I am a Heritage Consultant and in my professional view the proposed development ofthe site would be harmful to the Gloucester Road Conservation Area. The Conservation AreaAppraisal specifically notes "Legibility between main route and smaller scale, quiet residential sidestreets behind" as a positive contributor to the character and appearance of the conservation area(p.10). Infilling the gap between 19th century buildings on Gloucester Road and 19th centuryterraced housing on North Road would have a negative impact on the preserved historic urbangrain in this location. It would also remove current views towards trees on the site, which currentlymake a positive contribution to the appearance of the Conservation Area. The height of theproposed development at three storeys would be inappropriate in the context of the surroundinghistoric terraces which are two storeys. For the reasons set out above the proposed developmentwould not accord with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act1990 or NPPF paras. 208 as the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character orappearance of the Gloucester Road Conservation Area, a designated heritage asset. As such itshould be refused planning permission.

Please add this comment to my previous objection to application no. 23/00649/P for theconstruction of 9 flats behind Tesco 171-177 Gloucester Road.

I think I have reasonable grounds for objection when I say that I don't believe that this applicationhas been made in good faith.

My reasons are as follows:

1. As I have pointed out in my previous comments, in its audacious in scale, in its scantconsideration for existing residents or for the environment, in the mistakes and misleadinginformation it is full of, it is hard to believe it has any integrity in the first instance.

2. Now, significantly, it is no longer possible for me to read the intentions or commitments theagent makes regarding the Tesco site without comparing them to commitments that the agentmade to the residents of Berkely Road over the Nailsea Electrics site application no. 23/03348/F,less than 100 yards away, which have all just been broken.

The same landowner is behind both developments which strongly suggests this pattern is going torepeat itself when it comes to our turn.

The council will no doubt, be acutely aware of the amount of resource which has already been tiedup with the Nailsea site, to finally secure approval, despite it having stretched planning guidance

and the tolerance of neighbours to the limits, for 17 flats of mixed use, over the original 9.Meanwhile, it seems the landowner was simultaneously working on a different objective which wasto develop the whole building into an HMO for 54 students, which they have proposed at the 11thhour.

Whether the intention was to antagonise or not, it is very dispiriting for everyone to have to startthe whole process again and while it appears there is no law against this, it is hard not to becynical about the order of events and what has been lost in the process. To sum up the commentfrom one of the exasperated neighbours on Berkely Road: '...it is even worse, even more dense,even more monolithic in terms of its balance and of eventual users being applied for'...'We aretherefore 'frustrated' that a new planning application has gone in, this time under a new agent andarchitect. This new application takes every liberty that previous ones have exploited and turns thedial up further. And in the process throws the commitments the landowner previously made to us,under a bus.'

So, as a resident who will be directly affected by his neighbouring development, the Tesco site no.23/00649/P, I have deep misgivings about these plans and whether we are just being drawn intoanother long game of chess.

As a resident who is already having to live in the shadow of the student accommodationon the site and the negative effects of that I feel i must object to this application on the belowgrounds. The area is already densely populated, loud, covered in rubbish that isn't cleared up andexperiencing antisocial behaviour that comes with housing over 100 people in a small space.

loss of light or privacyovershadowing on your homehighway safetytraffic and parking issuesnoiseamenitywildlife

I would like to make an additional comment to add to my previously submittedobjections to the plans to build 9 flats behind Tesco 171-175 Gloucester Road 23/00649/P.

I would like to draw the attention of the council to a press release dated July 19th 2023 fromFriends of the Earth.

It is relevant to my earlier objections regarding the cooling effect of the trees and backs up mypoint with new scientific evidence.

I urge you to consider the information in the press release below and to examine the map. Theexact area of land in question is obscured by the lettering on the Bristol map, but the facts areundeniable.

https://friendsoftheearth.uk/nature/new-heat-maps-reveal-cooling-effect-trees-and-green-space

With the terrifying heat wave going on in Europe this summer, it's clear the race for the council tobuild houses is rapidly being out run by the climate catastrophe. I urge you not to wait for arevision of Bristol's Plan before you decide it would be irresponsible madness to lose this size ofcanopy in the city.

https://friendsoftheearth.uk/nature/new-heat-maps-reveal-cooling-effect-trees-and-green-space

New heat maps reveal cooling effect of trees and green spaceSHARE-

PRESS RELEASEThe analysis finds areas with fewer trees and green space are up to five degrees warmer duringUK's hottest daysPublished: 19 Jul 2023 | 5 minute read- Today marks one year since the UK's all-time temperature record was broken in Coningsby inLincolnshire, where 40 degrees was breached for the first time.- Striking new heat maps from five major English cities show that areas with higher levels of treecover, green space or both were much cooler - download the images here.- Friends of the Earth is calling on the government to green our streets by boosting tree cover to atleast 20% in urban areas and protect existing trees from felling, to help shield communities fromthe impacts of climate change.A year after the UK broke national heat records and reached a new all-time temperature high,striking new heat maps from five of England's biggest cities reveal the huge benefits of trees andgreen spaces in helping to cool urban areas.Innovative new analysis, carried out by mapping experts TerraSulis on behalf of Friends of theEarth, helps visualise the stark temperature variances felt by communities living in different areasof five major cities - London, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and Newcastle. The cooling abilitiesof green space and trees have been well-researched, but this is the first time their combinedeffects on built up areas have been modelled.The research finds that inner-city areas with fewer trees and green spaces were up to five degreeshotter than those with more tree cover and plant life during last year's hottest day on record. Thenew mapping brings this to life, with the hottest areas in each city appearing dark red, and thecoolest, most nature-dense areas a cool blue.Marginalised communities are most impacted by the climate crisis in the UK and overseas. Theresearch finds that people of colour make up 65% of the population in neighbourhoods with theleast cooling. People living on lower incomes are also disproportionately affected by a lack ofnatural cooling near their homes. Air pollution is also worse in the hottest areas.The maps build on previous research by Friends of the Earth and TerraSuliswhich found that ashocking 43% of neighbourhoods in English towns and cities have less than 10% tree cover, whileover a third lack adequate access to green space - strengthening the case for increasing treenumbers to help shield communities from the increasingly hotter temperatures caused by climatechange.According to the UK Health Security Agency, 2,803 excess deaths occurred during the summer of2022. Respiratory problems are thought to be the main cause of premature deaths duringheatwaves, with heat and air pollution proving an especially toxic mix - and why action to curb airpollution, such as the London Mayor's Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) scheme are neededalongside measures to cool our cities.Hot weather can also place a particular strain on the heart and cardiovascular system. Those withpre-existing medical conditions, older people and very young children are especially at risk from

the dangerous health outcomes associated with soaring temperatures.Friends of the Earth Hackney and Tower Hamlets member, Chris Kilby, lives in one of the areas ofinner-city London most affected by extreme heat. Mr Kilby, 70, has chronic obstructive pulmonarydisease (COPD) and asthma, which both cause breathing difficulties and are exacerbated by hotweather and air pollution."When the weather is extremely hot, it completely knocks me sideways," he said. "Last year, Ibelieved I had overcome the worst of it, but this year's hot weather has made it nearly impossiblefor me to leave my house."Even little things like doing my regular exercises on my balcony has become really difficult. I haveresorted to taking walks at night to avoid the heat and traffic during the day. This is not ideal butit's the only period when I can comfortably go for a walk without being worried about triggering myCOPD symptoms."Rowha Mohid, who lives in Redbridge in London, is a peer mentor for Friends of the Earth'sClimate Youth Society and founder of GuiltlessThreads, a social impact company that runs eventsto tackle stereotypes and unconscious bias. Her work includes providing workshops forcommunities of colour on addressing eco-anxiety."Historically, people living in low-income, urban areas have had to suffer from soaring pollutionlevels due to badly regulated factories and roads," she said. "Now, we are being robbed of greenspaces by luxury developments that do nothing to benefit the people living in our communities."As we experience more extreme heat during summers, people have nowhere cool to shelter,which leaves the most vulnerable at risk of serious health complications. Working classcommunities have as much of a right to clean air, green space and a healthy environment aswealthy ones."Last month, the Climate Change Committee published its annual report to parliament, whichwarned of the government's "worryingly slow" progress on tackling climate change - the samemonth which saw the UK's temperature record for June broken.Friends of the Earth is calling on the government to commit to three measures to help protectcommunities from the increasing risk of environmental harm due to climate change. These include:- Rapidly ramping up tree-planting in towns and cities, alongside protecting existing mature trees,by committing to no less than 20% tree cover across urban areas as part of the government'supcoming Urban Trees Standard.- Prioritising more than 3,000 neighbourhoods most vulnerable to scorching temperatures as partof a council-led, street-by-street insulation programme, to help keep homes cool in summer andwarm in winter, while slashing energy bills and household carbon emissions.- Rolling out London's ULEZ expansion plans and Clean Air Zones in cities around the country.Mike Childs, head of science, policy and research at Friends of the Earth, said:"It's remarkable to see such a striking visual representation of the cooling power of trees andgreen spaces in our towns and cities. Our mapping shows that access to green spaces providedwelcome cooling of up to 5 degrees on last year's hottest day."We know that extreme weather, including heatwaves, is become more frequent and severe dueto the climate crisis. But not everyone is affected equally, with the most marginalised communitiesthe hardest hit in the UK and overseas.

"Boosting tree numbers is such a clear win for our communities and our planet, not just because oftheir ability to cool urban areas, but because they capture planet-warming carbon too. This shouldbe prioritised alongside a rapid programme of council-led, street-by-street insulation, which helpskeep homes cool in the summer just as much as it keeps them warmer in winter."ENDSNotes:1. On July 19 2022 a new UK temperature record was broken. The Met Office reported a record-high temperature of 40.3 degrees Celsius in Coningsby in Lincolnshire. This is the first time the UKhas ever seen temperatures breaching 40 degrees.2. Heat maps for the cities London, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and Newcastle, produced bythe mapping firm TerraSulis, are available for download. Please credit TerraSulis/Friends of theEarth. The mapping is based on a model of summertime night temperatures - night-timetemperature is particularly important for health because when temperatures remain high overnightthere is no relief from the heat, and the body's ability to cool down and regulate its temperature iscompromised. Buildings and surrounding infrastructure also can't cool if temperatures remain highovernight. The modelling was based on a Forest Research model. A more detailed report andmethodology is available on the Friends of the Earth policy website.3. Chris Kilby, who shared his story with Friends of the Earth about the impacts of extreme heat onhis health, is available for media interviews on request.4. Recent research which provides the most accurately available picture of England's tree covercan be viewed on the Friends of the Earth website.5. View Friends of the Earth's 2020 research examining access to green space across England.6. Last year, Friends of the Earth revealed that more than 3,000 neighbourhoods are highlyvulnerable to the negative impacts of extreme heat.7. Analysis produced by Friends of the Earth in 2022 found that all English schools are exposed toair pollution levels that breach World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendations. 1,737 schoolsare in areas where air pollution is particularly toxic, at more than double WHO recommendedlevels for one or more pollutants.

young people are the generation growing up with full awareness of the climate crisis and with the largestburden to shoulder to adapt and respond to its throughout their lives’ p4.

Being 20 years old I live with this burden and I object on the strongest possible terms because of the nega� veimpact the destruc� on of so many trees would have on my mental health knowing the environmental andecological damage it would wreak and the value of the trees in mi� ga� ng the effects of climate change beinglost to my genera� on forever.

The NFFP 11 d) says permission will be granted in favour of sustainable development unless any adverse affectsof doing so would significantly, and demonstrably, outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies ofthis Framework as a whole.

In the light of this growing body of research, the size, number, age, density and proximity of these trees to somany local residents, cannot be dismissed as an insignificant factor in rela� on to local resident’s health andwellbeing both now and in the future.

Mental health and well-being are embedded in the social aspect of the NFFP’s three overarching principalswhich need to be met for a development to fulfil sustainability criteria. Even if it were possible to plant thetrees elsewhere, it would not replace the loss to the health and wellbeing of the current or future residents.

Noise in rela� on to rejected applica� on

Regarding noise, I no� ce that an applica� on for a café garden at the back of Happy Mood’s café (22/03827/F)has been rejected on the following grounds: ‘The use of the terrace and seating area in conjunction with thecommercial ground floor area would by virtue of its size and close proximity to neighbouring residentialproperties will have a harmful effect on the amenity of the area. The potential activity, associated with noiseand disturbance by staff and customers will have an unacceptable impact on the adjoining residentialproperties which will be exacerbated by the sheltered position and enclosures as erected at the rear of thepremises. The development is contrary to Policies BSC21 and BSC23 of the Bristol Local Core Strategy andPolicies DM30 and DM33 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies as well as guidancecontained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

The café garden is in the same vicinity as the proposed Tesco development. Given the number and density ofresidents and their visitors, a great deal of noise would come through open windows, balconies, roof terracesand pa� os. Unlike a café which could restrict numbers and opening hours, in privately owned or rented flats,the level would not be controllable day or night.

The adverse impact on the sustainability of the loca� on

The Gloucester Road is highly valued as a ‘highly sustainable loca� on’, meaning it offers convenient shoppingand ameni� es. And yet the development itself will necessitate the loss of a local express supermarket unit withits compe� � ve prices important to residents, and at the same � me add to parking problems which will driveaway the shoppers who come in their cars from a distance and support the independent businesses*

The business ecology of the Gloucester Road is delicate. I object that if this proposed development alters thera� o between independent shops and supermarkets, it will have an adverse effect on its sustainability.

Sustainability is fundamental to the character and vitality of the Gloucester Road. Damaging its sustainability isdamaging to its dis� nct character and its vitality.

I would like to raise my objections to the building of 9 flats behind the Tesco Expresswhich is 171-175 Gloucester Road.

Of the 20-30 trees on the site (some of which have tree preservation orders) all are needed tomaintain the small amount of green space in this area. The amount of trees in this area should beincreasing, not diminishing as they are essential for peoples' mental wellbeing, wildlife and theenvironment.

It is an area that is seeing more and more infilling (particularly flats) which means more parking isneeded in an area that has already reached saturation point in terms of population and car parkingdensity. It is not accurate for Rackham Planning to say that 2 and 3 bedroom flats would be 'carfree', as this is currently not enforceable. People buying 2-3 bedroom flats are likely to have cars -quite possibly more than one. As a resident who takes her grandchildren out in this area regularly,parking is currently a large problem with double yellow lines and corners being particularlydangerous in terms of safely crossing the road.

Despite Rackham saying 'the proposed development will not have a harmful impact on thecharacter of the Gloucester Road Conservation Area' I do not think this statement is correct. Thisarea is currently part of a corridor for wildlife with newts, frogs, slow worms, birds and bats beingpresent. The proposed development would destroy this.

I object to this plan because: there's no car-parking space provided and it's impossibleto impose a car ban on prospective residents. Any building will impact the privacy of residents inthe 100 year old houses in North Road. I very much object to any plan which results in trees beingfelled. We have few enough in inner city areas and they're desperately needed for our (sadlydepleting) wildlife. The birds, bats, insects and animals all rely on a network of trees.

ObjectionI am attaching two photos:- one of the current outlook in summer from the back of my house in North Roadtowards the application site, and- one of the outlook in winter, even when the trees are bare, with the shape of theproposed block of flats superimposed on the photo.While the winter picture shows trees beside and above the building shape, thedevelopment would involve the loss of most of the trees, which would further affect theoutlook from my house - imagine the outlook in summer with the wood replaced by ablock of flats!The outlook would be transformed by the new building and by the loss of trees.The flats would also overlook the privacy my house and garden and my house wouldoverlook the flats and whatever garden area they would have.

To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing to you to request that you add the attached photographs to our objectionsregarding planning application 23/00649/P.

The address of the site for which planning permission is being sought is: 171-175Gloucester Rd Bristol BS7 8BE

The attached photos demonstrate the current outlook from the rear of our property. Ifthe applicant is granted permission to proceed with their plans, all of the mature treeswould be razed and replaced with the proposed buildings. This will change our outlookirrevocably, and the privacy and pollution protection that the trees currently provide willbe removed. We do not consent.

Please respond to this email confirming that the photographs and additional commentshave been added to our already stated objections.

With thanks,

This is the outlook from the kitchen of our house. The main tree you can see is one thatwould go if the application were to be successful.

Please could you attach these photographs to my previously submitted objections to theplanning application 23/00649/P 171-175 Gloucester Road.

Images of the outlook from the back of my house

A site visit is imperative because photographs simply cannot do justice to the full impactof this number, height or density of trees.Neither can they capture the birdsong or tranquility.

This is an image of the outlook from my kitchen diner

This is the outlook from my bedroom window

Objection I am attaching two photos: - one of the current outlook in summer from the back of my house in North Road towards the application site, and - one of the outlook in winter, even when the trees are bare, with the shape of the proposed block of flats superimposed on the photo. While the winter picture shows trees beside and above the building shape, the development would involve the loss of most of the trees, which would further affect the outlook from my house - imagine the outlook in summer with the wood replaced by a block of flats! The outlook would be transformed by the new building and by the loss of trees. The flats would also overlook the privacy my house and garden and my house would overlook the flats and whatever garden area they would have.

I wish to object to this proposal for the following reasons -

1. There will undoubtedly be an increase in :-

Parking problems in the surrounding area as there are no facilities at the site for residents orvisitors

Unsociable behaviour and graffiti in Bolton Road which is already a problem

Noise and air pollution if a large number of trees are felled which provide some protection from thenoise and air pollution from Gloucester Road which I inderstand us one of the most polluted in theUK

2. The woods which form the proposed site have been an important home to many forms ofwildlife since time immemorial and would be a devastating loss to the wildlife and the localresidents at a time when we need to be increasing these spaces and not destroying them

3. Access to the site will be a problem for residents and emergency services etc as it is notpossible to use the private side lane in Bolton Road for vehicles

I am absolutely against this proposal for a number of reasons.

1) The data has been taken from the Redland ward, this site is not in Redland, it is in Ashley. Itwould suggest to me that if this basic information is not correct, how can I trust the scrutiny of anyfurther information.

2) Taking the above inaccuracy into account, I now understand there are in fact 10 flats and not 9as the planning application states,therefore the planning is a major application and should not hidethe flat that is already there. Another inaccuracy is that the land has never been developed, it hasalways been a garden, nothing has been built on it. The proposal also states, there are no majortree constraints. This is disingenuous there are a number of TPAs.

3) My outlook if the plan goes ahead, would be totally oppressive. The design is overbearing' andinescapably dominant with windows of the proposed property overlooking many gardens androoms including mine. There would be absolutely no privacy for current owners. This has beenfundamentally overlooked in the application.In policy DM7 it notes existing and proposed development should achieve appropriate levels ofprivacy, outlook and daylight. The application appears to fail on all of these. The plan in 2005 wasturned down due to unacceptable privacy infringement and the current application does not seemto have addressed any of these issues.

4) Wildlife corridor - 105b of NFFP, under Open Space and Recreation says 'planning policies and

decisions should recognise that some undeveloped land can perform many functions , such as forwildlife,recreation, flood risk mitigation, cooling/shading, carbon storage or food production' Whatis the point of cutting these trees down and planting a sapling elsewhere. It is so rare in the centreof a city to have a small amount of biodiversity.The trees are at the bottom of two hills and trees as large as these consume 1000s of gallons ofwater each year will the current gardens become flooded, they already become very boggy inheavy rains? If so who will be responsible?

5) North Road and the surrounding roads are already impossible to park on for residents.Shoppers visiting Gloucester Road and the shop employees already dominate the parking. In facta recent planning application for an extra 9 flats directly opposite the current planning applicationwas turned down due to the fact that parking was a huge issue. If the current planning applicationwent ahead, on parking grounds alone, it would seem utterly illogical.

6) Access, an additional huge issue. The tiny path leading to the property is private and theplanner does not own it. How will emergency services access this, it is a huge H and S concern.Given that no one will have a car in the new properties, how will the bikes be stored. The smallpath is not large enough for 22 bikes to ride down. It is a footpath for pedestrians which includemany children, in fact there is sign that says no bicycles. The sign was put up to stop accidents, ifthere were accidents before adding 22 bikes, one would think this might increase.

Finally, looking at the index of multiple deprivation, North Road is in the bottom 10% ofenvironment indicators in the country. I hope this is taken into account.

Please see images 1-4 attached in a separate email addressed to the developmentmanager and attachthem to my objection please.My objections are based on: loss of privacy loss of amenity loss of wildlife loss of trees noise design and appearance of the development parking and road safety sustainabilityI also object to some of the misleading information in the application which is of materialimportancebecause they relate to planning policy and a presumption to build:The applicant says 'the site is situated in the Redland ward and states it is 'predominantly onbrownfield,previously developed land.'A summary letter says 'it is considered the proposals are compliant with the Development Planand thereare no material indications which indicate otherwise. Accordingly, it is considered that planningpermission should be granted for the proposed development'.

1. The agent states that the site is in Redland ward.This is incorrect.The applicant uses statistics on housing mix taken from Redland ward to argue the council isfailingin its duty to provide mixed, balanced and inclusive communities under BSC18 of Bristol's CoreStrategy.The site is in St Andrews which is in Ashley ward. Therefore, all of the statistics he presents areirrelevant.Furthermore, the applicant has failed to mention the four blocks of flats within 150 meters of theproposed development, two on North Road, one on Bolton Road, and its relationship to thebuildingdirectly to the south, Gloucester Court which consists of eight flats and eight studio apartmentsprimarily used for students and temporary occupancy along with a number of residential flatsinterspersed amongst the houses in North Road itself. A wide range of housing sizes thereforealready exists immediately around the site.2. The agent states 'the location is predominantly on brownfield, previously developed land' andconcludes 'and is therefore in principle as a site for residential development.'The layout of the proposed site spans both the existing retail units as well as the cottage gardensatthe back of the shops which can be seen on the 1844-1888 1 st census map. There is a Victorianalleyway which connects it to Bolton Lane which is not a public right of way.I would question that whether this is 'predominantly' brownfield as it appears that about 50% of thesite has not previously been built on. This is where a sycamore wood and all the biodiversity itsupports has been able to grow up undisturbed over 150 years.This is of material importance because the site also falls within a Conservation Area and the NFFPsays that 'non-designated heritage assets are buildings, monuments, sites areas or landscapesidentified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions".

In particular, 'patterns of settlements: notable examples of planned or incidental planning includingstreet plans, characteristic clusters of assets; interrelationship between buildings and openspaces;major infrastructure.Image 1

1844-1888 census map showing original shop gardens backing onto residential gardens.Image 2

Modern overlay map which shows the site as it is today.Image 3

Woodland that has grown up on the undisturbed landImage 4

Sketch outline of the position of the proposed development.3. The agent states 'An arboreal report has visited the site and confirmed there are no major treeconstraints.'This is not correct. There are Tree Preservation Orders on four of the 25-30 or so maturesycamoretrees.The failure to present this information is of material importance since the applicant's summarylettersays 'it is considered the proposals are compliant with the Development Plan and there are nomaterial indications which indicate otherwise. Accordingly, it is considered that planningpermissionshould be granted for the proposed development'.With the TPO's a constraint, this planning permission should not be granted without scrutiny.4. The agent says of the arboreal report. 'Some trees would have to be removed to facilitatedevelopment'.This is misleading.In the arboreal report, there is no Arboreal Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan. It seemsapparent from the plans that the scale of the building work would destroy or damage all of most ofthe root systems of the 24-30 trees in the wood and is therefore cynical to suggest that anythingotherthan the large-scale destruction of the wood is part of the plan.The applicant also says 'it is anticipated that a tree replacement payment would need to be paid tothe council'.This is not based on any accurate calculation of the environmental costs since the report is notcomplete. If it was, it would be apparent that the applicant would be highly unlikely to be able tofulfil their obligations to mitigate the damage to the trees and green infrastructure under DM17 andBSC9.5. A Bio-diversity Report has not been submitted. As local residents we have observed and enjoyan

incredibly rich variety of wildlife which is supported by the wood. There are masses of birds,insects, squirrels, slow worms, newts, and bats. The soil will be rich with mycelium. It is a wholeself-supporting ecological island.

The applicant has not done a biodiversity report as required by BSC15 and is of materialimportancebecause the application is not complete without it. It also suggests any case the applicant putsforward for environmental sustainability lacks integrity because it is not substantiated withevidence.6. Incomplete visual representation of the site.The applicant has only included photographs of the site taken looking towards ground level in aneasterly direction. It presents only a partial and unfavourable representation of the site and is

extremely misleading.Anyone looking at the images is lead to believe that the site is underused, unsightly, not seen andofno interest or value to the public or the neighbouring residents. Any serious appraisal would haveincluded photographs from the several, easy to access points along North Road, Bolton Lane, andtheCo-op car park, which point West, South and North.As it is, the relevance of this large collection of mature trees has been diminished in theapplication.Its destruction would completely alter the outlook, privacy and quality of my life and the lives of allthe residents whose gardens and views face towards the site. The impact on the ecology and theenvironment would be much more far reaching.7. The agent has ticked a box in the Application form for Outline Planning Permission with somematters reserved under the Town and Country Planning Act, to say that 'no new public rights ofwayare to be provided within or adjacent to the site'.The application outlines the Victorian alleyway that runs off Bolton Lane into the backs of the shopgardens as part of the site. This is established as emergency access to the leaseholders of Tescobutthere is no suitable public access to the development.Other objections:Loss of outlook, loss of privacy and loss of residential visual amenity:The applicant says the development proposals 'would contribute towards local character anddistinctiveness by retaining, enhancing and creating important views into, and out of and throughthe site as well as making appropriate use of landmarks and focal features and preserving orenhancing the existing setting of existing landmarks and focal features.'I strongly object to and disagree with this appraisal. From my point of view as a resident whowould be greatly impacted by this proposal, I can see nothing but the total devastation of the focalfeature and distinct character of this locality.I have lived in my house for 20 years, and the outlook from my kitchen diner is a dense greenislandof mature and semi mature sycamore trees. The skyline is a majestic green canopy all the wayfromthe Secret Garden on Bolton Lane to the co-op car park on North Road. Crows have been nestinginthe 75-100 high trees at the bottom of my garden for years.The trees are teeming with wildlife, and the air is full of birds and bird song. This ecological islandis the permanent backdrop to all of the houses and flats around its perimeter. The giant greenbackdrop of trees characterises the sense of place which myself and all the residents of thisuniqueneighbourhood share and enjoy. It is by far the most defining focal feature of our homes.In contrast, the layout and position of the proposed development and the resulting destruction of

woodland would inflict a drastic change to our outlook and view, totally transforming our privaterealm and our experience of living here.The proposed block of flats would be all encroaching, unpleasantly overwhelming and loom overus

out of nowhere as a brutish block of red bricks, three stories high with a flat roof. It would be

inescapably dominant and oppressive. The rest of the skyline would be blank. There wouldnothingfor us to look at other than it.What is more, having first destroyed the distinctive views of our locality and our outlook, theapplicant is then proposing to take our private realm and sell it on to the occupants of theproposeddevelopment as their very own 'important views', using our privacy as a resource.Urban designI strongly object to the design of the proposed development. I do not think it is in keeping withBSC21 on Quality Urban Design.The designs are preliminary so there is not much to comment on. But the outline design itself istotally out of keeping with the Victorian gardens into which it looks as though it has been plonkedfrom a height from an unspecified location on the edge main road. It is ugly, unimaginative andthere is no connectivity or reference points to the buildings around it.The buildings in this locality were built at different times from early to late Victorian and weredesigned by different builders and for different purposes. There have been some modernextensions,so there is a huge variety of roof tops, heights, chimneys, housing styles and building materialswhich make up a really interesting city skyline. So, when the applicant says 'a three storey, mono-pitch structure would be of a similar height' it doesn't mean it will look anything other than totallyincongruent. The next sentence reads 'Due to the back-land nature of the proposals, the buildingwould be largely screened from any views from the public realm' This seems to suggest theapplicant does not consider the design to even be important.The applicant says the floor area of the flats is to minimum standards. I would question whetherthey are to minimum standards for buildings over two or three storeys high?No heat survey has been done. The building will sit on a heat island with no shade and no breeze,baking like a brick oven and radiating heat into the surrounding locality. This is very relevant as theheat in summer becomes more extreme.I would also wonder how this oversized development build might inhibit other neighbours fromextending their own properties, given how much land and light it takes up and the proximity of thewindows to other boundaries.Loss of wildlifeGaps in the fences of the resident's gardens have created corridors to wild life. These creaturesare

part of our garden landscapes. They would lose their protection and habitat if the trees weredestroyed.

Loss of shade and flood defenceLast year's extreme heat created ground heave and cracks in the house. The trees createdinvaluabledappled shade in the late afternoon keeping my house and the ambient temperature cool.A single mature tree will soak up to 11,000 gallons of water a year. If all these trees mature overthenext 20-40 years, a rough calculation would suggest they could be soaking up over 250,000gallonsof water every year.With this amount of root system, I object that a flood survey has not been done to assess where allthis water would go. My garden and some of the neighbour's garden are significantly lower thanthe site. I also want to know how the ground would be affected all around the site. The rootsystemswill be huge and extend under my own and the neighbours gardens. I cannot see how significantground heave would not occur damaging properties all around.In the face of the unfolding climate catastrophe, I can't imagine a more efficient flood defence orcooling system, the loss of which couldn't possibly be replaced by a man-made block of flats.

Loss of noise mitigationMy house and those of these houses on North Road which back onto one of the busiest parts oftheGloucester Road are subjected to its constant and increasing background sounds day and night.Thisranges from the roar of buses, cars and police sirens, industrial generators, trolleys being pulledoutside Tesco, live music from the some of the pubs, loud music from DJ decks in private partiesfrom some of the flats and student houses, loud voices from the pavement and beer gardens ofthepubs and bars a few yards away in The Grace, The Cider Press, Industry and The Bristol Flyer,andthe sounds of drunken voices from all the bars and pubs along the Gloucester Road at closingtimewhich flows along Gloucester Road, and into Bolton Lane and North Road as people make theirway home.For most of the year, the tree canopy and the incredible bird song provide a foreground baffle tothisonslaught of city sounds making the stresses of living with so much noise more bearable.To replace this with a block of flats housing up to 30 people living in such close proximity with allthe additional noise that would create would make living here intolerable. It would generate tensionand resentment and corrode the fabric of our friendly and otherwise very tolerant neighbourhood.SustainabilityThe application says this type of flat 'will provide accommodation attractive to the growing marketof young professionals who are seeking to get on the property ladder or find accommodation in the

city which is subject to ever increasing prices.' This is speculation and includes an implication thatthese flats will be more affordable than elsewhere. There is no evidence to suggest either of thesethings is true. These cramped flats with minimal outside space, no parking, and 'close to bars,restaurants and shops of this central location' would be equally if not more attractive andaffordableto investment landlords wanting to turn them into easy to service air B&B's.Out street is in the top 10% areas of environmental deprivation in the country.These rare trees keep my house cool in extreme summer temperatures, the leaves pump outthousands of gallons of oxygen, and the leaves trap a huge amount of pollution protecting myfamily's lungs and the health of the whole community round this area of the Gloucester Road.Theyoffer a sense of tranquility and well-being in a highly polluted and noisy part of the city and are ahabitat for a huge amount of wildlife.This tiny pocket of secret woodland packs a huge punch environmentally and socially. I do notbelieve that the proposed development would be able to demonstrate a net gain in these areasand Iwould argue it is therefore not sustainable for future generations.Parking and road safety and accessI strongly object to this planning application on the grounds of insufficient parking and road safetyissues.The applicant argues that it is car free, because being so close to so many amenities, no-one willneed them and provides bike storage for 22 bikes instead. But all of the residents in St Andrewsalso live close to these amenities but still choose to have cars because they find they need them.Allthat will happen is that the new residents will park their cars in the neighbouring streets wherealready there is insufficient parking.If taken at face value, it would be dangerous for 22 cyclists to be mounting and dismounting theirbikes and crossing the busy pavement to get onto Gloucester Road, or otherwise cycling downBolton Lane which is a blind alley on a hill.

I can see no gains whatsoever from this proposal and believe it would cause irreparable damagetoour locality and environment leaving it an unattractive place to live.The NFFP 105b says 'planning policies should recognise that some undeveloped land canperformmany functions, such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, cooling/shading, carbonstorage or food production'. The residents have not put forward this piece of land as a designatedgreen space in previous consultations, simply through a lack of awareness of the mechanisms oftheprocess. But nature itself doesn't know whether it has a designation or not, and I feel this shouldn'tbe the criteria it is judged on here. Bristol has an ambitious nature recovery plan as well as anambitious plan for housing. I respectfully urge the council to make its decision on this previously

unexamined small patch of land in this context when weighing up the pros and cons of whether tosacrifice it or not.

I live on Brookfield Avenue the road directly opposite the site proposed for development.Parking is already a large problem for the road and the development of multiple flats without anyparking for cars is a huge concern for us. It is often impossible for residents of the road, let aloneemergency vehicles to access the road as people park their cars on the pavement/block access tothe road.

Please see images 1-4 attached in a separate email addressed to the developmentmanager and attachthem to my objection please.My objections are based on: loss of privacy loss of amenity loss of wildlife loss of trees noise design and appearance of the development parking and road safety sustainabilityI also object to some of the misleading information in the application which is of materialimportancebecause they relate to planning policy and a presumption to build:The applicant says 'the site is situated in the Redland ward and states it is 'predominantly onbrownfield,previously developed land.'A summary letter says 'it is considered the proposals are compliant with the Development Planand thereare no material indications which indicate otherwise. Accordingly, it is considered that planningpermission should be granted for the proposed development'.

1. The agent states that the site is in Redland ward.This is incorrect.The applicant uses statistics on housing mix taken from Redland ward to argue the council isfailingin its duty to provide mixed, balanced and inclusive communities under BSC18 of Bristol's CoreStrategy.The site is in St Andrews which is in Ashley ward. Therefore, all of the statistics he presents areirrelevant.Furthermore, the applicant has failed to mention the four blocks of flats within 150 meters of theproposed development, two on North Road, one on Bolton Road, and its relationship to thebuildingdirectly to the south, Gloucester Court which consists of eight flats and eight studio apartmentsprimarily used for students and temporary occupancy along with a number of residential flatsinterspersed amongst the houses in North Road itself. A wide range of housing sizes thereforealready exists immediately around the site.2. The agent states 'the location is predominantly on brownfield, previously developed land' andconcludes 'and is therefore in principle as a site for residential development.'The layout of the proposed site spans both the existing retail units as well as the cottage gardensatthe back of the shops which can be seen on the 1844-1888 1 st census map. There is a Victorianalleyway which connects it to Bolton Lane which is not a public right of way.I would question that whether this is 'predominantly' brownfield as it appears that about 50% of thesite has not previously been built on. This is where a sycamore wood and all the biodiversity itsupports has been able to grow up undisturbed over 150 years.This is of material importance because the site also falls within a Conservation Area and the NFFPsays that 'non-designated heritage assets are buildings, monuments, sites areas or landscapesidentified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions".

In particular, 'patterns of settlements: notable examples of planned or incidental planning includingstreet plans, characteristic clusters of assets; interrelationship between buildings and openspaces;major infrastructure.Image 1

1844-1888 census map showing original shop gardens backing onto residential gardens.Image 2

Modern overlay map which shows the site as it is today.Image 3

Woodland that has grown up on the undisturbed landImage 4

Sketch outline of the position of the proposed development.3. The agent states 'An arboreal report has visited the site and confirmed there are no major treeconstraints.'This is not correct. There are Tree Preservation Orders on four of the 25-30 or so maturesycamoretrees.The failure to present this information is of material importance since the applicant's summarylettersays 'it is considered the proposals are compliant with the Development Plan and there are nomaterial indications which indicate otherwise. Accordingly, it is considered that planningpermissionshould be granted for the proposed development'.With the TPO's a constraint, this planning permission should not be granted without scrutiny.4. The agent says of the arboreal report. 'Some trees would have to be removed to facilitatedevelopment'.This is misleading.In the arboreal report, there is no Arboreal Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan. It seemsapparent from the plans that the scale of the building work would destroy or damage all of most ofthe root systems of the 24-30 trees in the wood and is therefore cynical to suggest that anythingotherthan the large-scale destruction of the wood is part of the plan.The applicant also says 'it is anticipated that a tree replacement payment would need to be paid tothe council'.This is not based on any accurate calculation of the environmental costs since the report is notcomplete. If it was, it would be apparent that the applicant would be highly unlikely to be able tofulfil their obligations to mitigate the damage to the trees and green infrastructure under DM17 andBSC9.5. A Bio-diversity Report has not been submitted. As local residents we have observed and enjoyan

incredibly rich variety of wildlife which is supported by the wood. There are masses of birds,insects, squirrels, slow worms, newts, and bats. The soil will be rich with mycelium. It is a wholeself-supporting ecological island.

The applicant has not done a biodiversity report as required by BSC15 and is of materialimportancebecause the application is not complete without it. It also suggests any case the applicant putsforward for environmental sustainability lacks integrity because it is not substantiated withevidence.6. Incomplete visual representation of the site.The applicant has only included photographs of the site taken looking towards ground level in aneasterly direction. It presents only a partial and unfavourable representation of the site and is

extremely misleading.Anyone looking at the images is lead to believe that the site is underused, unsightly, not seen andofno interest or value to the public or the neighbouring residents. Any serious appraisal would haveincluded photographs from the several, easy to access points along North Road, Bolton Lane, andtheCo-op car park, which point West, South and North.As it is, the relevance of this large collection of mature trees has been diminished in theapplication.Its destruction would completely alter the outlook, privacy and quality of my life and the lives of allthe residents whose gardens and views face towards the site. The impact on the ecology and theenvironment would be much more far reaching.7. The agent has ticked a box in the Application form for Outline Planning Permission with somematters reserved under the Town and Country Planning Act, to say that 'no new public rights ofwayare to be provided within or adjacent to the site'.The application outlines the Victorian alleyway that runs off Bolton Lane into the backs of the shopgardens as part of the site. This is established as emergency access to the leaseholders of Tescobutthere is no suitable public access to the development.Other objections:Loss of outlook, loss of privacy and loss of residential visual amenity:The applicant says the development proposals 'would contribute towards local character anddistinctiveness by retaining, enhancing and creating important views into, and out of and throughthe site as well as making appropriate use of landmarks and focal features and preserving orenhancing the existing setting of existing landmarks and focal features.'I strongly object to and disagree with this appraisal. From my point of view as a resident whowould be greatly impacted by this proposal, I can see nothing but the total devastation of the focalfeature and distinct character of this locality.I have lived in my house for 20 years, and the outlook from my kitchen diner is a dense greenislandof mature and semi mature sycamore trees. The skyline is a majestic green canopy all the wayfromthe Secret Garden on Bolton Lane to the co-op car park on North Road. Crows have been nestinginthe 75-100 high trees at the bottom of my garden for years.The trees are teeming with wildlife, and the air is full of birds and bird song. This ecological islandis the permanent backdrop to all of the houses and flats around its perimeter. The giant greenbackdrop of trees characterises the sense of place which myself and all the residents of thisuniqueneighbourhood share and enjoy. It is by far the most defining focal feature of our homes.In contrast, the layout and position of the proposed development and the resulting destruction of

woodland would inflict a drastic change to our outlook and view, totally transforming our privaterealm and our experience of living here.The proposed block of flats would be all encroaching, unpleasantly overwhelming and loom overus

out of nowhere as a brutish block of red bricks, three stories high with a flat roof. It would be

inescapably dominant and oppressive. The rest of the skyline would be blank. There wouldnothingfor us to look at other than it.What is more, having first destroyed the distinctive views of our locality and our outlook, theapplicant is then proposing to take our private realm and sell it on to the occupants of theproposeddevelopment as their very own 'important views', using our privacy as a resource.Urban designI strongly object to the design of the proposed development. I do not think it is in keeping withBSC21 on Quality Urban Design.The designs are preliminary so there is not much to comment on. But the outline design itself istotally out of keeping with the Victorian gardens into which it looks as though it has been plonkedfrom a height from an unspecified location on the edge main road. It is ugly, unimaginative andthere is no connectivity or reference points to the buildings around it.The buildings in this locality were built at different times from early to late Victorian and weredesigned by different builders and for different purposes. There have been some modernextensions,so there is a huge variety of roof tops, heights, chimneys, housing styles and building materialswhich make up a really interesting city skyline. So, when the applicant says 'a three storey, mono-pitch structure would be of a similar height' it doesn't mean it will look anything other than totallyincongruent. The next sentence reads 'Due to the back-land nature of the proposals, the buildingwould be largely screened from any views from the public realm' This seems to suggest theapplicant does not consider the design to even be important.The applicant says the floor area of the flats is to minimum standards. I would question whetherthey are to minimum standards for buildings over two or three storeys high?No heat survey has been done. The building will sit on a heat island with no shade and no breeze,baking like a brick oven and radiating heat into the surrounding locality. This is very relevant as theheat in summer becomes more extreme.I would also wonder how this oversized development build might inhibit other neighbours fromextending their own properties, given how much land and light it takes up and the proximity of thewindows to other boundaries.Loss of wildlifeGaps in the fences of the resident's gardens have created corridors to wild life. These creaturesare

part of our garden landscapes. They would lose their protection and habitat if the trees weredestroyed.

Loss of shade and flood defenceLast year's extreme heat created ground heave and cracks in the house. The trees createdinvaluabledappled shade in the late afternoon keeping my house and the ambient temperature cool.A single mature tree will soak up to 11,000 gallons of water a year. If all these trees mature overthenext 20-40 years, a rough calculation would suggest they could be soaking up over 250,000gallonsof water every year.With this amount of root system, I object that a flood survey has not been done to assess where allthis water would go. My garden and some of the neighbour's garden are significantly lower thanthe site. I also want to know how the ground would be affected all around the site. The rootsystemswill be huge and extend under my own and the neighbours gardens. I cannot see how significantground heave would not occur damaging properties all around.In the face of the unfolding climate catastrophe, I can't imagine a more efficient flood defence orcooling system, the loss of which couldn't possibly be replaced by a man-made block of flats.

Loss of noise mitigationMy house and those of these houses on North Road which back onto one of the busiest parts oftheGloucester Road are subjected to its constant and increasing background sounds day and night.Thisranges from the roar of buses, cars and police sirens, industrial generators, trolleys being pulledoutside Tesco, live music from the some of the pubs, loud music from DJ decks in private partiesfrom some of the flats and student houses, loud voices from the pavement and beer gardens ofthepubs and bars a few yards away in The Grace, The Cider Press, Industry and The Bristol Flyer,andthe sounds of drunken voices from all the bars and pubs along the Gloucester Road at closingtimewhich flows along Gloucester Road, and into Bolton Lane and North Road as people make theirway home.For most of the year, the tree canopy and the incredible bird song provide a foreground baffle tothisonslaught of city sounds making the stresses of living with so much noise more bearable.To replace this with a block of flats housing up to 30 people living in such close proximity with allthe additional noise that would create would make living here intolerable. It would generate tensionand resentment and corrode the fabric of our friendly and otherwise very tolerant neighbourhood.SustainabilityThe application says this type of flat 'will provide accommodation attractive to the growing marketof young professionals who are seeking to get on the property ladder or find accommodation in the

city which is subject to ever increasing prices.' This is speculation and includes an implication thatthese flats will be more affordable than elsewhere. There is no evidence to suggest either of thesethings is true. These cramped flats with minimal outside space, no parking, and 'close to bars,restaurants and shops of this central location' would be equally if not more attractive andaffordableto investment landlords wanting to turn them into easy to service air B&B's.Out street is in the top 10% areas of environmental deprivation in the country.These rare trees keep my house cool in extreme summer temperatures, the leaves pump outthousands of gallons of oxygen, and the leaves trap a huge amount of pollution protecting myfamily's lungs and the health of the whole community round this area of the Gloucester Road.Theyoffer a sense of tranquility and well-being in a highly polluted and noisy part of the city and are ahabitat for a huge amount of wildlife.This tiny pocket of secret woodland packs a huge punch environmentally and socially. I do notbelieve that the proposed development would be able to demonstrate a net gain in these areasand Iwould argue it is therefore not sustainable for future generations.Parking and road safety and accessI strongly object to this planning application on the grounds of insufficient parking and road safetyissues.The applicant argues that it is car free, because being so close to so many amenities, no-one willneed them and provides bike storage for 22 bikes instead. But all of the residents in St Andrewsalso live close to these amenities but still choose to have cars because they find they need them.Allthat will happen is that the new residents will park their cars in the neighbouring streets wherealready there is insufficient parking.If taken at face value, it would be dangerous for 22 cyclists to be mounting and dismounting theirbikes and crossing the busy pavement to get onto Gloucester Road, or otherwise cycling downBolton Lane which is a blind alley on a hill.

I can see no gains whatsoever from this proposal and believe it would cause irreparable damagetoour locality and environment leaving it an unattractive place to live.The NFFP 105b says 'planning policies should recognise that some undeveloped land canperformmany functions, such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, cooling/shading, carbonstorage or food production'. The residents have not put forward this piece of land as a designatedgreen space in previous consultations, simply through a lack of awareness of the mechanisms oftheprocess. But nature itself doesn't know whether it has a designation or not, and I feel this shouldn'tbe the criteria it is judged on here. Bristol has an ambitious nature recovery plan as well as anambitious plan for housing. I respectfully urge the council to make its decision on this previously

unexamined small patch of land in this context when weighing up the pros and cons of whether tosacrifice it or not.

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Image 4

This is already a densely populated area. The Gloucester Road has significant airquality issues and is already demonstrating signs of the cumulative impact of numerous foodservice businesses which contribute to poor levels of cleanliness and nuisance noise.The application would remove valuable, established 'wild space' which is currently mitigating noiseand pollution.The disruption and reduction of mature trees is not sustainable and would accelerate theackowledged local 'ecological emergency'. The area provides many homes and has seensubstantial increases in housing development added to local infrastructure and amenities. Thepursuit of building on every last sliver needs to be checked carefully.

1) It is highly likely that residents of the proposed flats will have cars, probably at a rateof more than one per flat. In fact likely to be 2-3 per flat if taken by students, to judge by what I seeall around me.

2) Parking is already a real problem for Brookfield Avenue residents (such as me!), except whenthe students are away.

My objection is based on the issues of loss of Privacy, Unsuitable Access, lack of rightof way, and Loss of Amenities / security issues. These things combined will also fundamentallychange the character of the area and I object to this also. I am a co-owner of a house directlyimpacted by this proposal.

The application seeks approval for Access, Appearance, Layout and Scale. I will explain howaccess is unsuitable, not correctly labeled on the form, and the impact of this specific layout andscale would remove the privacy of everyone around it which is a material consideration and one ofthe reasons that an application on this site was turned down before.

PrivacyThe previous application in 2005 - number 04/03140/F is easily obtainable from your own recordsand it is odd that the agent hasn't referred to the reason it was turned down. The reason given byyour officer for turning down an application for a house and 6 flats on that site was unacceptableloss of privacy. This has not changed.

The impact of an unrelenting roof on a three-storey flat roofed block, which will be able to look intoexisting homes on all sides, and likewise be viewed from all sides, is presented as sited down twoextremely narrow pedestrian access points. One is proposed to be made through the front ofGloucester Road in a shop front, the other being extremely long and unadopted by the council,down the side of 1,2 and 3 Bolton Road. There is no "right of way" between the application siteand Bolton Road. Therefore the answer "No", (on page 5 of the application form) to the question

"Do the proposals ... require the creation of rights of way?" is incorrect.

As stated the loss of privacy this development will cause is huge. The garden of number 3 iscurrently 100% private and secure. You will be removing this security entirely, and making it muchmore at risk of being broken into. At the moment, a gate is near number 3 which was erectedsome years ago to reduce the shops being broken into. This is now manageable.

I will send photographs separately of the view of gardens from the shed roof of number 3, whichwill depict the proximity of what is being overlooked and how this quite clearly is an infringement ofprivacy for several gardens and this is a major material consideration. In addition, the outlined'plant' depicted at the boundary with number 3 on the site plan provides an actual step into thisgarden, increasing the likelihood of making it insecure.

The materials for the proposal are described as 'reserved matter' but looking at the scale andlocation of the building, if it was built as shown with the windows where they are, combined withthis narrow access, the building effectively operates as a "panopticon".

In the application there is absolutely no mention of the buildings to the north of the site. This givesa misleading and non-explained loss of privacy that this plan would cause, which has beencompletely ignored on the submission. You will be able to see from one dwelling straight intoanother, due to the existing windows of 3 Bolton Road - this house ONLY faces south. There is noprivate living space in our house that faces in any other direction and so virtually all the space willbe visible by the living space of the proposal.

I respectfully draw your attention to the application made in 2001 for car-parking and an extensionon this site - application 00/03498/P That was also turned down. It has not been noted in theAgent letter. In it, a range of planting was described. I draw your attention to it because this currentproposal shows no mitigation has been made for an outlook directly into the private spaceinternally and externally of Number 3 Bolton Road. No mention has been made of this property atall. This is a house and garden which has a high amount of privacy because of the way it faces -this would be removed completely. Additionally, in the past, planning permission was granted for atwo story extension at 3 Bolton Road. This would be jeopardised if the bedrooms of flats 5 and 6looked in this direction.

The proposal shows flats 5 and 6 with oriel windows. The history of oriel windows is specifically for'a view'.

As the site has no public space around and only looks into gardens of 3 Bolton Road and severalgardens on North Road it suggests the intention of the proposal is to utilise the space and privacyof other people's gardens - they would no longer be private.

To compare - other flats nearby with rooftop space look into public realm e.g. on North Road (The

Old Fire Station) - or are not overlooked themselves and do not overlook others living spacebecause of their position - e.g behind The Grace. Given that this three story building rooftop willoverlook an unusual cottage garden - and at least three other established private gardens onNorth Road - seems a gross intrusion, contrary to planning guidance, as it would directly be usinga private and existing environment as a resource - with no way of offsetting the privacy that hasbeen taken. The applicant themselves says that the building has no relationship to the publicrealm - they are, by definition therefore, taking advantage of private space to create their outdoorspace and outlook. This is an infringement of our private space and outlook and cannot bemitigated.

I'd go further to suggest that the unique nature of the garden at number 3, known locally as thesecret garden, gives the potential for it to be photographed repeatedly by a higher turnover of flatresidents as their featured outlook - this could not be prevented and would be an unintendedconsequence. Socialising - implied by the inclusion of Juliet balconies and Oriel windows -explicitly takes advantage of other people's private space. The Juliet balcony on the eastelevation, and the rooftop terrace of flat 9, included in the proposal, is by definition intended toprovide new residents with space - and a view - by looking into the surrounding private space ofothers. This impact on people's lives - being looked at in their private space is irreparable.

Other flats in the very nearby area all have made significant efforts with windows that has not beenshown here. For example, Gloucester Courts had to make many adaptations to their design sothat it didn't infringe on others, and the host building was a pre-existing warehouse - which didn'thave any windows. The Old Fire Station has private balconies but these look out onto publicspace. The flats at the end of North Road have frosted windows. No such care has been taken inthe submission here.

I am sending photographs of how the windows of flats 5 and 6 will look directly into the livingspace, bathroom and bedrooms as well as garden of number 3 Bolton Road.

There is a complete lack of any mention of the impact on the plans with the boundary of number 3Bolton Road. This is really odd - no information is included about how the proposal would createprivacy and security for this existing dwelling.

AccessThe path to the site from Bolton Road, historically an area where anti-social behaviour can amplify,becomes an exacerbated rat-run for crime. This is kept at bay currently because it is NOT a cutthrough and the gate halfway down is locked. The residents deal with issues themselves and keepit at bay through community neighbourliness. It prevents shops and residences being broken into.

Access to this site is totally unsuitable because of the unique siting down Bolton Road which hasnot been considered. I'd like to draw your attention to historical matters that have caused this. Afew years ago, when the site of the old Peacocks was developed, the access was shored up down

the side of that building from Gloucester Road side. This meant Tescos lost their fire-escape routefrom the back of their building to the front, and when it was realised they wanted to use the accessdown the path identified to join up with Bolton Road. As an emergency measure this was grantedwith the restriction it was emergency fire drill access only, and for Tesco while they rented thestore only. In practice, this has never been used and this is not for general use. Opening this up asan access then means that the boundary of the garden at number 3 has no security. This would beexacerbated by the 'plant' outlined on the plan, which would provide a physical STEP into ourgarden.

To create a permanent access down the side here from Bolton Road, in conjunction with transportissues, will create an issue I will outline here. This is a narrow path, with original Victorian tiles.The path is uneven. I assume that it would need to be lit, in order to make it safe for people totravel down it. This is going to be a dramatic change and will completely change the way that thehouses down here feel - it's currently completely dark at night, down the side of the garden. It willnot be possible to make it safe to walk down the path, with bikes being cycled down it - youcouldn't legislate for people to not do that. And, with the advocation of the cycle racks in the site, itis expected that people would have them. So a security issue - it is dark and currently locked by agate - then has to be lit and changed. The proximity of the path to the bedroom of number 3 isliterally 3 metres as its next to the path. Changing the amount of people that walk down it is a hugeimpact on privacy, noise and more than likely light, which would no doubt be required.

The path cannot be widened because neither side belongs to the landowner or the applicant. Thismeans a narrow path, is expected to service numerous people safely. This is the only access to 3Bolton Road, 2 and 5 Bolton Road, and the flats behind the Fish Shop on Gloucester Road. It isalso not suitable for access needs or emergency services to get to the proposed site.

The proposed plot was originally a garden. The application letter identifies it as 'White Land'. As ithas been undisturbed the value of it as a nature haven has not been officially calculated andresidents have tried their best in the past to protect it with TPOs on the trees. It was suggested afew years ago the landowner do something for wildlife with it but this wasn't taken up. It is knownas the Sycamore Wood because of the way in which it has become established and a haven forbats and other wildlife. The gardens around it are extremely rich in slow-worms, newts, toads andan array of birds. It is dark at night - there is no light at all, which is probably unique for a city. Tointroduce housing here is going to remove that which is an irreparable change to the outlook for allof the surrounding homes. It can't be mitigated - it would not even be possible to plant enoughtrees on site to make up for those which would be removed because there isn't enough space.

Side-note - this area should be studied as a resource by interested organisations. As it is whiteland - and was not designated specifically to be developed - is it the case that this does not needto be judged simply on the presumption of favourable development in relation to the housing quotaas per DM2?

A loss of trees, which others can speak for in detail in specific objections like the Bristol TreeForum, are also a huge absorber of carbon and I respectfully suggest this will also become key inurban design that will be imminently adopted. The photographs from the application do not in anyway convey the number of trees on the site. There are over 20 and it's an incredible pocket ofgreen right now. This is a micro-urban wood, including bushes and smaller trees which means ahuge number of birds and other wildlife can inhabit and criss-cross up and down the area. This isso valuable. I am sending in an overlay of the proposal, cross referenced to the previoussubmissions in 2001 and 2005 for comparison. This gives an indication of how many trees wouldbe felled by the current proposal, compared to what was offered in 2001. The trees are now over20 years older and of considerable beauty, hence several TPOs.

Parking

The application says this will be a car-less site but you cannot stop people owning cars or controlhow they travel The neighbouring streets of North Road, Brookfield Avenue and Berkley Road willhave to absorb the impact of any new cars being parked. As it isn't a zoned area the council won'tbe able to restrict the residents by not issuing permits.

This is going to add pressure where it's already at stretched capacity. The idea numerous bikesgoing up and down the access route off Bolton Road is awful - this is the ONLY access to myhouse. Therefore I will be walking down a route extremely narrow with bikes regularly comingdown it. This is going to increase theft too. To then encourage bikes to go through the front accessmeans you'll likely have 20+ bikes on the pavement. This is not safe either. It damages an areawith a population that includes many older people. I will also not feel safe having to negotiate withnumerous bikes along such a narrow enclosed path.

Appearance / Design

Reading the guidance on the SPD, again noted in the Agents letter, I suggest that theirinterpretation of this guidance is grossly misplaced. Dense urban living is how flats are beingdesigned at developments such as Paintworks or Whapping Wharf - not in tiny back-gardens,such as this one.The pictures on your own council guidance documents reflect this, portrayingwhat a lay-person might expect to see with a block of flats in an urban environment. All thevocabulary of your document would guide an informed understanding in that way. I think it worthpointing out this isn't where a garage has been left empty, or a corner plot (such as the applicant'sother site in Kingswood) - its historical aspect and undisturbed trees have been preserved throughtheir unique undisturbed position. The space around has adapted to a micro climate through thepresence of the trees. It would be a brutal shock to change this. It is not previously developed land- nothing has ever been there.

The appearance is vague so we can only comment on a blockish shape put forward, which is notin keeping with the mixture of features that makes character pleasant and beautiful and in direct

conflict with the character appraisal of the conservation area, reliant as it is on largely terracedstreets and mixture of enclosed spaces. To say other buildings are of x height and use this asjustification for three storeys with a flat roof seems to poor evidence - not enough of a 'reason' todo it in a conservation area. There's a large old industrial chimney on the other side of the road -and a church.......so height is not the defining characteristic. A flat roof is very abrupt. There hasbeen no gesture to using appropriate materials reflecting the BEST of what is in the area, just thatit will be ... modern. Is that 'modern' as in post-war mid-century? or 'modern' like pre-fab clad unit?What does 'modern' in this application actually mean? And if this is not described with accuracyhow is it reasonable to expect to comment on things that will outlive everyone involved?

I'd like to respectfully draw Officials reading this plan to the guidance that came out last year fromMichael Gove. It says housing numbers are a guide and that you should not ruin the character ofan area in the process of building houses and that this guidance will feed into the NationalPlanning Framework as it is being reformed.

This guidance enables you to look at the character of a place and not stick rigidly to a housingquota, even under intense pressure to build homes. I would urge you to take note of the number offlats in the immediate vicinity also - Gloucester Courts, Bolton Road and book-ending both ends ofNorth Road - and consider that 9 units here, at full market value, will not contribute to solving thehousing crisis. Building something so substantially large on the unique nature of this site with itsvery unsuitable access, will do huge harm to the privacy of those around it, cause an array ofproblems due to the unsuitable access and irreparably damage the amenity of a pocket ofVictorian architecture. This would be a very poor trade off.

There is no beauty in this proposal at all. The way it has been put forward does not reflect thecommunity support which abounds here. In the council's own conservation area statement for thissection of Gloucester Road it notes developments should include community support - but no onehere was contacted and the poor quality information on the documents displays a distinctmisunderstanding of the area.

As a residential owner I could put in an application for a block of flats in my back garden which isa) big enough and b) already has a right of way attached to it - the applicant's proposal does not. Idon't understand how an applicant for an adjacent property, which hasn't got an indeterminateright of way to Bolton Road, thinks that trying to make something so unappealing and so dense insuch a tiny area is a good idea. It doesn't make any beautiful affordable homes, it doesn't create acommunity, it doesn't help the amenity of the area or provide good amenity space for the peoplewho will live in it - it's a boxy blob with no distinguishing features, at odds with either the Victorianbuildings to its north, the smart re-use of the existing building to its south and the elegant houseson North Road. There is no interesting design, its contribution to the housing crisis is negligible,the homes are cramped, and have no capacity to fit in with the existing neighbourhood. It is anapplication of little merit.

I live on Brookfield avenue and I am very concern by the parking space as well as thelack of privacy and deterioration of visual impact on my house. Parking is hugely difficult in thearea and adding flats would only stress this out. Also at the moment I can see the trees from mygarden. My understanding is that these trees will be removed to build the building and the viewfrom my garden will be very impacted by the project.

I am concern that this application will put further pressure on parking on North Road wehave mixed housing with a number of new developments of side road leading on to North Roadincluding HMOs Whilst I am general fine with them to date (Able Electrics and Venueredevelopments) This application will add greatly to the capacity of North Road and take awaytrees and green space.

Thank you for taking note of the photographs provided in support of my objection to thisapplication.I would also like to stress how important it is to visit this site as part of yourconsideration. It is difficult to describe the impact of this development on the outlook ofthe residents of North Road and surrounding streets including Gloucester Road withoutphysically seeing it.

Kind regards,

I object to the conversion of existing premises and building of flats at this location.

Loss of mature trees in a very built-up area. Loss of wildlife habitat and biodiversity. Loss of themwill also constitute loss of outlook for the houses on North Road behind the proposed site.

Trees are important to off-set the effects of climate change, such as flooding prevention andreduction of overheating.

The North Road residents already suffer a great deal of noise from the rear of Gloucester Road,and this will increase a) owing to the flats themselves; b) loss of trees which provide somescreening of noise from traffic and bars / cafes.

The development would impact the privacy of the adjacent North Road houses and gardens

No parking provision. This will not deter residents from having cars, but they will park on NorthRoad. We already have a terrible parking problem, and often have to park 2 streets away.

The bins and recycling boxes will all have to be put on the pavement on Gloucester Road, causinga hazard to pedestrians.

There appears to be an access problem for emergency vehicles at the rear.

Our area, especially North Road, is already very densely built up. Our street already containsmany flats and HMOs. There are parts of the city with a lower population density which shouldtake a greater part of the share of additional housing. The proposed site is not 'brown field' as ithas never been built on.

The site is described as unsightly but it is only visible by a few properties close by andthis is only an opinion of those writing the report for the developer. Traditionally the land was theback gardens for the owners who lived above their shops. It has never been developed in thisparticular area and is now a hugely beneficial woodland for the local community.

Access: The proposed access to the development is inadequate for the size of it. The access offBolton Road is not currently a public right of way and its current use is for the owners of theproperties on this road and the current leaseholders of the site have emergency use only.

The proposed new access corridor through the current shop footprint would be long and narrow. Ido not feel that this is an acceptable route to a property this size with the number of residents whowill be using it. There are security issues with who will be able to access this route which willimpact on any new residents, for the houses on North Road and the residents in the nearby flatsabove the Gloucester Road shops. There will be a large number of waste bins and bags requiredfor all the properties and I am concerned as to where they will be kept and how they wouldpotentially negatively impact on access down this corridor and on the pavement along GloucesterRoad.

Safety: I am concerned that the site is unsafe if there were to be an emergency, in particular a fire.There would be a large distance from the main road to the furthest point of the proposed propertythat could be catastrophic.

Nature: There will be a large number of trees lost if this site is to be developed. Several of thetrees in this site are covered by TPOs. There are significant benefits of trees in this area byhelping to offset air pollution, helping to disperse noise when in leaf, helping to prevent flooding,and the mental health benefits for many people who live within close proximity and those with aview of these trees. Removing these trees will go against the current climate emergency BristolCity Council has declared we are in. The addition of a building in this location will create anunnecessary heat island which would negatively impact on the other residential buildings in thearea.

There is a huge amount of wildlife which benefit from this woodland, using it as a nature corridor tomove around the locality. The bird song often drowns out the traffic noise from Gloucester Road.Wildlife includes bats, slow worms, newts, birds, foxes, badgers, hedgehogs, toads, damsel fliesand butterflies. There is no mention on how this level of biodiversity will be maintained orsupported.

Privacy: There will be a significant alteration to the outlook from the habitable rooms in myproperty. It will have an overbearing effect on us and create an oppressive living environment forus. This also has to be considered for any new residents if this development were to go aheadwhereby they would be overlooked from all aspects due to its proximity to the current properties onNorth Road, Bolton Road, Gloucester Court (student accommodation) and flats above the shopson Gloucester Road.

There will be a huge increase in light pollution at night from this development. This has alreadyoccurred from the development of the student accommodation at Gloucester Court. The largewindows and balconies will project a large amount of light into the habitable rooms of theonlooking properties.

Parking: Although bike parking is being provided in the plans there will still be an increase in thenumber of cars that require parking in the local vicinity. This will be in addition to local residentsand shoppers coming for the local amenities and St Andrews Park. There are already hugeproblems with inconsiderate parking on the streets surrounding this proposed development, whichcan affect how emergency vehicles and waste trucks are able to navigate the area.

I appreciate there is a need to provide housing in Bristol however I strongly feel that this is not anappropriate site for housing. It will not benefit the site or the local surroundings and previousapplications to build on this site have been rejected.

The site is described as unsightly but it is only visible by a few properties close by andthis is only an opinion of those writing the report for the developer. Traditionally the land was theback gardens for the owners who lived above their shops. It has never been developed in thisparticular area and is now a hugely beneficial woodland for the local community.

Access: The proposed access to the development is inadequate for the size of it. The access offBolton Road is not currently a public right of way and its current use is for the owners of theproperties on this road and the current leaseholders of the site have emergency use only.

The proposed new access corridor through the current shop footprint would be long and narrow. Ido not feel that this is an acceptable route to a property this size with the number of residents whowill be using it. There are security issues with who will be able to access this route which willimpact on any new residents, for the houses on North Road and the residents in the nearby flatsabove the Gloucester Road shops. There will be a large number of waste bins and bags requiredfor all the properties and I am concerned as to where they will be kept and how they wouldpotentially negatively impact on access down this corridor and on the pavement along GloucesterRoad.

Safety: I am concerned that the site is unsafe if there were to be an emergency, in particular a fire.There would be a large distance from the main road to the furthest point of the proposed propertythat could be catastrophic.

Nature: There will be a large number of trees lost if this site is to be developed. Several of thetrees in this site are covered by TPOs. There are significant benefits of trees in this area byhelping to offset air pollution, helping to disperse noise when in leaf, helping to prevent flooding,and the mental health benefits for many people who live within close proximity and those with aview of these trees. Removing these trees will go against the current climate emergency BristolCity Council has declared we are in. The addition of a building in this location will create anunnecessary heat island which would negatively impact on the other residential buildings in thearea.

There is a huge amount of wildlife which benefit from this woodland, using it as a nature corridor tomove around the locality. The bird song often drowns out the traffic noise from Gloucester Road.Wildlife includes bats, slow worms, newts, birds, foxes, badgers, hedgehogs, toads, damsel fliesand butterflies. There is no mention on how this level of biodiversity will be maintained orsupported.

Privacy: There will be a significant alteration to the outlook from the habitable rooms in myproperty. It will have an overbearing effect on us and create an oppressive living environment forus. This also has to be considered for any new residents if this development were to go aheadwhereby they would be overlooked from all aspects due to its proximity to the current properties onNorth Road, Bolton Road, Gloucester Court (student accommodation) and flats above the shopson Gloucester Road.

There will be a huge increase in light pollution at night from this development. This has alreadyoccurred from the development of the student accommodation at Gloucester Court. The largewindows and balconies will project a large amount of light into the habitable rooms of theonlooking properties.

Parking: Although bike parking is being provided in the plans there will still be an increase in thenumber of cars that require parking in the local vicinity. This will be in addition to local residentsand shoppers coming for the local amenities and St Andrews Park. There are already hugeproblems with inconsiderate parking on the streets surrounding this proposed development, whichcan affect how emergency vehicles and waste trucks are able to navigate the area.

I appreciate there is a need to provide housing in Bristol however I strongly feel that this is not anappropriate site for housing. It will not benefit the site or the local surroundings and previousapplications to build on this site have been rejected.

Poorly considered design for the given area. Parking is already a massive issue herewith people already struggling to park. This proposed plan has no provisions for parking although itstates it will be car free this won't be sustained and people will be free to purchase cars.

I wish to object to this application. There are errors in this application. The applicantstates that the site is in Redland Ward. It is in Ashley Ward. Also, the applicant states that the landhas previously been developed. This is untrue.

The application is providing cycle storage facilities, but no parking spaces for any of the flats.Therefore, flat owners would need to park in local streets. Roads around the site are already verycongested with parked cars. Indeed, a Gloucester Road trader has told me that she has needed topurchase a private parking space from a local resident because it is no longer possible toguarantee finding a space within walking distance of her business.

At the moment, there is no public access to the site as the small path from Bolton Road to the siteis not a public right of way.

I am a North Road resident whose house overlooks the site. The felling of the trees would totallyalter the outlook from our home and would also lead to a considerable loss of privacy.

If BCS 21 is taken into consideration, this application particularly fails on the first and fifth bulletpoints of that section of the Core Strategy. The felling of the sycamore trees, many protected byTPOs, will result in the loss of a sink for air pollution and a baffle for noise pollution. There will alsobe a loss in biodiversity.

I strongly object to this planning application on the grounds of parking issues as thereseems to be no provisions for parking space for the proposed flats. It is unrealistic to expect oreven make it a covenant that the owners must not own cars! It is nigh impossible to enforce that.Their visitors would also be looking to park their cars. As our street, Brookfield Avenue, is theclosest to these flats, it is certain that the new owners and their visitors would look to park theircars on Brookfield Avenue where we are already finding a space to park our cars is challenging.

I object to this application and the removal of a vital green space for nature in what isalready a very highly populated area.

There is also the issue of parking for residents which is already difficult in this area and on thesurrounding streets for existing residents and those using the shops on Gloucester Road

I object to this proposal for the following reasons:

Environmental. I would hope that BCC Planning is aware of the commitment BCC has made in theBristol Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) which sets out in paragraph:4.9.3 the importance of green infrastructure in creating 'improved townscape and landscapequality and visual amenity', and 'protected and enhanced biodiversity'.

This proposal seems directly counter to this. The idea of removing a green space from an urbanarea in this day and age is beyond belief.

As far as I can see, this application has not provided any biodiversity survey.

As far as the comment in the application that the site is 'unsightly', my response is - unsightly is avalued judgement; nature is as nature does, and it's not to please our senses. That's the"Capability Brown" approach.

Parking. Whatever the developers say, residents are free to own cars and park them wherever islegal.

Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan showing trees to be retained andremoved and setting out appropriate physical protection for retained trees during constructionworks: none provided as far as I can see.

Where are the pre-development tree surgery works?

Arboricultural Method Statement, where works are needed within the Root Protection Areas ofretained trees or where retained trees cannot be protected by standard physical means such asfencing and/or ground protection: where is that?

The proposed location of underground services is not identified. (In St. Andrews Park BCC do thatas a matter of course when planting just one tree).

As a local resident, I strongly object to the proposed development for a number ofreasons.

The intended felling of mature trees and disruption of a valued patch of green space is directly atodds with the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) which sets out in paragraph4.9.3 the importance of green infrastructure in creating 'improved townscape and landscapequality and visual amenity', and 'protected and enhanced biodiversity'. It will have a profoundlynegative impact on the surrounding residential and commercial buildings, both visually, and interms of the effects on biodiversity, and the benefits obtained from pockets of green space andmature trees, particularly in the context of climate change and increasingly frequent heatwaves.The lack of provision of car parking spaces will exacerbate the already dire problems in the areawith overcrowded streets, dangerous junctions, and difficult access for emergency and servicevehicles.I can't see any positive aspects to this development.

I would be concerned about further reduction of any green space or the felling of anymature trees in this area.

I am a neighbour of this proposed development.I object to this proposal because I feel that this is cramming in accommodation at too high ahousing density, though I am definitely pleased that this proposal is for 'proper' apartments ratherthan specifically student accommodation.Additionally, the provision of small shops in the frontage is also welcome.

Gloucester Road has an enviable selection of independent shops providing the localcommunity with a variety of food offerings. Not all of the local community can afford the cost ofsupporting independent shops and a supermarket walking distance from their home is a vital partof the weekly shop. Similarly not all of the community can visit independent shops during the moretraditional Mon-sat 9-5 opening hours. Removing a supermarket sized retail unit reduces thecompetition possible on glos road and risks prices rises effecting those who can least afford them.

The reduction of green space and removal of established trees within metres of one of bristolsmost polluted roads cannot be supported by any council with a stated aim of protecting theenvironment.

As a local Bishopston resident I wish to submit my objection to this proposeddevelopment, due to the plan to remove numerous trees some of which are subject to a treepreservation order. The impact on local flora and fauna would be detrimental in an increasinglybuilt up area, and having read the objections from the Bristol Tree Forum the submission hasfailed to fully consider the environmental impact.

Hi there,

I have attached some here. Photographs of a newt and frog, both taken in recentweeks. The newt is a palmate and there is a large population here. Also, a photographof slow worms taken last year (they are starting to emerge this year).We again seemany slow worms. There is a healthy population here. Unfortunately it is not easy tocapture the bats.

Thank you and kind regards,

Application Number: 23/00649/PSite Address: 171 - 175 Gloucester Road, Bishopston, Bristol, BS7 8BE

23/00649/P | Application for Outline Planning Permission with some matters reserved -Erection of 9no. self-contained flats (Use Class C3) with access, and associated cycleparking and bin storage. Approval sought for Access, Appearance, Layout and Scale.With all other matters reserved. | 171 - 175 Gloucester Road Bishopston Bristol BS78BE

Photos attached are of the tree line, ecological corridor and some of the trees underTPO7.1. Evening view SW from rear of North Road2. Evening view S from rear of North Road3. View from public access on Bolton Road4. Early autumn view SW day view from rear of North Road5. Early autumn S day view from rear of North Road

I thank you for your consideration and would recommend a site visit to properly assessthe proposal.

regards

Removal of trees:Gloucester Road has been identified as one of the top 10 most air-polluted areas in Bristol. As weall know, the council have been working to address this by bringing in the CAZ, to cut down on thenumber of vehicles polluting the city. Surely, with air quality so high on BCC's agenda, the fellingof 27 trees (4 of which have a TPO) is in direct opposition of clean air targets. The trees on theapplication site provide invaluable carbon capture for this neighbourhood and cannot simply bereplaced by planting juvenile trees elsewhere.

Wildlife:The removal of trees from an important wildlife corridor would be another backward step,environmentally speaking. This wildlife corridor provides important and attractive cover from theindustrial spaces at the back of Gloucester Road. Despite living in a city, we are entitled to retainsome green spaces.

I cannot see a completed biodiversity report as part of this planning application. A report isnecessary in order to assess the protected species in the area, habitats, ecosystem characteristicsand potential effects on food production for animals that these building works will have.

Sound amenity:The current woodland provides a barrier to the sounds of traffic along GloucesterRoad. Birdsong is a welcome respite from the sounds of the city.

Privacy and overshadowing of existing dwellings:The plans show that the new flats will overlook North Road gardens which would cause unwantedprivacy issues. Instead of looking out onto the current greenery, those houses will now seeconcrete.

Building and pedestrian access:The 1.5m wide proposed pedestrian lane will simply end up like the pre existing Bolton lane.People often graffiti, urinate, loiter in this lane, consuming alcohol and stealing from nearby shops.A new lane of this fashion would simply invite more of the same behaviour.

The access points to the proposed building site are tiny. Large lorries will be needed to delivermaterials to the site which will not only clog Gloucester Road (an important thoroughfare for thosetraversing Bristol) but it will also hinder pedestrian access to North Road from Gloucester Road.Similarly, the pubs and restaurants close to the site use Bolton Lane and this will disrupt theirbusiness if it is clogged due to building works.

Parking:There are already issues surrounding a lack of parking along North Road. People from outside thearea often park here and make it difficult for residents to find a space near their own homes. I seethere has been no provision for parking with the accompanying plans which will mean theresidents of these flats will be seeking yet more spaces along North Road. It is extremelyfrustrating not being able to park close to my own house.

Tesco Express:Access to convenient shopping locations such as Tesco Express is absolutely paramount whenBCC are cutting down on personal car use and cutting bus routes. If Tesco is forced out Co-op isour only other option within walking distance.

What's more, taking away grocery stores in this area will only ensure we as consumers have lesschoice and supermarkets can safely increase their prices knowing we have no other option. Thispoint must be considered in the current economic climate as we live through the cost of livingcrisis.

Lack of transparency from BCC:I am concerned that there was no notification of this application from the council. We were onlynotified due to a kind neighbour who alerted us to the application.

Good afternoon,

It has been brought to my attention that there are plans being put through to buildaccommodation at the expense of the local environment. I am strongly against thisproposal.

This proposal doesn’t take into account the characteristics of the site, the existing localarchitecture, the access and the community’s needs. The proposal shape itself couldbe argued as ugly and the design guidance has a requirement for beauty and thoughtfuldesign. I believe these have not been considered in the plans.

The proposal doesn’t respond or reflect the architecture or environment, as the removalof the trees and many windows overlooking all the gardens on North Road, BoltonRoad, Gloucester Road, are particularly an infringement of privacy to many people. Thiswill also increase the noise and pollution from Gloucester Road, as well as makingparking on North Road incredibly difficult, especially considering how bad it currently is.

My key arguments against the proposal are: It could be argued that it will negatively impact the wellbeing of the area where so

many trees, including several with TPOs, which create a buffer to pollution andsound on a main road.

 The conservation area (which is the shopping frontage) is served by the uniquecharacter of the residential areas that feed into it, and this would be damaged bythe removal of so many trees and infringed privacy.

 The access is inadequate for servicing and emergency vehicles.

 Previous applications have been turned down for privacy and access reasons.

I would like a proper site visit to be arranged, given my feedback (and that of others) tolook at the full extent of the number of trees and how many people this serves.

I strongly object to this planning application for the following reasons:1. Loss of sycamore trees which have a hugely positive environmental benefit, especiallyremoving the toxic pollutants from the busy Gloucester rd. Sycamores have a particularly highcapacity of transforming CO2 to oxygen2. Loss of green from surrounding housing - even from effingham road, the row of trees are abeautiful sight to break up an otherwise very urban area (this issue will clearly be far greater fromboth Belmont road and especially north road)3. Impact of additional housing on already high demand on neighbouring roads for parking (thereis no provision for parking in the plans)

Further to my comment strongly objecting to this application submitted using the onlineportal, I wanted to add a photo of the view of the development site from my upstairsfront windows. The photo is recent, so the trees are not yet in leaf, and they are evenmore attractive in summer. It is a joy to have some greenery like this in view from myhome, and the outlook I have would be substantially damaged if the current proposal isaccepted. The trees are also a valuable sound barrier from the busy Gloucester Road.

The homes nearby me on North Road benefit from similar views of the trees on theapplication site, as do homes on on roads between North Road and St Andrews parkwith the same line of sight. I believe the wide visibility of the trees should be taken intoaccount in deciding this application.

Dear Madam or Sir,

We are writing to strongly object to planning application 23/00649/P for the erection of 9 self-contained flats on 171-175 Gloucester Road, Bishopston, Bristol, BS7 8BE. However, before webegin, we would like to address the procedural injustice we have experienced with this application.We were not informed of the application by writing, and there have been no site notices, so wehave not been given enough time to make our objections. This lack of communication isunacceptable and undermines the integrity of the planning process.

Moving on to the substance of our objections, we have the following concerns:

1. Overbearing, overshadowing & loss of privacy: The proposed development directly backs ontoour property, will overshadow our garden, and greatly diminish our privacy, given that theproposed flats face directly into our bedrooms. This is at odds with planning document BCS21 -High Quality urban design - in that it disregards the privacy of residents on North Road, BoltonLane, and Gloucester Road.2. Community character and local area beauty: The current land is within the Gloucester Roadconservation area (BCS15 and 21), and the proposed development would not be in keeping withthe current buildings on either Gloucester Road or North Road. The proposed development wouldalso lead to a loss of visual amenity, sound amenity, and tranquillity in gardens (BCS23). Thesevisual and sound amenities support the health, social and cultural wellbeing of the area.3. Access and parking issues: We have concerns that the proposed access to the development is

insufficient for waste storage and disposal access on Bolton Road/Gloucester Road. Emergencyservices access will also not be possible due to the stand-off distance from either Gloucester Roador Bolton Road. Additionally, parking is already challenging in the local area, and the proposeddevelopment provides no additional parking spaces for the nine flats.4. Environmental and biodiversity concerns: The current woodland (including four trees that arecovered by a TPO) provides shade (and heat absorption) to all the south-west facing gardensalong North Road. Permitting this development to go ahead would be at odds with the citycouncil's own commitment to BCS9 Green Infrastructure Policy (and leaves no space forreplacement of the trees as required by BCS13). There are additional benefits from the presenceof the woodland in terms of absorbing air pollution from the Gloucester Road traffic. The currentwoodland provides a barrier to the traffic sounds of Gloucester Road, which is of great importanceto residential property inhabitants. The proposed development would lead to the loss of importanthabitats for wildlife, including bats, slow worms, newts, and a range of bird species. Thedevelopment would also remove several trees covered by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs),which provide important ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and air purification.This is in conflict with current planning policies which seek to protect and enhance biodiversity inthe area.5. Safety and security: There have been issues locally with criminal activity due to easy access tothe back of the properties on North Road (and the shops on Gloucester Road). In 2022, we had apaddleboard stolen from the back garden due to this vulnerability. The current planning applicationmakes no considerations of these risks.6. Traffic congestion: The proposed development would add to the existing traffic congestion onGloucester Road, which is already a busy road with significant traffic during peak hours. Theaccess point to the proposed development is located at a busy junction, which could create abottleneck and lead to further delays and congestion.7. Impact on local services: The proposed development would add to the demand for localservices such as schools, healthcare facilities, and public transport, which are already underpressure in the area. The impact of the development on the provision of these services has notbeen adequately assessed.8. Flood risk: The proposed development could increase the risk of flooding in the area. Theplanning application does not adequately address the issue of flood risk.9. Historic significance: The proposed development would impact the historic character of thearea, which is defined by a mix of Victorian, Edwardian, and inter-war architecture. The proposedflats would be out of keeping with the existing buildings and would detract from the historicsignificance of the area.10. Impact on the skyline: The proposed development would be visible from a number of vantagepoints, including from the nearby St Andrews Park and from the nearby residential streets. Thedevelopment would create a prominent feature on the skyline that would detract from the visualamenity of the area.

In conclusion, we urge the council to reject planning application 23/00649/P due to the variousreasons cited above.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours faithfully,Brenton Hague and Caitlin Harrison155 North RoadBS6 5AH

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Dear Madam or Sir,

We are writing to strongly object to planning application 23/00649/P for the erection of 9 self-

contained flats on 171-175 Gloucester Road, Bishopston, Bristol, BS7 8BE. However, before we

begin, we would like to address the procedural injustice we have experienced with this application.

We were not informed of the application by writing, and there have been no site notices, so we

have not been given enough time to make our objections. This lack of communication is

unacceptable and undermines the integrity of the planning process.

Moving on to the substance of our objections, we have the following concerns:

1. Overbearing, overshadowing & loss of privacy: The proposed development directly backs onto

our property, will overshadow our garden, and greatly diminish our privacy, given that the

proposed flats face directly into our bedrooms. This is at odds with planning document BCS21 -

High Quality urban design - in that it disregards the privacy of residents on North Road, Bolton

Lane, and Gloucester Road.

2. Community character and local area beauty: The current land is within the Gloucester Road

conservation area (BCS15 and 21), and the proposed development would not be in keeping with

the current buildings on either Gloucester Road or North Road. The proposed development would

also lead to a loss of visual amenity, sound amenity, and tranquillity in gardens (BCS23). These

visual and sound amenities support the health, social and cultural wellbeing of the area.

3. Access and parking issues: We have concerns that the proposed access to the development is

insufficient for waste storage and disposal access on Bolton Road/Gloucester Road. Emergency

services access will also not be possible due to the stand-off distance from either Gloucester Road

or Bolton Road. Additionally, parking is already challenging in the local area, and the proposed

development provides no additional parking spaces for the nine flats.

4. Environmental and biodiversity concerns: The current woodland (including four trees that are

covered by a TPO) provides shade (and heat absorption) to all the south-west facing gardens

along North Road. Permitting this development to go ahead would be at odds with the city

council's own commitment to BCS9 Green Infrastructure Policy (and leaves no space for

replacement of the trees as required by BCS13). There are additional benefits from the presence

of the woodland in terms of absorbing air pollution from the Gloucester Road traffic. The current

woodland provides a barrier to the traffic sounds of Gloucester Road, which is of great importance

to residential property inhabitants. The proposed development would lead to the loss of important

habitats for wildlife, including bats, slow worms, newts, and a range of bird species. The

development would also remove several trees covered by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs),

which provide important ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and air purification.

This is in conflict with current planning policies which seek to protect and enhance biodiversity in

the area.

5. Safety and security: There have been issues locally with criminal activity due to easy access to

the back of the properties on North Road (and the shops on Gloucester Road). In 2022, we had a

paddleboard stolen from the back garden due to this vulnerability. The current planning application

makes no considerations of these risks.

6. Traffic congestion: The proposed development would add to the existing traffic congestion on

Gloucester Road, which is already a busy road with significant traffic during peak hours. The

access point to the proposed development is located at a busy junction, which could create a

bottleneck and lead to further delays and congestion.

7. Impact on local services: The proposed development would add to the demand for local

services such as schools, healthcare facilities, and public transport, which are already under

pressure in the area. The impact of the development on the provision of these services has not

been adequately assessed.

8. Flood risk: The proposed development could increase the risk of flooding in the area. The

planning application does not adequately address the issue of flood risk.

9. Historic significance: The proposed development would impact the historic character of the

area, which is defined by a mix of Victorian, Edwardian, and inter-war architecture. The proposed

flats would be out of keeping with the existing buildings and would detract from the historic

significance of the area.

10. Impact on the skyline: The proposed development would be visible from a number of vantage

points, including from the nearby St Andrews Park and from the nearby residential streets. The

development would create a prominent feature on the skyline that would detract from the visual

amenity of the area.

In conclusion, we urge the council to reject planning application 23/00649/P due to the various

reasons cited above.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours faithfully,

I am strongly objecting to planning application 23/00649/P on the following grounds:

1. Overbearing, overshadowing & loss of privacyThe proposed development directly backs onto my property and will overshadow the garden, withthe proposed flats looking directly into our bedrooms. This would hugely impact our privacy bothinside the house and in the garden. This is at odds with planning document BCS21 - High Qualityurban design - in that it disregards the privacy of residents on North Road, Bolton Lane,Gloucester Court and Gloucester Road.

2. Community character:The current land is within the Gloucester Road conservation area (BCS15 and 21), and theproposed development would not be in keeping with the current buildings on either GloucesterRoad or North Road.Local area beauty: the proposed development would lead to loss of visual amenity, loss of soundamenity, and loss of tranquillity in gardens (BCS23) - photos emailed to support. These visual andsound amenities support the health, social and cultural wellbeing of the area.Note that the proposed application has misrepresented the location in the supporting documents.The proposed development is not in Redland Ward as stated in the documents, but in the north-west corner of Ashley Ward.Planning policy DM2 states: "Any development which will involve a reduction in retail floorspace(including storage/servicing floorspace) will be expected to demonstrate that the loss will not bedetrimental to the continued viability of the retail unit". The current Tesco Express on Gloucester

Road that would be removed by this application provides invaluable late-night grocery shopping amuch wider area than the planning application covers.

3. Access issuesWe have concerns that the proposed access to the development is insufficient for waste storage,and disposal access on Bolton Road / Gloucester Road. Emergency services access will also notbe possible due to the stand-off distance from either Gloucester Road or Bolton Road.

4. Environmental concernsThe current woodland (including four trees that are covered by a TPO provides shade (and heatabsorption) to all the south-west facing gardens along North Road, including my property. Thesustainability assessment within the planning application does not address this overheating risk. AThermal Comfort analysis report that considers future climate change should be prepared (as perplanning policy BCS13)The woodland area is home to a number of species including slow worms, newts, bats, squirrels,foxes, numerous species of birds including nesting jays. Four of the trees on the site are alsocovered under Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 7 (no preservation information has been included inthe arboricultural report). Permitting this development to go ahead would be at odds with the citycouncil's own commitment to BCS9 Green Infrastructure Policy (and leaves no space forreplacement of the trees as required by BCS13).As the trees are visible to the general public from at least Bolton Road (photo evidence emailed),there is also an argument for protecting them on the basis of positive community benefit. Thereare additional benefits from the presence of the woodland in terms of absorbing air pollution fromthe Gloucester Road traffic.

5. Parking issuesParking is already challenging in the local area (many Gloucester Road traders use North Road topark during the daytime, making access for residents difficult), and the proposed developmentprovides no additional parking spaces for the nine flats. Expecting all residents of these propertiesto not own or require a vehicle of their own would not be realistic.

6. Noise PollutionSound amenity - the current woodland provides a barrier to the traffic sounds of Gloucester Road,and it is also noticeable that birdsong can provide some additional masking.

7. Safety and securityThere has been an issue in the past with criminal activity due to easy access to the back of theproperties on North Road (and the shops on Gloucester Road) - I had a bike stolen in 2008 fromthe back garden due to this. The planning application makes no reference to these aspects.

Please consider a site visit to assess the situation before making decisions on the application.

This objection focuses primarily on these planning issues - privacy, access, design, lackof local context, poor information on the planning which makes the application misleading to readand damage to existing landscape.

Policies particularly pertinent to it are BCS9, BCS13, BCS15, BCS21,BCS22, BCS23.

Privacy

This application did not address the loss of privacy to all concerned and this forms a major part ofthe objection submitted. The proposal has not noted the extent that it will look over all thesurrounding gardens and into the windows. The application does not show that this will lookdirectly into 3 Brooks Cottages, Bolton Road, which is not acknowledged it as part of thegardens/properties affected, yet the build would be at the boundary of this address. Siting theseflats within this area will significantly impact on the liveable environment of all the gardens of allthe residential dwellings around it. This proposal is far too big to maintain the privacy of thoseaffected - a three floored building, with rooftop terrace will create too much overlooking from flatresidents into every garden already there.

In the letter the Agent writes that the scheme has been designed to avoid any undue loss ofresidential amenity to neighbouring occupiers east on North Road and west on Gloucester Road. Itmakes no mention of the house or garden at Bolton Road, which will be on the boundary of theproposal and directly overlooked, contrary to policy BCS21 point 4.21.13 and would cause

distress.

The proposal directly overlooks numerous gardens on North Road as well as looking directly intoflats on Gloucester Road and on Gloucester Court. This would be in direct contravention of CoreStrategy policy BCS21. Many inhabitants have lived here for decades and it seems that this doesnot take into account those needs.

A previous application 04/03140/F was refused in 2005 stating that those proposals posed anunacceptable loss of privacy - there is no difference between the loss of privacy that would becreated should this new proposal go ahead.

The lack of retention of the trees in the proposal does nothing to tackle the challenges of air qualityand environmental concerns and does affect the locality. The trees can be seen from public land -they are visible from the end of Bolton Road and North Road as well as from Gloucester Court andhigher up the surrounding roads of St. Andrews. The noise of Gloucester Road, especially pubs atnight - and the recent inclusion of student living behind - is significantly mitigated by the presenceof those trees and has kept the feeling of the pleasant and quiet residential area that is so valuableto the thriving primary shopping area. The breadth and beauty of the canopy is extensive andcreates a hugely important sound and visual barrier which is being proposed to be removed. Giventhat several of these trees have TPOS they are already noted as having significance for this area.The study of it has not been in-depth enough to reveal the full quantity or quality of theenvironment and the wildlife that exists there.

There are two previous applications for this site but only one is noted on this application form -04/03140/F. This was refused on 13 Jan 2005.

However, another application from 2001- 200100/03498/P was also refused on 7th September2001.

In the 2001 application the proposal for an extension and car parking included significant plantingaround the perimeter. This application was refused. A later application was refused with detailednotes.

It is of relevance and easily obtainable. It is germane to point out that the Agent has not done so.

In it, the refusal said The proposed development, by reason of its siting, layout, scale design andoverall appearance would result in a development which has little regard for the local context andas such would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. Theproposals are therefore contrary to policies B1, B2 and B5 and B8 of the adopted Bristol LocalPlan.

The current Core Strategy says New Development should incorporate, or contribute towards, the

provision of an appropriate level and quality of open space. This current application does not dothat. It removes a much needed buffer to existing residents from noise, traffic and pollution,making a central urban location pleasant to live in. This removal will be of extreme impact to themental health of the existing residents who have had no habitation at the bottom of their gardenspreviously. To say this area is 'unused' is to ignore that it is used as a sound barrier by all theresidents and a wildlife refuge which houses bats (seen), owls, nightingales amongst many othertypes of wildlife (slowworms are evident on the boundary, for example). It has been left to growshabby by the current occupants, but that should not be taken as a reflection of what it could be bya different occupier.

The assertion a three storey flat/mono-pitch structure would be of a similar height to buildingsaround it is wrong. It does not take into account the nearby adjacent dwellings, many of which aresmaller than the proposal, especially the immediately adjacent cluster of Victorian cottages of 1, 2and 3 Bolton Road. It is wrong to state the building would be largely screened from any views fromthe public realm as all residents are members of the public and will see it constantly. It does nothave a private / passive back, as per the requirement of the Core Strategy policy BCS21.

There is no mention in the application of the oppressive impact that this would have to the north,but this proposal will be looking straight into the windows outlined on the plan's northern aspect.Please undertake a site visit to see the full extent of this proposal - a garden known locally as 'thesecret garden' will be overshadowed and lose light from the permanent brickwork proposed at the3 floors on the boundary to this garden - and be overlooked directly by several large windows,juliette balconies and the rooftop terrace. No shadow report has been submitted. A large buildingwill be oppressive and ruin the privacy of this garden and home - the windows of this building onlylook in one direction - towards the proposed development. The plan shows that a bedroom of oneof the flats will also look straight into the bathroom and main living space of 3 Brooks Cottages,Bolton Road while the garden will be overlooked by several of them - this was noted on the sitingof the windows in the initial plan, and this is unsuitable to maintain privacy for existing residents.

In the core strategy it says a "high quality built environment should consider the amenity of bothexisting and future development. Consideration should be given to matters of privacy, outlook,natural lighting, ventilation, and indoor and outdoor space'

To summarise on this point - this proposal would cause irreparable damage to the privacy of theexisting residents on North Road and Bolton Road with the overlooking from a large block of flats,contrary to Policy BC321.

Access

The application notes two pedestrian accesses and cites the existing rear access lane whichconnects the site outlined to Bolton Road. The access lane adjoining Bolton Road, is completelyunsuitable for use by a block of flats. Tescos only have fire emergency access.

This access path (unadopted) connecting to Bolton Road itself is not in itself wheelchair accessibleand would be inappropriate access for residents with any access needs, or the general public.

This is not inclusive. The residential properties this lane directly affects are four residentialdwellings (Brooks Cottages 2 and 3, the flat at 5 Bolton Road and the flat at 183 GloucesterRoad), whose only access to their homes is via this lane. An increase in pedestrian access willnegatively impact security, noise and privacy for existing residents with bedrooms adjacent to thelane.

The lane from the Bolton Road end, all the way down to the access of cottage number 3, iscomprised of original Victorian brickwork typical of the area. It creates the unique and importantcharacter that stops it from looking dull and boring. This lane is also still in the conservation areaand provides the only access to 4 residential properties. This is something that would be underincreased damage with more use it is not intended to serve. It was not designed to support a blockof flats.

Emergency access would be under real duress to reach the top floor of a block of flats down aVictorian tiled lane, which is part of the special nature of this part of Gloucester Road and not inline with safeguarding the amenity of the host premises and neighbouring occupiers DM30requirement of Policy BCS21.

There is no vehicular access through from one side of Bolton Road to the other. This is notapparent on maps but it doesn't stop people who are unaware occasionally trying to drive down itand getting stuck. A block of flats with this as one of their designated access routes wouldincrease this likelihood and this then makes it unsuitable for pedestrians.

Design / Access / Servicing

In relation to Core Strategy policy BCS21 / DM27 the local plan says development should clearlydefine the public realm while securing the private realm. This proposal fundamentally does not dothat. The proposed narrow and unsuitable access makes it insecure and difficult to manage, andruins the private realm of all the dwellings around it. It also does not establish a coherent andconsistent building line in relation to anything around it as this does not relate to anything aroundit.

It destroys existing development levels of privacy, outlook and daylight and does not take intoaccount the possibility for future extension further reducing the privacy of those around it (roofterraces all around the perimeter, for example).It does not enable the provision of adequate appropriate and usable servicing where necessarybecause of the inappropriate access - there would be a huge number of bins and recycling whichwould be unsuitable. This is similar to the previous application 04/03/14/F, where it was noted then

in that application as contrary to the policy of the Bristol Local Plan M1.

Policy BCS23 states development should be sited and designed in a way to avoid adverselyimpacting upon the environmental amenity or biodiversity of the surrounding area by reason offumes, dust, noise, vibration, smell, light or other forms of air, land, water pollution, or creatingexposure to contaminated land.

This development proposal however will definitely adversely affect the environmental amenity andbiodiversity of the area with light, noise and vibration - the current ecosystem is full of birds whichare audible and keep the sound of the city at bay. This unique buffer will be irreparably lost. Thesetrees do a huge service in reducing pollution. It has not been understood how many trees thereare in the area (over 20) several with TPOS. The photographs on the application are completelymisleading, taken from an angle so as to minimise the effect from the back of Tescos. Anassessment of the impact on the special character of the area was not done and it was presentedas if it was unsightly. However, this is not the case.

Photographs of the trees will be emailed directly to the Development Team address and should belooked at, and a site visit should be carried out to fully appreciate the existing pocket of greenerythat is there. The proposal adversely affects this area, contradiction to policy BCS23.

In DM30 it also says extensions should be physically and visually subservient to the host building,including its roof form, and not dominate it by virtue of their siting and scale. I would argue thatrequiring the existing building will be, in effect, a host building, and it will be dominated by thesiting and scale.

This proposal is also not in harmony with the Design Guide of Draft Policy DC A2...for the futurewhich states Delivering well-designed, inclusive places new development should enhance thesurroundings and have an attractive and distinctive identity.

There are many aspects in these guidelines which have not been answered by the proposal andseem in contradiction to policies on design, servicing, privacy and the related policies on climatechange, biodiversity, health and wellbeing.

A further objection is made to this outline proposal on this basis - what is described offers none ofthat. Referring to the Placemaking Charter, of which Bristol City Council is a partner of, the sharedvision is intended to bring health, happiness and quality of life to a future ready connectedbiodiverse characterful healthy and inclusive environment. This proposal is in contradiction to thisvision: it will ruin the existing biodiversity that has not been assessed in the application, whilecreating an environment of detriment to the privacy, health and happiness of existing residents. Itis therefore not a future-proof design.

Further objections on the Design

The emphasis in the core strategy is in favour of planning for brownfield sites and infill where"urban character, form and design in well-designed, connected, healthy and accessibleneighbourhoods which achieve a liveable environment". But the proposal offers none of this.

It is overbearing in scale for the size of plot, had has little accessibility shown. Buildings like thesewill outlive all those commenting and planning now - and this outline design is limited andunimaginative. The use of the word "modern" is irrelevant - that could mean anything and shouldnot be taken to mean well-designed. An objection is made to this oversized block that offersnothing interesting or good quality in the area, but increases stressful living conditions for allconcerned.

Your own guidelines state that new development in Conservation Areas should "consider theheight, scale, proportion, and alignment of the surrounding traditional buildings, and have regardto the existing density and patterns of development" and "In order to successfully integrate newdevelopment into the environment, it is necessary to have a knowledge and understanding of itslocal context, i.e. the visual and functional characteristics of that area".

There is nothing in this outline application that supports this having being done. The local planstates new buildings should fit in with the older buildings and areas around them, be designed tohelp people to get on well together and be good for everyone, including people with disabilities.This proposal does none of that. The Core strategy documentation states: New development inBristol should create or contribute to well-designed places. To be considered well-designed,development will be expected to:

- deliver high quality, beautiful, safe, healthy and sustainable buildings and places.- be liveable, providing a safe, healthy, high-quality environment for future occupiers.- be neighbourly, safeguarding the amenity and sustainability of existing development.- be inclusive, providing for equality of access and opportunity in its layout and design.And concludes that development that is not well-designed will not be permitted.

The flat roof in the design is offered as a plus, but it does nothing except provide an unrelentingview to all existing residents looking at it, which will reinforce the inappropriate scale in relation tothe existing buildings that look onto it. This seems especially egregious when it requires theremoval of so many trees providing harmony, variation and beauty. There is no mention ofanything in the outline such as a green roof in the existing design and therefore this objectionnotes that this proposal is not intending on offering anything truly sustainable.

The Core Strategy states that Community engagement will be expected at the pre-applicationstage in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement. However, as this applicationwas not able to be submitted at the pre-application stage this was neither attempted nor has takenplace.

Lack of Local Context + Health

In relation to BCS22 Conservation and the Historic Environment along with the requirement forimproved mental and physical health of local communities the detail on Green infrastructuredemands access to good quality recreational places and spaces, encourages active travel alongcycle and walking routes, provides space for community activities and interaction, reduces noiseand water pollution, improves air quality and also allows access to natural areas of space andwildlife.

Referring to DM15 and the Green Infrastructure notes, in tandem with "The Health Impacts ofDevelopment" it is noted development with unacceptable health impacts will not be permitted. Theimpact of this proposal will negatively impact the lives of those around it to a large extent due tothe loss of the visual protection and the noise absorption of the trees so close to a main road, andthat the removal of so many trees is in direct contravention of policy BCS9. The asset of more than20 trees is irreplaceable in the area and the calculation of the number of trees to be replacedmakes it un-viable to actually replace them. There is also a concern about the amount of waterthat would not be used by the trees in the area, and could increase the risk of flooding (refer topolicy BCS13).A Daylight / Sunlight Assessment has not been done, which would assess the impact of theproposal on all of the adjoining properties and gardens which would show the huge loss ofdaylight/sunlight with a permanent brick structure of an oppressive and unrelenting size. This isanother reason to object. This would reveal exactly how much the impact would be on thesurrounding area - it has not been done.

Furthermore: poor information & lack of local knowledge

It is stated on the application that the existing building is currently rented by Tescos; of note is thatthe floor above the Tesco shop is currently rented as a flat (175) and is occupied. This is notincluded on the application.

The application form itself notes that Tesco store is Class E and vacant land; Class E usersbenefit from permitted development rights that include flats. The building does indeed make use ofthis as the current premise at 175 Gloucester Road including at least one flat. The proposalincludes separating buildings facing onto Gloucester Road, but no detail has been included intotheir usage. If it were to include the existing flat above the retail area, this would place the numberof dwellings in the entirety of the site to more than the nine total outlined in the block at the rear. Itis reasonable to assume the applicant will include this as it exists now, but it has not been statedexplicitly. If this scenario were to be properly described at this stage, this would more obviouslymake this a "major application" requiring different consultation. It would also push the number ofdwellings in total up to 10, which would require an affordable housing criteria to be met. Theagents letter identifies the Affordable Housing Practice Note (2014) is of relevance to this

application, but does not include any affordable housing saying these units will all be MarketValue, therefore should not be relying on it to enhance their application, or be more specific aboutthe fact that it involves the development of more than 9 dwellings. In residential developmentsbelow 15 dwellings an appropriate contribution towards the provision of affordable housing may besought and draft policy should be considered on this requirement.

Additionally, the council's own current and draft guidance for the future notes that, "for thepurposes of this policy, major development is defined as development of 10 or more dwellings ordevelopment exceeding 1,000m² of other floorspace." As this site is noted as 1.2 hectares which is1200 metres square total, it is another example of why this site should be considered a majordevelopment.

An objection is made to this being pushed through as a minor application. A request is made formore scrutiny here.The application says it is not within 20 metres of a watercourse. However, historical maps show aculvert runs under the gardens nearby. The proximity of this large proposal to the boundary meansthat it would be well within 20 metres of this and risks damaging it which could lead to animpediment to the necessary drainage of this area and could be an offence under the LandDrainage Act of 1991. This lack of local knowledge suggests that not enough research has beendone. The amount of surface area which currently absorbs water would be lost.

The application fails to mention the four blocks of flats within 150 metres of the proposeddevelopment: two on North Road, one on Bolton Road, and its relationship to the building directlyto the south, Gloucester Court which consists of eight flats and eight studio apartments primarilyused for students and temporary occupancy. The application therefore demonstrates it has notconsidered the local context of the proposal. The presence of Gloucester Court means there arenumerous single-units of dwelling in that area which already has limited access, along with anumber of residential flats interspersed amongst the houses in North Road itself. A wide range ofhousing sizes therefore already exists immediately around the site.

The application itself states the site was not put forward in the Call for Sites process previously (p9of letter from agent). Taken in conjunction with the lack of identification of nearby flats, thisindicates the plan does not do what it says it is doing, i.e. providing something which isn't nearbyalready, because actually there is adequate provision in the locality. To not identify existing flats inthe area, the culvert, or have established permission for rear access on an original Victorian tiledpath, reinforces the fact that this proposal does not demonstrate a knowledge and understandingof the local context.

The proposal put forward is not neighbourly, it is not inclusive, it is overly dense, it is not beautiful,it is not healthy, it is not safe, it is not considerate, it is not accessible, it has no affordable housing,it will increase stress by removing privacy for existing residents.

A note on the splitting of units.Splitting units at the front to make them more suitable for market conditions is irrelevant to thepurpose of a block of flats at the back of the site. A trio of retail units can be split into individualunits respond to the primary shopping area, irrespective of a residential development. That shouldnot be given any weighting. The conservation area of Gloucester Road is focussed on shopping,and units can be split. The retail rental relationship to flats is moot. The application is not beingcompetently submitted with thorough local knowledge, which does not bode well for thedevelopment itself.

Finally

The Agent summarises with how their plan should be taken in the round. To respond:This objection also points out this is effectively creating a street where there is currently no street.It will have huge negative consequences, impacting on the existing environment. Currently thiscommunity is comprised of neighbourliness, a variety of housing types, privacy, security and long-standing inhabitants. All of these things combine to create the streets that feed into this being aconservation area, giving it the character noted worthy of preservation. The surround and thecommunity is what make it what it is - otherwise it's just a line of shops.

The delicate balance of all of this is jeopardised through an ugly, and non-inclusive proposal whichis in no danger of appearing on Grand Designs due to its lack of innovation and beauty,aggressively riding roughshod over things which are the core of what community is all about. Itsimply does not "safeguard the amenity of existing development and create a high-qualityenvironment for future occupiers".

Sustainable means more than putting in air-pumps and voltaic panels on a flat-roofed building offlats with no parking behind a shop in a conservation area, cutting down a huge number of treesand ruining everyone's privacy in the process.

Buildings are about the people who live in them and the communities they make, they are notsimply about square footage. This core principle is reflected in Bristol City Council signing up tothe Placemaking Charter and I urge you to consider the draft design policy as well as the existingone. Given that imminent design guidance is to be developed in partnership with localcommunities this proposal is particularly short-sighted and shows no care for the long-term futureof something which will outlive us all.

Importantly, this narrow lane is subject to a Covenant which is laid out in the copy of the official LandRegistry Document I have enclosed and I wish to point out some of its stipulations. I and the otherresidents of Brooks Cottages feel some of the conditions laid out in the document may already havebeen breached by previous building developments and are in jeopardy of further breach from thecurrent application at number 171-175 Gloucester Road. We would like the current application to berejected.

I ask that you read the document carefully to interpret and understand its original intention andstipulations.

We understand that the rights of access and passage granted to ourselves at number 2 Bolton Roadare as laid out in the registry document and are the same for our neighbours at No 3. However, therear entrances/exits of businesses in the form of restaurants and shops built over the years that faceour property and open into the lane may not automatically enjoy the same rights. In fact, it may bepossible that some of the businesses making use of the lane may not have rights of use or access atall. We would be interested to see proof of access in the form of a similar land registry document forthe existing business at number 171-175 Gloucester Road and the proposed planning application.Without these, we suggest that the planning application be automatically rejected.

Further to this, please see this extract of section 2 from the land registry:

Currently, businesses that back onto the lane often flaunt and are in breach at least in part, of thiscovenant. There is rubbish, mess, bins, food waste and noise and smells from open kitchen doors.Plus the nuisance of staff standing or sitting on beer crates while smoking, talking loudly during theday and late into the night, plus the all too common sound of loud talking on mobile phones. Anotherproperty and more residents can only compound these issues.

Already we have grounds to take action over both the “Public or Private nuisance” part of the extract.The granting of a planning application for further works would in itself constitute a private nuisanceand we would not tolerate in any way, the use of the lane for building and construction access. Anybuilding work which was to involve the intended use of the lane would be an immediate breach.

Loss of Privacy and Increase in Noise Pollution

It is clear from the statute statement and covenants in the land registry document that the originalintention was to preserve the rights of access to the cottages:

It even specifically states “Use and enjoyment of the property”. With so many proposed dwellingsthere will be a huge increase in footfall not only of new residents, but the comings and goings of theirvisitors, making a huge impact on our privacy and security. We also believe that the quietatmosphere of this secluded spot will be hugely impaired.

ConservationBrook Cottages and the lane in front of them falls within the Gloucester Road Conservation Area. Thesurface of the lane is covered in Victorian brickwork, typical of the local area (an example being the

brickwork in front of Bishopston Hardware,Gloucester Road). This brickwork is very much apart of the character of the Victorian buildings andover the years, Bristol City Council officers havebeen well aware of the problems we haveexperienced where the brickwork has suffered notonly from an increase in footfall from thebusinesses but also their transportation ofindustrial sized bins to the Gloucester Road forcollection. The brickwork was not designed tocarry such weights and this has resulted inhorrendous inroads into the surface making thealleyway quite hazardous, particularly in the darkwhere there are only one or two security lights.

Waste DisposalTwo bin storage areas for the flats are outlined in the application but it is not made clear where thesebins will be transported to Gloucester Road. Will the lane and Bolton Road be used? Aside from thedamage to the surface of the lane outlined above, there are already too many waste bins beingsituated at the end of Bolton Road by residents and businesses, which often block access,particularly for the resident who has a parking space in Bolton Road. These bins promote fly tippingand we are regularly in touch with the Council to have fly-tipped waste material removed.

Security and SafetyOver the years, the lane has been used as a ‘rat-run’ for criminals trying to evade the police and it iswell-known to local police officers and PCSOs. Because of its secluded and dark appearance at

night, businesses such as Bakers& Co have been broken into withhigh-end explosive tools and theflats above 183 Gloucester Roadhave regularly been robbed,hence the installation of a lockedgate at the end of the lane toincrease security.If access is granted to theproposed development, the ‘rat-run’ is once again a security risk.

In summary, I strongly object to this proposed development on the following grounds and ask you toreject the application:

1. Access issues along a lane covered by a Covenant2. Loss of privacy and increase in noise pollution3. Conservation concerns4. Waste disposal5. Security and Safety

Yours Faithfully

Good evening,

Thank you for taking the time to look over my objection to the planning application. Ihave also attached several pictures from our back garden for your consideration. Thesepictures highlight the beauty of the trees and area, in contrast to the planning report,which only shows a ground level viewof the Tesco trolleys and waste to support theirargument.

Negative Environmental Impact (Bristol Core Strategy Policy/23 and BCS/9)This development adversely impacts upon an environmental amenity and an area of biodiversity.The development cannot proceed without the destruction of the "ecological island" of woodlandthat includes protected mature trees and constitutes a public amenity, being enjoyed by the localpopulation (the trees are visible throughout St Andrew's, certainly not just the back gardens ofNorth Road) as well as the environmental benefits so close to the highly polluting GloucesterRoad. This area is the habitat of a variety of wildlife such as slow worms, newts, bats, foxes aswell as providing nesting for birds and it also acts as a wildlife corridor. The trees form a barrieragainst noise pollution as well as absorbing carbon. We are at a loss to understand how in themidst of a Climate Emergency it can be proposed to destroy established trees that currently offermuch needed benefits to the area.

If these trees are destroyed we understand the developers have a responsibility to replant threetimes the number of felled trees within one mile of the site. Where are they going to do this?

We understand that supposition and conjecture cannot be used as reasons for objection but thedevelopers support their proposal by suggesting the occupants of the new flats will not own carswhich is patently absurd: the ownership of cars cannot be monitored or enforced therefore thisargument should be ignored. Most of the residents will surely own cars, some of the flats willprobably own more than one vehicle and all of them will be parking in an already highly congestedNorth Road (it's already frequently impossible for many residents in North Road to be able to parkin the road).

Lack of Privacy (BCS/21)If built this development with rob current residents in North Road of their privacy as it will overlooknot only back gardens but be in relatively close proximity to the houses themselves. The lack ofprivacy also applies to residents of the development itself.

Lack of AccessThe woodland area has never been built on (the area constitutes the back gardens of originalVictorian shops and dwellings on Gloucester Road). There is no viable access to the newdevelopment for emergency vehicles - Fire Brigade, Ambulances and Police - and the proposedaccess, a very narrow corridor from Gloucester Road plus access to Bolton Road via a narrowlane on land not owned by the developer - is inadequate for access by emergency servicevehicles, equipment and personnel not to mention the possible evacuation of residents at thesame time.

I object strongly to this application.

The applicant says the site is in Redland Ward. It is not. It is in Ashley Down. Furthermore, whilethe building will have its' façade on the Gloucester Road the bulk of the development is in StAndrews. This is a locally used name for this area which describes the original Parish of StAndrews which has its own distinctive character and vitality. We are a strong, vibrant, and healthycommunity.

This end of North Road and Bolton Lane also has its own particular community defined by itsshared views over, and love of, an area of immense beauty and biodiversity that has beenevolving for well over 100 years. This has been made possible because of the layout theGloucester Road, North Road, Bolton Lane, and the Co-Op, making a four-sided enclosure. Thishas given nature an opportunity to evolve largely undisturbed for well over 100 years, creating anincredible island of biodiversity in the middle of the city.

The patch of vegetation and trees which the applicant refers to are briefly referred to, are 25-30mature, semi-mature and early mature sycamore trees. Their branches and canopy form abackdrop, which combined with the varied trees in the back gardens of North Road, produce aview, which contrary to being 'unsightly' is stunningly beautiful. It has the effect of a secret naturereserve or small woodland and the views produce spectacular seasonal changes, incredible colourand moving patterns of shade and light. The connectivity between the sycamore trees on the siteand the trees and vegetation of the gardens have created a wildlife corridor, attracting a huge

number of birds, animals and insects, creating an ecological island of biodiversity. There arecurrently nesting Dunnocks, nesting wood pigeons, nesting crows, nesting blue tits, and magpies.There are jays, bats, owls, slow worms, hedgehogs, frogs, and squirrels, foxes and sometimesbadgers. As well as butterflies which are plentiful, there will be millions of insects, along with vitallyimporatant fungi and bacteria.

The applicant says the development proposals would 'safeguard' the setting of the Conservationarea.

This development is set in the centre of this piece of historic green infrastructure and woulddamage it irreparably and destroy the habits of a huge amount of wildlife. The applicant says aninitial ecology survey has been done which has not been published with the application. A fullwildlife AO5 license has not been applied for.

Furthermore, the setting includes our community and our need for open spaces.

Around the perimeter, the immediate enjoyment of the view of this incredible natural asset isbenefited the 27 or so houses on North Road and Bolton Lane, the people who live in the flatsover the shops on Gloucester Road, and the people who frequent the cafes and pubs withgardens at the back. Further afield, because of the topography of the area being low, the canopiesand long-standing crow's nest, can be seen from the front windows of the houses on the other sideof North Road, and from many places on higher ground, as far away as Cranbrook Road.

The developer describes the site, as 'unsightly' and 'underused'.

In image 4, 5 and 6, the photographs are looking East and focus primarily on the Tesco store andemphasises the unsightly nature of it at ground level. However, there are no views to the South,West or North or at roof level.

Those who have lived on North Road for over 50 years or more know trees have always beenthere. In fact, there are trees marked up on this site on maps from the 1880's. They are a part ofthis community's heritage. There have never been any residential or industrial buildings on thissite.

Rather than being 'underutilised', the community capitalises on this piece of green infrastructure inmultiple ways, providing mitigation from the devastations of climate change which is part of theBSC9.

The application is claiming a 29% reduction in carbon dioxide to get 68kg a year. A single maturesycamore absorbs between 20 and 40 kg of carbon dioxide on its own in a year.

Our houses face west, and during the extreme temperatures of last summer's heat wave, they

provided vital shade. Any development here would bake in the sun and increase the ambient airtemperature.

The environment agency ought to be invited to assess the flood risks of tarmacking over a vastarea of root system which currently soaks up huge amounts of water.

The trees also act as a giant air filter, trapping huge amounts of extremely harmful pollutionparticles in air. We live in very close proximity to one of Bristol's busiest roads, and our communityneeds this protection.

The area of trees also effectively protects the residents from light pollution of the city. Thedevelopment and all its windows would increase our light pollution greatly. Photographs that showthis will be sent to the Development manager.

This area of trees acts as a giant visual screen to residents on North Road against the backs ofshops, flats, cafés, pub gardens and bars, and them, from us.

It acts as a sound buffer against the huge and ever-increasing amount of noise pollution during theday from traffic, loud voices, loud music and antisocial behaviour which can emanate from theGloucester Road.

This tranquillity has value not just for its own sake but it greatly reduces stress for the residentsand helps us to stay tolerant of the intense traffic, the daytime business and night time economysounds of the city and all the people who visit it, and it is a vital part of what makes this a friendlyand open community. This is one of the remarkable distinctive features of the area, that despite allthe pressures on it, it remains a delicately balanced eco system of residents, visitors andbusinesses.

What is also threatened is the sense of well-being and gratitude which comes from being near somany trees and elicits a sense of stewardship amongst the people who consider them an integralback drop to their life story and community. Our shared attachment to them and the extraordinaryway we can enjoy beauty at the same time as be in the middle of this brilliant part of the city issomething that bonds us all. It is the backbone to our sense of place.

Everything in our world is collapsing, there is violence everywhere. And yet something about thetrees brings a sense of restoration, permanence, and continuation. Hope, probably - something wecan hang onto that is benign and essentially good. It is well proved that living near green spacesmitigates against depression and bad mental health, and all the stresses that everyone, adults andchildren feel increasingly under.

Not only would the loss of the trees be devastating in itself, but to be replaced by a development ofthis scale, proximity and placement, in this setting, is barely comprehensible.

Unlike the new student's accommodation in a converted warehouse, and the additional studenthousing next on the Gloucester Road where it blends into the space appropriately as a modernextension, this development it is entirely out of keeping with its setting. It would look unattached toits surroundings, a big alien block dropped completely out of context into what is essentiallyhistoric residents back gardens, with no reference points to bed it into its' environment.

Aesthetically, it is of no merit. It looks like a cut and paste of a housing development off a ring roaddumped into this piece of ground because it fits the floor space.

It would be very oppressive, looming high and close over the houses, creating hard shadows.

Our privacy would be ruined by the windows, balconies and roof terraces. We would lose thedappled shade of the trees which would be replaced by deep shadows across our gardens andwindows. The applicant has not commissioned a shadow survey.

Housing up to 30 people, they and their visitors would create be a huge increase in noise levelsboth coming from open windows, roof terraces and patios, but also of people arriving and leavingon foot down the lane. Whether is it conversation, music or antisocial noise.

Puncturing a hole in the Gloucester Road would let in more noise from the street. With the loss oftree cover to baffle it all, the noise would become unbearable and extremely stressful.

This increased pedestrian access would open up ways for thieves to break into our gardens andhouses and which has not been addressed in the application and the Police should be consultedto assess the risk. Bolton Lane is already plagued with drunks and antisocial behaviour whichwould only get worse and the volume of pedestrian traffic going through this tiny lane could onlymake the lives of the people living there a misery.

There is no proper access for emergency vehicles which could have disastrous consequences forsuch a dense development.

The application says there are no tree constraints. In fact, there are TPO's on 4 of the trees. Inaddition, the DM17 requirements cannot be fulfilled because there is no site within a mile thatcould accommodate the volume of compensation. There is no space for proper landscaping orplanting schemes. They would be in hard shadow on the East and North sides most of the day sonothing much would grow.

The application has not mentioned the culvert which would be less than 20 meters away from thebuilding. The environment agency need to assess that.

The argument it is sustainable because it is close to amenities does not make this sustainable

housing in itself. There are a limited number of bus routes. If you don't want to go where they go,you will want a car.

You can't police whether people who have cars so nevitability of there being many more cars willmean there will be no-where for the existing residents to park in St Andrews. There is alreadysevere parking problems from the number of existing residents and visitors to the GloucesterRoad.

Young people working in Bristol running businesses and working in our industries desperatelyneed imaginative, well designed, affordable housing or else they will have to move away. Thesewill be unaffordable to most young people in Bristol. I do not believe it will effectively contribute toBristol's housing crisis. The existing flats above Tesco have not been included in the calculations.Is therefore more than a minor development and should mean some of it should be affordablehousing?

I am not convinced by anything in this application which would enhance the existing communitybut instead be a heart-breaking disappointment for the people who already live and work here andfor those who hope to settle here in the future.

Previous planning applications 04/03140/F and 2001- 200100/03498/P were refused on thegrounds of loss of privacy, and a lack of regard for the local context and cause harm unacceptableharm to the character and appearance of the area.

This development will be of benefit for very few people, and degrade the appearance, social fabricof the community, and drastically damage the environment.

It is debatable whether business on the Gloucester Road will benefit. Some may, but others maybe harmed by the change of demographics and as existing residents who have been their regularshoppers for years are pushed away.

It is not a well-designed, beautiful place. It does not support a strong, vibrant, healthy community,and it will not make us safer.

It will cause devastation to the environment. So, on two counts, very likely three, there will be netloss and therefore is not a sustainable development.

Finally, I want to ask what inclusion is there in this for the future generation to have their say?Many children live in this area. What is the point of teaching them about climate catastrophe andsaving the planet, if we then expect them to witness the grisly destruction of so many trees andhabitats of so much wildlife by chain saw. To build housing that is will not be affordable for themand destroy their sense of home. It would be a complete betrayal of their trust in adults to lookafter their future.

It is an extremely insensitive design proposal which shows utter lack of regard for the area and itsinhabitants and neither will it increase its attraction to new comers or visitors.

I object strongly to this application.

The applicant says the site is in Redland Ward. It is not. It is in Ashley Down. Furthermore, whilethe building will have its' façade on the Gloucester Road the bulk of the development is in StAndrews. This is a locally used name for this area which describes the original Parish of StAndrews which has its own distinctive character and vitality. We are a strong, vibrant, and healthycommunity.

This end of North Road and Bolton Lane also has its own particular community defined by itsshared views over, and love of, an area of immense beauty and biodiversity that has beenevolving for well over 100 years. This has been made possible because of the layout theGloucester Road, North Road, Bolton Lane, and the Co-Op, making a four-sided enclosure. Thishas given nature an opportunity to evolve largely undisturbed for well over 100 years, creating anincredible island of biodiversity in the middle of the city.

The patch of vegetation and trees which the applicant refers to are briefly referred to, are 25-30mature, semi-mature and early mature sycamore trees. Their branches and canopy form abackdrop, which combined with the varied trees in the back gardens of North Road, produce aview, which contrary to being 'unsightly' is stunningly beautiful. It has the effect of a secret naturereserve or small woodland and the views produce spectacular seasonal changes, incredible colourand moving patterns of shade and light. The connectivity between the sycamore trees on the siteand the trees and vegetation of the gardens have created a wildlife corridor, attracting a huge

number of birds, animals and insects, creating an ecological island of biodiversity. There arecurrently nesting Dunnocks, nesting wood pigeons, nesting crows, nesting blue tits, and magpies.There are jays, bats, owls, slow worms, hedgehogs, frogs, and squirrels, foxes and sometimesbadgers. As well as butterflies which are plentiful, there will be millions of insects, along with vitallyimporatant fungi and bacteria.

The applicant says the development proposals would 'safeguard' the setting of the Conservationarea.

This development is set in the centre of this piece of historic green infrastructure and woulddamage it irreparably and destroy the habits of a huge amount of wildlife. The applicant says aninitial ecology survey has been done which has not been published with the application. A fullwildlife AO5 license has not been applied for.

Furthermore, the setting includes our community and our need for open spaces.

Around the perimeter, the immediate enjoyment of the view of this incredible natural asset isbenefited the 27 or so houses on North Road and Bolton Lane, the people who live in the flatsover the shops on Gloucester Road, and the people who frequent the cafes and pubs withgardens at the back. Further afield, because of the topography of the area being low, the canopiesand long-standing crow's nest, can be seen from the front windows of the houses on the other sideof North Road, and from many places on higher ground, as far away as Cranbrook Road.

The developer describes the site, as 'unsightly' and 'underused'.

In image 4, 5 and 6, the photographs are looking East and focus primarily on the Tesco store andemphasises the unsightly nature of it at ground level. However, there are no views to the South,West or North or at roof level.

Those who have lived on North Road for over 50 years or more know trees have always beenthere. In fact, there are trees marked up on this site on maps from the 1880's. They are a part ofthis community's heritage. There have never been any residential or industrial buildings on thissite.

Rather than being 'underutilised', the community capitalises on this piece of green infrastructure inmultiple ways, providing mitigation from the devastations of climate change which is part of theBSC9.

The application is claiming a 29% reduction in carbon dioxide to get 68kg a year. A single maturesycamore absorbs between 20 and 40 kg of carbon dioxide on its own in a year.

Our houses face west, and during the extreme temperatures of last summer's heat wave, they

provided vital shade. Any development here would bake in the sun and increase the ambient airtemperature.

The environment agency ought to be invited to assess the flood risks of tarmacking over a vastarea of root system which currently soaks up huge amounts of water.

The trees also act as a giant air filter, trapping huge amounts of extremely harmful pollutionparticles in air. We live in very close proximity to one of Bristol's busiest roads, and our communityneeds this protection.

The area of trees also effectively protects the residents from light pollution of the city. Thedevelopment and all its windows would increase our light pollution greatly. Photographs that showthis will be sent to the Development manager.

This area of trees acts as a giant visual screen to residents on North Road against the backs ofshops, flats, cafés, pub gardens and bars, and them, from us.

It acts as a sound buffer against the huge and ever-increasing amount of noise pollution during theday from traffic, loud voices, loud music and antisocial behaviour which can emanate from theGloucester Road.

This tranquillity has value not just for its own sake but it greatly reduces stress for the residentsand helps us to stay tolerant of the intense traffic, the daytime business and night time economysounds of the city and all the people who visit it, and it is a vital part of what makes this a friendlyand open community. This is one of the remarkable distinctive features of the area, that despite allthe pressures on it, it remains a delicately balanced eco system of residents, visitors andbusinesses.

What is also threatened is the sense of well-being and gratitude which comes from being near somany trees and elicits a sense of stewardship amongst the people who consider them an integralback drop to their life story and community. Our shared attachment to them and the extraordinaryway we can enjoy beauty at the same time as be in the middle of this brilliant part of the city issomething that bonds us all. It is the backbone to our sense of place.

Everything in our world is collapsing, there is violence everywhere. And yet something about thetrees brings a sense of restoration, permanence, and continuation. Hope, probably - something wecan hang onto that is benign and essentially good. It is well proved that living near green spacesmitigates against depression and bad mental health, and all the stresses that everyone, adults andchildren feel increasingly under.

Not only would the loss of the trees be devastating in itself, but to be replaced by a development ofthis scale, proximity and placement, in this setting, is barely comprehensible.

Unlike the new student's accommodation in a converted warehouse, and the additional studenthousing next on the Gloucester Road where it blends into the space appropriately as a modernextension, this development it is entirely out of keeping with its setting. It would look unattached toits surroundings, a big alien block dropped completely out of context into what is essentiallyhistoric residents back gardens, with no reference points to bed it into its' environment.

Aesthetically, it is of no merit. It looks like a cut and paste of a housing development off a ring roaddumped into this piece of ground because it fits the floor space.

It would be very oppressive, looming high and close over the houses, creating hard shadows.

Our privacy would be ruined by the windows, balconies and roof terraces. We would lose thedappled shade of the trees which would be replaced by deep shadows across our gardens andwindows. The applicant has not commissioned a shadow survey.

Housing up to 30 people, they and their visitors would create be a huge increase in noise levelsboth coming from open windows, roof terraces and patios, but also of people arriving and leavingon foot down the lane. Whether is it conversation, music or antisocial noise.

Puncturing a hole in the Gloucester Road would let in more noise from the street. With the loss oftree cover to baffle it all, the noise would become unbearable and extremely stressful.

This increased pedestrian access would open up ways for thieves to break into our gardens andhouses and which has not been addressed in the application and the Police should be consultedto assess the risk. Bolton Lane is already plagued with drunks and antisocial behaviour whichwould only get worse and the volume of pedestrian traffic going through this tiny lane could onlymake the lives of the people living there a misery.

There is no proper access for emergency vehicles which could have disastrous consequences forsuch a dense development.

The application says there are no tree constraints. In fact, there are TPO's on 4 of the trees. Inaddition, the DM17 requirements cannot be fulfilled because there is no site within a mile thatcould accommodate the volume of compensation. There is no space for proper landscaping orplanting schemes. They would be in hard shadow on the East and North sides most of the day sonothing much would grow.

The application has not mentioned the culvert which would be less than 20 meters away from thebuilding. The environment agency need to assess that.

The argument it is sustainable because it is close to amenities does not make this sustainable

housing in itself. There are a limited number of bus routes. If you don't want to go where they go,you will want a car.

You can't police whether people who have cars so nevitability of there being many more cars willmean there will be no-where for the existing residents to park in St Andrews. There is alreadysevere parking problems from the number of existing residents and visitors to the GloucesterRoad.

Young people working in Bristol running businesses and working in our industries desperatelyneed imaginative, well designed, affordable housing or else they will have to move away. Thesewill be unaffordable to most young people in Bristol. I do not believe it will effectively contribute toBristol's housing crisis. The existing flats above Tesco have not been included in the calculations.Is therefore more than a minor development and should mean some of it should be affordablehousing?

I am not convinced by anything in this application which would enhance the existing communitybut instead be a heart-breaking disappointment for the people who already live and work here andfor those who hope to settle here in the future.

Previous planning applications 04/03140/F and 2001- 200100/03498/P were refused on thegrounds of loss of privacy, and a lack of regard for the local context and cause harm unacceptableharm to the character and appearance of the area.

This development will be of benefit for very few people, and degrade the appearance, social fabricof the community, and drastically damage the environment.

It is debatable whether business on the Gloucester Road will benefit. Some may, but others maybe harmed by the change of demographics and as existing residents who have been their regularshoppers for years are pushed away.

It is not a well-designed, beautiful place. It does not support a strong, vibrant, healthy community,and it will not make us safer.

It will cause devastation to the environment. So, on two counts, very likely three, there will be netloss and therefore is not a sustainable development.

Finally, I want to ask what inclusion is there in this for the future generation to have their say?Many children live in this area. What is the point of teaching them about climate catastrophe andsaving the planet, if we then expect them to witness the grisly destruction of so many trees andhabitats of so much wildlife by chain saw. To build housing that is will not be affordable for themand destroy their sense of home. It would be a complete betrayal of their trust in adults to lookafter their future.

It is an extremely insensitive design proposal which shows utter lack of regard for the area and itsinhabitants and neither will it increase its attraction to new comers or visitors.

I strongly object to this development on the grounds set out below:

1. As stated in section 2.18 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy: "Bristol hasmore green spaces than any other British city and a wealth of urban wildlife". Section 4.9.1 furtherstates that "This policy aims to protect, provide, enhance and expand the green infrastructureassets which contribute to the quality of life within and around Bristol.". The proposeddevelopment shows a complete disregard for the existing quality and amenity of the trees andother green infrastructure on the land concerned, actively seeking to destroy a rich and valuableasset to both the local area, community and city as a whole.

2. This is a major development as defined within the Core Framework section 4.14.11, since itexceeds 1000sqm and contains more than 10 dwellings as a whole with the inclusion of flatsalready above the retail units of the property. The application should therefore be considered asmajor, and deemed inappropriate on this basis.

3. The proposed design of the development fails to meet the criteria of Policy BCS21 of the CoreFramework on a number of points:

- The visual design of the properties is derivative and unremarkable, with no redeemingarchitectural quality. It will significantly detract from the unique character of the Gloucester RoadConservation Area within which it is located and be an eyesore to all surrounding neighbours,even more so as mature, protected trees will have been removed. It will not "Contribute positively

to an area's character and identity, creating or reinforcing local distinctiveness."

- The scale of the development is excessive; a large monolithic block with little surrounding greenspace or screening provided. It will not "Deliver a safe, healthy, attractive, usable, durable andwell-managed built environment comprising high quality inclusive buildings and spaces thatintegrate green infrastructure"

4. The proposed properties will not "Safeguard the amenity of existing development and create ahigh-quality environment for future occupiers." instead it will overlook and be overlooked on all foursides, including:- Student flats to the south with about 10 windows above ground floor.- Flats above most of the shops on Gloucester Road to the west- Houses off Bolton Road to the north- A large row of houses on North Road to the east

5. Not only will the residents of the proposed properties have very little privacy but the occupantsof all surrounding properties will have their privacy significantly diminished.

6. The land on which the development is intended is described by the agent as a mixture ofunderused storage and waste ground, this is gross misrepresentation of the truth since it containsupwards of 20 trees, of which many are semi or fully mature and at least 4 are covered by treepreservation orders. For the supporting letter to suggest that there are no major tree constraints istherefore false. These trees and surrounding vegetation form a remarkable, rare and valuablepiece of urban green infrastructure. No 'tree replacement payment' could ever compensate for theloss of such an important habitat, home to many birds, bats, reptiles, foxes and small mammals.

7. Should these mature trees be removed as intended by the applicant the loss to the local areaand community would be devastating:- On a personal note we as a family wake up each day to the sound of a dawn chorus from birdsroosting in the trees, we have meals looking out at the garden watching the local squirrels andfoxes dart past from their homes in the undergrowth and canopy, and I spend most days workingfrom home looking out of a window directly onto this land, seeing the changes of the seasonscome and go. In short they are an integral part of our lives and well-being. Their loss would causeirreparable damage to the quality of our lives as residents and active members of the community,as I no doubt believe it would similarly negatively affect the lives of our neighbours.

- This development contradicts the aims of Policy BCS9 of the Core Framework which states that"Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into newdevelopment.". The plans do neither, instead removing the 'green asset' entirely with no attempt tomitigate the loss.

8. Section 4.9.3 of the Core Framework contains a number of statements to describe the benefits

of green infrastructure, many of which are contradicted by the proposals, including:

- Improved townscape and landscape quality and visual amenity: This development will massivelyreduce the quality of landscape and visual amenity by removing numerous mature trees. It willmake Bristol a worse place to live, work, visit and invest in.

- Protected and enhanced biodiversity: The development makes no attempt whatsoever to protector enhance biodiversity. The land currently acts as a wildlife corridor and habitat to many birds andanimals. This would be almost entirely removed and lost forever.

- Improved mental and physical health of local communities: The trees currently act as an effectivebuffer between the noise, pollution and lights from Gloucester Road and the residences to the eastof it. They can be seen by members of the public from houses and streets in all directions,particularly on the hills to the east and west. In a 2021 survey from the Mental Health Foundation73% of UK adults surveyed said that connecting with nature was important in terms of managingtheir mental health during the pandemic. This development would therefore negatively impact asignificant number of residents within the local area by removing a vitally important green asset.

- Mitigation of and adaptation to climate change: The development would increase surface run-offand flood storage capacity. It would cause the release of CO2 already sequestered by trees due tobe cut down and prevent the absorption of hundreds of kilograms of CO2 by them each year. Itwould remove habitats and links between other green areas. It would create a heat island whereone does not currently exist today, leading to increased local temperatures and energy required tocool buildings in the surrounding area.

9. Section 4.9.5 of the Core Framework states that "The strategic green infrastructure network iscomplemented by further elements of green infrastructure, such as less strategic open space,school grounds, green roofs, local biological sites, private gardens, allotments, grazing land, cityfarms, cemeteries, pedestrian paths, trees and woodland, and landscaped areas. These elementsof green infrastructure have an equally important role in contributing to the sustainability andquality of life within the city and are of particular benefit to local communities.". If the policy is to beadhered to at all then it is abundantly clear that this development fails to contribute in any way tothe quality of life within the city and has no benefit to local communities except for the addition of 9units of accommodation.

10. Section 4.21.10 of the Core framework states that "Development should be arranged in acoherent manner that makes efficient use of land and infrastructure. This will be best achieved byintegrating with existing streets, public spaces and development edges and by configuringbuildings to create clearly defined public / active fronts and private / passive backs." Thisdevelopment does not integrate well with Gloucester Road since the access is sub-optimal at bestand dangerous at worst. It has no clearly defined private or passive back, being open on all sidesto existing residents.

11. The application contains no assessment or consideration of fire risk, including the distancerequired to run a hose from an appliance on Gloucester Road to the rear-most internal part of theproperty or any means of escape. I would expect a full assessment of suitability to be provided bythe appropriate fire authorities.

12. The development claims to provide sustainable energy through the installation of solar panelsand heat pumps, reducing the CO2 emissions of the buildings by 29%, or 68kg annually. However,the sustainability statement provided by the applicant makes no calculation of the net CO2 impactdue to the removal of trees and other vegetation required for the development. A mature treeabsorbs approximately 25kg of CO2 annually, therefore all of the energy savings are significantlyoutweighed by the losses, even before any other benefits of the existing green space areconsidered. The development will not contribute to any local or national targets for reductions inemissions, it will instead have the opposite effect via the removal of a significant amount of greeninfrastructure.

13. The sustainability statement is wholly inadequate, vague and incomplete, in particular:

- It makes no mention or consideration of biodiversity impacts or measures as required by PolicyBCS15 of the Core Strategy.

- The waste and recycling section does not describe how space for 45 refuse and recyclingcontainers will be provided at the front of the shops on days when they are collected, nor anyprovision to ensure that the containers are returned the full length of the corridor (>20m) to theirstorage location to avoid causing obstruction of the pavement or corridor.

- The building and patio areas will cover approximately 60-70% of what was historically the reargardens of properties on Gloucester Road. The additional surface run off from this and reducedcapacity for the land to soak up water is not adequately considered. The land is directly adjacentto a culvert that runs along the boundary of properties on North Road and Gloucester Road. Thereis a risk that this culvert may be damaged or overloaded by the development and cause localisedflooding during extended periods of heavy rainfall.

- The sustainability statement claims that water usage will be restricted to 110L per person perday, with no details at all on how this would be achieved.

14. The lack of provision for parking appears to be intended to support the sustainability of thedevelopment, but is simply a convenient method of ignoring any responsibility for provision orcontribution to parking infrastructure. It is naively optimistic to expect that none of the occupants ofthe 9 flats will own cars, these will therefore be parked on what are already congested streets inthe surrounding area, causing increased conflict within the community.

15. The creation of a 1.5m corridor through the existing building, with a flared entrance at theGloucester Road end to accommodate recycling and refuse bins will have a number of impacts:

- It will create a break in the A1 retail frontage, contrary to Policy DM8 of the Site Allocations andDevelopment Management Policies Local Plan

- The storage of bins at the pavement end of the corridor, even if only for days on which refuse iscollected, will significantly detract from the visual attractiveness and character of the GloucesterRoad shopping area. If the bins are not returned from the pavement end to designated bin storageat the rear of the shops in a timely manner then this will worsen the impact.

- The proposed collection location of up to 45 bins for all 9 properties (up to 9 wheelie bins, 9green boxes, 9 black boxes, 9 blue bags and 9 food waste bins) does not appear to be largeenough to accommodate all of them without bins spilling over onto the pavement and causing anobstruction for pedestrians and people wanting to access the flats.

- There is no mention of whether access to the covered corridor will be restricted or not. If it is notrestricted by a barrier then there is potential for it to be mi-used and cause a risk to occupants ofthe shops, flats above the shops and flats behind them.If access to the corridor is restricted then it will create potential difficulties for emergency servicesand general deliveries to the proposed properties.

- It will split what is currently a relatively large retail unit within three historically separate buildingsinto two significantly smaller units. Gloucester Road is predominantly made up of small shopsalready so removing a relatively rare larger unit will reduce the opportunity to attract retailerswishing to occupy a larger floorspace, thus reducing the attractiveness of the area to shoppers.

In conclusion, I believe this development is ugly, inappropriate, insensitive to the local environmentand community, involves the wanton destruction of an important area of green infrastructure andprovides a substandard living environment to potential residents of the property. It claims to be asustainable development but its only provision for this are some solar panels and heat pumps,without any reference to the negative impacts it will have that greatly outweigh any benefits thetechnological infrastructure will provide. Bristol needs more high-quality housing within a high-quality natural environment, but this is not it.

A friend who lives behind the current Tesco Extra on North Rd has just passed on theproposed development plans for this site.Why has this proposed development not had a formal public consultation given the lack of spaceto accommodate x9 flats?X3 stories high and with no parking provision!!The loss of x20 plus trees alone is pretty appalling for supporting cleaner air from the GloucesterRoad's traffic and reducing noise and light pollution.Surely these trees have a preservation order!!??What about the risk of flooding if these trees are not preserved?The loss of habitat for birds, insects and wildlife that is so vital in inner city areas?Please consider a Proper consultation with the local people who live behind Tescos before youtake the money to yet another greedy developer who fills the site up with no regard to the needs oflocal population / increasing air & light pollution / lack of space for parking / reducing wildlife &increasing risk of flooding in already overly congested residential area!

I object to this planning application for a number of reasons.

Environmental

The idea of removing a green space from an urban area in this day and age is beyond belief.There are mature trees on the site that do actively improve the local environment - wildlife, airpollution, reducing noise pollution from the Gloucester Road. In urban areas in particular weshould be retaining as much green space as possible, it is good for the local and wider community.

Parking

Having nine flats will, whatever the developers or the resulting management company overseeingthe property would say, will result in extra vehicles being parked in the surrounding roads. There isa massive problem with parking on the local streets, with no provision for off street parking wouldonly add to that, again impacting the existing local community.

Access

There is no vehicular access to the rear of the development, so difficult for the proposed residentsand any emergency services. The narrow path off Bolton Lane, is that a public right of way? Evenif it is, its not adequate access.

We do need affordable housing but it should be in keeping with the local area and not adverselyaffect the existing local community, this development is too big for the site and will adverselyimpact us.

We object to this application for a number of reasons, many of these reasons show noncompliance with Bristol planning policies in the Bristol Core Strategy. Furthermore, given we areso close to the planned property why were we not notified. We only found out through a shopowner two days ago. This is simply not how planning proposals should happen.

1) The application does not show the loss of privacy to many surrounding properties which will bedirectly overlooked. This is contrary to policy BCS21 point 4.21.13 aand in opposition to Core Strategy policy BCS21. Previous planning applications have been turneddown partly due to this.

2) The location is not in the Redland Ward.

3) The planning makes no mention of the culvert which is extremely close to the planned property,meters away.

4) Parking is already very difficult in the area (many Gloucester Road traders and shoppers useNorth Road to park during the daytime and the proposed development provides no additionalparking spaces for the flats. Expecting all residents of these properties to not own or require avehicle seems ludicrous and unrealistic. It is simply paying lip service to being ecologically aware.

5) Noise Pollution Sound amenity - the current woodland oasis provides a barrier to the trafficsounds of Gloucester Road, many trees are protected. The planet has lost 70% of it's biodiversity

in the last 20 years according to Attenborough and whether the plan affects us or not it is surelyour duty to the next generation to keep as much flora and fauna as we can in a city. The canopiesare large and protected species such as slow worms inhabit this corridor. It would be madness inmy opinion not to plan around this when it is possible. The current plan is harsh and overly dense

6) The access to the proposed property is extremely limited, an old Victorian alleyway. Emergencyservices could not get access nor is it wheelchair accessible. Therefore it is not an inclusive build.

7) A site visit to understand the many issues inherent in the application should be done

We're at a loss to understand how it is assumed that the owners of the proposeddwellings will not own cars. With, say, one to two cars per dwelling, there will be some fifteen or sofurther parked vehicles to be accommodated on North Road and the surrounding area.

As the main car, lorry and bus route into the city from the north, the A38 generates a considerableamount of pollution, particularly carbon dioxide. The sycamore trees act as a partial sink for thisand their removal, with no credible replacement plan, is a regressive move.

We are puzzled why there is no shadow report in the proposals - the shadow impact of a three-storey building in this setting will be considerable with all properties to the north of the suggesteddevelopment experiencing a significant reduction in direct sunlight.

The application lacks clarity regarding emergency access. There are references to the currentarrangements with properties on Bolton Road, but these appear to be aspirational rather thanthought-through.

The photographs provided in the paperwork from Rackham Planning Limited are depressinglyselective. They give the impression of a derelict wasteland, whereas the reality is that this is asecluded marvel teeming with wildlife and majestic trees, providing a source of pleasure andsolace to local residents.

If realised, these proposals will result in a substantial infringement of privacy. All of the properties

backing on to the development area and those to the north and south of it will all be overlooked byany new residents, representing a significant decline in the quality of life of those concerned.

Finally, we are concerned that there was no notification of this application from the council. Thefirst we heard of it was from a neighbour who'd been perusing planning applications in the area. Isthis the way that Bristol City Council conducts its business?

I would like to express strong objection to the proposed development for the specificreasons given below.

1. Loss of privacy for surrounding homes. The proposed development would place 2 or 3 storeysof flats very close to the boundaries of the surrounding properties. This would result in asubstantial intrusion into the privacy of those homes and their gardens from the overlooking flats,and a complete change of the outlook from surrounding homes and businesses on all sides of thesite. The Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy, at policy BCS21, states thatdevelopment in Bristol will be expected to "Safeguard the amenity of existing development andcreate a high-quality environment for future occupiers." The proposed development clearly doesnot do this. In addition to the impact on existing residents and developments (adversely affectingseveral matters listed in paragraph 4.21.13 of BCS21), residents of the proposed developmentwould not enjoy any privacy in the limited outside spaces shown in the plan, since they areoverlooked by existing buildings.

2. Scale and Appearance of development that is totally out of character for the Conservation Area.In stark contrast with the proposed development, the buildings on Gloucester Road and NorthRoad surrounding the site are mostly 2 storey buildings with pitched roofs, in Victorian terracedstyle. The proposed large, 3 storey, flat roofed construction be completely out of proportion withthe surrounding buildings on account of the height of the flat roof making the development more"top heavy" than existing buildings. The plans do not "Contribute positively to an area's characterand identity, creating or reinforcing local distinctiveness", as required by BCS21 and described in

paragraph 4.21.8 in the explanation of that policy.

3. Sustainability and Green Infrastructure concerns. The application does not specify how many ofthe trees currently on the site would be cut down. Nor does it give details of any future greeninfrastructure that would be provided with the development, since landscaping has been reserved.However is it clear from the plans and the tree survey that that almost all of the mature trees onthe site would be removed in the proposed plan. It is also clear that there is not space in the planfor new landscaping to replace even a small fraction of the existing green infrastructure. Thereforethe Scale of the proposed development would almost certainly destroy a significant piece of greeninfrastructure, in contradiction to policy BCS9. The development would also not satisfy what isrequired in BCS21 and paragraph 4.21.12, which states "provision and enhancement of greeninfrastructure and delivery of a coherent landscape scheme should be planned as an integral partof any development". The current trees also provide valuable noise reduction from the busyGloucester Road, as well as being beautiful to look at and widely visible (photos to follow by e-mail) on account of their height. Furthermore policy BCS13 requires that development shouldmitigate climate change through measure including "The use of green infrastructure to minimiseand mitigate the heating of the urban environment". The Scale of the proposal would result in lossof mitigation of the urban heat island effect from the trees currently on site (BCS13), and cause thegardens and houses bordering the site on North Road to lose the shade the trees currently providein summer, making those homes less resilient to temperature increase with climate change.

4. Site Access Problems. The proposed pedestrian accesses to the development are narrow, andwill presumably cause difficulties for emergency services access, disabled persons access, anddelivery access.

As a general comment on the information provided in the application, I think the photos anddiagrams in the planning application do not accurately convey an impression of what the site lookslike now, and what it would look like with a development of the proposed Scale and Appearance.In particular: the photos do not show the extent of the existing green infrastructure, the height ofthe trees relative to the surrounding buildings, and how visible they are not just from homes andbusinesses immediately bordering the site, but from homes on the other side of North Road, andhomes on Belmont Road and Effingham Road, which all have windows that look down the hilltowards the site. Regarding the appearance of the proposed development, the application doesnot include an image showing a 3D representation of the size and shape of the proposed building.I believe that such a representation would more clearly show how the Scale and Appearance ofthe proposal are out of character for the area and the consequent major negative impact on theamenity of the existing buildings in the area. I strongly urge anyone assessing this application tovisit the site and see for themselves the attractiveness and size of the existing trees, some ofwhich are protected by TPOs, as a part of the decision process.

Further to my objections above, I have some specific comments on the documents submitted bythe applicant, which contain basic factual errors and omissions.

Application Form.

Under "Biodiversity and Geological Conservation", the presence of protected species is noted. Nofurther consideration is given in the application to that wildlife, despite the Bristol DevelopmentFramework including vision statements such as "A network of valuable open spaces, greeninfrastructure and wildlife habitats will be maintained and improved throughout the city." (Page 11)and subsequent references to biodiversity, for example paragraph 4.9.3.

Agent Supporting Letter.

Images 4, 5 and 6 do not show the full extent of the site, and do not show the full extent andattractiveness of the trees. They minimise the view of the green infrastructure area and maximisethe view of the trolley storage.

Regarding the comment "As can be seen the site is similarly unsightly, with waste being dumpedon the site." after image 4, this reflects the currents owner's neglect of the site, and should not bean argument in favour development when a different owner (or volunteer group, for example)would maintain the site to a higher standard. Later comments on the rear of Tesco as "unsightly"could similarly be rectified in better ways than the current development proposes, and in any casethe trees are not unsightly.

Regarding the comment "An arboricultural consultant has visited the site and confirmed there areno major tree constraints. Some trees would have to be removed to facilitate the development,and it is anticipated a tree replacement payment would need to be made to the Council." I wouldsay there are "major tree constraints" related to the trees protected by a TPO, and the apparentintention to chop down almost all the trees on the site.

Regarding the development being car free, I think it is unrealistic to expect no residents of theproposed development would need or want to have a car. Parking is already very constrained inthe surrounding streets.

Regarding access, the letter says "Two pedestrian accesses are proposed. One is the existingrear access lane which connects the site to Bolton Road. The second would be a new 1.5m wideaccess way through the existing Tesco Express building." However image 8 shows the accessfurther into the development is only 1.2m wide in places, which seems very narrow for disabledpersons, emergency services, deliveries, etc. Also, my understanding of the waste collectionproposal is that bins will be collected from through this narrow 1.2m corridor, which will causefurther access problems.

Under "Planning History", the statement that "A planning history search has been carried out onBristol City Council's website and only one application was found which may be relevant" is

inaccurate and incomplete. I easily found another application 00/03498/P on the Council website,for "Outline application for a part one, part two storey extension of 22 metres in length to the rearof 171-175 Gloucester Road", refused in 2001.

Also under planning history, the statement regarding application 04/03140/F, refused in 2005,claiming "Unfortunately, as the application dates back to 2005 there are no documents on theCouncil's website. As such, we are unable to ascertain whether the application is relevant to thecurrent proposals", is false. The reasons for refusal are available on the Council website (Idownloaded them from there) and all of those reasons apply to the current development.

Under "Key Planning Issues", the letter mentions "Transport and Access", but does not addressmany of the access concerns given as reasons for refusal of the related 2005 application.

The comment "The efficient reuse of this existing vacant, surplus and underused land will providea greater density of residential development as required by policy BCS20." does not accuratelydescribe the valuable functions the trees perform as noise blockers, heat-island mitigation, wildlifehabitat, etc. It also neglects that BCS20 also requires "The appropriate density for any individualsite will be informed by: The characteristics of the site; The local context; ... ; The need to achievehigh quality, well designed environments", which I think the current proposal does not.

The statement "The site is located in the Redland Ward where the majority of housing types1 aredetached, semi- detached and terraced properties (representing over 58% of all properties in theWard)" is false-the site is in Ashley Ward, as can be easily seen on the maps on the councilwebsite. The rest of this paragraph is therefore irrelevant and should not be used as an argumentto support development.

Regarding "The provision of this type of flats will provide accommodation attractive to the growingmarket of young professionals who are seeking to get on the property ladder or findaccommodation in the City which is subject to ever increasing prices.", no evidence (e.g.,approximate market value of the intended properties versus what a first-time buyer in the city canafford on average) is provided to support this claim so I think it should not be used to support anargument for development.

As a local resident I am strongly opposed to these proposals. It is also extremely difficultto see how these proposals could align with the Council's environmental priorities and declarationof a climate and ecological emergency. The loss of significant mature trees would be at odds withtargets to reduce pollution along one of Bristol's most polluted transport corridors. This particularsection of Gloucester Road does not benefit from many adjacent trees, so I strongly urge theCouncil to resist any application that would see the removal of trees in this location. Furthermore,the trees provide a very important noise and privacy barrier to residents on North Road. Removalof these trees will increase noise pollution and it is clear that privacy will be effectively removed,particularly with the construction of flats along property boundaries. It is very important also tomention the ecological importance of this site. Several bird species nest in these trees and this is aknown site for slow worms, which are a protected species. There is no credible proposal to replacethe considerable benefit of the mature trees nor to translocate important ecological habitats withinthe local area. Bristol Council should at least be pursuing a policy of environmental net gain withall such planning applications - it is clear that this cannot be achieved on this site. It is alsoimportant to highlight that the erection of flats in this location will impact on neighbouringproperties "right to light". There is no evidence that the potential impact has been considered bythe applicant. In terms of transport, Gloucester Road and the surrounding residential roads alreadyexperience high levels of traffic and issues with parking. To present this scheme as "car free" isfrankly laughable and the true transport impact of these proposals must be considered. This will,as a minimum, include residents parking cars on adjacent streets (with a high probability ofincreasing incidences of unsafe parking due to existing parking pressures), delivery vehicles andimproper access/egress for refuse and emergency vehicles. Finally, there has been non-existent

public engagement or consultation for the proposals. This is incredibly disappointing, particularlygiven the close proximity to neighbouring properties and businesses and disruption/long termdamage that the development would cause to a well-known and much loved part of Bristol. Insummary there is an incredibly weak case to allow housing to be constructed in this location.There are plenty of more suitable infill sites across Bristol where housing can be delivered, whichwould not require environmental damage and could be delivered sustainably, with communityinvolvement! I would sincerely recommend that a site visit is undertaken by the case officer tounderstand the various issues and constraints identified.

I object to the planning application (reference 23/00649/P, 171-175 Gloucester Road,BS7 8BE) on the following grounds:

- The area under consideration has never been developed and is a vital, established, habitat withinan already heavily populated residential area that contains (amongst other animals and birds) slowworms, newts, bats and owls all of which, I understand, are protected and developers must complywith legal protection on. A detailed survey has not been completed by an ecologist or similarexpert to look at those animals protected under the act being killed, taken or disturbed (includingdamaging or destroying their breeding and resting sites) if the site was built on. No mention ismade of a wildlife licence (A05a) having been applied for under schedules 5,6, and 8 of theWildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

- The destruction of between 23-27 trees (a number of them 40+ years old and 5 of themprotected already by TPOs) runs against agreements made by the UK to meet goals to protect theenvironment under Sustainable Development to 2030.- In relation to Chapter 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework- Achieving SustainableDevelopment Point 8c the proposed development does not protect or enhance the natural, builtand historic environment as the flats do not reflect the character of surrounding buildings,removing trees and damaging habitat would do the opposite of improving biodiversity and wouldnot mitigate or help adapt to climate change or minimize waste and pollution.- Not only do the trees that are currently on the site contribute to a reduction in what is already avery heavily polluted area of Bristol and the country but they also provide an important barrier to

significant traffic noise from the A38/ Gloucester Road to residents in the streets surroundingthem. Noise also comes from bars, from the new student flats (where Peacocks used to be) andthe street generally which is absorbed well by the trees.- The trees (as they sit in a valley) can be seen from much further away that neighbouring streetsand play an important role in fostering a sense of well-being for people living in a built up urbanenvironment.- The inclusion of a roof terrace and balconies in the proposed flats is likely to increase noise inwhat is already an area battling with noise coming from Gloucester Road etc.- The development would mean an additional lack of privacy for me from balconies and the roofterrace. I am already overlooked by and regularly struggle with the impact of excessive noise fromthe communal third floor kitchen in the student flats that would be directly opposite the proposednew development.

Very concerned by this new planned development for multiple reasons.Firstly, the removal of trees from an important wildlife corridor would be a backward step,especially for families of roosting birds and other animals. The trees also have many years left inthem and provide an important and attractive cover from the industrial spaces at the back ofGloucester Rd.Secondly, due to the positioning of the site I am highly concerned about noise from more residentsat the back of our property. The plans show that the new flats will overlook North Rd gardens andthis would cause more noise and privacy issues. This is coupled with lack of access to this sitewhich the Bolton lane offshoot lane is unequipped to provide. This access would be unsecure andprovide even more noise for all properties on North Rd with gardens overlooking this.Thirdly, due to the lack of parking for the new residents of the flats, they will most likely be parkingon North Road and adding to the already challenging situation here. It is incredibly difficult to find aparking space on North Road as it is. This will make it even worse.Finally, this new development will not be welcome aesthetically to an already peaceful and rarewildlife area of Bishopston. Replacing a large number of beautiful trees with a new build will not bea pleasant sight from my window!

I strongly object to the planned proposals for the following reasons:

1. Loss of privacy and overshadowing - Many of the properties on Gloucester Road, GloucesterCourt, and North Road (including our own) would be overlooked by this development. This wouldhugely impact on our privacy, right to light, and general enjoyment of our space, which would befurther emphasised by the removal of trees in the proposed site. There should be site visits tothese property areas to see the full extent of impact on the local residents.

2. Environmental concerns - The application suggests that there are no tree constraints. However,this is clearly not the case as many of the trees they are proposing to cut down are protected byeither the Tree Preservation Order 702 or the Gloucester Road Preservation area. These maturesycamores are highly important for several reasons; they provide a significant sound barrier toNorth Road properties from Gloucester Road, they improve air quality, and provide a safe havenfor the local wildlife (notable examples include: slow worms, newts, bats, and many different typesof birds). Cutting down these mature sycamores and destroying this green corridor of life would bea serious loss to the ecosystem and could not be compensated by just re-planting elsewhere.

3. Character and need of the community - these plans are clearly out of place with theappearance, character, and history of this area. It is not an affordable housing scheme and withseveral blocks of flats already in the immediate area, it does not serve a housing need. The plansin no way contribute to the community or wildlife living in this area. I would agree that the site doesnot look as visually appealing as it could due to waste tipping and Tesco's trolley storage, however

this could easily be addressed in a way that benefits the local environment. Avon Wildlife Trusthave already been very successful in a number of areas in Bristol by getting people active andinvolved in improving their own neighbourhood and might be able to advise.

4. Access issues - It is very unclear from the proposal how there would be access for constructionvehicles, emergency services, refuse collection services, or general deliveries. Bolton Lane is notaccessible to any vehicles so this would impose a significant safety risk if emergency serviceswere not able to reach the block of flats. Furthermore, Bolton Lane already has issues with anti-social behaviour (e.g. graffiti, littering, fouling) and the proposed alleyway could encourage furtherissues, as well as increased security concern due to there being more access to the properties atthe back of North Road.

5. Parking issues - there is already very limited parking space on North Road and there is noprovision for parking for the residents of these flats. Delivery services are also likely to use NorthRoad due to very limited parking availability on Gloucester Road and no vehicle access downBolton Lane.

Having recently moved to North Road, I can already see that this planning proposal is completelyat odds with the core values of this area and for the city as a whole. This proposal goes againstthe strong sense of community in this area, the protection of wildlife and nature, and of course,Bristol's unique character.

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed plans for the Erection of 9self-contained flats [Ref: 23/00649/P] in 171 - 175 Gloucester Road Bishopston Bristol BS7 8BE.Specifically, I am concerned about the proposed felling of trees and the lack of parking provisionsin the plans.

As a resident of North Road, I strongly believe that the preservation of trees is essential for thewell-being and character of our community. The proposed plans would involve the removal ofseveral trees that have been a part of the local landscape for many years. This would have anegative impact on the local environment, and the loss of these trees would be felt deeply bymany in the community.

I have reservations about the scale and design of the proposed development, it encroaches rightup the borders of the existing properties, overshadowing many homes including my mine andresulting in a loss of privacy. The plans are not in keeping with the surrounding area and insteadmaximising the profits of the developers, this will have a negative impact on the character andappearance of the locality.

The proposed development does not include any parking provisions, it will have a significant effecton the parking in North Road and the surrounding streets. It's unrealistic to assume the residentsof the new development would not own cars, this would further exacerbate an existing problemaround parking with no restrictions currently in place. The lack of parking provisions would lead toincreased congestion and safety concerns, and I believe this would also have a knock-on effect on

the businesses of our independent high-street where currently visitors can park on North Road tovisit the shops.

Given the concerns outlined above, I urge you to reject the proposed plans for Erection of 9 self-contained flats [Ref: 23/00649/P]. I ask that you consider the impact that this development willhave on the local community, and to prioritise the preservation of our environment over the profitsof the developers.

I object to this planning application due to a number of concerns.I moved to North Road around 20 years ago. I was attracted primarily to the garden and thenatural haven which is created largely by the surrounding trees. Indeed, I took down my gardenshed last year to create a seating area facing the trees that are now under threat from thisdevelopment. I enjoy viewing the birds, bats, foxes and squirrels using the gardens but primarilythe treeline across the back of the gardens. I don't think that it is unreasonable for us to expect tobe able to enjoy our garden space and the surrounding views. I cannot overstate the benefits to usof having this space with the trees and without being overlooked. The proposed developmentwould, if permitted, overlook my garden.The trees that are under threat are not just visible to the gardens that back onto the area. Theycan be seen from the other side of North Road, from Gloucester Road and when coming downBerkeley Road. I suggest that they are more in keeping with the Gloucester Road ConservationArea than a new block of flats. The photographs presented in the Agent Supporting Letter may notbe intentionally misleading but they really do downgrade the appearance and value of the trees.The photos do not represent the experience of the trees that the residents of North Road enjoy.The photograph on the front of the tree survey is more representative. I hope that the residents ofNorth Road will have the opportunity to demonstrate the impact on our quality of life here. Visitingour gardens will provide a very different view. The trees have undoubtedly contributed t producingthe extremely high population density of slow worms and palmate newts across these backgardens. The area between the back of these houses is a haven which we love, should berecognised and conserved.I also cannot ignore the parking issue. This is a one car household and the car is used to commute

to rural Wiltshire. Other city occupants are picked up on the way. I regularly struggle to park onNorth Road and frequently park on the far boundaries of St Andrews Park. I believe it is extremelyunlikely that the residents of the proposed development will not have significant additional carsthat also need parking spaces. There is simply no room on North Road for more cars.The proposed access from Gloucester Road is also troubling and seems to contradict the aim ofconserving the character of Gloucester Road.In view of the significant impact that this development would have on my experience of living inNorth Road, I find it remarkable that I have received no written notice of the application andinstead am only aware of it due to a chance comment from one neighbour.

As a resident of North Road I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposedplanning application for the following reasons;

Firstly, the lack of access for vehicles is a major concern. The proposed development wouldcreate a significant increase in traffic flow in the area during construction and once the flats arecompleted. There will be no access for construction vehicles, emergency vehicles, homedeliveries, etc. These vehicles will create a significant amount of congestion on Gloucester Roadand North Road. If any of the residents in these flats owned a car they would be very likely to parkon North Road, which already has insufficient parking for its residents leading to many having topark illegally.

Secondly, I am extremely concerned about the invasion of privacy that this development wouldcause. The block of flats would overlook my property, and the residents would have a direct viewinto my garden and home. The 3-storey building will block out the light to the homes of myneighbours on North Road and Gloucester Road. This would have a detrimental effect on ourquality of life and would significantly impact on our privacy.

Thirdly, the proposed application suggests 'some trees would have to be removed to facilitate thedevelopment' which in reality will result in removing all 30+ trees; this will have a significant impacton the local environment. A number of these trees have a tree preservation order and areessential to improving the air quality in the area. The attached Arboricultural report clearly showsthe majority of trees have been present for decades and will be around for numerous more. These

trees are vital to providing St. Andrews with a significant natural noise and sound barrier whileproviding homes to owls, bats, foxes and numerous other fauna and flora. It is imperative that theyare protected or else they will be permanently lost from the cityscape.

In light of these concerns, I strongly urge you to reject this planning application. For a city whichprides itself on its green credentials this proposed development would have a significant impact onthe local environment and the quality of life for local residents. It is imperative that these concernsare taken into account. The surrounding areas have an array of housing options to cater for avariety of situations. The addition of 9 flats of 2-3 people will have little impact on the alreadythriving local economy.Site visits to these areas would make it glaringly obvious as to why the idea of this proposedplanning application should not be entertained.

I strongly object to this proposed development on the following grounds:1. Access issues - the lane between the development and Bolton Road is covered by a Covenant2. Loss of privacy and increase in noise pollution3. Conservation concerns - the existence of Victorian brickwork within the Gloucester RoadConservation Area, will suffer more damage from increased foot/cycle traffic4. Waste disposal and site of waste collection on Bolton Road/Gloucester Road5. Security and Safety - allowing access to Bolton Road will re-open the risk of a 'rat-run' andincreased criminal activityI have emailed a document explaining my objections in both text and photographs todevelopment.management@bristol.gov.uk

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I object to this planning application due to a number of concerns.

I was attracted primarily to the garden and the

natural haven which is created largely by the surrounding trees. Indeed, I took down my garden

shed last year to create a seating area facing the trees that are now under threat from this

development. I enjoy viewing the birds, bats, foxes and squirrels using the gardens but primarily

the treeline across the back of the gardens. I don't think that it is unreasonable for us to expect to

be able to enjoy our garden space and the surrounding views. I cannot overstate the benefits to us

of having this space with the trees and without being overlooked. The proposed development

would, if permitted, overlook my garden.

The trees that are under threat are not just visible to the gardens that back onto the area. They

can be seen from the other side of North Road, from Gloucester Road and when coming down

Berkeley Road. I suggest that they are more in keeping with the Gloucester Road Conservation

Area than a new block of flats. The photographs presented in the Agent Supporting Letter may not

be intentionally misleading but they really do downgrade the appearance and value of the trees.

The photos do not represent the experience of the trees that the residents of North Road enjoy.

The photograph on the front of the tree survey is more representative. I hope that the residents of

North Road will have the opportunity to demonstrate the impact on our quality of life here. Visiting

our gardens will provide a very different view. The trees have undoubtedly contributed t producing

the extremely high population density of slow worms and palmate newts across these back

gardens. The area between the back of these houses is a haven which we love, should be

recognised and conserved.

I also cannot ignore the parking issue. This is a one car household and the car is used to commute

to rural Wiltshire. Other city occupants are picked up on the way. I regularly struggle to park on

North Road and frequently park on the far boundaries of St Andrews Park. I believe it is extremely

unlikely that the residents of the proposed development will not have significant additional cars

that also need parking spaces. There is simply no room on North Road for more cars.

The proposed access from Gloucester Road is also troubling and seems to contradict the aim of

conserving the character of Gloucester Road.

In view of the significant impact that this development would have on my experience of living in

North Road, I find it remarkable that I have received no written notice of the application and

instead am only aware of it due to a chance comment from one neighbour.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed

planning application for the following reasons;

Firstly, the lack of access for vehicles is a major concern. The proposed development would

create a significant increase in traffic flow in the area during construction and once the flats are

completed. There will be no access for construction vehicles, emergency vehicles, home

deliveries, etc. These vehicles will create a significant amount of congestion on Gloucester Road

and North Road. If any of the residents in these flats owned a car they would be very likely to park

on North Road, which already has insufficient parking for its residents leading to many having to

park illegally.

Secondly, I am extremely concerned about the invasion of privacy that this development would

cause. The block of flats would overlook my property, and the residents would have a direct view

into my garden and home. The 3-storey building will block out the light to the homes of my

neighbours on North Road and Gloucester Road. This would have a detrimental effect on our

quality of life and would significantly impact on our privacy.

Thirdly, the proposed application suggests 'some trees would have to be removed to facilitate the

development' which in reality will result in removing all 30+ trees; this will have a significant impact

on the local environment. A number of these trees have a tree preservation order and are

essential to improving the air quality in the area. The attached Arboricultural report clearly shows

the majority of trees have been present for decades and will be around for numerous more. These

trees are vital to providing St. Andrews with a significant natural noise and sound barrier while

providing homes to owls, bats, foxes and numerous other fauna and flora. It is imperative that they

are protected or else they will be permanently lost from the cityscape.

In light of these concerns, I strongly urge you to reject this planning application. For a city which

prides itself on its green credentials this proposed development would have a significant impact on

the local environment and the quality of life for local residents. It is imperative that these concerns

are taken into account. The surrounding areas have an array of housing options to cater for a

variety of situations. The addition of 9 flats of 2-3 people will have little impact on the already

thriving local economy.

Site visits to these areas would make it glaringly obvious as to why the idea of this proposed

planning application should not be entertained.

My concerns with this build is the lack of access to carry out the work, access foremergency vehicles when finished, how difficult it will be for bin collection, adding too yet morewaste out on the street causing problems for the general public and collectorsThe potential tree loss involved in this build will have a devastating effect on wild life, there hasbeen a nesting pair of crows in one tree returning for many many years, also the area is used forfeeding bats, slow worms, hedgehogs fox's and many other feeding birds. The trees areGloucester roads lungs helping to improve the bad air quality in one of the worst roads in bristol,cutting down any trees these days should be totally avoided, the trees act as a noise barrier whichis paramount for mental health and wellbeingAs a community we will loose our gorgeous green view replaced by a three storey building lookinginto our private back gardens, putting more pressure on the areas saturated parking.

There are first floor flats at both 169 and 167 Gloucester Road. These would besignificantly overlooked, both by windows on the ground and first floor of the development andespecially by the second floor roof terrace, seriously impacting on residents' privacy. The size ofthe building would also significantly deprive both these properties of light.

I object to this application for the following reasons:1 As a resident in North Road, living next to the application site for over 50 years I am aware ofseveral refused applications for permission to develop this land made during that time, which maynot be on current public record. It was formerly back gardens of Gloucester Road traders wholived above their shops. After the shops became lock-ups, the gardens and their fences weregradually abandoned the gardens became a sycamore wood and a haven for wildlife flora andfauna. The Aerial picture of the current density and extent of the tree canopy of this wood is shownclearly on the cover of the applicant's Arboricultural Report.2 It is true that the public does not have access to the application site, so in that sense it could bedescribed as 'under-used'. But that seclusion is why it has become a valuable a wildlife space andcorridor. The corridor includes the large garden of 3 Bolton Road to the North as well as theunusually long North Road gardens to the East. It is also true that the application site has been tosome extent been disfigured by the Tesco back-yard trolley storage, which would go if Tescoleave, and by fly-tipping of waste from some other shops, which could be tackled. Also, theNailsea Electrical business previously operated an engineering repair workshop on part of theapplication site. This may have caused contamination which might need remediation before itcould be put to residential use.3 In 1999, the stand of mature sycamores, at the North end of the application site, which is shownas group G1 on the Applicant's Arboriculturalist's Report, were protected as of particular value byTree Preservation Order 702. In 2021 all the trees on the application site became entitled toprotection by the Gloucester Road Conservation Area designation. The application glosses overthe fact that the proposed building development would involve the destruction, not just of the TPO

trees, but also most of the other 20 or so trees within the application site.4 Tree Preservation Order 702 in 1999 also included another huge, mature sycamore. This stillstands, South of the application site behind 147 Gloucester Road (formerly Peacocks). It book-marks the South end of the sycamore wood at that time.5 Design The Gloucester Road Conservation Area Character Appraisal in 2017 refers to thissection of Gloucester Road as "Area 2"and describes the Gloucester Road shops and theresidential neighbourhood to the east (e.g. in North Road) as characterised by "fine grain, gable-fronted", 2-storey buildings. A three-storey building with a flat roof visible from east and west of thedevelopment would contradict this characterisation and be a detrimental eyesore.6 Access - Gloucester Road The proposed access would be a new, long, 1.5m wide pedestrianalleyway, off the high street, between two buildings. This could invite anti-social behaviour, suchas already occurs in nearby Bolton Road, (graffiti, litter, urination, drug use, etc) unless gated.Secure gating of the corridor is likely to be unworkable as too inconvenient for the occupants ofthe 9 flats and their visitors and service providers: its use would also be likely to lead to securityissues and obstruction of the footway and the highway.7 Access - via Bolton Road Bolton Road itself has public pedestrian access between GloucesterRoad and North Road. A private, unadopted, unlit footpath off the south side of Bolton Roadserves houses at 1 and 3 Bolton Road and the rear entrances to shops at 165 to 177 GloucesterRoad. It reaches a dead-end at its boundary with the application site. The private footpath is gatedin two places, both for the security of the shops and residential premises on each side and for thepersonal safety of users. It is not used for access to the application site and any such use in futurewould be inappropriate for security and safety reasons.8 Parking The proposal excludes on-site parking. It is true that Gloucester Road has frequent busservices as a possible alternative to car use for some occupiers of the proposed flats. However,these bus routes are mostly radial to and from the city centre and do not connect well with areassuch as Whiteladies Road, Clifton, Sea Mills, Westbury-on-Trym, Westbury Park, Lockleaze, StWerburghs or Easton. The proposed 9 new flats are designed to accommodate 2 to 3 peopleeach. At least some of the residents are likely to need to use cars and therefore to require off-siteparking. There are no public car parks serving Gloucester Road. The nearest unregulated parkingis in North Road and the other streets in the vicinity of St Andrews Park, where residents' parkingis so problematic that the Bishopston and St Andrews Parking Group (BOSA) has beencampaigning for several years for a regulated parking management scheme.9 Loss of retail units The current Tesco store occupies what were three retail units and theproposal is to reduce this to 2 units.10 Privacy The rear of the houses and gardens of several North Road properties will beoverlooked by the East facing windows of the proposed development. East-facing windowsoverlooking North Road dwellings with similar long gardens were not allowed when permissionwas recently granted for the nearby residential development of the former Peacocks site at 147Gloucester Road.11 Noise The proposal involves removing most of the trees on the proposed development site.These trees currently screen the noise that comes to the North Road properties from GloucesterRoad traffic and from noisy nearby venues such as the Bristol Flyer, Cider Press, Gallimaufry and

Blue Lagoon.12 Air Quality Gloucester Road A38 in Bishopston has been identified as one of the top 10 mostair-polluted areas in Bristol. The sycamore trees on the application site provide carbon capture forthe neighbourhood for the next 40 years which cannot be replaced there by fines, compensation orby planting new trees elsewhere.13 Summary The application site, on which the current (and previous) applicants have beenunsuccessfully seeking planning permission for development for many years, is not under-used orwasted: it is a valuable community asset, a hidden treasure, which needs to be cherished forfuture generations not spoilt for short-term profit on the flimsy pretext of addressing housing need.There are vacant Bank, Showroom and Supermarket premises on Gloucester Road, within ahundred metres of the application site, ripe for change of use to residential development.

I strongly object to this development.

It is absolutely outrageous that someone is willing to destroy a wildlife haven under the flimsypretext of housing need. The development of 9 flats would barely help the housing crisis; theywon't be 'affordable', so they won't go to the people who actually need them, and would more likelyend up as student lets or AirBnB lets, which does nothing for local community.

The present land is a home to various birds, small animals, insects, plus plants and fauna. Weshould be nurturing these spaces, not eradicating them.

The thought of another building site, with the accompanying constant noise and dust, is extremelystressful for anyone already living in this overbuilt-up area. Anyone working from home will beadversely affected for months. I can't see any valid or workable ideas for builder's access to thissite. I can't see how they will enforce a 'no cars' rule once the residents are in place - morevehicles will add strain to an already out of control issue. Plus the houses backing onto thedevelopment will be overlooked, during the building works and once it is finished.

I should hope the council will listen to and support local residents, and not just capitulate to thegreed of landlords. We cannot afford to lose these precious green spaces.

I am writing in connection with the above planning application.I have examined the plans and wish to object strongly to the development of these flats in thislocation

I am objecting for the following reasons

The need to remove many mature trees, which provide a wildlife haven,and a screen for thepollution and noise from the Gloucester Rd (I have a clear view of the trees from my house ) andthey are also visible to the public from North Rd

There is likely to be an increase in noise on North Rd with the addition of these flats in this areaand also a risk of loss of privacy and a risk of overlooking to the adjacent properties on the Westside of North Rd

These properties will cause shading and a reduction in daylight to the surrounding area.

There is no vehicular access to the properties, which will impact on the already congested parkingon North Rd.I therefore also question the ability of emergency vehicles to access the properties.

Objection to the proposed felling of numerous mature sycamore trees which provide asmall ecological haven for numerous species of flora and fauna in an already very built-up area ofBishopston.

Mature trees on site - visible to public.

On environment indicators in the following map, north road is in the most deprived 10% categorywithin the whole country

https://data.cdrc.ac.uk/dataset/index-multiple-deprivation-imd

Removing the trees would have a negative impact on the community.

We strongly object to this planning application which has no parking provision NorthRoad already has limited parking for residents.

We strongly object to this application as it could involve the felling of 30 trees.

We strongly oppose the decision to place balconies, patios and terraces facing and overlookingmultiple properties on North Road directly impacting the residents use of their existing outdoorspace and reducing their privacy.

Over intensive use of the site, lack of adequate access and the loss of mature trees.

We as a family object to the proposed development of the small green space inquestion. Not only does this green space sit adjacent to the back of the gardens of my own andmany of my neighbours but it also acts as a wildlife hub to what is already a green corridor of reargardens to houses of North Road.

The mature trees many of which are sycamore are home to wildlife and nesting birds. Sycamore isattractive to aphids and therefore a variety of their predators, such as ladybirds, hoverflies andvarious birds. The leaves are eaten by caterpillars of a number of scarce moths, including thesycamore moth, plumed prominent and maple prominent. The flowers provide a good source ofpollen and nectar for bees and other insects, and the seeds are eaten by birds and smallmammals.

One tree in particular has been used by the same family of crows for the last 5 years. We knowthat tawny owls sit in these trees which are often heard in the summer nights. These trees areclearly important for many bird and animal life. The trees in this location act as a buffer in thewarmer months and reduce air pollution and noise pollution in the this part of the city. Trees suchas these in locations such as this prevent heat islands from forming from roads and roofseffectively lowering the temperature in the hotter months and provide much needed food andshade for birds and animals.

A single, fully grown sycamore tree can transform 26 pounds of carbon dioxide into life-givingoxygen every year. Large trees remove 60 to 70 times more pollution than small trees. sycamore

trees are extremely tolerant to pollution which make these trees ideal for their location.

The proposal for a two story building with rooftop terraces and side terraces will certainly infringeon the privacy of all neighbours effected including ourselves. One of the joys of having a southfacing garden in this location is having a green screen that the trees currently provide. To have abuilding so close and overlooking will not only ruin the view but infringe upon our privacy.

Besides the disruption and loss of habitat, the access to these proposed developments looks tocome from Bolton Lane. Access to build requires the right to own the access but I can't see thatthis is owned by the proposed developer. This lane already suffers its fair share of anti socialbehaviour whether it be drugs, graffiti, use of motorised vehicles up and down as short cuts fordeliveries or drunken behaviour from the pubs rear access to littering and dog foul. Intensified useof the lane would encourage further anti social issues.

Not every available space should be converted into homes for the financial benefit of others.Maybe the space should be celebrated and more wildlife encouraged with owl boxes, bat boxesand the likes.

Removal of Sycamore Trees and the unique ecosystem it supports. Increase in cars willlead to less available parking on North Road.

I strongly object to this development for the following reasons

1. There is no parking provided with the site. There is no way of enforcing a no car rule unless aresidents parking scheme is introduced which specifically bans residents of this development fromhaving a parking permit which has been done in other towns and cities. Without any form ofenforcement there is bound to be a knock on effect on parking in the surrounding roads. Theparking on pavements, on double yellow lines and on corners is already dangerous without morecars fighting for spaces.2. How will emergency vehicles access the site. How will the construction vehicles access the site.3. The row of mature trees on the site forms a sound and pollution barrier between the busyGloucester Rd and North Rd. This cannot be replaced by new trees and I am worried there is nointent in the application to do this anyway.4. There is no affordable housing in the scheme and there is a strong liklihood the properties willbecome rented or AirBNB lets as these are the most profiatble but do not add anything to the localcommunity5. The access route from Bolton Lane must remain vehicle free to ensure the safety of pedestriansand particulalry children who run down the lane because there is currently no car access. Howeverthe new residents may try to access the lane by car and get stuck.

There a number of oncerns here but the main ones are environment, access andparking..

Environment:The strip of land has a number of matures trees and is home to a surprising amount of wildlife.Birds nest in the trees and the strip of gardens behind it are home to slow worms, palmate newtsand frogs so the land itself will certainly have these species present. Bats can also be seen flyingaround the gardens in the evening.

Access and parking:I live on North Road and we can rarely park on the road. There is no way that anyone can policethe idea of no vehicles. 9 flats means that a number of vehicles will need parking. The streets inthis area and around St Andrews Park are already overcrowded.

Conversion from a retail outlet to flats would have a harmful impact on the character ofthe famous shopping reputation of The Gloucester Road.There would be adverse impact on parking as it is inevitable that the occupants would have carsand we already have parking issues.Removal of well established and much needed mature trees would add to the negative effects ofclimate change.The trees encourage birds and wild life and are clearly visible from north road and enhance thearea .