Application Details

Council BCC
Reference 22/05998/F
Address Plot 3 Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6EA  
Street View
Ward Lawrence Hill
Proposal Construction of 3no. buildings, ranging in height from 6 -10 storeys, comprising 108no. residential build-to-rent apartments (Use Class C3) (including affordable housing), a hotel (Use Class C1) with restaurant and ground floor commercial units (Use Class E), and an extended stay aparthotel (Use Class C1), together with the creation of areas of public realm and open spaces, landscaping, walkway connections, along with the provision of disabled parking bays, cycle stores and waste and recycling stores.
Validated 19-12-22
Type Full Planning
Status Pending consideration
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 25-07-23
Standard Consultation Expiry 09-11-23
Determination Deadline 20-03-23
BCC Planning Portal on Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 4 Objectors: 8    Total: 12
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

BTF response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 24-07-23

We have submitted our comments objecting to this application -

Public Comments


22/05998/F - Comments - 24 July 2023


The evidence presented by the applicant states variously that:

• 32 trees will be planted onsite,3

• 41 trees will be planted onsite,4 or

• that 85 trees will be planted onsite.5

Under all of these scenarios, it would appear that the tree replacement requirements of DM17 will be met, though we question if the site is large enough to allow for so many trees to be planted in a sustainable way.

2. The biodiversity evidence

The applicant has presented its Biodiversity Metric calculation using BNG 4.0. Save for the matters set out below, we do not take issue with the calculation. We note that the applicant has set a target of at least 10% biodiversity net gain and have made our own calculations on this basis.

a) The site size

The AIA and the Biodiversity Net Gain report6 states that the site is 0.54 hectares, yet the BNG 4.0 calculation shows a habitat area of 0.69 hectares. We have discounted the habitat area of both the baseline and created Developed land; sealed surface habitats by 0.15 hectares to correct this anomaly.

b) Individual tree habitat is missing

The applicant has omitted to include the seven Individual trees – Urban tree habitats which existed on the site before the trees were removed in its BNG 4.0 calculation. The BNG 4.0 User Guide states that:

Accordingly, this lost habitat should be included in the BNG 4.0 baseline habitat

3 22_05998_F-ARBORICULTURAL_ASSESSMENT_REV_E__RPT._NO._11100_-3367759 4 22_05998_F-PLANTING_SCHEDULE-3490387 5 22_05998_F-BIODIVERSITY_NET_GAIN_METRIC-3490944 6 22_05998_F-BIODIVERSITY_NET_GAIN_METRIC-3490944

22/05998/F - Comments - 24 July 2023


calculation. We have used the tree survey data in the AIA in our calculation below:

Trees 7 7 BNG 4.0 Totals

0.0048 0.1914 0.1914 0.0000

Tree ID

Tree Count

Trees Removed

DBH (cm)

RPA (m^2)

Baseline RPA


BNG 4.0 Category

Baseline Habitat

Habitat removed


Habitat Retained


T1 1 1 54 6.50 0.0007 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

T2 0 0 73 8.80 0.0009 Medium 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

T3 0 0 68 8.20 0.0008 Medium 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

T4 1 1 58 7.00 0.0007 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

T5 1 1 34 4.10 0.0004 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

T6 1 1 33 4.00 0.0004 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

T7 1 1 26 3.10 0.0003 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T8 1 1 36 4.30 0.0004 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

T9 1 1 13 1.50 0.0002 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

This habitat covered a total area of 0.1914 hectares of which none has been retained. On the basis that its condition was Moderate, this provided 1.53 Habitat Units.

c) Individual tree habitat created is overestimated

We have adopted the proposed onsite planting of 41 trees on site as set out in the planting schedule7 which will become Small category at the expiry of the time-to-target period of 30 years and will provide 0.1669 hectares of habitat (0.46 habitat units) in Moderate condition.

d) Delay in starting habitat creation

Given that the habitat existing on the site has already been removed and that some time will elapse before it Is replaced, we have allowed a delay of three years for habitat to be created.

e) The trading rules have not been complied with

The applicant’s own calculation fails to comply with the trading rules.8 There is a shortfall of 0.04 habitat units of broad habitat Heathland and scrub.

7 22_05998_F-PLANTING_SCHEDULE-3490387 8 The Biodiversity Metric 4.0 – User guide – section 3.2

22/05998/F - Comments - 24 July 2023


We calculate that there is a shortfall of 0.08 habitat units of broad habitat Heathland and scrub and 1.07 habitat units of broad habitat, Individual trees.

f) The delivery of biodiversity net gain

Our calculations show that, without further habitat creation, the applicant’s proposals will result in a net loss of biodiversity of -27.76%.

Paragraph 179 b) of the National Planning Policy Framework requires that plans should ‘identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity.’9 As currently proposed these plans fail to do this.

If a further 0.03 hectares of broad habitat Heathland and scrub in poor condition after

4 years were created and a further 96 standard-sized trees were planted to produce

0.3909 hectares of broad habitat, Individual trees in moderate condition after 30 years

in order to comply with the trading rule requirements, then a net gain of 31.46% could

be achieved. We have assumed that these will be planted offsite but within the LPA

boundary. The Headline results of our calculations are set out below. A copy of our BNG

4.0 calculation can be downloaded here.


BTQ Joint Delivery Team     on 2023-11-14   SUPPORT

Dear Lewis

On behalf of the BTQ Joint Delivery Team, I confirm our support for the proposals onPlot 3 (planning ref 22/05998/F) and the delivery of the southern ramp. This is on thebasis as follows:

- Southern ramp provides better connection and more direct route to friary and Brunelmile and onward. It particularly avoids potential unsafe route under Temple Way

- Better bridge over to Dings (avoid later conflict on the curved bridge) and thus to thewider sustrans network

- Avoids potential future conflict from north into the square. Also avoids conflict withusers of ferry stop and the steps area

- Clearer access to/from new station entrance

I am happy to discuss further.

Kind regards,

Not Available    on 2023-08-01   OBJECT

The Panel does not support this application.

The revised plans are minor changes to details and tinkering around the edges. There does notappear to be any change to footprint and massing and so the impact on views remains the same.This application does not address earlier concerns and the Panel therefore reiterates its previouscomment:

"The Panel objects to this application.The proposed buildings would result in the loss of important views of the Grade I listed BristolTemple Meads stations.

The Visually Verified Montages show that views of the station from the north - from Avon Street(View 4) and approaching the site across the Valentine Bridge (View 5) - would be completelyblocked and views of the station from the south east - from the station forecourt (View 16) andapproaching the city along the Bath Road (Views 16, 17 and 18) - would be harmed by themassing of the proposed buildings appearing above the station roofscape. The site is part of theBrunel railway landscape and there is potential for revealing evidence of important railwayinfrastructure as well other C19 industrial features. Archaeological work needs to be carried out inadvance rather than as a watching brief. The proposed site layout does not acknowledge orrespect the history of the site. This is disappointing as the location of the Brunel goods

transshipment dock in particular offers the opportunity to inform the development and offerinterpretation of the site and its relationship to the Grade I listed Bristol Temple Meads stations. "

Not Available    on 2023-07-22   OBJECT

All of my initial objections still stand. The proposals are completely out of character andout of place for the location. The planners/developers clearly have no familiarity with the area, andinstead see this plot of land as a cash-grabbing dumping ground for glass and concrete, and haveabsolutely no interest in improving anything other than their bank balances. This is absolutely amissed opportunity by everyone involved to really enhance the local area - instead they arefocused on building on every patch of land in site and cramming as many people as possible into asmall area. As mentioned in my prior objection, they are effectively ghettoising the area.

The proposed 'ecological zone' is an absolute joke (document BTQ-COL-00-XX-DR-S-3003 REV.02). The plan is to remove several established trees, which are used as habitats by birds, andinstead they want to keep the barest minimum amount of trees in a narrow channel. This, after thewillows having been removed to much disgust and outrage by Bristol residents.

I am incredibly concerned by the proposed lack of trees in the general area. Document BTQ-COL-00-XX-DR-L-5001 REV. 06 shows that every single tree along Isambard Walk is to be removed,along with some trees by the steps in the square. The proposal appears to be to then plantdifferent trees on the opposite side of Isambard Walk. This is ridiculous, frivilous and unnecessary.The developer's attitude and planned actions in regards to these trees raises great concerns for allother existing and proposed trees in the plans - they want to uproot (and assumingly destroyed)established trees simply because the developer feels they are on the wrong side of the road.

I am also concerned by the trees shown on the same plan along Friary. They show locations forproposed trees, but make no mention of the trees already there by the bike racks. Does thedeveloper know they exist? Or are they hoping nobody will notice they are missing on the plan sothat they too can be destroyed?

These trees all add much needed shade/tree cover, provide habitats and perches for birds, andadd to the charm and appeal of this area. They help make this a pleasant area to be in. We needmore tree cover, not less. Yet again, I remind the Council if its responsibilities regarding Bristol'stree canopy.

From your 'Tree Strategy and Tree Planting Plan' from 08 February 2022, "The One City Planincludes a target to increase Bristol's tree canopy by 25% by 2035... Increasing tree cover will besignificant in helping to mitigate the effects of climate change, particularly urban heat stress,support nature recovery and promote health and wellbeing".

A tiny patch of land sandwiched between three obnoxiously large buildings fails to meet thepurpose of the tree canopy. Two willow trees have already gone. More trees are going to beremoved. A canopy is supposed to cover a wide area, not a tiny parcel which is completelyseparate to everything else.

I again re-iterate that the proposed buildings are far too large for the site. The site is undoubtedlytoo small for the proposed buildings, and the plan is to build these looming, obstructive andsuffocating blocks that have no place in this location. This area is nice precisely because of theopen space. Views of Temple Meads, undisturbed views across the water. This is a pleasant placeto work and to wander through. The steps are a lovely and popular place for local residents andworkers to relax - in the sunshine, open air, birds chirping over head. From my office, I can seeacross to Temple Meads. From Veeno, you can enjoy a lovely view of and across the river. FromStarbucks, you can enjoy sitting in a relaxed atmosphere and enjoy the broad view before you.The square has frequent food markets that are enjoyable precisely because it all is open andrelaxed. The walk from the Cheesegrater (Meads Reach) bridge is enjoyable because of this openexpanse, and with the Buddleia and remaining trees.

The buildings are too large and too numerous for this area. They will bring no benefit to those wholive and work in the area. The area will absolutely lose its uniqueness and charm by becoming yetanother place dominated by oversized buildings with poorly-placed dwellings. The plans arecompletely fantastical and misleading.

This is a business area. This is not a residential area. Any plans to build private residences hereare poorly thought through. Additional hotels are not needed. Even if the Holiday Inn Express isdemolished, there is the Ibis and Leonardo, along with the Hilton. I struggle to believe that these

hotels are frequently at such high capacity that yet another hotel is needed. And, even if it were,there are empty office buildings in the immediate area that would be better suited to beingconverted to hotels.

Again, I direct you to my original comments. I understand that strength of feeling does little by wayof objection. But I sincerely urge the Council to view the location, to understand the area and whyit so pleasant, and to realise that the proposed plans are completely inappropriate, unrealistic anddetrimental.

Not Available    on 2023-04-05   OBJECT

The Dings mostly welcomes the redevelopment of this site, which has been left dormantfor such a long time. However we have quite a few concerns.

The height of the buildings, over the years our skyline has significantly reduced, and with a furtherstories added, we will be living in a sky-scraping concrete does not present a welcoming aspect or a positive first impression of the city for those exitingwhat will be the new Temple Meads station entrance.Comment from resident "Far too high, totally overbears everything else in that area, will leavesitting steps in the shadows."

The apart hotel frontage is totally ugly, red bricked Victorian style. which does nothing to enhancethe surrounding buildings. HMRC building is a good example. light - open glass frontages.

Very disappointed not to see solar panels being built into this development.

The creation of wind tunnels is a real concern. We currently have strong gusts of wind along GlassWharf, between the PWC and HMRC buildings and around Box Makers Yard. The balconies onBox Makers Yard have also created a howling, eerie noise when there is any sort of wind whichmeans people avoid using the street and impacts on the surrounding area.

Apartments are for rent, this does not make a community.

Doctors and dentists are already overstretched and are very few and far, with anotherdevelopment being built where are all these people going to go for treatments.

The Dings has all its history steeping within the streets, i.e. manhole covers with names and datesof boxers/footballers that lived in the Dings, we have requested all developers to retain the historyof the site, Waites have found clay pipes, blue glass, these will hopefully be showcased within thesite.Implied references do not add to peoples knowledge or create a draw for those looking to explorethis part of the city. References to the history of the site can be inventive, fun and informative.

Trees - it was with great disappointment to the community re the removal of the willow trees.Although more trees will be planted, it will take some years for them to look as beautiful as theones felled. It is requested that more willows and fruit trees are planted.

Retail developments, it is requested that when construction has been built that this does notbecome yet another coffee/cake shop - we need something more practical i.e. Wilco - Range -something that sells a wide range of household and general goods this reduces the need for cartravel to buy / deliver basic household items.

Consideration is given to local employment, both on the construction site, and on completion

As much grass and landscaping within the development as possible. People need to be able to sitand relax and enjoy fresh air.A vital part of any development housing families is a place for parents to take their children to play.This has to be integrated in to plans in some way.

Workforce parking during construction - The Dings is an RPZ and therefore construction workersare not permitted to park in our area

  SUPPORT   on 2023-03-13   SUPPORT

allow new residents as well as visitors to work, eat and spend time in the area. Adding the welcome level of new public realm from the scheme, including a children’s play area will positively contribute to overall liveability and provide space for community amenity within the premises and in a way that is accessible to the public.

Providing a hotel fits with wider infrastructure developments not least in TQ, but also Arena, Ashton Gate Stadium where the city’s hospitality sector will need additional capacity.

The development will also support the delivery of housing with an allocation of 20%

affordable in the BTR component –which would help provide balanced communities within this scheme and help with Bristol’s affordable housing pressures.

The architecture presents an improvement on the previous proposal – it is better integrated with the surroundings, whilst the hotel will be facing onto the river front, which will help in terms of overall coherence of the area.

Whilst the proposal is also the final ‘missing piece’ of the jigsaw prior to the larger

Bristol Temple Quarter next phase – so it is an important site to have completed and will help maintain momentum and confidence in the next phase of Bristol’s growth story.

It is for all these reasons that we support the proposed development and I hope you will take these points into consideration. Yours faithfully, Matt Griffith Director of Policy Business West

Not Available    on 2023-02-01   SUPPORT



The Society welcomes the redevelopment of this site. Whilst we feel that the proposal haspotential to contribute positively to the townscape to the immediate west of Temple Meads, wehave some concerns regarding form, materials, impact on views and climate change issues. Wewill build on our response to 22/01365/PREAPP.

The Society's Response to 22/01365/PREAPP

In our response to 22/01365/PREAPP we stated that we considered that the proposed uses weresuitable and the proposed permeability and pocket park would provide a welcome relief from thedense development of the surrounding area. We welcomed the commitment to minimise vehicleaccess to the development but urged that cycle parking and storage facilities were at leastcompatible with the Council's requirements. We made a number of suggestions summarisedbelow which we felt could improve the scheme:- Reduce the height of the aparthotel to avoid the building being visible above the Brunel buildings

when viewed from the approach to Temple Meads.- Relief from the orthogonal pattern of buildings, particularly for the residential block,- Consider ways of relieving the hard elevation to Isambard Walk and ensuring an active frontagethere.

Height and Impact on Views.

The Society welcomes the reduction in the height of the aparthotel to mitigate its impact on viewsof the Brunel buildings from the main station approach. However, we still have some concernsabout the building heights in response to the application proposals. We agree with HistoricEngland's concerns regarding VVM 5 and 6, and in closing the vista looking south as youapproach the station from Castle Park, VVM 4, the Floating Harbour loses that sense of what'saround the corner and because of that some of its appeal.Although there have been changes to the floorplan of the residential block, it is still largelyorthogonal in form. We find the reliance on this rectilinear approach unexciting.


If the layout and form of the buildings is to achieve its full potential to create an appealing newurban place, the Society strongly feels that materials of the highest quality will be required. Thebuildings will need to look striking on dull and wet days and, in particular, they will need to weatherwell in the longer term.

Public Realm.

The Society is generally supportive of the proposed approach to the public realm. Planting andactive frontages along Isambard Walk will soften this elevation at street level.

Climate Change.

Bristol City Council's commitment to carbon neutrality by 2030 is strongly supported by theSociety. We urge the Council to satisfy itself that the Sustainability Statement supports thisambition.

22/01365/F - Mixed-use redevelopment comprising a hotel with ground floor commercial uses, an

aparthotel and residential dwellings (including affordable housing), with associated landscapingand open space.SummaryBristol Civic Society welcomes the redevelopment of this site. The proposed uses are suitable andthe proposed permeability and pocket park would provide a welcome relief from the densedevelopment of the surrounding area. We welcome the commitment to minimise vehicle access tothe development but urge that cycle parking and storage facilities are at least compatible with theCouncil's requirements. We make a number of suggestions below which we feel could improve thescheme.Building HeightsThese are broadly acceptable in the context of the site although we would appreciate the inclusionof seasonal shadow diagrams to assess the impact of the scheme, for example, on ValentineBridge and Glass Wharf. We understand that Historic England are opposed to the proposedbuildings being visible above the Brunel buildings when viewed from the approach to TempleMeads. The Society shares that opinion and would urge the developer to pursue change of thedesign of the apart hotel to resolve this issue. Thus far the buildings are shown without servicingfacilities at roof level. We support this and trust that more detailed design work will accommodateservices without adding height or untidiness to the buildings. If the locations of verified viewsdemonstrating the impact of the development have not been agreed with the Council we wouldhope that they will be before an application is submitted.Building DesignThe Society reserves its position on building design until it is finalised but we have some initialreactions. The emphasis on verticality in the articulation of the hotel and apart hotel buildings iswelcome. We wonder whether the orthogonal approach to the design of the buildings could berelieved if alternatives designs to the residential block were considered as has been done with theEye building on the opposite bank of the Floating Harbour.Public Realm.The elevation of the hotel to Brunel Way abuts the pavement leaving little room for planting torelieve what would be a somewhat enclosed streetscape. We would urge the developers toconsider solutions to this and, at least, ensure a very active frontage at street level. The proposedpocket park could be a welcome refuge for people waiting for trains and it would be good if itspresence could be signposted at the station.

Not Available    on 2023-01-31   OBJECT

The Conservation Advisory Panel object to this application.

The proposed buildings would result in the loss of important views of the Grade I listed BristolTemple Meads stations.

The Visually Verified Montages show that views of the station from the north - from Avon Street(View 4) and approaching the site across the Valentine Bridge (View 5) - would be completelyblocked and views of the station from the south east - from the station forecourt (View 16) andapproaching the city along the Bath Road (Views 16, 17 and 18) - would be harmed by themassing of the proposed buildings appearing above the station roofscape.

The site is part of the Brunel railway landscape and there is potential for revealing evidence ofimportant railway infrastructure as well other C19 industrial features. Archaeological work needs tobe carried out in advance rather than as a watching brief.

The proposed site layout does not acknowledge or respect the history of the site. This isdisappointing as the location of the Brunel goods transshipment dock in particular offers theopportunity to inform the development and offer interpretation of the site and its relationship to theGrade I listed Bristol Temple Meads stations.

Not Available    on 2023-01-31   SUPPORT

As the Business Improvement District within the Redcliffe and Temple area we supportthe much needed development of this prominent city space which has remained underused andvisually unattractive for many years. Overall we feel the scheme is high quality and befitting of thehistoric and high profile area that it is situated within.We fully support the proposed ground floor commercial trading space below the hotel which will beimportant to increase the amenities available to the growing population of local residents andoffice workers.We note and support the 108 homes that will have c20% affordable options included.The delivery of the public arts strategy within the scheme will be very important to ensure thatthere is enough green infrastructure included which should be family friendly and accessible to all.We encourage the developers to further consult and engage with local business and residents onthe public realm proposals in order to get a scheme that fits with what the local people want to seeand use.

Not Available    on 2023-01-22   OBJECT

In short: This is completely the wrong place for a residential building, the hotels are notneeded, the area is far too small for all the planned buildings, and what this area desperatelyneeds is a green space, tree cover, and better road/path markings. These plans bring no benefit tothe local area. I approve of the ecological zone, green rooves and agree that some additional retailand open space is needed, but this plan is totally wrong for the area. I like the idea for the greenrooves, but am disappointed by the lack of solar panels which would be ideal here, due to theaspect and the exposed nature of the rooves and location. The design is effectively segregating,the hotel cutting the area in two and removing a large expanse of land from those in the area. I amalso incredibly disappointed by the lack of notice given about this planning application. I have notseen any signage in the area regarding it and, despite the Neighbour Notification List, I am notconvinced there has been proper and effective communication. This is evidenced by the lack ofcomments on the application.

I have lived in Bristol my whole life, have lived in this immediate area since 2018 and have workedin Temple Quay since 2016. A large part of the reason as to why this area is pleasant to be in, isthat is quiet and open. It is pleasant to walk around, it is enjoyable to walk across Valentine bridgeand see the trees, the sky, the railway bridge, and Temple Meads station. The area does not at allfeel crowded or cramped. There are crows, black-headed gulls, wood pigeons, blackbirds,magpies, robins, and many, many other types of birds. With the expanse of land having beenempty for so long, it has been reclaimed by nature somewhat - these birds are frequently seen

there, as are butterflies (thanks to the buddleia) and dragonflies. And whilst it is a lovely expansethat allows for clear views around the area, provides much needed breathing space and - wouldyou believe it - greenery in what is otherwise something of a concrete jungle, it is absolutely NOTlarge enough to house the proposed plan of three buildings. This number of buildings, and of thissize, would completely swallow the area, making it crowded, cramped, dark, and far less pleasantto be in. The acoustics - noise reverberation - have also clearly not been considered, and noconsideration has been made to the sunlight on not only the surrounding buildings which peoplework in, but also to the other planned buildings. No consideration has been given to those livingand working in the area, and of their enjoyment of their surroundings.

This area is in desperate need of green/recreation space. While I am not completely opposed tothe prospect of additional retail space, anything beyond a single story is absolutely ridiculous, as isanything that spans an entire street (such as Isambard Walk). Whoever believes these plans to bea good idea as they are clearly has no familiarity with the area, and how it is to work and live here.

Valentine bridge is effectively a transition between business and residential areas, bordered bybusinesses such as PwC, HMRC, the Natwest building (soon to be a dental school) amongstothers, with The Eye providing the first step into the residential space. With the recent addition ofBox Makers Yard, this is even more apparent. The whole area is business-centered, is completelythe wrong place to build residential apartments and new hotels, and these types of buildings (ofany size) would be completely out of place. The square is used by those working in thesurrounding buildings and greater area. There is a food market which takes up a lot of space, isincredibly popular, and which actually would benefit from more space in the area to allow forpeople to sit outside and eat. The Wetherspoons pub is already incredibly popular, and it can bedifficult to find a place to sit or stand, both inside or outside from even early on in the day. Inwarmer months, customers spill out into the square due to the lack of seating. It is alreadycrowded. This is not an insult to the area, but there is simply no more space for additionalresidents or customers. Likewise, the nearby Barley Mow pub and Veeno bar/restaurant areincredibly busy and popular, as are other establishments in the area. There would potentially becompetition between the newest residents (temporary and permanent), and the existing, regularcustomers. Noise from Wetherspoons and Veeno would also be an issue for those living andstaying in the properties. Noise can travel incredibly far, especially in the evenings/at night whenthere is less background noise to mask it. The pub has outdoor seating, and the area can get loud.It is also a frequent stop for those travelling to/from Temple Meads, as well as local stag and hendos. In the past, there has also been anti-social behaviour which would not improve with adramatically increased local population.

This would also not be a desirable location to live or stay in. While I have no doubts that peoplewould rush forward to obtain a flat for themselves, this is simply because of the absolutely direhousing situation in Bristol. The area is located right next to Temple Meads - a busy and loud trainstation. There is pollution from the trains and from passing boats. There are seagulls, which areincredibly loud and physically threatening, especially in the summer. There is also Motion

nightclub, which would cause a great deal of noise pollution for all those in rented flats and in thehotels. Although the noise from this venue has lessened since the greatly-publicised arguments in2021, noise does still occur and will be far more noticeable in such close proximity to the area.

Motion do not care in the slightest for Bristol's residents, and effectively launched a campaignbelittling and insulting those who dared to complain about the noise generated by the venue -which could at times be heard for miles around. I, amongst many others, attempted to contactMotion in order to resolve the issue amicably. They had no interest in responding, and insteadcomplained to the local media. As such, I am greatly concerned by the negative impact that will behad on the hotels and flats due to be built here.

This building will be adding more people to an area that has recently had a massive increase inpopulation thanks to Box Makers Yard, and yet with no provision. There are no supermarkets, noadditional services, and the public transport is already on its knees - too many people and too fewbuses and trains. Student accommodation is already planned for the surrounding areas, which willonly increase the population here further. I completely agree that more housing is required inBristol, but this is absolutely the worst place for it. I am also aware that the council has given itselftargets to build new homes within Bristol and central Bristol, but it should choose appropriateplaces, rather than allowing developments anywhere and everywhere to meet targets. The councilhas so far displayed zero forethought or long-term planning in regards to the living situation andinfrastructure in the city.

The three buildings create a 'square' of sorts - a dark, segregated area that does not appearimmediately welcoming to workers and residents in the area. The long, wide hotel building that inthe plans runs alongside Isambard Walk is too long and immediately cuts the whole area in two. Itis far too obtrusive, acting as great wall rather than a continuation or improvement of the space. Itwill also create a wind-tunnel effect in bad weather along Isambard Walk. It will not be welcomingto others in the area, and is too cut off from the ecological zone and other trees in the area forwildlife. The trees there will receive considerably less daylight, and the level of noise will benegatively impacted as well. It would also make it far less pleasant to stay in - for example, theStarbucks is very popular no least because it offers calm, open outdoor seating. I also seriouslystruggle to believe that such a large hotel - and with an additional apart-hotel planned! - is neededhere. There are many hotels in the immediate and surrounding areas - even when excluding theHoliday Inn opposite Temple Meads that the council plans to demolish. Hotels here provides nobenefit to the area, and will cause more strain on local transport and the amount of traffic, ifcustomers bring their own vehicles.

I am concerned by the likely increase in car traffic in the area which will be from those living inflats, staying at the hotels, but also working in the hotels and proposed additional businesses. Airpollution is already dangerously high, so more traffic is not needed. It would also be poorjudgement to expect people to travel by public transport. For example, the 8 bus is in high demandby residents and students, is more often than not full, and does not have the frequency or capacity

needed to cater for additional passengers This is a much quieter area, and recent resurfacingwork has actually made it far more dangerous for both drivers and pedestrians. There is no nodiscernible difference between path and road for much of the area, causing a great deal ofconfusion and conflict. The proposed buildings would also decrease visibility for those going downIsambard Walk and from Meads Reach Bridge towards Temple Meads. This area is used heavilynot only by pedestrians, but also those on bikes and e-scooters, any decrease in visibility aroundcorners will be an unnecessarily added danger. The Road Safety Audit also lists several areas forserious concern. In short, the area is not safe.

I am very disappointed and concerned by the plans to remove the majority of the trees andgreenery in the area. We have recently lost two beautiful willow trees - during National Tree Week,no less - which has prompted outrage across all of Bristol. These plans now show the intention toremove the vast majority of the remaining greenery on the site. The creation of an ecological zoneis not an acceptable answer. The trees and animal in this location are not tenants that you canevict on a whim. With rising temperatures, risks to wildlife, and already considerable lack ofgreenery in the area, all attempts should be made to work around, protect, and increase what isthere. I have to assume that the two 'high quality' trees in the documents are actually trees that arestill there, and are not referring to the now-destroyed trees. There are five 'moderate quality' treeswithin the site boundary: it is simply not acceptable to remove these because they don't fit in withthe proposed plans. The plans are not good enough to justify the destruction of any moregreenery. If the council and the government actually took the welfare and wellbeing of Bristol'scitizens seriously, then these plans would be refused. Do I have to remind the council that it hastargets regarding tree planting and Bristol's tree canopy? It has already allowed for the destructionof two trees here. The plans will destroy several others, will endanger other trees due to reducedsunlight and, most crucially, could approve inappropriate plans in an area that could house amultitude of trees which are desperately needed in this immediate area, and which would be highlybeneficial to local residents and workers (and to local businesses, for providing additional openspace where customers could go to consume their goods). This area is heavily paved andsurrounded by highly-reflective buildings. In summer, it is torture to be outside. That does notmean building three gigantic buildings with a dingy courtyard is the answer! It means actualthought, care and consideration need to be applied when making any changes. Unless, of course,the council just wants to make Bristol more and more miserable to live and work in - to the point ofit actually being almost unliveable.

This is not a residential area, nor is this an area for hotels. This is not area that can accommodate538 additional residences of any sort. The flats alone are designed to house an additional 196people which is ridiculous and unsustainable. A measly 21 flats are currently proposed as'affordable', which can be agreed is generally a misnomer and a farce. Build-to-rent properties arenothing but an easy way for companies to make money, and it highly likely that these new tenantswill not be those living in Bristol who need new housing, but - as has already been happeningacross the city - will likely be those from other cities such as London, who have a much higherincome and would find it far easier to afford any proposed rent charges. It it also serves to

reinforce the increase in build-to-rent buildings, and exorbitantly high rents.

The nearby area is soon to accommodate 470 student flats on the site of Chanson Foods. There isnot enough space, and certainly not enough in the way of services and amenities to accommodatethe current population level in the area, let alone to allow for any more. The plans have anappalling design, with clearly no understanding of the local area. We already have hotels nearby -the Ibis, the recently-opened Leonardo, the Holiday Inn on Temple Way etc. The Leonardo hotelhas encouraged an increasing number of people from south Wales to stay in Bristol for Fridaysand Saturdays to take advantage of cheaper alcohol. You would argue that this providesbusinesses with a boost. I would argue that it makes staff in local shops and the hotel feel moreuncomfortable because of their behaviour, encourages unsafe drinking behaviour, and increasesanti-social behaviour and crime.

These plans provide very little, if any, benefit to those already in the area. It will increase traffic,detrimentally increase the amount of people attempting to visit nearby pubs, shops, GP surgeriesand dentists, and will put a strain on already choked public transport such as buses and trains.Can any of you really go to this area and say wholeheartedly that not only is the location fantasticfor a hotel or block of flats which would have no detriment to the local area, but this exactly whereyou would like to stay or live? I very much doubt that you can. The build-to-rent plans do not servethe local community, nor do they provide any benefit other than to the companies behind them.

In summation, this is a poorly thought out plan, with absolutely no consideration given to the area.The proposed buildings are too broad, too tall, completely out of place and completelyunnecessary. It is a missed opportunity to truly bring value to this area, and the plans bring nobenefit - only detriment - to the area.

Not Available    on 2023-01-15   OBJECT

I strongly object to this application on the basis that the build-to-rent apartments do notserve the needs of the Bristol community in any way. Bristol's housing situation is dire, and the lastthing we need right now is more build-to-rent apartments being constructed and owned byproperty investors in perpetuity, as without rent controls the owners of the property will be able tosqueeze the residents for as much as they like, which will only increase rent prices in the city.When space to build in the city centre is so scarce, it is laughable to allow a private company tobuild apartments for the sole purpose of extracting money out of hard working Bristolians withoutconstraint. Bristol needs affordable housing, and this application spits in the face of that need bylocking even more of the city's land into ownership of large companies that don't care whatsoeverabout the good of the people living in this city. The 'affordable housing' mentioned in theapplication will no doubt be the legal minimum required, and will be a joke compared to the byadmission unaffordable housing that the rest of the build-to-rent apartments will represent. Isincerely hope that this application does not succeed as it will be another stain on this city'srecord.

Not Available    on 2023-01-10   OBJECT

The architecture in the scheme is support for the area. The sides of the hotel buildingsthat face both the river and the side entrance of Temple Meads are example of what not to do toenhance the character of an area. When people walk along the river they would want to seeinteresting architecture that engages with the area. A blank wall, which is Grey in colour, isprobably the opposite of what should be done here.I think the design needs to be revised. This is the entrance to Bristol for many people, the designneeds to be of the highest quality.