I note that this version of the planning includes a drainage plan that what not present inearly submissions. The system seems to be a pressurised system with a pump and control unitlocated in the proposed bin store. I have previously objected to the bin store location on thegrounds of odours, infestations and noise extremely close to gardens and seating areas onneighbouring gardens. I now also object to the fact that there will be a pump and control unit alsovery close to gardens and seating areas. This has the possibility to create noise from the pumpmotor which could disturb residents trying to relax in their gardens. The equipment is only inchesaway from the gardens seating areas. There is also the possibility of odour from the pump andsewage system. Again this would be better located away from neighbouring gardens and towardsthe road, along with the entire bin store.

The current plans provide insufficient information to fully understand the materials whichwill be used. We understand from the development consultants that the Lodge wall (southelevation) will be rebuilt using existing and reclaimed bricks to replicate the current wall finish. Thisseems sensible.

Moving the bins to the new location next to our neighbours garden will have a detrimental impacton them increasing the risk of rodents and noise.

It is important that Redland Green landscapes is protected to avoid owners of the new homesrequesting trees to be cut down/back to protect their 'borrowed garden'.

I refer planners to my previous comments. There has been little revision to the plansand my comments stand. Please take note. Too many accommodations, too little space, driven byprofit not the community and not doing a respectful proper housing development.

We object on the basis that the latest plans have taken no account of the feedbackgiven to date.The site will still cause access issues and overcrowding on Cossins Road, invade the privacy ofexisting homes, pose safety concerns to young children going to nursery and school, and will havea material impact on the park's trees.It places a new development almost within the grounds of a much loved and cherished park - andif anyone tried to build as such on private land in the park's vicinity it would be rejected.This feels the wrong development (in terms of the volume of proposed housing) in the wrong place(poor access, material impact on local green spaces) that will negatively impact the localcommunity, whose collective voice as expressed in the objections to date has not been listened to.

I am resubmitting my previous comments as I cannot see that the revised plans addressthe points I previously submitted. These were:

-------

I am objecting for two reasons:

1. Car parking: Cossins Road already experiences high levels of traffic with significant numbers ofparked cars which obstruct view and access for pedestrians. A large number people appear to usethe street for commuting, parking camper vans etc. as Cossins Road is the first street from thecentre with no residents parking zone. This development will only add to that pressure given anumber of residents in the new houses are likely to have more than one car, plus visitors. Largenumbers of school children currently walk down the road every day and more parking and trafficwill make it more dangerous. Children often run or scoot down the pavement where the newdevelopment will be.

As a result of the development residents parking should be introduced and appropriate measuresto ensure that entrance is safe for pedestrians walking by.

2. Trees and vegetation - the development will likely result in the heavy pruning of trees inRedland Green as these will be seen to obstruct views and intrude into the houses, given that thehouses will be built right up to the Green boundary. There will also be the loss of a large sycamoretree by the left entrance of the new development. This tree will be removed to accommodate binsand the houses.

The vegetation/tree to the left of the entrance to the development should be retained and treesand vegetation in Redland Green need to be protected.

Dear Sir I have objected before and would object once again to this development for thefollowing reasons;Due to this area being outside the RPZ , Cossins and adjacent roads are congested with parkedvehicles on both sides of the road and footpaths ( Causing disabled carriages and pushchairsbeing unable to use them)Delivery, emergency and refuge lorries are barely able to squeeze between the parked vehiclescausing standoffs. This will be aggravated by traffic created by the new development both duringand after constuction.I would suggest that the planner involved visit Cossins road during the day to witness just how badthe current congestion is.There are two adjacent schools to this area and many of the pupils use Cossins and adjacent roadwalking to and from school, but due to vehicle congestion (caused by irresponsible parking) theyoften have to walk down the middle of the road at great danger.I would therefore recommend for the above and many other reasons that this application berejected.

I would like to raise an objection to the position of the bin store. Moving this from theentranceway to the middle of the development has meant that this now situated at the end ofexisting gardens.This raises concerns for the homeowners in immediate vicinity of the proposed bin store relocationregarding odours emanating from the refuse, increased risk of rodent infestation and noise relatingto the use of the bins and movement of bins on refuse collection days.

The revised plan includes positive changes such as retaining the existing roofline overthe parking area and integration of solar panels on these rooves, rather than on the rooves of thenew properties. The proposed new position of the bin store is a negative change as this is nowpositioned immediately next to seating areas in the neighbouring gardens. This will impactneighbours sitting in their own gardens with the smell from the bins. The bins will also attractrodents and other animals. There will be noise generated by people using the bin store and fromrefuse collection. The original plan to have the bin store at the entrance to the site is a much betterproposal. One possibility is to swap the bike racks and the bin store, in the revised plan. The bikerack would then be in a more secure central position, with the possibility to provide a lockedsecure area for bikes, and the bin store would be away from neighbouring gardens and near theroad for ease of refuse collection.

The amendments to the planning application are very minor and therefore my originalobjections still stand. However, I was pleased to see that the proposal now retains the roof line tothe garages at the rear of the Coldharbour properties. This lean-to design is an improvement tothe plan as it will provide both protection to the cars, and a degree of screening between theproposed houses and the existing Coldharbour road properties. I would ask that if approved theretention of the garage roof is a pre-requisite and cannot be removed in the future.

I am a little concerned about the movement of the bin location having concerns about the noiseand smells from the new location impacting on the usage of the gardens to its rear.

I can see no significant modification to the submitted plans beyond these minor changes- noreduction in scale, no movement of the houses away from the edge of the park, no improvedturning space for vehicles, ongoing risk to the park trees and pressure on the slope, increasedtraffic and pressure on street parking which is already congested and with paths in high usage bythose attending the local nursery, primary and secondary schools.

The latest updated plans (12 Oct 2023) seem to have taken no account of the clear andspecific feedback given in all the objections received to date.The sight still appears vastly overcrowded, lacks parking, causes more congestion, invadesprivacy, causes safety concerns to young children going to school, lack proper turning space forvehicles, destroys trees and the green line of the road, and risks new residents trying to reducethe trees covering their views.The developers appear purely interested in squeezing in as much as possible to drive their profit,rather than create dwellings, safe access and green spaces that will benefit the community. Thenegative impact to their area will remain long after the developers have gone.

I fully support Bristol Tree Forum's comments. These are an thorough, authorative andeloquent clarification of the tree issues and solutions. I object to the existing on the basis that theydon't emcompass the BTF's proposals.

This development represents further erosion of community resources such as garagesand available storage for people in the local area. Cramming more dwellings into an alreadyovercrowded road that's already a traffic choke point due to non residents using this road as a cardump due to the failure of the council to implement zoned parking. It will also impact the local parkhaving rows of flats overlooking the park where there are currently mature trees lowering thequality of the outside spaces.

The application has not taken consideration of the impact the development will have onthe local parking issues already being experienced on Cossins Road.

Vehicles park on the pavement on both sides of the road as it. For these proposed dwellings tohave one allocated parking space within the development, in reality, will not cater for the numberof occupants per demise. This will mean more cars parked on the road which, in turn, will createparking problems elsewhere.

There are two schools and two nurseries locally and many children as well as parents use thisroad to walk to them. Cars parked on the pavement means space is restricted, causing some towalk in the road itself. Obviously this creates a danger and an increase in pressure on theavailable parking caused by this development will only make it worse.

Therefore I object to this application

As a local resident who is all too familiar with the site, I fully support its redevelopmentinto 6 high quality homes.

The existing garages have been in a state of disrepair for a number of years and are an eyesore.Given that there is limited brownfield land available within Redland, the proposed development willresult in a far more efficient use of the land by contributing towards the city's housing deliverytargets.

The proposed development offers positive soft landscaping improvements which will result insignificant visual improvements to the local area. In particular, the proposed meadow roofs willcompliment the green aesthetic of Redland Green in addition to providing biodiversityenhancements.

The applicant has responded positively to the formal pre-application response received from theCouncil by reducing the height of the dwellings to one and two storeys. The scale proposed istherefore appropriate for the site in question and reflects that of neighboring dwellings, with theproposed materials complimenting the surrounding area.

I therefore am in full support of the application and consider that it merits approval.

RCAS supports the application which will provide residential accommodation for familiesrather than single person flats. We are also pleased to see that the height of the proposeddevelopment has been reduced and the extent of the development changed to retain some off-street parking and to avoid overlooking issues.We share the concerns of other respondents that future residents of the proposed houses couldpress for reduction in the tree canopies of the trees in Redland Green immediately below theirhouses. The windows to the upper floor living spaces facing onto the green will be at the level ofthe tree canopy which will restrict the views out and sunlight into the living spaces. The 2nd floorroof terraces will also be below the level of the top of the trees.Additional or replacement planting on this slope may also be opposed by future residents. It isimportant that the value of the trees to the whole community and to the park is recognised andthey are given protection against future pressure for removal or reduction.We also have concerns that noise from the roof terraces could be an issue for many otherresidents living around the park, or users of the park. Noise from high level is not contained andcan affect wider areas of the community.

This is a supplementary comment made to raise to view a matter not previouslyrecognised.

There is a further inaccuracy in the Arboricultural report submitted with this proposal in which treesgrowing in Redland Green are represented as being within the boundaries of the Garageesproperty and are being proposed for removal.

The cherry-laurel group of trees G2, mentioned in para 3.1.2 and proposed for total removal has 4stems which on inspection clearly enter the ground on the Redland Green side of the boundary,and NOT within the property of the garages.

The diagrams in this report fail to show these 4 stems and if they did, and were accuratelypresented, it would be evident to all that they are on the Redland Green side of the boundary.

The diagrams DO show (and misleadingly so) the extent of the laurels' canopies to be nearly allwithin the garages' side of the boundary (with negligible canopy shown on the Green side).

But this is not so - as the photograph Plate 3 in the Arb report illustrates: the canopies of thesecherry-laurels extends as far into the Green as the stem of the Norway Maple T5.

These four trees are therefore in the public property of Redland Green; they provide valuableamenity shading as well as carbon capture, and it is both presumptuous and wrong for adeveloper to mislead both public and planners into allowing their removal.

A boundary is a boundary, and while it's clear that some branches cross it above the ground - andtheir removal is entirely appropriate - to permit removal of all four trees in their entirety as a resultof a misrepresentation would be a travesty.

So I urge planning consideration to lead to a requirement that this aspect of the proposal bemodified accordingly, and that the arboricultural plan focus instead on how to avoid needlessdamage to these 4 laurel trees. Some damage to their roots is bound to happen from work on thegarages' side of the boundary. But this gives no certainty that the result will be instability or thecertain death that is currently proposed.

There new buildings should maintain or enhance the tree lined aspect to the topentrance to the park by the development. This is constantly used by school children and peoplewalking through the park.

I object to the trees being removed from the entrance and replaced with concrete features - walls,bin storage and side of the building. There should be lots of live greenery and not just views ofman-made structures. The soft edge to the top of the road is really important and gently welcomesyou into the area and the park.

There should also be a speed bump on the exit of the new development. Many children walk upthe path to school twice a day and the new development and more frequent use of the entrancerisks an accident with vulnerable young children.

I have been a near neighbour (100 metres) of the site of this application for 30 years. Ivisit Redland Green park nearly every single day, and am heavily invested in the quality of amenityand wildlife value provided by the Green, having volunteered many full days of my time to pickinglitter, clearing fly-tipped waste, affixing birdboxes, planting bulbs and laying hedges. It is aprecious public resource, as the pandemic has reminded us, and a vital refuge for the wildlife wecontinue to squeeze out of their homes everywhere in these once wild isles.

I accept the need for housing, but NOT that it should trump all other considerations.

I accept that there should be development of this site - and for housing too - to arrest its continuingslow dereliction in the custody of its current owners. However I object to the particulars of thedevelopment proposed.

My four particular grounds for objection arise from concerns about:1. Loss of the secluded feel of the West end of Redland Green & its amenity value2. Clear and present - and FUTURE - danger to trees and to wildlife value3. Risks from incomplete assessment of site stability before planning application4. Worsening of weekday parking and rush-hour traffic in Cossins Rd

The detail to explain and justify these concerns:

1. Loss of the secluded feel of the West end of Redland Green & its amenity value

The developers seek 3 storeys height and say the height of the viewing platforms will be 6m above

current ground level. This means that eye level for those standing on the viewing platforms will be~7.5m and this is at the top of a substantial slope. They propose building to this height AT theboundary of the Green when nowhere else around the Green has so large and so overbearing abuilding been permitted. Were an owner occupier to be the neighbour, a proposed height above2.5m at the boundary and 4m overall would be at serious risk of refusal....why should it be anydifferent when the neighbour is the general public....ALL of us?

Currently it is possible to be at the West end of Redland Green and to believe one is outside thecity. This bulk of development on the boundary can only ever be partly screened by trees even ifthey survive, and so as proposed, it will irretrievably change the feel and amenity value of this endof the Green. A satisfactory mitigation would be to remove the top storey of viewing platforms,which do not increase the livability of the dwellings but instead increase the sales price and soprofitability for the developer. The cost, in reduction of privacy and amenity value, is borne by thelocal community.

2. Clear and present - and FUTURE - danger to trees and to wildlife value

The arboricultural report claims (Para 4.4) "Of the 9 trees and 3 groups surveyed, 8 trees and 2groups are proposed to be retained". This is calculated to give a casual reader the misleadingimpression there will be minimal change at the development site, when most of the trees he'proposes to retain' are in public ownership, are outside the site. An accurate statement wouldinstead be "Of the 2 trees and 1 group of trees on the site, 1 tree is proposed to be retained."

After seeing this approach taken to presenting the facts for tree felling & retention proposals, oneis obliged to wonder at the motives behind finding fault with trees T5 and T9 and I vigorouslycontest the need for ANY reduction in the height of these trees and the proposed removal ofbranches on one side of T9 2m into the park. I am concerned that approving these proposals willbe used as a pretext for a major reduction ostensibly for safety reasons but in fact to improve theview of the new residents. Of course it is legitimate to shorten branches where they cross theboundary line.

Finally my greatest concern is for the 'post-development pressure' on the trees - which isacknowledged (para 4.2.2) by the arboriculturist. This proposal if approved would have maturetree canopies immediately outside the south-facing windows of a new development, shading thosewindows, perhaps dropping tree-sap, and obstructing the view the new owners would no doubtfeel it was their preference or even (mistakenly) their right to enjoy.

They would see no individual identifiably responsible as owner or defender of these trees - and theCouncil legal department would certainly not be inclined or funded to take on this role. So the newowners would have no reason or impediment that might restrain their petitioning the Council toreduce or remove these trees or to prevent any new trees from growing to their full height and

span.

They may even - and likely with impunity - take things into their own hands - as has the owner of ahouse nearby that backs onto the Green. Twice the householder has now torn out saplings from ahedge planted in the Green and beyond his boundary. This unfortunate but highly relevantprecedent, which it would be inappropriate to detail further here, has occurred less than 50m fromthe proposed development site.

The risk here is a structural conflict whose sole cause is planning approval and it is irresponsibleto knowingly set up such future conflict, especially given the known weaknesses of the Council inenforcement. Such a needless conflict would create both tension in the community and work forthe Council, however resolution is attempted.

I can conceive of 4 possible mitigations for this:1. Move the development to the other side of the garages' property away from the Green (but thiswill surely trouble the Coldharbour Rd neighbours no less than it does those concerned for thepark).2. Cantilever the first floor of the development over part of the parking area, so moving its Southside back from being directly touching the trees at the boundary. By not reducing ground space,this will still allow access of cars to the garages.3. Oblige all succeeding owners of the Garages' development to sign covenants undertaking not toseek to curtail the growth of any trees on the bank save where branches cross the boundary orwhere there is consensus among experts on a safety risk.4. To grant a group Tree Preservation Order to the trees on the slope below the garages to protectthem from the danger the new owners would otherwise pose.

I would see either 1. OR ALL OF 2-4. as necessary to be sufficently effective.

3. Risks from incomplete assessment of site stability before planning application

The Engineering report gives details of borehole examinations which show that in one place theunstable made ground on which the garages stand is 5.5m deep. Mini-piles are proposed, some ofwhich will need to be 6m+ in length to reach the mudstone below, and given that the boreholeswere obliged to be made in the central area of the site (and not within any of the garages at theboundary with the park - where the depth of made ground will, from the slope of the land, certainlybe deeper) some piles will have to be even longer than this.

My concern is over the (lack of) lateral stability these tall and slender supports will offer, and thelack of remedy proposed for this. The slope of the ground, the fault lines in the garage ends visiblefrom the park - it's very clear that gravity is taking everything South. If the proposal to restrain thisslide towards the park is going to be to drive angled piles in and this angling will result in them

crossing the boundary and entering the park beneath the trees, then I think the need for thisshould be discovered BEFORE planning approval has already been given, so that it is givenproper consideration.

The engineering report recommends a slope stability assessment for the bank below the garages,but this has not been conducted. The developer believes this will occur after planning approval,perhaps as a condition of it. However I believe that the slope stability should be assessed, and anynecessary mitigations made clear BEFORE planning permission is granted. It may be that there isno problem...but we don't know this yet.

4. Worsening of weekday parking and rush-hour traffic in Cossins Rd

5 of the proposed dwellings are to have 3 bedrooms and are expected to have 5 occupants.Redland is a well-to-do suburb and this development will without question, not be marketed tothose who are struggling to put bread on the table. It is therefore a CERTAINTY that the newoccupants will have high disposable incomes and that between the 5 occupants of each of thesedwellings there will be more than one car.

This means that the 1:1 provision talked about WILL be insufficient, and it's a credible possiblitythat 6 or more cars belonging to owners of this proposed development will be wishing to park inCossins Road, which already has substantial parking problems.

Moreover, many of the new occupants will work, and will be fighting to drive out onto the narrowstreet in the rush hour, at the same time as: parents drop children off for the Red House nurseryopposite or for the Redland Green School across the park; when commuters try to park in the firststreet outside the CPZ; and when other commuters cut up from Linden Rd to Coldharbour Rd viaHarcourt Hill, Metford Rd and Cossins Rd. Swirling around them all will be the children travellingon foot to Redland Green School as they funnel towards the Cossins Rd park entrance AND theparents and children heading towards Westbury park Junior School in the other direction. To thinkthat this will all be fine is, I think, a product of wishful thinking.

I do not see mitigations possible for this save for reducing the size of the development or by goingdown - digging out the made ground to park underneath the dwellings. So why should sixdwellings be granted permission, when with five, the fine sycamore tree T3 could be retained aswell?

Dear Planning Committee

Re:- Planning Application no. 23/00665/F Garage 10 lying to SW of Cossins Road,BS6 7LY

Thank you for asking for comments regarding this proposal.The Redland Green Community Group (RGCG) consider that housing development on this site isinevitable and that overall the plans put forward are acceptable with some modifications. It isnoted, however, that changing use from garages to housing does result in a loss of amenity akin tobuilding on playing fields.... the amenity will not be replaced and more cars will be parking onadjacent roads which is worrying for the residents and allotment tenants around the area ofRedland Green.

The main concerns of the RGCG are related to the direct impact on the Green.The plans do involve removal of nearly all the trees within the site itself and the retention of treesreferred to in the developers' plans almost entirely involves trees that are in Redland Green andtherefore not within the developers remit to remove anyway. Large tree canopies close to buildingscan cause 'post development pressure' by way of requests for tree removal or pruning as a resultof resident anxiety. It should be the responsibility of the developer to design properties such thatthere are no "post developmental pressures".

The plans as put forward will lead to conflict in the future since the windows and the roof terracewould look out onto the Green. The inhabitants of the new houses will want to maintain and evenimprove their views by asking for trees blocking their vista to be removed. This is unacceptableand we propose several ways of mitigating against this.

Covenants should be put on the properties such that the owners are not permitted to ask for treeson the Green to be pruned/removed for the purpose of maintaining or improving the view from theproperties.Tree preservation orders to be put on the trees on the South facing slope of the Green.It is suggested that the first floor of the buildings be set back from the boundary (South Elevation)with the Green, slightly increasing the overhang at the front of the buildings (Northern elevation)but preserving the space for access and parking.

The stability of the site is questionable and a full stability survey of the site should be undertakenbefore any planning permission is granted to maintain the angle of repose of the south facingslope. The adverse effect on tree roots of piles driven into the site must be considered in relationto roots of trees already in the Green. If the vertical piles as planned prove inadequate, angledpiles or some similar solution may be considered necessary. The trees on the south facing slopeare very close to the development and their longevity may be compromised by the constructionprocess. Hence long term future proofing of such damage must be included in the planningdecision. The developers suggest that according to DM17 such damaged trees may need to bereplaced. The policy hierarchy however says that replacement is the last option, and not the first.Retention is preferred, according to BCS9, and it is only when this is impossible should mitigationbe considered as the next option, with replacement being the last when all other options areexhausted. Thus we would markedly prefer that retention is stated by the planners as being thepreferred option according to BCS9. We repeat that it is only when this is impossible thatreplacement should be considered.. We are also saddened that tree T3 ( a mature sycamore - oneof a pair planted at the entrance into the proposed development) is scheduled for removal and isnot being conserved in the overall design. We accept that it needs crown lifting and works to easeentrance to the site. RGCG would hope to be consulted and included on any future discussionsand decisions on the trees in the area of the development.

The requirement now is for a Biodiversity Net Gain report, which seems to be absent from thedocuments.

Yours faithfully

Lois M GoddardChair of Redland Green Community Group

Commenter Type: Amenity - Residents Group

Stance: Customer made comments neither objecting to or supporting the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Dear Planning Committee

Re:- Planning Application no. 23/00665/F Garage 10 lying to SW of Cossins Road,BS6 7LY

Thank you for asking for comments regarding this proposal.

The Redland Green Community Group (RGCG) consider that housing development on this site is

inevitable and that overall the plans put forward are acceptable with some modifications. It is

noted, however, that changing use from garages to housing does result in a loss of amenity akin to

building on playing fields.... the amenity will not be replaced and more cars will be parking on

adjacent roads which is worrying for the residents and allotment tenants around the area of

Redland Green.

The main concerns of the RGCG are related to the direct impact on the Green.

The plans do involve removal of nearly all the trees within the site itself and the retention of trees

referred to in the developers' plans almost entirely involves trees that are in Redland Green and

therefore not within the developers remit to remove anyway. Large tree canopies close to buildings

can cause 'post development pressure' by way of requests for tree removal or pruning as a result

of resident anxiety. It should be the responsibility of the developer to design properties such that

there are no "post developmental pressures".

The plans as put forward will lead to conflict in the future since the windows and the roof terrace

would look out onto the Green. The inhabitants of the new houses will want to maintain and even

improve their views by asking for trees blocking their vista to be removed. This is unacceptable

and we propose several ways of mitigating against this.

Covenants should be put on the properties such that the owners are not permitted to ask for trees

on the Green to be pruned/removed for the purpose of maintaining or improving the view from the

properties.

Tree preservation orders to be put on the trees on the South facing slope of the Green.

It is suggested that the first floor of the buildings be set back from the boundary (South Elevation)

with the Green, slightly increasing the overhang at the front of the buildings (Northern elevation)

but preserving the space for access and parking.

The stability of the site is questionable and a full stability survey of the site should be undertaken

before any planning permission is granted to maintain the angle of repose of the south facing

slope. The adverse effect on tree roots of piles driven into the site must be considered in relation

to roots of trees already in the Green. If the vertical piles as planned prove inadequate, angled

piles or some similar solution may be considered necessary. The trees on the south facing slope

are very close to the development and their longevity may be compromised by the construction

process. Hence long term future proofing of such damage must be included in the planning

decision. The developers suggest that according to DM17 such damaged trees may need to be

replaced. The policy hierarchy however says that replacement is the last option, and not the first.

Retention is preferred, according to BCS9, and it is only when this is impossible should mitigation

be considered as the next option, with replacement being the last when all other options are

exhausted. Thus we would markedly prefer that retention is stated by the planners as being the

preferred option according to BCS9. We repeat that it is only when this is impossible that

replacement should be considered.. We are also saddened that tree T3 ( a mature sycamore - one

of a pair planted at the entrance into the proposed development) is scheduled for removal and is

not being conserved in the overall design. We accept that it needs crown lifting and works to ease

entrance to the site. RGCG would hope to be consulted and included on any future discussions

and decisions on the trees in the area of the development.

The requirement now is for a Biodiversity Net Gain report, which seems to be absent from the

documents.

Yours faithfully

Chair of Redland Green Community Group

Redland Green Park:

I am concerned about the impact this development will have on Redland Green Park. Not only theloss of trees, but also the stability of the bank that borders the development.My biggest concern is the post-development pressure on trees in the park; for example: futureowners of the new houses seeking permission to cut down or cut back existing trees, or worse,taking gorilla action to maximize their views of the park.I think it would sensible and reasonable for the planning department to demand that a group TPObe placed on all the trees on the bank and for a covenant to be put in place that all future ownerswould have to sign, which stipulates that owners will not seek to have the trees removed.

Security:

The proposed development will open up the site and decrease the security for those propertiesand residents on Coldharbour Road. I am aware that the developers have received a number ofsuggestions on how to improve this. I would support that the proposed parking spaces are notopen, instead 'car-ports' continuing the roof line of the garages. This will increase security andhelp to keep the current feel of the site.I would also like to see that a gate is maintained the entrance to the site. This will also increasesecurity for us and other residents.

Design/style:

I support the general design of this development. The muse-style housing and living roofs havebeen well thought through.I would be extremely disappointment if the site is developed to a lower standard/quality than thedevelopers/planners have proposed.

Working Hours / Disruption:

We are very concerned that the development/building work will have a very material impact on aresidential area. I would be keen to see that the planning department pushes for restrictions andstipulations, perhaps in the Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP), I think it wouldreasonable to see the following included:- Daytime/Weekday working hours only - 8am-6pm Mon-Fri (No weekends/Bank holidays orevenings).- A weekly clean of the site entrance and Cossins RoadParkingParking in the local area is already a huge concern. It's the number one issue that local councillorshear about. The lack of a RPZ on Cossins Road and surrounding areas causes real issues forlocal residents. It is clear that removing garages and replacing with homes will only exacerbatethis issue. Anything the planning department can do to address this issue would be gratefullyappreciated.

Loss of Amenity and view:

We are going to lose our view of Redland Green Park if this development goes ahead. There willalso be a huge loss of amenity to the local area. I would very much like to see the planningdepartment do its job and ensure that this development is held accountable to the higheststandards.

Conclusion:

This development will have a huge impact on us and other local residents. Although I was initiallydevasted that the garages will be lost and houses will be built; meaning our loss of view andprivacy, I have come to the conclusion that the proposed development is very much the best casescenario, should the site be developed. I hope the planning department, owners and developerscan be true to their words and do their job, with the interest of local residents and local amenitiesat heart.

Given that Bristol City Council has allocated the land currently occupied by garages asland for future housing, there feels to be little point in registering opposition to the idea. However, Iam not in favour of it, It brings more congestion - both of people and of cars - to an area alreadydensely occupied, and this is not positive. Redland has already had two intensive developmentson land not previously used for housing - Alderman's Park and the Praedium. Other houses havebeen demolished to make way for a greater number of smaller houses and other propertiesadapted for housing. This increased density of people and cars has knock-on effects: on the useof local parks, on parking on streets, on congestion on roads, on demand for schools, doctors'surgeries and other facilities. There needs to be a time when a halt is called on increasing thepopulation density in any given area.

Six accommodations would be built in place of all but three of the garages. I am disappointed atthe number of accommodations proposed: it feels too many. Bristol City Council allows for one carper residence and that it what is proposed in this development: this is not realistic, and not typicalof existing households in this area. Cossins Road - being the first road outside the Redland RPZ -has been plagued by commuter parking since this RPZ was established, and movement along theroad is not infrequently blocked by cars travelling in either direction. Commuters park with up tohalf of their car widths on the pavements on the Redland Green side of the road. Spillage of newresidents' cars onto Cossins Road will mean the road is blocked every day of the week, not just inthe weekdays, as at present.

Given the well-known problems of parking in an area of Redland - predominantly older houseswithout garages - it is unfortunate to both add to population density and to reduce the amenities ofan area. Garages are amenities, and allow cars to be parked off the street; their loss will add to

competition for street parking space.

The terraced accommodations are proposed to be built on the line of the existing garages wall,and will have roof top terraces, the floor height of which is proposed to be 6 metres. Thus, eyelevel will be over 7m, and this feels overbearing, and will be to the detriment of the pleasant feelingof the Green. Were houses adjacent instead of a park, it would not be permitted to build right onthe boundary, and this should be the case here. The floors above ground floor need to be offsetback and away from the boundary wall with Redland Green in order to make them feel lessoppressive. Offsetting the upper storeys away from the Green will not affect access to the threeremaining garages.

The views over the Green are clearly an asset which the developer wishes to capitalise upon andmake a feature of the residences (hence the rooftop terraces), and this gives rise to a significantconcern: that future householders will wish to see the trees in the woodland immediately next tothe proposed development felled or reduced to improve their views. Rather than prioritising theview, the architects need to design the terraced houses to be compatible with the prior existenceof the trees, so that the location - next to a park - is the properties' feature, not the view. Thecurrent design enhances the possibility of future disputes over the trees. Redesign to reducefuture contention arising from either aesthetic or practical (such as overhanging branches and leaflitter) considerations is needed.

These trees are a biodiversity asset in a park which is itself a protected Valuable UrbanLandscape in Bristol's Local Plan, and the possibility of trees in this woodland being reduced orfelled to enhance views or perceptions of safety must be prevented. Covenants should be writteninto the Deeds of each of the properties preventing the possibility of such requests being made, or,if made, of being acceded to.

Likewise, the trees in this woodland should be placed under a group tree preservation order, toensure that healthy trees cannot be removed, pruned or reduced without the explicit permission ofthe Council and in consultation with the local park group.

The proposal states that all of the trees (cherry laurels and two mature sycamores) in the propertywill be removed, except one mature sycamore (T3). Creative options need to be explored inrevisions that will preserve sycamore T2. I am opposed to its felling. T3 should be protected with atree preservation order.

There has been no slope stability assessment performed, and I am concerned about theconsequences of the development on the slope below the garages, which, like them, consist ofdeep rubble (5.5 metres depth under the garages). If damage to the trees results from thedevelopment, or arises after it, the slope could become unstable. A slope stability assessmentshould be a pre-condition of the development.

It was disappointing but not unexpected to learn of the planning application. Thereappears to have been a deliberate pattern of neglect of the site by the owners over the last 15years or more, that we suspect was designed to make its redevelopment more appealing. I ampleased to learn that the scale of the development was reduced at the pre-planning guidancestage, but concerns still remain.

Loss of Privacy and overlooking.

I am concerned by the height of the development and the consequent intrusion it will have on theproperties on Coldharbour road with resultant loss of residential amenity. Whilst the distancebetween us is just over 22m, the windows on the first floor and ground floor of the developmentwill be looking directly into our house and garden, causing loss of privacy and overlooking. This isdue in part to the wall that will be left after the proposed demolition of the garages at the rear ofour property (66 Coldharbour Road) being considerably lower that the current garage height. Therear garage wall height without roof measures 1.7m at the rear of our garden. The proposed sitesection A in the documents shows the cross section with the garage maintained and a tree thatdoes not exist in this location and provides no screening, this is misleading. It also shows thegarden wall at a considerably higher level than it is at the rear of our property. At the rear of ourproperty the current proposal removes the garages in this section and therefore will not have thescreening provided by the garage roof, and indeed will further lower the wall with respect to theother properties which have a higher wall.

The development proposes that the houses themselves form the boundary with the conservationarea of the park, similar to the current garages. This has led to the houses being designed with

clerestory windows (which are very high) in the walls of the ground floor rooms, with the bedroomson the ground floor and the living areas on the first floor. This means that the first-floor windowswhere the occupants will spend most of their daytime and evenings, will look directly into ourgardens and homes from that elevated position. Our kitchen-diner extension on the ground floor ismade-up of bifold windows on the aspects facing the current garages and we will lose all privacy inthe room where we spend most of our time as a family. We will be highly visible due to the natureof our windows (especially at night with the lights on) leaving us completely exposed toobservation with associated significant loss of amenity. The current design with large windows onthe first-floor facing into the Coldharbour Road properties is unacceptable in its current form andleads to loss of amenity, overlooking and loss of privacy for the Coldharbour road properties.

I would therefore make several suggestions -

1) That the design is reversed, and the living space is on the ground floor, with bedrooms on thefirst floor. The size of the first floor windows could also be reduced.

2) That the first-floor windows facing the Coldharbour Road properties are required to haveobscure glass to maintain privacy both for the occupants of the Coldharbour Road properties, andfor the occupants themselves. We would ask that this was an ongoing requirement and could notbe changed to clear glass in the future. This suggestion was welcomed when discussed with thedeveloper.

3) A further mitigation would be to keep the current roof of the existing garages that border theColdharbour Road gardens along the full length of the wall where garage demolition is currentlyproposed for creating of parking spaces. The roof structure could be preserved but the walls andfront of the garages removed and replaced with weight bearing beams and posts. This wouldprovide both screening and shelter to the newly proposed parking spaces (and to wildlife like thebats) whilst also providing an attractive continuity of appearance within the development. Giventhat 3 garages will remain which are owned by our neighbours on Coldharbour Road, they aregoing to look very strange alongside the new build, but continuation of the roof structure wouldhelp mitigate this and provide a more pleasing design especially with preservation of the attractiveclay roof tiles. This suggestion was welcomed when discussed with the developer and issomething the affected Coldharbour Road residents are very keen on.

I am concerned that steps should be taken to ensure the strength of the 'existing garage wallretained as boundary wall'. There is a discrepancy between the height of the land at the end of ourgarden and the floor of the garages. Steps will need to be taken to ensure that the wall issufficiently strengthened to prevent slippage of the ground and wall. Due to the poor maintenanceof the garages not owned by the Coldharbour road residents, the wall is in a poor condition.

Noise

The development area is surrounded by family homes and Redland Green which is an amenity inregular use by the local community. Please can the planning include a Site-Specific ConstructionEnvironmental Management Plan and can the hours of operation be restricted as below-"All works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary, or at such other placeas may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, shall be carried out only between thefollowing hours: 08 00 Hours and 18 00 Hours on Mondays to Fridays and; at no time onSaturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays."This would enable us to continue to enjoy the use of our gardens at the weekend, and the localcommunity to enjoy use of the green during the development phase without significant noisepollution at the weekends.

Parking and highway safety

I am concerned that the number of spaces provided will be insufficient for the number of cars orvans likely to be owned by someone requiring a 3 bedroom property (i.e. a family). The parkingspaces are narrow and anyone owning a van or second vehicle would park off-site in the nearbyarea. This would lead to an increase in parking on neighbouring streets and reduce the number ofavailable spaces to park for people dropping off children at the neighbouring nursery on CossinsRoad or attending the Methodist church opposite the entrance. This could lead to illegal parkingand increased congestion. There are many young children leaving the nursery, local primaryschool, secondary school and Redland Green Park itself that walk along Cossins road and thiscould be an increased risk to their safety.

The modification to the entrance will require loss of one street parking space, something likely tofurther impact local congestion and safety especially for those looking to park close to the nurseryto safely drop off very young children.

Loss of amenity

The current design does not allow sufficient room for my neighbours to park their vans in theirgarages. The dimensions are too tight to enable a safe manoeuvre without risking damage to theirgarages, the new build houses or the vehicles themselves, unless the garage doors can bewidened or turning space increased. Given that the swept path plan takes them within inches ofthe frontage of the houses, this will also limit the occupants using this area outside their propertiesand would pose a risk to anyone sitting or playing at the front of the new builds.

Nature conservation

There has long been a history of the garages and adjacent trees and bushes, being a refuge fornature. There are many birds roosting and nesting in the trees and bushes. The garage roof is anature corridor for local wildlife such as foxes. The proposed development will lead to the loss of anumber of these trees and bushes and therefore their availability for wildlife. Preservation of thegarage rooves as suggested previously will maintain some of this wildlife corridor.The application notes record the following- 'As set out in the PEA, the existing garages areassessed as having 'high' potential to support summer bat roosts'. I can confirm that we haveoften seen bats flying in the local area around the gardens and houses on Coldharbour Road andthe adjacent garages on Cossins Road. Preservation of the garage roof structure (as suggested inPoint 3 of Loss of Privacy and overlooking) to the southern edge of the site would help to conserveimportant roosting opportunities for bats. This suggestion was welcomed when discussed with thedeveloper.

Layout and density of building

The proposal to build 5 x 3-bedroom houses and 1 x 3-bedroom bungalow would benefit from afurther reduction in scale. The current design provides very limited outside space for theinhabitants of the houses. The concept of shared outside space at the front of the property isreduced by the need for the area to be kept clear due to it being shared vehicular access to thegarages and proposed parking spaces. If fewer properties were built this could provide sharedoutdoor space away from vehicles.

Design, appearance and materials

The proposal is as follows-Walls-Existing materials and finishes: Red brickProposed materials and finishes: Smooth dressed stone, reclaimed red brick, red metal detailing(example shown below as provided by the developers).

Whilst the proposed development looks to use reclaimed red bricks, it does not specify that thiswill be the red brick reclaimed from the demolition of the garages- it would be important to stipulatethis to ensure continuity of the appropriate red/purple/pink brick colour.

The proposed bright red metal detailing is inappropriate and not in keeping with the local area anddesign. The sample that was sent to me shows a very bright red metal colour. It is not entirelyclear where this bright red metal would be used (around windows and the edge of roofline/downpipe?) but it is immediately clear that it is not in keeping with the muted reds/purple/pinks ofthe current 'red' brick. The red metal detailing is inappropriately bold and gaudy for use in alocation where the buildings are more conservative in design and in muted colours. I strongly

object to such an unnecessarily bright and strong design feature that is not in keeping with thecharacter and style of the local area.

The proposal is as follows-RoofExisting materials and finishes: Clay roof tileProposed materials and finishes: Mono-pitch green meadow turf

I have previously raised the issue of the removal of the clay roof tiles, which I feel should beconserved along the edge of the development backing onto the Coldharbour Road properties.I am in favour of a green meadow turf roof for the new properties, and feel this would help blendthe development with the neighbouring Redland Green Local Historic Park and Garden which isboth a conservation area and Important Open Space, and provide a 'soft edge' as recommendedin the pre-application response. This would be a key feature and one that should not be permittedto be removed in the future. The placement of the PV's on the top of the roof would howeverreduce the impact of the green roofs. Perhaps these could all sit on the top of the bungalow/lodgewhere they may be less conspicuous and be appropriately angled to optimise sun exposure as thecurrent location on the grass roofs will only have direct sun in the afternoons

Tree and vegetation impact

I am concerned that the development will lead to the removal of several trees and open up the siteand remove its 'hidden feel'. If the scale of the development is reduced then this might enablepreservation of a number of the trees that currently require removal, and provide capacity to havesome green space within the development rather than only the limited roof terrace space. It is hardto envisage how the development can proceed without causing damage to the adjacent trees andbushes that sit within Redland Green, in addition to the trees that require removal.

Impact on residential amenity- Our existing gardens, with the historic garages behind, form a walled or hidden garden. This isan area of tranquillity where it is possible to relax and enjoy the peaceful environment, the wildlife,and the green space provided by the back drop of mature trees in the park area. Given thatColdharbour road is busy with traffic for most of the day it is an important outside space, and ouronly space, to retreat to and relax.- The beautiful original, muted red, roof tiles of the historic garages form a complimentaryscreening that blends, subtly, with the green from the gardens and the green from the tree canopybehind. From our perspective we only see the roofs and none of the garage fronts or courtyards.The enjoyment of this view is an important factor in our wellbeing.- The view from our main living area also provides an important contribution to residential amenityfrom within the property. The loss of the enjoyment of the current view, the trees and park, fromwithin our house will have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of our property. The openaspect of the neighbourhood is reduced impacting residential amenity.- There is an adverse effect of the development on the character and appearance of theConservation Area (Redland Green Park). The feeling of openness of the green space isadversely impacted by the overlooking of the houses directly onto the green space.

Impact of overlooking and loss of privacy- The proposed properties overlook the existing neighbouring "hidden" gardens, leading to a lossof privacy and overlooking.- The proposed reverse living arrangements means that the windows of the first floor look directlyinto neighbouring gardens, and into the neighbouring living areas. In our case, our main living areais on the same height as the proposed first floor reverse living. Having bedrooms on the first floor,

rather than living rooms, could mitigate the overlooking and loss of privacy as these rooms wouldbe used less often during the daytime. Having frosted glass in the study and dining area windowswould also mitigate the overlooking.- Insufficient screening is provided in the current plan. Keeping the existing historic garage roovesover the planned parking spaces, next to the 3 remaining garages, would:o provide effective screening for existing and future residents and provide greater security toexisting properties.o retain some of the "hidden" feel of the existing walled gardens.o blend the 3 remaining garages into the development to enhance the Mews feel. As it stands the3 remaining garages would look out of context in the new development. A continuous roofline,rather than a broken roofline, would be better for all parties.o would keep some of the historic character and heritage of the existing area and improve theoverall look and feel of the development.o would provide covered parking for new residents and protect electric charging points.

Impact on access to existing garages

- The proposed development restricts the access to the 3 remaining, privately owned, garages onthe site and does not present a viable solution to allow access. These comments are related togarage number 5. Similar issues may apply to the other two privately owned garages:o The distance between the garage doors and the new buildings is about 6m, although the plansseem to vary on this point. Proposed site section A indicates the distance is 5.6m. The proposed ground floor plan indicates 6.25m on the LHS (facing the garage) and 5.93m on theRHS. This appears to be due to the angle of the proposed development relative to the existinggarage.o I have carried out drive tests by placing a board at 6m to simulate the house wall. I have thentried to access the garage without touching the proposed house wall.o Realistically it is not possible to fully utilise the full distance as it is not possible to manoeuvre towithin less than 30-40cm of the garage front and the wall of the house, without damaging the vanor walls. This reduces the available distance to 5.2m - 5.4m.o At present I enter the garage front first by taking a route down the LHS of the courtyard and thenswinging across into the garage. This would no longer be possible given the constraints of the newarea.

o Walsingham planning have proposed an alternative via a swept path analysis, taking a routedown the RHS, swinging to the left after the garage and then reversing into the garage. There areno measurements shown on this analysis and no statement of the feasibility of accessing thegarages via this method. I have tried to execute this method and it is a difficult procedure whichrequired multiple manoeuvres. I had to approach the proposed house wall to within centimetres ofthe 6m mark in order to obtain the correct angle. I then had to go forwards and backwardsadjusting the angle until it was possible to enter the garage. My conclusion is that practically it isextremely difficult with a high probability of damaging my van or the proposed house or garage. I

have produced videos of my manoeuvres which can be provided, if required.o I would also have to utilise the pedestrian marked area for this manoeuvre, which is potentially asafety issue. I feel that this has the potential to create issues with the new residents as the vanwould approach their building and their bedroom windows/ front door, in extremely close proximity.If any object was to be placed in any part of the turning zone, e.g. bike, planter, table, chairs(which are shown in the marketing material for the site), then this would prevent my access. Aparked vehicle projecting from one of the parking spaces would also probably prevent access asthe path necessary to obtain the turning angle would be prevented. Restrictions on how thecourtyard can be used and where objects can or can't be placed should be provided to preventsuch issues. As the space is required for turning for a fire engine then restrictions should apply toprevent blocking.

o Leaving the garage is also difficult and requires multiple manoeuvres, again approaching adifferent part of the building in extremely close proximity. Due to the angle of the new buildingsrelative to the garage the available distance is reduced further in this direction, which may mean itis not possible to leave the garage in this direction. Entering the garage in reverse means that it isnot possible to open the tailgate of the van for loading, as there is insufficient space. The only waythis could be achieved is by moving the van so that it projects into the courtyard area, which couldcause an obstruction to other users.o The van is 1904cm wide and 4904cm long. The garage opening is 2355 cm wide. Turning circle(wall to wall) is 11.9m.

Impact of building design- The proposed building detailing, believed to be zinc cladding in a bright red colour, is out ofcharacter with the surrounding area. Tones closer to the existing red brick and roof tiles would bemore in keeping.- The proposed Solar panels are not in keeping with the character of the area and negate thevisual benefits of the green roof. The green roof softens the roofline and blends with thesurrounding trees and vegetation. The Solar panels form a defining continuous dark, reflective,band across the field of view, which stands out aggressively from the Green Roof.- The orientation of the panels, positioned away from the sun for most of the day and covered by atree canopy on one side, renders them very extremely inefficient and they may not be viable in thisorientation.

Impact of loss of garages- Garages in the Redland area are in short supply and loss of 23 garages could impact smallbusinesses in the area, who use the garages for storage of vehicles, materials and tools.

Impact on parking in Cossins road- Parking in Cossins road will be impacted by the scheme.- Additional cars owned by new residents (above the 7 spaces allocated) will take parking placeson Cossins road, where parking is already a major issue.

- Loss of parking spaces created by the wider turning areas, and keep clear signage, will reducespaces.- Loss of 23 garages may result in additional vehicles being parked in the area.- The keep clear markings opposite the entrance to the development are rarely observed. Thiscreates difficulties turning into and out of the site. The road markings around the entrance shouldbe changed to ensure cars are not parked near to or across the entrance, as often happens today.

Impact of working hours and methods of working- I haven't seen any information regarding the proposed working practices during the developmentphase. Given that the area has a dense population living nearby, with many people working andliving at home during the daytime, then it would seem reasonable to expect some statements andassurances regarding these working practices. i.e. hours of working within normal working hours,no weekend working, no bank holiday working.- Similarly, users of the park will be impacted by the increased noise and dust, and owners ofproperties and users of Cossins Road will be impacted by the heavy vehicles required during thedevelopment phase.

Impact of demolition on existing buildings- I haven't seen any information in the planning information regarding how the structural integrity ofthe remaining 3 garages, and the rear wall of the garages to be demolished, will be assured duringand after the development stage.- Similarly, no information on how the roof and wall to the side of my garage will be repaired afterthe demolition.- Due to the high level of impact on neighbouring properties I feel that there should be anexplanation of how this will be dealt with in the current set of planning documents.

Impact on Wildlife- The rear gardens of the neighbouring properties, the areas of vegetation and trees on the site,and the garage rooves provide a sanctuary for many animals and birds. We believe that Bats roostin the garages having seen them flying around the garages and our gardens over many years. Itextends the green area of Redland park and provides a corridor that encourages wildlife.- Removal of trees and scrub in and around the site will negatively impact wildlife and amenity.

The development would adversely affect highway safety and the convenience of road users-The current garaging and courtyard offer residents a valuable local amenity giving them the abilityto park off road, in safe secure garages, and provides workshop space and small businessesstorage. These facilities would be lost to the community.These plans propose family homes that will inevitably require more than one space per household.Despite the suggested 6 parking spaces this development will cause an increase in parking in thesurrounding streets which are already congested.Additionally the increase in vehicles parking on surrounding roads raises concerns regarding highway safety as the nearby roads house both a primary school , nursery school and church.

Adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours, by reason of noise, disturbance,overlooking, loss of privacy-The housing proposal will have a significant impact to those living adjacent to this developmentaffecting the views, appreciation, pleasantness and aesthetics of the immediate area. Currentlythe gardens of the houses in the immediate area are an oasis of calm, and provide an area forrelaxation. The proposed 6 houses will undoubtedly increase noise and overlooking and willreduce the overall well-being of residents.

The loss of existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect the residentialamenity for existing owners-The impact on loss of view from both a neighbouring resident and public (Redland green park)point of view should be considered within the loss of amenity. The houses overlooking thedevelopment currently have views over the tree line to the park and beyond, the roof height of the

proposed new houses will impact this significantly.

Loss of privacy - due to the reverse living design of these houses-This could be substantially reduced if the design was reversed or obscure glazing was used to thewindows overlooking the existing Coldharbour rd houses and the current garage roofs wereretained to provide additional screening.

The need to demolish existing garages as per current plan will impact on wildlife -The current garaging will have an impact on the local environment as it is the home to wildlifewhich includes foxes and bats.

Reduced accessibility to our garage-Concerns regarding the impact of the development encroaching on the legal right of access to ourgarage. The housing plans indicate that our ability to easily access our garage will be significantlyreduced due to the design of the housing and the proposed landscaping (planters, bike storage)outside of the houses.

Concerns regarding the structural integrity of retained garages as a result of the demolition ofsurrounding garaging-Mitigation needs to be put in place to recognise and address these concerns with the potential ofrebuilding to be considered. This could enable wider garage doors to be fitted and negate some ofthe impact on access into the garages for owner's parking their vehicles. Conditions should beagreed as part of the planning process to ensure the remaining garages are in an intact, safe anduseable condition.

Use of materials -The plans indicate the use of red zink cladding and solar panels which I feel are not in keepingwith the stylistic context of the local surroundings. Also the solar panels are positioned with a northwesterly aspect and are therefore not placed to work efficiently.

Disruption and impact of works-Although I recognise that the disruption and impact of works is not a planning issue considerationsneeds to be taken regarding the impact to the garage owners who require 24 hour access to thegarages. Reasonable site working times should also be established to reduce impact of build toneighbours. These conditions should be negotiated between the garage owners, local neighboursand the developers and agreed to form part of planning to ensure that these concerns areaddressed.

As a neighbour to the proposed development I object to the plans for the followingreasons.

- Proposed TRO either side of the entrance will remove 5/6 parking spaces in Cossins Road. Thisroad is already very busy Mon-Fri during school term time and this has been compounded bycars/vans parked for weeks/months at a time when parking restrictions were introduced on theDowns and the extension of the RPZ in Redland.- Proposed parking on the development appears to be of minimal width and with very limitedmanoeuvrability to park within a marked bay. This will impact access to the 3 privately ownedgarages. The plans assume only one medium sized car per household - if this is not the case thenthere is even more demand for parking in Cossins Road.- There should be no removal or disturbance to mature trees which are on the border (park side) tomake way for the development.

Community need: Some of the commentators have applauded the introduction ofadditional 'family homes' to the area. However, consultation with local estate agents suggests thathouses of this size, without gardens, are not generally targeting the market for family homes andwould be unlikely to be occupied by such, more likely being bought by downsizers or professionalcouples. Bristol has a shortage of good-sized family homes with gardens, and this developmentdoes nothing to address the real community need. From the first 19th c developments in WestburyPark, this area has always been notable for providing sizeable gardens and a more spaciousenvironment than neighbourhoods closer to the centre, and this is a character that should bepreserved. Potential garden space has been sacrificed to squeeze in more houses. The proposalfor green roofs is welcome and if the application is accepted it should make it essential that thegreen roofs be delivered in full as proposed.

Lack of collaboration: Due to the immediate proximity of the development to the facing houses,and the impact of the retained garages and impact of the easement, the development should havebeen planned with greater consultation with the immediate neighbours. We contacted thedeveloper when we were appraised of the intention to submit the application, but to date ourrequest for co-production and consultation has not had a response. Due to the constraintsimposed by our garages, a more collaborative approach may have produced a more appropriateplan.

Retained garages: The proposal is to demolish some of the garages and retain others. This is anunrealistic proposal, as it is highly unlikely that the retained garages would have the structuralintegrity necessary to survive such works. Moreover, the existing garages are mismatched andvisually unattractive. Any proposal to create a visually appealing 'mews-effect' environment would

be significantly undermined by the dishevelled appearance of the retained garages right in themiddle of the development.

Overlooking: The diagrams accompanying this proposal do not adequately reflect the extent towhich the facing houses will be significantly overlooked. Proposed Site Section A2 (Drawingnumber 452 305 (D03)) is not to scale and represents the garages which are to be retained ashigher than they are. The retained garages are 3.7m and the drawing represents them as 4.2m.Moreover, the true impact of the overlooking is not accurately reflected, as only a segment of thefacing houses would have the garages and therefore the roof height retained. For a significantsegment of the boundary, the proposal is to reduce the barrier to the wall height which issignificantly lower, below 3m. Because the proposal is to have windows for principal living spacesfacing onto the back gardens, every half meter has a disproportionate impact on the extent towhich the existing living spaces are overlooked. Because of the noise and traffic on ColdharbourRoad, our house, as with others, has all its principal living spaces facing to the back, not the frontof the house. We also have multiple terraces in the back garden which are in regular use duringspring summer and autumn. While the facing windows would be over 20m, these garden spaceswhich we use, and our neighbours use, for eating and living, are well within 20m of the proposednew windows. Overlooking could have been mitigated by retaining the garage roof life across thelength of the boundary with the facing houses. If this was rebuilt as a single long roof with a mix ofopen carports and closed garages, this would reduce the extent of overlooking, particularly if areplacement roof was raised to match the level of the coping stones, rather than the level of theridge.

Ground level: In discussion with the developer, there was a suggestion that the ground level wouldbe reduced in height as part of the proposal. I can't see where this is articulated in the plans,however, this would have multiple positive benefits as it would reduce the extent of overlookingand reduce the risk of being overbearing and having a negative visual impact on Redland Green.This should be made a condition if approved.

Wildlife: The removal of the garage roofs would have a negative impact on wildlife. The roofs areused by foxes as a 'highway' that allows them to cross gardens, being higher than fences andborders but low enough to reach from the park and scrub.Solar installation: The proposal to site the solar panels at the highest point of the roofs would havea detrimental visual impact on the proposed green roofs. Moreover, the solar panels would beangled in the wrong direction, facing north not south. If a carport were to be erected to replacesome of the garages, this would be a more suitable location for a solar installation, facing in theright direction and not interfering with the natural effect of the green roofs. Bristol's own map ofappropriate solar locations identified the roofs which will be removed for parking as 'good' for solar(https://www.bristol.gov.uk/residents/housing/private-tenants/solar-panels).

Design: I understand that there would be a further stage of application in relation to the visualeffect of the development. The current proposal is vague and unconvincing. The achieving a

'mews' effect is appealing, but the current structure would not achieve this effect because the sitewould be lopsided, with one side creating a terrace but the other side not replicating the positivesense of enclosure. The materials and colour scheme also sound odd. An archetypal mews is in amulti-colour palette. Given that this is also a very typical Bristol housing type, with an attractivemulti-colour range of shades, this seems like a missed opportunity and unlikely to create theproposed effect.

Objections to Coussins Road Garage Development1. Loss of essential amenity.My title deed for my garage BR18476 states that my garage has the benefit of the rights of accessgranted by a conveyance dated 28 Jan 1953. The plans as proposed provide just 6m clearancebetween the front of my garage and and the front of the facing proposed house whereas presentlythere is 8.5m between the front of my garage and the facing garage. My van is 4.91 m long (whichis shorter than a typical estate car). Even as is with 8.5 m clearance it is only just possible to driveinto the garage forwards. We have marked out 6 m and concluded that it is impossible to get thevehicle forwards into the garage and extremely difficult to reverse in; and this assumes the houseowners keep the fronts of their houses absolutely clear which is unlikely. Indeed the applicantslandscape design and access statement: '20_00665_F-landscape design and access statement'says that "the threshold of the builings is enriched, semi private" and marked on the plans as apedestrian, priority, semi-private area. It mentions this being an active zone where people may sitin the sun and talk to their neighbours. Even the smallest table or chair in this area wouldabsolutely prevent vehicular access to the garages as is our legal right under the title. Even if thethreshold area was kept absolutely clear (which is marked semi-private on page 5 of thelandscape design and access statement) the fact that we would have to manoeuvre very close tothe house we feel there is a risk to the safety of pedestrians and children playing in the onlyoutside space that these houses have.

This plan constitutes a loss of amenity for 60, 62 and 64 Coldharbour Road in that we will not beable to access our garages. With the current difficulties in parking in the area exacerbated by thisdevelopment this becomes more important. As I plan to transition to an electric vehicle of similarsize shortly the access to my garage will be essential for recharging. (Due to towing a trailer,

changing to a smaller electric vehicle is not an option).

If these houses are to be built, they will need adequate parking and outside space, notencroaching our right of way or preventing access to our garages.

2. Risk to safety of residents of proposed new dwellings. There is no outside area for thesehouses. The area outside their front doors will be directly in access/right of way of our garages. Asabove we will need to drive right up to the wall of the properties to access our garages and thisposes a risk to pedestrians and residents.

3. Loss of privacy and Overshadowing several existing properties.The proposed 2 storey houses are much higher than the existing garges and will have windowsfacing directly into our bedrooms and living rooms. The upside down design with the living area onthe first floor will look directly into our living rooms, bedrooms and and garden. This is a gross lossof privacy and a direct overshadowing to the current residents on Coldharbour Road. This designcould be changed or frosted windows used to maintain privacy.

4. Loss of/damage to trees and wildlife from a conservation area.The plans themselves show that the area encroaches on the root space of trees in the RedlandGreen Park conservation area. There is also a proposal to cut down a large tree to make room forrefuse bins for these houses as they have absolutely no outside space with current plans. This isan area of quiet, relaxed amenity adjacent to the conservation area of Redland Green park. In myopinion this area is best left as garages not dwellings.

5. Exacerbation of parking problems on Coussins road.the removal of 22 garages used by local residents and building 6 x 3 bedroom properties withinadequate parking the parking problem on Coussins road will be much worse. This area servesseveral schools and nurseries and there are many school children on this road who walk to andfrom school. There is a huge lack of parking in the surrounding roads and area and this will makethe problem much worse.

6. Structural damage to existing 3 garages.There is no mention of how the 22 garages will be demolished to maintain the 3 garages owned byus. There is mention of leaving the walls behind the garages, however these are very low and nothigh enough to prevent my dog from escaping once the garges are removed. The plans need tobe rethought such as leaving the existing walls with roofs or rebuilding with the original tiles.

7. Loss of amenity/poor design.There is a proposal to put solar panels on the green roofing, which are not only ugly, overshadowand obstruct our view further but also face the wrong direction to access any sun, so areimpractical. The plans also state the use of bright red zinc cladding on the properties. This is out of

keeping with the area . The original garages currently have original muted red roof tiles, in keepingwith the local architecture.

8. Loss of security.The security of the locked garage area will be lost with removal of the locked gate and opening ofthe area. This leaves the back of our houses insecure whereas at present we have securegardens and houses.

The proposals generally appear cleverly and sensitively designed, however their is amajor flaw which is placing the main aspect with large picture windows on the boundary to thepark which impacts the overlooking amenity of both the residents and park users, as well as raisesthe question about how the windows would be cleaned / maintained. The street interface with alow wall shielding bins and bikes to the side of the entrance could perhaps be better.

I live at 56 Coldharbour Road. We are supportive of the single storey bungalow beingbuilt. However would like to raise some specific planning considerations.

The back wall of the 'Lodge' is a boundary wall shared with our property and garden.

The drawings submitted for the Lodge includes an internal courtyard which has an 'opening' whichis a lowered section on our shared boundary wall. The architects have assured me by email andverbally at the meeting held at Redland Green Tennis Courts that this 'opening' will not provide theoccupants with any visibility into our property & garden. We have also been assured that nowindows are proposed for the Lodge along our boundary wall. Any windows or openings along thisboundary wall which allow the occupiers to look into our house and garden would cause loss ofamenity and privacy.

To ensure that this commitment is honoured and that we do not suffer loss of amenity and privacy,we request that the following planning condition is included:

No windows shall at any time be placed along the boundary wall with 56 Coldharbour Road BS67NA without the grant of a separate planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.

The plans show an opening in our boundary wall, which will allow light to enter the courtyard in thelodge.

If the occupants of the lodge can look out of the opening into our garden or property this will causea loss of amenity and privacy. To prevent this, please can you add a planning condition that the

bottom of the opening must not be less than 2 metres from the surface of the floor of the Lodge. Itmust not be more than 2.7m wide (in line with current plans).

The Planning Officer is welcome to contact us for further information on these matters.

Noise: The development is surrounded by family homes and Redland Green which is used by thelocal community. Please can the planning include a Site Specific Construction EnvironmentalManagement Plan.

Please can the hours of operation be restricted:

"All works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary, or at such other placeas may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, shall be carried out only between thefollowing hours: 08 00 Hours and 18 00 Hours on Mondays to Fridays and; at no time onSaturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays."

Although, this is outside of the planning process. As the Lodge is being built on our boundary wallwe will need a written access agreement and party wall agreement before work can proceed.

I agree with the need for housing and am supportive of the reduction in height of thebuildings since the pre-planning application in 2021. As the lodge will border our property I havespecific objections which I would like to be implemented as planning conditions. I believe these arereasonable and practical:

- If the opening above the internal courtyard in the lodge is too low, it will cause loss of amenityand privacy. This is because we regularly have children playing in the garden that will have onewall of the lodge along its boundary. We would like to ensure that the bottom of the opening isabove head height of the occupants of the lodge. Could we have a planning condition that statesthat the bottom of the opening is no less than 2 metres from the floor of the lodge? Could this alsostate that the maximum width of the opening is 2.7 metres (which will not alter the existing design).

- To ensure that the submitted design is not altered in way that provides further loss of privacy,could we have a planning condition that states no windows or additional openings to the lodge areadded to the design?

- As the wall of the lodge borders onto our garden, we would like a planning condition that no partof the building extends beyond the wall of the existing garage, into our property.

- The development is in a residential area which includes both young children and the elderly. Wewould like to request that any building work that causes audible noise is restricted to between 8am- 6pm Monday to Friday only. This would specifically exclude Saturdays, Sundays or BankHolidays.

- We would also require a party wall agreement and written access agreement before any workstarts on site.

Thank you.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment: We are supportive of the single storey bungalow being

built. However would like to raise some specific planning considerations.

The back wall of the 'Lodge' is a boundary wall shared with our property and garden.

The drawings submitted for the Lodge includes an internal courtyard which has an 'opening' which

is a lowered section on our shared boundary wall. The architects have assured me by email and

verbally at the meeting held at Redland Green Tennis Courts that this 'opening' will not provide the

occupants with any visibility into our property & garden. We have also been assured that no

windows are proposed for the Lodge along our boundary wall. Any windows or openings along this

boundary wall which allow the occupiers to look into our house and garden would cause loss of

amenity and privacy.

To ensure that this commitment is honoured and that we do not suffer loss of amenity and privacy,

we request that the following planning condition is included:

No windows shall at any time be placed along the boundary wall with 56 Coldharbour Road BS6

7NA without the grant of a separate planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.

The plans show an opening in our boundary wall, which will allow light to enter the courtyard in the

lodge.

If the occupants of the lodge can look out of the opening into our garden or property this will cause

a loss of amenity and privacy. To prevent this, please can you add a planning condition that the

bottom of the opening must not be less than 2 metres from the surface of the floor of the Lodge. It

must not be more than 2.7m wide (in line with current plans).

The Planning Officer is welcome to contact us for further information on these matters.

Noise: The development is surrounded by family homes and Redland Green which is used by the

local community. Please can the planning include a Site Specific Construction Environmental

Management Plan.

Please can the hours of operation be restricted:

"All works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary, or at such other place

as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, shall be carried out only between the

following hours: 08 00 Hours and 18 00 Hours on Mondays to Fridays and; at no time on

Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays."

Although, this is outside of the planning process. As the Lodge is being built on our boundary wall

we will need a written access agreement and party wall agreement before work can proceed.

The development of the garages and land for residential properties is inevitable but the currentproposals raise many concerns which need to be addressed. These concerns include increasedparking issues in Cossins Road, safety of pavement users including school children and loss ofmature trees.

On-site ParkingAlthough one allocated parking space per property is provided, in reality the 3 bedroom propertiesare likely to have 1-2 vehicles per household so will result in many vehicles overflowing ontoalready crowded neighbouring roads.Allocated Parking spaces on-site look narrow and manoeuvring difficult.

Tree strategyG2 trees appear to be on Redland Green land and should not be removed.Retain G2 and T3 and keep land on NE corner as existing, but tidied up, to retain the hiddenfeeling as stated in the Design and Access Statement 23 Nov 2022 part 1'the garages are largely hidden by neighbouring trees'.

Drawing. Indicative Access Arrangement.The proposed 'No waiting at any time' zones either side at the entrance on Cossins Road areunacceptable.This results in a loss of about 6 vehicle parking spaces in a road that is already overcrowded withvehicles particularly during school term times.There is already a 'no parking' zone on the opposite side of the road to minimise problems of

vehicle access and egress so why are new 'no waiting zones' required?

Existing parking and safety issues in Cossins Road

Over recent years there has been a significant increase in parking of vehicles in Cossins Road asit is one of the nearest unrestricted parking areas adjacent to the Redland RPZ and DurhamDowns.

The road is used by many different groups, such as commuters, local residents, tradespeople,workers at local schools, parents dropping off and picking up children and hence high demand forparking spaces.

Cossins Rd is a very important community road and serves many purposes, and:- Apart from 11 residential family properties, there is the Red House Children's Centre and EtloeChurch Hall in the road.- Westbury Park School, Harcourt Pre-School, St Albans Church, Redland Green School andRedland Green park are all within a 100 metres of Cossins Road.- Pedestrians (including young children walking, running or on scooters), all use the pavementsand road to get to the above facilities at all times of the day.

Cossins Rd is a narrow road and vehicles park on the pavements on both sides of the road whichoften results in:- Families with prams are forced to walk in the road as the pavements are impossible to navigatedue to vehicles mounted on pavement.- Service vehicles cannot pass. (Bristol Waste have had to bump cars!)- No places for passing. (Police were called to an angry confrontation between drivers who wouldnot move).- No access to resident's driveways or difficulty in getting in and out of the Property driveway.- No spaces to allow drop off or pick up for the local schools.- No spaces for deliveries.

See YouTube video 'Cossins Road 2018' for examples of issues in Cossins Road.

Considerations:

- Reduce number of properties.- Increase number of on-site parking spaces.- Maintain hidden features (trees) at NE corner.- Make entrance wider for 2 way traffic which will also improve visibility for all.- Remove 'No waiting zones'- TRO. Review traffic management for entire length of Cossins Roads and/or consider a RPZ toinclude neighbouring roads.

While I support the use of the site for provision of more houses, I am very concernedabout the impact on parking and traffic in Cossins Road. There is already significant pressure onCossins Road in terms of traffic and parking spaces due to it being the first street outside theexisting RPZ combined with the number of neighbouring schools, preschools/nurseries, use ascommuter parking etc.

The new development will put significant further pressure on the traffic and on parking with visitorcars and second cars.

I would like to see the developer fund the implementation of appropriate parking/traffic measuresalong Cossins Road as part of the development eg residents parking zone, or an alternativeappropriate traffic management measure for the length of the road.

Tree cover: the land adjacent to the pavement on the left hand side of the site as you look at thesite from the road should be retained with current tree cover (not used for bins and bikes whichshould be located elsewhere on the site) in order to retain tree cover on the site and prevent thefelling of a significant sized sycamore tree.

These comments on the application from the Westbury Park Community Associationare neither in terms of clear support or objection, as is explained below.

The site at present is used solely for a number of garages. Not many of the garages are in regularuse for parking cars and they are in a generally poor condition, making the site both underusedand unattractive.

We support the proposal to change the site's use for housing in principle as this would contributeto meeting the city's need for more housing.

We also support the overall design because while the proposed houses are clearly contemporarythey make good use of locally appropriate stone and other materials as well as including a numberof 'green' building features.

The impact on the views from living rooms to Redland Green from the houses along ColdharbourRoad is clearly a concern for those residents, though we do recognise that this not normally aplanning matter. The views are already slightly limited by the trees on the immediately adjacentpart of Redland Green and there is also the poor visual quality of the current garages; somethingthat would be improved with the new houses, especially with their green roofs.

The other positive feature of the proposals is the inclusion of one open parking bay per house.Had these been garages, there is a danger that they would not have been used to park cars, witha knock-on worsening of the local parking problems.

It is not clear how many of the existing garages to be removed are used regularly to park carsalthough we understand that the number is low. Displaced cars will in the future have to park onroads either adjacent or further afield. On the basis of local patterns it is also very likely that atleast some of the new households will own two cars and the second car would have to park onadjacent roads.

Parking in general is therefore the key issue, and not just for new or existing nearby residents butas part of the larger picture for much of Westbury Park. Since the introduction of the ResidentialParking Zone roughly to the south of our area the commuter knock-on effects on parts of our areahave been considerable, including on roads around this site. Our community is certainly not alonein experiencing this serious problem so we believe it is extremely important, as a matter ofurgency, for the City Council to produce its promised Parking Strategy which must address thisissue and the possible remedial option of new or extended residential parking zones..

I object to the concept that these garages are a Brownfield Site and can be consideredfor building on as in the above plan.These 20 community rental garages are a vital community asset just as important to the peoplethat use them as the park behind is to the people who live around it.The users of the garages allow local people to park their cars off the street and to store their extrabelongings taking pressure off the local parking which is already over subscribed and inadequate.The garages also provide a home to many local small traders such as painters and decorators andodd-job men. These people are also vital to the local community and their loss of small storagefacilities for their businesses will drive these local traders away.Finally, at weekends the garages are a focal point of activity and shared experience amongst thelocal residents allowing vital local links to be made between different classic car enthusiasts andother such hobby people (including boat owners).These garages are also amazingly secure due to the provision of the security fencing at theentrance another vital factor which many other lock-up garages do not have.Western Property Services (Management) who very efficiently run the site tell me that they used tomanage 1,100 such community garages but now due to the frenzy of profit taking from building onsuch important social amenities they are now down to managing 300.WE NEED TO STOP THIS FRENZY OF PROFITEERING FROM IMPORTANT SOCIAL ASSETSSUCH AS THESE GARAGES.THEY ARE VITAL TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.

Notwithstanding the above I attended a recent local information session by the Developers atRedland Green Club.I note that 5 of the proposed houses are 3 bedroom (in the £750.000 price range) so are highly

likely to have 2/3 cars associated with each one (they have no garages at all). So will need aminimum of 10 to 12 spaces they have provisionally provided 6. There are no visitors parkingspaces and there is also a bungalow with a Disabled space outside. Therefore parkingarrangements proposed are totally inadequate and will spill further cars onto an already totallycongested and over subscribed Cossins Road. This scheme is detrimental to the whole area andwill only make its parking problems much worse.Many of the garages are already used by local Cossins Road residents so they will add furthercars to the already congested situation.This development is detrimental to the area and should be opposed.

It's clear we need more housing in Bristol and this seems like a well thought throughplan that makes good use of an underused brownfield site.

My objection/reservation is about the knock on effect additional cars will have on the road in twoareas. Firstly, Cossins Road has borne the brunt of overspill parking from the RPZ scheme inRedland, many of the cars parking on the pavement impeding pedestrian traffic.

Secondly the road is used by literally hundreds of school children and their parents at RedlandGreen and Westbury Park Schools. Although the properties will have 6 car parking spaces there isbound to be more traffic associated with the development in terms of visitors and deliveries etc aswell as the extra traffic generated during construction. This poses significant extra road safetyhazards.

If the traffic, parking and road safety issues could be mitigated by Bristol City Council plannersthen I would be happy to support the application.

I do not object in principle to the building of 6 x 3-bedroom 2-storey houses in the areaas there is a housing shortage in Bristol. I also appreciate that 6 car park spaces are beingallocated on site.

However, given the price that such houses are likely to retail for in this area, it is very probable thatfuture occupants of the houses will have more than one car which they will want to park onCossins Road. Moreover, their visitors will also park on the road.

Cossins Road is subject to severe congestion, particularly during term time. As it is the first roadoutside the RPZ, many non-residents park on it daily while they go to work. Some non-residentsalso leave their cars / vans there for extended periods when they go on holiday or to avoid payingthe RPZ charge on other streets. In order for the street to be passable, everyone has to park onthe pavement on both sides, except at the top of the road. When they do not, larger vehiclescannot get through, and many have to reverse right up to the top.

The road is heavily used by pupils at Westbury Park Primary School and Redland High Schooland also by Redland Nursery for taking the children to the park and for parents dropping off andcollecting their children. There is also a church which attracts traffic, although primarily at theweekend. Consequently, this is a very busy road which already is not safe for the numbers ofchildren using it each day due to cars parked in the street which obstruct visibility. It also remainsto be seen how the entrance to the proposed development will be safe for children passing by andwho will be largely unseen by drivers exiting the site until the last minute, particularly as manychildren run or scoot down the road.

The road does not have enough space for parking for residents, given the current parkingconditions. The proposed development will most definitely add to the problem, particularly as onespace will be lost as the entrance to the site is to be widened. Therefore I object to the proposalunless a Residents Parking Scheme can be introduced to make it safe for both residents and allthe passing children.

I also object to any trees being knocked down - given climate change, we need every tree wehave!

I have lived in BS6 for almost 20 years and regularly walk my dog through RedlandGreen and come out near the garages, which are an eye sore and are inclined to attract anti-socialbehaviour, for which reason I avoid this route at night.

I am very excited to see that this site is finally being redeveloped, into something which willincrease the enjoyment for all of us who live in the area and make the park a safer place to enjoy.Including those walking their children home from Westbury Park School, as we did when our childwas younger

The proposed development will be a vast improvement over the current site, which I am forced towalk passed, when I use the park. It will also obviously provide much needed housing.

This planning is for six three bed houses with only 6 parking spaces. As most houses inthis area have a least 2 cars per household this will mean extra cars parked on Cossins roadwhere there is already a problem with cars parked on the pavements blocking access to the localWestbury park school with prams and buggies.

I recognise that Bristol needs more housing. I am therefore supportive of using the sitefor homes. In the large part I think the development has been well designed

However, I am objecting for two reasons:

1. Car parking: Cossins Road already experiences high levels of traffic with significant numbers ofparked cars which obstruct view and access for pedestrians. A large number people appear to usethe street for commuting, parking camper vans etc. as Cossins Road is the first street from thecentre with no residents parking zone. This development will only add to that pressure given anumber of residents in the new houses are likely to have more than one car, plus visitors. Largenumbers of school children currently walk down the road every day and more parking and trafficwill make it more dangerous. Children often run or scoot down the pavement where the newdevelopment will be.

As a result of the development residents parking should be introduced and appropriate measuresto ensure that entrance is safe for pedestrians walking by.

2. Trees and vegetation - the development will likely result in the heavy pruning of trees inRedland Green as these will be seen to obstruct views and intrude into the houses, given that thehouses will be built right up to the Green boundary. There will also be the loss of a large sycamoretree by the left entrance of the new development. This tree will be removed to accommodate binsand the houses.

The vegetation/tree to the left of the entrance to the development should be retained and trees

and vegetation in Redland Green need to be protected.

As a resident homeowner in a neighbouring road in this postcode we are acutely awareof the need for more housing at the affordable end of the market, built to modern standards butsympathetic and in keeping with the surroundings. We're impressed by the proposed developmentas it seems it will have little impact on the views from Redland Green and beyond. It retainsexisting trees and shrubs and also incorporates wildflower roofing, which seems really innovativeand beneficial for the birds and other wildlife in our area. It's pleasing to see that each house willget its own dedicated parking space too. In terms of what's there now, it seems like this is assympathetic and characterful a development of the plot to a much more needed use as can beexpected really.

Some concerns about added traffic and parking conditions on analready busy overcrowded road.Residence parking would improve the situation

As a long time Bristol resident and property owner, I am writing in support of thisplanning application. There is a shortage of new family homes in Bristol and this development willprovide a much needed mix of 3 bedroom family homes in Redland. Furthermore, thedevelopment is sustainable, low rise and very sympathetic to the surroundings. The mews stylearchitecture is also attractive and a noticeable improvement on the existing lock-up garages. Thiscarefully considered small development will enhance the overall area.

I think the plan to put housing on this site sounds like a good idea. However, I think theplan only allows for 1 car per household. I have concerns that with only 1 entrance/exit beingCossins Road that there will be a potentially challenges and difficulties in our Road with the extranew residents in these new properties with parking and road safety.I am therefore raising my objection to the plans as they stand because we will have furtherstresses with parking in Cossins Road. We are already overcrowded in terms of parkingparticularly during term time. Many schoolchildren are walking and causing congestion on thepavements also.We need safe places to walk and cross the roads. This means making the rightarrangements for parked cars also.

The original scheme was for 14 units 6 units seems much more realistic. We do needmore housing and it seems like a good use of a brownfield site.

My objection/reservation would be around the inevitable associated increased parking and theextra strain this would put on an already overloaded school route. I would ask that plannersreconsider introducing residents parking in Cossins Road. The road has borne the overspill fromneighbouring residents parking scheme since it was introduced. We used to have about two dozencars parked here mid-week; now it's over 50 many of whom are parked on the pavement which isheavily used by school children and parents.

Cossins Road already has very dangerous parking behaviour - it is the first road notcovered by residents parking.Hundreds of children walk along Cossins Road each day (to use Westbury Park school, RedHouse nursery, Harcourt nursery, Redland Green secondary) and the parking overload makes itdangerous for the children.Building extra dwellings is going to put significant additional pressure on the on-street parking.This building work should not go ahead without Cossins Road being included in a residentsparking scheme. Inclusion in a residents parking scheme would have overwhelming support fromhome owners on Cossins Road.

Due to the adjacent parking zone this ares is heavily congested with parked cars so thisdevelopment would add to this congestion with added vehicles and the loss of off road parkingfacilities.The development would appear to encroach on Redland Green with the loss of mature vegetation.