I would like to object in the strongest possible terms on the grounds of safety topedestrians and cyclists.Since the pathway and cycle route has been opened up from the old raiway bridge and Metrobusstops to Avon Crescent this has been extremelly well used especially at weekends. Avon Crescentis an esential part of the round the Floating Habour route for walkers and will remain so whateverhappens in the future with 'The Western Harbour Developement'. The non existent crossing ofAvon Crescent from the new path to Undefall yard and onward and to the swing bridge in theopposite direction is extemelly well used.Therefore there is no reason to reneg on these conditions which were put there for good reasonsthat remain very important.It is very important that trafic is calmed properly entering Avon Crescent and on through it forthese reasons.It is also imortant to the local community that the trees are replaced as promised. This would gosome way to negating the damage that was done when the Metrobus changes were made.

The initial project was considered and approved based on the application, complete witha package of associated conditions. These conditions are imposed by the LPA to offset potentialissues arising from the proposed development.

The council, of which the LPA is a part, are now seeking approval to remove of some significantconditions associated with this project which has now been completed, but for the elements withinthe conditions.

It is no longer possible to consider the proposal with a revised set of conditions to see if it wouldstill have gained approval. As such it should not be possible to waive conditions following theimplementation of a plan with which they were associated, such amendments should only beallowed prior to commencement of that plan.

Illogically the LPA are recommending approval of the removal of conditions that they themselvessaw as necessary and imposed in the first instance. However, given that the main beneficiary ofthis approval would be the applicant of which the LPA is a part, a recommendation to approve isno surprise. This arrangement is fraught with moral hazard and should not be approved for thatreason alone.

Whilst the proposal in condition 10 may not in its current form remain appropriate, no alternativescheme has been proposed to achieve the same ends as it was intended to achieve. The caseofficer suggests that a return to a state that existed prior to any work taking place is now an

acceptable outcome. So, despite the changes that have occurred as a result of the implementedplan and despite being contrary to the findings of the case officer and others who placed thecondition there in the first place and despite the fact that the core strategy and other quoted policyhas not changed in the meantime the LPA recommends approval of the council application?

In a recent report to the committee, a variety of statements are made which suggest the LPA are'gaming' the system to avoid any follow-up, appeals or enforcement actions being made.To simply drop these conditions, because the applicant has the power to do so, would be anabuse of that power and contrary to the intent of conditioned approvals.

I strongly object to this application to remove very fundamental conditions from thepreviously consented Metrobus planning application.Even with a bus gate in Cumberland Road east of Gas Ferry Road, there will still be substantialtaxi, bus, coach, car and motorcycle traffic racing down Avon Crescent. Both comprising throughtraffic, andcoaches, lorries and cars serving S.S. Great Britain and harbourside attractions and facilities, andthe expansion of the old coach parking facility in Cumberland Road. There is also a considerablequantity of large commercial vehicles which service the industrial businesses onSpike Island.You provide no evidence for the expected reductions in motor traffic along Avon Crescent.We have had first, a proposal for a shared space scheme at Avon Crescent in response to theeffects of the Metrobus scheme, and then a proposal to re-route motor traffic, which was consultedon in 2016, and funded via C.I.L.funds from the Neighbourhood Partnership.Now you are proposing to do NOTHING.Doing nothing would be unsafe, and would fail to mitigate for environmental damage in theconservation area, anddamage to the heritage of Grade 2 listed Avon Crescent, Underfall Yard and the Bonds.Metrobus built access to it's service via new walking and cycling infrastructure onto AvonCrescent. This access is now extremely heavily used by walkers and cycliststs. If you leave thisaccess onto Avon Crescent unprotected, someone will be killed by a speeding taxi, bus, coach orcar, or even motorbike.We observed for years how vehicles speed into Avon Crescent from the Nova Scotia end of the

street. This was less dangerous before the unprotected walkway/cycleway was built.The proposal to scrap the tree planting and landscaping is also quite scandalous. as these weremitigations for environmental damage done when Metrobus built the third parallel road at AvonCrescent.The shared space scheme incorporated a 'turning head' within Avon Crescent, to enable vehiclesto safely turn around. They won't be able to drive to the Louisiana/Bathurst Basin with the busgate, so will have to. Vehicles will have to do at least a three point turn into often fast-movingtraffic. Thisis not safe, and must contravene highways guidance.Please either build the shared space or re-route the motor traffic as was consulted on and funded.In 2018 the government told councils to hold back on shared space, but this has been rowed backon since. It is still possibleto honour your 2014 Metrobus planning obligations I believe.

Now that the Underfall Yard is closed until further notice it is essential that Allaboardwatersports have access between their offices and water sports site on Baltic Wharf and theirrepair shed on Avon Quay. It was previously possible to push a hand trailer with small boats viaUnderfall Yard but this is no longer possible. Opening Avon Crescent would allow such access.However I would suggest a maximum speed limit of 20mph or even 10mph.

I refer to the above planning consultation regarding Avon Crescent.

Allaboard Watersports operates from Baltic Wharf but our repair and maintenance facility is basedon Avon Quay.

Whilst this road has been closed it has been very difficult for us to move boats and equipmentbetween our sites. At times this has been possible through the Underfall Yard but this is closedindefinitely following the fire. The only alterative route is either via Hotwells via the Centre toCumberland Road or via Coronation Road to enter Cumberland Road via Redcliffe. We also movesome dinghy's by hand and this has not proved possible during the road closure.

We would request that Avon Quay is either opened to traffic or, if remaining closed, that thebarriers preventing vehilce access is largr enough for us to move boats and boat trailers betweenour sites.

I notice that one of the Councillors claims there is "near-universal public opposition" to thisproposal. How exactly was that assessment made? The Councillor concerned had been in post forless than a month when this outlandish claim was made! I have lived on Spike Island for 31 yearsand I can tell you for a fact that most local residents have found this road closure extremelyinconvenient. I think BCC would have near-universal public support from local residents if youreopen Avon Crescent.

Go ahead and reopen. Most local residents and businesses will thank you for it.

The closure made it safer for walking and cycling, why take it out?

Opening Avon Crescent to through traffic will adversely impact the safety of pedestriansthat use this very important thoroughfare around the Harbourside conservation area.The footfall in this area has increased significantly in recent years due to the excellent restorationof the Underfall Yard buildings and the neighbouring boat yard.Furthermore, pedestrians also use this road with its very narrow pavements to access Metrobusand t opening to traffic will present a risk that pedestrians will be forced onto the road due tot henarrowness of the pavement.

Reinstating traffic to Avon Cres. is essential to the benefit of residents and commerceon Spike island.The application should be viewed in the context of the entire spike island rather than the verynarrow view of Avon cres.Spike island has only two points of access/exit with a current population of 2500, projecteddevelopments increasing it to 3700together with the SS Great Britain, 180000 visitors per year. it is inconceivable to close one of theonly two routes.Regarding the level of traffic the route would carry, the bus gate on Cumberland road effectivelymakes it a no through road so there will be no traffic using it as a transit route, it will have muchless traffic than ever before.The reopening of the Chocolate path cycle route will much reduce cycling on the crescent and inanycase the application has provision for a cycle lane.With regard to pedestrians, to enter the 100m of Avon Cres they will have accessed it from eitherCumberland road or merchants road and are presented with no more hazard than they have facedon the rest of their walk, just stay on the pavement as they would anywhere else.If this route is closed all traffic will be forced through the Bathurst basin route to Redclffe andbeyond, right into the city, absolutely detrimental to air Quality and flys in the face of the CAZ

Reinstating bidirectional traffic to Avon Crescent would likely increase overall trafficvolume in the area with associated increases in air pollution and reduction in pedestrian safety.This would be contrary to the aims of the clean air zone and East Bristol LTN that the council iscurrently pursuing as well as making the area generally less pleasant for residents and visitors.

Avon Crescent also forms part of the Harbourside Walk when Underfall Yard is closed and thiswell-established footpath should be protected.

This is an area of Bristol that generally has low tree and vegetation cover, so increasing thisshould be a high priority.

2

Temporary restrictions

When Cumberland Road had to be closed in order to repair the river bank, temporary restrictionswere introduced at the junction with Cumberland Road which made Avon Crescent into a cul-de-sacfor motor vehicles but allowed cycles to enter or leave at this end. The associated lack of throughtraffic has made the pedestrian route along Avon Crescent and crossing the road safer and morepleasant.

Current proposal

The current planning application 22/05943/X asks for three conditions associated with the originalapplication 13/05648/FB to be removed. This would mean, when the current temporary restrictionsare removed, Avon Crescent would again become one-way for motor vehicles travelling towardsCumberland Road. There would be no shared space. No measures would limit the speed of vehiclesentering from the Merchants Road direction. There would be no support for pedestrians trying tocross the road on the route via Ashton Avenue Bridge.

Our objection

Bristol Walking Alliance objects to the consequences of the current proposal.

We agree that the original proposal for Avon Crescent to be shared space, with pedestrians andtraffic at the same level, is wrong. Shared space has rightly been deprecated because of the dangerof mixing pedestrians and motor traffic. It is particularly difficult for the visually impaired whocannot easily detect when they may walk in front of moving vehicles.

However, the removal of constraints as set out in the current proposal would result in a situationworse than that proposed in 18/02968/X, which (as described above) was itself refused because ofthe lack of safety for pedestrians.

In addition, the lack of tree planting, if Condition 4 is dropped, will be detrimental to theimprovement in air quality and the provision of shade to mitigate excess heat in the summer.

Our suggestion

We suggest that the temporary restrictions that have made Avon Crescent into a cul-de-sac formotor vehicles should be made permanent. This would be a simple and cost-effective solution thathas been proven to work during the many months that the temporary restrictions have been inplace.

By preventing motor vehicles from leaving Avon Crescent into Cumberland Road, and by restrictingthe width of the entry/exit point into McAdam Way, the number and speed of vehicles would bereduced sufficiently to allow pedestrians to cross the road easily. There is already good access formotor vehicles to the western part of Cumberland Road, in via Ashton Avenue or out via SmeatonRoad.

Bristol Walking Alliance12 February 2023

I OBJECT to the removal of this condition. No developer changes their application inline with updated guidance. This development must be completed as approved, or planningenforcement called in to ensure conditions are met.

The applicant has failed to comply with condition 4, which states: No development shall take placeuntil there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailsfor 55 replacement trees to be planted in the approved locations, or alternative locations to beagreed by the Local Planning Authority"Development has taken place, and no replacement tress have been planted, or alternativelocations agreed, so the applicant is in breach of this condition. To apply to remove the condition isan attempt to avoid scrutiny by planning control.

The applicant has failed to comply with condition 10 which states: Unless alternative times forimplementation are otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the scheme shallbe implemented in accordance with the plans approved under this condition prior to thecommencement of the AVTM.No alternative times for implementation have been agreed in writing. THe AVTM has commentedbefore approved plans were agreed, thus the applicant is in breach of this condition. To apply toremove the condition is an attempt to avoid scrutiny by planning control.

The applicant has failed to comply with condition 13 which states: The construction of thedevelopment hereby approved shall not proceed other than in accordance with the approved

Works Programme Phasing Plan (drawing ref: 201749-PA-52 P4, received 8 January 2016) unlessthe Local Planning Authority gives written consent for any variation.There has been no written consent for variation. The applicant has failed to construct thedevelopment in accordance with the approved works programme phasing plan, thus the applicantis in breach of the planning condition.

The Metrobus AVTM planning consent granted in 2014, included a shared spacescheme at Avon Crescent, with a turning head and £40,000 woth of trees. Shared space meantthat cars, buses and trucks would have to go at the same speed as people on foot, as the spacewould be shared.The landscaping and trees were to mitigate for other environmental damage. The shared space toensure the safety of pedestrians and cyclists using Avon Crescent, and the new MetrobusCycleway, walkway.To simply apply now to scrap all the Metrobus safety and environmental condition because youdon't want to pay for them is scandalous.The conditions ARE imposed for the safe operation of Metrobus and its ancillary walking / cyclinginfrastructure. To say otherwise is wrong.Please build what Metrobus consent was conditional upon. Shared space, turning head, diagonalparking and trees.Please do not consent to this application, and please do not be blackmailed by any threat by thecouncil's planning department to appeal it's own application, were it to be refused by it'sdemocratically elected development control committee.Contrary to what the Arup planning officer says, Avon Crescent will not be a cul de sac. It willrevert to being a very heavily used highway for taxis, buses and motorbikes as a through-road 'ratrun' and will still take very substantial quantities of access traffic. There are several commercialbusinesses reliant on trucks, and the S.S. Gt Britain. There is an awful lot of Harbour leisure trafficfor people sailing, paddleboarding, visiting pubs and restaurants. Parking in the SS Gt Britain carpark. Construction traffic for all proposed flats. Access traffic will substantial.

Please refuse this application.

If this application to scrap all the 2014 Metrobus planning conditions is given consent,nobody will believe a single planning promise/obligation in the future. It bodes very badly forWestern Harbour when it is developed.That is to say, this could set a very bad precedent, and will totally lose any public trust in theBristol City Council planning process.

I object to the above application, particularly to the way that it affects adversely theresidents of Avon Crescent and Cumberland Road and indeed betrays long standing commitmentsmade to them about traffic calming the entrance to Spike Island via Avon Crescent.I was the MP for Bristol West when MetroBus was planned. It's impact on Cumberland Road andthe streets off it was controversial at the time. Residents were given assurances about minimisingthrough traffic and that Avon Crescent in particular would be made a far safer place for residents,as well as walkers and cyclists coming through the area.While the road has been closed (due to the landslip on the river bank on Cumberland Rd) thestreet has been quiet, with people now used to being able to walk, run or cycle safely. It isimperative that the council puts in place traffic calming measures including chicanes and trees toslow dramatically motor traffic entering from Hotwells. These measures must be in place beforeany re-opening of the road.The council should honour previous commitments and make Avon Crescent safe and sustainablegoing forward.

I would like to object to this application in the strongest possible terms.

While I am now a private citizen of Bristol, at the time of the application I was the local councillorfor the ward of Hotwells & Harbourside, the ward in which the site sits. I resigned on December16th due to health reasons, the day after the planning permission was received and validated.

I find it incredibly troubling that the Council would continue with the planning application whenthere is not a local councillor in place to defend the interests of residents. I am glad to have foundout that this decision will be called in before planning committee rather than being a delegateddecision.

When the Metrobus route was put in place, the residents of Avon Crescent were made a legallybinding promise to plant trees and create a shared space. Now, many years later, after theresidents have tried hard to progress this planning application, the Council is shirking on it'spromise.

I do not believe that you have demonstrated that the traffic along Avon Crescent will fallsubstantially with the imposition of a new bus gate, as buses, taxis, motorbikes, cyclists, scootersand pedestrians will all still be able to use the space, with little protection for the latter. There areno traffic or environmental impact reports included within this application. A finger in the windguess of a 'tangible reduction' is simply not good enough.

Before the barriers were placed on Avon Crescent, the area was dangerous for pedestrians, asvehicles would drive at high speeds along the road. Since the barriers have been in place, thearea has welcomed regular high traffic of pedestrians & cyclists, as they know they are protected.Without traffic calming/shared space restrictions, vehicles will continue to speed along the road(even if it is only taxis & motorbikes that would be permitted through the bus gate). This is adanger to pedestrians, and needs extensive thought & consultation, including the proper reportsbeing completed, before any decision should be made.

Furthermore, the proposal to remove Condition 4 from the planning application is a grave mistake.Hotwells & Harbourside has the lowest level of tree cover in the city, proposing to plant the tree'scitywide (at a reduced number of 24 rather than the original number of 55 I may add), will be ofdetriment to local residents and the many other people that walk & cycle through the area. I alsodo not think it complies with local or national planning policy. Trees should be planted within a 1mile radius, and within the same Area Committee. A vague statement of paying for tree plantingon a citywide basis is unacceptable and in contravention of policy.

The money for this project has been sat in CIL holdings for many years, and no matter how muchlocal residents have tried to push it forward, the council, officers and relevant Cabinet membershave obfuscated, and are now trying to remove it all together.

This is fundamentally wrong, and I hope the Development Committee will see as such and refusepermission for these changes to the original planning application.

We object to the proposal on the grounds that there has been no consultation by councilwith local residents. The opening of the road as currently planned will be a massive health andsafety risk and there is currently no evidence to support the claims in the proposal that the metro'sgate will alleviate the traffic coming through Avon crescent.

Finally, the process by which this has been handled has been anti democratic.

I strongly object to this 3rd time around application by Bristol Council Officers, who areagain applying to themselves to retrospectively remove the following conditions that it is already inbreach of, and which it has also consistently failed to enforce. This is contrary to; itsresponsibilities as both a highways and as a Planning Authority, numerous Local Plan policies;and its posturing about the Climate Emergency (when it suits them rather than when it matters tous all).

Their proposal to -

1. Remove the outstanding Safe Shared Space/or Vehicular Traffic Re-routing conditions of theAVTM Metrobus scheme onto the immediately parallel main road.2. Not providing and implementing an approved landscaping scheme inclusive of an in-situreplacement of lost trees (rather than the applicant saying its paying itself to plant some trees atsome unspecific and un-auditable future/other, time and locations) is place somewhere non-replacement elemtn trees sometime somewhere is trees)3. Remove its outstanding obligation to have included (and thus implemented) the required works(at Avon Crescent) within an AVTM programmed works schedule (as per and in accordance withthe scheme proposal's Secretary of State's Transport Works Order

Not only has numerous specific negative public road safety, access, mobility, equalities, wellbeingand sustainability implications (all contrary to policies) it also adds further to the significantenvironmental damage and biodiversity loss that is AVTMs construction legacy. Its attempt to

remove Condition 13 is but an attempt to sweep away how officers with implementation andcondition-oversight responsibilities purposefully and collusively excluded the timely scheduling ofconditional requirements into the permissioned development.

Applying (again) is bad enough but if the Planning Committee allowed the removal of these safety,environmental (and what remain outstanding) critical public access Metrobus developmentconditions - based on a ludicrous and retrospective claim that not providing safe assess to a publictransport scheme, adds no value, isn't required and is somehow contrary to Government adviceand guidance - would not only brings Bristol Council into disrepute in a manner that seriouslyerodes local and wider trust in the planning system and its enforcement - it also sets a verydangerous precedent that any other 'developer/planning applicant' can and should expect thatthey can avoid enforcement by the Council as an LPA and over many years just keep repeatedlyapplying to have any of their public safety, accessibility and/or environmental conditions andobligations removed.

The applicant attempts to claim that - the integral elements and conditions of the AVTM schemeand its approval that are a Shared Space Scheme for the whole of Avon Crescent (or thealternative Re-routing) are 'no longer considered appropriate (by who?) to make any furtherchanges to Avon Crescent...the original design of a shared space is now contrary to governmentadvice'.

In doing so they provide a highly selective and distortive representation of; an equalities issuesthat was raised, a brief period of pause and a cautionary clarifying note dating from pre-covidabout (implementing entirely curbless) shared space. They are using this to falsely seek to justifyan otherwise unsupported rationale that any sort or 'shared space scheme (or providing any roadsafety measures!) at this location is somehow inappropriate. If this is the case, how is itappropriate for the applicant to have sought and secured by Council Cabinet (24/02/23) £5.2m ofCRST & Liveable Neighbourhood funding (much of in and around Clifton) to enhance/completeand make permanent safe streetspace schemes in other places?

The claim that shared space obligations and safety implementation are no longer needed becausethe proposed (but not approved or implemented) Bus Gate on Cumberland Rd 'will significantlyreduce the level of traffic using Avon Crescent' does nothing to address speed, poor sightlines andthus risks, dangers and accessible use by all but drivers. The Bus gate is uncertain and would stillallow significant numbers of through-vehicles. It is also deeply divisive and reflective of how theCouncil has sought to pit communities against each other to avoid meeting its AVTM schemeobligations (given the access concerns raised by neighbours across Spike Islands about howrestrictive an eastwards Bus Gate on Cumberland Road that they could not pass would be).

I would also like reference and to add my support to, rather than just repeat (almost) all the otherobjecting comments.

A planning map with no plan of what this application is applying to change (i.e. whatwas included in the approval AVTM planning permission and is proposed to be removed) ismisleading, inadequate and procedurally inappropriate. It fundamentally compromises thestatutory consultative process.

I strongly object to to the council's planning application to simply remove the AvonCrescent barriers and do nothing elseto calm traffic, and make it safer. At least the previous application which was refused, tried to do afew traffic-calming measures. This new application offers nothing.Vehicles will still belt round the blind bend from the Nova Scotia end of the street.People are now used to sharing the road with cyclists and slow-moving vehicles. The road hasbeen used by default as 'shared space' for two years now.The Metrobus cycleway access onto Avon Crescent will be particularly dangerous, as people willnot anticipate meeting a speeding rat-running taxi or any other vehicle

I strongly object to this application, particularly as it comes at precisely a short periodwhen local residents of the ward are awaiting the appointment of a counsellor to represent theirinterests.The residents were promised shared space improvements and traffic calming measures as acondition of Metrobus planning consent, BCC continue to be in breach of it's own planningconditions.Avon Crescent has suffered for many years as a "rat run" for speeding vehicles entering from theNova Scotia end. In fact the previous owners of my home were members of CommunitySpeedwatch. They were particularly concerned about the risk of a collision due to the speed oftraffic. The opening up of the path to the Metrobus stop near the old railway bridge hasconsiderably increased the volume of pedestrians and cyclists crossing Avon Crescent (AC)andthe re-opening of the Chocolate path can only exacerbate the risk.Since the closure of AC at the eastern end, there has been a massive increase in the number ofwalkers, joggers, cyclists, wheelchair and pushchair users etc enjoying the de facto shared space.It would seem folly to reopen the road without putting in significant traffic calming measures or re-routing.AC is and important part of the old dock heritage, is grade 2 listed and should be protected assuch. It forms a vital part of the wonderful circular walk around the historic Bristol harbourside,enjoyed by locals and the many visitors alike. I have enjoyed many conversations with walkerswho have expressed delight at the calm environment. The pavement - which is only one one sideof AC - is far too narrow for this volume of traffic which forces users into the road. To re-openwithout making any of the promised changes would quite simply be creating "an accident waiting

to happen".My objection is no pure act of nimbyism but a heartfelt plea not to pursue this reckless act. Youmust not wait for an accident before realising the original proposal was correct. That would shameBCC. Drop this proposal to remove the 3 conditions, engage in meaningful dialogue with our newcounsellor and local residents and without the BCC lawyers. Serve the public in an open andtransparent manner and work together to create a safe place for all users and NOT solelymotorists.

It is too dangerous to open avon crescent to traffic. A huge amount of people use it forwalking cycling and jogging. Hoards of people cross from the metro bus road road onto AC.THE COMMUNITY HAS PETIONED THOUDANDS OF SIGNATURES, PLANS HAVE BEENSHOWN TO REDIRECT TRAFFIC.As part of the metro bus plans AC was supposed to get, at the very least, shared space and trees.The 2metro bus stops disgorge passengers onto AC so the Street is part of the metro bus.A.C is as old as the Docks so it should be respected and be included in the history and treated assuch.Everyone in planning, council, roads all of you, over the years have been a complete bunch oflying, greedy, unsupportive,a holes. Not surprised but it would be amazing for some one to take it upon themselves to do thelogical, sensible thing.

I am concerned about proposals to re-open Avon Crescent.

The Council has failed to undertake the works required to close the southern end of AvonCrescent to motor vehicles. In the meantime, the southern end has been TEMPORARILY closedto motor vehicles. The change has significantly changed the character of Avon Crescent.

Avon Crescent is a key walking and cycling route enabling people to walk from one side of theharbour to the other. For many people, walking or cycling around the harbourside is a frequentjourney.

The footway on the east side of Avon Crescent is very narrow and totally unsuitable andinadequate for the amount of pedestrian traffic now using Avon Crescent (particularly on aweekend).

There is no footway on the west side of Avon Crescent.

The planning conditions with regard to Avon Crescent should be implemented. There is no validreason for Avon Crescent to be re-opened to all traffic,

Fully re-opening Avon Crescent will create an unnecessary danger to pedestrians and cyclists.

I hope that the timing of this application, while the ward is not represented by a Councillor, is a

coincidence and not deliberate timing by the council.

I OBJECT to the removal of planning conditions relating to Avon Crescent.

Re-opening Avon Crescent to two-way traffic is an unsafe decision, even with trafficcalming measures, although none have been proposed. This is reckless action by BCC. Vehicleswill still exceed the speed limit round the blind bend from the Nova Scotia end of Avon Crescent.Pedestrians are now used to sharing the road with cyclists and slow-moving vehicles. The roadhas been used by default as 'shared space' for two years now.The Metrobus cycleway access onto Avon Crescent will be particularly dangerous, as people willnot anticipate meeting a speeding rat-running taxi or any other vehicle.

I have two small children and crossing our road (Avon Crescent) with speeding traffic could befatal. I wholeheartedly object to these plans. A logical re-routing plan was agreed by BCC. Thisshould be re-visited as a sensible alternative.

I object to this planning application in its entirety.There has been no consultation with residents about the removal of these important conditions.If Metrobus are let off condition 4 by making a contribution to city wide tree planting there's noguarantee that we will get the original requirement for landscaping in our area. Parts of the areaare in dire need of landscaping.

Avon Crescent must not be returned to two way traffic as it was before the Metrobus and theworks along Cumberland Road. For many years there have been sever problems with traffic usingAvon Crescent The re routing of traffic in recent years due to the river bank collapse onCumberland Road has shown that traffic has had no problem in using the alternative and saferroute over Smeaton Road bridge. And please don't bring up the old chestnut of Avon Crescentneeding to be used for long loads. Clearly it is not needed for that purpose. Long vehicles useSmeaton Bridge west/east as necessary during the Cumberland Road works.Avon Crescent has now become a pedestrian friendly area with a greatly increased use bycyclists, runners, visitors walking the harbourside, pedestrians using the through walkway fromunder Smeaton Road bridge and football etc crowds to and from Ashton Gate stadium.Conditions relating to design, layout etc of Avon Crescent must not be removed. The temporarybarriers of the last few years should become permanent. They have benefitted the area for allusers as you wold have seen had you visited the area regularly.

A cynic would say that you are rushing through this planning application when we are without alocal councillor to voice our objections and take the application to a full hearing of the Planning

Ctte.

Public Comment "support" at 18th January looks to be incorrect as it seems to object to theapplication.

Regarding the removal of barriers on Avon Crescent.I'm utterly devastated at the idea of the barriers on Avon Crescent being removed.Do you people actually know Avon Crescent? Are you aware that it has been an extremelydangerous 'rat run' for many years?Since the barriers were put in place on Avon Crescent it has been a breath of fresh air and a safeplace for thousands of people wandering around the harbour - including tourists.Are you aware that residents can only park on the opposite side of the road?Plus we have only one pavement. .Do you realise that you are putting OUR LIVES in DANGER by removing the barriers - PLUS theLIVES oF THOUSANDS of people (inc schoolchildren) who now view Avon Crescent as a safeplace to walk/run/cycle/scoot at their leisure?I find your attitude towards the blatant lack of safety on Avon Crescent utterly reprehensible.You are riding roughshod over the lives of the thousands of people who want Avon Crescent to bea SAFE PLACE.Shame on you all.

I would like to object to this application in the strongest possible terms on the grounds ofpedestrian safety. Avon Crescent has been a shared space for the last two and a half years andthe large volume of people using it are now used to this. The underpass path which was createdfor pedestrian access from the old railway bridge to Ashton Court and Southville as well as theChocolate path, when it is back in use, and the bus stops for Metro bus. this means there is a verylarge amount of people and bycicles crossing Avon Crescent to go both ways on the other side.Avon Cescent is also the main walk around the floating Harbour especialy when Underfall yard isclosed. It was always promosed and indeed a planning condition for the Metro Bus that AvonCrescent would be shared space and this should still be honoured. Money was I believe actuallyearmarked for it.If traffic is allowed to flow from the small swing bridge straight into Avon Crescent as it previouslywas, it will inevitabley travel too fast as it previously did. The volume of trafic will once again beincreasing as all the building of flats is finished along the south side of the harbour. The Roadcannot be allowed to open again without severe restrictions being implemented such as theshared space that was originaly promised.

In addition to the points already raised in objection to this application with which I agree,at a broader level I would question the process being employed in which the council are seeking towaive the conditions by which they obtained planning in the first instance. A win for the council, butwithout any consideration for those who accepted the initial proposals based on the conditionsnow being removed, or for the vision they created. This is Bristol City abusing its powers or at thevery least marking their own homework.I am unable to follow the logic where-by the existing layout is also the proposed future layout, asthere are currently traffic barriers at both end of the crescent preventing a flow of anything but twowheeled vehicles onto Cumberland Road. Removal of the barriers at either end of the crescent willinevitably result in a resumption of large volumes of traffic cutting through to Cumberland Road asthe bus gate allows other classes of vehicles through in addition to busses. The applicationpresents no data to support the planning officer view of likely volumes.Prior to the traffic restrictions in Avon Crescent, traffic heading east from the Merchants Road(junction lock bridge) would enter the crescent using the north east branch of the flare (nowclosed) without slowing or in many instances indicating. This was dangerous enough previously,but now with the intentionally enhanced levels of foot and cycle traffic across the Aston SwingBridge and in to the crescent it would be madness.If the crescent is to be reopened to through traffic it would require the north east access road (nowclosed) to remain closed such that traffic would need to actively slow and make a distinct left turnso as to give pedestrians the opportunity so see traffic entering the crescent and clear the road.Bristol City should have to make good on the promises they made in relation to the Metrobusscheme or at the very least have the matter considered by an external body not simply pushed

through with 800 words from a council employee.

In addition to the points already raised in objection to this application with which I agree,at a broader level I would question the process being employed in which the council are seeking towaive the conditions by which they obtained planning in the first instance. A win for the council, butwithout any consideration for those who accepted the initial proposals based on the conditionsnow being removed, or for the vision they created. This is Bristol City abusing its powers or at thevery least marking their own homework.I am unable to follow the logic where-by the existing layout is also the proposed future layout, asthere are currently traffic barriers at both end of the crescent preventing a flow of anything but twowheeled vehicles onto Cumberland Road. Removal of the barriers at either end of the crescent willinevitably result in a resumption of large volumes of traffic cutting through to Cumberland Road asthe bus gate allows other classes of vehicles through in addition to busses. The applicationpresents no data to support the planning officer view of likely volumes.Prior to the traffic restrictions in Avon Crescent, traffic heading east from the Merchants Road(junction lock bridge) would enter the crescent using the north east branch of the flare (nowclosed) without slowing or in many instances indicating. This was dangerous enough previously,but now with the intentionally enhanced levels of foot and cycle traffic across the Aston SwingBridge and in to the crescent it would be madness.If the crescent is to be reopened to through traffic it would require the north east access road (nowclosed) to remain closed such that traffic would need to actively slow and make a distinct left turnso as to give pedestrians the opportunity so see traffic entering the crescent and clear the road.Bristol City should have to make good on the promises they made in relation to the Metrobusscheme or at the very least have the matter considered by an external body not simply pushed

through with 800 words from a council employee.

Please do not remove the barriers at the end of Avon Crescent, the amount of speedingtraffic that used to use the road was unbearable. I saw so many near accidents on the road and itwas virtually impossible to cross the road.

"Avon Crescent was an awful rat road before and making it one way helped but it was not waspromised after years of discussions. Shared space is what was promised/needed especially withthe huge increase in people using the under pass to and fro to Southville, Ashton Court, the riverand the football ground.

Object

AC was an awful rat road before and making it one way helped but it was not waspromised after years of discussions. Shared space is what was promised/needed especially withthe huge increase in people using the under pass to and fro to Southville, Ashton Court, the riverand the football ground.AC is as old as the docks so should be afforded the same care.

There is a lot of pedestrian traffic these daysIt will be an accident waiting to happen

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Dear Sir / Madam,

I would like to strongly object against removal of the barriers at Avon Crescent. This street is often

full of pedestrians, joggers, dog walkers and children. Removal of the barriers means the return of

dangerously speeding cars on this street and a dangerous accident is more than likely to happen. I

know that well because even now there are often people walking in front of cars or small kids

speeding on their bikes around the place. The street has been a shared space for overt two years

now. During lockdowns we saw crowds of people walking outside on their daily walks. This space

should be protected for locals and tourists to enjoy, not be turned into a busy road again.

Thank you

Who says there will be a 'tangible' reduction in traffic along Avon Crescent? Is there afigure for this? Where is the traffic or environmental impact report? There will be all the previoustraffic to existing places - the Cottage, SS Great Britain, Baltic Wharf and all the future traffic toMcArthurs development, Gas Ferry road development and the new development at Baltic Wharf toname just the current ones in the pipeline. Plus all the speeding taxis which will be allowedthrough the bus gate. Not exactly a cul-de-sac.It's too early to say the road can just be reopened safely with absolutely none of the changes thatprevious plans have recognised as necessary - a tighter turn into the road to slow traffic at theNova Scotia end, a crossing from the walk through to Metrobus, wider pavement and features thatwill prevent traffic speeding up as it goes round a blind bend to where other people cross at theend of the road or to the steps. Even if some of the 'objectives for changes' are met by a reductionin traffic volume, the crucial one of safety is not.The conditions for Metrobus to receive permission cannot just be swept aside by saying they are'no longer considered appropriate'. The condition regarding landscaping and trees were for thisarea not just for a city-wide pot. Condition 10 requiring 'full design details' was to mitigate for thedamage of building a third road through an area of listed heritage assets. It was never to do withthe operation of Metrobus or to 'add value' to the service. This condition still needs to be met by asensitive and safe scheme even if shared space is a discredited concept.This is an outrageous application to duck the responsibility to fulfil conditions rightfully imposed,just on the basis of wishful thinking.

I strongly object to this application to remove very fundamental conditions from thepreviously consented Metrobus planning application.Even with a bus gate in Cumberland Road east of Gas Ferry Road, there will still be substantialtaxi, bus,coach, car and motorcycle traffic racing down Avon Crescent. Both comprising through traffic, andcoaches, lorries and cars serving S.S. Great Britain and harbourside attractions and facilities, andpotentially the reinstatement of the old coach parking facility in Cumberland Road. There is also aconsiderable quantity of large commercial vehicles which service the industrial businesses onSpike Island.You provide no evidence for the expected reductions in motor traffic along Avon Crescent.We have had first, a proposal for a shared space scheme at Avon Crescent in response to theeffects of the Metrobus scheme, and then a proposal to re-route motor traffic, which was consultedon in 2016, and funded via C.I.L.funds from the Neighbourhood Partnership.Now you are proposing to do NOTHING.Doing nothing would be unsafe, and would fail to mitigate for environmental damage in theconservation area, anddamage to the heritage of Grade 2 listed Avon Crescent, Underfall Yard and the Bonds.Metrobus built access to it's service via new walking and cycling infrastructure onto AvonCrescent. This access is now extremely heavily used by walkers and cycliststs. If you leave thisaccess onto Avon Crescent unprotected, someone will be killed by a speeding taxi, bus, coach orcar, or even motorbike.We observed for years how vehicles speed into Avon Crescent from the Nova Scotia end of the

street. This was less dangerous before the unprotected walkway/cycleway was built.The proposal to scrap the tree planting and landscaping is also quite scandalous. as these weremitigations for environmental damage done when Metrobus built the third parallel road at AvonCrescent.The shared space scheme incorporated a 'turnig head' within Avon Crescent, to enable vehicles tosafely turn around. They won't be able to drive to the Louisiana/Bathurst Basin with the bus gate,so will have to. Vehicles will have to do at least a three point turn into often fast-moving traffic. Thisis not safe, and must contravene highways guidance.Please either build the shared space or re-route the motor traffic as was consulted on and funded.In 2018 the government told councils to hold back on shared space, but this has been rowed backon since. It is till possibleto honour your 2014 Metrobus planning obligations I believe.