I am against the erection of 6 flats on this piece of land. The impact of numerousvehicles during construction on this busy road as well as the residential traffic once construction iscomplete. This landscape is not suitable and the construction is not in keeping with the area. BCCis encouraging us all to walk and cycle yet, the pavement will be reduced and the road widened.This will lead to a dangerous situation for all involved.

With regards to work proposed at no 6 Dingle Road. You think by putting a few flowersor if you prefer landscaping will make the development any more enticing NO!!! Canyou not consider the residents on Dingle Road. It will always be an eyesore. Why notconvert to 2 beautiful residences. It strikes me it is all down to profit. The ownersapplying for this work to go ahead don't even live hear.

NO not happy. But the council will havetheir way always.I have already made a request to the council regarding my driveway. That has beenignored. We pay very high council tax in ths area why for once consider us.

Following comments made last year I am still concerned about the proposed increase inroof height of the new development.

The existing house already has a high ridge line and steep rake which is unattractive, blocks viewsand is out of character with other houses in the road.

Keeping the existing roof height or below is a fundamental planning requisite and would set anunwelcome precedent if breached.

The height increase is a result of trying to shoehorn in a lower ground floor which could be easilyomitted or redesigned.

Regarding point 3. Inclusion of lower ground floor.

Please explain the consideration of 'Lozer Volume Excavation' given the need to extensivelyexcavate the site to permit the construction of the approved plans.

I object to this being called an application to "Vary condition 21 (List of Approved Plans)following consent granted under app.no. 19/05047/F - now proposed relation of wildflowerplanting, introduction of windows on the flank elevations and inclusion of lower ground floor" whenthe proposed landscaping and tree loss mitigation is hugely changed as well.

With regard to both 1) the mitigation requirements to compensate for the loss of trees to facilitatethe development and 2) the current landscaping proposals, this is effectively a fresh application.I do not see a new up to date Arboricultural Report or Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA). TheApplicant is relying on an inspection in January 2019.If this acceptable in terms of this variation application, then I would ask the Planning Officer toobtain a further opinion from the BCC Arboricultural Officer (AO) as the differences are huge.

In the previous application 19/04507 the AIA proposed 3 trees on site and the remainder to beplanted off site with a monetary payment to the council for the trees.In the determination of that Application the BCC AO asked for 2 trees to be planted on site and 9trees to be planted off site following Policy DM17. The Applicant has made a financial contributionfor this off-site planting.

Yet with the landscaping plan submitted with this application there is a proposal to plant 21 treeson site and apparently none off site. This is in the face of the following comments in the AIA fromthe previous application "Opportunities for new tree planting to compensate for the removal of theabove trees are limited due to the massing of the new dwellings and extent of hard surfacing" and

"The spatial constraints of the proposed site layout will not allow for the planting of 11 new trees."

So what is going on here? There is not room for 11 trees in one application but suddenly there isroom for 21 trees and wildflower patches in a subsequent application! In view of the comments inthe previous AIA then we either need a new AIA sorting out the discrepancies, or please ask theBCC AO to review the new landscape proposals, as they are very different.

The new wildflower planting is to move from the roofs to under the 21 trees. Is there a chance forits survival? Does there need to be a new Ecological Impact Assessment and Biodiversity NetGain calculation as well?

I suggest that this application is incomplete, and is proposing more changes to an application thathas been granted, with regard to the tree replacement and the landscaping, than is evident onface value. Please refer to the BCC Tree Officer.With thanks

I have no objections to the removal of the trees (T1, T10, T11, T12) on site, which are small instature and do not merit a Tree Preservation Order.Two Ornamental cherries are proposed on site, therefore a financial contribution for the remaining9 will be required. 9 x £765.21 = £6,887 required. Please make sure this is made clear on yourOfficers report - there will be interest in the BTRS figures, therefore we need to show ourworkings.

3.2019 AIAIn response to feedback received from the LPA, trees along the site frontage are to be retained, aswell as the woodland edge trees to the rear of the propertiesthe proposal four trees will be removed, and another removed due its poor condition regardless ofthe development proposal.However, five trees are of moderate quality and desirable to retain within a development proposal.Opportunities for new tree planting to compensate for the removal of the above trees are limiteddue to the massing of the new dwellings and extent of hard surfacing. A landscape proposal hasbeen prepared to enhance the site appropriately which includes three new trees: two tulip treesand a magnolia.The spatial constraints of the proposed site layout will not allow for the planting of 11 new trees.

Therefore, a financial contribution for offsite tree planting may be payable to the council. The levelof contribution for trees planted in open ground (no tree pit required) is currently £765 per tree.However, the council may wish to take a view on the level of off-site planting contributionsconsidering the overall impact of the proposed landscaping which includes a high number of newshrubs and hedging which will have a positive impact on the biodiversity and canopy cover of thesite. Impacts on retained trees

No new arb report. Relying on an arb inspection in January 2019 reported in March 2019 andamended in Oct 2019. Is this out of date. Should a new one be produced?Big differences between the two landscape proposals.

Apologies. I prepared a comment off line as is suggested, but not all my "showworkings" got deleted!My comment finishes with the phrase "with thanks"

The rest is just my notes!

As a neighbour directly opposite the proposed project I am very concerned about twochanges from the original plans that local residents have not been notified of.

1. The original site plan drawing No.20, P5 shows the bin store located discreetly at the left of thebuilding which is hidden by the neighbours fence. It also shows 4 separate locations for bikesheds.However, the recent drawing No.20, version P9 now identifies the bin store and bike sheds are tobe located directly along the front next to the pavement where it cannot be hidden from view. Thismodified version reduces curb appeal and appearance.

2. The drawing No.50, P4 shows the height of the building to be 33.586m. The recent version ofthis drawing P6 shows the height to be 34.385m which is an increase in height of 0.8m.The neighbours have collectively criticised the project as over- developed and now it appears thearchitects wish to increase the height, which will result in further obstruction of the existing view ofthe blaise Estate.

I have three objections/reservations re. the new planning application at 6 Dingle Road.

1. The revised plans show the new buildings 0.8m (2' 8") higher than the original approved plans,34.39m above datum as opposed to 33.59m (the height of the existing house to be demolished).This will further adversely affect the properties on the south side of Dingle Road and otherpassers-by, by restricting the currently uninterrupted views of Blaise Castle and KingwestonDowns.

2. The new bike store, now relocated to the front boundary wall will introduce more hardlandscaping facing Dingle Road. All the existing houses in Dingle Road are set back some wayfrom the main carriageway. The run of effectively 3 terraced house (22m wide and within 6m of thepavement will be more in keeping if shielded from the road by green landscaping, as currentlyexists.

3. The wall of glass on the north elevation, with the introduction of a lower ground floor, will bevisible from The Dingle in winter and seems inapproprite in a conservation area.