Bristol Tree Forum Comments 24 February 2023

2

The applicant has produced an arboricultural report dated March 2022.7 This is based on a

survey undertaken on 1 July 2021. Paragraph 2.4 of the report states that ‘Data collected

regarding individual trees and groups of trees are presented in the Tree Schedule table in

appendix 1 in accordance with BS5837:20012 Trees in Relation to Construction –

Recommendations,’ No appendix 1 has been produced.

This report refers to just one tree growing on the eastern boundary. The trees that had already

been removed have been ignored.

Paragraph 5.3 of the applicant’s report states: ‘The tree is an early mature Beech (Fagus

sylvatica) approximately 8m tall with an average crown spread of 3m. The stem diametre [sic]

was measured at 270m creating a Root Protection Area of 3.3m (34m2). The tree was assessed

and categorized B2 in accordance with the Cascading Chart of Tree Quality Assessment

contained within BS5837:2012.’ This information is used in our analysis. The tree is protected

by a TPO.

However, using evidence submitted by the applicant in one of their two pending planning

applications, 21/04865/F8 and in planning application 17/05016/F9, we calculate that at least

35 trees were growing on the application site, 34 of which have been removed to facilitate

development:

Species

Totals 35 35 Stem

Diameter

BS5837

Category

54

Tree

ID

Onsite

Trees Removed

BTRS

Calc

Magnolia T1 1 1 40 C 4

Cotoneaster, apple G2 2 2 30 C 3

Cherry T3 1 1 40 U 0

Monterey cypress T4 1 1 75 B 7

Laburnum T5 1 1 42.5 C 4

Beech T6 1 1 27.5 C 2

7 22_05967_F-ARBORICULTURAL_REPORT-3362756 8 https://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=QZ2N8JDNJNF00 9 https://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OVYXXXDNGIZ00

Bristol Tree Forum Comments 24 February 2023

3

Species

Totals 35 35 Stem

Diameter

BS5837

Category

54

Tree

ID

Onsite

Trees Removed

BTRS

Calc

Birch T7 1 1 25 B 2

Birch T8 1 1 25 B 2

Laburnum T9 1 1 40 C 4

Cypress G10* Offsite 27.5 C

Beech T12 1 1 27 B 2

Cypress, griselinia, holly H11 24 24 15 C 24

The plans prepared for this application make it clear that the one remaining TPO beech will

also have to be removed to facilitate the proposed development even though this is not stated

in the applicant’s arboricultural evidence.

Whilst the group H11 is listed as a hedge, it is a line of 24 trees for the purposes of BTRS. The

table above is based on a tree survey undertaken on 17 February 2017, so the stem diameters

given would have increased as the trees grew until they were removed. The trees in H11 were

measured at 12.5 cm in February 2017. We have assumed that they had grown to have at least

15 cm diameters by the time they were felled, thereby making them eligible to be included for

replacement under DM17 and BTRS.

The trees in group G10 are shown outside the development site10.

There are also two hedges shown in the plans referred to in footnote 9 but, as these have not

been surveyed and have now been removed, we have not been able to include them in our

calculations even though they ought to be accounted for.

On this basis, there were 34 trees growing on the site plus the TPO Beech which will have to be

removed. Applying DM17 and BTRS, 54 replacement trees will need to be planted to replace

what has and will be lost (see the table above).

If the fruit trees proposed to be planted in private spaces are discounted, then 10 trees will be

planted on site, albeit that, given the size of the size of the site, this is probably overstocking.

10 17_05016_F-TREE_PROTECTION_PLAN-1708041 & 17_05016_F-TOPOGRAPHICAL_SURVEY-1716134

Bristol Tree Forum Comments 24 February 2023

4

This leaves 44 replacement trees which will have to be planted offsite.

Given the paucity of new planting sites within a one mile radius of the development site (the

usual geographic limit placed on s106 TCPA 1990 agreements), there is no realistic prospect

that these replacement trees will ever be planted. This is contrary to the requirements of BCS9:

Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new

development. Loss of green infrastructure will only be acceptable where it is allowed

for as part of an adopted Development Plan Document or is necessary, on balance, to

achieve the policy aims of the Core Strategy. Appropriate mitigation of the lost green

infrastructure assets will be required.

Development should incorporate new and/or enhanced green infrastructure of an

appropriate type, standard and size. Where on-site provision of green infrastructure is

not possible, contributions will be sought to make appropriate provision for green

infrastructure off site.

NPPF and biodiversity net gain

No biodiversity net gain evidence has been produced to support this application. However, a

Biodiversity Metric 3.0 calculation (BNG 3.0) was submitted in support of the pending

application 21/04865/F which is almost identical to this application. Save as set out below, we

have adopted the applicant’s habitat data in this calculation.

Using the baseline and created habitat information supplied, we have transposed this

information into the current metric applicable, BNG 3.111, and used this to calculate the likely

habitat gains/losses that this proposal will produce. We have made the following assumptions:

1. The location plan gives the area of the site as 2,620 sq. metres12. We calculate that it is

2,708 sq. metres. Either way, the sum of the baseline habitat areas (excluding Urban Tree

habitat) only comes to 2,500 sq. metres in the applicant’s original BNG 3.0 calculation.

This shortfall needs to be accounted for. We have assigned the difference to Developed

land; sealed surface habitat. This does not alter the baseline calculation.

2. That the strategic significance of the site is High because the site is in a conservation area

11 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6049804846366720 - published on 21 April 2022. 12 22_05967_F-SITE_LOCATION_PLAN-3362738.

Bristol Tree Forum Comments 24 February 2023

5

which is identified in BCS22 of the Local Plan.13

3. That the trees which were or are growing on the site, including hedgerow H11, are Urban

tree habitat.14 They have a total baseline habitat area of 0.1003 hectares,15 all of which

has or will be lost. The Urban tree habitat area calculation is set out at Appendix 1.

4. That the Urban tree habitat was or is in Moderate condition,

5. That, as well as achieving at least a positive Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) percentage, the

trading rules must be complied with. In particular, lost Urban tree habitat should be

replaced ‘like for like’.16

6. That any obligation to plant replacement trees under DM17 should be taken account of in

the BNG calculation.

7. That Standard-sized replacement trees as defined by BS3936-1 will be planted to mitigate

for lost Urban tree habitat and that, at the end of the 27 year time-to-target period, they

will have grown into Small category trees under BNG 3.1.17 We have made no allowance for

any annual mortality attrition that this newly created habitat is likely to suffer.

8. 10 Standard-sized replacement trees as defined by BS3936-1 will be planted on site.

9. The requirement to provide at least 30 years long-term habitat management of the site

habitats makes it impossible to seek to control habitats created within privately-owned

curtilages. Accordingly, habitat to be created within private gardens is excluded from our

calculations.

10. The proposed planting plan does not show any Native Species Rich Hedgerows with trees

habitats. We have allowed for Native Species Rich Hedgerow habitat to be created which

will achieve Moderate condition even though we do not believe that this habitat type is

viable on this site.

On this basis we calculate that the applicant’s current proposals will result in a net loss of

biodiversity of -80.52%.

Appendix 2 shows two possible scenarios for achieving biodiversity net gain and comply with

the BNG trading rules. However, as currently proposed, this application fails to meet the

13 Biodiversity Metric 3.1 - User Guide – Table 5-4 Strategic significance categories and scores (p.52). 14 Biodiversity Metric 3.1 - User Guide – Table 7-1 Urban tree definitions (p. 72). 15 Biodiversity Metric 3.1 - User Guide – paragraph 7.9 (p. 74). 16 Biodiversity Metric 3.1 - User Guide – paragraph 7.8 (p. 74). 17 Biodiversity Metric 3.1 - User Guide – Table 7-2 Urban tree definitions (p. 72) and paragraph 7.11 (p. 75).

Bristol Tree Forum Comments 24 February 2023

6

requirements of the Bristol Development Plan and the NPPF and so must be refused.

Bristol Tree Forum Comments 24 February 2023

7

Appendix 1 – Urban tree habitat baseline area calculation

Species

Totals 35 35 Totals BNG 3.1

Areas (ha) 0.1003 0.0000 0.1003

Tree

ID

Onsite

Trees

Removed

RPA Calculation Trees

Retained

Trees

Removed

DBH

(cm)

RPAr

(m)

RPA

(ha) RPA (ha) RPA (ha)

Magnolia T1 1 1 40.0 4.80 0.0072 0.0000 0.0072

Cotoneaster, apple G2 2 2 30.0 3.60 0.0081 0.0000 0.0081

Cherry T3 1 1 40.0 4.80 0.0072 0.0000 0.0072

Monterey cypress T4 1 1 75.0 9.00 0.0254 0.0000 0.0254

Laburnum T5 1 1 42.5 5.10 0.0082 0.0000 0.0082

Beech T6 1 1 27.5 3.30 0.0034 0.0000 0.0034

Birch T7 1 1 25.0 3.00 0.0028 0.0000 0.0028

Birch T8 1 1 25.0 3.00 0.0028 0.0000 0.0028

Laburnum T9 1 1 40.0 4.80 0.0072 0.0000 0.0072

Beech T12 1 1 27.0 3.24 0.0033 0.0000 0.0033

Cypress, griselinia, holly H11 24 24 15.0 1.80 0.0244 0.0000 0.0244

Bristol Tree Forum Comments 24 February 2023

8

Appendix 2 – possible offsite habitat creation scenarios to achieve

biodiversity net gain

Scenario 1

If, in addition to the 10 trees being planted onsite, a further 67 Standard-sized trees as defined

by BS3936-1 are planted offsite, a small net gain of 0.64% can be achieved which complies with

the trading rules.

Figure 1: BNG of 0.64% if 67 trees are planted offsite

Bristol Tree Forum Comments 24 February 2023

9

Scenario 2

If 75 Standard-sized trees as defined by BS3936-1 are planted offsite, then a 10.33% BNG can

be achieved which complies with the trading rules.

Figure 2: BNG of 10.33% if 75 trees are planted offsite.

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.

I OBJECT to revised planning application 22/05967/F on the following grounds

- The title of the application states 'Redevelopment of the site to include 18no. houses and 3no.apartments with associated access, parking and landscaping' but the new drawings show 24 unitsin total - a fundamental change which is not addressed in any of the revised documents. Thisneeds to be a separate planning application rather than revision of an already-refused application

- The developer continues to pay no regard to the legitimate concerns raised by local residentsand the local planning group. A fundamental concern is the plan for access to be via AvonwoodClose rather than Station Road /Woodwell Road

- One of the reasons given for refusal of the original application was 'the need for a unilateralundertaking to address biodiversity net gain, replacement tree planting and off-site highwayworks'. As pointed out by the Bristol Tree Forum this plan does NOT sufficiently address thoseconcerns as it totally ignores the loss of the trees which were wantonly destroyed on the landsince it was acquired by the developer.

- The comment from Bristol Waste Company dated 26th June refers to a separate email. Pleasepublish this email

- This application contains no commitment in respect of the restoration and re-use of the original

house which exists on the site. Concerns regarding security of the site and the consequentdamage being caused to this building have been repeatedly ignored by the developer despite anacknowledgment of the problem by them in the 'Statement of Community Involvement' documentwhich says 'it is proposed that the site will be made more secure with fencing to stop vandalismand anti social behaviour'. There has been absolutely no attempt whatsoever to do this, the site isnow less secure than it was previously and the existing cottage is being increasingly vandalised tothe point where police are called on a regular basis. It almost feels as if the failure to safeguard theexisting building is a deliberate act.

- Given the multiple, concurrent applications to redevelop this site (I refer to 23/00151/F -Redevelopment of the site to include care home with associated facilities) it is difficult tounderstand exactly what is being proposed for this site. The local community is keen for aresolution so that the land can be put to good use but they will need to see the concerns they haverepeatedly raised being addressed before they can fully support any proposal

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 !!!

Bristol Tree Forum – Further Comments 28 June 2023

2

conservation area.

The applicant has produced an arboricultural report dated March 2022.7 This is based on a

survey undertaken on 1 July 2021. Paragraph 2.4 of the report states that ‘Data collected

regarding individual trees and groups of trees are presented in the Tree Schedule table in

appendix 1 in accordance with BS5837:20012 Trees in Relation to Construction –

Recommendations,’ No appendix 1 has been produced.

This report refers to just one tree growing on the eastern boundary. The trees that had already

been removed have been ignored.

Paragraph 5.3 of the applicant’s report states: ‘The tree is an early mature Beech (Fagus

sylvatica) approximately 8m tall with an average crown spread of 3m. The stem diametre [sic]

was measured at 270m creating a Root Protection Area of 3.3m (34m2). The tree was assessed

and categorized B2 in accordance with the Cascading Chart of Tree Quality Assessment

contained within BS5837:2012.’ This information is used in our analysis. The tree is protected

by a TPO.

However, using evidence submitted by the applicant in one of their two pending planning

applications, 21/04865/F8 and in planning application 17/05016/F9, we calculate that at least

35 trees were growing on the application site, 34 of which have been removed to facilitate

development:

Species

Totals 35 35 Stem

Diameter

BS5837

Category

57

Tree

ID

Onsite

Trees Removed

BTRS

Calc

Magnolia T1 1 1 40 C 4

Cotoneaster, apple G2 2 2 30 C 6

Cherry T3 1 1 40 U 0

Monterey cypress T4 1 1 75 B 7

Laburnum T5 1 1 42.5 C 4

7 22_05967_F-ARBORICULTURAL_REPORT-3362756 8 https://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=QZ2N8JDNJNF00 9 https://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OVYXXXDNGIZ00

Bristol Tree Forum – Further Comments 28 June 2023

3

Species

Totals 35 35 Stem

Diameter

BS5837

Category

57

Tree

ID

Onsite

Trees Removed

BTRS

Calc

Beech T6 1 1 27.5 C 2

Birch T7 1 1 25 B 2

Birch T8 1 1 25 B 2

Laburnum T9 1 1 40 C 4

Cypress G10* Offsite 27.5 C

Beech T12 1 1 27 B 2

Cypress, griselinia, holly H11 24 24 15 C 24

The plans prepared for this application make it clear that the one remaining TPO beech will

also have to be removed to facilitate the proposed development even though this is not stated

in the applicant’s arboricultural evidence.

Whilst the group H11 is listed as a hedge, it is a line of 24 trees for the purposes of BTRS. The

table above is based on a tree survey undertaken on 17 February 2017, so the stem diameters

given would have increased as the trees grew until they were removed. The trees in H11 were

measured at 12.5 cm in February 2017. We have assumed that they had grown to have at least

15 cm diameters by the time they were felled, thereby making them eligible to be included for

replacement under DM17 and BTRS.

The trees in group G10 are shown outside the development site10.

There are also two hedges shown in the plans referred to in footnote 9 but, as these have not

been surveyed and have now been removed, we have not been able to include them in our

calculations even though they ought to be accounted for.

On this basis, there were 34 trees growing on the site plus the TPO Beech which will have to be

removed. Applying DM17 and BTRS, 57 replacement trees will need to be planted to replace

what has and will be lost (see the table above).

If the fruit trees proposed to be planted in private spaces are discounted, then 17 trees will be

10 17_05016_F-TREE_PROTECTION_PLAN-1708041 & 17_05016_F-TOPOGRAPHICAL_SURVEY-1716134

Bristol Tree Forum – Further Comments 28 June 2023

4

planted on site, albeit that, given the size of the size of the site, this is probably overstocking.

This leaves 40 replacement trees which will have to be planted offsite.

Given the paucity of new planting sites within a one mile radius of the development site (the

usual geographic limit placed on s106 TCPA 1990 agreements), there is no realistic prospect

that these replacement trees will ever be planted. This is contrary to the requirements of BCS9:

Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new

development. Loss of green infrastructure will only be acceptable where it is allowed

for as part of an adopted Development Plan Document or is necessary, on balance, to

achieve the policy aims of the Core Strategy. Appropriate mitigation of the lost green

infrastructure assets will be required.

Development should incorporate new and/or enhanced green infrastructure of an

appropriate type, standard and size. Where on-site provision of green infrastructure is

not possible, contributions will be sought to make appropriate provision for green

infrastructure off site.

NPPF and biodiversity net gain

No biodiversity net gain evidence has been produced to support this application. However, a

Biodiversity Metric 3.0 calculation (BNG 3.0) was submitted in support of the pending

application 21/04865/F which is almost identical to this application. Save as set out below, we

have adopted the applicant’s habitat data in this calculation.

Using the baseline and created habitat information supplied, we have transposed this

information into the current metric applicable, BNG 4.011, and used this to calculate the likely

habitat gains/losses that this proposal will produce. We have made the following assumptions:

1. The location plan gives the area of the site as 2,620 sq. metres12. We calculate that it is

2,708 sq. metres. Either way, the sum of the baseline habitat areas (excluding Individual

trees - Urban tree habitat) only comes to 2,500 sq. metres in the applicant’s original BNG

3.0 calculation. This shortfall needs to be accounted for. We have assigned the difference

to Developed land; sealed surface habitat. This does not alter the baseline calculation.

2. That the strategic significance of the site is High because the site is in a conservation area

11 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6049804846366720 - published on 28 March 2023. 12 22_05967_F-SITE_LOCATION_PLAN-3362738.

Bristol Tree Forum – Further Comments 28 June 2023

5

which is identified in BCS22 of the Local Plan.13

3. That the trees which were or are growing on the site, including the trees forming hedgerow

H11, are Individual trees - Urban tree habitat.14 Using the BNG 4.0 methodology, they have

a total baseline habitat area of 0.3054 hectares,15 all of which has or will be lost. The

Individual trees - Urban tree habitat area calculation is set out at Appendix 1.

4. That the Individual trees - Urban tree habitat was or is in Moderate condition,

5. That, as well as achieving at least a 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), the trading rules must

be complied with. In particular, lost Individual trees - Urban tree habitat should be

replaced by the same Broad habitat (Individual trees broad habitat) or with a higher

distinctiveness habitat.16

6. That the obligation to plant replacement trees under DM17 should be taken account of in

the BNG calculation.

7. That Standard-sized replacement trees as defined by BS3936-1 will be planted to mitigate

for lost Urban tree habitat and that, at the end of the 30+ year time-to-target period, they

will have grown into Small category trees under BNG 4.0.17 We have made no allowance for

any annual mortality attrition that this newly created habitat is likely to suffer.

8. There will be a four-year delay between the trees having been removed and then replaced.

9. 17 Standard-sized replacement trees as defined by BS3936-1 will be planted on site.

10. Individual trees - Urban tree habitat created in private gardens do not form part of the

BNG calculation18

11. The proposed planting plan does not show any Native Species Rich Hedgerows with trees

habitats. We have allowed for Native Species Rich Hedgerow habitat to be created which

will achieve Moderate condition even though we do not believe that this habitat type is

viable on this site.

On this basis we calculate that the applicant’s current proposals will result in a net loss of

biodiversity of -91.04%.

In order to achieve at least 10% net gain and comply with the BNG trading rules a further 267

13 The Biodiversity Metric 4.0 - User guide – Section 5-4 Strategic significance table 5-3. 14 The Biodiversity Metric 4.0 - User guide – Section 8.3. Assessing individual urban and rural trees. 15 The Biodiversity Metric 4.0 - User guide – Section 8.3. Recording individual trees. 16 The Biodiversity Metric 4.0 - User guide – Section 3.2. Metric trading rules (Rule 3). 17 The Biodiversity Metric 4.0 - User guide – Table 8-1 - Tree size classes and area equivalents and para. 8.3.13. 18 The Biodiversity Metric 4.0 - User guide – Section 8.3. Trees within gardens, para. 8.3.7.

Bristol Tree Forum – Further Comments 28 June 2023

6

new trees will need to be planted. However, as currently proposed, this application fails to

meet the requirements of the Bristol Development Plan and the NPPF and so must be refused.

Appendix 1 – Urban tree habitat baseline area calculation

Trees 35 35 BNG 4.0 Totals

(ha) 0.3054 0.3054 0.0000

Tree

ID Species

Tree

Count

Trees

Removed

DBH

(cm)

BNG 4.0

Category

Baseline

Habitat

Habitat

removed

(ha)

Habitat

Retained

(ha)

T1 Magnolia 1 1 40 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

G2 Cotoneaster,

apple 2 2 30 Small 0.0081 0.0081 0.0000

T3 Cherry 1 1 40 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

T4 Monterey

cypress 1 1 75 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

T5 Laburnum 1 1 43 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

T6 Beech 1 1 28 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T7 Birch 1 1 25 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T8 Birch 1 1 25 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T9 Laburnum 1 1 40 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

G10 Cypress* 0 0 28 Small 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

H11 Cypress,

griselinia, holly 24 24 15 Small 0.0977 0.0977 0.0000

T12 Beech 1 1 27 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

* Offsite

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.