10 OBJECT
I object to this application.It will have an adverse effect on the local community. It is a massive over development of the plot.The proposals are not in keeping with the local area and are unnecessarily high and modern instyle. The 6 storey blocks will change the local vistas in a negative way and are simply too highand appear a greedy overdevelopment without thought for the local community.The proposals do not ensure that there is adequate parking for the needs of a community that islikely to require regular care input. This will have an impact on the local roads and parkingchallenges. It will increase congestion and the risk for the local children.It is wrong to fell so many mature trees that are a habitat to local wildlife. The loss of green spacewill have a detrimental impact on local wildlife.The scale of the development needs reducing significantly. It is a shocking proposed change tothe local community.
on 2022-04-10 OBJECT
Summary1) We challenge the proposed parking allocations on site, based on the classification of thehousing as residential institutions when in fact the site will 'promote independence' and provide'self-contained flats'. This is more in line with residential dwellings which have an appreciablygreater requirement of car parking per bed space.2) We have concerns for the building of such a substantial development over the next 3 yearswhile our young children are spending their early years on the other side of the construction sitewall. This is inevitably going to affect the quality of their learning environment and it is not clearhow this disruption will be mitigated.3) We seek explicit clarity on the community uses statement for young children who attend thelocal schools and nurseries.
As presented, this over development will unacceptably increase pressure on parking, already amajor issue in the local area. The following solutions to be considered (in order of preference):- Reduce the number of units built- Increase parking spaces to be more in line with C3 housing classification- Increase the car club spaces from 2 to 12 in order to discourage care ownership- Make all parking bays electric vehicle charging spaces to support national environmental targets.While the proposal for an older community site is acceptable, the approach to put profit ahead oflocal infrastructure, community and the environment is alarming.
Background
We are a professional family of three, soon to be four. Our child currently attends Daisychainnursery and will hopefully move to Westbury Park School in September 2023. Our second childwill follow the same progression. We own one car that is parked on the road outside our terracedhome on Devonshire Road.
Parking ConcernsWe present the evidence relating to parking offered by the developers and the local council:
Developers: St Christopher's PropCo Ltd: Transport Statement v6 statement4.18 The maximum car parking standards for C2 use are as follows (from legislation not currentlyin force):- 1 staff space per 5 Full time staff- 1 visitor space per 12 bed spaces6.5 Car parking [for a C2 property category] is set as follows (in line with existing legislation):- 1 space per 2 Full time staff- 1 space per 6 bed spaces6.6 The proposal is for 122 units comprising 111 two-bed and 11 one-bed. There will be anestimated 15-20 staff on site at any one time. Using the above standard, the site would require 39spaces for tenants and ten for staff, totalling 49 spaces6.7 The proposals include 65 spaces, which is over the standard. The extra spaces will reduce therisk of overspill parking onto residential roads. Roads to the south such as The Glen andBelvedere Road are on the edge of the residents parking zone and have issues with lack of on-street parking for residents.6.8 The 65 spaces include six accessible spaces, eight electric vehicle charging spaces, two carclub spaces and one space for the mini-bus used for staff and resident travel. The route/use of themini-bus will be established once staff locations are known.
Site Allocations and Development Management Policies, Bristol City Council, July 2014C2 - Residential Institutions:- At least one bay for ambulances, minibuses and general servicing- Staff: 1 space per 2 F/T duty staff (Convalescent and residential care)- Visitors: 1 space per 6 bed spaces (Convalescent and residential care)C3 - Residential Dwellings:- 1 space per 1 bed dwelling, 1.25 per 2 bed dwelling- 1 electric vehicle charging point per 5 spacesUsing the C2 council calculations, the requirement based on 20 F/T staff and 233 bed spaces is50 car parking and emergency vehicle spaces including 10 electric vehicle charging points.Using the C3 council calculations, the requirement is for 150 car parking spaces including 30electric charging points.
Parking conclusions
The actual planned use of the site is to promote 'independence in self-contained flats' not to createresidential care homes. This distinction portrays self-catering and will demand that each flat willneed the ability to buy groceries 52 weeks of the year. Classifying the site as C2 suggests that theresidents would receive wrap around care including catering but this is simply not the case. Thereality is the worst of both worlds - the new residents will need each of; F/T staff parking, visitorparking, emergency vehicle parking and their own vehicles to maintain independence.
Considering that residents would walk to the local Waitrose which is optimistically quoted as 350maway is unreasonable. My wife and I are fully active healthy individuals and the thought of walkingthat amount of food the shorter walk home on a weekly basis is not realistic. And furtherconsidering public transport an option to get to a supermarket is equally absurd. Residents willneed their own transport for basic grocery shopping as well as day trips etc.
The car parking allocation, including the requirement for electric vehicle charging points, isconsidered entirely inadequate. This development is planned in an area of terraced housing wherevery few properties have access to off-street parking. From first-hand experience, returning homeby car after 7pm means a long walk to our home. The only viable area for future residents of StChristopher's without a parking allocation is to overspill park in Bayswater Road or the surroundingroads to the south of the development displacing existing vehicles putting unacceptable pressureon our already stretched parking provision.
A revised parking space allocation is proposed:- We agree with 10 parking spaces for staff- 1 parking space for emergency vehicles in line with guidance- 38 parking spaces for visitors in line with guidance- Recognising that not all residents will be able to drive and that some may take up the car clubscheme, we request 66 parking spaces for residents (1 parking allocation per 2 flats) and 12 carclub spaces for vehicles that are only accessible for residents.- We expect the 5:1 ratio of parking spaces to electric vehicle charging points to be followed if notimproved to support national environmental targets and discourage unnecessary short journeys to'fill up the tank'.
The minimum realistic on-site parking spaces requirement to cater for the amount of flatsproposed is therefore 127. This minimum number will avoid causing unacceptable impact on thelocal roads' parking capacity. This is almost double the allocation offered by the developers anddoes not meet wider local council stipulations including electric vehicle charging points.
on 2022-04-10 OBJECT
We are residents of one of the roads near to, though not directly bordering the StChristopher's site.
We are supportive in principle of the site being used for the purpose set out. We have an elderlyparent living locally (1/4 mile) in a smaller scale retirement community, and we think many aspectsof the proposal together with the location would appeal strongly to the developers' target market.
We have some concerns that the height of the tallest buildings may dominate the area. We werealso unimpressed at the way in which the company putting forward the application seemed toavoid showing any artist impressions that gave a clear impression of how the site would look fromdifferent angles on the Downs.
However, our primary objection relates to the number of accommodations proposed and to theresultant traffic and parking issues.
Firstly we think that the developers are hugely over-optimistic in their view that the residents - whowill typically be relatively wealthy independent people who remain somewhat active - will willinglygive up their cars to the extent claimed. We have not seen that in the local retirement communitywe know, where the residents are on average less wealthy and less active. And that community isa shorter walking distance to a wider variety of shops and activities than the St Christophers site.
The developers have suggested that the elderly residents may use bikes instead. It is possible that
a few may, but anyone who lives around here will know that these roads are not particularly safefor any but more experienced and confident cyclists. Other retirement communities in the area donot have significant take-up of cycling, you only have to live here to realise that although there isquite a significant number of cyclists on the roads there are few elderly ones despite many olderpeople in the local population. Again we think the developers are using over-optimisticassumptions.
So we think the likelihood that the number of cars retained will only be about half the number ofaccommodation units is very low.
Then there is the question of staff parking. While the developers say they will provide shuttlebuses to help staff get to work, and that is good, it would be incredibly naïve to think that most staffwill use these. We are used to a number of care home staff parking near to our house - if there isfree parking available nearby, even if not much of it, that is what most staff are likely to use unlessthey happen to live very close to the shuttle bus route.
Finally there is the question of visitor parking. There appears to be little or no visitor parkingprovided on site. We are aware of local retirement communities with 1 visitor space for every 5-10resident units.
Overall we consider that the development as proposed will lead to a significant amount ofadditional demand for parking on the residential streets nearby. This will obviously have a negativeeffect on local residents, businesses and of course Westbury Park School. We are thereforeopposed to the development as it stands, and request that planning consent is not given unlessthere is either a significant reduction in the number of residential units or a significant increase inthe on-site parking.
If the application is approved, we request that the Council expands the Residents' ParkingScheme areas to include the streets on both sides of North View.
on 2022-04-09 OBJECT
The proposal is a terrible idea for a number of reasons.My main objection is the likely parking and traffic chaos. I live opposite the school on BayswaterAve - which already causes a lot chaos at peak times of the day as the surrounding roads arenarrow and packed with cars. The new development would only add impact to what is already anarea at breaking point.Westbury Park is one of the few places left in Bristol which is home to beautiful wildlife & trees. Itwould be a tragedy to lose this through over development.Any new development needs to be in keeping with the natural lay out and landscape of the area.Intelligent and well thought out design needs to be brought in here - as opposed to blocks of flatswhich will destroy and disturb the natural wildlife and landscape - of which people from nearbycounties and all over the country come to enjoy in Bristol.
on 2022-04-09 OBJECT
Dear sir/ Madam,We are very disappointed with this application. Despite attending the meetings organised by theapplicants, none of the remarks we made have been taken into account.Our main objections have been about the number of accommodations that would be added to thearea without planning for adequate parking facilities. We are not even sure that there would beenough parking spaces within the property for the staff. This will put an incredible pressure onparking in the adjacent roads such as ours. It is already impossible to park in Belvedere Road orthe Glen and these roads are very often blocked by ambulances and delivery vans. We cannotimagine what it would like with another 200 or so accommodations next to us. Saying that this willforce people to use public transport is a totally false argument as most of the staff already workingin any of the three care homes already located in Belvedere Road come by car and try to park inthe vicinity!To accommodate such a large number of accommodations the applicant is suggesting to build 6storey buildings which is in no way in keeping with this conservation area where none of thebuildings do not have more than 3 storey high. This complete eyesore will be seen not just fromthe downs but also from every other direction as the proposed buildings will dwarf everythingaround them.We could see on the plan that many old trees and most of the wild life will disappear which is sad,especially for the foxes. We have fed at least 4 generations of foxes in our garden every night andit will be very sad to see their environment disappear a bit more.It is our opinion that the promoters have presented a project that will maximize their profit at thisstage without any consideration how detrimental it will be to the area and the area which is a
landmark in Bristol.
Yours faithfully
Jacques Desallais & Margaret Thwaytes
on 2022-04-09
Westbury Park is already a congested area with Coldharbour Road a busy commuterroad. There have been a number of accidents on the crossings on Coldharbour and we do notneed significantly more traffic in the area.The road that runs along the front of the site is also narrow and unable to cope with the excessiveamounts of traffic that this new development will bring.The site will undoubtedly cause not only more traffic chaos, more accidents (which areunacceptable near a Primary School) and impossible parking. It is already hard enough to park inthe area without more vehicles looking for spaces. The fact that the developers think it'sacceptable to not provide parking on the site for each home is beyond belief. Their argument thatolder people don't drive and will use local transport is based on what evidence? I know many olderpeople in the area who are still driving in their 80s and even 90s. And parking for staff and visitorsseems to have been completely ignored.In addition, this is a beautiful site and the proposed buildings are excessive both in number and inheight.Finally, the developers surveys have been so blatantly biased in their questions as to make anyresults and 'evidence' invalid.If Bristol Council approve this, there will be uproar in the area - not one person seems to be infavour.
on 2022-04-09
I support the Extra Care use of the site, however, I am concerned about the scale of thedevelopment, in particular the heights of the blocks. I believe it would be acceptable if these werescaled back. I am also concerned that not enough allowance has been made for parking on site.There will be (cannot be) no restriction on owning a car, so once the parking spaces are fullpeople will park on the surrounding streets, which are already really full of parked cars (in partbecause the CPZ does not extend to the neighbouring streets). Scaling back the development willreduce the parking problem, as will additional parking on site.
I have raised important concerns that should weight heavily in the planning decision, but if they areresolved, then the development of an Extra Care facility would be appropriate for the site.
on 2022-04-09 OBJECT
The neighbourhood is already quite crowded, and parking is mostly on street even forresidents. This will add a lot of traffic, and make parking much harder for residents, not to mentionincreased hazards around the nurseries and schools.
on 2022-04-09 OBJECT
As a person raising my children here, I want to voice my strong objection to the planningproposal.Why take away beautiful trees that house all kinds of incredible wildlife and replace them withcars? We need not cut down our trees! Cars are zooming around narrow streets where manychildren and older people live. More cars in a small area invariably mean more air pollution andaccidents.Westbury Park is such a lovely part of Bristol. Overdevelopment to such a great height is baffling.Six stories? All the other buildings are only half as tall, at most. Why do that, apart from beinggreedy? The cost is too great.Signing off this proposal will make some people money. Yet, this neighbourhood's wildlife andcharacter will suffer for decades.Lastly, regarding the loss of the SEND provision in Westbury Park: St. Christophers School hasserved hundreds of vulnerable children for decades. This development plan replaces thatprovision with more housing for the better off. Completely unfair and not the kind of expression ofpriorities I expected from a progressive City Council.
We implore you please protect us from indifferent developers!
on 2022-04-09 OBJECT
I strongly object to this application.
Access via the Glen would be chaos and dangerous to the residents and children who play in thisarea.
The cul-de-sac is full of cars at all times of day, more traffic if there is resident and staff accesswould mean even more cars, with no where for them to park. Children play on this cul-de sac andit would be extremely dangerous to them.
The site it self would alter the view from the Downs , trees and green spaces will be lost and thenature and wildlife would be affected by thisI strongly object.
on 2022-04-09 OBJECT
Particularly concerned re the size of the the development - especially the height.Design not in keeping with local listed propertiesPressure this development will put on parking which is already really difficult for residents.Loss of mature trees & green space.
on 2022-04-09 OBJECT
This proposal would seriously damage the environment in the area. Already, in theGlen, there are not adequate parking spaces for residents, who routinely have to park on nearbyroads with PPA restrictions. In the mornings especially, it is common for both the Glen andBelvedere Road to be completely blocked by delivery vans, refuse collectors or ambulances,meaning sometimes 15-20 minutes waiting for the roads to clear for exit, meaning our children arelate for school or we are late for work. There simply is no more capacity for development in thisimmediate area. The plans are poorly thought out and not sympathetic to the surroundingenvironment. There is a suggestion of a six storey development, and this would completelydestroy the environment for residents and visitors alike. The residents of The Glen and BelvedereRoad have been sympathetic to the developments in Belvedere Road, despite the disruptioncaused to us, but this project is completely unworkable. Staff, visitors and delivery vehicles for thecomplex would park in the Glen and around, exacerbating the congestion problems. Thisdevelopment would totally disrupt the local area, and damage the environment. Planning for itshould be refused.
on 2022-04-09 OBJECT
General Comment
In principle, I am not against the idea of 'Extra Care' provision for those over the age of 70.
But the fact remains that there is unanimous opposition within the community to the scale andeffects of this development. Since those most affected by it live in the immediate environs of thedevelopment, it is nothing short of scandalous that our 'voice' has not been 'heard' during the so-called community consultation process to date.
Specifically, my objections come under several headings:
1. Overdevelopment: too much building, too high, too close to neighbours with consequentnegative impacts - (a) in heritage terms on our area and on The Downs (the site and its surroundsare in The Downs Conservation Area), (b) on the setting of the Grade II listed Grace House(dramatically overwhelmed by 6, 5 and 4 storey buildings very near it), (c) on the privacy andoutlook of neighbouring houses and (d) on the serious loss of trees in the highly significant 'copse'visible from the corner of Bayswater Avenue and St. Helena Road.2. Parking: evidence strongly suggests that 65 spaces will not be enough and that would lead tosignificant overspill onto surrounding streets, with related traffic problems. My own mother is 94and she is still driving and would wish to park her car should she move to one of these kinds of'Extra Care' sites. It is not a fact that very old people don't still require a car and space to park it!And if there is overspill parking, then there are concerns about pedestrian gates onto The Glen
and Bayswater Road, making it easy for people to park then nip into the development. Visitors andresidents are likely to park in nearby roads where it is already nearly impossible to find parking.3. Traffic: Bayswater Road not only hosts Westbury Park Primary school but also Harcourt pre-school and Daisychain. Extra traffic generated would greatly increase the danger to the hundredsof children using this area, and there is already a particularly dangerous junction at Bayswater/StHelena Roads, consequently vehicle access at the Bayswater Avenue corner (if only for fourresidents' cars) would greatly add to that danger.4. Ecology, biodiversity and wildlife: the tree loss in the site corner (above) is part of theoverdevelopment issue but many trees all across the site will be removed and - the developerssay - replaced. But, again, there is poor and unconvincing evidence about that and all otheraspects of ecology, including the site's role as a wildlife corridor. A 'net gain' in biodiversity is adubious argument.5. Other opportunities missed: although no one underlyingly objects to 'Extra Care', opportunitieshave been missed for the provision of affordable homes, or special education needs provisionwhen there are already too many care homes already in the immediate vicinity.6. Quality of the community engagement: lip service was paid to this by the developers but theyhave actually done very little to address the concerns of the community. This was a PR stunt sowe are hoping that by the community addressing Bristol City Council directly through this currentpublic consultation method, you will actually listen to us and turn the application down in its currentform.
Final comments
From a lay perspective, the whole planning system is at risk of coming into disrepute whenexpensively employed planning specialists can help developers to tick the right boxes in order tocircumvent the planning system of Bristol City Council.
Those who are developing the site will ultimately move on to another money-making venture andthe community will be left with the ugly result for generations to come. Money 'talks' and theseinvestors (backed, we are told, by half a dozen or so high net worth individuals including the familywho own E-Bay) will only be interested in their 'ROI' never to be seen or heard of again.
It seems that the planning system is in danger of failing those for whom it is most specificallydesigned to support.
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
I am the Landlord for Freeways Trust which is a charity for adults with learningdifficulties and own the property at 19 Bayswater Avenue. The Trust is disappointed with the lossof the SEND provision and would also appreciate to be provided with computer verified images inorder to confirm the visual impact on neighbouring properties.
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
I strongly object to the plans for the proposed plans for the redevelopment of the site ofSt Christopher's school in Westbury Park, Bristol. I have lived in Florence Park in Westbury Parksince 1997 and our house looks across to this site. The proposed plans will change our quality oflife in many ways.
Firstly it will change our outlook. We have always benefitted greatly from the open view across tothe beautiful trees there. I believe that many of these will be felled. The high-rise buildingsproposed will change our outlook completely and block the afternoon/evening sun from our gardenwhich we have always so enjoyed. We grow vegetables in our garden and have designed ourlifestyle and garden around our ability to sit and eat and drink in the sun in the evenings there withfamily and friends.
The high-rise design of the buildings is completely out of keeping with the unique local communityfamily residential character with low rise residential architecture here.
We have a very strong local community and children often play and cycle around the area. Ourchildren have grown up being able to walk to school safely and play and cycle in the area whichhas very little traffic. The increase in traffic and parking caused by this development will changethis and the whole nature of our very close knit and relaxed quiet local community here andchange a part of Bristol which currently is well known for having something very very special. It isa real safety concern and will change the nature of the area completely.
I am very concerned about the impact on the natural world here. There have always been owls inthe trees there and we love hearing them most evenings in the summer. We also get bats flyingover our garden in the summer evenings who rely on the trees and natural habitat there. We alsoget hedgehogs and foxes which we love. We also are desperate that we will lose the beautifultrees on the site that we look across from from our windows. They are simply beautiful and add toour mental wellbeing all the time. With concerns about our natural world as well as global warmingon the increase how can cutting down these old trees and destroying the habitat of threatenedspecies be justified?
We have also greatly valued having provision for people with special needs in the area. I haveworked with people with disabilities for much of my career. How can it be justified to take away thisprovision and not provide for them, nor affordable housing? Instead of a community of people of amixture of ages and abilities this proposed development offers an artificial set up providing for oneage range and is out of keeping with our need to provide a living and mixed community.
I strongly object to the proposal and hope that Bristol City Council will not grant planningpermission for this development.
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
I object to this large set of new buildings including 6 story buildings. This will change thisarea significantly, potentially reduce the house prices in the area, cause traffic and parkingproblems in an already busy and congested area and will affect the Westbury park school accessroad for all parents. I strongly v object to this development and suggest the buildings are reducedin number and height to a max of three story buildings. Trees should be preserved and parkingspaces reduced.
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
I would like to strongly object to the proposed development at the former StChristopher's school. The plans for 122 new apartments and up to six story high blocks are vastlyoverdeveloping the small area, encroaching on neighbouring properties and is inappropriate to theDowns conservation area values. Here are my main reasons outlined below:
Overdevelopment - The huge scale of the buildings proposed is not in keeping with the localarchitecture in this conservation area. The density and height of the proposed building willdominate the area and affect views, chronic overshadowing, neighbours privacy, adding morenoise and light pollution.
Road Safety - The impact on road safety will be huge in an area already blighted by cars dumpedfrom neighbouring RPZs and daily commuters parking cars dangerously on pavements andobscuring visibility at junctions. This already makes it dangerous for school children and elderlypeople who have to cross into the road as the pavements are blocked on a daily basis on Etloeroad. I encounter this problem of irresponsibly parked cars every day when I walk my daughter toschool. The proposed entrance on Bayswater/Etloe road, will only exasperate traffic/parkingdangers on the main route to Westbury Park Primary school and Daisy Chain Nursery, not tomention the extra on street parking & traffic this massive overdevelopment will create.
Traffic and Parking Issues - If there are only 65 spaces available (for 122 apartments) on site,there will be a huge overspill of traffic and parking. This doesn't even account for the numbers ofstaff, visitors and deliveries in an area that is already at breaking point in regard to traffic and
parking chaos. Its proximity to neighbouring resident parking schemes and the parking limits onthe Downs has already had a detrimental knock on effect on the area. Inevitably the increase intraffic will only lead to even worse localised air pollution in an area with several schools andnurseries.
Environmental Impact - The huge loss of trees with 50% of them being felled is at odds with thegreen ethos of the development, not to mention it dominating the surrounding area with theexcessive height and concentration of new buildings. You would expect a green sustainabledevelopment to blend in and reduce stress on surrounding areas for local residents, not magnify it.
The developers have failed to listen to any of the feedback from local residents and just forged onwith their plans. Their plan seems to favour only profit and add nothing to the local Westbury Parkcommunity, ignoring most if not all our suggestions. There are already plenty of retirementproperties of this nature locally and the plan negates to add any affordable housing, which is muchmore in demand. So on this plethora of reasons, I object to the plans.
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
The height of the new buildings is inappropriate for the surroundings. I would ask thatthey keep the ridge height of the neighbouring houses. Three floors and an attic is fine. Moreprovision must be made for car parking as this area is very densely populated and parking isalready a problem for the residents. I want as many trees as possible within the area of StChristophers to be preserved and urge the planners to do this as well as plant more trees andshrubs for the benefit of wildlife and people who will live in this area. I am not against providingmore housing but it needs to be sensitive to the area and land within. What is proposed is too highand too dense, crowding too many people into a densely populated area without enough space forparking.
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
Two points of objection:
1.Height of some of the proposed dwellings is too high at six storeys.
2.Impact on the local roads and parking can only be negative because the area is almost atsaturation point now. This is made up[ of residents' vehicles, school, nurseryand business people,construction workers on existing house renovations and visitors to the churches, delivery vans anddrivers taking cut-throughs.
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
Having looked at the plans for the St Christopher site in Westbury Park I feel compelledto comment.The amount of buildings, the access roads, the parking and the implications of residents in analready very congested area quite obviously has not been thought through.How will it work with the school and nursery adjacent with parents continually trying to safelycollect their children and infants?It really does need to be thought through very carefully. It is a lovely neighborhood and rightly theresidents don't want to lose this when bringing up families.I beg you to rethink this quite frankly ludicrous plan.
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
Re Planning Application. 22/01221/FI have lived in the Etloe Road area for 31 years and I wish to object strongly to the currentproposals for the development of the St Christopher's School site for the following reasons:
SIZEAllowing the construction of such a large development within The Downs Conservation Areaseems completely inappropriate. The two main blocks are so high that they will dominate thewhole area, including the current historic buildings and The Granny Downs. They are completelyout of character with the Westbury Park Area.
PARKING AND ROAD SAFETYI note that only 65 parking spaces have been planned for 120 flats with no allowance for visitors,delivery drivers, carers and other staff. There will inevitably be a large overspill of traffic andparking onto neighbouring roads which are already very congested with several pavementsblocked with parked cars. This often makes it impossible for prams and buggies to negotiate. I amparticularly concerned for the safety implications for the children at Westbury Park School and thenursery children attending Daisychain, where a new driveway is being planned immediately next tothe nursery entrance.
ENVIRONMENTI am appalled that the developers are planning to fell over half of the mature trees on thesite....and I suspect that many more will ultimately be felled "due to unforeseen circumstances".
There will be a significant impact on local wildlife, especially birds. The mature Corsican pines, forexample, that border Etloe Road and Daisychain Nursery are, from my own observations home tomany creatures including bats, woodpeckers and owls.
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
The proposed development at St Christopher's is clearly an attempt by the developer tomaximise profits at the expense of the local community. A site of this size could easily bedeveloped profitably without having to take from those living around the site. My main concernsare as follows.
There are already many HMOs in Westbury Park. Every one of these adds to the parking problem.The developer is quite clearly trying to get away with as little parking as possible - there's no profitin a parking space so the local community will just have to absorb the parking needs instead. Pureprofiteering.
There is no need for the buildings to be so high. This is again profiteering. You can easily build alarge complex on this site without it completely dominating what is a Conservation Area. Bristol isan architecturally appealing city. It's one of the main reasons it's so successful - Are we reallygoing to destroy that by letting developers build according to their short-term profit interests, ratherthat the long-term interests of the whole city?
The type of development is completely at odds with the needs of the area. The last thing neededin this part of the city is even more retirement accommodation. What we actually need isaffordable family homes and services to complement them. Why is it a retirement village?Because selling services to wealthy, elderly is another income stream that isn't available whenbuilding family homes. Yet more profiteering
Air quality is going to suffer. This development would increase traffic beyond what is reasonable,and they are going to gut down half of the trees to boot.
Of course, something needs to be done with what is a very significant site. Just develop itsensitively. That means, don't cut down all the mature trees that add beauty to our city. Be self-contained and don't assume you can just take the services you need from your new neighbours(parking). Don't be an eyesore - the developers clearly don't care, but we as a community and acity should. I cannot understand how this proposal has got to this stage without being thrown out,it's objectionable on so many grounds and seems only to serve the needs of the developer -utterly.
Please, do the right thing. Throw this out and allow a developer who has, at least, a passinginterest in the needs of the community to develop the site.
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
I object to this development in the strongest possible way.
Building a development of such size in that location is just pure greed on the part of thedevelopers.
I am extremely concerned for the safety of my children who attend Westbury Park school - bothduring construction and afterwards.
The number and size of construction vehicles for a development of this size will cause massivedisruption and danger for school children at Westbury Park school and the nursery next door.
The proposed entrance to the site is entirely inappropriate and will cause danger to other roadusers and pedestrians.The traffic on Bayswater Avenue during school pick up and drop of is already at dangerous levels -adding more vehicles is just asking for a serious accident!
Cutting down such beautiful mature trees should not be allowed. Again - greed is coming beforeany thought of nature!
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
My objection is quite simple - the proposed development isfar too large, too high and very unattractive in appearance. The properties both behind andalongside would be themost adversely affected, the former with limitation on outlook andlight. We do not need any overspill of vehicles in this area asparking is at a premium at the best of times. The value of properties in close proximity to thedevelopment could also beadversely affected. If Bristol City Council accept the planssubmitted it will be a demonstration of their total disregard for people living nearby as well as alack of understanding of the needto preserve the historic attraction of the surrounding area whichincludes a section of the Downs.
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
Hi,
This development is clearly very out of keeping with the local area and little thought seems to havebeen given to the strain it will place on local amenities.
The area is already extremely busy with cars using the roads adjoining the proposed developmentas a throughway through Bristol.
Parking is another major problem that will be exacerbated by this development.
The increased traffic will result in a significant rise in air pollution exposure to the children in theschool and nursery.
I am concerned about the impact of the development on the biodiversity of the downs with theplans highlighting the need to remove several rare trees.
I feel that architecturally the scheme does not fit well into the local area and that this will havesignificant impact on the area.
What I find most frustrating is the lack of sensitivity shown by the developer to the local area withthe plans only serving to maximise their profit. There is no scope to include any affordablehousing, another large development catering only to retirees does not serve the needs of the local
community. The fact that the developer has not accounted for the increased care needs in theplans for this demographic is also disappointing as there seems to be no parking for carers orvisitors and no provisions for emergency services to visit.
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
6 floor apartment buildings are completely out of character for this unique conservationarea
Two way traffic is already a hazard on Westbury Park road. Adding too many new vehicles willmake things a lot worse. My children walk/cycle to school down this road.
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
Hi, I hope all is well with you.I would like to start by saying just how sad all in the local community were that St.Christophersschool had to close it's doors. This was a magnificent institution, tarnished and ruined by theactions of a minority.As CFO of a large global business, I not a lot of people in the finance community including thos inOctopus Investments that owned the school and I am certain that they had no part to play in theschool's sad demise. Clearly Octopus needed to sell the facility at the best possible price - themay specialise in socially good investments but they are still a business. The two aspects caneasily go hand in hand, especially in this fast changing world.I work in the Property & Construction industry and it is really quiet obvious that, from a finanicalreturn perspective, the highest yields from this site would come from development for the use ofolder people / special needs. Older people do require less dedicated parking spaces, like thecommunity feel but with independance and importantly, tend to have the most £ m2 to spend. Atthe end of your life, you are not worrying about the future, you just want a nice environment. Thisall adds up to max yield. We have seen this with the sites that used to belong to ParsonsBrinckerhoff at the top of Blackboy hill and also the site that belonged to Redland Girls School (mydaugthers old school).I have no objection to businesses maximising their returns, whilst at the same time, providingsomething to the community that we all need. None at all.I do believe however, that this developer has stretched things slightly too far. The number ofspaces per resident is clealy tight in the extreme, even if older residents tend to own less cars.This does not count for accurate numbers of visitors, carers or required staff. Cars are clearly
going to spill out to the neighbouring streets.Over the last 10 years parking in Westbury has got harder and harder. Tighter and tighter andmore dangerous for local residents and the many children that go to Westbury Park Junior / Infantschool, the nursery and the two churches. Cars now park on the curbs up and down the street.This never used to be the case. We have no residents parking - in support of local shopping, Ibelieve, but where are these people going to park now?As I live opposite the school, I watch children ducking between cars every day - it is only a matterof time. This is really not good. Children are our future.As an aside, but to underline my impartiality, I have off street parking for 2 cars. We are notaffected personally by this, except for additional traffic. But, it is not safe how people are nowparking on our road and the roads around.In addition, we have recently seen more and more travellers parking on the streets of westbuty,moving further and further from the "designated' through road on the Downs. This includes a largevehice that has parked for 2 years opposite St chirstophers school and right over the pedestriancrossing area - people and children cannot see around this large vehicle that never moves. Whatwill yet more cars on the roads do?Clearly this development needs less units and more parking.The developer, no matter what they say, is putting profit above safety. This is just fact.As a CFO, I understand investment. This developer paid £x for the site. There are large fixed coststhat need to be covered by unit volume. Fixed cost / volume = fixed cost per unit. We then havethe variable cost per unit = profit per unit. If the unit volume is lower, then the fixed costs (whichcannot go down) get spread over the other units and profit margins are hit. Those loast fewovercrowded units are therefore extremely profitabl to the developer and this is why he ismaximising volume.Old people = max price per unitOld people = justification for less parkingSpin = mac number of unitsResult = maximium return for a developer and a dangerous community for the people of westbury+ eventual casualty on our roads.It is obvious we need more parking and less units to reign this in.
Thank you for reading my comment.Bristol is the best city, in the best country in the world.I am sure sense will prevailNeil
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
I have chosen an "object" stance for the following reasons :
1. I understand the residential blocks are up to 6 stories high and this would certainly alter thevisual and environmental impact and atmosphere in the Westbury Park area. I would have thoughta limit to 3 or 4 stories would be far better to avoid a definite disadvantageous change of localarchitectural character.
2. Loss of mature trees, if planned, should be avoided at all costs as these benefit everyone in theimmediate vicinity and further afield in perpetuity. It is absolutely time for city planning to place amuch higher priority on green amenities, especially those that can not be established for manydecades. There is simply not enough time now to avoid this urgent issue.
3. Parking. I can not question the evidence provided except to say that it is (a) patronising toassume that elderly people will not use cars much, and, (b) they have no visitors. I have seen noclear comments on visitor parking provision, especially by family at weekends. For whateverreasons local parking spaces are at a premium and every effort should be made to ensure thatresidents, staff and visitors have sufficient parking spaces available within the development itself.
4. It is disappointing that this development is clearly only targeting the wealthy as it will exacerbatethe rather uniform social homogeneity of the locality and some provision across the socialspectrum would be distinctly advantageous in multiple ways.
I am broadly supportive of the main focus of developing this site sensitively and intelligently, butsome substantive problems remain.
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
No to the development of 120 retirement homes! The area gets busy enough onWestbury Park by the downs as it is, we don't need anymore traffic and pollution. I love the areaand will do what I can to prevent the development from happening.
Thank youDan
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
I strongly object to the proposed development. The buildings proposed are far too largeand will create an eyesore in a beautiful area. There are too many residences being created withfar too few parking spaces. Parking is difficult where we live at the best of times and this will onlymake it worse. We have just had a baby and it is already impossible for us to leave the house andwalk along the street with the pram due to cars parked on the pavement so we have to walk in theroad, which is incredibly dangerous. This will be made significantly worse with more cars parkedon our street, and more traffic coming along our street too. I imagine this will also cause hugeissues for parents dropping off/picking up their children from the school down the road too. Thereis a huge amount of wildlife in the locale area which will also be affected by the development. Ialso disagree with the change of use of the property - st Christopher's so wonderful work withpeople with additional needs and I believe should be funded by the council to stay in the currentproperty.
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
As a local resident I object to the plans in their current form. The number of housingunits vs the number of allocated parking spaces is excessive, there is likely to be significantoverspill into the local streets which are already clogged. The height of the buildings at 6 stories isalso not in fitting with the local area where most buildings are 3 or less. A lower rise developmenton the same site would be more in fitting with the area.
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
This area is already plagued by streets that are too busy and too narrow for all thetraffic. My children are at Westbury Park school and the road safety is a major concern for me andother parents. There is already insufficient parking for the residents. The noise, pollution,overpopulation and loss of green space cannot be justified.
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
There isn't the local infrastructure to support this completed development, yet alone theability of the roads to handle the building traffic.The development does not fit in with the architecture or ambience of the area. The area does notneed this property and finally I believe it would be harmful for the community and, most importantlythe school, during construction as well as on completion. There is no way that this would notimpact upon the students and families of Westbury Park school.
on 2022-04-08 OBJECT
The proposed development would be disproportionately large and change the characterof the neighbourhood. The size of the buildings seems quite monstrous and would dominate thelocal skyline (including projection of light pollution in hours of darkness).
The number of dwellings and the amount of parking needed for visitors and carers would putimmense pressure on the local streets in terms of parking space for residents (we already havemany commuters and others coming in from outside for both daytime and longterm parking on ourroads).
I am also concerned about the number of cars that would come along Bayswater Avenueendangering school children. We already have too many people cutting through at speed. Fine foraccess to the school, church, local meetings in the church hall and school, and nursery school, butthe presence of more cars on our road with drivers looking for parking spaces or driving throughfills me with real concern.
The access off Bayswater Avenue into the site looks problematic and potentially dangerous givenits position opposite St Helena Rd junction and next to the nursery school.
The flat roofs of the buildings opens up the possibility of further floors being added in the future.That fills me with real anxiety; and I really hope any planning permission could exclude thatpossibility.
on 2022-04-07 OBJECT
I would like to strongly object to the application number 22/01221/F
The construction of such a large development will detrimentally affect the Westbury Parkneighbourhood and community. As a resident of Devonshire Road in the area I envisage a fewproblems arising from this or aggravating existing ones.
Parking is already a big issue in the area. I often have to park within a 300m radius as hardly anyspaces are free near my home, especially in the evenings. It also means cars parking on doubleyellow lines obstructing drives, corners, etc. Which is dangerous.
Traffic can be very busy especially at school drop/collection times. There are not enough zebracrosses or passing places as most roads are two way. I have witnessed on many occasions nearmisses with families crossing roads when cars are double parked or reversing or obstructingvisibility.
This is a very quiet residential area with many young families, elderly people, a few schools,nurseries and care homes. Such an increase in population density will impact the noise levels.
It would also put a big strain in the already oversubscribed schools, council services andamenities.
Lastly, it seems from the application that the proposed buildings are totally out of character withthe Edwardian and Victorian buildings. They are much higher than the surrounding houses, theywould obstruct light and they would become an eye sore in the area.
I understand the need for more housing but this type of development shouldn't be acceptable.
on 2022-04-07 OBJECT
We are strongly opposed and very concerned by the proposed development for anumber of reasons:
1. Increased volume of traffic and cars parking on Bayswater/Etloe Road and impact on roadsafety. This is already a huge issue and will be significantly worsened by the proposeddevelopment. As a mother of a toddler and baby this is particularly difficult and worrying because:
- Cars are regularly parked partially on pavements making it very difficult to walk safely along theroad, particularly with a pram and toddler and especially on bin collection day when I regularlyhave to walk in the road.
- Cars have often been left for weeks outside our house making it difficult to park nearby.Combined with the above this makes getting two children safely to and in the car very difficult.
- The proposed entrance right next to the nursery is extremely concerning from a safety aspect.
- The volume of traffic and speed at which some drive down the road which has both the nurseryand school is already an issue and will be worsened with additional traffic from the development.
2. The sheer size and scale of the proposed development in totally out of keeping with the localarea. The images drawn up by SCAN based in the developer's own plans accurately show this.
3. We understand there would be a huge environmental impact on the local area. The felling ofmany trees, including rare specimens, associated impact on local wildlife, proposed path throughthe "Granny downs" meaning green space (which our nursery - Daisychain - frequently enjoys) willbe lost and additional air pollution from increased traffic are all very worrying.
4. I am surprised and disappointed that the plans seem so out of keeping with the fact it's in theDowns conservation area.
5. There is absolutely no provision for affordable housing - a key objective of Bristol City Council inparticular and nationwide in general. The fact the developer's have started this is because itwouldn't compatible with their business model is simply not a good enough justification foroverriding such an important issue.
6. Within the plans there is no guarantee of SEND provision - despite what the St Christopher'sSchool has achieved for many years and what is very lacking within central Bristol. As a parentthis greatly concerns me.
on 2022-04-07 OBJECT
I am very concerned about the proposed development ofChristopher's School. My reasons are1. With only 65 on-site parking spaces being provided for residents and staff the parking situationis going to be horrendous. Even now I struggle to park in Royal Albert Rd. It will becomeimpossible to park anywhere near my house. We already have commuters from outside Bristolparking in the road , getting out their bikes and cycling into town, leaving their cars in the road allday.2. The size of the development is far too big and high. The 4 storey buildings that back onto RoyalAlbert Rd are going to block my natural light and completely invade my privacy. I will be lookingout of my bedroom window to see a huge apartment block.They are being built far too close to theresidents in Royal Albert Roads back gardens. The noise during the building works will be awful.3. The new high apartment blocks are completely out of character with the existing residentialproperties in the area.4. There are already several developments for the elderly in Bristol, many of which are not fullyoccupied so why do we need such a large development, which I doubt will be fully occupied!
on 2022-04-07 OBJECT
We do not actually object to the re-development of the St Christopher's site, it is theproposed OVER development with currently far too many units proposed. The multi storey blocksof flats are totally inappropriate for this site and wholly out of keeping with the existing buildings onthe site and the surrounding area.
The proposed completely inadequate number of parking places can only have a catastrophicimpact on the neighbouring roads where the houses do not have drives or garages. People drivecars! Not only will residents have cars, but staff, carers, visiting professionals and visitors alsodrive cars and will need to park and will have to use nearby roads. Westbury Park School,Harcourt Pre-School and Daisychain Nursery will all be negatively affected. The current proposednumber of on site parking places needs to be Doubled.
The proposal to fell so many of the beautiful trees currently on site is tragic. The adverse impacton the wildlife can only begin to be imagined. We are living in an age where conservation isrecognised and valued.Having lived very close to the St Christopher's site for 28 years, and our family continuing to live inWestbury Park, we know the area intimately. We are not opposed to the re-Development of thesite, done in the right manner it could be a huge asset to the area and Bristol as a whole, andindeed will be of significant interest to us in future years. However, the current proposals for highdensity, multi storey blocks, woefully inadequate parking, destruction of floral and fauna, andundoubted significant negative impact on surrounding neighbourhood, is unacceptable. Please willthe Developers re-think their plans.
on 2022-04-07 OBJECT
We must preserve and enhance the remaining precious green space and valuablehabitats that still remains in our city. We must avoid adding to the flood risk with yet moreimpermeable surfaces and artificial drainage and we must avoid adding yet more traffic whichwould raise levels of congestion, noise and air pollution in a location that has a far greater value asa resource for recreation and and escape from the drab urban environment and adds hugely to theattractiveness of Bristol as a city where a high quality of life is currently still achievable
on 2022-04-07 OBJECT
The immediate area seems completely unsuitable for a development of this type andscale. The roads nearby are heavily congested with parking on both sides of Etloe Road apermanent feature (and on both pavements). It is a difficult area for existing traffic. Since movingto this area we have had three separate scrapes on the side of our car when parked in our road,Parking is also a great problem and it is already often hard to find a space in our road (QueenVictoria Road). To increase this parking pressure for residents seems unreasonable. Also, theheight of some of the proposed building seems completely out of place. This seems to be aboutmaximising profit with no justification of affordable housing.
on 2022-04-07
I would not mind a development but we would like permits to park on our road asparking is already filled up by people who do not live here this will generate income from parkingtickets to people who park illegally and also income from residents paying to park where they live
on 2022-04-07 OBJECT
To whom it may concern,
I wish to strongly object to the new development proposal for Westbury Park. The main reason isthe impact it will have on our quiet suburb and the extra noise, vehicle traffic and pollution causedby this. It is already a struggle to park even 1 car near to our house let alone for this bigdevelopment with not enough parking spaces for the building. Our daughter also goes to westburypark primary school and the impact it will have on that area will be huge in every way.
I am sure I am not the only resident that will have this opinion and I hope this is taken seriouslyenough not to allow the development to take place here in westbury park.
Kind regards
on 2022-04-07 OBJECT
Appreciate progress however if the buildings on the scan website are correct they looklike a Texas jail, obviously main objections would be the right to light which doesn't affect me,however parking does, ever since the RPZ extended to redland car's parking on the wholepavement on etloe rd / Bayswater avenue mean children have to walk in the road to walk toschool, a friends child has already been hit, and had to be put into an induced coma, thisdevelopment without extending the RPZ will unfortunately and I pray to the lord I'm wrong, willresult in death or serious injury, people commute this far to the edge of the RPZ and then walk,bus down into town, this development will only increase the pressure on the streets we need theRPZ to extend now if this development is approved if not children will be at risk, including the airquality, but your not going to consider this as it's only about the development so the proposedbuildings do look like a Texas jail
on 2022-04-07 OBJECT
I have been a resident of St Helena Rd at this address for 34 years and in this area for36 years. This is an inappropriate development for this historic conservation area. The designsand sizes of the buildings are wrong and insensitive. The impact on parking and road safety in theneighbourhood would be catastrophic.I object most strongly to this development in its present form. John Ashford.
on 2022-04-07 OBJECT
The development is high density and over large/ high for the proposed site. There willbe a significant increase in cars, traffic and noise in an already bysy residential area with narrowstreets and lack of parking.A much lower density development of reduced height should be built
on 2022-04-06 OBJECT
I am extremely concerned about the impact the proposed development will have on thesafety of children using Bayswater Road and surrounding roads on foot to walk to school andnursery due to increased traffic. I walk my three children to Westbury Park school every day and Ifind that process at the moment extremely stressful and, frankly, dangerous for my children, due tothe number of cars using Bayswater Road and surrounding roads. Many children walkindependently and accompanied to school and nursery along that road and surrounding roadsevery day. It is a route used to walk to primary schools, secondary schools and nurseries for manychildren. With more cars going in and out of the proposed development, parking close to it due tothe insufficient parking that will be available within the development and using the Bayswater Roadand nearby roads as a result of it, the danger to children from speeding cars (of which there aremany) and frustrated drivers moving close to the pavement will undoubtedly increase. Pleasereconsider the proposed exit routes in and out of the development and the number of parkingspaces available within the new development. Please also consider the introduction of trafficcalming measures around it. I am very, very worried that a child will be hurt otherwise.
on 2022-04-06 OBJECT
Dear Bristol City Council.
I would like to formally object to the development proposals at St Christopher's School, WestburyPark.
The current proposals are plainly designed to maximise profit, and appear to be ignorance ordisregard for the nature of the surrounding area and its residents. The proposed developmentwould serve only to contribute to overdevelopment in the area and set a precedent for similarinappropriate developments in the future. Fundamentally, the proposed development provideslittle, if any benefit, to the immediate surrounding community and, instead, poses significant andvaried negative risks, including, but not limited to:- Environmental impact - Westbury Park is a unique part of the city where an urban world coexistswith a natural environment, it represents something that we should strive towards protecting forthe future in tackling climate change and better educating ourselves on living in harmony withnature. Frustratingly, as a younger member of the community, the proposed development posessignificant and irreversible the negative risk to the environment. Contrary to Bristol's planning aimsof "ensuring a substantiable future" for the city, the development fails to (i) protect and enhancethe natural environment; (ii) reduce pollution in the city; and/or (iii) mitigate causes of climatechange. Notwithstanding the impact of the construction works alone, the proposed developmentwill cause irreversible destruction to wildlife habitats and mature trees, as well as increasingpollution in the area causing a permanent increase to the level of vehicles visiting the area.- Overdevelopment and heritage impact - The proposed development fails to protect and enhance
"Bristol's built and historic environment, [or ensure] high quality sustainable urban design andconstruction and attractive and better places and spaces throughout the city." The bulk, height anddesign of the buildings is not in keeping with the surrounding area which is predominantly heritagebuildings. The Downs is a particularly special conservation area of Bristol, enjoyed by many, andshould be protected for the future; it is understood that the development would be visible from theeast side of the Downs and due to the height of the proposed buildings, would erode the currenthistoric / tree-lined skyline and risk damaging the characteristics that make Bristol what it is.Regrettably, the proposed development has been designed to maximise units, rather thanadopting a holistic approach that is sympathetic to the surrounding area.- Road safety, traffic and parking - the streets in this area are particularly narrow and parking isalready congested; the site would encourage additional road users / parking in the area. Theproposed onsite parking is inadequate, and it is entirely inappropriate, for the sake of thisdevelopment, for local residents to have to deal with reduced parking, increased road safetyissues and encourage additional use of cars in the local area. Parking partially on the pavement isalready prevalent on Etloe Road and the development will only worsen the same, posing anenhanced risk for those with reduce mobility travelling on the pavement.
In summary, the plans for the proposed development are excessive and entirely inappropriate forthe surrounding area. The negative impacts posed by the site will not be borne by the developerbut suffered by the local residents on an enduring basis. Further, those negative impacts areentirely disproportionate to any benefit that may be gained by the site, particular having regard tothe needs to the immediate local community.
Kind regardsSophie Balme
on 2022-04-06 OBJECT
The proposed development should not be approved for the following obvious reasons:1The proposed new Buildings will have an adverse impact on the light, the privacy and the verypeaceful area of Westbury Park2.Additionally there will not be sufficient parking spaces to accommodate the intended 120 plusoccupants of the intended residents. As it is, parking can be very difficult at this point in time andfurther development will greatly inconvenience the present residents.3.Additionally, with congestion of traffic in the vicinity there will inevitably result in road safety,pollution and obstruction to ambulances and delivery vehicles4.The proposed new buildings are totally out of character with the existing period homes and willundoubtable damage the local townscape.5.The Downs Conservation area is home to many beautiful trees and the indigenous wildlifedependent on the fauna and flora in the area.6.Loss of the trees and the vegetation will not help with air pollution which is paramount in thesetimes when we are all concerned with global warning.
I earnestly request that this project is NOT approved as it will result in more harm to the localenvironment than it can benefit the area.
on 2022-04-06
I am not in objection to the proposed development overall but am very concerned aboutthe lack of onsite parking proposed in the plans. This will inevitably mean staff and visitors parkingon surrounding roads, in particular, on and around Bayswater Avenue where parking is alreadyproblematic. In some places, near the proposed pedestrian access to the site, double parkingalready results in the pavement being blocked for pedestrians and the narrowness of the roadmeans emergency vehicles often struggle to get through. I am also concerned about the resultingincrease in traffic and parked cars on a road containing a primary school and a nursery whichsmall children travel to on foot. This creates a significant risk of accidents in this area when theymay be crossing the roads or stray from the pavements.
on 2022-04-06 OBJECT
As residents of Westbury park since 2016 we have been lucky enough to enjoy whatBristol does best: character housing set in a green space amid a residential community.
However the new project proposed for St Christopher's school will jeopardise the quality of ourlives here in Westbury Park. The sheer density of the housing project will compromise the natureof our residential community. From the projected plans, the solid mass of building shows littlesympathy with its surroundings: the "granny downs" where trees provide a key habitat for much ofthe area's wildlife, and the architectural buildings for which this area is celebrated, namely GraceHouse, will be completely overwhelmed. The special architectural character of the area will be lostas a result of this unsightly project.
Parking in this area is already at its maximum. As a household with only one car, we areconstantly searching for a place to park. The proposed project of 120 housing units makesprovision only for 65 onsite parking spaces, making no allowances for the extra cars which willnecessitate a project of this size. Where does the council propose the excess to park? The localroads are already at their capacity. What provisions will be made for residents who are unable topark near their residence as a result of the extra traffic? Many of the residents who live here areelderly not having easy parking access is a concern for them.
Our concerns also extend to the legacy of St Christopher's school. We have seen no evidence thatthe council is making provision for children with special educational and disability needs. Theseare children who have become attached to the area in which they live, easily accessible for their
families. For over 70 years the school has provided a key service to families who requireassistance with their children. That there are no residential places for these children within the cityis unjust.
It is our understanding that Bristol City Council has made a commitment to affordable housing in acity where many are struggling to find homes which suit their budget. That this project has madeno provision for this is shameful.
We do not support the developer's plans for St Christopher's school and urge the council toaddress their priorities for the city by insisting that the developer pay more attention to thesurroundings and the wishes of those that already live here.
on 2022-04-06 OBJECT
I am really concerned about the small amount of parking versus the number ofaccommodation units. There is already limited parking in the area. Often I can't park on the sameroad as my house and the overflow from the sites visitors and carers will make the parking evenworse.
I don't really understand how this huge scale development is allowed in this area as it does notseem at all in keeping with the surrounding properties.
There is a primary school nearby and the increase in cars is worrying for the safety of the children.The cars drive through quickly and an increase in volume will inevitably increase the risk of trafficaccidents.
Also I am very concerned about the environmental impact of losing so many trees.
It is such a shame that this development will no longer be for used for SEND purposes.
Ultimately I feel that the developers will just want to make a profit and are not at all concernedabout the environment, surrounding issues like parking and any other impact otherwise there is noway that this would be their plan. This does not meet the needs of the community, it only meetstheir needs to make money.
on 2022-04-06 OBJECT
The proposal being put forward for the redevelopment of this land is of enormousconcern for many reasons.
The volume of buildings for the size of the area seems hugely unreasonable, and will prove to bean eye sore from quite a distance away. These high rise buildings are not in-keeping with currentage/style/height of current buildings and those around it. Does the developer need to build somany high-rise buildings when surely something of similar style and height to the current historicbuildings would suffice. Greed must not outway sensitivity for this site.
How many trees are going to be felled just to put houses down? The huge loss of nature and theirhabitat should not be allowed, these trees are beautiful and should be protected.
Where are all of these people going to park? 65 spaces for 120 flats?? Ridiculous. What aboutvisitors? Care workers? Deliveries? Where are they going to park? The surrounding roads arealready congested, over-stretched, over parked and consistently dangerous at its current level. Ifyou add all this proposed traffic, I can see nothing but accidents, traffic congestion, damage tocars and huge danger to pedestrians. There is a busy school and nursery on this road, andcombined with the volume of traffic and delivery lorries for the garage we are already at tippingpoint. Please consider the safety of those who live here.
Will resident parking permits be issued? If so, who gets priority? Surely current residents shouldnot have to share parking which is already stretched (add in commuter parking issues) with 120
other cars??
I think that the proposed access on Bayswater Road is another concern to the safety of all childrenwho cross there, and the nursery which is next door. It is a busy junction already, cars park on thecorners and visibility is restricted. To add another junction and more cars seems a ludicrous anddangerous notion.
I am concerned about the size of lorries which wil presumably be used for the works, and how theywill access the site. A case in point last weekend when a fire engine could not turn up on to RoyalAlbert Road from Etloe Road due to parked cars and the already tight corner. Photographicevidence can be provided if required. Please consider the volume of pedestrians who use theseroads and pavements, and think of the safety of all the children who walk and cycle to school here,and those children who simply want to live and play safely here.
on 2022-04-06 OBJECT
As a local resident living in St Helena Road I am writing to lodge my concerns with theSt Christopher's Square development. The roads around the St Christopher site are alreadycongested with quite a lot of commuters using the local roads to park and then walk or ride to theirplace of work during the week. There is no permitted parking in the local roads. I do not think theplanning proposition for St Christopher's takes into account the demand for parking that 120retirement homes and the visitors to them will create, especially at weekends. I would be surprisedif less than one third of the proposed home owners have a car, requiring 40 spaces, the staff willrequire spaces and at weekends I suspect that a third of homes might be entertaining visitors.That easily exceeds the 65 proposed spaces and I expect mine is a conservative estimate. Theintroduction of resident permit parking on the surrounding roads would potentially help addressthis problem and I would support such an initiative.
I also do not think that the 5 and 6 story buildings proposed by the developers are in keeping withthe existing conservation area and the characteristics it displays. Though the developers are tryingto be sympathetic to the local environment, and the envisioned look and feel appears to beappealing, the height of their proposed buildings and the resulting impact is considerable. This willbe unnecessarily imposing in my opinion.Considering these issues I primarily challenge the site's proposed accommodation density andwhether this is appropriate. A reduction in the number of homes would positively impact theproposed plans and I would support such a change, though I appreciate Bristol and the countryrequires more homes to be built.
on 2022-04-05 OBJECT
Dear Sirs,
We wish to comment on the proposal re St Christopher's School:
Firstly, I am disappointed with the Bristol Council not requiring the site to continue the care of needy and mentally challenged individuals.
Secondly, the site could be developed without upsetting the immediate, surrounding community, by not building above the height of the existing buildings and decreasing the number of units.
Thirdly, the abundance of protected and mature trees should be regarded as a great asset and should take president over any proposed building.
Fourthly, the parking in the adjacent streets is dire and already causing major problems.
Fifthly, there are already Retirement dwellings of a similar ilk in the area and this proposal provides no affordable housing which Bristol Council purportedly advocates.
In conclusion, we object strongly to the current proposal . In these turbulent times should not our society be striving for harmony rather than being hostage to greed.> Yours sincerely,Nigel and Gillian Naden
on 2022-04-05 OBJECT
My objections:
I believe the height and density of the development will have a heavy negative impact on our area,in terms of aesthetics and lived experience, and is completely out of keeping with everything thatsurrounds it (houses, small streets, trees and parkland). The Downs itself will suffer asencroachng development takes away from the peace, tranquility, open space, amenity etc - call itwhat you will, but it's the Bristol Downs becoming like the areas of London I used to live in (whichis why loads of people are leaving London to come to Bristol!).
Traffic and parking - There is already a battle for spaces throughout the week, making it verydifficult for residents; cars whistle up Bayswater at school opening and closing times. I don't feel itis a safe situation already for the kids going to school, particularly if there is a new entrance to thedevelopment opposite the entrance to St Helena Rd. On my street (St Helena) there are zeroparking spaces available during the day. It's obvious that th 65 onsite parking spaces for theroughly 120 housing units - residents, plus carers, staff, visitors etc will push traffic out ontosurrounding stress with predictable consequences. Whilst the entrance on Bayswater was shownto only allow access to a couple of cottages, people could still park up at all hours to access thedevelopment through that entrance. One of the representatives said that the 60 odd spacesplanned for inside the development was based on a council ratio (rigorously tested?) but thatdoesn't address other needs (eg carers, staff, visitors).
The plans for community access and biodiversity for the site are very undeveloped/in 'tbd status',
giving that element presentation at the drop in sessions a very pie in the sky feel. It is of coursemuch easier to see what will be lost than gained, and difficult to believe in when the details are notgiven substance and commitment is not guaranteed.
on 2022-04-05 OBJECT
Dear, to whoever this may concern
I wish to lodge my concerns and sincere opposition to plans for the overdevelopment of the formerSt Christopher's site. Current plans are completely out of keeping with the area and willdramatically overshadow the community character. A six storey high development is completelyout of keeping with the area and the size of properties around. The over-bearing nature of theheight is completely inappropriate.
An additional 120 housing units are an unsustainable burden on the area for residents, staff andcareers; it is simply far too much. For anyone who currently uses that road we know the issues.
The clearly profiteering development agenda has nothing for affordable or sustainable housingand is totally out of kilter with the heritage nature of the location.
As the parent of a child with special educational needs, I also find the proposal to move this siteand replace a cherished location for the care of vulnerable children to housing developers, with nolocal provision for care absolutely unconscionable.
I hope those making the decision around this will take very seriously the damage this proposeddevelopment will make, value the serious concerns of those who live in and love this area andsteer a course to a far more socially appropriate and beneficial solution.
Kind Regards
Ali Neil
on 2022-04-05 OBJECT
Dear Bristol City Council.
I would like to formally object to the development proposals at St Christopher's School, WestburyPark.
The current proposals amount to overdevelopment and completely dwarf the surrounding buildingsand primarily residential homes in the neighbourhood. This will have an adverse effect on theprovision of light, air and privacy of the buildings not only immediately neighbouring thedevelopment, but those within a large radius.
Secondly, the development proposals are not sympathetic to the largely Georgian and Victorianfrotage of the majority of the neighbourhood and is not inkeeping with the Downs conservationarea. This again is largely due to the sheer size of the proposals.
My final objection is in relation to the amount of units proposed by the developer. The roads in thearea are relatively small and already cater for a large number of vehicles. The development willnot only see a larger number of vehicles in the area due to the additional residents, but anincreased amount of vehicles due to visitors to the development. This will have an adverse impacton the safety and health of the local residents. This is especially important as the development isbeing proposed next to a nursery and primary school.
In conclusion, I am not opposed to the principle of providing supported living facilities on the site.
My objection is down to the sheer size of the proposed development and the large number ofissues this creates.
Kind regards
Richard Watkins
on 2022-04-05 OBJECT
I believe that the size and scale of the proposed buildings are not in keeping with thesurrounding area.
65 onsite parking spaces for more than 120 housing units for the residents, carers, office &maintenance staff, visitors and delivery vehicles is not enough. There will be a major impact onparkjng onroad.
The height of some of the blocks is inappropriate and will impact on the quality if life for overlookedproperties.
What provision is there for affordable housing?
The proposed development is totally outside in keeping with the local environment.
On these reasons I wish to object to this planning application.
on 2022-04-04 OBJECT
Hello. Having review this application, I have two set of concerns which have promptedme to oppose these plans. The first is that I am opposed to the building of new homes which Ithink will blight the area and undermine its historic character. The other concern is that thisdevelopment as it stands will severely exacerbate the traffic problems in the area. There arealready too many cars in the area and the streets heading towards North View and also the extratraffic at the White Tree Roundabout will only serve to make a bad problem in terms of congestioneven worse and that will have a negative impact on the area as a whole and for road users ingeneral.
on 2022-04-04 OBJECT
I object not to the development itself but to any multi storey aspects and to a lack ofconsideration around traffic and parking on a road that is already a challenge for us to leave ourneighbourhood. In general I support the SCAN action group and their aims for a sensitivedevelopment. It does seem that when individuals apply for planning the requirements can be quiterestrictive but that larger corporations somehow secure much greater changes to ourneighbourhoods.
on 2022-04-04 OBJECT
111 two bed and 11 one bed, therefore the likelihood could be up to 233 residents(developer quotes 234) accommodated at the site. The plan quotes 65 car parking spaces, lessdesignated 3 parking spaces for mini buses and the remaining permitted to be leased to theresidents/ tenants. It is therefore highly likely that many of the 233 residents would infact request aparking space 1:4 and those unable to lease a designated space would have no other option thanto park on the streets. No mitigation has been considered for this.
The area is used to residential older people homes and accommodation. Due to the nature of theaccommodation, Extra Care Housing, a comprehensive infrastructure of services have to accessthe site daily and usually with time constraints attached. The developer has not taken into accountthat timed visits in health and social care fields predominately use cars for business use.
233 tenants require a range of community services reliant and will include GP, community DistrictNurses, Physiotherapists, Social Workers, SALT, MH services, Podiatrists, OccupationalTherapists, pharmacists, rehab workers and carers to name a few. Family members and deliveriesare in addition. One element, in house carers, I acknowledge are on site, however dependent onthe tenant, they may choose their own care or additional care or specialised health care which willadd to the car usage to the property. In house providers will also be reliant on external agencystaffing, due to unforeseen vacancies and sickness. Again this only adds to on street parkingwhich is already overwhelmed and not accounted in the plan. There is no contingency attached. Ascenario is that some tenants would require 4 care visits per day, this is not unusual in extra carehousing, generating additional car visits daily and the need for street parking in a non RPZ zone. I
do not believe that visitor modelling has been assessed sufficiently and the area is unable tomanage a site for 233 tenants.
Parking has caused considerable issues in the next road, Belvedere for residents with an existingRPZ in situ. Daily evidence of double parking, deliveries blocking the road and pavement parkingis a curse in this area. The parking at St Christopher's is on the peripheral, outside of the RPZ andthe hazards and risk to public safety are amplified in the adjoining streets, with the added benefitof daily vehicle commuter parking, often illegally and badly, from outside the area between 8amand 6pm. This is the primary time for active travel in the community. Primary school and nurseryschool children already have to walk partially on the road to attend school in Etloe Road andneighbouring local roads. Etloe Rd where the plan is to have an access to the site and is 10 footfrom the entrance to the nursery school. This plan will be dangerous and has neglected the safetyfor pedestrians, many under the age of 11 yrs on this very congested and narrow road.
The developers have not listened to the community or taken on board many of our fears foraccommodation of this size. There are too many units in an area for this size, with sizeablenumbers of visitors required for vulnerable people. They has not recognised that the area isunable to cope with any additional parking ina addition to commuter parking and now van dwellersin Westbury Park. The open evening the developer assured that RPZ would be 'pushed'specifically for the fears raised by residents. This has not been made and therefore I object to thisplan.
on 2022-04-03 OBJECT
I feel that using the land and existing listed buildings as a community for the elderly is agood use of the land. What I object to, however, is the scale of the development which is out ofkeeping with the surrounding housing and the beautiful Downs which is borders on.
The developers have consulted with local residents but this has felt more like a tick box exerciserather than really listening to the concerns of the community. In fact, the concerns have beenignored in different iterations of the plans.
The height and sheer number of residences (with extremely limited parking) will certainly make lifemore difficult for and encroach on the privacy and peace of the area.
As we are on the edge of the RPZ, we already suffer from people dumping their cars in our streetfor weeks on end and from daily commuters taking advantage of the free parking to walk into townfrom there. The number of dwellings proposed and the limited number of residents parking spaceswill only exacerbate tis problem and lead to more hazardous road conditions as people begin topark badly in frustration from not being able to park anywhere near their homes. This does noteven factor in the visiting friends, relatives and medics etc to the site. We have two nurseries (onenext to the proposed Bayswater Avenue entrance) and a primary school in our rad and areconcerned that the road should not become more hazardous because of increased traffic in theroad.
Furthermore, the sheer height of some of the proposed dwellings and their proximity to existing
properties will reduce the privacy of those residents backing onto the site and in addition reducethe light and spoil the view. There is currently an abundance of wildlife and beautiful old trees(lovely pines near Bayswater Avenue) on the site and it would be tragic to lose these beautifultress and spoil the natural habit for wild animals by cramming buildings on the property tomaximise profit.
In short, while I feel the idea of an old person's community is a good one, the sheer scale of thedevelopment depresses me deeply and is totally out of keeping with the area.
Dr Christine Comrie
on 2022-04-02 OBJECT
I have attended all presentations on this development. Feedback has been deliberatelyskewed - eg online "feedback " questionnaire was restricted to answers in favour of thedevelopment eg " do you believe that the elderly need more care" " Do you think the NHS need tohave the pressure taken off" for their evidence of support.
The final zoom meeting for further questions and feedback was totally controlled by the company.There was no ability to respond to their answers- literally a self congratulatory presentation whichsufficed as their final community feedback session. We only heard their voices with pre setquestions and they congratulated each other in turn on how well they were doing and how excitedthey were about the development. Unlike any consultation process I have previously experiencedand gave us no voice in the process, no due process.This does not install confidence in thedevelopment.
In short their consultation process has in fact been in name only. As evidenced by them increasingthe number of units and decreasing on site parking in their final submission to the council afterconsultation. Why would they do this if they had been listening?
The main objections are :
1. Villa A has been measured from the back living room windows of the royal Albert Roadproperties. In this way the designer has presented Villa A as 21 metres away from the nearestproperty. But this measurement should be taken from the back of their kitchen building so that the
the true picture would be that the four storey villa A will be 17 metres away from their property.Villa A will overwhelm the two storey Royal Albert Road storey properties. It will significantly cutout light and provide them with constant light pollution from stair wells and the apartments. Thisvilla is too close and too high and should have been changed to the two story as the developersdid on Bayswater Avenue.
2. Parking for residents in Royal Albert Road and surrounding roads is already over pressurisedwith nursery parking, two disabled parking slots,the garage business parking as well ascommuters.Parking for this development- especially as they have cut parking slots -will make it impossible forresidents to park in our own road. The care workers, development staff as well as expectedvisitors to the St Christopher's development will undoubtedly try to find free parking in our roadincreasing traffic flow and causing more parking nightmares for home owners.
This will also impact on the air quality in this area and decrease bird life. I have just moved fromthe Gloucester Road where air quality is terrible and impacts health for children and the elderlybecause of the volume of traffic. Our road will become even more of a cut through and will becomeeven worse for parking on. This will affect the lives of the elderly, disabled ( particularly their caregivers) and those with young families who live on Royal Albert Road and it will change it's natureforever.
Also a major concern for the environment would be if residents started converting their frontgardens to a driveway as I have seen elsewhere when they just can't park outside their house.Thisprevents water drain off causing flooding, increases harmful emissions and destroys the gardens.We can't let this happen further down the line as a consequence of the poor planning of thisdevelopment at this stage.
We would have to be guaranteed residential parking if this development refuses to acknowledgethe knock on detrimental effect to the community and environment around it.
Parking in Etloe Road is already unacceptable as it's often on the pavement causing people inwheelchairs or with prams to go into the road. This will spread to other narrow roads with the sizeof this development and the lack of parking within it.
3. A developer friend from London said after looking at the plans that the 6 storey building in themiddle was totally out of character with the surrounding area. Once it is there it will change thisconservation area forever he said. The views will be altered forever and the modern buildings willbe out of character with the surrounding Victorian properties. Six storey apartment blocks are notsuited to a substantially two story Victorian terrace area. This development is not sympathetic ortaking into account the local environment. It will overwhelm the area if it goes ahead in its currentform and people will ask how it was possible that a six storey block of flats was allowed.
4. The light pollution from the 6 and 4 storey Villas - especially as stair wells will be permanentlylit- will affect the houses that back onto them. No one has addressed this with the residents.
5. Unbelievably the developers have chosen to create a second exit on Etloe Road right oppositethe junction with St Helena Road. This is also right next to the Daisy chain nursery and breaks intoBayswater Avenue where at crucial times of the day there are young children and families fromWestbury Park school walking home. They say this exit won't be used much. The developerscannot guarantee this ongoing and seem not to understand how this makes this whole junctionarea just next to the nursery so dangerous for families collecting little ones.
In conclusion- this site needs development but the company's response has been to ploughforward without properly listening.
Indeed they told me that they need to make money so they have to build high. But this is out ofkeeping with the surrounding area and will cut out light and cause light pollution to theconservation area that surrounds the proposed development. It will overwhelm this beautiful area.
The developers eco- aware front seems to have ignored the impact of the size of this developmenton the community- children, families and ( most ironically) the elders who have lived her fordecades.
on 2022-03-30 OBJECT
I wish to express my very strong reservations and concerns about the proposed plansrelating to the development of St Christopher's Square
In particular the building of 3-6 story buildings will significantly negatively change the landscape ofthe whole area
Traffic congestion during the long term rebuild project will cause huge disruption for all existingresidents and those which use clay pit lane on a daily basis for work and family commitments
The current view of the downs and surrounding Victorian properties will be forever changed andhistory lost.
There is already a wealth of retirement properties and care homes in the area a lot of whom havecurrent vacancies so I am unclear where the need has been identified for an additional one of thismagnitude . Can statistics for this be communicated?
If there is a need for additional housing then the refurbishment of the Victorian properties along thepark could provide that need
I believe this proposed development will have a negative impact on the value of the homes in itsimmediate vicinity and for the roads surrounding it.
on 2022-03-30 OBJECT
I feel that the proposals will have a negative impact on residential parking in the localarea as well as negative impacts on sunlight for other properties
on 2022-03-29 OBJECT
We live close to the development on 6 Cossins Road, Our children go to Daisychainnursery immediately adjacent to the site and we regularly use the surrounding roads for walking,running and cycling.
We are very concerned about the impact that this development will have on the neighbourhood. Inparticular we are concerned at the size and scale of the development. We completely appreciatethat the site needs to be developed and will provide retirement accommodation. But the size of thebuildings is in stark contrast to the existing buildings with high multi storey blocks, very visible fromthe surrounding roads.
The number of blocks in comparison to the car parking spaces will mean more parking onneighbouring roads. Our road, cossins road, is already full of cars every week day with heavytraffic up and down when children are on their way to school
Significant changes must be made to the proposals to reduce the scale of the development andimprove its sustainability in particular in relation to travel/car parking and impact on thesurrounding roads.
Regards,
Mark
on 2022-03-22 OBJECT
I object to this application on the grounds of no affordable housing provision. At the timeof purchase it was clear that affordable housing would be required on site and the developer haspatently ignored this requirement and overpaid for the site. The rationale for not providingaffordable housing is due to the cost of maintaining the site and use of facilities for the affordableresidents. it is perfectly achievable to to design a proposition where the affordable residents do notuse the full suite of health facilities and only use the grounds (which are being offered to the localcommunity to use in any regard), thereby making the scheme affordable
on 2022-03-22 OBJECT
Objection on the grounds of no affordable housing. At the point of purchase it was clearaffordable housing was required through planning policy. This was manifestly overlooked by thedeveloper who has overpaid for the site.Additionally the grounds upon which to not provide affordable housing appear very weak. It isperfectly possible to design a scheme that incorporates affordable housing, whereby theaffordable tenants have access to the grounds but not the care facilities. The grounds are statedas being made available for local neighbors to use in any regard so it seems disingenuous to sayotherwise.The location of the site, in an area with very low levels of affordable housing will provide for a farbetter mixed community, providing access for residents needing affordable housing to theexcellent adjacent schools, providing genuine opportunity for mixed and balanced communities