Good morning

The report on this application is long and begins with assurances thatall is well, that there is no need for concern. It is not until almosthalfway through that comments sent in by the public, most of whom liveclose to this proposed development, are shown with objectionsconcerning, for example, the negative effect on the dwellings opposite,the unrealistic provision of parking spaces, can't have open windows andmore which will be voiced by others.

Moreover, there are several summaries from public bodies and groups whoneed to be consulted where their replies are headed 'No objection' whichthen go on to list numerous faults which need to be put right.

This planning application needs to be turned down. Too high, too dense,not good for the locality or the students,

1. The height of this development is too high and should be moderated. 10 Storeys willblock out light and amenity and will cast a shadow over houses around it. For us in CotswoldRoad, the height will obliterate our views, block out light and destry the local amenity.2. The blocks are too close together and present a "block" of buildings that lack an appropriatefrontage and will present a grey and bland exterior3. Inadequate parking spaces. For 484 student bedspaces the allowance of three parking spacespresents a poor allowance that will inevitably cause the inhabitants to park elsewhere in thelocaility onto already busy, cramped and narrow roads that struggle to find places for its currentresidents let alone new ones.

Since the site is at last up and running again, I notice that although the height issupposedly ten stories max., counting the ground level as two stories in height, and an addition onthe top, it looks more like twelve stories. It is definitely very tall and dense. Also the constructiondespite the interesting brick differences, is straight blocks; in the form of army barracks.I know the architects could and should do better.

We consider this development to be of too high a density and also height in this area. Itwould appear that a building of lower height than this proposal was previously rejected as beingtoo high for the area yet this one is higher again - this seems odd.

The proposed building will overshadow the Malago apartments opposite and St John'sChurchyard, in the conservation area. Loss of sunlight to these residents and to the green space isnot a positive for the other residents in this area.

Further the light pollution from the development may interfere with local bat populations we arereliably informed.

We object to this proposal.

This development will be a vast wasteland of stacked boxes devoid of quality orcharacter.They will be massive overshadowing wind tunnels.Too many, too high and completely out of character and scale to the neighbourhood.These flats have just been dumped onto tiny areas of land, next to small 2-3 storey Victorianhouses, without any consideration to the characteristics of the neighbourhood.The massive amount of windows overlooking onto Windmill Hill along with the inevitable lightpollution will detrimentally effect those living immediately north and south of the developments.Where are the essential infrastructures necessary to support such an influx of people?Yes we need more housing, but surely YOU the council have a responsibility to want better qualityhousing than this for all the future inhabitants of this area .

Firstly, please look at previous planning application objections as there is a real senseof powerlessness, voices of the community not really being heard, feeling disheartened peoplemay feel it's not worth contributing again. Especially after the loss of the Windmill Pub when thePlanning Inspectorate overturned the views of the community and the unanimous decision of thecouncil to keep the building as a pub and not be developed into a few flats which would beinsignificant when considering the huge swathes of flats being built all across Bedminster - thenewcomers will be deprived of an excellent social venue.This is a residential area, a community of families, young children, older people and vulnerablegroups. The site shouldn't be for students. It's understandable that students need accommodationtoo but there is already a development for 819 students a few metres away from this site. It wouldbe far better for the site to be developed for social housing, families that need homes.Any development on this site should be built at a reasonable height so the buildings on theopposite side of the road are not over shadowed by towering monoliths affecting their light andresidents' mental health and wellbeing. Therefore I object to the additional storey proposed. Farbetter to have fewer stories to avoid a complete wall of towering buildings from one end ofBedminster to the other.Better to create a pleasing visual effect, a gradual flow congruent with the rise of Windmill Hill.There are some eye pleasing examples in Southville at Dame Emily Park and across at Gaol Ferryof low rise developments that have been built thoughtfully, create an environment nice to be in andfeed into a good sense of wellbeing -an oppressive wall of towers will do nothing to make peoplefeel good about where they live.If the proposed plans with the roof garden terraces are approved then the whole of Windmill Hill,Bedminster and probably beyond will be subject to noise from roof terrace parties as the sound will

drift over the whole area. Even if there is a policy of 'no roof top music' young people will, whenthey party, not be quiet. Noise pollution can have a detrimental affect on sleep and mentalwellbeing. Directly opposite the proposed development is a retirement complex and as alreadymentioned there are lots of families with young children in Windmill Hill and Bedminster so pleasethink how this will affect them.There is also the very important issue of parking. Windmill Hill does not have a residents parkingscheme as in Southville. Students will bring their cars no matter what policies are in place to saythey can't. They will park on the streets of Windmill Hill, possibly leaving their cars there for thewhole semester and then go home - the disruption causing stress and anxiety to the local people.Cotswold Road is already a PARK & RIDE street for non-residents commuting into the city andholiday makers using the Airport Bus leaving their cars for a week or more.

Firstly, please look at previous planning application objections as there is a real senseof powerlessness, voices of the community not really being heard, feeling disheartened peoplemay feel it's not worth contributing again. Especially after the loss of the Windmill Pub when thePlanning Inspectorate overturned the views of the community and the unanimous decision of thecouncil to keep the building as a pub and not be developed into a few flats which would beinsignificant when considering the huge swathes of flats being built all across Bedminster - thenewcomers will be deprived of an excellent social venue.This is a residential area, a community of families, young children, older people and vulnerablegroups. The site shouldn't be for students. It's understandable that students need accommodationtoo but there is already a development for 819 students a few metres away from this site. It wouldbe far better for the site to be developed for social housing, families that need homes.Any development on this site should be built at a reasonable height so the buildings on theopposite side of the road are not over shadowed by towering monoliths affecting their light andresidents' mental health and wellbeing. Therefore I object to the additional storey proposed. Farbetter to have fewer stories to avoid a complete wall of towering buildings from one end ofBedminster to the other.Better to create a pleasing visual effect, a gradual flow congruent with the rise of Windmill Hill.There are some eye pleasing examples in Southville at Dame Emily Park and across at Gaol Ferryof low rise developments that have been built thoughtfully, create an environment nice to be in andfeed into a good sense of wellbeing -an oppressive wall of towers will do nothing to make peoplefeel good about where they live.If the proposed plans with the roof garden terraces are approved then the whole of Windmill Hill,Bedminster and probably beyond will be subject to noise from roof terrace parties as the sound will

drift over the whole area. Even if there is a policy of 'no roof top music' young people will, whenthey party, not be quiet. Noise pollution can have a detrimental affect on sleep and mentalwellbeing. Directly opposite the proposed development is a retirement complex and as alreadymentioned there are lots of families with young children in Windmill Hill and Bedminster so pleasethink how this will affect them.There is also the very important issue of parking. Windmill Hill does not have a residents parkingscheme as in Southville. Students will bring their cars no matter what policies are in place to saythey can't. They will park on the streets of Windmill Hill, possibly leaving their cars there for thewhole semester and then go home - the disruption causing stress and anxiety to the local people.Cotswold Road is already a PARK & RIDE street for non-residents commuting into the city andholiday makers using the Airport Bus leaving their cars for a week or more.

To Whom It May Concern,

Whilst considering this application for approval, it is worth asking whether the addition of almost500 student units in a 10 storey high rise development will enhance or detract from the localcommunity, given that there are already almost 900 new student units in the adjacent Plot 3development.

Would it not be more fitting and beneficial to the local area to develop a low density, low-riseresidential area in this plot, incorporating large amounts of green space? Such a developmentwould be far more visually harmonious and socially balanced with the existing housing on theother side of the A38 and also with nearby Windmill Hill.

It is striking that the core support for the Plot 1 development appears to come mainly from theUniversity of Bristol, whilst the local community remains both strongly and also universallyopposed to it.

The development plan for Plot 1 as it stands will have a series of significant and potentiallynegative impacts on the local community in various ways, all of which have been laid out in thenumerous existing objections to the planning application.

I strongly urge you to consider these objections before approving this development. Pleaseconsider the views of the local community, and the measured, powerful arguments against thisdevelopment with due care and attention. An intelligent arbitrator of the proposal for Plot 1 would

reject it on the simple grounds that a far better proposal for a low-rise residential developmentcould very easily - and perhaps quite rapidly - be approved.

Thank you.

The building is too big and too tall. This would further deprive the area from natural lightcausing loss of trees flowers and biodiversity. The bedminster area is not equipped to suffer sucha sudden and high impact increase in population. Students will come with cars that will end upbeing left all week parked on the hill depriving parking space for the actual residents. Furthermorethere are no university facilities in the area and more then 800 students accommodation havebeen built here that mean most of the accomodation will be left unused and decay quickly. Thesize of the building obscure the view from and to windmill hill houses depriving the city from it'speculiar and characteristic look that makes it so special. House price will fall in the area. The sizeof the building will make the noise created by the railway bounce back to the houses on windmillhill making a high impact on the quality of life of the residents. There will be increased acousticpollution, less green space, higher temperatures, and traffic, making the area a place where familydon't want to live anymore. The area needs facilities as green spaces, doctors, dentist, schoolsnursery instead to be able to accomodate the hight number of people that will move in the areabecause of the other building that have been already built. This building will only bring damage tothe neighbourhood and the city.

To whom it may concern. The facade was already too high and overbearing given theproximity to Malago Road... and in this most recent proposal they have increased it.

7% of students are registered disabled and the qualifying criteria for blue badge. Carparking permits was recently expanded to include non-visible disabilities, so it isreasonable to expect that the site will require significantly more parking if only to avoiddisadvantaging those students, (and irrespective of the other 450+, many of whom willhave vehicles). Also though... The other 450+, many of whom will have vehicles!

There are not nearly enough spaces for students in doctor's surgeries nearby, many ofwhom (e.g. Bridge View Medical) are only open for around 1 hour reach morning at 8:30for new appointments. This is without another thousand+ (800+400+400) students beingadded to their registers, so how will they all be registered to local doctors? There are nospaces! It's even worse for dentistry.

The narrow gaps between the blocks will create wind tunnels - just as the buildingscurrently going up have done.

A final point:Student wellbeing had been shown to be impacted severely when there isovercrowding. This is not the same situation as living in halls, where there is crowdingbut also some element of pastoral support. Bristol must provide good places forstudents to live, if these were substantially smaller, better equipped and betterconnected then this could be those places. But not this design. Not this scale. Notwithout any green, any front aesthetic. We can do better.

Please reconsider this proposal. The developments already in progress have alreadymassively changed this area. Surely we need to monitor the progress of their impact before addingmore buildings and people. They will have a huge impact on traffic, strains on infrastructure andfacilities as well as negatively affecting the nature and biodiversity in the area. Surely the existingdevelopments are enough now. There is concern about the longevity of proposals for suchcramped accommodation which has no scope to adapt to flexibility for families and residents otherthan students in the future. The height and light from these new buildings has a negative impacton wildlife and nature that cannot be reversed once done. As well as caring for the wellbeing ofour local residents, protecting nature and our environment is a serious responsibility for us all.Thank you.

I object to the current planning proposal for Pring and St Hill Street site.

a. The River Malago walk and St John's Churchyard and the Bedminster Green are all currentlyImportant Open Spaces within the existing Local Plan 2014 and acknowledged to be important forlocal wildlife and together with the railway embankment they provide a dark and safe corridor forbats to travel. The height and light emissions and the noise from these proposed buildings willhave an adverse impact on wildlife in the Malago and related areas. The buildings are too denseand too high. The applicants'own ecological survey says at one point:

Increased lighting levels associated with the development threaten the site's value for foragingbats and could sever potential flight lines

If there are outdoor roof space gardens with light and noise at night these will threaten bat flightlines.

b.I am not aware there has been a recent detailed riverine survey by the developer to consider asa baseline what wildlife and riverine species there are currently in the Malago and how it may beimpacted by this or other developments - there is not only the issue of noise and light but also

sewage outflow and contamination from the metals etc remaining in the ground from past use. Arecent standard riverfly survey of the river in February 2024 undertaken by experienced volunteersrevealed levels of fish currently sufficient to sustain kingfishers but a need to clean the rivercarefully. You cannot know what biodiversity loss or gain there will be without accuratemeasurements of existing species before development.

c. From a human perspective, at a time of increasingly uncertain weather and high temperaturesthe proposed development seems too dense and too high. South Bristol needs good quality, trulyaffordable, housing for a diverse group of people including families to form a community and sothis does not appear to be a solution to the housing problems so many people are facing.

d. It is not clear there is a sufficient community infrastructure to support the huge influx of people.

Hello,

I am writing in opposition of the current Watkin Jones proposal for Pring St Hill Site (plot1- 22/06085/F) at Bedminster Green.

1. The blocks are too high - this will affect light and light pollution.

2. The developers are offering no benefit for the community - please revisit the plansand bring active frontage like shops, restaurants, health centres, cinemas andaccessible thoughtfully designed new landscaping along with their investment.

3. Please provide more extensive details for the plans to the community.

I would support a more considered proposal and am in favour of redevelopment of thearea in general but the current plan is not good enough.

I oppose the above application primarily due to the quality of the design and the targetgroup.

The cluster accommodation of student bedsits is inflexible and not appropriate for thearea. I ask the committee to think ahead twenty years. What happens if studentnumbers dry up due to studying online or when this low quality sheme becomes rundown. These buildings will become redundant. Couples, famillies, refugees will bemoved into this inapprpropriate accommodation. It will spiral down and become aproblem estate. The area is crying out for homes for young people and families that areof a reasonable design.

I strongly object to the student accommodation being built on the Pring site on theMalago Road.

There are so many reasons.

o We know of a couple living in a van with their dog. Many people are living in vansin Bristol. The lack of housing is a disgrace. This site is ideal for affordable housing. Nottower blocks, but homes.o When all the present buildings are finished there will be a huge influx of people inan already crowded area. Where is the infrastructure?o How will the emergency services access the Pring site? The only option isMalago Road which will have a lot of traffic.o The ladders for the fire brigade reach only 7 or 8 stories high. That should be thelimit of the height.o It is known that in buildings higher than 6 stories, people lose contact with theground and can feel isolated. There have already been a number of suicides fromBristol University students. Their care should be a priority.o The students rooms are very small, some smaller than the advised size.o The architecture is lazy and should have more character.Please reconsider what you are doing to Bedminster which has a unique personalitywhich would benefit from being enhanced and made more colourful.The present plan feels very uncaring.

This plan is awful... narrow gsos between buildings, too high, overshadows the flatsopposite. There isn't enough parking for residents and cars will overspill on to local roads. Theplanners have not listened to residents comments

This application is awful. The design of the buildings are too high and it doesn't work forthe local area. We don't need more student flats

object to this proposal om the following grounds:

Bedminster needs housing suitable for a mixed community of families, elderly people, youngpeople, as well as students; what it is getting is a student monoculture.

The proposed student units are not adaptable: should student numbers drop, these units will notbe suitable for couples or families.

The proposed blocks are very ugly. The poor aesthetics are hugely to the detriment of Bedminsterand Bristol.

The design quality is so poor that many of the rooms have un-opening windows which, asdocuments show, will make the rooms so hot in summer that electrically powered cooling systemswill need to be installed, as shown in the documents here. These systems are designed to operatecontinuously, which is not green, and is absolutely against the spirit of Bristol declaring itself agreen capital.

The absence of parking is inevitably going to put further pressure on parking in the local area,which simply does not have the capacity to accommodate this.

The light from this development will negatively impact on the wildlife that tracks along the railwayand Malago, particularly the bat population.

The height of the blocks is too much and would change the feel and look of the area.There are not enough public transport links for this many extra people. We already have a hugeamount of student accommodation being built. We should be aiming for more long term homesincluding affordable homes. We also need to protect our green spaces

Please hear our views .This development is far too big. It is a wall of blocks devoid of architectural merit and completelyout of character with this residential area.Hardly any spaces between the blocks.`The mass of development with artificial light will impact on the Malago at night and on the existingresidents, completely over shadowing the flats opposite.Please lower the heights of these flats.Do we need even more student accommodation?The character of Bedminster has completely changedIt is traumatic walking through all the building works and ground works.I feel our home environments are being ripped apart.It is unbelievable.

The impact of artificial light on the Malago at night will directly affect bats, birds andother wildlife that live here in the green corridors. They need their darkness it's their natural habitat

3 parking spaces isn't enough, it's unrealistic and the surrounding areas will be badly affected.Already horrendous unsafe overcrowding of vehicles on Windmill Hill

The height of the tallest tower is unacceptable. It will overshadow the three storeybuildings across Malago Road and cast a shadow that will affect the wellbeing of the residents.The treatment of the river Malago is not conducive to wildlife. This along with the railway line is animportant wildlife corridor and should be protected and enhanced.The overall design is lacking in inspiration and will not enhance this entrance to the city.The accommodation is too dense.More student accommodation will be detrimental to the area. A mix of accommodation is requiredif the Bedminster Green development is to be a success.

The proposed development will deprive our neighbours of light and will completelydestroy the neighbourhood - there is just too many soulless flats being built without anyinfrastructure around them. The building will be right by the train tracks causing the inhabitants tosuffer from noise pollution and will cut off the Windmill Hill residents. We already have to live withthe Stafford Yard construction as well as the roadworks, now to try to add to it, will seriouslyimpact on our wellbeing. Please remember there are already student houses being built 300meters away. Where are all those people going to park? They will have cars despite any wishfulthinking. GP practice cannot see the current residents, how will they cope with an influx of thissize? Students use doctors, too!Lastly, the look of it is just horrible. We cannot possibly withstand so many building sites for such along time!

Dear sir's

Am very concerned about the building application for the old pring site.

There are a number of issues with building on that site,

1 applications have been submitted and turned down on numerous occasions even bygovernment planners that's my understanding , and now we have this with an increaseof flats, if all the others applications have failed surely this one with the extra flats shouldbe turned down. Plus the extra traffic will be horrendous especially parking as the siteonly has 3 parking spaces so that means all other side roads getting clogged up,

2 the effect on doctors, we struggle now to get appointments ,what chance will there be484 students ,and that's not counting all the other blocks currently under construction.asa driving instructor of 30 years I've seen the serious impact of the amount of traffic onours road's, what do the council think will happen when all these blocks are finished,bristol already has a dense city with traffic .

3 what about the effects of all these sky highrise flats will have on the residents, thesetowers will over shadow the community blocking sun light , the noise from students willbe horrendous

4 has the developers thought of the safety aspect of these highly dense places, as

stated the volume of traffic ,how will emergencies service get to these places ,no backroute as there's railway lines there , as a emergency blood bike I know the troublegetting through traffic at the best of times , what it's going to be like if this site is giventhe go ahead , if there's a major fire in the flats , what impact will that have with therailways lines there and that line is a major route into Bristol, if there was a derailment Ihate to think of the catastrophic event would be ,you be looking at dozens maybehundreds of casualties.

This application has serious downfalls to the whole community of South Bristol ,the wayof life will great diminish, people health and mental state will suffer especially with thevolume of extra traffic and noise ,these blocks, around bedmister already killing the arealook at East street , nearly all shops closing and turning into flats.

This application needs to be refused on many grounds

Regards

Resident

Again our local area faces characterless development on if touch with the local look andfeel of the area.

This will directly impact natural on my property and the parkland our family uses.

Walking my children to school is already dangerous enough. With limited parking provision andonly one train an hour this increases the threat to my family

There is zero positive impact on our community

This prevents natural light from reaching my home and my garden. Increasedaccommodation means more traffic and makes any active travel routes even tougher

There are a huge number of projects ahead proposals for this area. This will cause adramatic change to the area with a large number of new residents. Local infrastructure will thereneed to be my modernised to mitigate this. What stands out is there will only be 3 parking spaces.This seems woefully inadequate for 484 students. Have the developers done research on thepercentage of Bristol-based university students who have a car? This information works be useful.Otherwise there is a risk there will be a significant spillover effect to the local area where there isn'tspace.

If Bristol public transport was any good this wouldn't be a problem....

Good morning ,I am sending this in connection with the green land site leading from the bottom ofwindmill hill that is being Considered for yet more building development in mycommunity .I have lived on the hill for 30 years and have always considered my locality a realneighbourhood community . We have seen enormous change in the past few years withhorrible interfering tv style billboards pumping ads at us wherever we go as well asendless building projects . I am strongly against the little green being sold to the highestbidder for another faceless tower block ! It is incredibly important for children and youngpeople to have natural spaces in a city ! These places make us feel more human andgive us a sense of belonging and well being . What terrible claustrophobia to beencased by huge great towers , cutting down decades of slow and steady growth of ourtrees .I am against any planned development that involves yet more disregard for our localhabitats .Please now consider us , the residents for a change .Thankyou

The scheme is so tall that it will mask the topography of Windmill Hill from the rest of the city indirect contravention of the SPD on urban living.The height will create an unfavourable atmosphere along Malago Road where it will loom overthe flats opposite. Shadows and privacy issues will be discussed later, but there is concern thata tall mass on the other side of the street will have a negative psychological effect on theexisting residents of those flats. They will lose a visual amenity which will be especially difficultfor the ground floor flats where garden walls and overhangs already limit the light. The schemeshows little sensitivity to the well-being of these residents.

VIEWSThe buildings are arranged in a group of three with gaps between them for courtyard plantingand as view corridors.Although they claim the gaps between the blocks are wider than other rejected plans, the gapsare still gaps between huge buildings and, unless you are standing almost directly opposite agap, you will not be able to see the hill behind. All views in and out of the Hill will be severelycompromised.March 2024: The increased height will make views over the top of the blocks more difficult tofind.The blocks are so deep that there will be little visual connection to the outside world throughthese gaps, and the depth of the gaps will also have a limiting effect on the public realm thatthe scheme is trying to promote.

TOWNSCAPE VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTThe TVIA images are of questionable realistic value. There is no clear set of plans confirmingwhere the images are taken from or where the model is set. The buildings seem small in anumber of the images; the group felt that verification should be sought to confirm the size. Inparticular the image taken from the foot of Windmill Hill and from St John’s Road seem to makethe image too small.Many of the images also seem to have been taken with trees in full leaf. This is misleading asthe true impact of the building is not clear.March 2024: this has not been rectified and as such it is difficult to assess the full impact of theproposals. The impact of the development on low level Winter sun is such a concern to thenearby residents that it should be spelt out and mitigated.March 2024: The photograph taken from the Hereford St courtyard is also not up to date. Thetrees have been removed some years ago (prior to the 2023 update), and as such this viewdoes not look like the image, and never will, an up to date report should be submitted, as therewill be no trees to soften the appearance from this location and in its current for this ismisleading.The developer is not reflecting the true impact of the scheme.

INFRASTRUCTUREWhat measures are being taken to ensure that there will be adequate medical facilities withinthe local area such as doctors’ surgeries and dental practices ? Are these to be provided inuniversity facilities or are the overburdened local ones expected to make up the shortfall? Wenote that no space for support facilities is included in the development.

The group is concerned that the scheme makes no attempt to provide these facilities tosupport the students and we are concerned that already stretched amenities will not besufficient. This is not a scheme that is designed to enhance the community but rather one thatexpects the community to support it whilst providing profit to a commercial landlord outside thelocal economy.

DAYLIGHTA third of the flats in the Malago road development opposite the building will have light levels intheir south facing habitable rooms compromised by this development.

The end four houses of Church Road will have similar problems having lost their light. Itappears that the requirements of the existing residents were not considered during the designprocess which has placed the bulk of the massing at this end of the development rather thanproposing to build more modestly over the site in a way that would be more considerate andcomply with BRE guidance on day-lighting.March 2024: We are concerned that we are told the increase in height has not furtherdecreased the daylighting to the Malago Road flats and Church Road houses, but ratherimproved it. Further detail on this identifying which windows are considered not to be livingspaces would be helpful. All the windows on the first floor are floor to ceiling, so why is it thatso many are considered to be kitchen spaces?

PRIVACY AND OVERLOOKINGThe roof gardens at 6 and 8 storeys will create light and noise pollution for nearbyresidents. They will be overlooking the flats opposite and houses and gardens of Windmill Hillbehind. This will actively compromise the amenity of the neighbours, as the bulk of theaccommodation is single aspect rooms. It is likely that someone will be looking into the homesof other residents during most of the day. This has been a consistent failure for a lot of thedevelopments proposed for this plot and causing harm to the existing neighbours should notbe seen as the price of development, which then allows someone else to make money whileremaining completely unaffected by the damage they are causing.

Similarly the students expected to live in the single direction facing developments will also havea hard time, as they will be on display to their neighbours, compromising their privacy for theduration of their residency.

CAR PARKINGNo provision for car parking is a worry for people living nearby on already crowded streets.We are told that the students will not be allowed to have cars. How is this to be enforced?There are no local resident parking schemes and enforcement cannot be left to the localresidents? How are the 3 accessible parking spaces to be allocated?

March 2024: We are concerned that there is also insufficient space for student drop off to allowunpacking of vehicles to occur. Malago Road is a busy street and in its current form it is difficultto see how the road arrangement will permit the moving in of residents without causingcongestion several times a year.

ALLOCATION OF STUDENT NUMBERSWith other local developments the number of students in the area will exceed 1200. The currentplan identifies the area between central Bedminster and Parson Street as suitable for 1000students.Given that this developer is aware of an approved and under construction neighbouringdevelopment with over 800 students in it, how are they justifying this increase over the numberand what steps are they taking to ensure the students enrich the community and integrate withit? As the student targets are determined by the city based on population data, it is difficult tosee this level of development as one that meets a need, and characterises it as one of overdevelopment that is designed to line pockets at the expense of an area's demographicmix. This opinion is reinforced by the density of the development that is above that suggestedin the SPD on urban living.

Is the developer taking active measures to ensure the housing needs in the area are met insome other way? This feels especially poignant when reaching 1000 students total would haveonly needed 200 bedrooms leaving some of the proposed brownfield site available for amodest scale residential development.

The reports included with this application clearly identify a risk of significant proportionof the units in these accommodation blocks are at risk of overheating. It appears that windowopening is restricted to a 22 degree angle. There appear to be no balconies or other ways forresidents to access open air, making these units psychologically and physically unpleasant andstressful for residents.

This development seems way too high for the local area, it will significantly affect theskyline and the views of the city. It'll also have a huge impact on the residents living in the area,massively affecting their light. It's also ridiculous that there are only 3 parking spaces. I know thatreducing car use across the city centre is important, but the discrepancy in parking spaces toresidents is crazy. This will just push more cars into parking in Windmill Hill and Bedminster whichis already overcrowded. Are additional buses being put on to support the huge increase instudents to the area, or additional amenities and shops on the ground floors to make it acommunity?

Proposed development is too high. Redevelopment is a good idea, but not when theheight of the development adversely impacts on neighbours to the scheme.

Dear Sirs,

I'd like to voice my objection to this development application. Bristol is supposed to be a green cityand in a world where green spaces and trees in particular are more important than ever thisdevelopment is the wrong thing to do.

We should be encouraging development like this to be done on brown field sites on city of whichthere are many. The site isn't even located particularly close to any main university campuses.Student accommodation is also if very limited benefit to the community.

Look, to be Frank, whoever (if anyone) reads this, you know this is not right. If it was for a hospital,maybe things would be different but the motivations are purely financial, the location is moredamaging to the local community than it is beneficial to the students who will still be far removedfrom Bower Ashton or the city centre. Look into brown field sites and leave what small patches ofpublic natural beauty remain, alone.

Alex30 years oldBristol resident 10 years

In regards to the application of the Student Accommodation on Malago Road, I wouldlike to submit my strong objection to the proposal which aims to stack and squeeze anunsupported number of buildings and residents in what is soon to be an over populated area.

This development, like those only a few hundred meters down Malago Road are prioritizing fittingin bedspaces for temporary, student residents, at the expense of the local community.

The 3 building of 6 to 10 stories, or 484 bedspaces, will have a significantly negative impact onwildlife, natural light, and air quality while offering no benefit to the current resident and to adegree, he proposed future residents.

This proposal needs to reduce significantly in scope in order to keep the area a home to residentswho call it that for the long and short term.

-Albert Testani

I object for the following reasons:1. The buildings are too high and dense. Taller than previous applications that were refused forPlot 1. Now contravenes the Bedminster Green Framework2. It has an augly wall-like structure that cuts off Windmill Hill from the city and masks thetopography of the hill.3. It looms over the flats opposite and reduces light. No sensitivity to well being of residents4. All views from the hill will be affected5. Medical and other infrastructure facilities in that area have not been increased for extra students6. Roof gardens of 6-8 storey will create light and noise pollution. Houses nearby will beoverlooked.7. Car parking - only 3 space provided, will put increased pressure on surrounding residentialareas where parking is already a big issue8. Insufficient space for drop off and unpacking on a very busy road which will cause even morecongestion.9. Number of students exceeds the agreed plan by 200 (1200 instead of plan 1000).10. Overheating - windows overlooking the railway line on two of the blocks will be fixed shut.Detrimental to mental health and a number of rooms will fail overheating measures andmechanical options included will drive up energy usage11. Ecology - railway line is a bat corridor and is used by endangered species. It is noted that nobat survey has been included in the portal and assurance is needed that sufficient surveys andmeasurements have been done to ensure species documented and protected.12. We already have a large number of students coming to the area due to the new developmentthat is almost finished. We need a diverse cross section of society to build a community. More

students will not provide that and nor do they contribute council tax so are not contributingfinancially to improving the infrastructure of the community.

With regards to the amendment to the application increasing the number of bedrooms,and the height of each building specifically, and the development generally:

I am concerned about the loss of amenity for existing residents. My concerns are as follows.

i. The loss of daylight for existing residentsii. The additional pressure on parking (I note the provision of only 3 parking spaces), in an areawhere there is already significant congestion.iii. The impact the development will have on local heathcare provision

I'd be grateful for a response advising how the developers intent to ameliorate the above impacts.

Thanks

Matt

With regards to the proposed amendments increasing the number of student flats andincreasing the height of the proposed buildings:This will only increase the negative impact of the development on the existing communities ofWindmill Hill and Southville wards.The planned buildings are of high density and poor quality.The number of students will have a massive impact on the area and there seem to be no plans toimprove the traffic and healthcare infrastructure to accommodate them. Additional studentbedrooms will only make this worse.Only three parking spaces are allowed for which is completely unrealistic, the students will park onWindmill Hill where there are already issues with rat running and inappropriate parking.Additional student bedrooms will only make this worse.The buildings will have a negative impact on the daylight quality on nearby residences and openspaces. The additional height will only make this worse.I am unhappily aware that a development of this ugliness which has such a detrimental effect onthe residents of South Bristol would not be submitted, let alone approved, for a similar plot in aNorth Bristol ward such as Clifton or Redland. It is very disappointing that the developers andplanning department do not see the need to build something that improves the city environmentand that Bristol can be proud of, rather than low-quality accommodation which seeks to maximisefinancial gain whilst diminishing the quality of life of the existing residents.

A concrete curtain is being drawn between Windmill Hill and the rest of the city. Theiconic view of hill side terraced houses which is instantly recognisable as one of Bristols uniquequalities is being erased forever in favour of ugly, unimaginative and unnecessarily high buildingswhich contribute nothing to the local area and will put a strain on all resources. These are notessential, affordable homes as they will be housing a transient student population.

In addition, local housing already existing will be negatively impacted through the depletion of lightcaused by unnecessarily high buildings casting shadows. The flats in the process of being built arealready massively impacting the wellbeing of local residents and these proposed flats will continueto do so.Medical facilities in the area have not been increased for the extra students and given that it isvirtually impossible to get a doctor's appointment at the moment, this will make it harder. Studentsdon't pay council tax either so they will not be contributing to the community financially.Roof gardens on 6-8 storey block will create light and noise pollution. Houses nearby will beoverlooked Only 3 places provided which means Windmill Hill will be used as a car park evenmore than it currently is. There is currently no plan in place to monitor students bringing cars andparking them on the hill.I can see no benefit of these buildings whatsoever to Bristol or the local area and if they areallowed to go ahead in their current form it will be one more nail in the coffin for the uniquenessthat Bristol has. A planning department not insisting on specific standards and limiting buildingheight in this day and age should be ashamed and know that the people benefiting most are thebulging pockets of developers and their enablers.I OBJECT

I wish to lodge my objection to this development as currently proposed. I endorse in fullthe detailed submission made by Windmill Hill and Malago planning group (WHaM) but haveparticular concerns over the increased height of the blocks and contraction of space between themas compared with the previous application. I feel that this will have a detrimental impact on theskyline surrounding the hill and place further limits on daylight available to existing residents onMalago Road. The lack of frontage and limited parking could prove difficult for students beingdropped off and also opportunities for them to engage with the local community. I do not believethat any prohibition on students having cars is enforceable in practice and this will place anenormous strain on local parking. Equally any increase in local infrastructure (GP surgeries,Dentists etc) has again not been identified. Considerations concerning the local environment, inparticular the local bat population, do not appear to have been sufficiently addressed. I also haveconcerns about the quality and longevity of these buildings. Measures for cooling in a time ofglobal warming do not appear to have been sufficiently factored in with buildings likely to requiremajor refitting at some point in the not too distant future. It would be more appropriate to submitfutureproofed plans at this stage rather than going for cheaper, lower quality options. All in all I donot feel that the proposal as it stands meets the needs of its future residents and the localcommunity.

I live on Mendip Road and we are already surrounded by new build apartment blocks.There is insufficient parking for residents as it is, with only 3 parking places and no permits on ourroads this flat block would lead to more people parking outside our homes on the already busystreets. The building is also too high and ill fighting for the surrounding area. The local amenitiescan't handle hundreds more residents.

This proposal plans to increase the number of student flats on the site. However, thisgoes against the current trend of a reduction in student applications for university places. Thisaffects both UK student applications (down by 15-20%) and overseas students. Brexit hasimpacted applications from European students with reductions such as Ireland (down 17.9%), Italy(11.4%), Germany (10.3%). Furthermore potential growth areas such as India and China are beingincreasingly limited due to government policy on immigration. The danger of increasingaccommodation at this stage is likely to be that it is left empty which will lead to a degradation ofthe local environment.

I am writing to express significant concerns regarding the current development plans forWindmill Hill. It is evident that several key issues have not been adequately addressed, and I urgeyou to reconsider the approach being taken.

- Lack of Essential Facilities:Neither the Applicant nor BCCPD have adequately addressed the provision of essential facilitiesfor such high-density housing.These include GP surgeries, healthcare facilities, schooling, educational facilities, and publictransport infrastructure.- Safety Concerns:There is a lack of clarity regarding whether the Applicant has fully considered the lessons from theGrenfell Tower disaster.This includes aspects such as secondary stairwells and sprinkler systems, critical for ensuring thesafety of residents.- Impact on Infrastructure:The rapid influx of high-density, high-rise developments poses significant challenges to ourexisting infrastructure.Concerns have been raised by the Fire Services regarding their capacity to respond effectively tosuch developments.- Missed Opportunity for Innovation:This overlooks an opportunity for Bristol to demonstrate its forward-thinking approach.Malago Road, for instance, could have been envisioned as a hub for greenery, offering ecofriendly low buildings and spaces for local residents to enjoy, as well as supporting flora, fauna,

and the planting of trees which would contribute to improving air quality amidst risingtemperatures.- Unpleasant Living Conditions:Moreover, the relentless construction has turned the area into a massive building site with no endin sight.This results in huge holes, road closure, traffic lights, closed pavements etc that make walking anddriving unpleasant and frustrating for residents and visitors alike.- Out of Keeping with Local Environment:The proposed development is excessively large and out of keeping with the local environment.It detracts from the character and charm of Windmill Hill and its surroundings.

It is essential to consider the cumulative impact of these developments on our community andenvironment. I urge you to prioritise sustainability, safety, and the well-being of Bristol's residentsin all future planning decisions.Thank you

I object strongly to the increased height, scale and mass of the design ,standing as an almost continuous block of housing up to 10 storeys high and over 100 metreslong.This design will massively overshadow the opposite houses, and considerably effect their light,privacy and overall well being.Bedminster Green and Windmill Hill have an active bat population, which will be badly effected bythe impact of artificial light and this light pollution will effect neighbours as well as wildlife.I am pleased this application is environmentally friendly (only three parking spaces) but there doesnot seem to be any understanding of the large volume of traffic generated by student arrivals anddepartures on term starts and ends.There also seems to be some lack of understanding about how the car owing restriction will beenforced.

I am also concerned that the location between a busy road and railway line is not ideal for this typeof accommodation. The noise and pollution make this quite a high stress environment. Guidanceon creating healthy environments for students is freely available and I would want to be certainthat this location is going to be socially and emotionally healthy for all residents.

In conclusion I consider that the scheme as designed does not balance the increased density forthe area with the requirements for liveability as outlined in the High Buildings SPD. Thedevelopment will create a wall and mask views to and from Windmill Hill.

zero parking and potential of thousand of 'actual' occupants, flooding an alreadystruggling local area without RPZ and full to the brim and bursting already with bad parkedworkmen, residents, visitors and airport 'hoppers'.ZERO car park? C'mon. Oh and built right next to the car park taken for another development! Theirony...Way too high.Hideous design, looks like a detention centre.Removes natural light and views at 11 levels for all neighbouring properties.Not in keeping with the area.Not what is needed with four other tower blocks of student flats already allowed and no unianywhere nearby.

Isn't this the very same developer who can no longer afford the 3 level car park opposite and hascut costs and local parking assistance as CAN'T AFFORD IT AFTER planning was PASSED! Isthe planning dept suffering from amnesia with this developer? They promise one thing, getplanning then adjust poorly and magically forget their obligation to provide a car park theyagreed...

This development is too high, will increase the population density too much, and isincredibly ugly, surely developers can do better than this monstrosity.

It will cut out natural light for those living nearby, whilst simultaneously introducing light pollutionalong the Malago and railway line, home to a wide range of creatures including little egrets,kingfishers, and bats.

This proposal needs a complete rethink and reduction in size to make it acceptable in an alreadycrowded and overpopulated area.

The proposed buildings are much too high and not in keeping with the wonderfulneighbourhood and community of Windmill Hill. Some obscurement of the view from recent workswas to be expected, but this is much too much and will totally ruin the unique and very special feelof the area.

I wholeheartedly object to the proposed plan. The original version of this plan wasalready way too high and now the developer wants to add another storey to each tower.The reasons for my objection are -

-Loss of sunlight, daylight and privacy to the Malago Road flats, houses, and retirementaccommodation opposite the development. These are mainly council residents and vulnerablepeople who value the sunlight that enters their homes, and any loss of this will have a massiveimpact, let alone a reduction which by the developer's own admission will exceed the BREguidance for reduction of daylight across much of the flats. Quite simply these guidelines are herefor a reason, to protect the valuable amenity of people's homes. 3-5 storeys is more than enoughfor a site this size and in this location.

- Out of scale massing and overbearing frontage to street and all the surrounding buildings. It issimply out of scale with the houses and buildings around the site, and possibly is only being builtthis high to match neighbouring developments further down the street, some of which haven'tbeen permitted yet.

- More unnecessary student flats. We need homes, good quality affordable homes. There arealready a huge number of student flats being built in the local area to accommodate the University,and this development is in fact in the wrong place to accommodate them. A site nearer to the newbuildings at Temple Meads would be far more suitable. This is simply the wrong place for themand there's already loads being built a few doors down the road.

- No parking provision. The developer claims that no parking provision is necessary. This simplyisn't true, many students drive and will invariably lead to them parking in the surrounding streets,and blocking up the roads for local residents. Also what will happen twice a year when familiesturn up to drop off or pick up the students and the contents of their flats? Some kind of drop offrota? It will lead to mayhem and gridlock on the surrounding streets.

- The strip of land is relatively small and unsuitable for a development of this size. Please just turnit into something useful for residents such as affordable houses, retail, or perhaps a park toreplace all the green space that is being lost elsewhere in "Bedminster Green"

- Impact on local services, doctors, transport, hospital provision. There's not enough now, let alonewhen you land another 484 people on the local community.

Please do the right thing for the local community and reject this terrible development.

As can be seen from the numerous objections, this application is very unpopular withlocal residents. Basically, it is too high and too dense. It is squeezed between a railway line andone of Bristol's busiest roads.The local plan stipulates that Bedminster Green should have 1000students, but this development will raise the number to 1200. This takes away much neededhousing from local people.

There are many more criticisms I could make but I want to draw attention to just one: roomoverheating. I am truly shocked to see that approximately half the rooms will overheat. Thisproblem will only increase as the climate warms. To quote from the developer's own report:''Although compliance with other weather files is not a requirement, it has been suggested byBristol City Council that 2050 and 2080 scenarios are also tested - the files used are the 2050DSY1 medium scenario 50% percentile and 2080 DSY1 medium scenario 50% percentile. As theresults demonstrate, the development is not compliant with the 2050 or 2080 scenarios because ofthe unopenable glazing aspect of the design due to acoustic constraints''.Many of the windows are not designed to open. Therefore, many of the flats, which are singleaspect, will become uninhabitable in a few years time. Given that we know how the climate ischanging, it is scandalous that these buildings are not future proofed. This application should berejected out of hand

The proposed development will have a significant negative impact on residents ofmalago and out a considerable strain on resources. The height of the development will block outsunlight to the malago rd flats, which will cause distress, especially as some residents arevulnerable and confined to their properties. In addition, resources like recycling, wastemanagement, GP services and parking are already under strain in the area and the impact ofhundreds of student residents will be severe.

This planning application should be refused for the same reason that earlier planningapplications were refused - the height, scale and massing would harm the character andappearance of the area and be unacceptable in design terms. The Planning Inspector refused asimilar application a couple of years ago for these very reasons, saying it would create anoppressive wall of development. This application is no better, in fact it is higher. The size of thegiant blocks means there are only narrow gaps between. The PI gave this judgement, and refusalfor permission, so that a very different and much more suitable design could come forward. Thisapplication has just tinkered round the edges and remains in essence exactly what was refusedbefore, but taller.

The height of this proposal would almost completely obliterate views to and from Windmill Hill,hiding the very hill from people in Bedminster, unless they stand directly opposite one of the 2gaps between the large blocks. It will mask the topography of Windmill Hill from the rest of the city,in direct contravention of the SPD on urban living. The blocks would cast shade over houses andflats opposite on Malago Rd and restrict light from existing residents homes. Roof gardens willoverlook neighbours to the north and south and create noise and lighting issues, possibly late intothe night due to the demographic of the students intended to live there. Privacy issues will abound,both into and out of these student units, with the single aspect rooms and their floor to ceilingwindows, creating constant overlooking to houses behind and flats in front of the blocks. Thetallest block will be as tall as the hill itself. Quite inappropriate.

The light and noise created by all the windows and the roof gardens, after dark, will affect theprotected bat species that use the railway line as an important corridor from roosts to feeding

grounds. Some of these bats are known to be very light averse, and it is really important that indepth surveys are done to make sure any lighting proposals after dark will not compromise thisvital bat route. Bristol is supposed to be working towards increasing and protecting its biodiversity,not allowing new builds that may directly harm protected species.

The proposal seems to indicate that windows will be fixed shut to the rear of the buildings. Notideal for students, or for anybody, and not helping with wellbeing and mental health issues. Also,will need mechanical ventilation, another ongoing cost.Good to see that some of the energy will be supplied by a water source heat pump, but the rest ofthe energy looks like it will not be sustainably sourced.

We would need a guarantee that student cars will not be parked on the local, alreadyovercrowded, streets. No plan is given here, other than a claim that students will not have cars.

And finally, why are so many more students planned to come and live at Bedminster Green? TheFramework for BG, states that 1000 students would be plenty for this area. There are alreadygoing to be over 800 living in the other block being built by this company, so almost 500 heretakes us way over the suggested limit. How will the students assimilate into the local community?And what will the development offer to the local community? There seems to be no ActiveFrontage here or other community facilities. No offer to help support more doctors surgeries locallyor improve the local station or park. The application seems to be all about using our existingfacilities (local park, local station, good bus routes) and giving little back in return. All for financialgain for the developer. We would like to hear what is being given back in return, what thisdevelopment will offer to the community. The proposal offers no housing for much needed localcommunity so it needs to offer something else really useful to the existing neighbourhood.

Very disappointing. After the PIs very clear comments when an earlier proposal was refused, Ihoped for something different and much better this time.

This area needs 0 more student housing. Too much has already been permitted aroundBedminster Green and this will detriment the character, safety and community of theneighbourhood.

The application must be rejected permanently.

A mixed-dwelling of single, couple and family blocks (accounting for about 80%) and studentdwllings (about 20%) would be much more acceptable.

The buildings are all too tall and must be less than 8 stories. All the tall buildings already permittedaround Bedminster Green create terrible shadow and reflect a poor design approach. Similardensity can be achieved with 5-8 stories. There is simply no excuse to create such an eyesore andugly imposition of 9 or 10+ stories on the Bedminster landscape, except for the drive of corrupt ormal-informed planning teams.

This proposed building itself will also- negatively impact daylight on existing residents.- presents dangerously narrow gaps between buildings with extremely poor offer of public spaceand much needed local amenities.- negatively affect wildlife near the Malago river at night and local biodiversity, which is alreadybeing dramatically torn up by the contractor with no clear proposals for significant biodiverseimporvements in the same area.- create a threat to personal safety because of the lack of active frontages along Malago Road

Most importantly, there is no reason for it to be so tall and it must not be only for students, it mustbe mixed.

Planning Application 22/06085/F

Impact on the public realm and streetscapeStark blocks of concrete and glass with no ground level amenities or interest.

Impact of Mass and densityThe mass and density of development in this small area of Bedminster is becoming increasinglydisproportionate to the scale and context of the existing community.I am concerned that this will have a deep effect on everybody's mental health and well-beingincluding prospective residents and the existing community.This is tantamount to physical and emotional abuse of a neighbourhood on many levels.

Concerned about blocking out the light and also raises questions about concentrated windfunnelling.

The pressure on our existing infrastructureIs already under extreme pressure and causing great concern - lack of doctors surgeries, dentists,libraries, green spaces.

Impact of an increased student community.By the nature of transient student communities it is difficult to imagine how they would invest ingrowing a healthy happy community for the future of Bedminster.What impact will this have on the existing residents and community of Bedminster.

East Street has a unique character and is valued by many local shoppers, It is likely there will bemore demand for fast food venues and night life bars which bring with it its own issues.

Whilst we understand the need to reduce car usage it is unrealistic to provide so little provision forparking.Windmill Hill has already seen a big increase in cars parking on the narrow streets whilst thesedevelopments are in progress. This will only get worse as the population of this neighbourhoodgrows expeditiously.

This development is way too high and imposing on the landscape and not in keepingwith the area. I am deeply concerned about the impact on neighbours of this scheme having just 3car parking spaces for a 1000 students! I feel it is greenwashing i.e. trying to claim this is an ecofriendly move, when in reality they don't want to lose profit by using some of the land to buildadequate car parking. The parking situation in Windmill Hill is already atrocious and this will makeit so much worse. It is naive to think students won't have cars. I strongly object to this developmentand think it doesn't benefit the local area or local families who desperately need housing.

The flats are too highAlready lots of student accommodation in Bedminster!The impact of artificial light on the Malago at nightWill impact bats which have been present here for many yearsWill impact our local NHS services in a bad way

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Dear Sirs,

I'd like to voice my objection to this development application. Bristol is supposed to be a green city

and in a world where green spaces and trees in particular are more important than ever this

development is the wrong thing to do.

We should be encouraging development like this to be done on brown field sites on city of which

there are many. The site isn't even located particularly close to any main university campuses.

Student accommodation is also if very limited benefit to the community.

Look, to be Frank, whoever (if anyone) reads this, you know this is not right. If it was for a hospital,

maybe things would be different but the motivations are purely financial, the location is more

damaging to the local community than it is beneficial to the students who will still be far removed

from Bower Ashton or the city centre. Look into brown field sites and leave what small patches of

public natural beauty remain, alone.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:In regards to the application of the Student Accommodation on Malago Road, I would

like to submit my strong objection to the proposal which aims to stack and squeeze an

unsupported number of buildings and residents in what is soon to be an over populated area.

This development, like those only a few hundred meters down Malago Road are prioritizing fitting

in bedspaces for temporary, student residents, at the expense of the local community.

The 3 building of 6 to 10 stories, or 484 bedspaces, will have a significantly negative impact on

wildlife, natural light, and air quality while offering no benefit to the current resident and to a

degree, he proposed future residents.

This proposal needs to reduce significantly in scope in order to keep the area a home to residents

who call it that for the long and short term.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:With regards to the amendment to the application increasing the number of bedrooms,

and the height of each building specifically, and the development generally:

I am concerned about the loss of amenity for existing residents. My concerns are as follows.

i. The loss of daylight for existing residents

ii. The additional pressure on parking (I note the provision of only 3 parking spaces), in an area

where there is already significant congestion.

iii. The impact the development will have on local heathcare provision

I'd be grateful for a response advising how the developers intent to ameliorate the above impacts.

Thanks

The building is enormous respect the surrounding houses and overtake and destroy thecharacteristic view of the colorful houses of the hill. The Bedminster green park will be suffocatedby the constructions loosing diversity, green space, natural light and well being of the wholepopulation. Students will come with cars and they will park on the narrow streets on the hill alreadytoo much obstructed. We are already assisting to over parking just from the workers on thebuilding sites. More and more out bin collections get postponed or cancelled as the bin trucks cannot fit in the streets. Ambulances and fire rescue delay regularly Tring to pass through theuncontrolled parking. All this is dangerous and has a profound impact for the residents of the area.All Bedminster is being overbuilt and no public space and facilities have been planned to containthis shocking increase in population that the neighbourhood will assist. There are no GP patientsappointment nor possibility for new registration and same thing for dentist, nursery, primaryschools and green space. The construction of this site for students which by the way will not beinterested to live so far away from the university will profoundly damage Bedminster and the wholecity value. The council should rethink the whole space in a more sustainable, people friendly andgreen perspective. Citizen well being and their safety should come first. This site should not behosting a high density appartment building.

Gordon Wilhelmi74 Quantock RoadBedminster BS3 4PE19 March 2024Development ManagementCity Hall BristolOBJECTION to Application 22/06085/F

Revisions of such a scale, at such a late date, are counter to the provisions of the Town andCountry Planning Act 1990.Bristol City Council Planning Department (BCCPD) has not yet fully Consulted with residents andother local interests as to revision to the original Application, contrary to the guidelines set out forLocal Authorities within that Act. Any grant to that Application will therefore be in breach of thatAct, until such time that revisions to the original Application have been properly presented,scrutinised, and Consulted upon.I Object to the Application as a whole.1) Neither the Applicant nor BCCPD have presented or required provision of pro-rata facilities forsuch high-density housing/accommodation. I refer to GP Surgeries and Healthcare facilities,Schooling and Educational facilities, Public Transport infrastructure, and the concerns andrequirements of the Fire Services, who are reported to be concerned, in this case, about theirability to respond to such a sudden influx of high-density, high-rise developments. It is also notclear, within the Application, that the Applicant has fully taken into consideration the findings of theReport into the Grenfell Tower disaster, with reference to secondary stairwells and sprinkler

systems, learning from the mistakes of the past.

We appreciate the general need for new homes, particularly in a multi-University City like Bristol;these new homes will somewhat alleviate the shortage and demand on stocks, and perhaps easeinflated rents/prices. Taken singly, Plot 1 on Malago Road (22/06085/F) might appear to be areasonable proposal, given attention to the Objections previously stated, but taken as the wholewith Plots 1-5, the loss of Bedminster Green on Plot 5, and proposals for further developmentalong Whitehouse Road (together with local developments already in progress), we areconsidering an increase of some 5,000 new homes in Bedminster, and perhaps 15,000 serviceusers within the radius of 1 square mile, in an unforgivably short space of time, to be quiteunacceptable.Councillors and Planning Committee must therefore take into consideration both the provisions ofthe Town&Country Planning Act 1990, and the Service needs of those that they serve, within theirdeliberations of Application 22/06085/F.I Object to this Application.

Gordon WilhelmiQuantock RoadBedminster

Adding another storey will be overbearing for the residents facing the development.If the developers are not happy with the money they'll be making at a lower height then theyshould develop another site and let a more considerate developer have the site.

This site should not be used for more student accommodation it should be for social housing. 800plus students arriving this September is more than enough for this quiet residential area.Also the big issue of parking - Bedminster and Windmill Hill do not have residents parking studentwill park up a whole semester causing absolute distress to residents.

We strongly object to this application.

The design is completely obtuse to the surrounding houses. It is far too tall. It sits between thewonderful Windmill Hill and historical Bedminster with no architectural nod to this.

The intensity of development in this area is very depressing. The looming thought of our preciousgreen spaces being completely dominated by concrete. The looming thought of our local GPsurgeries being further stretched to provide a service for us all.

High density development is strangling this neighbourhood.

The height, density and overall design of this development is completely out of sortswith the local area. The proposed buildings are much too high, too close together and they arefrankly extremely ugly. To suggest 3 parking spaces for almost 500 people is adequate isridiculous and there will be a huge negative impact in terms of daylight on local residents. Theexisting developments in the area will already have a negative impact on the area with increasedtraffic, increased demand for basic services and no consideration has been made for parkingneeds. It's clear that the council is intent on destroying South Bristol to the benefit of developerswho have no interest in preserving local communities.

The height, density and overall design of this development is completely out of sortswith the local area. The proposed buildings are much too high, too close together and they arefrankly extremely ugly. To suggest 3 parking spaces for almost 500 people is adequate isridiculous and there will be a huge negative impact in terms of daylight on local residents. Theexisting developments in the area will already have a negative impact on the area with increasedtraffic, increased demand for basic services and no consideration has been made for parkingneeds. It's clear that the council is intent on destroying South Bristol to the benefit of developerswho have no interest in preserving local communities.

These buildings are too tall. They will completely dominate the area. The existingresidents in the surrounding area will have even more of their natural light restricted by thesemonstrous blocks.Where are the additional doctors and dentist's facilities that will support the residents? It's alreadyimpossible to get appointments for the existing residents in BS3.

As with previous objections to this site, I am reiterating the issues raised concerningparking, height and size of development, type of development and negligence of provision of pubicservices linked to the sudden influx of population in the area. I cannot speak in an informedmanner on the health and safety issues identified by fellow commenters, however I should urgeyou to consider those closely.

The proposed height of the building will obstruct views and be completely out of sync with theremaining surroundings. Wildlife and surrounding residential properties will be overshadowed bythis building. Stafford Yard already looks like a massive eyesore. In the development I live9Factory No1), similarly the Cutting Room tower is completely out of proportion with theneighbourhood and rest of the development (as a resident I legally wasn't allowed to object).

Students will clutter the area with more cars. There should be strict forbiddance to use residentialstreet parking by dwellers of this development, as the streets are already too busy resulting indelay to emergency and public services trying to navigate the area on windmill hill. If parkingcannot be controlled adequately by the council, the developers should consider constructingunderground parking and the council should improve public transportation links that won't take1hour and multiple bus changes to get to campus.

No consideration has been put towards the GP & other public services increases required and lackof additional green space which will be required for this influx of population. With more studentsusing Victoria Park in addition to the increase in local population, there are increasingly risks forconfrontation especially with pre-existing families with dogs whose lifeline is their ability to use the

park with their pet.

No consideration has been put forward towards the needs for permanent housing for local andlong-term population. Malago road should become a tree alley to allow for enough shade and airas temperatures become unbearable.

Given the heritage in construction culture in the UK, the building will be too hot in the summerespecially for south facing flats and too cold and damp in the winter for those on the north face.

The council should rethink the whole space in a more sustainable, people friendly and greenperspective.

I have lived on Windmill Hill for over 20 years. This application for redevelopment is toohigh for our area, and is for too many people with too few appropriate amenities to support that.The height will impact on views to and from Windmill hill which is not acceptable - especially giventhe amount of change that has already happened in this area. There is insufficient car parking withonly 3 spaces; parking in my area is already at capacity and very difficult. Realistically visitors toand residents of the flats will try and park on Windmill Hill and we do not have the space. Theheight of the building will affect the light for the flats opposite. The structure of the building itself isnot in keeping with the area and is too stark. The roof garden will create light pollution. I firmlyobject to the proposal and urge councillors to consider local residents affected by this scale ofbuilding.

This development is too high, too dense, and incredibly ugly. The redevelopment of thissite presented an opportunity for some quality design of low rise buildings, suitable for families andolder residents as well as students. The proposed development adds to the ugly high rise wall ofconcrete currently being built. The lack of parking will have a very significant deleterious affect onpresent local residents, and the health infrastructure will be unable to support so many newresidents. I strongly object to this development as currently proposed.

This feels like the final straw in the recent re-development at the bottom of Windmill Hill.This small area is being over developed now and every day we are facing a very changing andchallenging situation and stress, especially around parking already with contractors parking in thestreets that don't even have enough room for residents to park. If new residents have cars, whereexactly are they going to park? The doctor's surgery is already overstretched, not to mention itsnew online appointment booking system being down for days on end. The infrastructure andrelated services for new residents has clearly not been thought through, not to mention the sheerheight and density of the building itself, crammed in a small space right up against the railway line,Malago river and road. Please at least have the common sense to wait and consider the impactthe buildings already going up will have on the local area before agreeing another one.

This is WAY too high, too concentrated. It'll block light to other people living opposite asit'll dwarf their houses. No parking again means that even more people will be trying to park ordrive onto Windmill Hill, because of course students will have cars, thinking they won't is verynaive, Bristol students are rich and will have cars because the public transport is very poor forwhere they will want to go. There's no infrastructure, even local supermarkets won't be able tocope and will be swamped, let alone medical and dental care. This will crush the local wildlife intonothing, by building right up alongside the Malago. It's awful, too dense, too high, totally out ofkeeping with existing local residences. Please reconsider, and do not replace previous plans withthings that are even worse. I think you are trying to batter local residents into submission bymaking awful decisions, hoping we'll give up and go away and let greedy developers take overeverything. Please don't do this, it's inhumane.

The developers have not listened to our previous comments and have even goneagainst them to make the buildings taller. The windows on the south side don't open and willcause overheating. We don't need more student accommodation, we need housing for families inthis area. The density of the buildings is too high and there are no extra resources such as doctorsopening up to take on these new people moving into the area.

The revised plans go even higher than the previous submission - we are not beinglistened too. The buildings density is too high. It will block out light to neighbours. Studentaccommodation isn't needed!

The developers have resubmitted with an even worse design than the original. Thedesigns are too tall, not enough parking, blocks light to other residents.

Too high for the area which will block out natural light for housing just off malago roadand no consideration for BS3 residents with what looks like zero community assets included suchas Dr surgery etc...and zero parking is crazy -students have cars and this will lead to parkingproblems in the area.

There has already been an enormous amount of development and disruption to theresidents in this are - over a number of years. This development is going to take away yet moregreen space - more concrete less green space - more people needing green space. The buildingsare too tall they will have a detrimental affect of the community. We have a lot of wildlife currently -this is going to be impacted due to the close proximity to the Malago and green spaces that areleft.Can we no develop this area as a green amenity space for students and local residents - this willis a long term solution to the well being of everyone not development for the sake of more money.We have accepted a lot - lets share these tall buildings not absorb them all with no increase insupport for residents in terms of healthcare etc.

Revisions of such a scale, at such a late date, are counter to the provisions of the Townand Country Planning Act 1990.Bristol City Council Planning Department (BCCPD) has not yet fully Consulted with residents andother local interests as to revision to the original Application, contrary to the guidelines set out forLocal Authorities within that Act. Any grant to that Application will therefore be in breach of thatAct, until such time that revisions to the original Application have been properly presented,scrutinised, and Consulted upon.I Object to the Application as a whole.1) Neither the Applicant nor BCCPD have presented or required provision of pro-rata facilities forsuch high-density housing/accommodation. I refer to GP Surgeries and Healthcare facilities,Schooling and Educational facilities, Public Transport infrastructure, and the concerns andrequirements of the Fire Services, who are reported to be concerned, in this case, about theirability to respond to such a sudden influx of high-density, high-rise developments. It is also notclear, within the Application, that the Applicant has fully taken into consideration the findings of theReport into the Grenfell Tower disaster, with reference to secondary stairwells and sprinkler

systems, learning from the mistakes of the past.We appreciate the general need for new homes, particularly in a multi-University City like Bristol;these new homes will somewhat alleviate the shortage and demand on stocks, and perhaps easeinflated rents/prices. Taken singly, Plot 1 on Malago Road (22/06085/F) might appear to be areasonable proposal, given attention to the Objections previously stated, but taken as the wholewith Plots 1-5, the loss of Bedminster Green on Plot 5, and proposals for further developmentalong Whitehouse Road (together with local developments already in progress), we are

considering an increase of some 5,000 new homes in Bedminster, and perhaps 15,000 serviceusers within the radius of 1 square mile, in an unforgivably short space of time, to be quiteunacceptable.Councillors and Planning Committee must therefore take into consideration both the provisions ofthe Town&Country Planning Act 1990, and the Service needs of those that they serve, within theirdeliberations of Application 22/06085/F.I object of this application

Buildings are unsightly as they change the view of the traditional buildings and skylineon the hill.

Deeply concerned about the density of development as some % of residents will being a carmaking local parking worse than its already problematic situation. Unclear how start and end ofterm time traffic surges (moving in and out) will be accommodated.

It's really really tall! I wouldn't object it if it wasn't as tall as windmill hill itself, but therevised planned height/elevation seems completely excessive! A third shorter wouldn't obliteratethe light and character of the hill.

The other thing I'd say is that you've made this almost deliberately difficult for a local non specialistto even find what the most up to date plans are. Up to date plan summaries should be at the top ofthe list. What you currently have counts as poor communication and is an unsuccessful attempt atactual transparency.

Yet another development for rent, for students, when there is a national shortage ofaffordable homes for families.

This is a grim development. The blocks proposed are too high, too close together and show scantregard for both the families living a mere roads width away, and for the surrounding area. Thedoctors' surgeries and dental practices are already overpressed.

Malago Rd/Dalby Avenue is a busy highway. How do students bring or take their possessions,taxis pick up and put down, visitors come and go, without adding to the congestion? Theassumption seems to be that being young, students will all be able-bodied, not so.

If this area is to be developed, instead of prioritizing expediency and profit, can we please factor insomething for the long-term, better wellbeing, accommodation that will enhance student lives andadd in a positive way to the area and to the city of Bristol.

I would not know about this latest development application if it were not for WHaM, ourlocal neighbourhood planning group. The developers have not made an effort, as far as I amaware, to inform our streets. The plans are for too many buildings, they are intimidating andoverpowering and it all looks like city centre highrise office blocks, crammed in to a lowriseresidential area. The Bedminster Green Framework suggested a maximum of 1000 students andthis development brings the total to about 1300. This is too many! I have lived here for nearly 40years and I've never seen such a horrible looking lot of buildings!

1. It is simply too high and dense! It is taller than previous applications for Plot 1 thatwere refused. It now contravenes the Bedminster Green Framwework 2. It has an augly wall-likestructure that cuts of Windmill Hill from the City and masks the topography of the Hill. 3. It loomsover the flats opposite and reduces their light. It shows no sensitivity to the wellbeing of theresidents 4. All views to and from the hill will be affected 5. Medical facilities in the area have notbeen increased for the extra students 6. Roof gardens on 6-8 storey block will create light andnoise pollution. Houses nearby will be overlooked 7. Car parking. Only 3 places provided. 8.Insufficint space for drop-off and umpacking on very busy road which will cause even morecongestion. Where will parents and visitors park? Students will not be allowed to bring cars buthow will that be regulated? 9. The number of students exceeds the agreed plan by 200 (1200when it should be 1000). More points to come in the next hour

I strongly object as I am concerned about the height and size of the development,wildlife, type of development and negligence of provision of public services linked to the suddeninflux of population in the area such as Doctors surgeries and Dentists.These buildings are too dense and too high and will block light to those living nearby. Thewindows are too small as well as the flats themselves and even the developers have admitted theflats will overheat and some of them are to be fixed shut! We need a much lower energy, lowersmaller development keeping with density standards advocated in the SPD in urban living. It isunbelievably ugly and cuts off Windmill Hill and all views will be obliterated.The railway line is a wildlife corridor and as these buildings go right up to the railway line, allmanner of animals will be affected. Rare bats along with other animals and birds regularly use therailway and will also be impacted by the light pollution and noise pollution.Medical facilities have not been increased nor has parking. Students do have vehicles. There is noroom even for parents to pull in and drop off their children or unpack on which is a very busy road.Trying to pack in as many money making flats as possible in a thin space on a busy road showsno regard for those who have to live there, nature, or the neighbours living in the surrounding areawho are already reeling at all the other massive blocks of flats and the resulting 40% increase inpopulation.

Too high and too dense. It contravenes the Bedminster Green Framework.No thought has been given to providing amenities or services for exponential increase inpopulation planned for this area. What are the plans to increase medical facilities in the area?What are the plans to increase dentists? Nurseries? School places?No sensitivity to well being or safety of existing residents. Blocks light to neighbouring buildings.Windmill Hill is already being used as a park and ride and is utter chaos because it is being usedas a car park by contractors working on huge scale developments already underway. It is makingthe area - populated by a large number of young families - a dangerous place to live and moveabout as a parent with young children. Pavements are obstructed by parked cars, as are junctions.I'll frequently have to walk the pushchair along the road because the pavements are obstructed byparked cars. This development will exacerbate a situation that is already getting out of hand andchaotic. Students are not allowed to bring cars but how will this be regulated? What provision isthere for parents dropping students off and for unpacking? The number of student flats exceedsthe agreed number by 200.What conservation and ecology surveys have been carried out to consider the impact this hugedevelopment will have on nearby Malago and bat corridor along the railway line? Any developmentthat harms endangered species should not be permitted. Where is Natural England's comment onthis application?I see nothing here to reassure me that this development has been given due consideration from aplanning or an ecological perspective.

This application is totally unsuitable for the neighborhood. The height, density andoverall design of this development is completely out of keeping with the local area. The proposedbuildings are much too high, too close together and will negatively impact on existing residentsand environment. To suggest 3 parking spaces for almost 500 people is adequate is naïve at bestand willfully disingenuous at worst. There will be a huge negative impact in terms of daylight onlocal residents. The existing developments in the area will already have a negative impact on thearea with increased traffic, increased demand for basic services and no consideration has beenmade for parking needs. It's clear that the council is favouring developers as opposed to counciltax paying residents and the communities they live in. It also seems odd that the revisions to theplan have increased the height of the buildings and population capacity from the original design.More effort should be made to develop affordable and social housing which respects, protects andcompliments the existing neighborhood. This application fails on all counts and I strongly object tothis proposal.

This application is totally unsuitable for the neighborhood. The height, density andoverall design of this development is completely out of keeping with the local area. The proposedbuildings are much too high, too close together and will negatively impact on existing residentsand environment. To suggest 3 parking spaces for almost 500 people is adequate is naïve at bestand willfully disingenuous at worst. There will be a huge negative impact in terms of daylight onlocal residents. The existing developments in the area will already have a negative impact on thearea with increased traffic, increased demand for basic services and no consideration has beenmade for parking needs. It's clear that the council is favouring developers as opposed to counciltax paying residents and the communities they live in. It also seems odd that the revisions to theplan have increased the height of the buildings and population capacity from the original design.More effort should be made to develop affordable and social housing which respects, protects andcompliments the existing neighborhood. This application fails on all counts and I strongly object tothis proposal.

I like the idea of regenerating this area. I like the idea of the accommodation. I don't likethe idea of it being solely student accommodation. I have nothing against students, and think thatsome of it should be student accommodation, but it needs to have some proportion of socialhousing. In something I read, I was left with the impression that there would be a wide range ofaccommodation types to suit a range of budgets. This makes sense to me and would encouragediversity and inclusion in the area.

I also think they're slightly too high for the area.

This construction is too high and having built one big student accommodation in thesame road, it is unnecessary. It will create more need of car spaces and reduction of green spacein the area. Malago road is becoming too crowded and too much construction. The height of thebuilding will have an impact to the daylight, there will be narrow gaps between blocks and moreartificial light at night. I am happy to have more students in the area but that will also impact on thelevel on noise and activity at night. Also, it is getting very difficult to move around Malago road. Nota wise decision and is creating an over crowded area in a very little space.

Continually disappointed! This iteration is just as bad as the last. If not worse. All I cansee here is greed with no thought for the existing community in fact no thought for the poor peoplewho will be charged an inordinate amount to live somewhere, where they are unable to fully opentheir windows. Surely this is a complete no no!

The size/scale, the lack of parking and the rush to get planning. Something beyond fishy about theincoherent nature of this poorly planned poorly designed notion of Bedminster Green.

Also no thought for biodiversity here but of course why would these so called architects anddevelopers think about the wildlife that frequent windmill hill and the railway corridor.

There is absolutely no infrastructure to speak of too.

A crying neighbour!

Continually disappointed! This iteration is just as bad as the last. If not worse. All I cansee here is greed with no thought for the existing community in fact no thought for the poor peoplewho will be charged an inordinate amount to live somewhere, where they are unable to fully opentheir windows. Surely this is a complete no no!

The size/scale, the lack of parking and the rush to get planning. Something beyond fishy about theincoherent nature of this poorly planned poorly designed notion of Bedminster Green.

Also no thought for biodiversity here but of course why would these so called architects anddevelopers think about the wildlife that frequent windmill hill and the railway corridor.

There is absolutely no infrastructure to speak of too.

A crying neighbour!

I object - as a long standing resident to the area it would be a terrible idea

Continually disappointed! This iteration is just as bad as the last. If not worse. All I cansee here is greed with no thought for the existing community in fact no thought for the poor peoplewho will be charged an inordinate amount to live somewhere, where they are unable to fully opentheir windows. Surely this is a complete no no!

The size/scale, the lack of parking and the rush to get planning. Something beyond fishy about theincoherent nature of this poorly planned poorly designed notion of Bedminster Green.

Also no thought for biodiversity here but of course why would these so called architects anddevelopers think about the wildlife that frequent windmill hill and the railway corridor.

There is absolutely no infrastructure to speak of too.

A crying neighbour!

It is so wrong that these revised plans are for 10 MORE student rooms - 484 in total. Overcrowding - such a small space for so many students Very narrow gaps inbetween the buildings There will be reduced natural light for existing residents The artificial light from the accommodation will be detrimental to the wildlife on The Malago atnight Only 3 car parking spaces - this will badly affect the nearby residents who struggle to park neartheir own houses in Windmill Hill What we need is affordable housing for young people, those on lower incomes & young familieswho are going to stay here, create and contribute to a proper community

I strongly object to the proposed plans.

It makes me despair that the developers have the gall to add more height to thisdevelopment after so many objections were put in about the size and massing of the project. Itreally does feel like no one who has any power really cares what local people think, feel orexperience.A lot of money, time and effort has been put in to assess the effect of the proposed buildings onhow much light will be reduced in the homes of the people living on Malago Road. It has beendecided that the reduction is acceptable but 30% sounds like a lot to me. It's not just windowsreceiving light it's people. It will surely affect resident's health. Also no consideration seems tohave been given to the way that these tall buildings will block evening sunlight onto Windmill Hill.Of course there are other considerations, which many people have raised such as noinfrastructure or services to cater for the influx of so many more people. Traffic and parking will nodoubt be an issue.This development does nothing to add to our environment or community. It's not going to make it abetter place to live. The developers are will take the money and leave and we will be left withthese awful concrete blocks. "Bedminster Grey" indeed!

Here are some of WHAM's objections. 1. It is simply too high and dense! It is taller thanprevious applications for Plot 1 that were refused. It now contravenes the Bedminster GreenFramework 2. It has an ugly wall-like structure that cuts of Windmill Hill from the City and masksthe topography of the Hill. 3. It looms over the flats opposite and reduces their light. It shows nosensitivity to the wellbeing of the residents 4. All views to and from the hill will be affected 5.Medical facilities in the area have not been increased for the extra students 6. Roof gardens on 6-8 storey block will create light and noise pollution. Houses nearby will be overlooked 7. Carparking. Only 3 places provided. 8. Insufficient space for drop-off and unpacking on very busy roadwhich will cause even more congestion. Where will parents and visitors park? Students will not beallowed to bring cars but how will that be regulated? 9. The number of students exceeds theagreed plan by 200 (1200 when it should be 1000).

I totally object to this scheme, there has been no consideration to the continued impacton the local community without a single benefit.The proposed increase in height of each of the buildings along with the lack of parking , the lack offrontage on Malago road will turn the area into a super sized dormitory

I strongly object to this development on multiple grounds. There are already massivesimilar developments in the area that already have major impacts and overloads on localinfrastructure and parking which will only worsen once complete. So an additional oversizeddevelopment squeezed into an even smaller space can only make a very bad situation worse. Theproposed development will block natural light, has extremely limited parking and makes no attemptto provision social housing or mitigate impacts on local infrastructure, health and welfare servicesThe height of these proposed flats is completely out of keeping with the adjacent area, - Bristol is alow rise city and these blocks are way too high , too close together and too close to existingresidential areas. The height of the blocks and the narrow gaps between will also lead tosignificant wind vortex problems. There are narrow gaps between blocks and there's is a lack ofactive frontage along Malago road.Even the report from the developers own agents acknowledges the "notable" impact on daylightand sunlight of the development - and let's face it a paid for commissioned report is clearly subjectto the developers bias so "notable" is in reality an admission of significant and detrimental.Parking is a significant issue in the area, just the additional parking associated with theconstruction workers for the adjacent major new development has had many detrimental affectson parking and access to windmill hill. So once those new residents are in AND another newdevelopment and another 484 potential cars are added to such a small congested area we will becompletely overriun, with a very dangerous impact on emergency services access to the areasThe development will also overshadow, if not destroy the Bedminster green space, and of courseoverload Victoria park with another 484 people. So it's a double whammy on our limited greenspaces.Come on planners you can and should do better than allow this application through - it fails on

pretty much every test. I doubt if this were to be proposed in Clifton it would have got anywhere !Regeneration of Bedminster would be better served by redeveloping the space in a sympatheticway and to address provision of services for the existing residents of Bedminster, retaining greenspaces and addressing sustainability.

I object to this planning application. There are already several student blocks in theBedminster Green vicinity and these blocks with an increased number of dwellings and increasedheight are too many. Probably other people have raised the issues of shortage of parking spacesand shortage of services such as Doctors and Dentists.These blocks are so close to the railway line there will be a detrimental effect for the studentoccupants. Conversely this densely occupied area adjacent to the railway corridor is likely to havea negative effect on any wildlife through the lighting and increased human activity at night.As a local resident I object to the density of these buildings, blocking light from the dwellingsopposite and adding to the already densely built-up area around the green with much reducedgreen space.Good housing is needed for families and many other people currently without secureaccommodation. This building proposal does not meet any of these needs.

These buildings are excessively high and will make a huge impact on the levels of lightwe will be able to get in our homes.Not only will that have a terrible effect on our mental health, for all who live in our flats, but it willalso have a big impact on the value of our home.

Adding more students to this street, that already has a huge building site at the end of it with yetmore student housing will massively negatively affect the area. This is too much. The levels ofantisocial behavior will increase to a point where we just won't be able to handle it.Our neighborhood will become like a university campus. It will be destroyed.

Yes, please build homes on this site. But homes for people who need them, not for yet morestudents. Bristol cannot handle much more of this, we are struggling for homes as it is.

We also will not be getting an increase in GP surgeries - where do the council think these studentswill go to find a doctor? Why are they not providing for these extra hundreds of people that will becoming to this area?

This is a completely unacceptable development in an already over populated area.There is no benefit to the community in the designs. Not enough provision for parking or amenitieshave been made and the quality of life for its residents and the existing neighbourhood will bedrastically reduced. Bristol has already dropped off the list of being the one of the most pleasantplaces to live in the uk due to the lack of infrastructure and this will only make life even moreuntenable. This is an ugly, greedy, thoughtless development. I very strongly object on every level.

A number of objections. Primarily the lack of amenities such as GPs, dentists and othermedical facilities already in the area, which would be exacerbated by the large increase in adensely packed population. Parking is already difficult here and with ongoing road works, the areais always congested. Further building would increase disruption to bus services and encouragedrivers to use East St which is supposed to be only for buses, but is used as a cut-through whenparts of Malago Rd are not usable.

The Malago Road area, though by a main road with ongoing construction work is a quiet and safeone, the nature of which would be completely changed with so much student development. Thechances of anti-social behaviour in Victoria Park would increase and the demographic in the EastSt and Bedminster Parade area would completely shift, speeding up gentrification. The area wouldfeel like a student campus rather than an area in which families live.

The height of the proposed buildings is concerning, blocking light and views for us already livingon the Malago Rd estate. With features such as a roof garden proposed we would feel observed,overlooked and uncomfortable in our own home. Light is already blocked by surrounding high-rises and I have no wish for that to be made worse, since it affects both physical and mental healthof current residents.

I have no objection to the space being developed in a thoughtful and inclusive way,but the currentproposal does not allow for that. Bristol is undergoing a housing crisis, with unaffordable rent,astronomical house prices and not enough amenities for us already living here. Using the space tobuild affordable, social, low-rise housing whilst investing in schools, doctors, leisure centres and

community spaces would be a better use of time and money, one which enriches our community,rather than making it more difficult to live in.

Commenter Type: Amenity - Residents Group

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:

19 March 2024

Development Management

City Hall Bristol

OBJECTION to Application 22/06085/F

Revisions of such a scale, at such a late date, are counter to the provisions of the Town and

Country Planning Act 1990.

Bristol City Council Planning Department (BCCPD) has not yet fully Consulted with residents and

other local interests as to revision to the original Application, contrary to the guidelines set out for

Local Authorities within that Act. Any grant to that Application will therefore be in breach of that

Act, until such time that revisions to the original Application have been properly presented,

scrutinised, and Consulted upon.

I Object to the Application as a whole.

1) Neither the Applicant nor BCCPD have presented or required provision of pro-rata facilities for

such high-density housing/accommodation. I refer to GP Surgeries and Healthcare facilities,

Schooling and Educational facilities, Public Transport infrastructure, and the concerns and

requirements of the Fire Services, who are reported to be concerned, in this case, about their

ability to respond to such a sudden influx of high-density, high-rise developments. It is also not

clear, within the Application, that the Applicant has fully taken into consideration the findings of the

Report into the Grenfell Tower disaster, with reference to secondary stairwells and sprinkler

systems, learning from the mistakes of the past.

We appreciate the general need for new homes, particularly in a multi-University City like Bristol;

these new homes will somewhat alleviate the shortage and demand on stocks, and perhaps ease

inflated rents/prices. Taken singly, Plot 1 on Malago Road (22/06085/F) might appear to be a

reasonable proposal, given attention to the Objections previously stated, but taken as the whole

with Plots 1-5, the loss of Bedminster Green on Plot 5, and proposals for further development

along Whitehouse Road (together with local developments already in progress), we are

considering an increase of some 5,000 new homes in Bedminster, and perhaps 15,000 service

users within the radius of 1 square mile, in an unforgivably short space of time, to be quite

unacceptable.

Councillors and Planning Committee must therefore take into consideration both the provisions of

the Town&Country Planning Act 1990, and the Service needs of those that they serve, within their

deliberations of Application 22/06085/F.

I Object to this Application.

Because:- It is too tall and too densely packed for the site. Resultant overshadowing would be detrimental toresidents and environment.- Parking provision is inadequate, which will cause displacement parking in already overstretchedlocal area. Naïve to believe students can't find workaround for ban on cars.- It is visually ugly and boring, missing an opportunity to enhance Bristol's reputation forimaginative architecture.

On 1st April 2021 Planning Inspector Jonathon Parsons dismissed an appeal from the previousdeveloper at this site on the grounds, among others, that the "proposal would give rise to anabrupt and overly dominating built development unsympathetic to the low-rise domesticappearance and character of the area."

In a public consultation, a representative of the current developer admitted that they had notattempted to formulate any sort of low rise development but had carefully examined the inspector'sreport to work out by how much (or how little) they would need to reduce the massing to achieveplanning consent. On 23 December 2022, they put in an application which they clearly considerednot as bad as that of their predecessor. But that did not make it good. It was still three times theheight of the flats and houses opposite.

Now they tell us that they need to "Internally reconfigure the buildings to accommodate a secondstaircase to future-proof the development in light of the anticipated emerging Governmentrequirement for second staircases on all new buildings that are taller than 18 metres."

It had not, it seems, occurred to them already that a second staircase might be a good idea forpost-Grenfell safety reasons. Their concern is over the loss of 24 rooms. Do they take it on thechin? No. They add another storey to each building with space for an extra 34 rooms, a net gain often, making a total of 484. The audacity is breathtaking.

Add those to the 819 on their other almost-completed building along the road and we will get a

grand total of 1303, far exceeding the (already high) suggested figure of one thousand.

Others have made points about infrastructure and topography and whether studentaccommodation is the best use of the site in a time of acute housing need.

But I want to re-iterate the point made time and again about the whole Bedminster Green project -that there is neither an overall vision nor strategic control. Now it resembles a rapidly spreadingmalign growth with no-one offering an antidote or even resistance. It is developer led, not aconsidered response to housing need, and is already well on the way to create, as predicted, avast densely-packed monolithic wall of development with little breathing space inside or out.

There are still two plots awaiting planning consent. There is still time to demand more of thatspace.

Don't surrender to the propaganda of profiteering.

22/06085/F - PLOT 1, MALAGO ROAD - BCS OBJECTIONS TO REVISED SCHEME,MARCH 2024.

Bristol Civic Society objects strongly to this application as it has to previous iterations as is shownin the appended response submitted in February 2023. Our two principal objections relate to theadverse impact of the design, particularly the height and massing of the proposal, on the characterof the area and to the amount of purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA). We are saddenedand frustrated that the direction of travel of the revisions to the scheme exacerbate rather thanaddress our concerns. The proposal is increasing in height and the quantum of studentaccommodation is growing. We are not convinced that provision of second staircases in thebuildings, which we would expect should buildings of this height be permitted, justifies increasingthe adverse impact of the proposal.

As noted in our earlier submissions, the planning inspectorate has upheld at appeal refusals ofprevious applications because they were harmful to the character of the area and contrary to LocalPlan policies. The Society considers that this planning history would provide a firm foundation forrefusing this application. We cannot see how the amendments to this, which increase the height ofmost the buildings by a storey, can do anything other than amplify the harm to the character of thearea typified by low rise buildings at this, the western end of Malago Road. Many of these areresidential and the increase in height will worsen the overbearing and overshadowing impact ofthe proposal upon them.

The Society's objections to the provision of PBSA are set out below in our appended earlier

submission to which we add that students are a transient community whose contributions to localbusinesses will not be consistent but related mainly to term times for 30 or so weeks a year. Yetthe revisions show a small increase in such accommodation. We reiterate those objections morestrongly, therefore. It is the Society's wish that this application be refused but, should it bepermitted, the proposals should, at the very least, allow for conversion to family accommodation orlarger units were the demand for PBSA to falter. Adaptability should be part of the consideration ofthis application to ensure that it would comply with the Council's sustainability policies in the LocalPlan.

APPENDIX. 22/06085/F - PLOT 1, MALAGO ROAD - BCS OBJECTION FEBRUARY 2923.

Bristol Civic Society objects strongly to this application. Although the Society does not object to theprinciple of developing this site, the proposals put forward have not been acceptable in our view.We objected to the proposals put forward in 2019 and 2021. In 2019, we suggested thatredevelopment should take the form of mixed student and residential housing in an articulatedterrace close to Malago Road with private courtyards to the rear. The 2019 proposals wererefused and the decisions were upheld at appeal on the basis that they were harmful to thecharacter of the area in contradiction to Local Plan policies. The Society objected to the 2021proposal on the basis that the Inspector's decision had not been overcome. We consider that thisapplication also fails to overcome the grounds for the Inspector's decision and would be harmful tothe character of the area.

It is particularly unwelcome that the height of the buildings has been increased by a storey from22/03144/PREAPP which had shown some reduction in height on earlier proposals. The existingcharacter, particularly towards the western end of Malago Road is of much smaller, low risebuildings and we are at a loss to see how the height and flat roofs of the proposal could possiblybe considered as anything but harmful to this. We fear that the proposal will overbear andovershadow the lower rise buildings and create canyon effects opposite proposed higher risedevelopments in Malago Road and Hereford Street.

The accommodation is entirely for students with the number of beds increasing from 432 in thepreapp proposal to 474. The rooms will be nearly all single aspect, many facing north. Livingconditions in north facing single aspect rooms will not be pleasant and south facing rooms couldbe subject to overheating if not well ventilated or air conditioned. The Society has not beenopposed to the use of the site for student accommodation in the past. However, we havepreviously noted that conventional residential accommodation has been omitted. Inclusion offamily or other more permanent residential accommodation would do much more to increase thevariety of people living on the site and to contribute to longer term community development inaccordance with the aims of the development framework for Bedminster Green.

The Society supports the Council's policies for mitigating the impacts of climate change. It is,therefore, important that building design minimises the need for energy to be used to keep the

building warm in winter and cool in summer. We expect such measures to be agreed between thedevelopers and the Council.

I object to the development for the following reasons:-Lack of consideration for people living in the low rise properties facing the development. Thedevelopment is overbearing and will be even more so with an extra storey.This site should not be for even more student accommodation Windmill Hill is a quiet residentialarea with young families, young people like to party and they should be accommodated nearer thecity.We're frequently told there is a shortage of accommodation for families so this site should be foraffordable homes/ homes for rent.On the issue of parking it's ridiculous to think that students won't bring their cars with them andwithout a residents parking scheme on Windmill Hill parking will become an even biggernightmare. Please stop and think about this whole area and what is being created here, have moreconsideration to the people who live here and less about the developers needs to make money.

Having reviewed the information - the proposal is 484 student rooms with 3 parkingspaces! That is preposterous - this will only end up meaning that parking around hereford streetand windmill hill will become a disaster backing up to all the surrounding areas. Despiteeveryone's best attempts at going green, that is not the case for the majority of the population!

Previous applications were thrown out because of the detrimental impact it was believedthey would have - largely to do with the height, density, and layout of the proposals relative to theexisting area. Now the developers have come back with plans to add another story to their originalapplication? All part of a strategy that assumes they will walk this through planning, that theoutcome is assured, and that the input and interests from the local community amount to nothing.Doesn't have to be that way.

This part of Bedminster is a poorly planned, poorly executed building site, with huge levels ofdisruption for everybody that lives here - noise, light, traffic, parking, pollution, litter, loss of greenspace, and so on. Please don't just chuck another development onto the pile. It would be brutallyunfair on the local community who've built their lives here, to continue treating them like anafterthought. Doesn't have to be that way.

As many have pointed out, many times, there has been zero investment into local infrastructureand amenities. No doctors, dentists, supermarkets, parking, etc. The quality of life (and health) ofeverybody who lives in this part of Bristol will decline and suffer as a result of developments likethis. Doesn't have to be that way.

On top of all that, you'll be boxing in Windmill Hill - effectively building a giant wall of sub-pararchitecture that adds nothing and removes another piece of the unique aesthetic identity of thiscity. Doesn't have to be that way.

Unter the auspices of 'what fresh hell is this?' and brought to you by the same peoplethat brought you, 'here we go again.' this is, of course, an objection. But I do wonder why I ammaking it. Are we, the residents of the area, just screaming into the void? Are we doomed torepeat the same objections over and over and over again in the face of ever similar, ignored thelast lot of objections, proposals?

Because you did it, didn't you? You took all our previous objections, not just to the previousproposal but also to all the other proposals that preceded it and . . . then you made it worse!

This proposal is way too tall and is packed way too dense. It will take away the right to light for allthe facing residents on Malago Road, it's ugly as hell (seriously, who pays people to design suchmonstrosities?), you have catered to students enough (not just in Bedminster but absolutelyeverywhere in Bristol) and you do not need to cater to them any more, we don't want to beinundated with students, and students do not solve the housing crisis that you keep mentioning tojustify these high rise behemoths. Not only that but there will the impact of artificial light on theMalago at night and nature around here as been blighted enough. There's more, I could go on, butwe all know you know what the objections are because you have read them all before.

Once again this proposal exhibits lowest common denominator thinking. Stop trying to proposehigh rise ugly. Listen to the concerns of the residents and propose something that will benefit thearea, something that will not draw objections.

Better still, give up, turn it into a park or a wildlife sanctuary, god knows South Bristol needs more

of that not less.

The facade was already too high and overbearing given the proximity to Malago Roadand now they have increased it.

7% of students are registered disabled and the qualifying criteria for blue badge. Car parkingpermits was recently expanded to include non-visible disabilities, so it is reasonable to expect thatthe site will require significant anymore parking if only to avoid disadvantaging those students,irrespective of the other 450+, many of whom will have vehicles. Also though... The other 450+,many of whom will have vehicles!

The narrow gaps between the blocks will create wind tunnels as the buildings currently going uphave done.

A final point:Student wellbeing had been shown to be impacted severely when there is overcrowding. This isnot the same situation as living in halls, where there is crowding but also some element of pastoralsupport. Bristol must provide good places for students to live, if these were substantially smaller,better equipped and better connected then this could be those places. But not this design. Not thisscale. Not without any green, any front aesthetic. We can do better.

I object to this application for several reasons:- Parking: the windmill hill area is already overstretched in terms of car parking spaces, particularlygiven that builders working on the other developments having been using the area as a carparksince construction began on those. It is unrealistic to think that students (who regularly need ameans to move in and out of property they occupy on a transient basis) will make do without avehicle. The local rail and bus services are simply insufficient to incentivise people not to use cars.- Overshadowing: the development is far higher than neighbouring buildings (and higher than thedevelopment that was previously rejected in planning).- Social infrastructure: local services such as doctors and dentists are already oversubscribed so itis unclear how this would accommodate a further c.500 people.- Concerns regarding quality of life: the development is situated between a busy main road and atrain line, with wider developments in the area also reducing the amount of green space. Furtherdensely populated high rise will have a negative impact on the quality of life not only ofneighbouring residents but also residents of the development itself.

The development is six storeys too high. Previous recommendations for refusal fromplanning applications on the same plot should be enforced. The design of the buildings need toenhance the historic area not create eyesores, monoliths and stark transitions between 2 storeyVictorian homes along the escarpment, the river Malago and the green. A more sensitive proposalwould be welcomed from the local commmunity.

This is yet another high rise development in an area already absolutely overwhelmed bythem.This has absolutely no parking, extremely narrow gaps between blocks & will remove daylight forexisting residents.Much lower, far more sympathetic use of this space would be preferable, rather than this ongoingattempt to turn this part of South Bristol into Hong Kong.

the proposed development has already been rejected and the amended plans are evenhigher. This creates the effect of walling in windmill hill and also creating shadow for much of thehousing off Malago road. I believe the plans for the building to be without any aesthetic appeal,when there could have been much more imagination to create a place that is good to live in, andto look at. I feel there has not been enough thought as to the provision of infrastructure to supportthe residents and also the strain for the already existing residents of the area for services such asDoctors, dentists, parking, green spaces, sports facilities etc. I also think that the proposed amountof people to be contained in the accommodation is too high, and i am concerned about noise,litter, etc in a relatively residential area.

I strongly object to this application. It will compound parking issues, which already makeit incredibly difficult to navigate the pavements safely with children in a push chair and increasestrain on stretched local infrastructure. It further increases potential issues surrounding transientpopulations that will detract from the residential character of the surrounding areas.

The cumulative effects of this proposal alongside the other approved and proposed developmentswill inevitably damage the wonderful character of Windmill Hill. It's painted, character houses willbe much less visible in Winter and once lost to view will not likely be recovered. Therefore I feelthis proposal is definitely much too tall. A proposal with significantly less stories, higher quality,sustainably designed for the well being of generations of occupants would be much more suitablefor this site. Perhaps someone that aims for an outstanding BREEAM target to inspire otherdevelopers should be considered successful but definitely not these three energy hungry boxes.Why would students want to live so far from the university, next to a busy road?

I do not agree with the recurring statement in the TVIA that this proposal will provide "legibility ofemerging urban area" Which is classed as a benefit. When actually what it is doing is obscuringand damaging a residential neighbourhood and surrounding green space. It will create a dark anoppressive corridor, obscuring light to existing flats on Malago road.

I do not feel that the images in the TVIA are truly adequate. They contain a strong pink colour caston the proposal which makes me question the technical capability of whoever produced theimages and makes it very difficult to gain a visual impression of the façade materials proposed.Furthermore, they only contain summer views in full foliage and do not show the more significant

impact that will occur during the winter months.

I believe the sight should be developed for housing, for local people. What will happento these mega blocks when student numbers go down due to online learning and costs. These tinybedsits with no kitchen or space will become redundant. The blocks will become rundown it is adisaster waiting to happen.The housing crisis is about homes not this type of temporary profit making construction.The design itself is inflexible, ugly and too high.

This will hugely impact our flat. It will block the majority of our light which will in turnmake it a very dark environment to live in. It will also restrict the views we have of surroundingtrees.

I'm reaching out to voice my strong opposition against the proposed plans to increasethe height of the building at Former Pring & St Hill (Plot 1) Malago Road Bristol BS3 4JQ, as itstands to significantly harm our community. This increase threatens to cast longer shadows,reducing vital natural light for residents and local ecosystems, escalate noise pollution from bothconstruction and future occupancy, overburden our already stretched local infrastructure andservices, alter the cherished character and views of our neighbourhood, and sideline the crucialneed for affordable housing by prioritising high-rise profits. Such development must prioritise thewell-being and inclusivity of our community, respecting the balance between growth andmaintaining the qualities that make our area a great place to live. I urge the Bristol City Council toreject this height increase and support sustainable development that genuinely benefits allcommunity members.

I object to having so many students in our area when the university is the other side oftown where their accommodation is largely in very stylish housing.

There is a huge amount of building happening in this area at the moment. It means an enormousonslaught of people will arrive at the same time, all with needs. The Council has not informed orassured us that these needs can be fulfilled.

So many people are desperate for a home, a secure roof over their head. This site would be betterput to serving them

Once again developers have moved the goal posts seeking an increase in height whichwill impact daylight available to existing residencys, narrowing the gaps between the blocks,casting further artificial light on the Malago at night.

With no parking spaces for the increased number of residents, the developers have once againput profit before Any concern pre-existing residence or future ones. The application should beresisted robustly.

I live on Malago Road directly opposite the site of the proposed development of theformer Pring & St Hill for 484 student accommodation. The site will be squeezed between MalagoRoad and the railway line and the River Malago that has flooded in the past and still could today.Our flats would be in the shade between October and April due to the size and height of thedevelopment and I worry about a wind vortex being created along Malago Road. There will begreater noise, a bigger strain on an already fragile infrastructure, an increase in anti-socialbehaviour and increased parking problems and greater pollution . On top of it all there are noplans for any social/affordable housing. I object.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I directly opposite the site of the proposed development of the

former Pring & St Hill for 484 student accommodation. The site will be squeezed between Malago

Road and the railway line and the River Malago that has flooded in the past and still could today.

Our flats would be in the shade between October and April due to the size and height of the

development and I worry about a wind vortex being created along Malago Road. There will be

greater noise, a bigger strain on an already fragile infrastructure, an increase in anti-social

behaviour and increased parking problems and greater pollution . On top of it all there are no

plans for any social/affordable housing. I object.

I wish to object to the amended planning application regarding this site for a verysubstantial development. of student accommodation for 484 bedrooms, this being an increase of10 from the previous application. As this is a very high density of accommodation for this site. Alsoas there is a total lack of outside space for relaxattion I fear that the adjacent St Johns Churchpark will be overwhelmed by the students, particularly during the summer months . The park issurrounded by residential housing as well as a local authority sheltered housing complex. As thecurrrent infrastructure will not cope with this increase of student accommodation in the area.Particularly as there is a very similar development being built nearby. I would prefer a smalldevelopment of flats for local people as this would be better use of the site.

This area of Bristol is becoming a concrete jungle. Too many new tower blocks beingbuilt for the sake of profit for students and others who can afford. Where is the social housing weso desperately need? Why are the community being blighted with such eyesores? For myself atower outside my flat will take away much light. the noise will increase, the traffic and parkingaround here is totally screwed already and will become so much worse, and as for the pollutionlevels our general health will suffer so why add to the issues? All of this will also have a bignegative effect on my mental health. There just appears to be no concern for the people ofBedminster.

Bedminster needs more housing that people can afford to buy, and building studentaccomodation doesnt offer that. Building is already underway of four large student blocks inBedminster, and the other building is rental only, so with all the building work around BedminsterGreen, there are still no additional homes that locals can buy to live in. It is really important to builda community in Bedminster, and offering yet more student homes, does not help with this, but onlyoffers short term accommodation for transitory people, who will not live and build homes inBedminster. My biggest worry is the lack of homes being built for people to buy and own, there aretoo many student blocks being built, too many rental only blocks, that only favour the developer,but no homes. I also worry about th eimpact thousands of additional students will have to the areaand the negative consequences this will inevitably have. We need more homes, please use thissite to offer homes for locals to buy and make a home / community in, not short term lets forstudents and for profit.

This will have a direct detrimental effect on the neighbouring area. The lack of parking inthe area is already causing huge quality of life problems and this is going to make it utterlyunbearable. The damage to iconic Bristol views, both outwards from Windmill Hill and towards itwill damage the very thing that makes Bristol beautiful. This is about money- not problem solving.There is no consideration to the local community- it is just ripping Bristol apart and making itgeneric, soulless and ugly.

The bedminster green area will become a hyper density population area in less then 5years. The construction of all those flat it's unnecessary and the local community as local shops,GP, dentist, parking space, nursery, schools will not be able to absorb this impact. Theneighbourhood will collapse and the value of the existing houses drop transforming bedminsterfrom a appealing growing community into an unlovable, gray, gentrified and unserviced pile ofcement. Furthermore those highly populated buildings are imposing into a residential areasuffocating green space, sunlight, threes, gardens and deeply compromising the quality of life ofthe people already living in the area. This is the last plot remaining and the council should try toinvest in facilities that will help the local community to recover for this mass construction asschools, GP, clinics, public spaces and green area with threes and wild life conservation. Insteadof transforming this plot in an additional burden for the community and the city. There is nothinggreen about this regeneration, and as so far development have been carried out this should havebeen called bedminster gray. The city is loosing green space, sense of community, basicinfrastructure and services. This is all all to build thousands of students apartment on the oppositeside of the city from where the university is.

Additional parking is needed, it is already a nightmare for residents. Alternatively aparking scheme is needed for windmill hill.

The height of the buildings would block light and overshadow the opposite 3 storey flats.The density is too high for this area. Block C (nearest Bedminster Green) would overpower thegreen space and the river Malago. The addition of more student accommodation would bedetrimental to the community. More diversity of accommodation is needed in this area.

Height of blocks detrimental to light/privacy of nearby properties.

Density of housing too great for local infrastructure.

Lack of parking on site unlikely to deter residents from owning cars therefore making existing localparking space shortage worse.

- We need housing for families, not more students. Students won't contribute to thecommunity of Bedminster nor do they pay council tax to help fund our services. The other sitesnear by are already housing students - we don't need more.

- The scale and density is unnecessary. The area would benefit from lower density (3 or 4 storey)family housing. With shops/cafes/doctors providing a sense of community and a feeling of aneighbourhood.

- Without the integration of healthcare services like or an active plan to increase the capacity ofexisting practices, the current planned density of this build will put a massive strain on an alreadyoverly subscribed system.

- No parking provisions. Public transport in the city is a sham so students will inevitably bring theircars and Windmill Hill will become a free for all for students parking.

- I welcome the development of the area but lower density family homes with outdoor space,parking provisions and integrated services such as shops/ cafes would be a far better fit for thearea and create a much more positive contribution.

How can increase in the student population by over 1000 to the local area with no extraprovisions be well managed?

- Where are the extra open spaces being built for the people to use?- What extra health provisions are on offer for all these extra residents?- Being such high tower blocks that are unobstructed to residents on either side noise from theirbedrooms and balconies will travel to those up on the hill and those below them. This in what iscurrently a quiet residential area. Not a heavy urban area where other student flats are located.- Their cars are going to be parked and left all over Windmill Hill blocking residents who live there.

I am in favour of redevelopment in my neighbourhood as various sites are neglectedand run down but I am concerned about this new planning application because of the

1. High density of students on this site - nearly 500?2. Height of the buildings - 5 to 10 storeys in 3 tower blocks. This will obscure my view.3. There will be an increased demand on local services and I wonder if they will be able to cope4. Although not many students have cars, parking and traffic on Windmill Hill is already a problem.5. Construction of other extensive student accommodation in Bedminster Green is alreadyunderway on Plot 3. Is a student population of 1293 sustainable in this area

Bristol Civic Society objects strongly to this application. Although the Society does notobject to the principle of developing this site, the proposals put forward have not been acceptablein our view. We objected to the proposals put forward in 2019 and 2021. In 2019, we suggestedthat redevelopment should take the form of mixed student and residential housing in an articulatedterrace close to Malago Road with private courtyards to the rear. The 2019 proposals wererefused and the decisions were upheld at appeal on the basis that they were harmful to thecharacter of the area in contradiction to Local Plan policies. The Society objected to the 2021proposal on the basis that the Inspector's decision had not been overcome. We consider that thisapplication also fails to overcome the grounds for the Inspector's decision and would be harmful tothe character of the area.

It is particularly, unwelcome that the height of the buildings has been increased by a storey from22/03144/PREAPP which had shown some reduction in height on earlier proposals. The existingcharacter, particularly towards the western end of Malago Road is of much smaller, low risebuildings and we are at a loss to see how the height and flat roofs of the proposal could possiblybe considered as anything but harmful to this. We fear that the proposal will overbear andovershadow the lower rise buildings and create canyon effects opposite proposed higher risedevelopments in Malago Road and Hereford Street.

The accommodation is entirely for students with the number of beds increasing from 432 in thepreapp proposal to 474. The rooms will be nearly all single aspect, many facing north. Livingconditions in north facing single aspect rooms will not be pleasant and south facing rooms couldbe subject to overheating if not well ventilated or air conditioned. The Society has not been

opposed to the use of the site for student accommodation in the past. However, we havepreviously noted that conventional residential accommodation has been omitted. Inclusion offamily or other more permanent residential accommodation would do much more to increase thevariety of people living on the site and to contribute to longer term community development inaccordance with the aims of the development framework for Bedminster Green.

The Society supports the Council's policies for mitigating the impacts of climate change. It is,therefore, important that building design minimises the need for energy to be used to keep thebuilding warm in winter and cool in summer. We expect such measures to be agreed between thedevelopers and the Council.

Definitely not a good idea for the community, I know many students around Bristol.

Bedminster is a fairly quiet place to live, bringing more students in the area on the top of what isplanned already will only bring more, attacks on our street, more drug and alcohol abuse andmany accidents.

Maybe a good idea to think an affordable accomodation for the people who live and support thetown already with the current situation.

The development is too large in light of the other redevelopment work that is takingplace in close proximity.I really object to the height of the buildings - they will trap air pollution and obscure the viewsacross Bristol which are enjoyed by local residents. The Malago Way and Victoria Park are twohavens for nature within a densely built area of the city - this is going to be producing lots of lightpollution that is going to affect wildlife.Are you going to make this area residential parking as the narrow streets here are alreadystruggling, full of pot holes and pavements that are in disrepair. The Malago Way and Victoria Parkare two havens for nature within a densely built area of the city - this is going to be producing lotsof light pollution that is going to affect wildlife. These are important for the mental health of many -it is a false economy just to ram as many people as possible into this area. What infrastructure andservices have you already got in place to cope with this deluge? Bedminster is near whichuniversity exactly? Why are you not building these tower blocks in Clifton? Is this reallyrejuventation of this area?

The height of the development is too tall, obliterating the views for existing residents,creating monolith buildings that change the character of the neighbourhood and which are not inkeeping with housing in windmill hill.There is already a huge density of student accommodation from the existing Watkin Jonesdevelopment down the road and nearly 1300 students within a small dense area will overwhelmthe locality especially with no additional infrastructure.Very few car park spaces resulting in a strain on transport services and students parkingelsewhere in area causing parking issues for existing residents.

The height of the buildings is too tall, obstructing views and light from the inhabitants ofEldon Terrace and other roads in Windmill Hill. The density of the accommodation is too much,with too many students planned, which will put a great strain on the area in terms of amenities, forinstance Doctors and dentists, public transport, green spaces. There seems to be no thoughtabout parking, and although many students do not have cars, there is a fair proportion that do, andthey will also have visitors. Parking is already a big problem in WIndmill Hill, with most peopleoften struggling to find parking near their houses, and many problems with bin lorries, ambulancesetc, who cannot get down the streets, due to people parking in places they shouldn't park. This isalready a dangerous situation. It is also a residential area, and although i have nothing againststudents, together with other student accommodation being built locally it will really affect thecharacter of the area, and increase noise, pollution, litter etc.

- adding another 500 students on top of 1000's of others won't help develop any sort ofcommunity

- will put even further strain on all of the public services in the area which are alreadyoversubscribed and underperforming

- Bedminster Green is already a building site - with disruption, damage, noise, obstacles every fewmetres. You can't simply add another major works into the mix at this stage - it would be incrediblythoughtless

- this development will effectively build a wall blocking Windmill Hill from the rest of Bristol and viceversa. You'll irreperably alter the look, feel and atmostphere of the area - which is a major reasonwhy people move to this city/area in the first place

- lazy design to go along with the other poorly conceived projects in this area. Clearly beendeveloped with maximum profits in mind and not the legacy of the buildings itself

- I believe this development will drive people out of this area and the community they have beenpart of for many years

The proposals brings too many dwellings into an already densely populated area andoffers nothing into the community. GPs, green space, parking is already overstretched. Hundredsof additional students on top of the planning applications granted with cause significantdisturbance at Victoria Park.The builds are too tall destroying the character of the area, obliterating views and light,

This planning application should be refused for the same reason that earlier planningapplications were refused - the height, scale and massing would harm the character andappearance of the area and be unacceptable in design terms. The Planning Inspector refused asimilar application a couple of years ago for these very reasons, and this application is no better.The height may be lower at one end, but it is higher at the other end, and the size of the giantblocks means there are narrow gaps between. The PI gave this judgement, and refusal forpermission, so that a very different and much more suitable design could come forward. Thisapplication has just tinkered round the edges and remains in essence exactly what was refusedlast time.

The height of this proposal would almost completely obliterate views to and from Windmill Hill,hiding the very hill from people in Bedminster, unless they stand directly opposite one of the 2gaps between the large blocks. The blocks would cast shade over houses and flats opposite onMalago Rd and restrict light from existing residents homes. Roof gardens on top of 5 and 7 storeyswill overlook neighbours to the north and south and create noise and lighting issues, probably lateinto the night, due to the demographic of the students intended to live there. Privacy issues willabound, both into and out of these student units, with the single aspect rooms and their floor toceiling windows, creating constant overlooking to houses behind and flats in front of the blocks.The tallest block will be as tall as the hill itself. Quite inappropriate.

The light and noise created by all the windows and the roof gardens, after dark, will affect theprotected bat species that use the railway line as an important corridor from roosts to feedinggrounds. Some of these bats are known to be very light averse, and it is really important that in

depth surveys are done to make sure any lighting proposals after dark will not compromise thisvital bat route.

The proposal seems to indicate that windows will be fixed shut to the rear of the buildings. Notideal for students, or for anybody, and not helping with wellbeing and mental health issues. Also,will need mechanical ventilation, another ongoing cost.Good to see that some of the energy will be supplied by a water source heat pump, but the rest ofthe energy looks like it will not be sustainably sourced.

Good to see that there will be a small amount of the open space designated as a public garden.Less good to see that it is almost totally in the shade of one of the huge blocks.

We would need a guarantee that student cars will not be parked on the local, alreadyovercrowded, streets. No plan is given here, other than a claim that students will not have cars.

And finally, why are so many more students planned to come and live at Bedminster Green? TheFramework for BG, states that 1000 students would be plenty for this area. There are alreadygoing to be over 800 living in the other block being built by this company, so almost 500 heretakes us way over the suggested limit. How will the students assimilate into the local community?And what will the development offer to the local community? There seems to be no ActiveFrontage here or other community facilities. No offer to help support more doctors surgeries locallyor improve the local station or park. The application seems to be all about using our existingfacilities (local park, local station, good bus routes) and giving little back in return. All for financialgain for the developer. We would like to hear what is being given back in return, what thisdevelopment will offer to the community. The proposal offers no housing for much needed localcommunity so it needs to offer something else really useful to the existing neighbourhood.

Very disappointing. After the PIs very clear comments when the last proposal was refused, Iexpected something different and much better this time.

This is yet another student scheme proposed in an area where one for over 800 isalready in progress. It is already almost impossible to get a GP appointment or park locally, thisdevelopment will just add to the misery.It is (like all of these developments) far too tall & will continue to erode the pleasure of living inWindmill Hill, which seems to be turning into Hong Kong. Having been a long term resident thisunco-ordinated & pointless student development (no Council Tax revenue, of course) is overkill.Smaller buildings housing those on the huge waiting list would make far more sense.

This application has little to recommend it. It varies only slightly from the formerapplication that was rejected by the planning inspectorate. The buildings are too high for thislocation. The density and standard of the accommodation is too high and cramped. Unfortunatelythe developer is taking the easy option in building student accommodation when affordable familyhousing is needed especially at this location because of the other developments of student andone and two bed flats already being built around Bedminster Green. A mix of tenure is required inthe area to create a healthy, safe and viable community. This application should be rejected and arecommendation made to the developer to bring forward a mixed development.

Too high, too dense, totally unsympathetic to local buildings and housing in a residentialarea. Needs to be reduced to 5 stories to retain the privacy of neighbouring housing. There isalready planning for student housing adjacent plot 3, so this is too many students all in one area.

We have lived nearly for four years in this area of Bristol and we are very happy with allthe green areas near us. To add all this amount of new flats, will contaminate the area in all levels(noise, waste, etc) and currently, it does not need any more student accommodation. Maybe lowlevel of affordable buildings would be more suitable as, I personally think, there is more need ofthem.

The building will be too tall and we are already having two big developments that will make thearea too crowded with so many tall buildings.

Also, many other reasons to go against it are: increase of traffic, community service will becomemore limited, already student housing planned and less light in the area because of the height ofthe buildings around it.

I would be really grateful if this planning can be reviewed and I fully object to the height of thebuilding. I am up for a re-fresher and new opportunities for Bedminster, but I don't believe a 5-10storey block is the answer.

Many thanks for reading.

Firstly, please look at previous planning application objections as there is a real senseof powerlessness, voices of the community not really being heard, feeling disheartened peoplemay feel it's not worth contributing again. Especially after the loss of the Windmill Pub when thePlanning Inspectorate overturned the views of the community and the unanimous decision of thecouncil to keep the building as a pub and not be developed into a few flats which would beinsignificant when considering the huge swathes of flats being built all across Bedminster - thenewcomers will be deprived of an excellent social venue.This is a residential area, a community of families, young children, older people and vulnerablegroups. The site shouldn't be for students. It's understandable that students need accommodationtoo but there is already a development for 819 students a few metres away from this site. It wouldbe far better for the site to be developed for social housing, families that need homes.Any development on this site should be built at a reasonable height so the buildings on theopposite side of the road are not over shadowed by towering monoliths affecting their light andalso their mental health and wellbeing. Far better to have fewer stories to avoid a complete wall oftowering buildings from one end of Bedminster to the other.Better to create a pleasing visual effect, a gradual flow congruent with the rise of Windmill Hill.There are some eye pleasing examples in Southville at Dame Emily Park and across at Gaol Ferryof low rise developments that have been built thoughtfully, create an environment nice to be in andfeed into a good sense of wellbeing -an oppressive wall of towers will do nothing to make peoplefeel good about where they live.If the proposed plans with the roof garden terraces are approved then the whole of Windmill Hill,Bedminster and probably beyond will be subject to noise from roof terrace parties as the sound willdrift over the whole area. Even if there is a policy of 'no roof top music' young people will, when

they party, not be quiet. Noise pollution can have a detrimental affect on sleep and mentalwellbeing. Directly opposite the proposed development is a retirement complex and as alreadymentioned there are lots of families with young children in Windmill Hill and Bedminster so pleasethink how this will affect them.Before the buildings opposite Little Paradise were demolished artisanal/small business rentedspace in those buildings. They included potters, carpenters, clothing designers -some heldworkshops held for the community - where are these people now? Why aren't we providing spacefor new small business enterprises amidst these developments which support jobs and skilldevelopment in with the community?There is also the very important issue of parking. Windmill Hill does not have a residents parkingscheme as in Southville. Students will bring their cars no matter what policies are in place to saythey can't. They will park on the streets of Windmill Hill, possibly leaving their cars there for thewhole semester and then go home - the disruption causing stress and anxiety to the local people.

The previous application for this site was rejected by the planning inspectorate and thislatest one has few changes, none of them significant or warranting approval. There is alreadyunderway a development of 819 student rooms on Plot 3 of the extensive Bedminster Greendevelopment; an additional 474 students (with by nature, short-term occupancy and a transientpopulation) will skew the demographic of this largely family area and will not help to build thecommunity or promote economic development in this area that sorely needs both. We have seenno studies or data to authenticate the demand or necessity for student accomodation here; giventhe acute housing problem, flats and houses for longterm and family occupancy are much moreneeded. The area needs a mix of housing and tenure to create a viable, healthy, thrivingneighbourhood, rather than a high concentration of student rooms and one-bedroom flats. Itappears that the developer is taking an easy option in building student accommodation tomaximise profit at the neglect of future occupiers and the surrounding area. I therefore move thatthis application should be rejected and a recommendation made to the developer to bring forwarda mixed development.

All comments listed were raised at the consultation organised by the designers.

- no parking or significant drop off area will create huge strain on local roads at start and end ofterms when students are dropped off.

- the hight of the building will impact the view from and to the iconic windmill hill houses, changingthe local landscape.

- the privacy of local residents will be impacted by the hight with potential views into neighbouringhouses

- this combined with the other flats approved in the area will significantly add to demands on localDrs etc and no consideration of this has been made. Local councils will need to make take this intoaccount. Local infrastructure is not able to meet this increase, and no plans are event that this willchange. As students will not pay council tax, it seems unlikely that additional local services will beprovided by the council.

- 474 students will significantly increase the local population, with other substantial numbers ofstudents housing in plot 3, the number of students in the area will be over 1200. Something thatwill change the community.

We need affordable housing for a mixed tenure, particularly for young families and forthe older population. There is already far too much emphasis on student accommodation in thisarea and in other parts of Bristol. Overloading the local population with students creates a campuscommunity, inappropriate for this communityWe need to build accommodation for long term sustainable communities not for short termtransient communities.It is already established that people living in high rise flats are cut off from the community on theground and therefore their connection to the community. This will impact on mental health andloneliness of the residents and impact on the wider community.What amenities are built-in to sustain this new development? Healthcare facilities? accessiblefacilities for the elderly? leisure spaces,?sufficient green spaces?High rise dwellings have a substantial impact on the existing community and their environment.Overlooking, light and noise pollution will significantly effect the surrounding houses and gardens.Lack of consideration for the future development of this area. This application has the hall mark ofquick-fix short-termism and money.Lacks integrity and consideration for healthy human habitation. Too dense and spaces are toosmall.

I object to the proposed development for the following reasons:- Not enough consideration appears to have been given to the real consequences of thisdevelopment in terms of the influx of people and the physical reality of the buildings proposed.- It is already very problematic to get a NHS dentist in the area and the Doctors' surgeries areoversubscribed. Students are likely to have a range of health needs not least their mental health.What provision is being made for this? The number is likely to be 1293 when put together with theBedminster Green site this is a huge number - too big.- From the students' point of view. This is a small site backing onto a railway. This number ofstudents in such cramped conditions is unlikely to be a healthy living situation for them.- At the beginning and end of term the amount of traffic in the area is likely to be enormous. Thereare only 3 accessible car parking spaces and no spaces for student cars but students do havecars! Where will these go?- Neighbours will be overlooked from rooms and from the roof gardens. There is also likely to be adegree of noise and light pollution.- This is a long thin wall-like development. Three blocks of 5 to 10 storeys with only two narrowcorridors between them means that parts of Windmill Hill will be virtually hidden from the rest ofthe city. These blocks are too high.

1. Permitting student accommodation will have very little effect on the housing crisis inBristol which needs affordable and family dwellings - these needs should take priority whendeciding on development applications.

2. The proposed blocks will overshadow the low rise housing opposite in a section of MalagoRoad.

3. The blocks of flats will obscure views of and from Windmill Hill.

4. Large numbers of students in a small area of Bedminster is likely to put pressure on local GPservices, already overstretched.

5. I am not aware if Bristol City Council is demanding contributions from this developer to pay foraffordable housing in the city using Section 106 or equivalent, but I understand other councilshave done this and it would go some way to improving the actual housing need in Bristol.

We do not have supportive infrastructure to cope with the excessive developmentproposed in this area. Student accommodation does not generate council tax to support thedevelopment of infrastructure and the nature of student accommodation will mean even morestrain on the limited services we have AND without reliable public transport the impact on the hugeincrease in cars will further impact negatively on the local community. It is proven throughrespected studies that high rises DO NOT WORK. This was starkly obvious during the covidpandemic. Marvin Rees proclaims that we have to sacrifice cities skylines in order to provideadequate housing and building 'up' is the only way. However, this is NOT the only way. Tosacrifice an iconic skyline (both here and Totterdown) is not necessary to provide adequatehousing. Beautiful cities deserve to be preserved and housing that needs to be built MUST fit inwith the existing aesthetic NOT the other way round.This is a big mistake which Bristol will regret.

Disappointed, with the proposed build, in every way. True architecture thinks about theimpact it has on the way people, live and interact. The proposed is a stain on both Bedminster andWindmill Hill and likely to decay and look shabby within 20 years. Not only will the density (profitdriven) massively impact the existing residence in terms of public services, (already doctors,dentists and schools are at a premium) Parking is already dangerous with emergency servicesunable to access roads due to people using the hill as a car park as we are just outside of theresidence parking scheme.

The car park next to Bedminster Green should be used as a green corridor (see Avon wildlife trustmanifesto) if Bristol City Council genuinely want to call this incoherent monstrosity of adevelopment (Bedminster Green).

there is already problems with an increased volume of 819 student flats are alreadyplaned and there are limited resources in the community and limited parking limited health care /only three spacesb planed for parking which is impossible to enforce with out effecting alreadyparking problems for existing residents. i also have a problem with the height of thedevelopment.ie too high it overlooks existing properties and effect notse levels and light

Disappointed, with the proposed build, in every way. True architecture thinks about theimpact it has on the way people, live and interact. The proposed is a stain on both Bedminster andWindmill Hill and likely to decay and look shabby within 20 years. Not only will the density (profitdriven) massively impact the existing residence in terms of public services, (already doctors,dentists and schools are at a premium) Parking is already dangerous with emergency servicesunable to access roads due to people using the hill as a car park as we are just outside of theresidence parking scheme.

The car park next to Bedminster Green should be used as a green corridor (see Avon wildlife trustmanifesto) if Bristol City Council genuinely want to call this incoherent monstrosity of adevelopment (Bedminster Green).

Objecting on the basis that the buildings are too tall for the site obscuring views to andfrom Windmill Hill. Furthermore, the lack of provision for parking will lead to increased parking upon windmill hill as inevitably students will not wish to be solely reliant on public transport to crossthe city and im unsure how a no car ownership policy could be enforced or even be legal.Therefore I can only anticipate much greater amounts of traffic and subsequent degradation in airquality. Adding to Bedminster green's rental only and other student properties it increases thepopulation of transient residents who are less likely to be involved in sustainable initiatives toimprove the local area and wildlife within that require long term commitment.

Bristol is currently experiencing a serious housing crisis, especially for the permanentresidents of Bristol. This space would be better used to tackle this, rather than to house studentswho by nature are short term tenants.

Bedminister is an amazing community focused area. A high influx of students risks ruining this.

There is also already an extreme strain on services, especially medical. Increasing Bedminsterpopulation so drastically would only further effect this.

This development appears a fast money making opportunity, rather than being the best thing forthe Bedminister community, Bristol, or local residents.

Extreme objection to the whole proposal. (A) There is no justifcation or need for thebuildings to be this tall. The site plans show lots of wasted surrounding space and we know from100's of years of Mid and Southern European building that the most dense and healthy (social andphysical wellbeing) building configuration is for 4-6 storey buildings. Higher than 6 storeysinvariably increases isolation and decreases individual and social wellbeing. The same density canbe achieved with 4-6 (max) storey buildings, as is suggested here for the proposed 5-10 storeydevelopment, so 10 and even 7 storeys is definitely too much. This neighbourhood was neverpredisposed to high buildings and every single building taller than 6 storeys is a terrible error ofpoor design and inconsiderate, uninclusive planning. (B) There is no evidenced need for 474student bedrooms on this one site. The whole of Bedminster and Southville is undergoing dramaticredevelopment over the next decade. Student accomodation should be interspersed throughoutwith other kinds of accomodation for couples, groups and families, mixed with commercial andcommunity ammenities. (C) There is zero clear benefit to the neighbourhood for the presence ofthis proposal, or its inhabitants (D) Maximum one of the three buildings could be dedicated tostudent accomodation; definitely not all three. (D) Mixed use building will be much better for thisneighbourhood. Read Richard Rogers Cities for a Small Planet if you haven't already. (E) Morecommunity facilities, play and independent local businesses should be embeded in the proposal.(F) Reduce the heights dramatically. (G) Include more trees, more greenery than shown and newgreen park and play space for families and students (H) Mix housing types, do not permit only forstudents (I) Make it much more beneficial for the local community in terms of provision ofamenities, new GP, new learning space, new community space, new public space, newindependent business spaces, (J) The proposed design is poor quality and should be moreinnovative with better quality materials (K) The proposed heights will ABSOLUTELY WRECK the

local skyline, ruin vistas for residents of Windmill Hill and add further shadow to Malago Roadarea, which is an already depressed local environment quality. (L) The design should build intoMalago Road to make it narrower, slower and more pedestrian friendly, with improved cycleaccess and parking for the new public spaces it should provide.

As someone relatively new to the area, I'm genuinely shocked that one of the majorattractions of Bristol is the quite outstanding views in literally all directions. Google 'must sees ofBristol' and it's the views both up and down to Clifton, Hotwells or the coloured houses inTotterdown and surrounding the harbour.

Why on earth is this 'wall' of high rise developments being allowed? Would it be allowed in Cliftonor another 'wealthier' area? Of course not. It will obscure the landscape, creating a barrierbetween a lovely spot up the hill to the park ( a Bristol highlight) and alienating a great spot to live.There's a 16 floor monstrosity going up currently for rental only - no starter homes for locals, andthe 3 other 'flat iron' type student buildings blocking any view for many already. It's creating a'them and us feeling' and feels non-inclusive, nor a well thought out mix. The site needs a sensiblesolution we'd all support but not yet more student flats. 8 floors up looking into the people belowyet again...

A councillor commented we need to dilute the student mix over the city generally and not all be inone area, this creates the opposite with 1500 densely in one area and the uni campus isn't readyuntil 2026 and at Temple Meads! It takes us well over the 1000 maximum we should be having inthe whole area!

In addition, negative impacts on environment, the green issues and lack of proposedinfrastructure, which is already haemorrighing. It's a fantasy to suggest students don't drive or owncars and with this now taking the new student headcount into almost 1400 the knock on foralready suffering locals will be yet more headaches and a larger overspill on top of the free parking

and commuters/ airport users. Where are these hundreds of cars going to go with ZERO on-siteparking at all and let's not forget the current developments have actually totally REMOVED theexisting car park and land!

Clearly those making these decisions don't live or try to park in the limited tight few streets here,which are already exploited by non-residents as it's a free, and non-permit zone. Time for the hillto become a residents zone now and before this current influx let alone when another 400potentially arrive...

All these developments lack any on-site parking plus the absolute comedy of ongoing works(currently one year of temporary red lights and tailbacks) the residents are paying the penalty- Isay this as a cyclist and daily walker for clarity!

Spend some time walking around the few streets up the hill and see the current state of affairsbefore adding another 1500 people to a tiny spot. Develop for sure, but to scale, and in balance...Especially take a look back from any of the streets up the hill and see the reality of this 'wall'aggressively creating a barrier as we speak, don't add yet more eyesores and spoil a greatskyline. Perspective please!

As a local resident I am concerned about yet another large scale development so closeto the many thousands of new units that have already received planning consent in very closeproximity.

Local heath care services are already stretched and there does not seem to be any thought begiven in advance to permission being granted about the considerable additional burden placed onfinite existing community services.

The density and height of this proposal is too large for the size of the plot and the longdevelopment will obscure views to and from Windmill Hill with only 2 narrow viewing corridors.Roof gardens and bedrooms will overlook the Malago Road flats and Windmill Hill houses, causingnoise and light pollution.

The proposal only includes 3 accessible parking spaces and no provision for parking for thestudents which will inevitably negative impact on the already limited parking on Windmill Hill forcurrent residents - how is it proposed that students living in the property will not park their cars inthe surrounding area?

Malago Road into Dalby Avenue is already dangerously polluted by existing traffic and thisdevelopment will further increase these levels, particularly at the start and end end of term.

819 student rooms are already under construction on Plot 3 of the Bedminster Green developmentand this development would would bring that total to 1293 - what thought is going in to the impact

on the existing community and its services?

It is time that the massive development that is already underway and yet to come within a squaremile is considered as a whole before irrevocable damage is done to one of the oldest communitiesin the city.

I don't want these buildings as1. They will be too many students and not enough for families and kids.2. They are much too high and must be lower and nicer.3. There should be more small shops or kiosks3. The buildings should include more parks and natural wildlife and places mostly for differentresidents and families, definitely not just for students.

Object. These designs are way too tall and will add too much shadow over theneighbourhood. It will not be a nice place to walk. There should be much less vehicular accessand much more places for walking and cycling. Having only students is a bad idea. Theneighbourhood needs different kinds of housing all mixed together. Having only one kind ofhousing will create social segregation and increase crime and danger in the neighbourhood.Students will be drunk and sick at night all over Bedminster.

I strongly disagree that this planning application will be good for the neighbourhood.These buildings will create an oppressive atmosphere and make the area unpleasant to live in orvisit. Students and residents mental health will be badly affected. Also it will spoil some of thebenefits of the City Farm - which has already happened.New Housing needs to meet the needs of the general public needing affordable housing in thisCity.

This is not the right site for these buildings - too high, too dense, blocking light from thedwellings opposite.

Housing is needed for families - but already more student accommodation blocks are being builton a nearby site, instead of the much needed better quality housing for families.

Already there is a shortage of doctors. dentists and other such services locally. Increasing thepopulation adds to these difficulties.

Lower buildings, three or four storeys would be much more in keeping with the area - and couldprovide better living space and surroundings.This proposal should be turned down.

The buildings are too high and will dominate the landscape. Five stories maximumincluding ground floor should be the tallest.

The topography of the cityscape will be lost, as the proposed huge mass of buildings will ruin theability to see across the other side of the city towards Clifton, and vice versa from vantage pointssuch as Clifton Suspension Bridge and Brandon Hill Tower.

Most existing houses in the immediate area are two - three storey Victorian homes. Tall buildingsup to eight stories will feel imposing and out of place in the context of nearby streets.

Tall buildings proposed will feel overbearing on the much loved green space behind on CotswoldRoad North used frequently by locals and children, and it will reduce the prominence of theMalago river.

The Malago river needs to be enhanced and the existing green spaces enriched, not swamped bytall buildings. There are not many quality green spaces within the vicinity for a dense population.Even though a new garden is being proposed it will be undesirable if tall buildings overshadow it.

No effective representative impact views were given from the ground level of Eldon Terrace andMendip Road showing he whole development. The ones submitted were obscured.

The characterful colourful and iconic houses of Windmill Hill will be hidden from view from the Citycentre. A wall of buildings, even with gaps between as proposed, will disconnect the area of

Windmill Hill.

My concern echoes that stated in the 2022 Historic England advice note on Tall Buildings:"3.2 If a tall building is not in the right place, by virtue of its size and widespread visibility, it canseriously harm the qualities that people value about a place. There will be locations where theexisting qualities of place are so distinctive and the level of significance of heritage assets so greatthat tall buildings will be too harmful, regardless of the perceived quality of the proposal's designand architecture"(https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/tall-buildings-advice-note-4/heag037-tall-buildings-v2/)

Roof gardens are risky with lots of students regarding safety re partying, and also unpleasant withthe overlooking of residents on nearby streets and a risk of unwanted noise.

Excessive light pollution emitted from the roof gardens at night will ruin the horizon.

Sedum roofs and biodiversity rich planting welcome however, the roof gardens do not need to beused by the inhabitants.

The stepping up in height of the buildings will not look attractive. Better to keep them a consistentand low height, regardless of the neighbouring tower blocks in progress.

Local provision for doctors and other essential services need to be included in the planning. Theyare massively overstretched. Bedminster cannot currently handle the massive influx of theproposed population, and there does not seem to be a plan to address this issue. It could bedetrimental to quality of life.

This site is worthy of a better development than the one proposed. The plans are (asidefrom being visually unattractive with minimal attention to detail and design merit) intended asnothing more than a place to sleep. There is nothing wrong with student accommodation, but thisis a wasted opportunity if the development's effects are limited to a slight increase in studentbedspace availability and a huge profit for the developer. Imagine what an asset to the communitythis site could be whilst still creating some level of profit- the student accommodation should sitalongside affordable social housing, indoor public spaces such as libraries, independent retailspaces and community facilities, and integration of genuine biodiversity gain with creation ofoutdoor space that is uplifting and joyful to use. The Malago, for example, could be opened to thepublic with creation of pools, platforms and benches while preserving wetland areas. Provision ofquality transport connections (like a pedestrian/cycle tunnel under the railway) would integrate thedevelopment with the surrounding area, and serious thought could be put into not harming existingbiodiversity such as the protected bats using the railway as a flight corridor. All frontage could beactive; the buildings could be timber-framed, dripping with greenery and trees growing fromwindows. This is an opportunity to build wonderful places. The site deserves a development that isa joy to use and to be around, not the cash-grabbing excuse for a regeneration project we seeproposed.

The blocks are too high and far too dense which would impact the windmill hillcommunity negatively. How would parking be enforced so that the surrounding streets are notnegatively impacted.

Whilst we support the building of new developments in the area, the current proposal isunacceptable as it stands. The area is already set to be under strain with the Bedminster Greendevelopment, and the addition of a further 474 students and 10 storey tower blocks have thepotential to destroy the character of the surrounding residential neighbourhood, and add additionalstrain on our (already overstretched) local health services.

We would gladly support a lower density development, with additional affordable housing andsome properties for residential, rather than student, housing.

I strongly object to the proposed plan on the following grounds, similar for objectionsmade to prior applications:

1. Density: A large number of students (474) on a small site. There are 819 student roomsunderway at Plot 3 - a total of 1293. A transient group that pays no council tax nor creating asustainable community. Does not enhance the area.2. There is greater need for local housing. 4 storeys would be more than adequate. There wereobjections to original plan in July where feedback were the buildings were too high. A developmentlike Lydstep Terrace would be much more in keeping with the area.3. Height: current proposal is too high, blocking the light from residents on the Malago Road, andimpacting Windmill Hill residents who will be blocked in by high rise buildings. It will ruin the viewup to and from Windmill Hill of distinctive classic Bristolian architecture4. Overlooking, Noise and Light pollution - proposed roof gardens and bedrooms will look out ontoMalago Road Flats and Windmill House and be noisy when in use.5. Community Services - there is already a severe lack of community services this will addadditional pressure6. Parking - 3 spaces for 474 students is inadequate and unrealistic to expect students to have nocars, putting additional pressure on Windmill Hill parking, which is already horrendous - weeklyincidents due to poor parking of non-residents.7. Traffic - the increased volume of traffic through the area, especially at start and end of term.8. The height impact pictures are inaccurate and exaggerated to the benefit of the developer. Thebuildings will be clearly visible above and through the treeline.9. Adaptability of building to convert into hotels smacks of get rich quick scheme that does not

solve Bristol's housing issue

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I am objecting to the plans due to these concerns:

Strain on already limited amenities and community services such as healthcare with the influx of

474 more people to the area, especially in addition to the big influx of students from the already

approved bedminster green site.

I am unsure how the no cars for students will be enforced. With no designated parking they will

park on Windmill Hill and the surrounding streets where there is already a parking crisis.

Increased traffic and pollution. I believe pollution in the area has already increased due to the

clean air zone ending at Windmill Hill, forcing heavy polluting vehicles through this area. This will

only get worse with a big influx of people, especially at the start and end of term.

The lovely views from Windmill Hill will be obstructed by the overly tall tower blocks proposed.

The tall tower blocks will block light and overlook existing properties on Windmill Hill.

Thank you

Kind regards

This development would block out light from my flat. I would be forced to lived in neardarkness in winter and it would not be much better in the lighter months.

The increased noise from the inhabitants from such a big development would be intolerable andfurther impact on my health. The noise would carry over the road and into our properties meaningwe would have to live with our windows closed.

What measures are being taken re extra traffic because there will be a lot. If not cars driven bystudents then taxis etc.

Those these buildings are not in the conservation area they would impact upon it.

This is a wholly unsuitable proposed development for this area. Consideration for residents iszero.

Blocks only natural light to our flat. Obscures view of the hill and concern that it wouldbe too tall for the area.

Increased volume of traffic and pollution along with it.

High density of students living on a small site. Puts strain on community services such as healthcentre and risks overcrowding on a road with two new buildings already being built.

We live opposite this site, and our windows would face directly onto it. For us the mostobjectionable thing about this application is how it would affect our source of daylight. Theproposed hight of these buildings is ridiculous! We already have a tree (owned by the council)blocking some light into our home. A building of this size would completely cut out the sun alltogether and greatly affect our mental health and also the value of our property.

As this would be a student block there is also the issue of noise and potential disruption. Studentsare known to party round Bristol, and up until this point this area has been quite peaceful. Thiswould put an end to that. Our windows are not modern enough to block that kind of noise and thecost to replace them isn't something we have the money for. Again, completely damaging ourmental health and the value of our property.

This planning proposal includes minimal parking availability, meaning that all students with a carwill then be finding space in the local roads, where there is barely any space to begin with. This isvery poor planning, as it would cause disruption to the local neighbourhood and the surroundingareas.

There is already a new block of student housing being built down the road, these proposedbuildings would mean that the student density in this area would be disproportionate to theresources this area provides. This is clearly something that hasn't been considered.

The proposed student accommodation on this site appears to be predicated on thesignificant development of the Temple Quarter Development (TQD). This has substantialinvolvement, indeed, is largely driven by, the University of Bristol. This project has many positivefeatures particularly its focus on STEM.The TQD project was scheduled to commence in 2022 and to be concluded by 2026. However,this timescale appears to have slipped although work is already underway on the development ofthe first stage of student accommodation at Bedminser Green (providing 819 student rooms).There has clearly been a significant problem with the lack of student accommodation in Bristol andthe development of additional specific accommodation makes sense in this scenario. However,this is predicated upon the continued growth in student numbers. This appears to be questionableon several grounds.Firstly, UK demographics show that from 2023 there will be fewer 18 yr olds (the last timenumbers were this low was 1990). Moreover we have an ecomomy that has a significant problemwith a lack of people in the workforce. This will mean that in order to attract employees, wages willrise. This is likely to encourage school leavers to enter employment rather than continue with theirstudies.The background to all this is Brexit and this can also be seen in the issues around maintainingrecruitment of overseas students to UK universities. In 2022 there was a decline in EU applicantsof 19% on 2021 figures - a significant decline given that the EU has been the largest source ofoverseas students (all figures from UCAS). However applications from China did grown by 12% (tojust under 30,000) but given the current geo-political situation this source of students seems likelyto be unstable. In fairness applications from India have been steadily increasing but these are stillunder one third of applications from China.

This proposed development has very limited car parking. The TQD makes much of the fact that itwill be car free. This is a positive statement of principle but it could inadvertently impact upon theresidential area around this new student accommodation. There are already significant problemswith residential parking in the Windmill Hill area as well as other parts of Bedminster. Student carswill fill spaces currently used by existing residents and this will exacerbate already problematicissues on narrow residential roads. Because of the no car plans at TQD cars will be left in placethroughout the day and create problems for exisiting residents returning from work.Given the issues raised above the development of additional student accommodation does notseem appropriate. However Bristol has a significant problem with homelessness (worst in theSouth West). This student development of the type proposed - with shared cooking facilities -could not be adapted to ease the homelessness issue. There could be a positive case for allowingthe student accommodation to proceed if it could be adapted to residential use (ie each unit couldhave cooking facilities). Unless this is a requirement it is clearly possible to see this developmentbecome surplus to requirements and potentially become useless.

I welcome efforts to regenerate Bedminster through several ongoing projects.

However, an additional set of high-rise student accommodation (over a thousand student roomsplanned for Bedminster Green already! - a 10% increase in population within 2 years!) puts afurther degree of pressure on local services. For example, GP surgery appointments arepractically impossible to obtain at the moment. Additionally, the lack of residential parking permitson Windmill Hill means there is no way to prevent students from using our neighbourhood as aparking free-for-all. I would be more supportive of proposals to develop

We are currently in the midst of an affordable housing crisis in Bristol for permanent residents ofthe city. I would be far more supportive of a row of medium-density (4-5 storey) terraced housingon this site, and/or development of local businesses or amenities.

I wish to object to this planning application on several grounds. Namely it has too manystudent flats for the area, also it is too high. It has very limited parking. There is a rail line rightbehind the site. Also a previous planning application was refused & the subsequent appealdismissed. This was due to such intensity of the development that it would adversely affect thesurrounding area. Namely Windmill Hill & also Church Lane & the St Johns Church yard park Alsoit would put a strain on nearby doctors surgeries & nearby parking. Also there is enough studenthousing being built at present. It is proper accommodation for families & single professionalswhich is needed. Also I doubt that there has been provision of sound proofing of the flats to stopadverse noise coming from the flats. Also is it necessary to have roof top gardens which wouldoverlook nearby houses.

Far too big - will not benefit local community, only developers' pockets.

Will block views.

Will create carbon burden.

Malago space should be used to make a new park and rewilded space, not more buildings.

This is completely ludicrous, the whole area has already been 'targeted' to the extremewith almost 500 student rooms being given planning. The height, density and design of thesebuildings are completely inappropriate for this area. The proposed redevelopment is much toohigh, too dense and resources are already stretched before any of the student rooms have beencompleted. Before any of the students have moved in, it's almost impossible to see a doctor,there's no availability now so what will it be like when so many people move in?

It will not be possible to limit cars - traffic is already an issue in BS3, there isn't the capacity,infrastructure or availability of services to cope with this. In addition, over 1000 students willcompletely overwhelm what is a family orientated area this will have a considerable negativeimpact on the community and nobody wants these developments. No matter how many peopleobject, I doubt the Mayor will listen, he does what he wants regardless, it's a dictatorship.

Comment on planning application 22/06085/F

I wish to object to the scheme as proposed for the following reasons:

ScaleDespite many claims to the contrary this scheme is still significantly taller than the surroundingcontext. I do not think the note that the scheme is comparable to something as yet in approved is asignificant argument and not one that should be considered as a material consideration.

At its current height and geometry this scheme demonstrates a lack of regard for the neighbouringexisting residential properties, the flats opposite will have about a third of their windows (1 in 3)subject to a decrease in sunlight. Privacy will also be affected for houses on both sides of thebuilding and the rooms and roof terraces will look directly into these dwellings.

The students living there would also potentially feel constantly visible and that their livingenvironment is impaired as a result.

I am also concerned that the rooms that do not have opening windows will feel like poor spaces forthe students and have a negative impact on their mental health.

The scheme hides the natural geography of Bristol by concealing the hill, this is something thatshould be taken into consideration with other developments; the proponents of this scheme arewell aware of the other proposals and are contributing to a wall of development that will mask the

geometry is not compliant with the guidance in the urban living spd.

SustainabilityIt is disappointing that the scheme is designed in such a way that significant parts of it will push upenergy use:The overheating study calls for mechanical cooling in the Summer for 2 of the blocks, wherepassive measures in the design would have prevented this. Has a study been taken to understandwhat the internal temperature of the the glazing will be during the summer? Without shading thiscould reach a high temperature which in turn will radiate into the room further.

Tall windows on the facade are not good for privacy in bedrooms, they can lead to anti-socialissues such as 'upskirting' and frequently end up being obscured with blinds and curtains that inturn reduce the natural light being taken into the development further driving up energy use.

EcologyI do not think that adequate measures have been taken into account for the existing wildlife.It is well known that the railway line is a bat corridor and should be kept free of harmful illuminationat night. The current scheme does not propose to eliminate this risk.

FacadeThe scheme seems to have a flat sheer facade that will not mitigate air drafts around the base ofthe building. If the ground floor courtyards are to be used, this issue should be address to preventdowndrafts making them unpleasant spaces.

I do not think the ground floor will sufficiently animate the street and provide a sense of securitythat this street sorely needs.

ConclusionA less dense scheme, with reduced height, a layout that shaded southern windows and avoidedlight spill onto the railway lines would also reduce energy use and address the privacy issues. Isuggest the scheme be redesigned and be a significantly better scheme for the area. It would alsoprovide and opportunity for better landscaping at the ground level and further enhancements to thepublic realm.

Comment on planning application 22/06085/F

I wish to object to the scheme as proposed for the following reasons:

ScaleDespite many claims to the contrary this scheme is still significantly taller than the surroundingcontext. I do not think the note that the scheme is comparable to something as yet in approved is asignificant argument and not one that should be considered as a material consideration.

At its current height and geometry this scheme demonstrates a lack of regard for the neighbouringexisting residential properties, the flats opposite will have about a third of their windows (1 in 3)subject to a decrease in sunlight. Privacy will also be affected for houses on both sides of thebuilding and the rooms and roof terraces will look directly into these dwellings.

The students living there would also potentially feel constantly visible and that their livingenvironment is impaired as a result.

I am also concerned that the rooms that do not have opening windows will feel like poor spaces forthe students and have a negative impact on their mental health.

The scheme hides the natural geography of Bristol by concealing the hill, this is something thatshould be taken into consideration with other developments; the proponents of this scheme arewell aware of the other proposals and are contributing to a wall of development that will mask the

geometry is not compliant with the guidance in the urban living spd.

SustainabilityIt is disappointing that the scheme is designed in such a way that significant parts of it will push upenergy use:The overheating study calls for mechanical cooling in the Summer for 2 of the blocks, wherepassive measures in the design would have prevented this. Has a study been taken to understandwhat the internal temperature of the the glazing will be during the summer? Without shading thiscould reach a high temperature which in turn will radiate into the room further.

Tall windows on the facade are not good for privacy in bedrooms, they can lead to anti-socialissues such as 'upskirting' and frequently end up being obscured with blinds and curtains that inturn reduce the natural light being taken into the development further driving up energy use.

EcologyI do not think that adequate measures have been taken into account for the existing wildlife.It is well known that the railway line is a bat corridor and should be kept free of harmful illuminationat night. The current scheme does not propose to eliminate this risk.

FacadeThe scheme seems to have a flat sheer facade that will not mitigate air drafts around the base ofthe building. If the ground floor courtyards are to be used, this issue should be address to preventdowndrafts making them unpleasant spaces.

I do not think the ground floor will sufficiently animate the street and provide a sense of securitythat this street sorely needs.

ConclusionA less dense scheme, with reduced height, a layout that shaded southern windows and avoidedlight spill onto the railway lines would also reduce energy use and address the privacy issues. Isuggest the scheme be redesigned and be a significantly better scheme for the area. It would alsoprovide and opportunity for better landscaping at the ground level and further enhancements to thepublic realm.

I am a resident of Bedminster, living very close to the site. Whilst it will be nice to tidythe place up and welcome new neighbours this won't be the usual neighbours. These will be shortterm tenants who may see their time here at party central as an extension to their social life. Theyeven get 2 roof terraces to meet for predrinks before heading in to town on their electric scooters.Hope the site managers have helmets for them to keep them safe. Or I could be wrong and theyare quiet and hard working.

We won't know till it's too late, by then we are left here trying to live our lives as peacefully aspossible.

My point being that a large number of existing homes will be overlooked, many will lose theirsunlight, day light and privacy. Why? Because the developers asked for a design to give themmaximum profit. How could this be rectified? By reducing the heights. And the density.

The same developers are 5 storeys (atm) into another student block along the road. BedminsterGreen was to have a maximum of 1000 students, not 1293!

Please consider whether the site needs to be so high, and if it doesn't, then refuse it.

The proposed development is too large - on any dimension you can think of - for thissite. The scale, massing and density are all problematic. 10 storeys will be much too dominant forboth the local skyline, and will ruin views to and from Windmill Hill, and across Bristol.There will be a detrimental effect on light levels for the whole surrounding area, and the wind willalso be channelled unfavourably at street level.

There will be overlooking from the new flats to existing residents on all sides.

The fact that yet more student accommodation is being considered at all for these BedminsterGreen sites is little short of ludicrous. It's a long distance from any campus, meaning lots and lotsof additional daily travel. The fact that these developments were brought forward in the first place -along with the massing and high densities - was on the coattails of the 'housing crisis' debate. Nowwe find that a huge percentage of the whole is being turned over to student housing, to support theambitions of the university. Picking one single private institution as the 'winner' in Bristol'seconomy and future in this way seems questionable, especially if it means an opportunity to easethe housing crisis further is being missed. Bringing a large and relatively transient population ofstudents into a fairly settled community like Bedminster also seems like poor planning; it's mostlylong-term homes in the area and adding hundreds of student lets to the mix does absolutelynothing for community building.

I'm concerned that this site will simply never provide anything like good quality housing. Thelocation, noise from all sides and lack of green space is going to make it a thoroughly depressingplace to be.

Parking will become very very problematic if not mitigated. There is free, unrestricted parkingacross Windmill Hill at the moment, just yards from these flats. If even a handful of the newresidents decide to keep cars on the streets of windmill Hill, it will become impossible for residentsalmost overnight. Even if residents have a small number of visitors with cars, they'll inevitablychoose to park in the closest available free parking: Windmill Hill. The streets and the residentswon't cope with the influx.I would suggest a residents parking scheme for windmill hill needs to be instituted as a matter ofurgency, as we've seen how long these things can take in other local areas.Traffic and parking are going to be particularly awful on those 6 (or more?) weeks each year whenstudents are being dropped off and collected. Again, what kind of mitigation is planned for this, asit's likely to be chaos.

What mitigation has been put in place for additional strains on services - doctors and NHS dentalcare, for instance? Will Bedminster get increased support for health care, crime and anti-socialbehaviour, bus and train travel, schools etc, as a result of the massive new resident numbers?

Of course I object- there are already huge changes happening in this area. It'scorporate greed on a massive scale with a total disregard for the community you keep pretendingyou care about. The skyline along with quality of life for hundreds of occupants of Windmill Hill willbe further destroyed just so some fat cat can make more money. It's all about money- you knowthat, we know that so stop making it sound like you want to create something wonderful. It'sgridlock in the morning already, there's not enough parking and students do not have the money tocontribute to the economy. The only people who benefit are the developers- obviously

COMMENT ON APPLICATION NO: 22/06085/F

The following comment was prepared by the Windmill Hill and Malago planning group (WHaM).

Overall the group was concerned by the level of development proposed, and also by the tendencyof the application to attempt to justify itself as 'not as bad' as refused schemes, or 'less tall' thanschemes which have either not been completed or not approved by the local planning officer. Inlight of the fact that the full impact of those schemes is difficult to gauge for the average person(and perhaps even professionals), we felt that such arguments were not convincing and difficult toview as positive, persuasive statements.

HEIGHTThe scheme as designed is much too high; when compared to existing surroundings it is out ofcontext with the existing low level development surrounding it. Throughout the document thescheme is frequently compared to the older schemes with a tone that suggests that by not being'as bad' it is good. This is not good design, it is simply less bad. The group is well aware thatprevious schemes were refused, and overbearing height was a major reason. This scheme hasrepeated these mistakes.

However much the current developers compare their plans favourably to old plans, these old planswere all rejected because they were much too big. This current proposal may be marginallysmaller at one end, but is bigger at the north-eastern end. The scheme is frequently referenced

against proposed plans next door (plot 5) however this scheme has not been approved yet, and assuch cannot be considered a precedent.

The 2019 application for the site was refused at committee and the planning officer's commentswere extremely critical of the height and massing, and the detrimental effect this would have onthe neighbouring development, the officer's report is quoted below:

".... it is not considered that the height, scale and massing of the proposed uses should be to thedetriment of mediating the relationship between existing communities in this area and theemerging context for Bedminster Green. It is considered that the scheme's tight building groupingwould create an oppressive "wall of development" that dominates adjacent communities, providesa lack of visual permeability, and blocks most southern exposure/sunlight to Malago Road. It isconsidered that these design issues stem from an over-intensive scheme for the site. As stated byCDG (Bristol City Council's City Design Group), no amount of variation in volumetric receding,setback and/or change of materials on upper floors, cantilevered or recessed balconies anddifferent cladding, would mitigate the severe impact of the proposed built form to the immediatesite context and the site constraints."

The height of the scheme is so tall that it will mask the topography of Windmill Hill from the rest ofthe city in direct contravention of the SPD on urban living.

The height will create an unfavourable atmosphere along Malago Road where it will loom over thelow storey flats opposite. Shadows and privacy issues will be discussed later, but there is concernthat creating a tall mass on the opposite side of the road will have a negative psychological effecton the existing residents of those flats, who will lose a visual amenity that they currently have. Thiswill be especially difficult for the ground floor flats who have garden walls and overhangs abovethat already limit their light. The new scheme is insensitive in that it makes little concession tothese existing residents' needs.

VIEWSThe buildings are arranged in a group of three with gaps between them for courtyard planting andas view corridors. Although they claim the gaps between the blocks are wider than in otherrejected plans, the gaps are still gaps between huge buildings, so unless you are standing almostdirectly opposite a gap, you will not be able to see the hill behind. All views in and out of the Hillwill be severely compromised.The blocks are so deep that there will be little visual connection to the outside world through thesegaps. The depth of the blocks will have a limiting effect on the public realm when, in fact theopposite is sought.

TOWNSCAPE VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTThe TVIA images are of questionable realistic value, for the following reasons:1. There is no clear set of plans confirming where the images are taken from or where the model is

set.2. The buildings seem too small in a number of the images, the group felt that verification shouldbe sought to confirm the size. In particular the image taken from the foot of Windmill Hill and fromSt John's Road seems to make the buildings too small.3. Many of the images also seem to have been taken with trees in full leaf; this seems to bemisleading as the true impact of the building is not clear.

The photograph taken from the Hereford St courtyard is also not up to date, as the trees havebeen removed, and as such this view will never be mitigated by such planting and should beresubmitted.

INFRASTRUCTUREWhat measures are being taken to ensure that there will be adequate medical care facilities withinthe local area, such as doctor's surgeries and dental care? Are these provided in universityfacilities or are the overburdened local ones expected to make up the shortfall? We note that nospace for support facilities is included in the development.

DAYLIGHTA third of the flats in the Malago Road development opposite the building will have light levels intheir south facing habitable rooms compromised by this development.The end four houses of Church Lane will have similar problems having lost their light, it appearsthat the requirements of the existing residents were not considered during the design process,which has placed the bulk of the massing at this end of the development rather than build moremodestly over the site in a way that would be more considerate and comply with BRE guidance onday-lighting.

PRIVACY AND OVERLOOKINGThe roof gardens at 6 and 8 storeys will create light and noise pollution for nearby residents. Asthey will be overlooking the flats opposite and the houses and gardens of Windmill Hill behind, thiswill actively compromise the amenity of the neighbours. As the bulk of the accommodation issingle aspect rooms it is likely that someone will be looking into other residents' rooms during mostof the day. This has been a consistent failure for a lot of the developments proposed for this plot.Causing harm to the existing neighbours' lives should not be seen as an acceptable price ofdevelopment, allowing someone else to make money who will remain completely unaffected bythe damage they are causing.

Similarly the students expected to live in the single direction facing developments will also be ondisplay to their neighbours, compromising their privacy for the duration of their residency.

CAR PARKINGNo provision for car parking is a concern for people living nearby on already crowded streets.We are told that the students will not be allowed to have cars, how is this to be enforced, there are

no local residents' parking schemes and it cannot be left up to the local residents?How are the 3 accessible parking spaces to be allocated?

ALLOCATION OF STUDENT NUMBERSTaken together with other local developments the group calculates that the number of students inthe local area will exceed 1200. The current local plan identifies the area between centralBedminster and Parson St as suitable for 1000 students.Given that this developer is aware of an approved and under construction neighbouringdevelopment with over 800 students in it, how are they justifying this increase over the number?Furthermore, what steps are they taking to ensure the students enrich the community andintegrate with it? As the student targets are determined by the city, based on population data, it isdifficult to see this level of development as one that meets a need, and so it appears as anexample of over-development that is designed to line pockets at the expense of an area'sdemographic mix. This opinion is reinforced by the density of the development that is above thatsuggested in the SPD on urban living.

Is the developer taking active measures to ensure the housing needs in the area are met in someother way? This feels especially poignant when reaching 1000 students total would have onlyneeded 200 bedrooms leaving some of the proposed brownfield site available for a modest scaleresidential development.

OVERHEATINGThe windows overlooking the railway line on two of the blocks are to be fixed shut. WHaM isconcerned that this is going to be detrimental for the mental health of the inhabiants, who will haveto live in those rooms for a year without being able to open a window.The group are led to understand that the reason for this is because of the noise from the railwayline, but this has had the effect of requiring additional mechanical ventilation to avoid overheatingof these southern facing rooms.A better design for the scheme could have been developed to include passive measures to avoidthe high gains. Glazing with a low g value will not be enough in the Summer, and will limit passivegains from the sun during Winter, in both cases driving up energy use and making the buildingless sustainable.

ENERGY USEWe are told that 40% of the heating will be provided by a water source heat pump which is good,but the remaining provision will either come from gas in the form of CHP and boilers or fromburning biomass. Biomass and gas are not sustainable methods of generating heat, both generateCO2 lowering the performance of the building. Using a better sustainable design methodologysuch as passive-house would enable a much lower amount of heat energy to be used to achievecomfortable temperatures without resorting to the same amount of fossil fuel generation orunclean biomass. In addition, biomass deliveries will require additional carbon for transport to site,and it is not clear where this has been taken into account.

Has the required energy for cooling noted in the above paragraphs been taken into account withinthe energy statement? If not, the statement should be revised and the proposed performanceupdated. The scheme should be redesigned to limit the amount of energy it uses out of socialresponsibility and as a proposed dwelling for the students of a university with a documentedcommitment to monitor and find solutions to mitigate and avoid climate related problems.

ECOLOGYThe railway line is a bat corridor and is used by endangered species, some of which are rare. It isnoted that no bat survey has been included in the portal, and so the group would like to beassured that sufficient surveys and measurements have been done to ensure these species aredocumented and protected. Bristol has declared a biodiversity crisis, and as such anydevelopment that harms the local populations of endangered species should not be permitted.

Rare and very light-averse bats (Lesser Horseshoes, Bechstein's bats, and Brown Long-Earedbats, amongst others) are known to regularly use both the railway line & river corridor as acommuting route between roosts and feeding sites. There does not appear to be a study on theexternal light sources impact on the bat corridor, and as such entire populations could be indanger if appropriate design measures for the scheme are not included.

Much research has been done on the nature and type of the bats that use the railway line as anecessary route to gather food, and journey to roosts, Artificial lighting that causes disturbanceand potential abandonment of a roost can constitute an offence (This information is taken from BatConservation Trust guidance note "Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK"). The Bat ConservationTrust guidance note states that "Artificial light can cause a flight path to be severed" thus losing aconnection to food sources and adversely affecting roosts as a consequence.

It is currently illegal to cause disturbance that affects populations of bats, under the Wildlife andCountryside Act 1981 (as amended).

Lesser Horseshoe bats, Bechstein's bats, and Brown Long-Eared bats, are known to be extremelylight-adverse, and, therefore the Bat Conservation Trust recommend that commuting routes forthese species should not be lit at all, and recommends dark buffer zones to be used around keybat habitats. The Lesser Horseshoe bat in particular is very rare and a Priority Species under theUK Biodiversity Action Plan.

The document from the Bat Conservation Trust specifically says:"Sources of lighting which can disturb bats are not limited to roadside or external security lighting,but can also include light spill via windows. Additionally, glare may affect bats over a greaterdistance than the target area directly illuminated by the luminaire and must also be considered onyour site".The group does not see these types of light emissions taken into account in the documents and itseems concerning that this has not been properly assessed as part of the application.

Previous applications have included commentary from Bristol City Council Nature Conservationdepartment recommending that Natural England should be consulted on those proposals. We donot see a consultee comment from Natural England for this application; should there be one?

As well as light pollution, noise after dark on roof terraces will also be an issue. Putting in a few batboxes will not change all the night-time noise and light, the scheme should be redesigned to havea lower impact on nocturnal endangered wildlife.

URBAN REALMThe scheme seems to have little in the way of active frontage along Malago Road. This is a primeexample of a street that should have such devices to keep a sense of security in our public realm.Why has this guidance in the SPD on Urban Living been ignored?We also note that the Public Garden, to the rear of the central block, will be mainly in the shade ofone of the large blocks, and therefore not conducive to encouraging people to use it during muchof the year.

CONCLUSIONWHaM does not support this development and thinks it should be turned down. It appears thatwhilst a lot of effort has been made to justify an over dense and ungainly development, little hasbeen done to consider the needs of existing and future residents. A re-design in favour of a muchlower mixed-use development in keeping with the density standards advocated in the SPD onurban living, using a well-researched method of calculating an appropriate level of need for thearea, and meeting those needs would seem like the most prudent approach.

1. The proposed development is too high. 10 storeys will block evening sunlight to thehouses on Windmill Hill as well as overshadow them. It will be even worse for properties onMalago Road. 3 or 4 storeys would be plenty.

2. The design is ugly and unimaginative. It lends nothing to the local area.

3. Roof top gardens will impinge on the privacy of neighbours and it is likely that there would be alot of noise.

4. This land should be used for building homes for local people. We have a major homelessnessissue in this city. There are already a lot of units being made available for students in this area.

5. It is unlikely that the students would come without cars. There is no room for more cars eitheron Windmill Hill or in the proposed development.

Pring site

I object to the building of these flats.

- Density - 474 students on a small site, I am very concerned about the number of students whowill be living in this area. It will make this area densely populated.

- Height - 5 to 10 storeys in 3 tall blocks. These blocks of flats will negatively dominate the skylineand will also negatively change topography in this area. Bedminster, and Windmill Hill areas hashistorical, pretty, brightly coloured terraced Bristol houses, which are charming and give this areaan unique feel and look, with mixed living. If you look at the plans, if you stand on on DalbyAvenue in front of the flats you will not be able to see the pretty houses in Windmill hill. The designof these blocks of flats do not look and fit in with the rest area. Micheal Gove in December 2022 ina BBC interview talked about poor planning Mr Gove suggested the potential of some publicspaces was being squandered as a result of poor design, (Mr Gove 27th December 2022). Alsothe Fire Service do not have the equipment to fight fires in high rise flats over 8 stories.

The architects and designers could win awards by designing and building buildings that could fitinto this area, that look attractive.

- Overlooking, Noise & Light Pollution - Roof Gardens & bedrooms in these blocks of flats look outonto the Malago Rd flats and Windmill Hill houses. The noise from the roof garden could verydisruptive to the local community.

- Views - Long development obscuring views to and from the hill with only two narrow viewingcorridors. These flats are to tall.

- Community Services- The population will be dense the demand on local services will be so muchgreater, the community services are already stretched as we know health care as are alreadyknow under immense pressure. Without the increase of students.

- Parking - 3 accessible spaces. No cars for students, how is it enforced? The roads in WindmillHill will be in great demand for the student to park.

- Traffic - Increased volume at start and end of term. The traffic is already the worse in the countrywithout the increase of students

- student density - in Bedminster Green 819 student rooms are already under construction on Plot3, plus 474 more on the Pring site would make a total of 1293 students with limited resources. Isthis good for the community?

For these reasons please don't approve the building of these flats.

3 more tall buildings in Bedminster will over gentrify thr area plus if they are justdedicated to students, the neighbourhood becomes less diverse.Buildings should have variety of people so that they area is also diverse in its offering andbusinesses.

As I neighbour, I would prefer just small buildings (no more than 3 floors) and open to all type ofpeople, not just students.

As a local resident living just over the bridge from this development I have manyconcerns. The density of occupation on such a small site is huge, the blocks are of such a heightthat corridors and wind tunnels will be created which will be highly unpleasant.The flats will overlook existing residents heavily impacting on both privacy and light to surroundingresidents.Yet again there is no parking provision, the assumption will be that students won't bring cars, thesurrounding roads in windmill hill have no residents parking and are already under pressure fromexisting flats in Catherine's place parking in the lower streets, this will only increase the strain onthese areas and we need a residents parking zone implemented as soon as possible.The increased traffic, not only at the start and end of term, but from the cars the students willultimately bring, will increase pollution in this area, impacting the residents, kids and schoolsnearby.Why do we need more student blocks? 819 flats are already under construction on Bedminstergreen.I object to this application on the above points.

I live in a flat opposite the proposed development and once it is built it will block outsunlight to my house. I'm on the third floor so the effect will be even more significant for myneighbours, many of whom could be classed as vulnerable and spend a substantial amount oftime in their homes. It also seems wrong that this building will only be occupied for part of the year,by student residents, but the impact on our light will be year round. I'm also concerned about thestrain on local resources, as the new residents will require parking, a GP, etc. There is nocommercial space in the development, which will also cause a strain on local amenities.In addition, the building will be considerably larger than other buildings in the area and will create awind tunnel along malago rd due to its size. This road is used by many pedestrians, dog walkersand people with children, and I think this is a safety concern.

Firstly I would like to comment that the sunlight assessment provided by the developerin respect of this application does not include a reference diagram or images for reading theimpact assessment data included. In order to identify what daylight impact this would have on myproperty, I luckily discovered I had to consult a diagram from an earlier application on this site,made by another developer, that neighbours would not know to consult. This makes it extremelydifficult for neighbours to fairly assess what light impact the development will have. The applicationshould be firstly rejected for this reason, as inadequate consultation has been made with localresidents.

Furthermore I wholeheartedly object to these plans for the following reasons.

The development will have a huge impact on residents on the opposite side of the road in theMalago Road Apartments, blocking a significant amount of light to the windows of the buildingwhich also houses vulnerable residents. The previous building (Pring and St Hill Ltd) on this sitewas only three storeys tall and had little or no impact on the Malago Road Flats which wereconstructed later in the 1980s, which also gave these properties a protected right to light.

The scale massing and height of the proposed buildings will tower over the other side of the road,and block out a level of light to many flats which exceeds industry BRE guidance levels manytimes. Ask yourself, if it was reversed and it was the Malago Road Flats that the developer wasapplying to build underneath the shadow of these proposed buildings, would they get permission?Of course not, as residents have a right to light to their windows.

Aside from this, there are already a huge amount of student flats being constructed in the area,and so these are unnecessary. What the area needs is good quality, low rise (3 storey housing)with gardens, amenity/commercial space, and parking.

Local amenities such as doctors are also oversubscribed in this area, and the developmentincludes no parking, retail or diverse use of space other than box like flats that will be empty formuch of the year, and cause chaos when students move in and out all at once.

The frontage of the building will also create a corridor along Malago Road which will beoppressive, and the scale and massing will obscure the views across Bristol.

Please refuse this application, and work with the community to make best use of this site withsome good quality affordable low rise housing that the city is crying out for.

Myself and my partner object to these plans for the Former Pring and St Hill Site.

1. This area has enough new work going on, many high rise flats to house the student population.We do not need any more students around here. We need social housing, low level building and awell though out plan that will improve the area not disfigure it further.

2. Once built these flats will totally knock out any light/sunlight from our flat. How do you think wefeel not being allowed our right to light.

3. The height of these buildings are far to much, and adding a roof garden will just increase thenoise in what is a very noisy area.

4. Where will all these new students park? We have limited parking here anyway.

5. The pollution of Malago Road is one of the highest in Bristol. Adding more cars , traffic etc willincrease that even further. We don't have the Clean air zone here, so we will suffer further.

6. Where will the new population be able to go for a Dentist/Doctors etc? This area has a lack ofthem anyway and all are either not taking on new patients or have long waiting lists.

These are just a few reasons off the top of my head, I'm sure I could find more, but the pointslisted are good enough reasons for our objections and for these plans to be refused.

Money and greed are the only winners out of this. Why can't we have something sensible overthere. What about an area for charging electric cars as they are the up and coming thing andinfrastructure for that is needed.

Plot 3 - 819 student beds - under constructionPlot 1 - 474 student beds - this proposalTotal 1293 student bedsNumber envisaged - about 1000Conclusion - too many

Previous application - permission refused - appeal dismissedReason given by planning inspector - "such intensity of development would adversely affect theimportant low rise qualities of the surrounding area."

This application - still out of keeping with those low rise qualities.

Conclusion - permission should be refused.

In the recent past council planners have suggested that the creation of an "oppressive wall ofdevelopment" along the Malago Road should be resisted. Such resistance, although commandingpopular support, has not been that successful and the wall is already towering its way upwards.

If we can keep this site to a human scale, there may at least be some breathing space betweenthe monster blocks

"...likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the surrounding visualamenity and the townscape character." The drawings don't convey character beyond a fewarchways at street level. It's a joke that these designs are thought to be adding to the visualamenity and townscape character. They will block out light, block out the real character of the areain the Victorian housing on Windmill Hill, block out the views from WH across the city (how do youthink we appreciate our existing townscape character?) and further silo the community of WindmillHill by acting like a big wall blocking our sense of connected community to the rest of Bristol. Toohigh, way too dense. Very strongly object.

Please, please don't approve this. We have been here so many times before. You'veseen the previous proposals and you are well aware of the objections (and the reasons why theprevious proposals have all been rejected). All a developer does is come along, look at theprevious proposals, tweak things to the bare minimum to get through and submit the proposal.There is never any real consideration to the local residents, or their concerns, or their objections.

Once again. This proposals is way, way to big. It will dominate the area. Bedminster is already anarea where too many overbearing developments have been approved. Please do not consider thisin relation to what has been proposed at Pring Street before. Please don't consider it in relation toother nearby developments that have already been approved. Please consider it in and of itself:Three incredibly large, rather ugly rectangular buildings that will dominate the site, that willovershadow the residents of Malago Road and Cotswold Road.

The fact that it is student accommodation is disturbing. Add this to the student developmentsalready approved, including Dalby Avenue, West Street and others, it takes us several hundredstudents over the maximum stated quota. This is not acceptable. Students do not benefit the area,do not pay council tax, do not help create a local community. You have shoving hundreds ofmembers of a transient cohort into an already overcrowded area. This development, as with all theothers, pays no attention to infrastructure: shops, dentists, GP surgeries and such like. Not onlythat, the notion that the construction is adaptive and could be turned into a hotel if there are notenough students only reinforces that his is a get-rich quick scheme that does not solve the Bristolhousing crisis (the main reason touted for all these high rise developments) and does not benefitthe Bedminster community.

I am a resident of Malago Road, my right to light will be infringed by these buildings which are stillway to high. One it eight floors, one is nine floors and the other is 10 floors. Too high. Plus, two willhave roof gardens. This will add to the height, this will further infringe our right to light, it will createdaytime and nighttime noise pollution for residents of Malago Road and Cotswold Road and mostlikely infringe on privacy.

Despite the so-called green energy work on Malago Road currently underway, there is still toomuch of a reliance on fossil fuels for this development.

This proposal will benefit benefit no one and nothing but the developers themselves. Please,please reject this proposal. Going forwards, can someone sensible please come in and proposesomething that will not dominate, will not overshadow the area, will not block and overshadowresidents of Cotswold Road and Malago Road. Please propose something that will benefitBedminster for once.

A brownfield site was developed very nearby, just at the top of Dame Emily Park on LydstepTerrace, one that was in keeping with the area. The developers clearly made a profit or they wouldhave not built flats there. Why can't something low rise (appartments, or town houses even,something of equal height to the Malago Road development opposite) be proposed here?

Adding another set of flats in the area is absolutely too much! With the Dandara site, theflats around the corner by the car park and no single school, GP practice, parking space or dentistto be added is very inconsiderate.We've already had a year of driving round like idiots, walls cracking from the construction in LittleParadise and people moving away if they can cause nobody accounted for the nearestneighbours. You cannot add to an already stressed system and plonk buildings just to make thestatistics look better. They will need doctors and parking and we already are lucky to get onebefore anyone has moved in. I'm happy there's development in the area but this isn't sustainableand the well-being of current and future residents isn't considered

I object to the plans as the height of the buildings are still too high. The rooftop gardenswill be in line with windmill hill residents hoses and noise pollution will be a problem with Studentssocialising there.I also don't agree with the use of the housing, we don't need more student accommodation here.The lack of parking will be a problem for local residents as students will have cars and park on ourstreets.

The height of the buildings are too tall and will overshadow housing on the opposite sideof the road. The design of rooftop gardens will cause noise pollution to local residentsThe lack of provisions for the students cars will be a problem to windmill hill home owners as theywill be parking on their roads.The planners have not listened to feedback from the residents saying that the heights of buildingare too tall. I would also question that the height of the buildings projected against the hill and it'sstreet aren't accurate and they haven't even bothered to get the names of the streets right on it. Itwill impose on the residents more than is drawn on the diagrams.

Once again, developers and Universities are trying to cash in with their build 'em highand pack 'em in mantra. This proposed "development" (God I hate that word), does not solve ahousing crisis. It brings no benefits for the local communities. It adds pressure to the localinfrastructure. And will only create a Ghetto of high density low quality dwellings. High rise didn'twork in the 60s. So what makes these "Gurus" think that it will be any different today?

I object-

1. More residential housing is required in Bristol not further student accommodation. Much of theBedminster Green site is already being used for student accommodation. Please consider wherethe housing need is in Bristol.

2. The flats are too high and imposing on the Windmill Hill neighbourhood. 4 storeys would beplenty and be more in fitting with the elevation of Windmill Hill. It is simple to see around the rest ofthe city how high rise flat blocks have a massive impact on the neighbourhoods around them. Inaddition, as you can see from the neighbourhood opinions that were collected in July, the majorityof people thought that the current design was too high.

3. I do not think the roof gardens are a good design concept. They will be inline with residentshouses on windmill hill and will cause a lot of noise pollution and disturbance of residents toWindmill Hill.

4. All of the residents of Windmill Hill should have been invited to community consultation in July2022 not just residents of Cotswold Road and Mendip Road. Only residents who will see the newbuildings from their homes were invited which I think completely overlooks the effect that the newaccommodation will have on all the residents of windmill hill.

I object to these plans on the basis that they are student flats and secondly, that theyhave large roof gardens at a high level.

Bristol needs more homes for residents and professionals wanting to live in the city center. I do notbelieve you can build a community with vast numbers of students who are by their naturetransitory, and are likely to live here for a short period of time. There is a large block being builtnext door, which is for students, there is too much student accommodation being built on land thatshould be for homes. This is a prime site in the heart of Bedminster and would be much bettersuited for homes and to build a community.

I also object to the design incorporating roof terraces. Due to the hill facing south, the height of theroof terraces are likely to level with residents bedrooms and houses opposite, and it is inevitablethat with large numbers of students there is a risk of excessive partying and noise which willdisturb people opposite.

This land should be for homes for people living and working in Bristol and with the large amount ofstudent accommodation being built nearby, and a complete lack of homes, this land should bebetter used.

My worry with this is that the students take over St John church yard and upset some ofthe older residents that live in the flats that over look the park. I am on of them residents as well. Ido not feel comfortable with happening right next door to me. We all know what students can getlike and I think putting them near this area is going to upset so many people. I do not want my lifeto and me worrying about students get out of hand. This not acceptable idea and worry about theother residents and how it going to affect them and for me. Considering I work some nights

My worry with this is that the students take over St John church yard and upset some ofthe older residents that live in the flats that over look the park. I am on of them residents as well. Ido not feel comfortable with happening right next door to me. We all know what students can getlike and I think putting them near this area is going to upset so many people. I do not want my lifeto and me worrying about students get out of hand. This not acceptable idea and worry about theother residents and how it going to affect them and for me. Considering I work some nights andthe job I do consist of me talking and teaching people. Them shouting the odds is not good ideaand put my career off track. I have worked hard to get to where k am now. It made me reallyconcerned about my health and metal health and the other residents.