I object to this mast due to the high levels of radiation it would emit. 5G has not had sufficienttesting to be proven to be safe.The mast would also detract from the aesthetic of the area.

Absolutely don't want this eye sore blotting this local cultural and historically importantbuilding and our community.

As a local resident I strongly object to the proposed mast on the grounds of:1) historic buildings2) conservation3) design

The proposal does not acknowledge that Muller House (the building next to the planned location)is a Grade 2 listed building. I believe this mast would be out of character with this listed andhistoric building. The pole/antennas would affect the character and appearance of the local area.

The proposed mast will also impact the width of the pavement used by children and parents goingto the local schools. This will be an unwelcome obstruction for those passing with pushchairs andwalking with bicycles to accompany their children to school. It is a very busy road so there couldbe potential dangers if pedestrians spill over into the road.

The proposed mast will also make it harder for wheelchair users to use this stretch of pavement.

May I suggest a simple solution to the argument over the siting of a new mobile phoneaerial in Ashley Down. Put it on the roof of one of the listed orphanages. Then it won't beobstructing the view of them.If that still displeases then put it on the roof of the new block of flats.

This application is underhand. There is no mention that the proposed pole will house 5Gtelecommunications. This location is on a route between two primary schools and within a veryshort distance from a secondary school. How can Bristol City Council allow this to be sited heregiven the scientific evidence of negative effects on children?The pavement here is the only short wide section on our route to school. This will be anunwelcome obstruction for those passing with pushchairs and while walking with bicycles toaccompany their children to school. Apart from the eyesore for those living opposite in AshleyHeights and Muller House, please consider the health risks and effect this application.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7405337/

Thank you.

I object to a 5G mast being placed on the Ashley Diwn Road, especially close to aschool and young families. 5G mast admit high levels of radiation and the harm to people,especially children, has not been documented accurately and our safety as a community takenseriously. I am extremely concerned that a 5G mast is therefore being placed in such a denselypopulated area. I hope my objection is noted.

Not enough information or real consultation with local people,

There is too little research into the health issues associated with these masts. In thisarea we already suffer from the emission from the tower on Purdown. Having this would amplifythere effects. When I moved here I got Leukaemia. This would cause me to live in fear of itreturning .

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Mast site application number 22/04074/Y

I strongly object to this new mast because,

1. polluting effects of the radiation emitted from this mast must be considered.

2. It will be emitting radiation 24/7 too much in a heavily populated area. Why chose this area?

3.children absorb more radiation lots of schools and young families in area. Dangerous

4.respect the area, not sustainable and a pollutant.

5.The appearance is ugly and intrusive. We already have the huge lights at the cricket ground

enough please.

6. I live really near this proposed siting and I wasn't informed in writing by the council.

I strongly object to this mast

Dangerous and concerning I object

I object due to health concerns of having this mast in a residential area.

I am objecting to this on the grounds of pollution and risks to public and wildlife. Publichealth is a material planning consideration and all the evidence must be considered. Harm belowICNIRP safety levels is proven. ICNIRP guidelines are not safe and are not law. Children absorbmore radiation and I am a mother in the local area. It is a pollutant and will damage the views andsafety of the local community.

I live locally and have not received consultation or notice of this in writing.

Please reconsider, I object to this.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) A Trusted Source, there is limitedresearch on the frequencies used in 5G.

There is more research on the health effects of electromagnetic fields across the spectrum.However, the results are inconsistent!

To date, EMFs have been potentially associated with cognitive function in both adults andchildren.In September 2017, doctors and scientists launched the 5G Appeal, a petition which calls for theEU to impose a moratorium on 5G rollout, citing imminent health dangers like increased cancerrisks, cellular stress and genetic damage. The petition now has more than 250 signatories. InMarch this year, then Brussels minister of environment Céline Fremault blocked a 5G rolloutsaying she wouldn't turn the city's inhabitants into 'laboratory mice'. In Bern, Switzerland, a protestin May led some administrative areas to block the construction of 5G antennas.Although there are many many benefits to 5g there is certainly a lack of solid evidence to show theimpact on human and animal health. In a world of mass interference why would you blindly pushfor a technology that's yet to be fully understood.

I object to this 5g mast being installed on the grounds that it will negatively impact thehealth of the local community and wildlife, which our council has a duty to protect. The radiationpollution that will be emitted so close to schools and homes is unacceptable.

I believe this mast could adversely affect families with children, elderly residents andwildlife. There are two allotment plots, a city farm and a primary school very close nearby.Although I live within metres of the proposed site, I was not notified by the council.

Although living in the close neighbourhood we were not notified of this mast. I stronglybelieve that this will have a negative health impact on the people living close by, not to forget allthe schools which are in close proximity. The place of thee mast will not look good, and the mostwill not be nice for the historic building near by.

We have serious concern that ICNIRP guidelines are not safe for the public and theproximity of the proposed mast poses danger to nearby schools and families and wildlife. Are thecouncil going to assess the amount of radiation that can be emitted from the mast, we have smallchildren at a local school and would like to look at what impact this could have on their health. Weare also very worried about the sustainability of this mast in a forward thinking city and the effect itcould have on the community. Please reconsider your application.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I am objecting to the 5G 66ft mass on AshleyDown road in concern of public safety and

as it would be unsightly and totally out of characters to this neighbours.

Firstly, public health should be the most important consideration and the building of this mast

would completely fail the public due to the many hazardous repercussions that could follow due to

its development. Including but not limited to: the mast emitting radiation 24/7 which has severe

effects on children's development and future health, the mast is in the vicinity of many local

schools.

ICNIRP safety levels have been proven to be unsafe and ICNIRP guidelines are not LAW. Bristol

is also aiming to become a more green and sustainable city- with the Bristol clean air zone act

taking effect on 28th November 2022. The building of this mast will diminish the progress and

efforts the city are taking to become more sustainable.

Furthermore, not only children are vulnerable to this mast. The elderly and pregnant women could

potentially severely suffer due to the radiation. Recently there has been a big increase in property

development within the area, attracting many new families and increasing the density of population

in the Ashley Down area. This means any possible side effects that could occur will affect a higher

amount of people. Additionally within the plan there is no declaration to which the zone of the mast

extends and every mast has an exclusion to which the radiation is known to be unsafe. With all the

new property development what kind of impact will it have on the prices? This mast is will be an

eyesore and will affect house prices while we are already in a cost of living crisis.

Moreover, the emissions from the mast are polluting and need investigating under the

Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Pollution Control Act 1990.

We also have a local farm, St Werburghs city farm, local allotments which provide safe

environments for both people and wildlife. Planning officers have a duty of care to make sure the

environment is safe and support the communities health (NPPF 2019:8B).

5G does support the health of OUR community. This planning application needs careful

consideration and serious review to future proof the wellbeing and safety of our community.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I am incredibly concerned about this proposal so much so that I will consider moving if

this application is given the green light and I have lived here for many years with my children.

5g masts are pollutants and a risk to the public and wildlife. I am aware that the guidelines of

ICNIRP are used when considering planning for 5g masts. It is common knowledge that the

ICNIRP levels are too high and don.t protect the public. ICNIRP guidelines are NOT law.

All evidence must be considered as public health is a key aspect of planning considerations.

ICNIRP levels are simply not safe.

The polluting effect of the radiation emitted from this mast falls within the councils responsibility

under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Pollution Prevention and Control Act (1999.)

Children are at most risk as they absorb more radiation than adults.

This proposed mast is close to St Weburghs City farm and many allotments; these spaces need

protecting from pollution and 5G is a pollutant.

The appearance of this proposed mast is denegrading to the locality and would be an absolute

eye sore.

The location of the mast is so close to many schools including Brunel Fields which is just 221m

away. We must protect our children from this new technology.

I would also like to note that I live approximately 100m from this proposed mast and I have NOT

been notified in writing by the council.

I implore you to please refuse this mast.

Yours sincerely,

I strongly oppose this application.

The proposed site is located in a Conservation area and would be in front of a Grade II listedBuilding, Muller House, which is an important historical landmark in Bristol. The pole/antennaswould affect the character and appearance of the local area.

Furthermore, Ashley Down Road is an extremely busy road. The root foundation base andadditional proposed cabinets will impact the width of the pavement. This will make it much harderfor children, buggy and wheel chair users to traverse, potentially posing a danger. The proposedsite is also in close proximity to two pavement crossings with tactile paving surfaces, for thevisually impaired.

I do not support this as a local neighbour/resident.

The grade II listed Muller House has only been restored n the last few years. It seemsthoughtless to obscure the facade with a 20m pole. The local residents pragmatically supportedthe taller cricket ground lights ,so why not utilise the existing tall structures to mount the antennae.

I object as a neighbour because of the planners' reliance on ICNIRP guidelines forsafety. These guildelines are insufficient to protect people from the harmful effects of 5G radiation.It is the council's responsibility to ensure that the area is safe under the Environmental ProtectionAct 1990 and the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999.The proposed mast will emit radiation 24/7 in a highly populated area, with a mix of residents of allages including the elderly, the unwell and children. The site is a walking route to the local school,college and local business and transport links.Bristol is making an effort to be a sustainable, environmentally friendly city and has a duty toprotect its open spaces. 5G is a pollutant and will affect local spaces such as St Werburgh's CityFarm, Ashley Down Green and Ashley Down Allotments. The radiation from the mast couldadversely affect a variety of wildlife as well as farm animals and residents' pets.The local community's health and well-being must come first and planning officers have theresponsibility to ensure the environment is safe and supports healthy citizens.In addition, the area is a conservation area. The proposed mast would detract from theattractiveness of the areas, affecting property values and residents' lifestyles. It would also make itmore difficult for families with young children, elderly people or people with reduced mobility towalk safely along side Ashley Down Road which is a busy thoroughfare.

An already busy pedestrian and traffic route, this will be another distracting feature.Risks adding to difficulties that users of the area already have.

The orphanage is a beautiful building and part of Bristol's heritage. It's been restored to be part ofthe community and the telephone pole will massively detract from that. There are many other notso culturally significant areas of town that it could go.

I have two children in the area and I object to this unnecessary pole to be installed. Ifear this untested radiation will affect many children in the many schools around this area.

We have a very poor - and regularly no signal - in our road whatever network we use.An endless inconvenience for work, family and social activities. We have had to pay for a landline,or as far as possible just use Whatsapp. If this mast is rejected please instal a mast somewhere tosolve our mobile fiasco

I object to the mast on the following grounds:

1. Eye sore for historic grade listed buildings and surrounding area.

2. Risk of health and safety. Thousands of credible peer reviewed evidence to challenge healthconcerns of 4G and 5G

3. Other councils considering halting:https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/22322256.council-leader-fears-planning-decisions-will-ignored-5g-roll/to depreciate value of properties locally.

4. I have never had issues with coverage and have lived here for 10 years. Working from home.There is no need for more.

5. Bristol city council has duty of care to provide safe environment to locality. Were this proven notthe case later on this would be a breach of law/ethics.

6. Children are proven to absorb more end than adults- there are local schools nearby.

7. I have personal experience of impact of emf from masts in terms of negative impact on myhealth.

8. Objection to this is very strong. I, along with many people, in this neighbourhood - some ofwhom only just found out about this proposal so no time to submit- will continue to object.

I have received information about the intention to erect a 5G mast on Ashley Road atBS7 9DD.I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTIFICATION FROM BRISTOL COUNCIL ABOUT THIS.I object to this on these grounds:The mast will be close to a highly residential area and schoolsThere is no evidence that 5G is not harmful to any human being let alone the delicate developingneurological systems of infants, children and young people who live and go to school and collegein the area.There is no room for an exclusion zone (area around which the radiation is KNOWN to be unsafeor any indication that this has been thought about.The evidence and warnings from scientists is and are increasing that 5G will have a seriousimpact on health of humans and animals.Are we really going to add more danger to our environment.5G isn't necessary we are managing very well with 4G.The pollution that this 5G mast will provide is impossible to avoid. You can't wear a mask or go outat a certain time of day. It will be 24/7 and it is radiation - unavoidable.

I would not move to this area knowing that this mast was polluting the environment.I would not put my children in danger of going to the local school.I am concerned about the affect on the environment including the wildlife that is so prolific at thelocal allotments.

I think there does seem to be an issue with mobile reception in this area, so canunderstand this needs to be addressed. However, this seems like the wrong place for this mast. Itblocks a view of an important building, and takes up valuable space in a crowded area.

Can the mobile phone company talk to the cricket ground? The cricket ground has some verylarge lighting poles that might be able to be adapted. This might reduce the impact and support thecricket ground. I think the company should at the least explain what discussions they've had withthe cricket club and how the lights could be adapted.

The mobile operator is proposing this installation to improve coverage, yet according totheir coverage checker, the 5G and 4G coverage is excellent in the area. Something doesn't stackup here.The mast and structure would be directly in front of a grade 2 listed building with huge historicalsignificance to the Ashley Down and entire Bristol area.Why haven't H3G investigated structural share opportunities in the local area, such as at thecricket ground, the college area or rail area ? Have they explored existing roof tops toaccommodate pole mount antennas etc rather than positioning a 20m mast directly in front ahistorical building, that attracts many visitors, as it is visible across the Bristol sky line.I would like to understand the ICNIRP exposure figures for the residents who live in AshleyHeights who would metres from the structure. The 5G AAU MU-MIMO antenna located at the topof the proposal has directional beams, which magnifies the EIRP exposure, if users are in the rightlocation.Having looked on various mast location websites, none of the other Mobile vendors have masts inthe local area.... all are in several similar locations; directing antennas towards residential areasfrom the edge of the area, rather than a central location e.g. Purdown mast.Due to the proliferation of mast clause in local councils, mast sharing is encouraged. If thisapplication were to go through, other operators would potentially request mast redevelopment toaccommodate their kit, to be on an equal footing with H3G. The proposed installation is not forsharing. Basically, if this application was granted, how do you prevent expansion of the site toaccommodate other Operators? Surely this would create a precedence as well as a greater eyesore.

On a personal level, my flat number 64 Muller House will look directly out at this structure, whichworries me from a resale value point of view.I've noted that the application, and the current objections, has been reported by the BBC. Variouslocal magazines have had this as front page news. All very negative.Clarkes Telecomm, acting on H3G behalf, appear to have chosen a central location, for anapparent coverage hole, that is already has excellent coverage. They have opted for the cheapestoption; a street works solution, rather than considering less intrusive alternative locations andsolutions. There appears to be zero consideration for the visual impact in front of a historicalBristol landmark.

This would ruin the asthetic of the area and Muller House, and from what I understandisn't absolutely necessary.

The fact that this mast is being considered disappoints me in that Bristol Council insist that in 2022there is no company or modern material that might complement the look of Muller House andreplicate the current windows to improve energy efficiency. Yet is happy to consider a large eyesore close to the building in the form of a 5G mast.

I stongly object to the installation of this mast close by.

I write to object to the proposed installation of a 20.0m mast directly in front of MullerHouse on Ashley Down Road.

Objections:Muller House is a grade 2 listed building and as such should be protected from having this mast insuch close proximity.

The proposed site is within a conservation area and this tower will be an eyesore for everyone inthe immediate vicinity but mostly for those looking directly out onto the tower from Muller House.

Within the government's own planning policy, choosing a site as described above is notrecommended.

As an owner occupier at Muller House for 6 years I have had no need for a tower to providestronger signal.Having been in contact with many residents in Muller House regarding this potential concern, Ihave yet to find someone who is not satisfied with their network coverage.

RegardsJoanna Lambe

The size and position of these masts will be in the middle of a very busy residential areawhich is also of historic significance in Bristol. 4g/5g is not a problem in this area, so I am unsurewhy it is deemed necessary to build 3 masts here.

This proposal is firstly not required- the 5g signal in the area is excellent. Secondly, thiswill be an eyesaw, having a profoundly negative impact of the image of an historic andmonumental grade 2 listed building (Muller House).

This mast is proposed to be adjacent to Muller House, a Grade 2 listed building. Thismast is due to be higher than Muller House itself, as well as all buildings around and will seriouslyaffect the aesthetic of the building as well as the whole neighbourhood.

As per the "Code of Practice for Wireless Network Development in England" installing a mast nextto a listed building should be avoided: "Listed buildings/ scheduled monuments and ConservationAreas: the siting of equipment housing adjacent to any listed building and/ or scheduledmonument should be avoided."

The Code of practice also states that "Operators have committed to use existing structures fornetwork deployment wherever viable to reduce the need for new development and minimise visualimpact.". There are plenty of building arounds, such as Ashley Heights, Down View, or the Cricketground lights, that would provide a suitable base for a new mast while seriously reducing thevisual impact.

The network operator should therefore look for an alternative, more discreet site for the mast thatrespect the code of practice.

The list of Constraints related to the application, while it does show that Ashley Down isa conservation area, does not include the fact that Muller House (The building next to which themast is planned) is a Grade 2 listed building.

The Listed Building entry can be seen at the following address:https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1375995?section=official-list-entry

I understand that the street pole may be required (although personally I do not strugglefor mobile signal), but the suggested location does not seem suitable. The height of the proposedstreet pole is obviously going to be an eye sore when located in such a residential area. Proposedplans show it towering above the existing trees.

It is not in keeping with the adjacent buildings, most notably Muller House.

I have seen bats flying in the area, which may use the existing trees, and therefore may beimpacted by the construction of a tall street pole.

More information is needed regarding if there are any lights or noise associated with the streetpole, which may cause a nuisance to surrounding residents.

I'm objecting to this proposal because of these reasons:

- Right next to a Grade II listed building. Having such an obvious mast will damage its character.- Clearly higher than the surrounding trees which makes it dominate.- Position near trees (possible damage from construction but also a fear that as trees grow higherthey may be removed)- Reduction of space on the pavement due to pole and cabinets. This pavement gets narrow goingfurther along towards the bus stop which is already difficult for pedestrians so removing even morespace adds to the problem.

I object to this being installed so close to Muller House, and in a built up residential areawith many schools, and the college opposite, due to the fact that there is already little space, thepotential effects on health of local residents (especially children and young people), and the factthat it would be an eyesore next to a historical, grade 2 listed building which has an importantplace in Bristol's history.The mobile phone signal in this area is already good so I don't understand the need for this.

The mast is proposed to be placed in front of a historic grade 2 listed building. It'sproximity to flats and houses will reduce property prices and ruin views. The safety of these mastsis also questionable. I live very close to the proposed mast and was not notified by the council inwriting, its disappointing residents weren't included in decisions that make a big different to theirhomes and community. The reduction of the pavement in this area is also a concern due to thecollege and primary school being such close proximity.

I am a resident of Muller House and strongly object to the proposed mast installation onthe following grounds:

As it is very close to residential properties and 20m high it is in contradiction of paragraphs 28 and39 of the Code, which calls for the siting to minimise impact of the setting including buildings, andto protect the visual amenity.

It is overbearingly close to a listed building, Muller House, which plays an important part in Bristol'shistorical development. This is specifically addressed in paragraph 34 which states that such siting"should be avoided".

I would urge that this installation is not allowed.

I am a resident of Muller House and strongly object to the proposed mast installation onthe following grounds:

As it is very close to residential properties and 20m high it is in contradiction of paragraphs 28 and39 of the Code, which calls for the siting to minimise impact of the setting including buildings, andto protect the visual amenity.

It is overbearingly close to a listed building, Muller House, which plays an important part in Bristol'shistorical development. This is specifically addressed in paragraph 34 which states that such siting"should be avoided".

I would urge that this installation is not allowed.

It is very unclear to me what is going on here. The Application Comments above statesthis is an "Application to determine if prior approval is required". But there was a white councilplanning notice for "Application for planning permission" on the lampost by Dirac Road until it wasremoved on Thursday 22nd Sept. These mean different things, so which is it?

It is obvious to me that any plan to stick a 60ft mast by Dirac Road is going to receive massiveopposition from the local community and a full-blown campaign of resistance. It's 60ft tall - that'senormous! Dwarfing the neighbouring trees, it would be completely out of scale, inappropriate infront of Grade II buildings, and an intrusive visual assault on all local people. Yet, though I live onYork Avenue, I haven't been informed by the Council about this, I've just seen a small notice on alampost. It's not fair (or professional) to restrict notification to those directly neighbouring theintended site. The wider community use the main road daily to the shops, to school etc and willhave plenty to say.

There are comments of objection in the Document tab above referring to 5G - but no information isprovided in the planning information about this. That's obviously not good enough for local peopleto consider this properly.

I completely object to this proposal and strongly suggest the planning office get a grip with thepublicity and management associated with it.

I have no problem with the 5G mast and would support the application so we can getimproved signal.

I support this application. 5G is safe and good masts are desperately needed in thisarea.

I object to such a large, potentially harmful structure being located so closely to 2primary schools. Most of the local children walk to/from school and I strongly object to my childrenbeing exposed to harmful radiation on top of the car fumes they have to breath in on a daily basis.

This mast would directly block the view from our property and would be a health andsafety concern for my young family and the numerous school children walking in this zone at leasttwice daily. It's height will ruin the skyline and the views from Ashley down would be obscured.

Commenter Type: Amenity - Residents Group

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I write to object to the proposed installation of a 20.0m mast directly in front of Muller

House on Ashley Down Road.

Objections:

Muller House is a grade 2 listed building and as such should be protected from having this mast in

such close proximity.

The proposed site is within a conservation area and this tower will be an eyesore for everyone in

the immediate vicinity but mostly for those looking directly out onto the tower from Muller House.

Within the government's own planning policy, choosing a site as described above is not

recommended.

As an owner occupier at Muller House for 6 years I have had no need for a tower to provide

stronger signal.

Having been in contact with many residents in Muller House regarding this potential concern, I

have yet to find someone who is not satisfied with their network coverage.

Regards

I object to the planning application to install a 20m, 5G mast on Ashley Down Road forthe following reasons:

1. The proposed location of the mast is outside the Grade II listed Muller House. In fine groundsand set back from the road, its long, symmetrical frontage and grand stone porticoundoubtedly makes Muller House the most handsome of the five Grade II Muller orphanagebuildings in the vicinity (Cabot, Davy, Allen & Loft houses). The trees at either end of its boundarywall add to its symmetry. (Only slightly marred by the bus shelter but this is, of course, at a verylow level and made mainly of glass.).

The 20m mast would be located close to 4-5 mature trees. It's clear from the application thesetrees are no more than 12m tall.That is, the mast would extend a further 8m (25 feet) above the trees. The Site SpecificSupplementary Information document states the mast will be coloured green to "blend in" (page7).This would seem quite pointless if the mast extends so far above the tree line.Consequently it would be unacceptably insensitive and out of keeping with the area to have a 20mmast at the proposed location.

2. The continued proliferation of 5G transmissions will unequivocally lead to a significant reductionin the accuracy of both local and global weather forecasts.Among the most important data that goes into weather and climate models is the amount of water

vapour in the atmosphere.This is measured from satellites, for example NASA's Aqua satellite. Water molecules emit, orscatter, electromagnetic radiation in specific frequency ranges. This scattering is detected andmeasured by the weather satellites. Such measurements of atmospheric water content areessential for accurate weather forecasts and over the last few decades the accuracy has improvedenormously due to this technique (Bauer at al, Nature 525, 47-55 (2015)).

The frequency used by satellites to look for water vapour is 23.80 GHz. This is very close to the5G NR band n258 (K-band). This has a frequency range of 24.25 to 27.50 GHz.Of course these do not numerically overlap but the 5G band does not stop abruptly at a particularfrequency. There is always some degree of "leakage" or noise beyond the band limits.This noise is the problem. 5G transmissions will significantly degrade the quality, or accuracy ofthe data collected by the satellites.This will be worse in in urban areas where there are likely to be more 5G masts. Also, most watervapour is in the lowest part of the atmosphere, again where the 5G mast are located.

In 2019 the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organisation (NOAA) made a study on theeffects of 5G transmissions.Following this and at a US Federal hearing Neil Jacobs (NOAA Administrator) reported that thecurrent 5G regulations would degrade weather forecasts accuracy by up to 30%. That is, back to1980's level. This is supported by a paper by Yousefvand at al, 2020 IEEE 5GWF, IEEE, 2020"Modeling the impact of 5G Leakage on Weather Prediction".Further, the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organisation, Petteri Taalas, said"Potential effects of this [5G] could be felt across multiple impact areas including aviation,shipping, agriculture meteorology, and warning of extreme events as well as our common ability tomonitor climate change for the future". Petteri Taalas called for strict limits on the 5G frequencyleakage and his organisation is currently negotiating this but with limited success.

From my points above I strongly feel this is not an appropriate location for the proposed mast andask Bristol City Council to refuse this application.

I object most strongly to the proposed erection of a 20 m phone mast at the top of DiracRoad. Furthermore, I live in Dirac Road and I was not notified by the council about this applicationwhich is a serious omission.My objections are on the following grounds:1] Health Risks to people and wildlife.It is the responsibility of planning officers to keep our environment safe and support the health ofour community. This application contradicts both of those espoused aims. 5G does not support thehealth of its community. Harmful radiation will be omitted from this mast 24/7. This is in a highdensity housing area where the streets are already crowded with people and where there are twoprimary schools very close to the proposed site. The evidence is inconclusive about how safe anylevel of this sort of RF electro-magnetic emissions can be, especially to children and older adults.The guidelines do not include the effects on wildlife of radiation levels this high as this is unknown.We are already losing bees and birds at an alarming rate. Nothing should be done to furtherjeopardise our wildlife.We know that radiation levels are harmful, therefore this sort of development should simply not beallowed where there are people in large numbers and wildlife. The site is also adjacent to theAshley Vale allotments and near the St Werburgh's City Farm, to say nothing of being a couple ofmetres away from people's homes in the Ashley Heights Flats.2] AppearanceThis mast, at an enormous 20 m proposed height, is grossly out of scale for a residential area. Itwill represent an extremely ugly and huge blot on what is a residential area. Furthermore, theproposed site is within the Ashley Down Conservation Area. Muller House is a grade 2 listed

building and is a mere 40 m away. In fact the proposed site would be slap bang against part of theperimeter wall of Muller House estate.The council should be doing all it can to conserve such areas. It makes a nonsense of the principleof conservation if the Council allows hideous development such as this.3] SitingPlanners have a duty to ensure that applicants have explored alternative sites, especially thosewhich would use existing high structures. In close vicinity [250 mtrs] to this proposed site, isGloucestershire County Cricket Ground which already has extremely tall structures in the form oflighting. This could be utilised or any other high buildings which already exist. There is noevidence whatsoever that the applicants have explored other sites. The proposal would create anadditional hazardous obstacle on an already overcrowded pavement. In addition to the twoprimary schools mentioned above, the proposed site is a mere 75 mtrs away from City of BristolCollege. The pavements and Ashley Down Road itself are already very crowded, with peopletrying to negotiate their way to school and college with small children, buggies, bicycles, scooterset cetera. There is no space for any further development on the site.4] Need for a mast.There is already excellent 5G coverage in the area which planners can check for themselves.There is therefore absolutely no need to massively destroy the visual appearance and thefunctionality of this conservation area, in addition to exposing the health of the community ofpeople who live there to serious and long-term risk. Please refuse this application.

I am totally opposed to this planning application for a mast in Ashley Down Roadopposite Ashley Heights.

It will have a very harmful effect having a 5G mast so close to residential buildings, Grade 2 listedones and others, allotments, the City Farm, schools, a college, a children's playground etc. 5G isparticularly dangerous for children.

It is also a massive eyesore. It's so high and obstructs people's views from flats and looksunsightly next to a Grade 2 listed building.

It will be very close to a lot of traffic as Ashley Down road gets busy at rush hour and on weekendsand holidays when there is cricket on and also when Bristol Rovers are playing.

Public health is a material planning consideration and ALL the evidence must be considered.

Please oppose this application as it will be very harmful for Ashley Down.

THE PROPOSED MAST REPRESENT A DANGER TO THE PUBLIC AND WILDLIFE.RESEARCH SUGGESTS THAT THIS UNTESTED (FOR PUBLIC SAFETY) 5G TECHNOLOGYCAN POSE SERIOUS HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. IT IS ALSOCOMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE IN TERMS OF APPEARANCE. THE SITING OF THE MASTMEANS IT ADVERSELY AFFECTS FAMILIES, CHILDREN AND THE ELDERLY ALL OF WHICHARE IN DANGER OF THE HARMFUL RF-ELECTRO MAGNETIC EMISSIONS THAT HAVEBEEN PROVEN HARMFUL BELOW ICNIRP LEVELS.

I am writing to object to the proposed erection of a 20 meter high 5G mast on thepavement just as you turn left out of the road I live in, Dirac Road. Firstly I will say that Iwasn't informed of this proposal by the Council although I live in Dirac Road. In fact Igather very few residents in either Muller House or Dirac Road had any informationabout this which rather gives the impression that The Council were trying to keep it asecret for as long as possible to give less time for residents to consider the proposal.Transparency is so important in local government. Or to hide it altogether.

I object to it on a number of grounds.

Firstly we do not yet have sufficient information on how these masts will affect thehealth of people, especially the children and babies of the neighbourhood. Due to thetype of development there are quite a lot of primary school children and toddlers in thearea.

Secondly, this pavement is not very wide and numerous parents with primary schoolchildren walk to and from the two local primary schools - Sefton Park and Brunel Field.Quite a few of these families have a younger child in a pushchair with the older onesquite often using scooters so it already gets quite congested at certain times of daywithout a mast being situated there. Also lots of college students, teenagers who arestill developing and could be adversely affected. I happen to be 85 and therefore alsoclassed as vulnerable to this sort of possible radiation. I believe there is some sort of

measurement the ICNIRP which in fact is NOT a safe measurement which the Councilis using to legitimise the erection of this mast.

Thirdly it will be right next to a Grade II listed building. I thought this gave it some sort ofprotection from having a 20 meter mast placed so close or can the Council over ride thistype of protection if it suits them?

I am also concerned the positioning of this which will require some excavation anddigging which may harm the trees the other side of the wall in the grounds of the MullerHouse and in England we need thousands more trees and must not endanger anyalready growing.

If the fact that so many more people are working from home I.e. in residential areas is areason for needing this new mast then I suggest these people get back to their officeswhere presumably they are not near homes so people will not be affected detrimentally.I felt that enabling people to work from home was a good thing so they didn't have thedaily commute and the expense of travelling to work but if a consequence of this is thatwe need these harmful masts to be erected then I will change my mind.

I could go on and on but I think there are enough reasons above to prove this mastshould not be built. I hope the Council will put the local people's health andenvironment before any beneficial financial implications there may be for them.

I would like to object to this proposal.

I do not support some of the more exaggerated claims as to the health risks of 5G masts, but I stillfeel on a precautionary basis it might be wise to avoid sitting them in the middle of heavily built-upareas, such as the one proposed in this case.

I also feel that at 20+ metres the mast is too high for the area and out of keeping with the generalheight lines of surrounding buildings.

I also think that the siting is inappropriate, so close to some fine Victorian architecture.

yours sincerely

David Gardiner

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I would like to object to this proposal.

I do not support some of the more exaggerated claims as to the health risks of 5G masts, but I still

feel on a precautionary basis it might be wise to avoid sitting them in the middle of heavily built-up

areas, such as the one proposed in this case.

I also feel that at 20+ metres the mast is too high for the area and out of keeping with the general

height lines of surrounding buildings.

I also think that the siting is inappropriate, so close to some fine Victorian architecture.

yours sincerely

I strongly object. The installation of these poles is cause for major concern. They areextremely ugly, and there are no safety data. Some Countries are removing these poles due tohealth concerns. Please stop erecting them. The EMF's emitted from these poles is dangerousand effects us all.

My wife works at Bristol college and I see these buildings regularly. We object 100% tothis placement. It should be positioned elsewhere so that it in no way obscures or intrudes on theview of the building. This request and positioning should be completely blocked and no view-obstructing location considered.

The proposed pole height is incredibly high and would be disruptive, plus unsightly.There is a grade 2 listed building right behind the proposed location of the pole, and the polewould not only damage the aesthetic but also the historical value of Muller House. The pathwaysand crossings are already narrow and difficult to navigate for pedestrians (especially parents withyoung children/ prams and wheelchair users) so it would be inappropriate to add furtherinfrastructure to the area.

The position of the mast is I'll conceived and should not be placed near the historicbuilding. I object to the planned position of the mast due to this reason

However. Signal for 3 is very poor in the area despite what some are saying. As a customer Iexperience issues so I support a mast in the area and it is needed. There has been a lot morehousing in the area and more people working from home. The mast is needed.

Please consider speaking the the college and placing the mast upon their grounds only a fewhundred yards away there is already an unsightly power building near the coop and this could beused to site the mast.

Please ignore the 5g conspiracy theory nutjobs

Incompatible with a conservation area.

Public health is a material planning consideration and all the evidence must beconsidered. Harm below ICNIRP safety level is proven. ICNIRP guidelines are not safe and arenot law (entrust.org)Polluting effects of the radiation emitted from this mast falls within the councils responsibility underthe environmental protection act 1990 and the pollution prevention and control act 1999 (epa1990, PPC 1999)I live within close proximity to the proposed site of the new mast and am extremely worried aboutthe long term potential effects this could have on my three children. These children also attendBrunel field primary school with many more children also in close proximity to the mast for theduration my their school day.I have a plot at Ashley down association allotments and it is also unknown what cost this mast willhave on the local wildlife.I was not notified by the council in writing that this mast was planned.It will reduce the price of our house and look unsightly.We do not want or need 5g in our community at the cost of our children and local wildlife's health.It is very shortsighted of our councillors to allow this to go ahead.

I'm objecting to this 5G tower near my home on the basis that the science behind 5Gradiation and its effects on human health are clearly not well known. The levels of radiationdeemed "safe" by the FCC are based on faulty studies from the 1990's that concluded that theonly harmful levels of radiation were ones that resulted in a heating function (in rats). This isclearly wrong and many studies since that time have concluded that much lower levels can causemany different problems including cancer.

See https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe fora good overview from a respectable source.

Would you like to have one of these masts 50m from your children's bedroom?

I object to the installation of a 20m high 5G mast on Ashley Road. It would be a real eyesore in the middle of a residential area, and is likely to cause anxiety in many people who live andwork here. It also would bring house prices down.I am very concerned for health reasons too. The mast would be very close to residents living hereand would pose a health risk in particular to those most sensitive to the exposure to highelectromagnetic frequencies, such as young children, the elderly and pregnant women.The nearest residents would be living opposite the mast at Ashley Heights, homes would beliterally a few yards away, what is the safety zone given here, if any? Many residents nearby aswell as students attending Bristol City College would also be affected by the high emissionscoming from this mast.You may be aware that ICNIRP guidelines are based on healthy adults and only for a period of 6-30minutes. This is disgraceful given that young children are extremely sensitive to the effects ofEMFs, and those in schools nearby as well as children living close by would be exposed toradiation coming from the 5G mast for many hours. (Young children of 5years and under, forexample, absorb 60% more radiation than adults).There are many studies showing that radiation can lower people's immune system and over longerperiods of time, there could be damage to multiple organs. It might also affect people's fertility,sleep, and have a neurological and neuropsychiatric effect. The ORSAA letter to Councils givesmore detail. https://www.orsaa.org/uploads/6/7/7/9/67791943/orsaa_letter_to_councils.pdf

There is no evidence that the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection(ICNIRP) guidelines have taken into account the cumulative impact of all operators' equipment

located in the area. For more information on exclusion zones for 5G and 4G:https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/business-management/health-and-safety/how-to-manageradiation-exclusion-zones-for-phone-mastsHundreds of doctors and scientists worldwide are warning of the serious health effects on humans,especially young children and calling for the halt of the 5G rollout.https://www.5gappeal.eu/https://bioinitiative.org/Councils and Planners are following ICNIRP guidelines for safety, however, these guidelines arenot law, and do allow levels which are too high to be safe. Bristol City is aiming to be a green andsustainable city, yet 5G is neither green nor sustainable. It is polluting the air 24/7.You as a council have a duty to look after the welfare of the people in your area. Please turn thismast application down.Thank you.

I am extremely upset to have been informed by another neighbour that an applicationexists to erect a mast Opposite Ashley Heights, Ashley Down Road, BS7 9DD. ref No 22/04074/Y.I have not received any written notification from the Council regarding this.The proposed site is in the grounds of Muller House; a Grade 2 listed building within aConservation Area.A Conservation Area is one of the worst possible places to erect a 20m mast. It would be clearlyvisible and a horrible blot on the landscape.The site is close to local schools and nurseries and a large number of residents who may bevulnerable to the adverse effects of radiation that the mast will emit.Other areas nearby that I'm concerned about in terms of wildlife protection include the AshleyDown Allotments and St Werburgh's City Farm. This 5G mast could cause harm to pollinatinginsects, birds, small mammals and farm animals due to it's RF-electro-magnetic emissions.

I am deeply concerned that Bristol shows itself to be proud of being a sustainable city, andtherefore Planning Officers have a critical duty to protect its communities and open spaces.Rebecca Irwin.

I object to the proposal because the telecommunications equipment and installationdoes not respect the character and appearance of the area and its appearance will be harmful tovisual amenity by reason of its siting and design. It therefore contradicts the Bristol City CouncilLocal Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policy DM36.

I am concerned that a proposal for a 20m 5G mast has been launched for installationopposite Ashley Heights on Ashley Down Road., which could adversely affect the residents in thenearby roads as well as the wildlife. Telecoms have no right to impose this unsafe, untested anduninsurable piece of 5G technology in such close proximity to residents and commuters in AshleyDown. The proposed 5G mast would subject residents living in the vicinity to radio-frequencyelectromagnetic microwave radiation (RF-EMR) polluting emissions, which are particularly harmfulto children, the elderly and pregnant women.

The proposed 5G mast would be located on the residential Ashley Road opposite Ashley Heights,42m from Muller House, 51m from Dirac Road, 91m from Sefton Park Road and 100m from LydiaCourt. It would be 77m from the City of Bristol College, 221m from Brunel Field Primary School,319m from Ashgrove Park Day Nursery, 368m from Sefton Park Infants & Junior Schools and158m from Ashley Down Playground. Regarding wildlife, the mast would be 235m fromGloucestershire Cricket Stadium, 266m from Ashley Down Allotments and 375m from St.Werburghs City Farm. Therefore this 5G mast could adversely affect families with children, elderlyresidents and a variety of wildlife including birds, farm animals, small mammals and pollinatinginsects, all of which could all be harmed from RF-electro-magnetic emissions.

It is also pertinent that 5G technology is not needed for fast internet services; fibre planningpermission optic solutions are much more efficient.

Please note that increasing numbers of doctors & scientists globally are calling for a halt on 5G

due to serious health & environmental concerns. It is also known that children, pregnant womenand the elderly exposed to these unacceptable levels of radiation are particularly at risk. Residentsliving near 5G monopoles and under rooftop antennas suffer illnesses which disappear when theyare removed; this has serious implications for people living on or near to Ashley Down Road andthe neighbouring roads in Ashley Down.5G technology has not been tested for public safety and there is no insurance available for healthliabilities. Additionally, there is a zone around every mast with antennae called an 'exclusion zone'within which the radiation is known to be unsafe. The plan for this 5G 20m mast on Ashley DownRoad does not declare the area to which this exclusion zone extends. There is also no evidencethat the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines havetaken into account the cumulative impact of all operators equipment located in the area. Exclusionzones are much wider for 5G than 4G, as highlighted here:

https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/business-management/health-and-safety/how-to-manage-radiation-exclusion-zones-for-phone-masts

Importantly there are issues of pollution and risks to the public and wildlife. Government, Councilsand Planners are following ICNIRP guidelines for safety. This must be challenged as ICNIRPlevels are too high and are protective of industry rather than the public. Legally, planners need totake this into account and realise that ICNIRP guidelines are not law; emissions from masts arepolluting and need investigating under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the PollutionControl Act 1990. Furthermore, recent evidence shows that 5G will increase, not decrease, carbonemissions:https://docs.google.com/document/d/18UYNRpoRUHQj_yPGBEbXO2l8aE4-QXMR87cIQUtM3LM/edit?usp=sharing

Please note further that public health is a material planning consideration and all evidence must beconsidered. As harm below ICNIRP safety levels is proven, ICNIRP guidelines are not safe andare not law (ehtrust.org). For instance, ICNIRP is based on heating effects over 6-30 mins foradults; the proposed 5G mast would emit radiation constantly. The effect would be worse forchildren as they absorb more radiation, and their developing nervous systems are vulnerable. Thisis important as the proposed mast would be 77m from the City of Bristol College, 221m fromBrunel Field Primary School, 319m from Ashgrove Park Day Nursery, 368m from Sefton ParkInfants & Junior Schools and 158m from Ashley Down Playground.

With regards to open, green spaces ICNIRP guidelines do not set safety levels for wildlife; beesand birds are especially vulnerable. Bristol City Council has a duty to protect its open spaces and5G is not sustainable; in fact, it is a pollutant. Studies show that the ecosystem is at risk - birds,bees, other insects, trees are affected - see https://rfinfo.co.uk/masts/ for more information. Theproposed mast would be 235m from Gloucestershire Cricket Stadium, 266m from Ashley DownAllotments and 375m from St. Werburghs City Farm. These are all significant places that provide

much needed safe environments for fauna and flora, and for people. Planning officers have a dutyto make the environment safe and to support the community's health (NPPF 2019:8b). 5G doesnot support the health of its community. Exclusion zones must be declared.

It is pertinent to note the Danish Legal opinion on the 5G roll out in the work of Jensen, F.C.(2019). 'LEGAL OPINION on whether it would be in contravention of human rights andenvironmental law to establish the 5G-system in Denmark'. Jenson stated that 'It is the conclusionof this legal opinion that establishing and activating a 5G-network, as it is currently described,would be in contravention of current human and environmental laws enshrined in the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, EU regulations, andthe Bern- and Bonn-conventions.'

https://mdsafetech.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/5g-danish-legal-opinion-jensen-2019.pdf

See also this article by Churchill, K. (2021). On December 20th 2020 a Dutch Court ruled that anincrease in health risks cannot be ruled out at even exposures of 1 V/m, which is well below thegovernment's "safety" ICNIRP guidelines.https://stop5ginternational.org/censorship-online-political-forum-in-uk-blocks-news-of-5g-dutch-court-ruling/

Interestingly we heard recently that America is also questioning the safety of 5G with somesuccess: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/chd-wins-case-fcc-safety-guidelines-5g-wireless

It is also worth noting that The Environmental Health Trust has recently, in August 2021, won anhistoric court case against the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) for ignoring scientificevidence showing harm from wireless radiation. The court ruled that the FCC failed to addressimpacts of long term wireless exposure, failed to address impacts to children, failed to address thetestimony of people injured by wireless radiation, failed to address impacts to wildlife and theenvironment and failed to address impacts to the developing brain and reproduction.https://ehtrust.org/eht-takes-the-fcc-to-court/

With regards to appearance, installing this 20m (66ft) mast in a residential area would create anunpleasant eyesore for residents living near to Ashley Down Road. It would certainly dominate theview around this residential area. I therefore ask the planning department to serve the people ofAshley Down by refusing planning permission for the proposed 5G mast installation.

LATEST NEWS: the BBC narrative on RFR safety promoted by David Grimes is false. DavidGrimes, who is often quoted by the BBC, has lied about his qualifications and his affiliations withOxford and has made serious mistakes and omissions in his paper published in Dec 2021. Thecontroversy about David Grimes' Dec 21 review in the JAMA (Journal of the American MedicalAssociation) demonstrates that lies and corruption are in play serving to obscure science and

evidence of harm from RFR. Now the scientists have fought back asking JAMA to retract it.https://microwavenews.com/news-center/open-letter-jama-network-retract-grimes-rf-cancer-reviewJan 19th 2022).

I vehemently object to this proposed 5G mast opposite Ashley Heights on Ashley DownRoad. It would be positioned adjacent to a college, close to schools, a children's play area in awholly residential area. It would also be near the St Werburghs City Farm, allotments and thecricket ground. I object to this mass roll-out in any area of this country as these masts are notwithin safe levels of radiation for people or wildlife and are particularly dangerous for children.See below for further information regarding this:

Public health is a material planning consideration and ALL the evidence must be considered.Harm below ICNIRP safety levels is proven. ICNIRP guidelines are not safe and are not law(ehtrust.org).Polluting effects of the radiation emitted from this mast falls within the Council's responsibilityunder the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999(EPA 1990, PPC 1999).ICNIRP is based on heating effects over 6-30 min for adults; this proposed mast will emit radiation24/7.Children absorb more radiation; their developing nervous systems are vulnerable.People wearing metal glasses, with metal fillings, braces and pacemakers are not protected byICNIRP.ICNIRP guidelines do not set safety levels for wildlife; bees and birds are especially vulnerable.

Bristol is taking pride in aiming to be a sustainable city. It has a duty to protect its open spaces. 5Gis not sustainable. 5G is a pollutant.

Planning officers should ensure the environment is safe and care for the community's health(NPPF 2019:8b). 5G does not support the health of its community. Exclusion zones must bedeclared.The installation of this 20m 5G mast opposite Ashley Heights would also be a total eyesore forlocal residents in Ashley Down and the many people visiting the area to attend the college, cricketground and other amenities. It's installation would be completely out of place and unacceptable.

It's good to have strong mobile signal everywhere and this mast will help that.

This will look ugly and is too high. In front of grade 2/3 listed building. There are othertall structures nearby that could be used for a mast.

I object to where this is being positioned? It will be not an attractive site out of ourwindow to look at and I worry about the health implications on our children. Could it not beattached something at the cricket ground?

Will improve a mobile phone dead spot.

As a resident in Muller House I firmly object as this mast will have many negativeimpacts. It will be situated near a college, right next to residential flats and opposite a grade 2listed building. This is totally unacceptable and will ruin the whole look and feel for the area.

I'm addition all residents I've spoken to have excellent Internet and signal, there are no issues.Therefore the mast is not solving an issue.

The council need to refuse the planning for this mast.

This is a conservation area next to Grade II listed buildings, nearby tree roots could bedamaged, Signal area in this area from this operator is already excellent, other sites have beenrejected from being too close to listed building are further away compared to this proposal.And a 20 m mast would make it the tallest construction between the school and the Muller House !

20m is exceptionnally tall compared to most mobile mastsThis is a conservation area next to a grade II lisyed buildingNearby tree roots could be damagedSignal from 3 and other network already excellent. There is no need for expansive, distrubing andinconvenient workIt is going to cause trou le for pedestrian walking especially push chair. It is a familly area and thisproject is adanger to family safety

The National Planning Policy Framework Code of Practice for Wireless NetworkDevelopment in England states the following with regard to locating telecommunications masts inconservation areas and in the vicinity of listed buildings:

"Listed buildings/ scheduled monuments and Conservation Areas: the siting of equipment housingadjacent to any listed building and/ or scheduled monument should be avoided. Scheduledmonument consent will be required to site any equipment housing (and associated undergroundductwork) within a scheduledmonument. Siting of equipment in Conservation Areas should take account of Conservation AreaAppraisals and Management Plans."

Having reviewed the submitted documents I do not believe the applicant has addressed this issuesufficiently, and has not justified why they have chosen to ignore the NPPF recommendation thatsiting equipment adjacent to any listed building should be avoided.

If there is a genuine requirement for the mast then I believe an additional study should beconducted to determine a more suitable location that does not disregard the recommendations ofthe NPPF.

I am writing to object to the installation of this telecomms mast. At 20 metres, the mastwould be a huge eyesore to all residents in the area, both in Muller house, and Ashley heightsopposite and would dominate the eye-line for miles around. The proposed site is right on theboundary of a grade II listed building, and is in an important environmental conservation area. Thiswould also set a precedent for other similar structures to be built in the surrounding area.

The argument that 3 needs to improve mobile coverage in the area contradicts the coverage mapon their own website (https://www.three.co.uk/Discover/Network/Coverage#/), which showsexcellent coverage across 3G, 4G and 5G - and other residents who use 3 currently reportexcellent signal in the area.

There are already other tall structures in the vicinity which could be shared, or where the mastwould perhaps look less out of place - for example the large flood lights over the Gloucestershirecricket ground.

This proposal is completely out of scale and character with the local area . Adjacent to agrade 2 listed building.

I really feel that this mast is not necessary in this area. The Muller orphanage is a listedbuilding Set in beautiful grounds with many panoramic views. This mast will completely destroy theambience and history of this place.The area is very busy with traffic so we need a bit of peace. There are already huge lights at thecricket ground.I strongly object to this.

Object.This 20 m high mast is being proposed in a conservation area, in front of the listed building knownas Muller House and will be very visible. It appears it will be sited at the junction between Dirac Rdand Ashely Down, in a small patch of greenery. Installation will damage the existing planting inwhat is a very rare patch of nature in this densely built-up area.The details provided by Clarke Telecom state that it would not be harmful to visual amenity but Icannot find any visual of what the proposed mast would look like and how high it would be relativeto adjoining buildings.As a resident here, I have no connectivity issues with the current provision for internet access,video calling, data down streaming, accessing social media networks and emailing.As stated in other comments, it is difficult to find and then read and absorb the information aroundthis proposal - I had to search through several documents just to get a sense of exactly what isbeing proposed. Why isn't a summary easily accessible to local residents to show a) what themast would look like and b) the rationale....without having to read through pages and pages ofseveral, not clearly identified documents?

Cannot Clarke Telecom find a suitable site on the City of Bristol Ashley Down Campus or on theGlos Cricket site, locations where a huge demand for their communication service is likely tooriginate, rather than place such an item in the highly visual location prosed here?

This is in a conservation area. I live in Muller House which is Grade II listed. The treeson the grounds of Muller House are protected and this mast risks their well-being.

I use Three and the signal here is already great. This won't change my level of service. Theproposed purpose of this installation doesn't seem to be accurate.

I object to this proposal as:1. There is already excellent telecommunications coverage in the vicinity.2. The height of the mast and associated structures will be a visual intrusion for residents in thearea. The Muller orphanage buildings have been restored sympathetically and the new build isunobtrusive.3. The presence of the mast will be unpleasant for some residents and may devalue theirproperties.Finally, I think that all residents should be consulted at a meeting and not with this complicated setof documents. I am sure that many residents will not be able to track down the application. I had toemail planning to view it. In addition, the map does not adequately show the visual effect of thetower and buildings.Claire Wickham

Dear Development Management,

I'm writing in regard to application "22/04074/Y" which is currently pendingconsideration. As a neighbour of the scheme I am formulating formal comments on theapplication at this stage.

As the proposed site falls within the Ashley Down conservation area and directly next toa Grade II listed building I was wondering whether any specific protections apply inregard to the application.In the applicant's supporting documents they outline a number of sites which have beendiscounted due to these being too close to Grade II listed buildings, yet many of thesefall further than the final proposed site.

With kind regards,

Dear Development Management,

I am writing to express my objections to the application "22/04074/Y" relating to theconstruction of a new mobile phone mast and associated equipment on Ashley DownRoad.

I object on the grounds of scale, necessity, adjacency to several Grade II listedbuildings and its siting within the Ashley Down Conservation area.

Muller House and the area's other former orphanage buildings are listed due to theirhistoric importance. Their visual appearance defines the area, as-such these buildingshave been Grade II listed. The guidance Code of Practice for Wireless NetworkDevelopment in England paragraph 34 indicates that siting of equipment adjacent tolisted buildings should be avoided; this plan suggests several sites immediatelyadjacent to several listed buildings and a final proposed site immediately adjacent to thelisted Muller House.

The construction of this mast would detract from this character due to its dominatingscale, and the ground-based equipment would visually block large sections of thesurrounding perimeter wall which is fundamental to the appearance and character of theAshley Down Road / Dirac Road area.

As-such, the installation of a 20-metre-tall pole and ground equipment in this locationappears at-odds with the guidance in National Planning Framework paragraph 115:"equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate"and Code of Practice for Wireless Network Development in England paragraph 28: "Thesiting of wireless infrastructure will influence which design options are most appropriatefor reducing the visual impact.".I have included a photograph of the proposed site from both inside Muller House andthe surrounding area at ground level showing the proposed location of the mast as Idon't believe the plans provided truly indicate the impact this mast would have. Forreference, the existing wall is approximately 2 metres tall and the proposed mast is tentimes taller.

The guidance Code of Practice for Wireless Network Development in Englandparagraph 25 and National Planning Framework paragraph 115 instructs operators toutilise existing tall structures in the area before deploying ground-based equipment, theapplication shows no attempt at using other tall structures in the area; for example tocricket ground floodlight pylons or a rooftop mast at, for example, the adjacent DownView flats.Furthermore, the National Planning Framework paragraph 117(c) requires the applicantto provide evidence that the installation on existing structures has been explored. Nosuch evidence has been provided.

On the grounds of necessity, current coverage map from Hutchinson Three shows thereto be excellent coverage on 3G, 4G and 5G in the area already (screenshot included).Calling into question the applicant's supposed "hole in the coverage in this area ofAshley Down" and benefit for the local community of the mast's construction whenexcellent coverage already exists. I believe the mast's construction to be sited to takeadvantage of the higher ground in the area and, at 20 metres tall, sited with the intentionto broadcast over the neighbouring buildings for the benefit of areas outside AshleyDown.

In summary, the proposal appears poorly sited, would adversely affect the appearanceand character of the area and listed buildings, whilst also providing little benefit oramenity for the local area.

With kind regards,

View from Ashley Down Road:

View from Muller House:

Dear Development Management,

Further to my objection yesterday, please may I add that having visited the site today Iam further assured that my assumption that the mast isn't for the local community iscorrect. The mast, in its chosen location, would have a direct line-of-sight to Purdowntransmission tower - meaning they could use the proposed mast to relay signals to othermasts elsewhere.

The other proposed sites in their plan appear to have never been realistic contendersfor the final location, the final location was likely the preferred site from the outset oftheir proposal for the reason above. Furthermore, the statement about poor signal in thearea is demonstrably false.

I live in the neighbouring grade II listed building on Ashley Down Road and I don't seehow these plans take into account the proximity to these protected buildings. It will be an awfuleyesore for a huge proportion of the residents here and I'd like to object to the proposal.

1. The application lists several other options which are further from listed buildings andrejects those for being too close to listed buildings.

2. The mast is 20 m which is taller than the more standard 15 m.

3. As there are no other masts in this vicinity, granting permission for this will allow other operatorsto submit plans to extend this site; so these plans aren't indicative of the final site.

4. 5G coverage from all operators in this area is excellent.

5. There are several buildings nearby which aren't listed and are tall, hence a shorter mast couldbe installed there instead (for example the cricket ground).

6. This is a conservation area, next to several Grade II listed buildings. If I as an owner of part ofthese buildings can't put up things outside my house which are just as useful if not more so (forexample a air-source heat pump), why should a NO be allowed to install a 20-m mast?

7. This mast is in the line of several very tall trees (including the evergreen oaks); propagationdown this line would be affected and so better sites for propagation should be considered first.

8. The installation of the electricity housings next to the car park will limit residents' ability to installconduits for electric car chargers, which is under consideration currently by the Muller House site

management.

5G signal is already great in the area. Unnecessary and huge visual intrusion.

Hi there,

I am the owner of The telecom mast installed by thisapplication directly obstructs the view I have from my property. I strongly vote againstthe installation of the mast at this location.

Many thanks,

I object to this proposal on the following grounds:- that particular stretch of pavement is well used, particularly by families with young childrenwalking to both Brunel Field and Sefton Park schools and heading to/from Dirac Rd to access thepark. It is not particularly wide and further objects will reduce space for buggies/scooters evenmore.

- mast is too high for such a residential area and will be overlooked by flats both at Ashley DownHeights and Muller House (grade II listed building) Why can't existing heights be utilised eglighting towers at cricket ground, college roof as an alternative to a street works?- residents in proximity to the proposed site report excellent 5G mobile signal with 3. There istherefore no benefit but considerable negative impact on those who will have the 20m pole in view.

Please consider these objections as it feels ridiculous to suggest that this is the right place forsuch a mast.