I strongly object. It's different to understand why anyone would contemplate putting thisinto a 'green urban', low rise locale thus ruining the character of an area much prized by residentsand visitors

This mast is unacceptable for all the reasons outlined below. ALL public servants havea duty to fully investigate the below points that have been raised many many times already. Ifthere is any doubt whatsoever that there is any risk at all to anyone, then these masts should noteven be allowed to put in for an application of any kind with any council.

Increasing numbers of doctors & scientists globally are calling for a halt on 5G due to serioushealth & environmental concerns.

· Children, pregnant women and the elderly exposed to these unacceptable levels of radiation areparticularly at risk.

· 5G is not tested for public safety and there is no insurance available for health liabilities. It has apotential negative impact on property prices.

There is a zone around every mast called an exclusion zone, within which the radiation is knownto be unsafe. The plan does not declare to where this zone extends.

1) Pollution and risks to public and wildlifeHarm 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 responsibility

under 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. The proposed mast would be close to Kersteman RoadAllotments, Grove Park and Redland Green, which all provide safe environments for people andwildlife.

Planning officers have a duty to make the environment safe and support the community's health(NPPF 2019:8b). 5G does not support the health of its community. Exclusion zones must bedeclared.

2) Appearance: installing this 15m 5G mast on Redland Road is totally unacceptable. It would be ablot on the landscape and a distressing feature for local residents in Redland.

3) Siting: the proposed 5G mast would be located on the residential Redland Road, 29m fromRedland Grove, 38m from Redland Court Road, 62m from Clarendon Road, and 83m fromCarnarvon Road. It would be 84m from Snapdragons Nursery, 417m from Redland Green Schooland 324m from Oakleigh Nursing Home. Regarding wildlife, the mast would be adjacent to GrovePark, 279m from Kersteman Road Allotments, 436m from Cranbrook Road Allotments and 432mfrom Redland Green. Therefore this 5G mast could adversely affect families with children, elderlyresidents and a variety of wildlife including birds, small mammals and pollinating insects, all ofwhich could all be harmed from RF-electro-magnetic emissions.

This mast is unacceptable for all the reasons outlined below. ALL public servants havea duty to fully investigate the below points that have been raised many many times already. Ifthere is any doubt whatsoever that there is any risk at all to anyone, then these masts should noteven be allowed to put in for an application of any kind with any council.

I am a chartered building surveyor and I note that during all the inspections that I carry out toprestigious high rise buildings which have microwave / RF / 5g equipment on, all have a yellowtriangle warning not to stand in front of the equipment. This clearly demonstrates that thisequipment is not safe for humans to be around, let alone on ground level in residential areas.

Increasing numbers of doctors & scientists globally are calling for a halt on 5G due to serioushealth & environmental concerns.

· Children, pregnant women and the elderly exposed to these unacceptable levels of radiation areparticularly at risk.

· 5G is not tested for public safety and there is no insurance available for health liabilities. It has apotential negative impact on property prices.

There is a zone around every mast called an exclusion zone, within which the radiation is knownto be unsafe. The plan does not declare to where this zone extends.

1) Pollution and risks to public and wildlifeHarm 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. The proposed mast would be close to Kersteman RoadAllotments, Grove Park and Redland Green, which all provide safe environments for people andwildlife.

Planning officers have a duty to make the environment safe and support the community's health(NPPF 2019:8b). 5G does not support the health of its community. Exclusion zones must bedeclared.

2) Appearance: installing this 15m 5G mast on Redland Road is totally unacceptable. It would be ablot on the landscape and a distressing feature for local residents in Redland.

3) Siting: the proposed 5G mast would be located on the residential Redland Road, 29m fromRedland Grove, 38m from Redland Court Road, 62m from Clarendon Road, and 83m fromCarnarvon Road. It would be 84m from Snapdragons Nursery, 417m from Redland Green Schooland 324m from Oakleigh Nursing Home. Regarding wildlife, the mast would be adjacent to GrovePark, 279m from Kersteman Road Allotments, 436m from Cranbrook Road Allotments and 432mfrom Redland Green. Therefore this 5G mast could adversely affect families with children, elderlyresidents and a variety of wildlife including birds, small mammals and pollinating insects, all ofwhich could all be harmed from RF-electro-magnetic emissions.

As a resident of Carnarvon Road and an allotment holder at Kersteman Road I object tothe proposal to site a 5G mast on Redland Road for a number of reasons:The polluting effect of radiation emitted from the mast which falls within the Council's responsibilityunder the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999.The proposed location of the mast is close to a number of schools (Snapdragons Nursery andRedland Green School), and Oakleigh Nursing Home - children and the elderly are particularlyvulnerable to emissions.The impact on public health and the harmful impact of emissions which are not effectively coveredby INIRP guidelines.The negative visual impact of a 15 metre mast which would be a blot on the area.

It's difficult to understand why anyone would consider this visually appropriate for thisarea. It does not fit in with the generally low rise, 'green urban' character of the locale, which ismuch prized by residents and visitors.I strongly object.

Risk - public health - an area of many young families and elderlyApplication has NOT detailed where zone of exclusion endsWe are lucky to be surrounded by some open space and tree lined streets, we were surprised athow big the mast was going to be.I do not feel this mast will support the health and well being of the community.

Firstly, considering the material effects of placing this mast in a residenial andbiodiverse location, I would have expected that you would give the community greater oversight, toallow feedback, however I have received nothing for consideration. On a personal note, I nowwork from home virtually full time and am a wearer of metal glasses for this work, therefore haveimmense concern around the radiation element of this mast being placed 83 m from my road.Planning officers have a duty to make the environment safe and support the community's health,however I do not feel that placing this mast in a highly residential area with numerous openspaces, adheres to this responsibility for both wildlife and humanlife alike. ICNIRP is based onheating effects over 6 - 40 mins period for adults, however this mast will be 24/7 and with no setsafety levels, this mast creates huge vulnerability for all. Pulluting effects of the radiation emittedfrom this mast falls within the Council's responsibility under the Environmental Protection Act 1990and the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (EPA 1990, PPC 1999). On top of this, Redlandtakes pride in its heritage and open spaces and this mast will stick out like a sore thumb as it willneed to stand way above the 3 storey residential properties. Public health is a material planningconsideration and all the evidence must be considered. Harm below ICNIRP safety levels isproven. ICNIRP guidelines are not sae and are not law. The council have introduced clean airzones and placing this mast in this location goes against the sustainability model we are strivingfor, therefore I emphatically object to the placement of this mast.

I object to this application for the following reasons;

Breach of Plannning Policies for the Conservation Area.The application conflicts with the existing Planning Policies BCS21, BCS22 and BCS23 adoptedby the Authority in BCC's Core Strategy for Planning:

- The proposal does not contribute positively to the area's character and identity or reinforce localdistinctiveness.- Loss of historic views and environmental openness and green space- Inappropriate development of part of a planned open gap - in conflict with the recommendationsmade by the Bristol City Council - Cotham and Redland Character Appraisal, Bristol PlanningPolicy 2011

Policy BCS22 is in fact illustrated by a photograph of Redland High school, as it then was, with thefollowing quotations;Relevant Policy References Planning Policy Statement 5:Planning for the Historic EnvironmentPolicy HE9.1 Core Strategy (June 2011)Policy BCS22 - Conservation & The Historic EnvironmentSaved Adopted Local Plan Policies (1997) following adoption of Core Strategy (2011) Policy B15(extract):(I) 'Townscape and landscape features that contribute to the character or appearance of streets

and open spaces within Conservation Areas should be preserved or enhanced.' (II) Developmentwill not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm landscapes, open spaces and gardensthat contribute to the character of the area.

A direct threat to this area listed on page 54 of the Redland and Cotham character appraisal is"Further loss of landscaping around the Court". This therefore confirms the proposal to install thismast is a direct threat to the preservation of this important heritage area.

Direct Threat to health of historical treesThis stunning walkway is lined with magnificent trees which are enjoyed by residents and visitorsalike, and in these days of increasing temperatures they provide vital shade and heat reduction.They were in fact proven to reduce temperatures by 15 degrees during our recent heatwaves. Inaddition, they provide immeasurably important green vistas and community space for the manyresidents who have no outside space of their own. No arboricultural report has been submittedwith this application to determine the impact of the installation on these trees. The diagrams showthat the mast and supporting cabinets will be installed in direct proximity to a series of heritagetrees which have both historical and environmental value for the local area and the City of Bristol.An aboricultural report would demonstrate that the trees will need protection around their trunksand bases to the equivalent of several times the width of their trunks. This suggests that in order toproperly protect the trees the mast must be installed further away than the diagrams propose. Theproposed installation site will directly impact their important root structures and is likely to causeirreparable damage to their health. Trees play a crucial role in the fight against climate change.One mature tree can absorb in the region of 1 tonne of carbon during its lifetime. Right now theability to absorb up to 1 tonne of carbon per tree in its lifetime is more important than upgradinginternet access.

Direct threat to priority speciesThe area is an important wildlife corridor for a wealth of wildlife, including priority species. Owls,woodpeckers, bats and hedgehogs have all been sighted in the immediate area. No priorityspecies report has been provided with this application and no evidence has been provided todemonstrate that the mast's RF-electro-magnetic emissions will not have a detrimental impact onthese important species and their ability to hunt, particularly the bats.

I wholeheartedly object to this application.

The proposal to erect this mast is contrary to the aim of maintaining open spaces andparticularly in a position such as this. The avenue of trees in Lover's Walk and the green spacesurrounding it are historic to the views and appreciation of the area.The propose

Good afternoon

I am writing to object to mast application number 22/04215/Y at the site adjacent toRedland Grove Park, Redland Road, Bristol BS67EE

Frankly the council should be declining the placement of this mast so close to children'sfacilities and homes. It should also have clearly notified residents of the surroundingarea which has not been done!

These are the reasons for my objection:

1. Public health is a material planning consideration and all evidence must beconsidered - Harm below ICNIRP safety levels is proven. ICNIRP guidelines are notsafe, and are not law.2. Polluting effects of the radiation emitted from the proposed mast falls within theCouncils responsibility under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 / PollutionPrevention and Control Act 19993. ICNIRP is based on heating effects up to 30 mins for adults, the radiation fromthis mast will occur constantly (24 hrs per day) and children, adults and wildlife will allbe exposed4. Children absorb more radiation and their developing nervous systems are moresusceptible to damage from such radiation - the proposed application is very close tochildren's nurseries, schools and homes! How obviously wrong this is should not need

to be spelt out longform in this objection - it is a no brainer to refuse the applicationsimply because electromagnetic radiation exposure at any length should be avoided atall costs5. ICNRP guidelines do not cover safety levels for wildlife6. Bristol is supposed to take pride in sustainability criteria, you have a duty toprotect our open spaces. 5G is known to be a pollutant is cannot be considered assustainable7. Planning officers have a duty to keep our environment safe and supportcommunity health standards - clearly any rational person in a position of responsibilitywould never consider an application that puts children, adults and wildlife at materialrisk from severe harm8. The mast is 15m tall and clearly not in keeping with the landscape that has beenpreserved to date. The application is for an unsightly blot on the landscape

Thank you for listening to us and please declare appropriate exclusion zones to stopwasting all of our time in composing / reading these objections to applications that haveno merit.

I write as a local resident living about 250 m from the proposed mast. I have read thefull application document.

This is a highly unsatisfactory pre-application. It quotes at considerable length and in tediouslyrepetitive fashion from a variety of national documents. This is unnecessary as the nationalrequirement for mobile signal coverage is not in doubt.

It is notable that on page 6 the document quotes 4 requirements from Policy DM36. In theremaining 22 pages it completely fails to address the first three of those:

i. The telecommunications equipment and installation would respect the character and appearanceof the area and would not be harmful to visual amenity by reason of its siting and design

While it is true that there are lamp posts and trees in the immediate vicinity, no consideration isgiven to the elegantly-designed Victorian vista from the top of Cotham Gardens along Lovers Walktowards Redland Court - and vice versa. This mast would be right in line with that vista and sowould be quite out of keeping with the original intention of this impressive local feature.

ii. Opportunities have been sought to share masts or sites with other providersThis is spectacularly ignored throughout the document.

There is no mention in the document of other masts in the area nor of plans - or even offers - to

share this mast with other operators. Either other operators have satisfactory provision (in whichcase there ought to be a case for sharing their facilities) or they don't (in which case Hutchinsonshould be working with them to generate a broader benefit).

iii. There are no suitable alternative sites for telecommunications development available in thelocality including the erection of antennae on existing buildings or other structures

There are multiple bland statements that this is not feasible, but zero evidence is provided. Noplans are provided of (a) the area of signal deficit to be rectified, (b) of other operators' facilities, or(c) of the limits of the siting of the proposed mast.

On top of these three major failings, there is no explanation in the pre-application for siting themast in the dip between two hills (Cotham to the south and Redland Hill to the north). One wouldnormally expect a mast to be sited as high as possible, not at the lowest point in the area.

Given this lack of evidence, it is not possible to come to a rational decision on where or how thesignal provision could or should be sited.

All these points require explanation and justification before BCC considers the case. In themeantime the pre-application should be rejected on grounds that are well within the scope of thosethat are permissible for this type of infrastructure.

The proposed mast is totally out of scale with the surroundings, especially as it is aconservation area. It is is 50% higher than any co-located tree and is a very large structure in itsown right. In addition the associated street furniture is large and indiscreet.

Any benefit to the community is dwarfed by the visual impact. There are no similar structures ofsuch a height in the area.

The location is an open area of grass without any other significant street furniture etc. located onor by it. This simply consumes more precious green and open space.

Having worked in mobile comms for 20 years, I can say that, even if coverage and/or capacity isdeemed to be poor in this area, then there are many other approaches that can be taken whichprovide a similar technical improvement (microcells, antennae disguised and hosted on buildings(e.g. church towers), lampost antennae.

Any street furniture can be hosted in an underground chamber and accessed that way (similar tothe transformer under the pavement on the opposite side of Redland Road). This is frequentlydone in central London.

My strong suspicion is that this is a strawman, and that once it is refused, they will come back witha smaller proposal on the same site, hoping that we will all breathe a sigh of relief and accept it.

In summary ANY mast / street furniture on that location will be intrusive, out of charcter andvisually unacceptable to every single local resident.

At the very least, it should be mandated that any structure approved and installed in this areashould be "open" to all the network operators (e.g EE, 3, Vodafone etc) through a standard "mastsharing" agreement.

This proposal is absolutely unacceptable. The mast is huge compared to surroundingtrees and the cabinets are large and unsightly. This is a conservation area and it is sitting on asection of open grass with no other structures near it. It will be visible for a very long way

This should be refused and subsequent requests for smaller structures should also be refused.Surely there are other, discreet ways of achieving the same result, even if they are moreexpensive for the applicant

Residents in this area have worked for years to improve and maintain the beautifulgreen areas, the trees, the vistas, the parks, the benches, around Redland Grove. With the grade2 listed houses , the old Victorian Street lamps , and the stunning Redland Court, we have agenerally clean, welcoming and safe areas for residents, visitors their children, and dogs. To plonkan enormous phone mast in the middle of this area of grass, that towers above the trees isridiculous and an eyesore.

There must be more suitable places to put it than on a beautiful green space, wherepeople choose to have picnics and meet friends. We taught our son to ride his bike there.If planning was approved, it would completely change the landscape.

I have viewed the pan for this proposal and believe it to be completely out of kilter withthis environment. The proposed mast is enormous, dwarfing the surrounding trees and the lampposts already there. This area is a conservation area meaning we are severely limited in thedevelopment of our own properties and it is wrong for this company to impose such an enormousstructure on this local green space. There is a Victorian vista called Lovers Walk which extendsfrom Redland Court along the treelined path up the hill to Cotham Gardens School which would bethoroughly spoilt by this development. I thought the Council wanted to improve the environmentand retain green spaces, not destroy them.I also agree with another commentator that it seems daft to put a mast at the bottom of the hillrather than on high ground.I think there should be much more public consultation on this - we have been alerted byneighbours but there must be many people in the area who are not aware.

I wish to object to the planning application of the 5G mast at Redland Park Grove,Redland Rd

We have received no written notice from the council which is a breach of your duties. It is a hugedereliction of duty to fail to inform the neighbourhood of your plans, presumably so you canregister no objections.

The area in question is hugely unsuitable for a 5G mast. There are two nurseries (Snapdragons,Archfield House) and a primary school (Cotham Gdns) within very close range (20-50m) and alarge secondary school (RGS) within 400m. Planners have to provide evidence to account formast nears schools and children and I can see none.

Aesthetically, it is totally wrong for an area of much-loved parkland. The applicants have made noattempt to as required use 'existing masts, buildings and other structures for new electroniccommunications capability'

Also 'equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate' - thereis zero prospect of this being done in a such a green area of parkland.

I object strongly to the construction of this mast. There has been no medical studiesabout effects on the community of such a mast. There is a Nursery really close and the localcommunity has not been informed about its construction.

Good afternoon

I am writing to object to mast application number 22/04215/Y at the site adjacent toRedland Grove Park, Redland Road, Bristol BS67EE

Frankly the council should not spend little time in declining the placement of this mastso close to children’s facilities and homes. It should also have clearly notified residentsof the surrounding area which has not been done!

These are the reasons for my objection:

1. Public health is a material planning consideration and all evidence must beconsidered – Harm below ICNIRP safety levels is proven. ICNIRP guidelines arenot safe, and are not law.

2. Polluting effects of the radiation emitted from the proposed mast falls within theCouncils responsibility under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 / PollutionPrevention and Control Act 1999

3. ICNIRP is based on heating effects up to 30 mins for adults, the radiation fromthis mast will occur constantly (24 hrs per day) and children, adults and wildlifewill all be exposed

4. Children absorb more radiation and their developing nervous systems are moresusceptible to damage from such radiation – the proposed application is veryclose to children’s nurseries, schools and homes! How obviously wrong this is

should not need to be spelt out longform in this objection – it is a no brainer torefuse the application simply because electromagnetic radiation exposure at anylength should be avoided at all costs

5. ICNRP guidelines do not cover safety levels for wildlife6. Bristol is supposed to take pride in sustainability criteria, you have a duty to

protect our open spaces. 5G is known to be a pollutant is cannot be consideredas sustainable

7. Planning officers have a duty to keep our environment safe and supportcommunity health standards – clearly any rational person in a position ofresponsibility would never consider an application that puts children, adults andwildlife at material risk from severe harm

8. The mast is 15m tall and clearly not in keeping with the landscape that has beenpreserved to date. The application is for an unsightly blot on the landscape

Thank you for listening to us and please declare appropriate exclusion zones to stopwasting all of our time in composing / reading these objections to applications that haveno merit

I wish to object to the planning application of the 5G mast at Redland Park Grove,Redland Rd

We have received no written notice from the council which is a breach of your dutiesand an issue that will be pursued legally if you approve. It is a huge dereliction of duty tofail to inform the neighbourhood of your plans, presumably so you can register noobjections. Were it not for committed neighbours, I would have missed this deadline. Iwould like to know why we weren't informed and who was responsible and will bepursuing this via the local media

The area in question is hugely unsuitable for a 5mast. There are two nurseries(Snapdragons, Archfield House) and a primary school (Cotham Gdns) within very closerange (20-50m) and a large secondary school (RGS) within 400m. Planners have toprovide evidence to account for mast nears schools and children and I can see none. Itis tiresome to have to point this out when the companies in question have hugeresources and can just fire out applications on the off chance no one objects. As acouncil, you shouldn't even have let this application get to this stage.

Aesthetically, it is totally wrong for an area of much-loved parkland. Indeed, it beggarsbelief that you would choose to site a huge mast at the very entrance area and top ofthe Redland Grove Park. The applicants have made no attempt to as required use'existing masts, buildings and other structures for new electronic communicationscapability'

Also 'equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged whereappropriate' - there is zero prospect of this being done in a such a green area ofparkland.

In addition, the company does not provide evidence of a need for this mast. Wecurrently enjoy excellent 5G reception and there is no need for improvement or a newmast

Installing this 15m 5G mast next to Redland Grove and an open green area, is notacceptable. It would not fit in with the surroundings and would be an eyesore and depressingfeature for residents in the area, such as myself and my family, who have lived on Redland Grovefor 26 years.The location of the mast in a residential area could adversely affect families with children, elderlyresidents and a variety of wildlife, all of which could be harmed by RF-electro-magnetic emissions.

I object to this mast due to its serious health and environmental risks. It is close toschools, nurseries, a children's park, an old people's home and residential area and it is knownthat children, the elderly, and pregnant women are particularly at risk from radiation. 5G is nottested for public safety and there is no insurance for health liabilities. It will also have a negativeimpact on house prices.It is a known fact that the radiation is unsafe up to a certain radius around the mast. This has notbeen defined.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.Polluting effects of the radiation emitted from this mast falls wtihin the COuncil's responsiblityunder the Enviornmental Protectionh Act 1990 and the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999(EPA 1990, PPC 1999).

Despite living 83m from the intended site, the Council failed to notify me of this proposal or consultand invite my opinion which is in breach of consultantion practices and requirements.

Entertaining this proposal is a waste of Council resources and shows a complete failure to act inthe best interests of the people of Bristol.

Objection based on:Eyesore in a conservation area.More appropriate locations is Redland station.There has been no case for the need of another mast when there already is one off CromwellRoad and Redland Court Road

Totally unnecessary for another mast.We live on Fernbank Road and have absolutely no problem with the mobile signal.

Comment: This proposed mast would be in an area close to a school, nursery and carehome, not to mention being in a residential area, rich in wildlife also. It is thought that such mastsemit radiation, and therefore we should be very cautious.This would be a large, intrusive structure in a beautiful, unique Victorian suburb, totally contrary tothe principles of the Conservation Area.

I was shocked to discover from a neighbour this evening about this planning application.None of us have received any notice. The deadline for comments is tonight at midnight (less than3 hours from now).

The area is not suitable for a 5G mast. It is a much loved green lung within the city, used by manywho walk there with children and dogs. This is another proposed development which will detractfrom the trees and vegetation and impact negatively on the beauty of the city scape.

The proposed site is only meters away from a nursery school, and very close to other schools.There are very young nursery-aged children playing less than a minute's walk from this site. Thereis some evidence that radiation from 5G masts impacts children negatively in terms of their health.

There is also more evidence about the negative effects of 5G on insects and other wildlife such asbirds. We need to protect wildlife - Bristol is a green city and prides itself on its attitude toconserving nature.

The council should have informed neighbours. I have seen NO (zero) notices around the areaabout this proposed development. The local population would be extremely shocked if this were togo ahead without notice. 15 meters is very tall - taller than most people imagine.

I have no difficulty with mobile phone reception in this area, and I don't believe another mast is

needed.

This green space adds considerably to the aesthetic of the Redland area and is enjoyedby many local residents. A structure of this size would visually impact significantly on the spaceand is considerably taller than surrounding buildings. In particular the structure will affect thesetting of the main frontage of Redland Court. Redland Court is a listed historic building and themain frontage is viewed along the historic access road shown by the avenue of trees on Lovers'Walk.

We are writing to object to the proposed placement of a 15m 5G transmitter tower inparkland adjacent to several listed structures. We have the following concerns:

1) The proposed mast's location and size conflicts with Policy DM36. This states installationsshould "respect the character and appearance of the area and ... not be harmful to visual amenityby reason of ... siting and design." The proposed placement of the transmitter would clearlysignificantly impact the visual amenity of the park and adjacent listed buildings. The transmitter isthe height of a 4-5 storey building, taller than any surrounding structures or foliage, and would beplaced directly in front of one of Redland's few surviving 18th century views. Lovers' Walk,Redland Court and its associated gates comprise an important historic vista that has beenpreserved for centuries and is enjoyed by many residents and visitors to Bristol. The proposedplacement is in the centre of this panorama and would substantially detract from its historiccharacter.

2) The erection of the mast is not in keeping with the Code of Practice for Wireless NetworkDevelopment in England (March 2022), Paragraph 18. This states that existing structures, sitesand masts should be used wherever possible to reduce the need for new development. This newmast, from what I can determine, would be erected to serve customers of the Three networkalone. This network indeed has some of the worst 5G coverage in Bristol, but the specific area isalready served by 5G connections provided by other companies, such as EE. How have theymanaged this? Are there alternative sites that can be shared or brownfield locations that can berepurposed?

I would urge the Council to reject the current application and the applicant to investigate otheroptions for 5G provision in the area.

The proposed structure is out of character within the Redland and Cotham ConservationArea. It will detract from the open spaces used by Redland and Cotham residents and its siting sonear a grade 2 heritage building is to be deplored. The views along Lovers' Walk will be severelyeffected. No assessment is provided of potential health risks involved in its construction, norindeed of the need for this structure in the neighbourhood.

Dear sir/Madam,

I am writing to object to the 5G 15m (49.5ft) mast application at Redland Grove Park BS6 7EE

It seems odd to me that even though there is no insurance available in the UK or the US for healthliabilities associated with 5g, masts continue to be plonked on peoples doorsteps - often to theirshocked consternation.

Have you carried out a risk assessment to establish a safe area? We know 4g is harmful to peoplein close proximity for long periods of time. 5g is 24/7 and its very nature means the transmitterswould be closer to peoples houses.

It's the council's responsibility to provide a safe environment for people under EnvironmentalProtection Act 1990 and the Pollution control act 1990.

In order to do so in this case, it is vital to establish a safe area. What is it? To the nearest 10metres even? I have never received a satisfactory answer to this question from the council.

I understand the guidlines you are using to regulate exposure to the mast's emissions come fromthe ICNIRP.Is Bristol council aware that theses guidlines are for short duration exposure of a DIFFERENTtechnology? 4g and not 5g. How do these guidlines then apply to 5g?

I am opposed to bristolians being exposed to the potentially harmful effects of this mast all thetime and without being consulted.

Are you similarly aware of the international EMF scientific appeal to the united nations to warnagainst the dangers of this technology and hold a moritorium?

I would expect Bristol council to put it's resident's health and the environment before corporateprofit and would urge the council to exercise caution before allowing this mast.

Best Regards,

Alex Mitchell

I object to this proposal.

The view from the grade 2 listed Redland Court up Grove Park and Lover's Walk is an importanthistoric visual amenity of this area and as such should be protected (Code of Practice Para 28referred to in application details). This was taken into consideration during the recent developmentof Redland Court following the sale of Redland High School and was much appreciated by localresidents as we walk around the area.

The whole area is within the Cotham and Redland Conservation area which should prevent thistype of construction being erected. The proposed monopole and cabinets would be a visuallyobtrusive feature which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

Other locations seem to have been considered and ruled out due to closeness to listed buildings.However it was not clear from the proposal as to the area where a mast is required due to the'hole' in their network. As such it is hard to understand whether other locations would be moresuitable. It was also not made clear whether upgrading existing equipment might provide thecoverage that the company wants to improve.

It should be clarified as to whether this is just a problem for Hutchison's network, with otheroperators already having provision. Is there an existing solution in place from another operatormeaning that this mast is not necessary for the provision of 5G in the local area?

The area has high quality fibre broadband. It provides most if not all of the benefits claimed in thisapplication. The value of being able to stream movies while sitting in the park seems minimal. Thisis a commercial consideration for Hutchinson rather than provision of infrastructure for thecommunity.

My understanding is that the application has been submitted as 'permitted development' as it is toprovide 5G. However, the proposal is only for 3G and 4G with the potential for 5G sometime(undefined) in the future. So this construction will not actually provide 5G for the area.

This is a structure much taller than all surrounding structures.

It is in a conservation area. Previous recent planning application within the immediateneighbourhood had to be amended because of the undesirable look of the proposal. And that wasjust for a dormer.

It is surrounded by several relatively large support structures which would impact the enjoyment ofthe green space.

It is in a green space - surely these need to be protected and enjoyed rather than used forcommercial development?

It only appears to benefit one specific network.

Could an option not be found to attach this to an existing tall structure such as the cricket groundor the BRI?

1. What an eyesore this would be in a conservation area and historic green space.2. For health reasons masts such as this should not be erected in residential areas.3. Mobile phone companies should be encouraged to share masts to reduce the total numberrequired.

I object to this proposal, it is out of proportion to the surrounding area. It is unsightly andoverbearing. It would be better suited to a business park or industrial estate.

Sighting the proposed mast in this posistion would permanently destroy the beauty ofthe aspects of this location from all directions. Even sighting the cabinets here without a mastwould impinge on the natural visual harmony of this sight from multiple directions.This is a historical site, at the end of a carriage way / walk way to the former Redland school. It isa rare continous green space from the former school to the top end of Cotham Gardens. A mast orbulky street furniture in this location would interrupt the sight lines along and across this space inall directions around the proposed site. It is a popular outdoor space for the local residents and atthe junction of several popular commuting and travel routes and therefore visually disfiguring thisarea would be a significant loss of amenity.

I strongly object to these ugly eyesores, they are a huge blot on the landscape. Moreimportantly there is no safety data, some countries have already dismantled them due to majorhealth concerns. These masts and the EMF's emitting from them will affect everyones health, in allareas where these poles are allowed to be erected, and this includes, all the citizens of Bristol,BCC staff and families.... nobody will be spared!Show the safety data!

No safety trials carried out on this equipmentNext to nursery and houses - too close proximity

My husband and I strongly object to the proposed installation of a 15m high street polewith wrap around cabinet and GPS module at the top of the pole and to the 3 othercabinets mentioned.The total installation is large both in height and width and would bein full view of those who live,visit and travel in the area.Grove Park and Redland Grove is one of Bristol's acknowledged beauty spots becauseof the variety of trees and the architectural interest of its buildings--the Victorian railwaybridge ,the walkway along Grove Park and the listed building of Redland Court fromwhich their is an unrivalled view which is featured in books about Brisol.Another name for Grove Park is Lovers' Wallk.How could anyone even propose to spoilthe romance and beauty of the area by erecting a tall street pole which would be visibleall-round and from a distance. Quite simply the proposed installation would be an eye-sore tto the people who live here,to those who travel through the area regularly and tothose who come to visit a beauty spot and enjoy sitting or pic-nicing in the very areawhere it is proposed to put this unsightly installation.We object strongly to this installation being placed 'adjacent to Redland GrovePark,Redland Road.'

Yours truly

It would be very difficult to think of a worse site for a 15 metre high telecoms mast andits several associated equipment cabinets. The whole point of the Cotham and RedlandConservation Area is to preserve or enhance its special character and appearance. The proposedmast etc. would do the exact opposite. It would be an appalling blot on the particularly fine maturelandscape of Redland Grove and Redland Court - grade II* listed and recently restored. It woulddestroy the very fine view of Redland Court from the south, and spoil the view of the open spacebetween Grove Park and Redland Grove from roads to the north.

The proposal clearly doesn't comply with the Council's policy DM36, "i) The telecommunicationsequipment and installation would respect the character and appearance of the area and would notbe harmful to visual amenity by reason of its siting and design" (as quoted in the applicant's"Supplementary Information" document).

The applicant's' claim that, "The proposal fully accords with the requirements of the NPPF" isdubious, at best.a) Paragraph 189 of the NPPF states that " [Heritage] assets are an irreplaceable resource, andshould be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed fortheir contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations." Redland Grove and Courtare a landscape heritage asset.b) Paragraph 194 states that "In determining applications, local planning authorities should requirean applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected". I can see no evidencethat the applicant has done this, and the photos in the "Supplementary Information" document

tellingly fail to include Redland Court or the view of it from the south.

This application is shockingly inappropriate and I strongly object to it. Allowing it would make amockery of the Council's designation of the Cotham and Redland Conservation Area.

This proposal is much too close to a Grade 2* listed building.

Others have expressed the range of concerns I feel towards this application better thanI have and with which I wholeheartedly agree. I would only add that the height of the mast willdominate the trees and spoil an attractive, open and well-used recreational space. I strongly objectto this application.

Agree with all the other objecting comments - the mast would be an eyesore in aparticularly pretty part of the conservation area of Redland. Also in agreement that we do not need5G. Also in agreement that we don't know the long term effects of 5G on physical, emotional andmental health and not something I am prepared to find out months or years down the line.I walk through Cotham Gardens/Lovers' Walk every day and would feel most upset if they chosethis special area to put up a ghastly mast. It seems absolutely astounding to me that this is evenbeing considered. Come on Bristol council - where's your integrity?!

I am concerned that a proposal for a 15m 5G mast has been launched for installationadjacent to Redland Grove Park on Redland Road, which could adversely affect the residents inthe nearby roads as well as the wildlife. Telecoms have no right to impose this unsafe, untestedand uninsurable piece of 5G technology in such close proximity to residents and commuters inRedland. 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 Redland Road, 29m from RedlandGrove, 38m from Redland Court Road, 62m from Clarendon Road, and 83m from CarnarvonRoad. It would be 84m from Snapdragons Nursery, 417m from Redland Green School and 324mfrom Oakleigh Nursing Home. Regarding wildlife, the mast would be adjacent to Grove Park, 279mfrom Kersteman Road Allotments, 436m from Cranbrook Road Allotments and 432m fromRedland Green. Therefore this 5G mast could adversely affect families with children, elderlyresidents and a variety of wildlife including birds, small mammals and pollinating insects, all ofwhich 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 5Gdue to serious health & environmental concerns. It is also known that children, pregnant women

and 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 Redland Road and theneighbouring roads in Redland.

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 15m mast on Redland Roaddoes not declare the area to which this exclusion zone extends. There is also no evidence that theInternational Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines have takeninto account the cumulative impact of all operators equipment located in the area. Exclusion zonesare 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 84m from Snapdragons Nursery and 417m fromRedland Green School.

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 adjacent to Grove Park, 279m from Kersteman Road Allotments, 436mfrom Cranbrook Road Allotments and 432m from Redland Green. These are all significant placesthat provide much needed safe environments for fauna and flora, and for people. Planning officers

have a duty to make the environment safe and to support the community's health (NPPF 2019:8b).5G does not 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 15m (49.5ft) mast in a residential area would create anunpleasant eyesore for residents living near to Redland Road. It would certainly dominate the viewaround this residential area. I therefore ask the planning department to serve the people ofRedland 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 andevidence 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 strongly object to this proposed 5G mast which would be positioned in a whollyresidential area which I frequent regularly to visit its local parks with my family. I object to thismass roll-out in any area of this country as these masts are not within safe levels of radiation forpeople or wildlife and are particularly dangerous for children. Further information regarding thiscan be found below:

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 supposedly taking pride in aiming to be a sustainable city. It has a duty to protect its openspaces. 5G is not sustainable. 5G is a pollutant.Planning officers must ensure the environment is safe and support the community's health (NPPF

2019:8b). 5G does not support the health of its community. Exclusion zones must be declared.

The installation of this 15m 5G mast on Redland Road would also be a total eyesore for localresidents in Redland in a very prominent position and is totally unacceptable.

The proposed 5G mast would be located on the residential Redland Road, metres from RedlandGrove, 38m from Redland Court Road, 62m from Clarendon Road, and 83m . It would beextremely close to Snapdragons children's nursery, Redland Green School, Cotham GardensPrimary School and Oakleigh Nursing home. Regarding wildlife, the mast would be adjacent toGrove Park, Cotham Green park, 279m from Kersteman Road Allotments, 436m from CranbrookRoad Allotments and 432m from Redland Green. Therefore this 5G mast could adversely affectfamilies with children, elderly residents and a variety of wildlife including birds, small mammals andpollinating insects, all of which could all be harmed from RF-electro-magnetic emissions.

I am extremely concerned about this planning application and would like to object on 2grounds:

Firstly the negative visual impact on this much used area: namely a 15 metre ie nearly 50 footpole, with 2 cabinet structures, which will be highly visible at one end of Lovers Walk - a historicand very beautiful amenity for the area and public beyond. Every day 100s of people walk alongthis route - commuters going to the station or bus stops, school children walking to Redland Greenand Cotham schools, dogwalkers, members of the public just taking time out to relax, takeexercise and simply to enjoy the space. The pole and structures will detract from this beauty andimpact on peoples' feelings of wellbeing and enjoyment of nature and green space, so precious tous in the city. Put simply, I think that the structures would ruin this public space.

Secondly the impact of 5G waves on human health and nature is a matter of debate with negativeimpacts being revealed on an ongoing basis. At this stage having read a range of web sources Ido not think that there is sufficient information or research to guarantee that the masts do not posea health risk.

I just wanted to make a personal comment in addition to those just made:

For me putting the mast and boxes at the end of Lovers Walk with its lime tree walkway, would bea desecration of beauty; and instead of feeling uplifted when walking there I am sure I would feeldejected.

As for needing 5G, I am very happy with the speed of 4G.

I am extremely concerned about this planning application and would like to stronglyobject on 2 grounds:

Firstly the negative visual impact on this much used area: namely a 15 metre ie nearly 50 footpole, with 2 cabinet structures, which will be highly visible at one end of Lovers Walk - a historicand very beautiful amenity for the area and public beyond. Every day 100s of people walk alongthis route - commuters going to the station or bus stops, school children walking to Redland Greenschool, dogwalkers, member of the public just taking time out to relax, take exercise and simply toenjoy the space. The pole and structures will detract from this beauty and in my view the publics'resultant feelings of wellbeing and enjoyment of nature, vital to us in the city.

Secondly the impact of 5G waves on human health and nature is a matter of debate with negativeimpacts being revealed on an ongoing basis. At this stage having read a range of web sources Ido not think that there is sufficient information or research to guarantee that the masts do not posea health risk.

I also think that we are well served with 4G in this area. What price for internet connection andspeed? There are going to be more upgrades and a judicious view needs to be taken on thenecessity of each case and the impact on our cityscapes.

Although I understand the need for improved communication infrastructure, this site chosen isextremely poor given that the 15 m high pole and 3 cabinets will be put in the sight lines of historicopen green spaces, an avenue of lime trees and Redland Court - these spaces are used by alarge number of people on a daily basis and the proposed structures will without doubt be aneyesore.

The planning proposal fails to show the detrimental effects on the sight lines through the lines ofmature trees and views to and from Redland Court adequately, and underplays the overall visualimpact. The Council needs to protect its conservations areas - approval would be a travesty andhigh questionable given the clear adverse visual impact.

We object to the installation of a street poll and cabinet in Grove Park. There are acouple of reasons this is not a suitable location. First, this is a very beautiful neighbourhood inRedland. Lovers walk and Grove Park is used by many people throughout the day going to andfrom work, dropping kids at school, dog walking, relaxing under the lime trees and playing ballgames. Building a tower at the end of the park would not contribute to the natural beauty. It iscertainly not in keeping with keeping green spaces, nurturing wildlife and protecting what naturewe can still enjoy. Secondly, the area is heavily populated with and used by children all throughoutthe day. There is a nursery directly opposite the proposed site and several schools in the vicinity.We don't feel there is enough available evidence to say that 5G masts are safe and thereforearen't appropriate for the area.

As noted by others, such a mast should not be right in between Grove Park andGradeII-listed Redland Court.It would inevitably spoil the looks of this historic area.Surely there must be less controversial locations, such as Redland train station for example.

Further to its letter of 23 September, Kingsdown Conservation Group wishes to correctan error in its letter regarding the application:

Redland Court is, of course, listed grade II*. Furthermore, the Piers and Gates to the MainEntrance of Redland Court are listed grade II* in a separate entry. Links to both entries in HistoricEngland's website are below.

REDLAND COURT - 1291739 | Historic England https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1291739?section=official-list-entry

PIERS AND GATES TO MAIN ENTRANCE TO REDLAND COURT - 1291745 | Historic Englandhttps://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1291745?section=official-list-entry

The proposed telecoms pole and its associated cabinets would be sited on the pavementdiagonally opposite the listed entrance to Redland Court. The location could hardly be lessappropriate. The entrance gates are amongst the finest in Bristol. Kingsdown Conservation Groupurges the City Council to refuse the application.

Redland & Cotham Amenities Society objects to the proposal to install a pole in thislocation on the grounds that it would impact adversely on the setting of Redland Court and thevery important view along the avenue of trees which marks the original carriageway leading to theCourt buildings. The Court has recently undergone refurbishment to reinstate the frontage of thebuilding and locating this pole as proposed would be highly detrimental to the setting of thisattractive and important Grade II* listed building.

Kingsdown Conservation Group notes with dismay the proposed application for theinstallation of a 15 metre street pole (22/04215/Y) adjacent to Redland Grove, part of aconservation area.

The proposal claims that new telecommunication equipment is allowed within the NationalPlanning Policy Framework. But the Framework clearly states that new installations must "respectthe character of the area" and not detract from its beauty.

This vast pole would do neither. It would rise above the tree canopy (the application says it must, ifit is to work) and ruin the historic views and setting of the grade II listed Redland Court. It wouldchange the whole feel of Cotham Gardens and the surrounding streets, unchanged thus far for thelast 140 years.

There are few enough fine green spaces in this part of the city. Those we have are well-used andwell-loved. We need to protect them.

Kingsdown Conservation Group objects very strongly to this proposal.

I cannot understand why any company would consider making such an application in aConservation Area. This is the only green space in this part of the city, and it's much loved andwell-used. Views are historic and beautiful, the streets lined with grand fully-grown lime trees. Yetthis company pretends that a 15m pole plunked down in the middle of these fine views won't harmthe way everything looks and feels. For me any benefit to the public would be completelyoutweighed by the harm this dreadful installation would do to the loveliest place in Redland.Please reject this application.

I consider that the proposed position of the mast will negatively impact the views ofGrove Park when travelling east down Redland Road and also that of Redland Court, lookingnorth-west from Grove Park. I also object to it being located in the green space of Grove Park.This is the only green space in this part of the city, and it's much loved and well-used. Views arehistoric and beautiful, the streets lined with grand fully-grown lime trees.Given this is a conservation area, I cannot believe that this is the least obtrusive position for a newmast in this locality

The proposal clearly fails to respect the character, appearance and historical significance of thearea and will do untold damage to the visual amenity. The chosen location also raises questionsover the long-term protection and viability of Redland Grove Park and other similar green spaces.Whilst the applicant claims to have chosen the site in order to mitigate against the resulting view,the chosen location - when considered versus existing tree planting - will do little or nothing toscreen the apparatus from many living within the immediate vicinity, especially during Wintermonths.

I consider that the proposed position of the mast will negatively impact the views ofGrove Park when travelling east down Redland Road and also that of Redland Court, lookingnorth-west from Grove Park. I also object to it being located in the green space of Grove Park.Given this is a conservation area, I cannot believe that this is the least obtrusive positon for a newmast in this locality.

For the past 140 years, Redland Grove Park/Lovers' Walk has remained largelyunchanged and unspoilt, providing aesthetically-pleasing and valuable green space for residentsand visitors in an area where access to public parks and gardens is relatively limited.

The applicant declares that "the proposal fully accords with the requirements of the NationalPlanning Policy Framework (NPPF)", referencing Policy DM36 where "Proposals for new orupgraded telecommunications equipment and installations will be permitted provided that i) Thetelecommunications equipment and installation would respect the character and appearance of thearea and would not be harmful to visual amenity by reason of its siting and design".

Having reviewed the submitted proposals, it is clear that the development associated with thisapplication will severely detract from many of the distinguishing features of the Cotham andRedland Conservation Area as outlined in the Area's Character Appraisal.

Paragraph 7.1.7a of the Appraisal states that "[Redland Green and Redland Court] are the mostsignificant landscape areas within the Conservation Area, both with historic origins, offeringvaluable visual and recreational facilities" with examples of important local views including those"northwards from Redland Grove to Redland Court" (section 6.2) and "north from Cotham Grovetowards Redland Court" (paragraph 7.1.3j).

At this point I note that two of the alternative sites mentioned by the applicant were ruled out giventheir "proximity to [a] listed building" which I presume to be Redland Court. Given their historical

links, Redland Court, Redland Grove Park, Lovers' Walk and Cotham Gardens cannot and shouldnot be judged in isolation - any development that significantly impinges upon any one of theseshould be considered within the wider context.

To this end, paragraph 7.1.7m of the Character Appraisal states that "the character of [RedlandCourt] derives from the quality of Redland Court (Grade II*) and the landscape that forms itsapproach from the south" whilst paragraph 6.2.11 observes that "preserving the setting and viewsout from, as well as views into the Conservation Area, is vital in protecting its character andsignificance".

The proposed development places the visual amenity of the former Redland Court estate at greatrisk by locating the pole and associated infrastructure directly in the path of such valuable views, inturn significantly detracting from the character and significance of the setting and the ConservationArea as a whole.

It is also noted that Figure 107 of the Character Appraisal, a photographic view that illustrates thelandscaping and trees present on Redland Grove Park and Lovers' Walk, would be lost uponinstallation of the pole and associated infrastructure given that they would occupy the foregroundof the photograph.

As a general mitigant, the applicant states that "the proposed site has been strategically locatedaround mature tree planting, thus meaning views from residential dwellings will be obscured".

Whilst some efforts have been made to add new specimens over the past decade or so, thecurrent tree cover will provide no screening whatsoever for many residents of Redland Grove,Redland Court Road and Redland Road. I also note that the applicant openly states that the polehas to be of an increased height and to clear the tree-line in order to facilitate 5G transmissions as"vegetation including trees in the area can reduce effectiveness". This would therefore appear toplace considerable constraint upon any attempts to conceal the presence of the infrastructure andrather limits any genuine concerns for - or efforts to preserve - the visual amenity.

Furthermore, the trees of Redland Grove Park, including the avenue of Lime trees that formLovers' Walk, as well as those lining Redland Road, are deciduous. Whilst this may beadvantageous to the applicant, it will provide minimal or no screening for residents andrecreational users of the space during Winter months, in turn greatly magnifying the detrimentalimpact upon many of the sight lines considered to be of such importance to the character of thearea.

But of immediate and practical concern, the Site Location Plan, Proposed Site Plans andElevations (Drawing Number BRC25144_GA_M001_A) repeatedly estimate the neighbouringtrees to be 10 metres high, in turn proposing a 15 metre-high H3G Street Pole with the illustratedantennas sitting above the tree canopy.

This measurement - as evidenced via the bristoltrees.space tree database - represents asignificant underestimation of the true height of the trees within the immediate vicinity. If it is arequirement for the apparatus to be "taller than surrounding built and natural form to ensure itsefficient operation" (Site Specific Supplementary Information page 23) then the submitted plansare questionable in terms of their appropriateness.

As such, there are serious concerns that the likely height of the pole may ultimately need toexceed the stated 15 metres and/or require work to be carried out upon the trees (which areconsidered to be of historical significance), in turn further magnifying the impact upon visualamenity and the like outlined above.

This raises the possibility of the applicant simply amending the development post-approvalfollowing changes in legislation and/or to address 'inaccuracies' in their preparation work. Whilst Itrust that this is not a deliberate strategy, I am mindful of the precedent recently set elsewherewithin the Conservation Area whereby a Commercial development has progressed in a mannerthat does not reflect the approved plans, a case where the applicant has subsequentlyacknowledged that their initial calculations and submitted plans contained significant errors(20/04182/F).

Finally, the pole and associated apparatus as described in this application would impinge upon thepark footprint. This is concerning enough but it also sets a troubling precedent for the future. Theapplicant points to Paragraph 118 of the NPPF which specifies that planning considerations"should not seek to prevent competition between different operators".

If this application were to proceed, would it be interpreted as offering general approval of RedlandGrove Park/Lovers' Walk as a location for 5G infrastructure, providing an open invitation forequivalent applications from other operators?

Having allowed this, what other future infrastructure with prior approval status will be allowed tochip away at this site where, after 140 years of little interference, it would appear that we aresuddenly expected to forego our historical green spaces in the name of comparatively fleeting'progress'?

In summary, this proposal clearly fails to respect the character, appearance and historicalsignificance of the area and will do untold damage to the visual amenity. The chosen location alsoraises questions over the long-term protection and viability of Redland Grove Park and othersimilar green spaces.

Whilst the applicant claims to have chosen the site in order to mitigate against the resulting view,the chosen location - when considered versus existing tree planting - will do little or nothing toscreen the apparatus from many living within the immediate vicinity, especially during Winter

months.

Furthermore, the applicant appears to greatly underestimate the height of the existing tree canopywhich may well interfere with the "efficient operation" of the equipment, bringing into question theoperational viability of the plans and raising the prospect of a pole of even greater height and/orthe need for tree work, to the detriment of the historical setting and Conservation Area.

I therefore object to the application.

We desperately need this vital infrastructure. I am getting increasingly desperate withthe lack of signal in and outside my property. Not bothered about the precise location but we doneed it.