Bristol Tree Forum Comments 24 February 2023

2

conservation area.

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

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

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

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

Recommendations,’ No appendix 1 has been produced.

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

been removed are ignored.

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

sylvatica) approximately 8m tall with an average crown spread of 3m. The stem diameter was

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

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

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

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

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

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

development:

Species

Totals 35 34 Stem

Diameter

BS5837

Category

52

Tree

ID

Onsite

Trees Removed

BTRS

Calc

Magnolia T1 1 1 40 C 4

Cotoneaster, apple G2 2 2 30 C 3

Cherry T3 1 1 40 U 0

Monterey cypress T4 1 1 75 B 7

Laburnum T5 1 1 42.5 C 4

Beech T6 1 1 27.5 C 2

7 23_00151_F-ARBORICULTURAL_REPORT-3378522 8 https://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=QZ2N8JDNJNF00 9 https://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OVYXXXDNGIZ00

Bristol Tree Forum Comments 24 February 2023

3

Species

Totals 35 34 Stem

Diameter

BS5837

Category

52

Tree

ID

Onsite

Trees Removed

BTRS

Calc

Birch T7 1 1 25 B 2

Birch T8 1 1 25 B 2

Laburnum T9 1 1 40 C 4

Cypress G10* Offsite 27.5 C

Beech T12 1 0 27 B

Cypress, griselinia, holly H11 24 24 15 C 24

The plans prepared for this application suggest that the one remaining TPO beech will be

retained as part of the proposed development. This is confirmed in the applicant’s

arboricultural evidence. We have our doubts about the viability of this given the proposed site

plan produced.10

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

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

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

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

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

replacement under DM17 and BTRS.

The trees in group G10 are shown outside the development site11.

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

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

calculations even though they ought to be accounted for.

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

retained. Applying DM17 and BTRS, 52 replacement trees will need to be planted to replace

what has been lost (see the table above).

10 23_00151_F-PROPOSED_SITE_PLAN-3378527 11 17_05016_F-TREE_PROTECTION_PLAN-1708041 & 17_05016_F-TOPOGRAPHICAL_SURVEY-1716134

Bristol Tree Forum Comments 24 February 2023

4

As 31 trees will be planted on site12, albeit that, given the size of the size of the site, this is

probably overstocking, this leaves 21 replacement trees which will have to be planted offsite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

infrastructure assets will be required.

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

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

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

infrastructure off site.

NPPF and biodiversity net gain

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

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

application 21/04865/F. Whilst the development proposal is different from the one submitted

in this application, it is possible to use the baseline data in that calculation.

Using this baseline data, we have transposed this information into the current metric

applicable, BNG 3.113, and used this to calculate the likely habitat gains/losses that this

proposal will produce. We have made the following assumptions:

1. The location plan gives the area of the site as 2,620 sq. metres14. We calculate that it is

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

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

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

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

12 23_00151_F-PROPOSED_SITE_PLAN-3378527 13 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6049804846366720 - published on 21 April 2022. 14 22_05967_F-SITE_LOCATION_PLAN-3362738.

Bristol Tree Forum Comments 24 February 2023

5

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

which is identified in BCS22 of the Local Plan.15

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

tree habitat.16 They have a total baseline habitat area of 0.1003 hectares,17 of which 0.0033

hectares will be retained. The Urban tree habitat area calculation is set out at Appendix

1.

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

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

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

replaced ‘like for like’.18

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

the BNG calculation.

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

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

will have grown into Small category trees under BNG 3.1.19 We have made no allowance for

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

8. 31 Standard-sized replacement trees as defined by BS3936-1 will be planted on site.

9. We have made no allowance for any delay replacing the Urban tree habitat which has been

destroyed.

10. We have made no allowance for other habitats that it may be proposed to create. We

reserve our position pending the production of this information.

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

biodiversity of -58.05%.

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

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

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

15 Biodiversity Metric 3.1 - User Guide – Table 5-4 Strategic significance categories and scores (p.52). 16 Biodiversity Metric 3.1 - User Guide – Table 7-1 Urban tree definitions (p. 72). 17 Biodiversity Metric 3.1 - User Guide – paragraph 7.9 (p. 74). 18 Biodiversity Metric 3.1 - User Guide – paragraph 7.8 (p. 74). 19 Biodiversity Metric 3.1 - User Guide – Table 7-2 Urban tree definitions (p. 72) and paragraph 7.11 (p. 75).

Bristol Tree Forum Comments 24 February 2023

6

Appendix 1 – Urban tree habitat baseline area calculation

Species

Totals 35 34 BNG 3.1 Area

(ha) 0.1003 0.0033 0.0970

Tree ID

Onsite

Trees

Removed

RPA Calculation Trees

Retained Trees

Removed

DBH (cm)

RPAr (m)

RPA (ha)

RPA (ha) RPA (ha)

Magnolia T1 1 1 40.0 4.80 0.0072 0.0000 0.0072

Cotoneaster, apple G2 2 2 30.0 3.60 0.0081 0.0000 0.0081

Cherry T3 1 1 40.0 4.80 0.0072 0.0000 0.0072

Monterey cypress T4 1 1 75.0 9.00 0.0254 0.0000 0.0254

Laburnum T5 1 1 42.5 5.10 0.0082 0.0000 0.0082

Beech T6 1 1 27.5 3.30 0.0034 0.0000 0.0034

Birch T7 1 1 25.0 3.00 0.0028 0.0000 0.0028

Birch T8 1 1 25.0 3.00 0.0028 0.0000 0.0028

Laburnum T9 1 1 40.0 4.80 0.0072 0.0000 0.0072

Cypress G10* Offsite 27.5 3.30

Beech T12 1 0 27.0 3.24 0.0033 0.0033 0.0000

Cypress, griselinia, holly

H11 24 24 15.0 1.80 0.0244 0.0000 0.0244

Bristol Tree Forum Comments 24 February 2023

7

Appendix 2 – possible offsite habitat creation scenarios to achieve

biodiversity net gain

Scenario 1

If, in addition to the 31 trees being planted onsite, a further 64 Standard-sized trees as defined

by BS3936-1 are planted offsite, a small net gain of 0.20% can be achieved which complies with

the trading rules.

Figure 1: BNG of 0.20% if 46 trees are planted offsite

Bristol Tree Forum Comments 24 February 2023

8

Scenario 2

If, in addition to the 31 trees being planted onsite, a further 54 Standard-sized trees as defined

by BS3936-1 are planted offsite, then a 10.33% BNG can be achieved which complies with the

trading rules.

Figure 2: BNG of 10.33% if 54 trees are planted offsite.

In our earlier Objection we failed to mention another concern.It is a Care Home not a Nursing Home therefore it would be expected that with 56+ residents therewould be quite a few that will have partial if not full mobility? Many of these Residents may choseto use Mobility Scooters. In the plans there is only one mention of 1 small (8 metre square) area ofmobility storage space & that is on the ground floor near flat 1?This is an internal space with no indication of charging points or external access?

It would seem that there is no thought gone into this planning Application so ShirehamptonPlanning Group Object

I object to this planning application on the grounds of:-

The planned access to the site is unsuitable. Avonwood Close is a small cul-de-sac. The road isnarrow and most of the time there is only room for one car to pass. Frequent inconsiderate parkingcauses difficulty in manovering in the street and on some occasions access by emergencyvehicles would be impossible. The current entry to the site via Station Road has served theprevious business for many years without any issues or intrusion to others. This makes clearsense that the entry to the site at 8-10 Station Road should remain as it is via Station Road.

Bearing in mind the area is a 'conservation' area, the most recent buildings built close to this sitehave been 3 storey plus, not really ideal and doesn't give the feeling of 'village' style and there isn'ta pleasing atmosphere, but instead a cramped over-populated one.

On the planned site, which is central to Shirehampton village, the construction of lower-levelbuildings would be much more suitable rather than cramming in as many three storey dwellings aspossible - there are already a number of these in the vicinity. This is a going to be a permanentstructure in Shirehampton village and should be aesthetically pleasing in every way. Lower level(maximum two storey) would be more suitable on this site.

I fully object to the new plans for a 56 Bed nursing home.While I fully support the facility for the care of the elderly and the jobs that this will create for localpeople the estate will be too large and over bearing in the small area that it will occupy.

My objections based on being a close neighbour are as follows:The main road being Park road has a curve at the turning point and at times it can be hard to seeoncoming traffic from the portway so turning into Avonwood close at times can be a challenge,with the added traffic volume that will be expected of a site of this size the impact on the localresidents will have a detrimental effect on the residents that already reside in this narrow overpopulated road.

While we are local to the shops and offices we already find the road somewhat impossible toaccess on occasions to even reach our own homes should emergency services need to stop withthe parked cars there is no way down. On many occasions I have had to park at the top of theroad and walk to my home while I wait for the road to clear.

As I will be the close neighbour to this development I am also concerned at the height and howthis will over bear the local residents and will be able to view inside residents homes this wouldtherefore be an invasion of people's right to privacy.

I am also concerned about the amount of extra traffic from staff,visitors,and emergency vehicles24/7 using the very small entrance in a tight turning space. There will be no safety in place forresidents to access their own driveways with this added busy thoroughfare that will be forced uponus. Alongside the extra pollution with large amounts of cars, vans, lorries, and emergency vehicles

will cause day and night. What about the residents' right to a cleaner , fresher environment?

As the developers have already disregarded the fact that this area is in a central part of aconservation area and yet still choose to destroy hedges {while birds still had hatchlings nesting}and destroying protected trees with little or no concern for the impact on the locals residents i havelittle trust that they will comply with any concern regarding the build. I think greed before need hasbeen the forefront of any choices made without discussion with the local people to discuss whatwould benefit the surrounding area.

I am also confused as to WHY the entrance to this development needs to be accessed through acul de sac when the address to this site is clearly 8-10 station road with the postcode Bs11-9TT sothis should be the entrance. The current entrance was used by the previous owner without issue.

I believe that no new plans have also been made clear of drainage and waste where this will beplaced , this I believe to be too close to my home (where will soiled waste be stored) andremoved? From the site and how often?

I am happy that they have said they will keep the original house and will utilise this within theirplans, should they rethink the entrance. I for one would consider the development in a morefavourable view but as it stands i fully object to all its plans.

It has been very difficult to comment on Application 23/00151/F as we are unsure if it isa genuine application due to no decision having been reached on the 2 earlier applications(21/04865/F & 22/05967/F) or the results of the Appeal against Application 21/04865/F? (Update:APPEAL DISMISSED)

As such we need to split our comments in 3 directions.The unlisted buildings of merit (Schoolhouse 1811) are noted as being renovated in thisApplication but its preservation details are vague and non-committal. For the Group to commenton this part of the application more information would be required as to preservation andprotection of the buildings rather than just an idea for internal use? Until clarified with a proper setof plans we Object to this part of the Application

It has now been confirmed in the Appeal Documents on 21/04865/F that the Developers intend toremove the protected Beech tree. We were very disappointed when the land was devastated andbeautiful trees & hedgerow were ripped out without permission in a Conservation Area (duringnesting time) including a 60+ year old Magnolia in full bloom!We do not feel that any of the plans to date will compensate for the loss of these trees and do notagree with offsite compensation. We note that some of the rooms of the Care Home will be tooclose to the Beech Tree hence why despite its protected status the Developers wish to remove it.We take the detailed advice of the Bristol Tree Forum and Object to removal or damaging Worksbeing carried out to this only remaining and protected Beech Tree.

Our Members and Residents do not feel it is necessary for any Development to be built with a newaccess into the limited and quiet Avonwood Close!

It will cause unnecessary stress to the predominantly older residents with increased traffic to thetune of 1 vehicle every 5 minutes which is not acceptable.It will cause traffic problems on a main access into Shirehampton village and further parkingproblems to those already in existence caused by several new developments being built withoutadequate parking for their residents & cars owned by workers from the local shops & offices.The height of the Home will cause loss of privacy and overlooking into the Homes on AvonwoodClose. It is also felt that one large building is not in keeping with the rest of the properties in theConservation Area.You will see from the number of other Comments to this Application that people Object to theintended access in Avonwood Close. We have left further details to the already numerousComments of other Residents..

It is a concern that the Care Home is intended to accommodate 56 bedrooms with 3 being largerthan average size. Are these to cater for couples, making a total of 59 Residents? We also note allthe beds shown look to be double? Just how many people do the Developers intend to reside inthe Care Home. Married Couples do not want to be separated just because they reach 60 norbecause 1 of them becomes infirm? What happens if a couple are of different ages? Whathappens if the older resident dies? What happens if it is the younger partner who is ill? There is noguarantee that residents of Shirehampton will give up family homes to live in such smallaccommodation.Our very genuine suggestion of Bungalows being built was curtly dismissed as not being suitablejust confirms to us that the Developers do not have our interests in mind just money? We haveseveral pockets of Bungalows built within housing developments in Shirehampton and it worksvery well eg Penlea Court, Priory Gardens and most recently St Tecla Close (off Old Barrow Hill)Being central and level approach to the village, Health Centre, Library, Shops, Halls & Churchesthe site would be very 'suitable'.We would like clarification on the breakdown of room no's 1, 3, 4, 7-12 on the 2nd floor to confirmthey meet the required 12 metre square of room space excluding en-suite?Our members feel the number of rooms on each floor will cause overcrowding in a relatively smallspace and not in keeping with the Well Being of the Residents

Access for Emergency Services is already an issue in Avonwood Close where it has been notedthat Ambulance have had to block the Close having nowhere to park on several occasions?In an Emergency there is concern regarding access if the Fire Service is needed?The question needs to be raised on how 46 elderly possibly infirm residents on the upper floorswould be evacuated in an Emergency without using Lifts? Have the plans been approved by theFire Service?

Our local Health Centre is at full capacity with few telephone appointments available & even lessface-to-face ones. Patients are required to phone in every morning at 8.30 and are lucky if theycan consult with a Dr within 2 weeks. Has the local Medical Team been consulted on the potentialof 56 (or more) new patients?

We acknowledge that the site of 8-10 Station Road needs to be developed as quickly as possibledue to its rapidly increasing deterioration but the Developers seem reluctant to do anythingregarding security nor taking into account Residents concerns. The Consultation for the CareHome was not carried out with Residents in mind as was an Online survey with questions thatwere largely irrelevant. Many of our Residents do not use a computer and even less a mobilephone for online activities.

Shirehampton Planning Group Object to application 23/00151/F to build a 56 bed Care Home

To whom it may concern,

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

The height of the care home which you are proposing of three storey high will mean thatHowever, a two storey

building would bemore acceptable and would be more in keeping with the currentdevelopments on the Close.

The care homes access via Avonwood Close for nurses, doctors and ambulances willmean that there would be additional traffic and noise causing disruption to the residentscurrently living here.

The previous owner which ran his nursery business from this address had dailydeliveries by lorries and access was available via Station Road which ensured thatthere was never any interference to the residents of

I understand that care homes need to be constructed however, I feel that you shouldtake into consideration the nature of the area that you are developing in and ensure thatthe property blends into that environment. Also that minimum disruption of noise andtraffic to current residents is considered.

Best regards

I strongly object to this latest planning application. I really find this whole processsomewhat tedious, having objected on all the previous applications regarding access to this sitefrom Avonwood Close. The developer is just not listening and taking onboard the facts. Commonsense must prevail and utilise Station Road as the main site entrance. This can easily be achievedby moving the NO Entry back to the narrowest point on Woodwell road, where the current signageis located. We desperately need more care homes in North Bristol. This development is way tohigh and needs to be reduced in height as it is very over bearing for the residents in AvonwoodClose. We cannot impact the lives of the residents in Avonwood Close with noise and pollutionwhen all this can be avoided by having the main entrance off the High Street ( Station Road ) .

I OBJECT to this planning application. Whilst I support in principle a care home beingdeveloped on the site I have major concerns that the latest plan being put forward has takenabsolutely no account of the objections raised to the previous applications submitted.

I object on the following grounds:

-Change of plans from residential to a care home will obviously alleviate concerns over parking butthe continued plan for access to be via Avonwood Close rather than Station Road is a real issuefor the residents of Avonwood Close which the developer has not addressed.

- The three-storey building on the eastern edge of the site continues to be an issue for theresidents of Avonwood Close and will have a detrimental impact on their privacy.

-The new plan shows an absolute minimum of trees and there is only a very vague mention ofreplacing the trees which have been wantonly destroyed on the land since it was acquired by thedeveloper.

- The Design Access Statement mentions under an 'opportunity' to 'bring the pre 1800's buildingback into active re-use' but there is no commitment to do so and no details are included in theapplication other than a proposed interior layout. Given that the cottage has been identified as anunlisted building of merit it is vital that retention and restoration of the cottage is a condition of thesite development

- Concerns were raised with the developer as far back as August 22 (if not earlier) regardingsecurity of the site. The 'Statement of Community Involvement' published on behalf of thedeveloper acknowledges this and says 'it is proposed that the site will be made more secure withfencing to stop vandalism and anti social behaviour' but there has been no attempt whatsoever todo this. If anything, the site is now less secure than it was previously and the existing cottage isbeing increasingly vandalised to the point where police are called on a regular basis.

Whilst it is in everyone's interest that the site is brought back into use it must be developed in away that both takes into account the needs of existing residents and is sensitive to the additionalrestrictions in a conservation area. If the developer was willing to address the concerns repeatedthroughout the multiple planning then people would be much more likely to support the proposals.

Whilst I support this in principle, I feel a care home that offers dementia nursing care ismuch needed in the area. As someone who has lived in the area for 60+ years, I appreciate thecomments re heritage, but, feel the only concern I have is access to the site.As previously mentioned in most comments the sensible access to this site would be to keep thecurrent entrance via Station Road, which is more suitable and was always used for bothcustomers and deliveries

My fundamental objection to this proposal is the abandonment of the existing siteentrance on Station Road and the siting of the main and vehicular entrance to the building on thequiet residential Avonwood Close. This will result in a major increase in traffic, both during theconstruction phase and post completion of the building works, to the detriment of the environmentfor the existing residents, who are already inconvenienced by the multitude of non-residentialparking every day.The design and access statement, dated January 2023, fails to recognise that Avonwood Closeiconsists of a mixture of both Terraced and Semi-detached properties and that the introduction of aprimarily 3-storey mass building would be detrimental to the open and spacious environment of theClose.

Avonwood Close is a quiet cul-de-sac which is to bew turned into a main throughfare forpatrons and visitors of this new development?? What absolute nonsense, its bad enough withpeople parking down there and using the lane to access the village as there is now not enoughspaces this end of the high street as it is.Avonwood Close is too small a road to handle traffic of this nature daily, not to mention thepotential wakening of residents with emergency vehicles attending under emergency conditions(lights & sirens) at all hours, one of which i shall probably be driving as per my profession.Might i suggest the one way system on woodwell road be cutback to the bottleneck by the toilets,scrap the ridiculous chevroned area that people use as parking spaces which block the view ofoncoming traffic and use the old entrance for the nursery as the entrance which served fit for manyyears for all manner of vehicle.By all means i do not object to an emergency egress onto Avonwood Close as long as it is exactlythat, an emergency entrance that would only be used in the event of a fire or other major incident.

Absolutely not it's a cul-de-sac and having a home here should bring peace and quiet itshould not be opened up as a through road to access the houses or a nursing home. Especiallywith all the noise that the traffic will cause this is not fair on the existing residents that live on thisstreet for a reason.This road is not big enough for this amount of constant traffic. The entrance for any building thathappens in the garden nursery should be out the other side like it was when the garden nurserywas up and running for all those years. All deliveries entered this way so why does it have tochange now!!!!

I wish to object to this planning application for a number of reasons, generally based onthe conservation of this area of Shirehampton.

First, I wish to bring to the attention of the case officer, an error in the heritage statement. Theexisting building is a locally-listed building, although the website Know Your Place does notindicate that. On the council's website, the Local List 2020 can be downloaded, and on page fourof this is stated:

"Outside of the usual nomination and assessment process any building identified as an unlistedbuildign of merit in a conservation area character appraisal or neighbourhood plan is automaticallyadded to the local list having gone through a rigorous public consultation process."

Therefore, this building having been noted as an "unlisted building of merit" which stands in aconservation area in the Shirehampton Conservation Appraisal (adopted last month) should berecognised as having been approved as a Locally Listed one. It is in my view, rather a landmarkbuilding, partly due to its rich red, stonework build and its relatively petit size in contrast to theneighbouring terrace to its north. I think the shopfront has existed throughout my lifetime to date. Iam not sure of the building's overall age, but shows as existing on 1844 - 1888 & 1894 - 1903Ordnance Survey maps on Know Your Place.

With this existing historic cottage, previously used as a shop & place of residence, the proposedplans show this will be truncated both in size and shape. The proposed east and south sides areto be altered in terms of modern doors. This is disappointing for this stone building situated in theconservation area. Its shopfront to the West will need to be renovated due to its neglect by its

owners and pettty standard for securing the site to date. The elevations show no commitment overthe materials and whether there will be any change - which there should not! If the development isapproved, a condition should be placed for the external walls and windows to remain of the sameexisting materials eg, genuine stonework, wooden window frames and glass glazing.

Following on from that, I feel if this proposed care home is approved, it should be situated on theAvonwood Close side of the land. The care home's architecture and brick facia could then blend inbetter with the less historic surrounding houses there. They would not blend in with those inStation Road & Woodwell Road and the existing stonework building, I feel. This would also free upspace for vehicle access to be from Station Road.

The entrance to the proposed car park is from Avonwood Close. (I notice the plan shows"Avonwood Road", which is misleading.) Ths will lead to traffic congestion in both AvonwoodClose and Park Road, which it branches off from. Park Road is a busy, major entrance to the HighStreet of Shirehampton, being the first encountered when travelling from central Bristol, Hotwells,Sea Mills, etc and it leads to our High Street.

This proposed building is another three-storey form of dwellings. Others have popped up in recentyears within this area. Tall buildings such as the flats where Shirehampton Swimming Baths (ParkRoad) used to be and the Portway Day Centre (St Bernard's Road) being examples. Such heightsare tending to bring a crowded feel to this area. The top floor windows to the south of thisdevelopment will quite probably be peering into the existing houses in Woodwell Road.

With planning application 21/04865/F, City Design suggested the proposed care home then bereduced in height from three to two floors "to create a transition in scale form Station Road toWoodwell Road". Like Woodwell Road, Avonwood Close also slopes downwards towards thePortway.I feel it should it should be checked by an independent party, if this site will have sufficientinfrastructure eg, sewerage, water supply and drainage, accessible to it in addition to what is incurrent use by existing surrounding land and dwellings. As well as the proposed residents of the56 units, staff and visitors need to be considered. I see a sluice is proposed opposite Bed 5 on theground floor. Will this be sufficient? I see there are proposed additional drainage pipes, but canthose they will feed into cope? (I have read the Drainage Statement, but am not familiar with thetechnicalities of such a report.) How about the sewerage and water supply? I notice this includeson its last page, a communication with Bristol City Council from at least five years ago.

As for the need of such a large development, I feel affordable housing would be better on the site.We do currently have care homes in Shirehampton including Penhill Residential Home(residential) Granville Lodge (nursing) and Woodwell House (residential). Home care tends to bethe initial guidance of Adult Care rather than the use of care homes where practical, in order toretain people's independence.

It should be born in mind those who move into care homes do not as one may expect, always freeup the homes they own themselves by selling them to those who need them. Instead, they mayarrange to use those assets to obtain what is in effect, a loan from the Council to pay for theircare. They may then leave the homes for their families to buy at a later date, by paying back theloan. Alternately, they may sell them when the property market is better for the seller.

The existing beech tree adjacent to Avonwood Close should be retained and not just replaced.Any construction near it such as the bedrooms on the three floors should not lead to its felling (orpruning) unless a separate planning approval is given, even if it will be replaced later.

The proposed development would have a negative impact upon the existingconservation area - the design, look and height of the property is not in keeping with the existingproperties on Station Road and adjoining roads.

There will also be a negative impact upon trees in the area, which either need to be cut back orremoved. It seems likely that the proposed work on one tree would have the effect of destroying itentirely due to the stress of the work.

Further, the height of the new property will result in existing neighbouring homes beingoverlooked, with a loss of privacy for those properties. It is also likely that the current design willresult in the loss of light for some of those homes.

Finally, the proposed development is contrary to the existing local and regional planning policy. Inparticular, what is needed in a central location in Shirehampton is something that will help providea boost to the local economy and encourage footfall and business into the increasing number ofempty shop fronts and struggling businesses on the high street. Any development so close to thehigh street needs to take account of the fact that the focus should be on preservation andregeneration of business in the local area. This will not be achieved through a care home beinglocated here - local needs mean that housing would be more appropriate.

I fully support the plan. The site has been empty for a long time and each time anyplans submitted are objected to. A care home is much needed for those that have elderly familyliving in the area that would be looking or to move closer to family. Lots of jobs will be created.There are ample parking spaces being made. Access is not a problem.

There are not enough care home places in the area. The cottage is going to be incorperated intothe design so that will not be lost. Just down the road, the old bingo hall was pulled down to makeway for several storey flats, this has not been a problem and created much needed housing withinthe area. I feel its a case of not on our door step. Avonwood Close has driveways for cars, look onstreet view how many cars do you see parked on the road? Not many and probably visitors.

I fully support this plan

I am in full support of this application. There are not enough residential care homespaces in the area. I for one would be interested in working here if this was approved. I dont seeaccess being a problem and there are lots of parking spaces in the plan submitted, this would notbe needed by me as local. The other care homes in the area are staffed by lots of local residents.

Fully support this plan for a new care home within the area. I have fully read the plansand can see no problem with access, lots of cul-de-sacs have a business entrance at the end ofthem. All the houses on Avonwood Close have driveways and dropped curbs. Wide enough foremergency vehicles and any building work traffic will not be forever. A road sweeper is used toclean the roads when building works are taking place, yes its an inconvience of noise and mud butlook what we would have for our local elderly population. Look at all the jobs that will be created,jobs for local people if needed. We have buses just up the road on Shirehampton Green servingthe area all day long. Local shops would benefit too from the visitors/workers.

I object to this as opening up entrance on a cul de sac just going to cause parkingissues for local residents and their visitors

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

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

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

- Objection to the proposed design of the design of the care home on the Station Road side of thedevelopment. The proposed design and height of this care home is not in-keeping with the otherproperties on Woodwell Road.

- Objection to the obvious increase in traffic due to the proposed development. Increase in carbon

dioxide emissions and pollution would have a negative impact on air quality for the existingneighbouring residents.

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

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

Note: This application is a lot more supportable than the previous applications (17/05016,18/3198899 and 21/04865/F) and the other open application (22/05967/F) however, there is still aclear lack of due dilligence to the multiple prior concerns that have not been attempted to beaddressed.

My previous objection still stands, I cannot see that the applicant has taken any of thecomments submitted in previous objections into consideration and moreover just continues toresubmit the same plans. In short the appearance design is not in keeping with the existingproperties present and will create over shadowing. Furthermore the opening into Avonwood Closewhich is currently a quiet residential cul de sac will create additional noise, traffic and parkingissues as there is inadequate parking allocated for the number of proposed residents, staff andvisitors, this will also cause overspill into Park Road which has already seen an increase due tothe building erected on the old swimming bath site. This will be compounded by disruption causedby staff coming and going 24/7, laundry, catering, utility services and waste collection. The plansshould be reconfigured to accommodate adequate parking provision, furthermore the plans shouldbe redesigned to utilise the existing access on Station Road. The reluctance to do so can only beassumed to be as a result of wishing to maximise the residential capacity on the site. Re-siting theentrance would be viewed more favourably.

23/00151/F Redevelopment of the site to include care home with associated facilities,works to include access, parking and landscaping. | 8 - 10 Station Road Shirehampton BristolBS11 9TT :The proposed building would be very imposing especially along Avonwood Close. The choice offaçade materials proposed would add further to the buildings being imposing. Why has a darkbrick been chosen as opposed to the lighter random rubble type used in the area?

The wall being proposed along the Woodwell Road elevation doesn't appear to allow for anyadditional pavement for pedestrians. This section of road is very narrow and is currentlydangerous for pedestrians. The only available section of pavement isn't even wide enough for apush chair or wheel chair. A full width pavement along the front of the development must beconsidered.Has the volume of traffic expected and the access been considered? I can imagine AvonwoodClose suffering from any additional traffic. Woodwell Road certainly wouldn't cope.The section of the building adjacent to 1 Woodwell Road would overlook the garden. Currentlyonly a single storey building is here?There doesn't appear to be any proposals for natural energy generation. Will this be included andwhat type?

I would like to question whether this is the type of development the area needs? A less imposingand lesser quantity of retirement properties may be more suited?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposal abandons the existing suitable access on Station Road and proposes toroute all construction, staff and residential, and service traffic via the narrow residential cul-de-sacof Avonwood Close. This will be unacceptably detrimental to the environment of current occupantsof the Close, and exacerbate difficulties for emergency and rubbish collection vehicles requiringaccess to the whole of the Close.The 3-storey mass of the part of the of proposed building facing onto Avonwood Close is out ofcharacter with the 2-storey semi-detached and terraced houses in the open vista of that road.

I echo comments made by my neighbours that point out the folly of continually pushingfor vehicular access through Avonwood Close. For obvious reasons (it is a small cul de sac,heavily parked on at present owing to the structure and preserved character of the Georgian andVictorian properties around The Green, Station Road and Park Road, which have no off-streetparking), the access needs to be via Station Road and only pedestrian access via AvonwoodClose should be offered (if indeed this access is necessary at all).

Three-story buildings on this site will overlook adjacent. properties to an unacceptable degree andlead to loss of privacy.

The developer has failed to demonstrate that this proposal meets the requirements of aConservation Area or meets current standards on environmental protection.

Local residents are not opposed to development of this site per se, but they need to be sensitive.Objections to planning applications will continue so long as the owner pushes for vehicular accessvia Avonwood Close and continues to allow the cottage and surrounding trees to be degraded anddestroyed.

I object these plans based on the scale and size of the building and proposed parkingand access via Avonwood Close.

The dense block of accommodation of 56 rooms and associated service space is too large for thesite. Furthermore, with 162 bed spaces available within a 2 mile radius, I disagree with thedevelopers statement that "Whilst there are other facilities in the area there is by no means andover supply." It would seem there are plenty of facilities in the immediate area, and 56 seems toomany for this site.

The constant push for imposing three storey buildings is unsuitable for the space, and clearlydesigned to make as much money as possible from the site, rather than be sympathetic to theenvironment and conservation area.

"In terms of access to the site it was considered with the previous application that the safestvehicle access would be from Avonwood Close and the existing vehicle access onto WoodwellRoad would be removed." - This is simply not true. Avonwood Close is not a safe or suitableaccess road for 22+ cars, emergency service vehicles and service/delivery vehicles. There is largewide access roads on Woodwell Road/Station Road where the existing gate to the property islocated, that are much more suitable for purpose. The developers may gain some public supportvery quickly, by simply switching their designs to have the car park on the other side of the site. Itis baffling that they continue to push for access on a quiet, narrow cul-de-sac. A care home islikely to need clear quick access for ambulances, and this simply doesn't work at the bottom ofAvonwood Close.

They have already removed plants and trees that were on the site and are no suggesting thebeech tree with a proposed TPO is vulnerable. There is a failure to commit to the landscapingproposed by the council. "30 replacement trees would be required. The scheme would seek tomeet these replacements onsite." I believe this statement makes space for the developer to fail toplant the proposed number of trees. If you're going to meet the requirement, just say you'll do it,not 'seek' to do it.

Whilst I appreciate that building on the land is needed there must be an alternative tothe proposed plans of a new care home with an entrance on Avonwood Close.The sheer size of the establishment, the fact that it will overlook the houses on Avonwood Closeand Station Road and cause traffic mayhem in the area is simply unacceptable.Large vehicles used the entrance on Woodwell Rd/Station Rd for many years when the nurserywas in use without problems and that is where the entrance to any new properties should be.I strongly object to the redevelopment as it stands of the land due to several reasons1. The home is too large for such a small area, the height of the new property will not be inkeeping with the existing properties on Avonwood close or Woodwell Road and ourhomes will be totally overlooked2. The entrance to the new properties on Avonwood Close will cause maximum problems forexisting residents, emergency services and essential workers.The road is already used as an overspill parking area by people working in the village whichultimately narrows down the space for vehicles to drive through. There is also the increased safetyand pollution concerns regarding children who live or visit relatives on the road.3. The Close is a cul-de-sac and as such will not withstand the high volume of extra traffic that anynew properties will generate not to mention the construction and maintenance vehicles that will beup and down the close for the duration of the building work.4 Avonwood Close is within a conservation area and trees within the development are protected,some of these were destroyed or cut back without consent a few years ago by perspectivedevelopers, this cannot happen again!!5 Air quality and pollution will be increased ultimately impacting on the quality of life of theresidents living in Avonwood Close.