Additional Comments – 23 September 2024

2

A previous application here was refused partly on the ground that the new buildings were

too close to the protected beech tree. This application sets the buildings back from the

beech a little, meaning that the Root Protection Area (RPA) can be protected. It is likely

that the proximity is such that the crown of the beech will need to be managed for size

in future. However, since the site was not characterised by large-crowned trees prior to

the site clearance, I don't consider the need to manage the crown size to represent a loss

to the landscape. I therefore have no objection to this configuration around the beech.

Accordingly, and as the applicant now proposes, this tree will be retained and integrated into

the proposal.

We also note the Tree Officer’s comments on the number of trees to include in the BTRS

calculation. Using the 2017 survey, we identified 35 onsite trees, of which 34 have been

removed. If the trees in tree group H11 are excluded, 31 replacement trees will be required

under the BTRS. If the 24 trees in H11 are included, the number rises to 55.

We do not take issue with the number of onsite trees to be planted for the purposes of the

BTRS, even though those trees planted in private gardens may not be credited when the

biodiversity gain calculation is undertaken, as we have already noted.

Biodiversity

The Inspector also made a number of important comments about the effect of the loss of

biodiversity in the latest refused appeal. In particular, he concluded at paragraph 26:

In the absence of a policy within the development plan which specifically requires

development to deliver a net gain in biodiversity, a gain has been sought in accordance

with national policy set out within the Framework. As the application pre-dates the

statutory regime, the gain sought is non-specific in scale ... It remains the case that

there is no requirement to use any particular version of the metric in relation to the

non-specific gain sought.

When referring to the ‘Framework’, the Inspector means the National Planning Policy

Framework.4 This states, at paragraph 180 d), that: ‘decisions should contribute to and enhance

the natural and local environment by ... providing net gains for biodiversity’. This application

also predates the statutory biodiversity net gain obligations which came into force on 12

February 2024;5 it was submitted on 16 December 2022 and validated on 03 January 2023.

It is notable that paragraph 185 d) of the Framework requires that plans should ‘... identify

and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity [our emphasis].

Given that the only mechanism to identify ‘measurable’ gains is the biodiversity net gain

metric, it follows that the earlier reference to ‘net gains for biodiversity’ at paragraph 180 d)

also anticipates that a metric calculation to be undertaken to establish the ‘net gains’.

The applicant has served biodiversity gain evidence. While this claims to be based on the Defra

4 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/669a25e9a3c2a28abb50d2b4/NPPF_December_2023.pdf 5 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain

Additional Comments – 23 September 2024

3

Biodiversity Metric 4.0 (BNG 4.0),6 the metric calculation published in support of its application

uses the now-obligatory Statutory Metric.7 This calculation sets a minimum net gain target of

10%. In doing so, the applicant has signalled its willingness to be bound by this target and the

obligations imposed by the statutory scheme, notwithstanding the views of the Inspector.

Even if this is not accepted and the conclusion of the Inspector in the recent failed appeal

applies, the applicant’s own calculations still show net losses of -2.10% of area habitat and -

65.08% of hedgerow habitat. This does not meet the requirements of the Framework.

While the date for assessing the baseline condition of the site, including the trees growing

there, was accepted by the Inspector in the earlier appeal as the 2017 survey,8 the Inspector

in the most recent appeal does not address this. Our calculations are also based on this and, in

particular, on the tree survey undertaken on 17 February 2017. This was produced by the

applicant in support of both of their two then pending planning applications, 17/05016/F9 and

21/04865/F,10 dated 17/08/2017 and 11/07/2018 respectively.

In addition to this, paragraph 6 of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

states that:

If—

(a) a person carries on activities on land on or after 30 January 2020 otherwise than in

accordance with—

(i) planning permission, or

(ii) any other permission of a kind specified by the Secretary of State by regulations,

and

(b) as a result of the activities the biodiversity value of the onsite habitat referred to in

paragraph 5(1) is lower on the relevant date than it would otherwise have been,

the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat is to be taken to be its

biodiversity value immediately before the carrying on of the activities.11

A Google Earth image of the site, dated March 2020, shows that all the trees identified in the

2017 survey were still present. However, by the time the next published Google Earth image

was published, in May 2021, most of them had been removed. By the time the next image was

published, in March 2022, all the remaining trees were gone save for the Copper Beech.

Accordingly, under Schedule 7A above, the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite

habitat must be taken to be its biodiversity value immediately before the removal of the trees.

The 2017 survey reports are evidence of the trees that were present prior to their removal.

6 22_05967_F-BIODIVERSITY_NET_GAIN_METRIC_CALCULATION-3604018 7 22_05967_F-BIODIVERSITY_NET_GAIN_DESIGN_STAGE_REPORT-3604016 8 Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/W/22/3305852, paragraph 70. 9 https://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OVYXXXDNGIZ00 10 https://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=QZ2N8JDNJNF00 11 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/schedule/7A

Additional Comments – 23 September 2024

4

Our calculations of the lost biodiversity, which take account of these lost trees and use the

Statutory Metric, disclose a far greater loss – -55.98% – than the applicant accepts, even when

the retained Copper Beech is credited. If BNG 4.0 is used, the losses are even higher at -

98.92%.12

The applicant also acknowledges that its proposals fail to meet the metric requirements to

comply with the habitat trading rules (paragraph 3.2.6 of their Biodiversity Net Gain Design

Stage Report13). Both of our BNG 4.0 and Statutory Metric calculations confirm this.

As we have already observed, the offsetting proposals set out at paragraph 9.1.2 of their report

– ‘provide ecologically valuable habitats such as an ecopond, bird and bat boxes that will

provide a range of opportunities for wildlife’ - do not comply with the biodiversity net gain

requirements.

As this does not comply with either the voluntarily adopted statutory biodiversity net gain

calculation and obligations or with the requirements of the Framework, this application must

still be refused.

12 This is because of the way that that the two metrics calculate the baseline habitat area of Individual trees habitat. 13 22_05967_F-BIODIVERSITY_NET_GAIN_METRIC_CALCULATION-3604018

Dear SirWe have concerns about the recent submissions that have been made on Application22/05967/FThe original application was a duplicate of an earlier one that was declined when it wentto Appeal yet no decision was made on this application and the property has furtherdeclined with constant vandalism and fires causing it to be a safety hazard to theadjoining Listed Buildings and an eyesore in our Conservation village.We understand that the Developers and their Agents were advised that this Applicationwould be declined and they should put in a new Application? Instead they ignored thisadvice from the Planning Office and put in new Submissions in June 2023.Since then nothing has happened until 4th January 2024 when we note the Applicationchanged to 16 Houses and 4 Apartments yet the report from the Strategy & EnergyTeam describes 14 Houses and 6 no. apartments? The description of these houses haschanged and they are now discussing disability friendly ones?

This could be great news, however, without more information we still have graveconcerns?Several of of our Members have asked about the 'building of local interest 'as theApplication detail says 'demolition of floristry buildings'? The earlier documents indicatethe removal of a Beech Tree despite its protected status and access from AvonwoodClose which residents strongly oppose.

We feel that as this Application has been significantly altered a new Application shouldbe raised and processed with Residents full consultation rather than risk this 'old'application getting Accepted without even getting to Committee stage?

Please can you consider Residents and our Members concerns and advise usaccordingly

Regards

I object to this planning application.

Very little has changed in the submission of revised details to this planning application.

There has been no change to address public concern about the traffic volume and parking inAvonwood Close, a small cul-de-sac, which inevitably would cause increased noise, pollution,danger and chaos. The cul-de-sac currently experiences difficulties with traffic issues and thereare frequently problems with manoeuvrability at the end of the cul-de-sac. Access to the siteshould not therefore be via Avonwood Close but remain as it has done for many years via StationRoad providing ample in and out access.

Parking is already an issue in Shirehampton, and looking at the revised site plan, the parkingallocated on site looks well below what would be required if many of the proposed properties wereto have 1 or 2 vehicles per household - where would the overspill parking be?

Has it been overlooked that this site is set in a conservation area?. For many years the site hashoused a quiet low level garden centre with minimal disruption to the neighbours and thesurrounding area, providing a much needed place for wild life, birds, trees and plants, giving aquality to the area which is in Shirehampton bit by bit sadly diminishing. Any development on thissite should be aiming to provide more landscaping and outdoor space for people to enjoy and togive something to the community and not over-populate a small area.

Inevitably something needs to be done with this site, but this should be carefully considered and

perhaps it would be more suited to lower level housing such as bungalow style homes, with anopportunity to provide accommodation for the elderly giving them an opportunity to be close to allthe local amenities - shops, clinic, library, bus routes etc.

I object to this application (22/05967/F). on the grounds of insufficient parking,overdevelopment of the site and a lack of consideration for the views of local residents.The developer has still not addressed any issues surrounding the additional number of cars thatthis development will generate. The proposal is for twenty-one dwellings which is far too manydwellings for the site. Each dwelling will house an average of two drivers generating an extra forty-two cars yet the proposal has only ten allocated parking spaces. Until either fewer dwellings ormore car parking spaces are incorporated, this proposal will attract objections.The developer is still proposing to site the main entrance on Avonwood Road despite the existingentrance being on the junction of Woodwell and Station Road. This is a point of contention forlocal residents and the developer is exhibiting a blatant disregard for their (our) views andconcerns in this matter. With so many planning applications submitted for this site, local residentsare unsure what the developer is actually planning. This lack of consideration for local residents,lack of affordable housing stock, plus lack of regard for extant tree preservation orders orenvironmental concerns (removal of trees despite preservation orders) have developed a lack oftrust or respect for this developer. This proposal is contentious and objections will be submitted foras long as the developer continues to disregard local feelings.

We object on these plans for numerous reasons, as follows;

The access cannot be on Avonwood Close. There simply is not the infrastructure to support theadditional traffic on this cul-de-sac. The existing access on Station Road should remain the mainaccess.

Too many properties in the space, of poor design and size.

Insufficient parking arrangements for the number of properties. There are already significantparking issues in this area of the village and there is not enough provision for the number of carsthat will likely be owned by the new residents.

The plans do not outline sufficient green landscaping.

There are not adequate plans for the existing derelict property on the site.

We are DESPERATE for plans to move forward on this site - for which the police and fire servicehave attended at least 3 times in the last month, due to vandals and antisocial behaviour on thesite. However, we will continue to object these unsympathetic plans that are not changingsignificantly enough to meet the concerns of the local residents.

We note that whilst the Application description details 18 houses and 3 Apartmentsthere is a Revised 'Proposed Site Plan' that now shows 14 houses, 8 x 2 Bed Apartments & 2 x 1Bed Apartments. This is a total of 24 Properties, 3 more than the Owners are requesting on theApplication?

We are appalled that the Developers are ignoring the option to submit a new application havingbeen advised that this application would be probably unsuccessful?In this application they acknowledged as far back as 16 December 2022 that they would be onlydoing 'revisions' to their original application?

"This is to give the local Planning Authority further time to consider the compromises offered!"

Yet now by changing the quantity and layout of the properties to be built they have effectivelychanged the original Application totally therefore we believe a new Application should be raised?We see this as an attempt to hoodwink Residents and waste even more time of the BCC PlanningDepartment!

Shirehampton Planning Group Object to this Application on this basis alone

On other aspects of this Application we have further queries?

Please may we see the report from Bristol Waste as detailed in the Document dated 26th June &noted as 'a separate emailed response' before any decision is made? Certainly before they make

the changes to the quantity of properties. Why isn't this shown?

We understand that it is a local validation requirement for all Major development applications inBristol to be supported by a Sustainable Drainage Strategy. Where is the one for this site?

We are still concerned about the buildings of local interest on the site as there is no mention ofhow the old school will be refurbished and there has been no attempt at protecting it fromvandalism & arson despite requests from the Police, Fire Brigade & the Council.

Despite a protection order placed on the Beech Tree the Developers have made it clear that it willbe taken down once works progress. We concur with the reports provided by the Bristol TreeForum showing that the plans for the site are not acceptable

The Developers & their Agents have done nothing to gain the support of the Community and theirinsistence of building the access in Avonwood Close - which they misleading refer to as AvonwoodROAD, which was designed as a quiet cul de sac means their Applications will never beacceptable to Residents

This is an important major development that will affect all the residents in the ShirehamptonConservation Area and they have blatantly ignored the Residents views from the very 1stconsultation. We feel that the Developers have no interests in the wellbeing of the Shirehamptonresidents.

On behalf of this close-knit community & our Members, Shirehampton Planning Group Object tothis Application 22/05967/F in both its original format & with the recent submissions made.

We strongly object due to height of plots 1 - 10 in Avonwood Close . We still object toopening up and making a access in what is a quiet Cul de sac . Despite how many applicationsyou submit we will not support this unless you keep the access in Station Road , Absolutelyridiculous !!

We strongly object to this latest planning application on several points . Plots 1 - 10 inAvonwood Close are too high and will overshadow the current terrace houses in the Close . Plot11& 12 should be removed from the design / application to retain the access into the site . Theamount of dwellings proposed in this application is quite simply ridiculous as you are creating aaccess issue due to pure greed !! KEEP the access in Statin Road with a small amendment to theTraffic Regulation Order ( TRO) to accommodate vehicle access and egress the site . I am stilldubious regarding the old house to be incorporated in the plan and be kept and restored ! Its onlya matter of time before a child gets seriously hurt of killed on the current site due to vandalism offalling glass from one of the greenhouses .The current land owner has taken no action to protectthe old house or the outbuildings . The whole site should be ring fenced for protection to theinfrastructure and trespassers . This whole process is an absolute disgrace . For these reasonsyou will not have our support !!!

I object to this application for these reasons, Avonwood Close is a quiet cul de sac witha lane that is used by a number of children going to school it's a narrow road with a lotof parking , with the increase in traffic this will make it less safe. There is a drive off ofStation Road which was used by the market garden who had lorries for his deliveriesand receiving deliveries . I believe there was a people survey done using the lane but itwas done on a school half term. Also the plot is being over developed in conservationarea also the houses proposed for Avonwood Close are not in keeping with currenthousing ie going into the roof, would I be allowed to put a roof extension on the front ofmy house in Avonwood Close.

: Whilst I appreciate that building on the land is needed there must be analternative to the proposed plans of all these new houses, surely smaller homes (bungalows) andless of them with an entrance on Station Road is more in keeping with the centre of our village.Large vehicles used the entrance on Woodwell Rd/Station Rd for many years when the nurserywas in use without problems and that is where the entrance to any new properties should be.I strongly object to the redevelopment as it stands of the land due to several reasons1. There are too many homes proposed for such a small area, the height of the new houses willnot be in keeping with the existing properties on Avonwood close or Woodwell Road and ourhomes will be totally overlooked2. The entrance to the new properties on Avonwood Close will cause maximum problems forexisting residents, emergency services and essential workers.The road is already used as an overspill parking area by people working in the village whichultimately narrows down the space for vehicles to drive through. There is also the increased safetyand pollution concerns regarding children who live or visit relatives on the road.3. The Close is a cul-de-sac and as such will not withstand the high volume of extra traffic that thenew properties will generate not to mention the construction and maintenance vehicles that will beup and down the close for the duration of the building work.4 Avonwood Close is within a conservation area and trees within the development are protected,some of these were destroyed or cut back without consent earlier in the year, this cannot happenagain!!5 Air quality and pollution will be increased ultimately impacting on the quality of life for theresidents of Avonwood Close and surrounding areas

Still object to this site as previously commented on previous application on the samegrounds.Parking issues, main entrance should be via woodwell /station road.Conservation area, buildings not in Keeping with the area, noise and pollution added to the extratraffic using this quite cul de sac , small turning area not suitable for amount of traffic that will blockboth sides of road , access for emergency services will be ltd if at all possible.Extra pressure on local services, in an already over crowded area .I object fully

Object

I see no application form having been posted on the Council's planning website for thisproposed development. Why is this, please? I hope I am not missing any important details.

Please note on the Site Sections 3362749 document, the road to the east is actually named"Avonwood Close" - a cul-de-sac - not "Avonwood Road" as shown.

One of my main concerns with the proposed development is the existing locally-listed building onthe site. This building used to be a florist's shop and a dwelling. There seems to be no mention Ican find of how this is to be used or treated. It is not included in the figures of total dwellings on thesite plan. The site plan gives no indication of any intended use or capacity for this building. It justshows its outline. No demolition is quoted in the Design and Access Statement. (Thankgoodness!) Yet words beginning "renova"[te], "refurbish", or "restor"[e]" are not includedanywhere. This leads me to suspect the owners have no intention to bring the building back to life,yet it is in strong need of restoration using materials of the nature it was built with. They should notbe allowed to carry out the development proposed if they are going to ignore their responsibility tomaintain this building and leave it to look an eyesore. Yet are they trying to claim a credit for thisbuilding being vacant, in relation to affordable housing?

Is 'closed fencing' what is indicated to the front of this locally-listed building on the site plan? If so,this is appalling for a developer!

It is important the future of this existing locally-listed C19 (or earlier) building is retained andrestored using original materials matching those previously used. Its rich, red stonework makes it

stand out rather as a small landmark, partly due to its being relatively small in contrast tosurrounding neighbours, showing its historic existence. In the Conservation Area CharacterApproval for Shirehampton, this was described as an unlisted building of merit which is in aconservation area. The latest Local List (Sept 2020) states such buildings should be added toBristol's Local List. This just seems to be a job waiting to be done, sitting in someone's intray.

The proposed site plan shows 10 car parking spaces. It also quotes 8 x 4-bedroom, 20 x 4-bedroom, 3 x 2-bedroom accommodation, totalling 78 bedrooms. For a property containing 78bedrooms, yet only 10 car parking spaces sounds totally insufficient to cover the number ofresidents and possible visitors, in my opinion. In addition, the proposed entrance to this parkingspace is from Avonwood Close - a cul-de-sac, which has 21 houses in it.

With cars commonly already currently parking on the road of this cul-de-sac in addition todriveways, I foresee the small on-site parking area causing a large overflow and traffic congestionboth into this dead end road plus Park Road, which is also used as a bus route. Park Road is theroad which the cul-de-sac branches off from. It is the first road encountered which entersShirehampton when travelling west along the Portway from town or Sea Mills; it leads to the HighStreet which forms our main shopping area. This road is already used for car parking by localworkers and sometimes shoppers in addition to its current residents and has double-yellow lines inplaces. Driveways which cannot be blocked also exist on some of its properties.

With these 78 bedrooms in mind, will current infrastructure such as water drainage and seweragebe able to cope with this level of extra waste?

May I also state that where the flats for properties 20, 21 & 22 stand, I am rather baffled by the firstfloor showing an external doorway by its stairway, whereas the rear elevation indicates a window.Also, why is there a balcony showing on the ground floor?

I urge you to reject this planning application.

Like many here, I am perplexed at the behaviour of the developers who have submittedmultiple planning applications at the same time and indeed, in previous planning stages, ignoredthe protection orders on established trees and the impact that their actions have had on wildlifeetc.

Essentially, this proves that they have put no thought into the way that a development will fit intothe local area, and compliment and work with existing properties. For this reason alone, all theseseparate plans should be rejected, until they can submit a solid, reliable one that proves that theyhave taken this into account.

Currently this behaviour only proves they are desperate to get anything up, to make money,regardless of the impact on the area.

In specific reference to this plan, I would like to object on the basis that they are proposing ahugely overdeveloped plan, with properties that lack cohesion with existing properties, and whichwill overshadow existing housing.

No consideration given to the historic nature of the site, the original features of the area and thefact that the development is in the centre of a conservation area. Removal of the stone wall isunacceptable, and what of the 18th century cottage?

The access location is completely inappropriate in Avonwood Close for the pending increase intraffic into a very narrow, quiet residential cul-de-sac.

Construction access for a project of this size is unsuitable, given the current road infrastructure.

The design details are insufficient to provide local residents with information about how theirproperties will be impacted by the presence of 3 storey town houses. Loss of light, etc.

Insufficient parking facilities for the number of properties. which will result in an increase of parkingon surrounding roads which are ill equipped to cope with this increase.

Multiple applications on the go, proving a lack of concern for genuine and positive redevelopmentthat works within the existing village community.

Objection to Planning Application 22/05967/F 8-10 station Road, Shirehampton, Bristol,BS11 9TT

1. There are currently 4 live applications associated with this site, this is very unusual & clearlysomething very odd is going on here.

Application 23/00367/VP - Application Validated 27.1.22

T01- Beech - Reduce height of tree by 3m to clear telephone cables extending through thecanopy. Reduce lateral growth by 1m to balance canopy. TPO 1421.

Literally the last tree standing on this site after the totally unlawful cutting down & wantondestruction of all other trees/shrubs & specimen magnolia on the site - subject to PlanningEnforcement Notice 21/00345/VC 8 April 2021- still awaiting outcome

Application 23/00151/F Application validated 19.1.23

Redevelopment of the site to include care home with associated facilities, works to include access,parking and landscaping.

Application: 22/05967/F Application validated 3.1.23

Redevelopment of the site to include 18no. houses and 3no. apartments with associated access,

parking and landscaping following the demolition of existing floristry buildings and glasshouses(sui generis use). | 8 - 10 Station Road Shirehampton Bristol BS11 9TT

Application 21/0485/F - Application validated on: 14.9.21

Redevelopment of the site to include 18no. houses and 3no. apartments with associated access,parking and landscaping.

SUBJECT TO AN APPEAL HEARING BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE on 21/2/23 at BCC, CityHall

Shirehampton Planning Group most strongly object to this application on the following grounds:

1. Scale of development - 18 houses & 3 flats on this small site is over development on a grandscale. The properties are small, cramped in and unlikely to provide minimum space standards.

2. Design - 3 storey town houses are completely out of character in this area of Shirehampton andfall with the Shirehampton Conservation Area.

3. Shirehampton Conservation Area

Par for the course that the Stokes Morgan Heritage Statement doc concerning our ShirehamptonConservation Area is totally incorrect:

4.1 The site is located within the Shirehampton Conservation Area, which contains several listedbuildings within its boundary. The Conservation Area was first designated in 1975 and wasextended in 2000. The area does not yet have a detailed Character Appraisal. The most recentspecific guidance on the area is the Enhancement Statement which was produced in 1993,however, this does not cover the extended part of the conservation area.

The Shirehampton Conservation Area Review was ongoing from 2019 which we repeatedly toldStokes Morgan as the whole development site falls within this Conservation Area. The NewShirehampton Conservation Area doc is a 51 page masterpiece of information, historical facts &references with a detailed & in depth character appraisal of Shirehampton & our ConservationAreas which was adopted by BCC Cabinet in Jan 2023

- Old Cottage - Deep concern about the future of the old cottage on site does "demolition ofexisting floristry buildings" apply to this cottage which dates back to the early 1800's- Most building materials are not in keeping with the character of the area e.g grey UPCV windows

- Removal of characterful stone wall in Woodwell Road - totally unacceptable

4. Affordable Housing - Affordable Housing - Within the Affordable Housing & Planning ObligationsStatement 3.2 It States "the VBC (vacant building credit calculation) is shown below anddemonstrates that there is no requirement for affordable housing on the site"

The calculation shows a unit value of 1.09. 3.3. States: "The client is open to discussing whetherthe single affordable housing unit would best be provided on site, potentially as part of theGovernment's First Homes scheme or whether an off site contribution would be more appropriate."

In The Design & Access Statement the following is stated: 5.4% of 21 units = 1.13 dwellings = Offsite contribution proposed

There will be NO affordable housing on this site

NOTE: A further planning application was submitted in 2018 ref 18/03865/F refused for thefollowing reasons: 1. Impact on the Conservation Area and Design Quality 2. Climate change,failure to demonstrate the energy use and carbon dioxide emissions 3. Failure to makeappropriate affordable housing provision

5. Car Parking provision - totally inadequate & will result in a massive increase in street parking inStation Road/Pembroke Road/Avonwood Close and other residential streets nearby that do nothave any further capacity.

6. Road Safety Issues - As above - intensified with drop off & pick up of children from St Bernard'sPrimary School (Station Road). Close proximity to the site of a pedestrian crossing & narrow wayone way access to Woodwell Road.

7. Drainage - overload already overburdened local drainage system. No account seems to betaken for the amount of storm water runoff from Park Hill/Avonwood close and therefore, risk offlooding to the site

8. Overshadowing & Loss of Privacy - the development with negatively impact on properties inAvonwood Close

9. Access to site - Totally ridiculous a major 21 house development with access via a narrowresidential cul de sac?

10. Bins/recycling/waste storage

How are all these bins going to be collected - on the pavements outside? 21 properties x 3 bins forcollection every week

11. Negative impact of a large residential new build on already overstretched local facilities andamenities

PLEASE ALSO NOTE:

The develop has done absolutely nothing to secure the site, which they refer to a meeting withSCAF & local residents back in August 2021 in their Statement Of Community Involvement. Evenafter being advised that British Gas said the whole lot would have gone up in another 10 minutesdue to all the copper/gas piping being stolen. The Cottage has had squatters, been used as acannabis factory & has been extensively vandalised as have all the greenhouses been regularlyand frequently vandalised, reported to the Police as criminal damage. This is clearly a developerwith complete disregard for neighbours safety and concerns.Other comments objecting to the application include:- Climate change and risk of flooding due to surface water drainage problems, unaddressed- No definitive plan given for The Schoolmasters house , the vague statement given isunacceptable. Is also a commercial building, proposed, within a residential development? How canthat work?- Parking is a serious issue, to all roads in the area and disruption to traffic- Number of bins to be put out, along a very short wall, not credible- No attention given to screening off the site, despite requests by many, including police. Noregard by owners regarding serious anti-social behaviour- BCC does not ensure planning enforcement, dire record to date, thus any conditions will not beenforced- Far too many houses and flats on a small site, not acceptable- Previous appeal by Churchill rejected , for similar reasons, therefore this application cannot beallowed- That the 'owners' did not know who cut down hedges , trees etc is just a joke! They were the onlyones who would benefit, and owners should know and take responsibility for what happens ontheir site- No resolution from BCC on the chopping down of hedges, trees etc- Development does not meet needs of community, far too expensive in a deprived area,Shirehampton is essentially deprived- No significant engagement with the wider community, no public meeting and consultation held.- Height of 'new application' houses might still be too high if loft convention is encouraged,overlooking near neighbours.- Local amenities, like GP practices and school placements are already overwhelmed, no planshown to build more. Severe pressure on these will be increased significantly.- What is BCC going to do with CIL contribution that should be used to increase local amenities?Can't see any plan for this. Eg more Childrens playgrounds ?

- Traffic disruption, ongoing, on Station Road will be severe- How will ambulances, fire engines access the development, roads in development far too smalland congested

I object to this because opening up a entrance on small cul de sac cause parking issuesand traffic issues on such a small road for residents and visitors

Previous planning applications 17/05016, 18/3198899 and 21/04865/F were rejected forseveral reasons, the majority of which are still applicable to this application and have not beenaddressed by the developer:- Design quality and impact on heritage assets and conservation area;- Insufficient design details;- Privacy of existing / future residents of the development and neighbouring sites;- Noise from plant;- Access to the site;- Sustainability;- Climate change, failure to demonstrate the energy use and carbon dioxide emissions.

New concerns as well as reiterating those that are applicable to the impact on my property areprovided below:

- Objection to the proposed three storey dwellings on the Station Road side of the development.The proposed height would be invasive to the existing homes on Station Road that back ontoWoodwell Road. Previous applications completed a light and invasiveness study at a minimum thisshould be presented by the developer for residents to evaluate how this would impact their homes.

- Objection to the proposed design of the three storey dwellings on the Station Road side of thedevelopment. The proposed design and height of these buildings is not in-keeping with the otherproperties on Woodwell Road. Although there are three storey homes on Station Road, these arein keeping with their neighbouring buildings, this cannot be said for the proposed development.

- Objection to the obvious increase in traffic due to the proposed development. Increase in carbondioxide emissions and pollution would have a negative impact on air quality for the existingneighbouring residents.

- Objection to the increase and obstruction of traffic on Woodwell Road during the building phaseof the proposed development.

- Objection to the initial proposed entrance via Station Road / Woodwell Road. The current roaddesign in this area is poor and changes would only increase this concern for public safety.

Note: There are inconsistencies between some of the planning documentation that should beresolved if the application is challenged or resubmitted to ensure that residents have accurateinformation to base their decision. E.g. number of bedrooms per property.

My previous objection still stands, I cannot see that the applicant has taken any of thecomments submitted in previous objections into consideration and moreover just continues toresubmit the same plans. In short the appearance design and roof line is not in keeping with theexisting properties present and will create over shadowing. Furthermore the opening intoAvonwood Close which is currently a quiet residential cul de sac will create additional noise, trafficand parking issues as there is inadequate parking allocated for the number of proposedresidences, this will also cause overspill into Park Road which has already seen an increase dueto the building erected on the old swimming bath site. The plans should be reconfigured toaccommodate adequate parking provision furthermore the plans should be redesigned to utilisethe existing access on Station Road. The reluctance to do so can only be assumed to be as aresult of wishing to maximise the number of residences within this space.

As per my previous comments on the separate applications; the bin store has beenlocated directly opposite my kitchen window. The location has not been revised in the latest plansand our request ignored. This is un-neighbourly and inconsiderate. The location will need to bereassessed as placing it next to a neighbours' kitchen window and private garden is unacceptable.

The property adjacent to the 1 Woodwell Rd garages is too tall, exceeding the height of the currentstructure. This will limit the amount of natural light we currently have here and the top floor roomswill oversee our garden. The structure will be overbearing and will ruin the current clear view wehave from our garden. This has been mentioned before and still ignored and are not referenced inany documents.The comments received regarding natural light were based on a single visit to the area and are notaccepted in any way and do not consider my further points. The scale of the development isexcessive and cramped as it will be replacing a commercial plot that does not impact on thesurrounding area with regard to the quantity of building structures and the parking of vehicles.The proposed development, despite having parking facilities, will impact the surrounding streetswith overcrowding. Avonwood Close and Woodwell Road will be affected. Woodwell Road willlikely be the worst affected by this increase in parked vehicles on the street. When this road is fullof parked cars there is a safety issue as the roadway is narrowed and crowded. Currently theexisting property is single storey structures with a single detached house to the northwest. Theproposed development consists of two storey dwellings which will create unreasonableovershadowing and affect the views from existing properties. How is the increase in demand forutilities being managed? Surrounding properties could be affected by a drop in water pressure andthere is no evidence of a new sub-station to cater for the increased electricity demand. If a new

sub-station is planned where will this be sighted and where will it be fed from? Are the roads andpavement surfaces going to be scarred by this work and will they be completely resurfaced so asnot to create an eyesore?Additionally, there does not appear to be any proposals for installing natural energy producingequipment. This must be considered especially with the proposed car charging ports. Is new streetlighting proposed? Where will the columns be positioned and will existing columns be moved tosuit the new development layout? The proposed boundary wall to 1 Woodwell would not providesufficient security and is not in keeping with the existing properties fence type. Who will bedetailing the location of the proposed boundary wall and who will be confirming the exact legalboundary line? How will this be communicated and what is the agreement process? This wholedevelopment appears to be driven by a desire to maximise profit with no regard for the existinglocal residents or the area as a whole. I have always been keen for the plot to be developed butthis proposal has not met ours or any of the local residents' vision of what should be built here. Ido hope that the next set of plans consider the numerous and combined comments put forward bythe local residents and the plans are properly revised.Regarding the three various applications, for what appears to be the same or similar proposals;Why are there so many inconsistencies within the three different applications? And why are therethree applications?

Could Bristol City Council please investigate why there are four different planningapplications (one a resubmission) for the same site in Shirehampton, involving both StockwoodLand Ltd and Shirehampton Land Ltd. There clearly is something very underhand going on here -are the owners trying to tire and confuse the community until they give in to whichever plan is putforward when they are at the point of exhaustion. It would appear that both Stockwood Land Ltdand Shirehampton Land Ltd are owned by the same person, so why the subterfuge andobfuscation with four different applications?

1. 23/00151/F Redevelopment of the site to include care home with associated facilities, works toinclude access, parking and landscaping. | 8 - 10 Station Road Shirehampton Bristol BS11 9TT

: This proposal doesn't meet the needs of the Conservation Area. Access for vehicles throughAvonwood Close should not be a consideration - it would cause too much traffic in too small aspace, there is not mitigation for extra traffic or extra pollution, there is already not enough spacefor parking in this small cul-de-sac. The three-storey buildings will overlook, overshadow andimpinge on privacy. The developers obviously don't live in this area and are only concerned aboutmaking profit - they are completely unsympathetic to the residents. This application HAS includedthe Nursery Buildings (now identified as pre 1800's) to be used as Staff Rest Rooms.

2. 21/04865/F alt ref: PP-10177085 Redevelopment of the site to include 18no. houses and 3no.apartments with associated access, parking and landscaping.

: Objections same as 23/00151/, but there is no mention of the Nursery Buildings

3. 22/05967/F Redevelopment of the site to include 18no. houses and 3no. apartments withassociated access, parking and landscaping following the demolition of existing floristry buildingsand glasshouses (sui generis use). | 8 - 10 Station Road Shirehampton Bristol BS11 9TT

: Objections same as 23/00151/F, but this application includes the description 'following demolitionof existing floristry buildings....' Why are there so many inconsistencies within the three differentapplications? And why are there three applications?

4. 23/00367/VP T01- Beech - Reduce height to clear telephone cables extending through thecanopy. Reduce lateral growth by 1m to balance canopy. TPO 142; (Applicant details; Litt, who Ithink owns both Shirehampton Land and Stockwood Land Ltd (Company number 12363342)): In April 2021 (presumably the same company) removed trees from the land which were notconsidered under prior approval ref: 21/00345/VC (Planning Enforcement Reference:21/30147/TPO) in what was a breach of planning control. Bristol City Council are awaiting theoutcome of 21/04865/F before moving forward on this matter ...?:This company are now trying to "Reduce lateral growth" of a tree with a TPO on it: There is an error on the Application Form where it asks 'Are you wishing to carry out works to atree in a Conservation Area?' The Applicant has ticked 'No'.: This area IS included in the Shirehampton Conservation Area Character Appraisal along with therest of this site: It has been stated by an arboriculturist that 'Carrying out the work on this tree that is proposedwould likely kill it.': I completely concur with the statement made in one of the objections about this planningapplication: "I am bound to say that I think it would be best to determine this Application only afterthe other three Applications affecting this site are determined. If time does not allow that, then itshould be refused. That is because, due to the possible effects of the other three Applications, thecurrentand future management of this TPO tree comes into question."

Routing construction and future residential traffic for the whole development via thenarrow residential cul-de-sac of Avonwood Close is totally unacceptable as being severelydetriment to the environment for existing residents.Parking provision on-site for the whole development is inadequate. The proposal for allocatedpaarking bays in front of the proposed block of 10 'off-the-pavement' terraced properties is not anadequate solutionThe 3-storey terrace of 10 houses is out of character with the open aspect of the existingdevelopment in Avonwood Close.

The proposed density of housing is too great; planned vehicular access throughAvonwood Close is unacceptable and would cause serious congestion, disturbance and overallloss of amenity to residents of the Close; the application does not offer adequate protection andpreservation of the existing natural environment, in particular the remaining beech tree.

It might be noted that a new housing application with pedestrian access on Avonwood Close andvehicular access on Station Road, plus appropriate plans for the old cottage (which must bepreserved using historically appropriate building materials and methods), with adequate parking,historically appropriate facing materials on the property using local stone and the highest possiblestandards of energy-efficient buildings (either to passivhaus standard or very close: triple-glazing,renewable energy provision in the form of solar panels and so forth) would be a lot more likely tofind favour locally. I would encourage the developer to move forward on these principles instead ofcontinually trying to push through insensitive, historically inappropriate and environmentallydestructive development proposals.

Application no. 22/05967/F

Redevelopment of the site to include 18 no houses and 3no apartments, associatedaccess, parking and landscaping.

Site address 8-10 Station Road, Shirehampton, Bristol. BS11 9TT

To whom it may concern,

I wish to oppose to the above application for the following reasons:-

The height of the houses/apartments which will be 3 storeys as they are far to high asthe will be three storeys with windows as there is no loft space, these properties will notonly restrict ought to the front garden but also to the front of the house, we will also beoverlooked.

The full length of Avonwood Close is also a conservation area and this should not bebreached for building properties that do not reflect the character of properties already inplace at Avonwood Close.

The extra traffic in Avonwood Close will cause disruption to the current residents as thenew development will need access to their parking area, thus restricting what extraparking places already in place at Avonwood Close. This new development will causedifficulties for nurses, home careers, drs, ambulance, delivery vans and refusecollectors parking as current residents/visitors will have to park on or next to the

remaining paved area. Avonwood Close is not currently wide enough to accommodateany extra vehicles parking.

The new development only has 21 parking spaces for the accommodation. Pleaseadvise where the extra vehicles for this development will be parking? Also where arethe solicitors, dentists, vets and visitors to the shopping centre going to park as currentlythey use Avonwood Close.

I do not feel that the developers have taken into account that the majority of householdsin this day and age have 2 if not more vehicles per household where will the extravehicles go?

Looking forward to your response to all the above points.

Yours faithfully

We object fully to these 'new' plans that have failed entirely to take into account any ofthe previous comments and views of the local residents.

The scale and size of the designs are not in keeping with the local environment. The propertiesare too densely packed into a small area and there is not sufficient infrastructure to support thenumber of people that would populate the development.

The site is in desperate need of regeneration, and the current owner is making no attempt toprotect the site, which demonstrates the disregard they have for the surroundings.

And my previous comments still stand:

The parking and road access issues are one of the biggest flaws in the plans. The roads aroundthe site are already full of parked cars and there is not enough provision for more parking withinthe site. Avonwood Close is entirely unsuitable as a main access road.

The proposed plans will significantly change the landscape of the conservation area.

The tree report and landscaping are still unsatisfactory.

I strongly object to the proposal of a driveway entrance in a cul-de-sac. CH Pearce hada draft letter if entrance was introduced in the future it was further up from the turning circleopposite houses number 17 - 21 which would be safer for bin lorries etc turning around at thebottom of the close. Plus all the bins coming into the close on collection day would be ridiculous!!

I object on the grounds that there is a strict lack of details regarding the Old SchoolHouse formerly Coles Nursery House.

There is a inaccuracy in the plans, No 14 and 16 Avonwood Close are numbered wrong andconfusing. I strongly object to the entrance to the development being in a cul- de -sac, this will bedangerous for vehicles attempting to turn at the bottom of the close. I have seen paperwork fromCH Pearce showing the entrance further up the close leaving the turning circle free. The arrow onthe drawing states that all bins to be taken through the lane into Avonwood Close on collection dayis simply not reasonable.I still think the height of the development in Avonwood Close is overbearing, cancelling out the sunsetting in the west for the current residents. For these reasons I object as the developer has notlistened to the past consultation and or the previous objections. greedy developers. How muchaffordable housing ??

I/we are and have been residents of Avonwood close for more than 20 years and overthese years little has changed, most people that live here are elderly and rely on the road beingquite to access the small road. We have previously objected to this development on more thanone occasion and can not understand why this is being submitted again and again with little or nochanges to the original plans that have been objected to strongly by residents and near byneighbours that this re development would directly impact. Myself and m

I object fully to this development, quite frankly they have changed nothing, the entranceto the site should be as previously stated should be in station road and not Avonwood Close, theroad is too small and narrow even on a good day this road is full of parked vehicles, emergencyvehicles have struggled in the past to access houses at the bottom of the turning points. The mostimpacted house would be mine due to this road being in front of my driveway causing unduestress accessing my home. The plans have done nothing to change what they have previouslystated and plans were refused on those grounds. I would like to state that I would like all previousobjections reread as the objections remain the same.PLEASE READ ALL OF OUR COMMENTS AS THESE AFFECT OUR LIVES.I can not object enough.

Comment: Whilst I appreciate that building on the land is needed there must be analternative to the proposed plans of all these new houses, surely smaller homes (bungalows) andless of them with an entrance on Station Road is more in keeping with the centre of our village.Large vehicles used the entrance on Woodwell Rd/Station Rd for many years when the nurserywas in use without problems and that is where the entrance to any new properties should be.I strongly object to the redevelopment as it stands of the land due to several reasons

1. There are too many homes proposed for such a small area, the height of the new houses willnot be in keeping with the existing properties on Avonwood close or Woodwell Road and ourhomes will be totally overlooked2. The entrance to the new properties on Avonwood Close will cause maximum problems forexisting residents, emergency services and essential workers.The road is already used as an overspill parking area by people working in the village whichultimately narrows down the space for vehicles to drive through. There is also the increased safetyand pollution concerns regarding children who live or visit relatives on the road.3. The Close is a cul-de-sac and as such will not withstand the high volume of extra traffic that thenew properties will generate not to mention the construction and maintenance vehicles that will beup and down the close for the duration of the building work.4 Avonwood Close is within a conservation area and trees within the development are protected,some of these were destroyed or cut back without consent earlier in the year, this cannot happenagain!!5 Air quality and pollution will be increased ultimately impacting on the quality of life of theresidents living in Avonwood Close

Avonwood Close is a cul de sac it's a very quite road most residents bought therehouse because of this . Will it devalue our house? There is a lane that cuts through fromAvonwood to station road it's used by a lot of children as a short cut to their school with theincreased traffic it will make it more unsafe. But my main objection is the access being inAvonwood Close there is a established entrance on Station Road used for many years by thenursery who had lorries in and out all day if this was to be used as far as I am concerned it wouldcorrect all of the above.