My name is Martin Thomas, and I am the Applicant in this Application. I sent a detailedletter with photos to my agent who sent it to planning for submission, it appears to have beenmislaid and has not been submitted.

None the less, I can submit it here, but without the photos. This was my letter .......

Comment form Applicant 06th August 2024

Planning reference number 23/01412/P

There has been very recent correspondence between the Planning Authority and Moon Design,between Ms Anna Schroder (Senior Planning Officer) and JDHR .......... (design consultant -Moon)

This comment is directly related to the mention of the TDM and their concerns with Pedestriansand vehicles, in the lane.

30th July 2024, 13:35,Ms Anna Schroeder emailed Moon Designs and asked if the Application was to be continued to beconsidered and asked for an extension of time to the 30th August 2024.

01st August 2024, 08:50,

JDHR, among other items, agreed an extension of time.

01st August 2024, 10:12,Among other items, thanked JDHR for the update (Extension of time)

Other various emails followed with a final one from Anna Schroeder .....

01st August 2024, 13:32,Among other mentions of other items, she states that there was strong objection from TDM aboutpedestrians and vehicles, and that they would give weight to this issue.

She also went on to say that, ".... It is rare we would object to a car free development...." ".... inreach of amenities and public Transport....."

This comment is related to the pedestrians and vehicles in the same lane.

This is the lane .....

(Insert photo)

I visited the site many times, but these photos were taken today the 06th August 2024. Thefollowing photograph is one side of the many entrances to the lane, that are currently in existenceand are currently being used.

(insert photo)

This is the lane on the left side going in, showing all the relevant entrances from the houses, thereis also one on the right side going into the lane.

(insert photo)

Then there are the garages, this photo, as stated, was taken on the 06th August 2024.

(Insert photo)

There are currently 8 garages and all 8 are in use, there was even a car parked there, this photowas taken at 11:24 this morning, the photo is Geotagged to this date and time.

So the lane is in use.

To make matters clearer, I then used Google Maps to give a Birds Eye view of the garages andlane and entrances.

(Insert Google map photo)

So there are currently 8 garages and 7 entrances.

These entrances are historic and have been in use for over 100 years, the garages, we are tounderstand, were built in the 1950's, they are post war and thus built of Asbestos.

In the approximately 70 - 75 years of the garages, there has been no noted incidents of death,injury or accident.

The lane is too small to speed, and its very short, it is 17 metres in length, if I walk up the lane andI see a vehicle coming, I either stop and go back, or the vehicle stops and lets me pass.

This is not some, "highway", of cars passing at speed, this is a very very, "incidental", use of a17metre lane, and should this application be allowed, only those people living in the houses woulduse the lane.

Not forgetting that we are even talking of not having cars at all now, both by the PlanningDepartment and also by the Local Elected Green Councillor, who's manifesto promotes publictransport.

This is a 17 metre lane, with 70-75 years of incident free use.

I am the Applicant in this application, and I thank the Councillor for his input, however Ifind it disappointing that he listed it as an Objection.

The Cllr gives dimensions and comments that he is concerned about overlooking of existingresidents, Moon Designs went to great lengths to follow the necessary Policy documentation aboutoverlooking and the OutLine Planning Application abides by the current policy. So if the Cllrconsiders it too close, thats more of a persons perspective, not a Policy instruction.

It complies with current Planning Policy.

Turning to the Parking Spaces, to an extent I can agree, there is a new Train Station only a fewminutes away. I also have spent some time in the area, and along Ashgrove Ave, Ashgrove Roadand York Ave, I note that there are never any parking spaces, there are no parking spacesbecause no one moves their car. It is, "chocka", in the morning, "chocka", in the afternoon,"chocka", in the evening and "chocka", in the night, the weekends are worse, if it can get worse.

So there is a large majority of residents that clearly have cars, and do not use them, so they areparked there permanently.

The Cllr, with respect, is giving his Political option on parking and bicycles, based on The GreenParty Manifesto, it is his Political perspective on what he considers he would like.

As an Applicant, we cannot, "choose", to not provide parking, we have to follow the current TDM

Policy documentation, I would add that the TDM is a Policy and not a Guideline. There areinstances where certain Policy can be altered, but if there is room to put a parking space, then weas an Applicant, cannot just ignore the TDM Policy.

We have followed Policy, the Cllr is giving his Political perspective.

The Cllr goes on to say, ".... The city does require more housing ....", I agree, Housing is a bigissue, I don't think there is anyone that says, "we have enough housing".

The Cllr finishes by stating that he would reconsider his Objection, we would say his Objection isbased on....

1. What he, "feels", is overlooking2. His Political manifesto objectives, not Planning Policy

This site is a sensitive infill site where any development will have an outsize impact onany existing residents. With that in mind, I object to this application in its current form.

I note the proposal has a maximum separation of 17,817mm from the existing terraces onAshgrove Avenue, and 15,014mm from York Avenue. I am concerned that this distance is toosmall and will negatively impact on the privacy of existing residents, especially so as the overlookwill be into the bedrooms, bathrooms and kitchens of the existing terraces. I don't feel mitigationas part of the development would be sufficient either as this may require all windows on the firstfloor to be restricted views, which would not be acceptable. I also note there has not been anattempt to mitigate the overlook by placing the proposed buildings at an angle to the existingterraces.

I note the development is within 5 minute of both the new train station at Ashley Down train stationand the Concorde Way. It is therefore reasonable that any future resident would not need a cardue to the extensive public and active travel options available. Therefore it is disappointing theapplicant has prioritised car parking spaces over cycle parking. If the applicant wishes to mitigateconcerns of spillover parking, they could consider funding a new community car club facilitynearby.

As the city does require more housing, I would suggest to the applicant reducing the scale of thedevelopment to single storey units, and adjust the design to account for the sufficient active travelprovision. If this happens I would reconsider my objection.

My name is Martin Thomas and I am the applicant in this Planning Application.

I had recently submitted an answer to the Transport Management Team's comments on thisapplication, I had however not included the Fire Hydrant issue, this comment is in relation to thismatter.

I walked the surrounding streets of the Site and located all the fire hydrants and Fire HydrantSigns.

I then spoke to the Agent Team (Moon Design) and Building Control.

Building Control said that it is a misconception that the dimension of 45 Metres comes from thelength of a hose. They said that the 45m rule is based on an arbitrary figure that takes into accountthe physical activity it takes to carry equipment, in that sometimes it can be over undulating terrain,or difficult terrain.

They said the 45m dimension is more of a, "guide", if they want a longer hose, they will just, "add",one.

I asked if the terrain was flat tarmac road .... they said then its a bit of a moot point, they said whatabout tower blocks that reach well over 45m, or houses in the country, or sometimes city basedhouses with large gardens.

Then they came up with something that was so obvious I didn't see it.

They asked if I was building it, and I said it's an OutLine Planning Application, their answer was.....

...." its easy, just put a DryRiser in the lane"....

They said you won't need a dry riser as that's a bit extreme, if access is on flat tarmac, they'll adda hose.

So, we should not forget that this is an OutLine Planning Application, TGM, not only werenegative, and not only did NOT give any assistance or help, but they actually could haveovercome the situation very easy.

TGM could have said, "45m, maybe consider a DryRiser".

I would like to thank the Building Control Section of Bristol City Council for their help and advice.

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:My name is and I am the applicant in this Planning Application.

I had recently submitted an answer to the Transport Management Team's comments on this

application, I had however not included the Fire Hydrant issue, this comment is in relation to this

matter.

I walked the surrounding streets of the Site and located all the fire hydrants and Fire Hydrant

Signs.

I then spoke to the Agent Team (Moon Design) and Building Control.

Building Control said that it is a misconception that the dimension of 45 Metres comes from the

length of a hose. They said that the 45m rule is based on an arbitrary figure that takes into account

the physical activity it takes to carry equipment, in that sometimes it can be over undulating terrain,

or difficult terrain.

They said the 45m dimension is more of a, "guide", if they want a longer hose, they will just, "add",

one.

I asked if the terrain was flat tarmac road .... they said then its a bit of a moot point, they said what

about tower blocks that reach well over 45m, or houses in the country, or sometimes city based

houses with large gardens.

Then they came up with something that was so obvious I didn't see it.

They asked if I was building it, and I said it's an OutLine Planning Application, their answer was

.....

...." its easy, just put a DryRiser in the lane"....

They said you won't need a dry riser as that's a bit extreme, if access is on flat tarmac, they'll add

a hose.

So, we should not forget that this is an OutLine Planning Application, TGM, not only were

negative, and not only did NOT give any assistance or help, but they actually could have

overcome the situation very easy.

TGM could have said, "45m, maybe consider a DryRiser".

I would like to thank the Building Control Section of Bristol City Council for their help and advice.

I have read the report about Asbestos contamination on the site.

I agree that Asbestos is very Toxic and the matter needs addressing.

However, the Asbestos Garages (to the North) do not form part of the development, indeed theAsbestos Garages belong to nearby residents, not the Applicant.

This Planning Application contains no Asbestos on the site, the only buildings on the site are madeof wood.

I would like to take issue with the Biodiversity statement presented by the applicant.Please look at drawing LAAA.P03_B-As ExistingYou can see how many mature trees surround the proposed site. Half of these mature trees werecut back so severely by the applicant's father (previous landowner) that the trees perished. It isimportant for biodiversity that the surviving trees remain.The planting of six saplings which will unlikely take precedence over extra car parking space, areno compensation.The only building on the land is a garden shed and a children's slide I believe. As long asneighbours can remember, the land was used as a garden by a family in Ashgrove Avenue, whichhad a back gate onto this garden. It is most definitely not a brownfield site as alleged by theapplicant. It is a garden, and not ex-industrial land.Six saplings and a little bit of yew tree hedging will not mitigate for the loss of biodiversity supportproposed by the applicant.

Regarding the recently uploaded statement concerning biodiversity ... As John McEnroefrequently used to say on the tennis court "You cannot be serious!"

As for the four Lawson's Cypress trees (T1-4) contributing nothing to the biodiversity ... this mustsurely be a theoretical impression based on desk research rather than any meaningful siteobservations. Since it would take a physical observer about 5 minutes to notice these four trees(which admittedly require pruning maintenance) are home to abundant wildlife, including severalyoung squirrels and numerous nesting birds. By the way, is it permissible to cut down trees whenthere are nesting birds?

The habits of birds and squirrels cannot simply be replicated based on a one-to-one substitution ofexisting mature trees with new planting. Moreover, one must also enquire ... how does it comeabout that there are dead trees on the boundary edges ... these trees were killed through grosspruning about 10 or more years ago, possibly in the knowledge that intensive pruning, leaving nonew shoots would lead to the demise of these trees.

In my view, the recent biodiversity statement is a misrepresentation of actual reality.

Further to my letter of objection dated 27/08/2023 and in light of further documentssubmitted by the applicant, I wish to highlight further issues for the attention of the PlanningOfficer:

1. The Biodiversity Statement infers the current site includes several 'dangerous' dead trees inneed of felling, quoting advice from the Arboriculture Report. However the Arboriculture Reportitself states it should not be considered a 'Tree Safety Inspection' (section 1.3, para. 3) and nosuch survey has been undertaken. Therefore it is misleading to conclude these trees are a hazardwithout a full safety inspection.

2. The Tree Schedule within the Arboriculture Report classifies 3 of the 4 Lawson's Cypress treesas Category B2 (Moderate Landscape Quality with remaining life >20 years) and of fair condition.It is unclear how the same report can recommend the removal of all 4 Lawson's Cypress treeswhen the survey concluded only one of these was found to be of poor condition and low quality(class C2). The report earlier claims within section 3.4 that all 4 trees are 'overly dominant withpoor form'. However as this is not reflected in the Tree Schedule the report is internallyinconsistent. Therefore it is not possible to make an accurate assessment on the status of thesetrees based on the information provided.

3. The Arboriculture Report was produced in June 2023 and states that it is valid for a period of 12months. Therefore the assessment will lapse in June 2024 and no longer be valid. Given thecurrent application is for Outline Planning Permission only it is inconceivable that constructionwould commence prior to this date.

4. The Arboriculture report states each unit shall have 2 trees to the rear. Unit 2 only has 1 tree tothe rear on plan drawing LAAA.P10/B. Therefore the Biodiversity Statement is inaccurate inclaiming no net loss of biodiversity as the replanting scheme proposed in the Arboriculture Reporthas not been implemented.

5. The Arboriculture Report incorrectly identifies the land as brownfield. The site is a greenfield siteas no development or commercial/industrial activity has taken place on the plot.

6. The Biodiversity Statement claims the planting of Yew hedgerow borders alongside the vehicleaccess route will provide new habitat and food sources for birds and small mammals. However it isclear from the plan drawing LAAA.P10/B that these borders are of minimal size and are not evenshown on the sectional drawing LAAA.P11/B. It is a fair assumption these will be at low level onlyand hedging of this size is unlikely to form viable habitat/sustenance for birds and mammals; assuch it should not be considered suitable replacement for the lost existing habitat.

7. The spatial restrictions created by the overdeveloped scheme means the proposed hedgedborders are immediately adjacent to the allocated parking spaces. They are therefore liable to bedamaged by vehicle access/egress, and their positioning is likely to encourage removal by futureowner/occupiers. This further questions whether they can be considered suitable replacement forthe existing wild habitat that will be lost.

I trust these points build on my earlier objections as to why the proposed scheme is clearlyoverdeveloped and wholly unsuitable in its current form.

2

Planning Application Drawings & Reports

It is important to first highlight the significant concerns we have with theaccuracy and validity of the drawings and reports submitted in support of thisapplication.

Proposed Site Plan ref: LAAA.P10/A

• The Scale Bar located at the foot of the plan sets the scale @ 1:200 atA1. However, that scale bar does not correspond to thedistances/measurements labelled on the plan itself. Furthermore, whenmeasuring the modelled car on the plan for example against the scalebar at the foot of the plan, the car is perceived as over 8m in length whichsimply cannot be correct.

• Regardless of the scaling being incorrect/inaccurate on the plan and‘access’ being a reserved matter, it is clear that any vehicle entering thesite via the (shared) single track lane will be unable to access theentrance to the site by turning within the confines of the red line boundaryas the widths are too narrow and the angle too acute. Extract below.

Figure 1: Crop of Proposed Site Plan showing impractical and impossibleaccess arrangements & dimensions

3

• The Arboricultural Report provided by Green Way Tree Services Ltdconcludes that the ‘proposed building works will require the removal offour trees, but these are of low quality and a suitable planting schemeas been put forward to mitigate the loss and ensure a net gain. The treesare far too large for the setting, having been left to grow unchecked formany years, as the area is a land locked brownfield urban site’.Furthermore, the report states “Each unit will have 2 trees to the rear”.

o The Arboricultural Survey identifies 3 of the ‘4 existing trees’ asClass B2 (i.e. Tree of moderate quality with an estimatedremaining life expectancy of at least 20 years with landscapequalities). There is no justification provided why the consultanthas reached the conclusion that these Class B2 trees are “lowquality”.

o The Proposed Site Plan only shows one tree planted in each ofthe proposed dwellings’ rear gardens, not two as recommendedby the Arboricultural Report so there is a discrepancy there.

• Given the application is seeking approval of the ‘landscape’ reservedmatter (in addition to others), the level of information provided regardinglandscaping is both invalid as highlighted above, and lacking in detail.

• The width of the site access point is inconsistently identified as 3.6m ondwg. LAAA/P10.A but shown as 3.7m on dwg. LAAA/P11.A. A localresident has personally measured this width and can confirm it is 3.5m.The access width has therefore been misrepresented.

On this basis it is considered that the Local Planning Authority are unable tomake a decision on the application until, at the very least, the drawings areamended so the scaling is accurate.

Impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of privacy, overlooking,overbearing impact and loss of outlook

Core Strategy Policy BCS21 requires new development to deliver high qualityurban design. Development in Bristol is expected to:

• Contribute positively to an area’s character and identity, creating orreinforcing local distinctiveness;

• Safeguard the amenity of existing development and create a high-qualityenvironment for future occupiers

Furthermore, Development Management Policy DM26 states that developmentproposals are expected to contribute towards local character anddistinctiveness by retaining, enhancing and creating important views into, outof and through the site (part iv). The Policy also expects ‘backland development’to be subservient in height, scale, mass and form to the surrounding frontagebuildings, and the proposed access arrangements should not cause adverseimpacts to the character and appearance, safety or amenity of the existingfrontage development. (Our emphasis).

4

Policy DM29 expands on this further by requiring new buildings to ensure thatexisting and proposed development achieves appropriate levels of privacy,outlook and daylight.

The proposals, located within a relatively small, narrow parcel of landsurrounded by existing residential dwellings and accessed via a very narrowsingle lane, will fit uncomfortably within the existing layout and character ofdevelopment. The existing residents’ privacy and outlook will be detrimentallyimpacted in a significant manner, negatively impacting their amenity.

This proposal, by virtue of its scale and massing, will also create a sense ofoverbearing and shadowing and will have a detrimental effect on the enjoymentof surrounding properties.

The outlook from existing rear facing rooms will become significantly impactedby the proposed dwellings.

The Section View on dwg. LAAA/P11.A suggests the development will includea minimum separation distance of 15m between 2nd stories of the developmentand rear of houses on Ashgrove Avenue. Although no details of windows havebeen provided at this stage, it is reasonable to infer the 2nd stories of theproposed dwellings will include glazing. Supplementary Planning DocumentNumber 2 (Oct 2005) suggests a minimum separation of 21m should bemaintained between habitable rooms when assessment proposed extensionsto buildings. Applying the same criteria in this instance suggests the proposeddevelopment is too close to existing buildings and the plot has beenoverdeveloped. Similarly the minimum separation distance to the rear 2ndstories of existing York Avenue houses is 17.8m, again far less than the 21mrecommendation.

Having considered the existing pattern of built form, scale and massing ofproperties, and the ratios of plot coverage within the area, by virtue of its siting,layout and scale and bulk, the 3no. proposed dwellings are inconsistent withtheir locality and will create an overly cramped form of development, negativelyimpacting both the existing and future occupiers’ amenity. The proposeddwellings are nearly twice the width of existing houses on adjacent streets,whilst almost equal in hight, and therefore do not accord with adopted policyrequirements for backland development to be subservient and sympathetic toexisting frontage buildings.

The proposals therefore fail to accord with Local Policies BCS21, DM26 andDM29.

Access, Highways & Parking

Policy DM23 expects developments to provide safe and adequate access forall sections of the community within the development and onto the highwaynetwork. The policy also requires parking and servicing to accord with theadopted Parking Standards as follows:

5

Cycle Standards = 3 bedroom dwellings: 2 spaces per dwelling

Car Parking Standards = 1.5 spaces per dwelling. (For small-scaledevelopments this standard is applied flexibly).

As highlighted above, the proposed access lane is a long, very narrow lane withno passing spaces that is already shared with other owners who havegarages/storage sheds directly adjacent to the red line boundary of theapplication. In addition, it is worth noting that the gardens of a number ofexisting houses on Ashgrove Road open directly onto the access lane which isused for pedestrian access and has historically been used by local children forplaying.

Whilst it is noted that ‘access’ comprises a reserved matter for this outlineapplication, the practicality and safety of the access still remains a materialconsideration. With regards to safety and visibility, the wall immediately east ofthe proposed entry to the site from Ashgrove Avenue is 1.5m high, and the wallto the west is 1m high. Adequate visibility splays will therefore not be possibleand the existing walls/arrangement cannot be altered as they fall in third partyownership.

The proposals do not propose any improvement to the existing access lane andit is our view that the turning space within the site in order to access/egress theproposed dwellings is not practical (impossible to achieve). No swept pathanalysis has been submitted however it is clear the access is inappropriate forfuture occupiers’ vehicles, let alone emergency or service/delivery vehicles.

It is not possible to turn any vehicle of any reasonable size into the access lanewithout mounting the curb on the opposite side of Ashgrove Avenue, as withoutthat you can’t get an adequate ‘angle in’ because it is simply too narrow.

The proposed access arrangements are inadequate and unsafe, and thereforedo not accord with Policy DM23.

Ecology, landscaping & trees

A large proportion of the site comprises undeveloped (greenfield) landcontaining established trees, grasses, bushes and hedgerows that arepredominantly undisturbed. As a result the site supports a wide array ofbiodiversity, and it is understood that a number of bats are regularly spotted byresidents in this area.

Given the site’s characteristics, it is concerning that a Preliminary EcologySurvey has not been carried out and submitted as a supporting report with theapplication (as a minimum).

Furthermore, the Arboricultural Report provided by Green Way Tree ServicesLtd submitted with the application concludes that the ‘proposed building workswill require the removal of four trees, but these are of low quality and a suitable

6

planting scheme as been put forward to mitigate the loss and ensure a net gain.The trees are far too large for the setting, having been left to grow uncheckedfor many years, as the area is a land locked brownfield urban site’. By way ofmitigation for their loss, the report states “Each unit will have 2 trees to the rear”.

However, the Arboricultural Survey identifies 3 of the 4 existing trees as ‘ClassB2’ (i.e. Trees of moderate quality with an estimated remaining life expectancyof at least 20 years with landscape qualities). Subsequently, there is nojustification provided that explains why the consultant has reached theconclusion that these Class B2 trees are “low quality” and can be removed.

As highlighted above, the Proposed Site Plan only shows one tree planted ineach of the proposed dwellings’ rear gardens, not two as recommended by theArboricultural Report so there is a discrepancy there. The Arboricultural Reportalso fails to account for the numerous established trees in close proximity tothe border of the site, some of which significantly overhang the site boundaryand would need extensive cutting back during at least the construction phaseas well as root protection area protective measures.

Finally, given the application is seeking approval of the ‘landscape’ reservedmatter (in addition to others), the level of information provided regardinglandscaping is both inappropriate and inadequate as highlighted above, butalso significantly lacking in detail sufficient to determine the matter. Theproposal only shows ‘green areas’ surrounding the houses with no indicationwhether this is a lawned area or hard landscaping. Whilst it could be assumedthe green shading indicates a lawned area, it is also unclear whether eachdwelling will open directly onto a lawn without some form of hard landscaping(e.g. patio or similar). No details are provided on the appearance and finish ofshrub borders, fencing, bin stores, water butts, lawned area etc. It is thereforeimpossible to assess the landscaping matters for the proposal.

Waste & Recycling Arrangements

Policy DM32 requires residential development to provide sufficient space forthe storage waste and recycling, and requires the location of the storage areato provide and maintain safe and convenient access for occupants, while alsoproviding satisfactory access for collection vehicles and operatives. (Ouremphasis). The policy clearly states that “Development will not be permitted ifrecycling and refuse provision that meets the above capacity, design andaccess requirements cannot feasibly or practicably be provided.” (Ouremphasis).

Bristol City Council helpfully updated their Waste and Recycling Storage andCollection Facilities Guidance SPD in March 2022.

The SPD states that private waste collections will not be supported forresidential developments (the only exception being where this is already inplace). Therefore the following standards are required to be met by newproposals:

Appendix I – Relevant Land Registry Titles & Plans

The Freehold land shown edged with red on theplan of the above Title filed at the Registry andbeing 28 Ashgrove Avenue, Ashley Down, Bristol(BS7 9LJ).

2 The mines and minerals are excepted.

3 The land has the benefit of the following rightsgranted by a Conveyance of the land in this titledated 13 September 1948 made between (1)Emmie Maria Armatage (Vendor) and (2) GeorgeThomas Hulin:-

"With a right of way in common with all otherpersons who may have or who may hereafter have asimilar right at all times and for all purposes with orwithout horses carts carriages and other vehiclesto pass over and along the lane shown on the saidplan and thereon coloured yellow AND TOGETHERwith all rights benefits easements andappurtenances to the same property in anywisebelonging or appertaining."

NOTE: The lane coloured yellow referred to adjoinsthe north eastern boundary of the land in this title.

B: Proprietorship Register

This register specifies the class of title and identifies the owner. It contains any entriesthat affect the right of disposal.

Class of Title: Title absolute

Entry number Entry date

1 19 9 9 -0 8 -16 PROPRIETOR: KEITH CHRISTOPHER SADLER andTHEA ROSALIND SADLER of 28 Ashgrove Avenue,Ashley Down, Bristol BS7 9LJ.

2 2020-07-07 RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registeredestate by the proprietor of the registered estate isto be registered without a written consent signedby the proprietor for the time being of the Chargedated 23 June 2020 in favour of HSBC UK BankPLC referred to in the Charges Register.

C: Charges Register

This register contains any charges and other matters that affect the land.

Class of Title: Title absolute

Entry number Entry date

1 The land in this title is subject to a perpetual yearlyrentcharge of £3.3s.0d which with others wascreated by a Conveyance of the land in this title andother land dated 19 October 1896 made between(1) James Inskip with others (2) Alfred HenryWinterson and (3) George Stock.

¬ NOTE: Copy filed.

2 The Conveyance dated 19 October 1896 referred toabove contains covenants.

3 2020-07-0 7 REGISTERED CHARGE dated 23 June 2020affecting also title AV4804.

4 2020-07-0 7 Proprietor: HSBC UK BANK PLC (Co. Regn. No.9928412) of Customer Service Centre, BX8 4HB.

This is a copy of the title plan on 29 AUG 2023 at 09:47:50. This copy does not take account of any application made after that time even if still pending in HMLand Registry when this copy was issued.

This copy is not an 'Official Copy' of the title plan. An official copy of the title plan is admissible in evidence in a court to the same extent as the original. A personis entitled to be indemnified by the registrar if he or she suffers loss by reason of a mistake in an official copy. If you want to obtain an official copy, the HM LandRegistry web site explains how to do this.

HM Land Registry endeavours to maintain high quality and scale accuracy of title plan images.The quality and accuracy of any print will depend on your printer,your computer and its print settings.This title plan shows the general position, not the exact line, of the boundaries. It may be subject to distortions in scale.Measurements scaled from this plan may not match measurements between the same points on the ground.

This title is dealt with by HM Land Registry, Gloucester Office.

© Crown Copyright. Produced by HM Land Registry. Further reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the prior written permission of OrdnanceSurvey. Licence Number 100026316.

the following covenants:-

COVENANTS by the Grantee with the Mortgageesand as a separate covenant with the Grantor not toerect any other messuage or building without theprevious consent in writing of the Mortgagees theirheirs or assigns Not to alter front elevation Not touse said premises otherwise than as a privateresidence

2 2007-1 1-14 REGISTERED CHARGE dated 31 October 2007.

3 2007-1 1-14 Proprietor: WEST BROMWICH MORTGAGECOMPANY LIMITED (Co. Regn. No. 2773114) of 2Providence Place, West Bromwich, W MidlandsB70 8AF and of DX 14611 West Bromwich 7.

This is a copy of the title plan on 19 AUG 2023 at 13:09:25. This copy does not take account of any application made after that time even if still pending in HMLand Registry when this copy was issued.

This copy is not an 'Official Copy' of the title plan. An official copy of the title plan is admissible in evidence in a court to the same extent as the original. A personis entitled to be indemnified by the registrar if he or she suffers loss by reason of a mistake in an official copy. If you want to obtain an official copy, the HM LandRegistry web site explains how to do this.

HM Land Registry endeavours to maintain high quality and scale accuracy of title plan images.The quality and accuracy of any print will depend on your printer,your computer and its print settings.This title plan shows the general position, not the exact line, of the boundaries. It may be subject to distortions in scale.Measurements scaled from this plan may not match measurements between the same points on the ground.

This title is dealt with by HM Land Registry, Gloucester Office.

© Crown Copyright. Produced by HM Land Registry. Further reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the prior written permission of OrdnanceSurvey. Licence Number 100026316.

his heirs and assigns that he the Purchaser his heirsand assigns will not at any time hereafter exerciseor carry on or permit to be exercised or carried on inor upon any part or parts of the said premiseshereby conveyed or any dwellinghouse or buildingfor the time being to be erected thereon thebusiness of a tavern keeper or retailer of beer cideror any other liquors or keeper of any other place ofpublic entertainment or any other trade business oroccupation which shall be noisy noisome offensiveor annoying to the immediate neighbourhood andfurther that any dwellinghouses to be erected forthe time being upon the said premises shall be usedas private dwellinghouses only."

2 A Transfer of the land in this title dated 18 March1975 made between (1) David Ewan Evans(transferor) and (2) Kenneth Wallace Mercer(transferee) contains the following covenants:-

"The Transferor for the benefit of the remainder ofthe land comprised in the above mentioned title toobserve and perform the restrictive and otherstipulations specified in the Second Schedulehereto

THE SECOND SCHEDULE referred to

1. To pay an equal proportion with the other usersthereof of the cost of keeping the said forecourtand accessway in good and substantial repair

2. Not to park any vehicles on the forecourt oraccessway or otherwise obstruct the same

3. That the side walls dividing the garage herebyconveyed from the adjoining garages retained bythe Transferor shall henceforth be party wallsmaintainable as such."

This is a copy of the title plan on 13 JUN 2023 at 21:09:43. This copy does not take account of any application made after that time even if still pending in HM LandRegistry when this copy was issued.

This copy is not an 'Official Copy' of the title plan. An official copy of the title plan is admissible in evidence in a court to the same extent as the original. A personis entitled to be indemnified by the registrar if he or she suffers loss by reason of a mistake in an official copy. If you want to obtain an official copy, the HM LandRegistry web site explains how to do this.

HM Land Registry endeavours to maintain high quality and scale accuracy of title plan images.The quality and accuracy of any print will depend on your printer,your computer and its print settings.This title plan shows the general position, not the exact line, of the boundaries. It may be subject to distortions in scale.Measurements scaled from this plan may not match measurements between the same points on the ground.

This title is dealt with by HM Land Registry, Gloucester Office.

© Crown Copyright. Produced by HM Land Registry. Further reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the prior written permission of OrdnanceSurvey. Licence Number 100026316.

This is a copy of the title plan on 3 JUN 2023 at 15:12:27. This copy does not take account of any application made after that time even if still pending in HM LandRegistry when this copy was issued.

This copy is not an 'Official Copy' of the title plan. An official copy of the title plan is admissible in evidence in a court to the same extent as the original. A personis entitled to be indemnified by the registrar if he or she suffers loss by reason of a mistake in an official copy. If you want to obtain an official copy, the HM LandRegistry web site explains how to do this.

HM Land Registry endeavours to maintain high quality and scale accuracy of title plan images.The quality and accuracy of any print will depend on your printer,your computer and its print settings.This title plan shows the general position, not the exact line, of the boundaries. It may be subject to distortions in scale.Measurements scaled from this plan may not match measurements between the same points on the ground.

This title is dealt with by HM Land Registry, Gloucester Office.

© Crown Copyright. Produced by HM Land Registry. Further reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the prior written permission of OrdnanceSurvey. Licence Number 100026316.

Appendix 2 – Site Photographs

I am writing to object to the proposed development: 23/01412/P Application for OutlinePlanning Permission to construct 3no. 3-bed, 4-person dwellings with associated landscapingworks. Land At Rear Of 12 - 28 Ashgrove Avenue Bristol BS7.

I have the following concerns with the development.

Privacy:Whilst details such as windows have not been included in the plans, it is clear from the positioningof the dwellings that there will need to be windows facing the gardens of both York Avenue andAshgrove Avenue properties.

According to the plans the new dwellings will be 17.8m away from the 1st floor bedrooms of YorkAvenue and 15m away from the 1st floor bedrooms of Ashgrove Avenue. It is my understandingthat best practice guidance implies new developments should be 21m away from habitable roomswithin existing dwellings. It therefore appears that the proposed dwellings will be too close to 1stfloor bedrooms of both York Avenue and Ashgrove Avenue properties. Like many residents, mychild's bedroom is at the rear of the house. I therefore have serious concerns about the proximityof the proposed homes and the loss of privacy to both gardens and the bedrooms at the rear of myproperty.

It also appears that the proposed properties would be severely overlooked from existing dwellings,particularly given numerous houses on both York Avenue and Ashgrove Avenue have loftconversions facing the plot.

Overshadowing and right to light:I'm informed that the Building Research Establishment (BRE) sets out design guidance for sitelayout planning for daylight and sunlight. Comparing this guidance against the Sectional Viewsuggests the 25 degree line projecting from the rear of 12 Ashgrove Avenue is incorrectly shownfrom a height of 2m rather than 1.6m; re-drawing this sightline from the correct height would lead itto intersect with the proposed development, therefore showing the proposal is overbearing andrisks blocking light to the existing dwelling.

The applicant also says the existing evergreen trees significantly impact levels of natural light toexisting properties. This is misleading as the trees are grouped at one end of the plot hence do notimpact all existing houses.

In summary I feel a daylight and overshadowing analysis should be undertaken in line with theBRE best practice guidance to demonstrate that the proposals are compliant.

Biodiversity:The site is known to residents to provide habitat to wildlife including different species of bird, bats,and foxes. The site also contains Hazel trees (not mentioned in the Arboricultural report) which areknown to provide important habitat for species such as dormice. I understand that newdevelopments in Bristol should demonstrate a 10% net gain in biodiversity (becoming a statutoryrequirement in November of this year). The present plans contain insufficient information todemonstrate this net gain; personally I feel that planting 6 new trees and limited shrub borders isunlikely to replace the habitat lost to this development.

Access:Finally, I am seriously concerned about the access to the site for emergency vehicles. Althoughaccess is a reserved matter for this application, the safety of the future residents proposeddwelling cannot be ignored. It is clear that emergency vehicles will not be able to traverse thelimited access, given that modern cars already struggle to make this turn without mounting kerbs.Furthermore it is clear the distance to rooms within the furthest dwelling would exceed the 45mmaximum allowable in Building Regulations.

Loss of light or privacy and Overshadowing

I find the process of reserving matters of appearance and access to be disingenuous, since theseare some of the most fundamental principles upon which I am permitted to object (specificallyprivacy and overshadowing). Thus for now, my objections on these matters are somewhat genericand policy-based.

As I understand it, current planning policy is that backland development should be subservient tothe existing environment in terms of height, scale, mass and form. The current proposal fails on atleast the first three criteria, and might fail on the fourth, if more detail was provided on thearchitectural style of the proposed properties.

Although the proposed properties are of similar height to existing properties, the visual distancebetween the rear of properties in York Avenue and Ashgrove Avenue is quite considerable, andany new property greater than a single story would shorten the visual distance by more than 60%.This significantly impacts on my sense of privacy and being overshadowed.

Moreover, the capacity of home owners to build roof extensions without further neighbourhoodconsultation magnifies this concern. Further, 3x 3 bedroom properties sited on such a small plotconstitutes high density housing relative to existing properties.

Traffic and parking

Due to the challenges of vehicle access to the proposed properties, and the insufficient provisionfor parking, one can anticipate a degree of displacement of cars into neighbouring streets, therebyexacerbating present pressures on neighbourhood parking. This compounds existing concernswithin the local neighbourhood concerning the potential impact on residential parking when AshleyDown station opens next year.

Amenity and Wildlife

Building on the greenfield site will severely and negatively impact on the wildlife environment, andthereby will reduce my enjoyment of the neighbourhood. Foxes are routine visitors to my garden,using this green space as safe cover for their movement. Squirrels are abundant in my garden,taking advantage of the tree network in local gardens and on this green space. Neighbours adviseme that bats may be seen from their houses at dusk.

Furthermore, the Arboricultural Survey incorrectly describes the site as brownfield, when indeed,the site has been greenfield for the entirety of my residence in York Avenue (since 1987). And asfar as I am aware, there is no evidence of this plot being brownfield restored to greenfield beforethat.

A further misrepresentation in the survey is the reference to four trees of low quality. These treesmay be characterised as low value since they are in effect dead. And they are dead as a result ofthe land owner's previous actions (about 12-15 years ago) to prune them (when mandated to doso by Bristol City Council) in such a way that has killed them.

I object to the proposal based on the size and proximity of the proposed houses to ours.

We will be overlooked, lose our privacy in our house and garden, be overshadowed and feelovercrowded. This is alongside the loss of green space and totally inadequate access to the site -as a small car struggles to get in though the alley, how are construction, refuse and emergencyvehicles going to do so safely?

This proposal is vastly too big for the space available and the proposal should be wholly rejected.

I live close to this planned development and want to object for 2 main reasons:

1. Traffic and parkingIt is hard to find parking in the street and surrounding streets and the new train station will makethis worse. The development does not look to have allowed sufficient parking spaces. Added tothis the turn into the access road is really tight and I know people struggle to get in and out,especially when cars are often parked too close to the entrance.

2. Wildlife and air pollutionGreen spaces are precious in this part of the city - for nature itself and to help reduce air pollutionand high temperatures. Another development means another loss of green space. I have newts,frogs, foxes and countless birds in my garden and once had a hedgehog. I bet the area betweenYork Road and Ashgrove Avenue is a rich haven for creatures.

I am grateful for the opportunity to object to planning application 23/01412/P.

Whilst I appreciate there is a nationwide shortage of housing, there is already extensive housing inthis local area, a mixture of flats and houses (some of which are subdivided into flats). There aremany 3 bedroom houses in the area. As such, the proposal does not redress any harmful housingimbalance that exists in the area. Instead, the proposal is to build on a longstanding green space,which was used as a garden for many years and now stands empty, providing a vital habitat forflora and fauna, including many types of bird, squirrels, foxes, bats and mice. Unfortunately, theapplication describes the land as 'brownfield' and states that residents have used it as a dumpingground, neither of which is true. Residents cannot access the land - it is walled and the smallentrance was only partially cleared in March 2023 for the owner to show round architects.

This would be a backland development. It should therefore be subservient in height, scale, massand form to the surrounding frontage buildings. The application suggests the new homes would beequal to the current frontage buildings in terms of height, although drawing LAAA.P11/Ademonstrates that the current height(s) of the Ashgrove and York Avenue houses has not beentaken into account, because they are not shown on the drawing. The proposed houses appear tobe much wider than the current houses on Ashgrove and York Avenue. They are therefore notsubservient in height, scale, mass or form.

Based on the current plans, the proposal would severely impact neighbouring properties' privacy.To provide light, the new homes will surely have windows that directly overlook the small gardenson both streets. Given how small the gardens are, the new buildings will have site lines directly

into existing rooms, such as kitchens and bedrooms. It would also impact the light, particularly forresidents of Ashgrove Ave based on the position of the sun and proximity to houses.

I appreciate that construction noise won't be taken into account. However, construction itself islikely to cause significant highway safety issues. Construction on York Avenue regularly blocks theroad, requiring cars to reverse, which can be dangerous. Construction workers and vehicles oftenblock pavements, which causes highway safety issues, especially for children. It also causestraffic and parking issues. These issues are significant for relatively routine building work, such asloft conversions. It is hard to imagine how the construction of three new houses would be carriedout on such an inaccessible site without causing significant issues for the neighbourhood. Wherewould a skip go? How could diggers, etc, access the site?

I am also very concerned about access to the land by residents of the new homes, emergencyservices and amenities (waste collection, deliveries). The path that leads to the land is minute. It'snot designed to be regularly accessed by cars, particularly given how big cars are now. Anambulance or fire engine would not be able to access the site via the path. This is very concerningfrom a fire safety perspective. I hope the planning officer will visit the site to understand itslimitations in full.

I understand there are technical issues with the application, including but not limited to thefollowing:

A failure to comply with Policy DM32 in relation to waste and recycling arrangements;Inaccurate plans in terms of measurements;Inaccurate reports (e.g. describing the land as brownfield);Inconsistency between the Arbiocultural Survey and the drawings;A failure to comply with Policy DM23 in relation to access, highways and parking

I respectfully request that for the reasons stated above (and other reasons provided in the variousobjections which have already been submitted), the application is declined.

This proposed development is in appropriate for this garden location and does notaddress the significant impacts of the proposal.

As a resident of Ashgrove Avenue since 2004, this site has always been a 'landlocked' gardensurrounded by terraced housing and garages on all sides. The site was regularly used by theprevious owner of No. 18 Ashgrove Avenue for personal recreation. Over this time it has neverbeen used for any other uses.

In keeping of an inner city green space the site is rich in vegetation. The proposals do not assessthe biodiversity of the site nor the ecological impacts of the proposed development. The landscapeproposals do not offset the impact on the sites natural environment nor present any biodiversitynet gain.

The layout and scale of the development is not in keeping with the surrounding Victorian streets,overlooks and overshadows the exiting adjacent properties.

The application does not address the significantly inadequate access, inappropriate for residentialproperties, with no means of creating a safe design due to the proximity of 3rd party premises.

As a neighbouring property which backs onto this site I strongly object to it in it'sentirety.

This is for the following reasons:

1. Loss of light and privacyHaving 3 double storey homes built in this small space will block a significant amount of light thatcomes into our garden, and also into our property and home. The plans do not appear to be totheir own scale but it looks like the buildings will be between 7 and 9 metres tall - this will towerover us. As well as blocking light they will have sight of everything we do in our house and in ourgarden. Which will severely impact our privacy. 3x 3 bedroom properties, with potentially 4 peopleliving in each. That is 12 people that would be looking directly into our bedrooms, living area andgarden. This would be a massive infringement on our own, and our children's privacy.

2. NoiseThe noise of an additional 12 people, and their cars and visitors and any pets in such a small areawill impact our daily lives. We will all be able to hear each other all the time. This will increasenoise levels significantly from the current relative peacefulness.

3. AmenitiesThe access lane to the proposed buildings is a very small lane (I highly recommend a visit if youare in any doubt) which is not sufficient for daily, multiple car activity.The submitted plans feature car parking spaces. These are very questionable in terms of scale

provided, but also realistic turning circles and abilities.More than likely - even if they can squeeze these spaces into the development, owners will notwant to navigate the narrow track and will rather attempt to park on the surrounding streets. This,plus the fact that the households could potentially have multiple cars per house, will have anegative impact on parking. Parking in the area is already in short supply. We are close to thecricket stadium, plus a train station is about to re-open near us. Adding a further 3 plus cars to themix will stand to further impact congestion and pollution and frustration around parking in the area,making it less attractive to live here.Additionally how will waste be removed? No refuse truck will go down that lane and the lane is toolong for residents to pull their bins down the lane, and then onto someone else's pavement.

4. Wildlife & ConservationNo regard appears to have been given for wildlife or conservation. In fact, as the applicationcontains no assessment of biodiversity - presumably it will be invalid anyway.The application also describes the area as a Brownfield site. However my understanding is thatthis has been used as a garden for as long as residents can remember, but more recently has justbeen left to run wild. Is this deliberate misinformation?We personally have seen several foxes (definitely at least 2) regularly as they use our shed tocatch the morning sun. We also regularly see multiple birds, squirrels, frogs and mice between ourgarden and the site in question. I have no doubt that there are likely all kinds of animals/creaturesinhabiting the area and this should most definitely be assessed and understood prior to anydevelopment even being considered.There are also multiple trees and shrubs and plants growing on the site. The arboriculture reportprovided is lacking. It mentions removing 4x trees however if you compare the proposed plansversus it, there are a lot more than 4 trees removed. It also marks a tree towards the bottom rightof the report as unknown. I believe this to be a Hazel tree and its condition does not appear to bepoor as per the report. This tree harbours multiple birds and potentially other creatures.Bristol should be trying to foster its green areas and promote wildlife and diversity as much aspossible. This plan would be the complete opposite, and remove a valuable site for local wildlife.We, as a family, thoroughly enjoy sharing our space with these creatures and would be devastatedto see the space destroyed.

5. Design and appearanceIt is difficult to see the true design or appearance intended from the plans due to the scale beinginconsistent (see size of cars) and no windows etc included however the size for the area isincredibly concerning. Even ignoring the wildlife impacts, plans to build 3 large houses built ineffectively a back garden between two rows of houses should be rejected. They will not besubservient to the surrounding buildings at all.Access is questionable via a narrow, shared lane - with significant safety issues including accessby emergency vehicles, potential children playing in the area plus actually feasibility of cars beingable to turn into their parking spaces.

Overall these plans appear to be an overzealous attempt to shove as much property into a spaceas possible, with no consideration for the impact on wildlife, the people living around it, or evenany potential occupants themselves.

Please accept this as a strong objection to them.

Yours sincerely

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I strongly object to the plan to build x3 double storey buildings in what is effectively a

back garden.

These would significantly block the light and privacy of our own home and garden.

The site is not a brown field site as described in the application but is home to an ecosystem of

wildlife and plants. An assessment of biodiversity has not been done and therefore this application

sets to destroy this ecosystem.

The scale on the application is incorrect leading to a misrepresentation of intended building work.

The noise and impact of the building work and the proposed development would have a

detrimental impact upon all neighbours.

I strongly object to this planning application.

Yours sincerely

The main objections here are specific to four main areas:

- Parking- Access- Noise and disruption- Environmental impact

1) Parking:

a. In relation to Ashgrove Avenue (AA) specifically: the submitted drawings show only one carparking space per dwelling. We can reasonably expect three, 4-person dwellings to require morethan one vehicle. AA only has one side of the road available for parking and existing residents ofAA are already regularly forced to park out of street. This has been exacerbated over the pastdecade by various other increases/changes in housing/service development in the area. Thisincludes split/multiple occupancy homes (particularly at the bottom and top of Ashgrove Avenue)and overflow from Bristol City College students during term time. Due to the proximity toGloucestershire County Cricket Ground and the Memorial Stadium, on match days it is commonfor there to be no resident parking available on any of the streets surrounding AA.b. In relation to wider future parking in the local area: with the development of the train station atAshley Down, while welcome in principle, we can also expect an increase in parking volume withpeople bringing their cars to the area to catch the train. The bus services from this area are alsoextremely busy, often cancelled and there are no current plans to extend any routes. As such mostpeople retain personal vehicles while also accessing public transport. In such a heavily congested

area even the principle of adding to the existing population and parking burden in this specific spotis counterintuitive.

2) Access:a. Having lived in AA for nearly two decades there has been ample opportunity to witness theproblems faced by vehicles entering and exiting the only access to the proposed site. Even smallcars must very slowly navigate what is little more than a wide path to the garages. Given thegarages are used fairly infrequently, usually at different times of the day and for different reasons(ie some are not used to house vehicles that are used regularly), it has been possible for thegarage owners to use the space and access with relative ease. However, the largest car I haveseen drive in and out of there is a BMW and this takes a good while, meaning cars can be backedup on the road outside while the access is being used.b. This makes the navigation of several residential vehicles entering and exiting at one time isimpossible to imagine and would make this aspect of the application a priority focus on its own.However, the idea of flow of construction vehicles required for this level of build seems fantastical.c. Also there would be increased use of the access as a walkway as people would be coming andgoing either from their cars or to access the houses for other reasons.d. With so many people additional packed into the proposed site, it likely also that there would bean increase in delivery drops offs. It is entirely reasonable to assume a driver whose job is'against-the-clock', would have to leave their vehicle in AA and take any deliveries round to thehouses on foot. As noted earlier, there is such limited parking already on AA there are neveravailable spaces for delivery drivers to park, so, inevitably, they must leave vehicles stationary andunmanned in the road.e. Finally, this access seems completely unsuitable for 999 response crews needing quick andclose access with their emergency vehicles. While the width of the access itself -- which has beenmeasured as 3.5m - could probably accommodate a fire engine or an ambulance straight on, theturn is prohibitively tight, with even a small VW having to mount the pavement outside the housesopposite. In addition, the application details three, 4-person homes, however, there is no otheraccess in or out of this high-walled, otherwise completely enclosed area. Meaning not only wouldan emergency crew necessarily waste time in gaining access, but the access is the only wayresidents could escape danger. This must be an absolute priority for the Council to consider giventhat it has potential to threaten the lives of any future resident. In the case of a fire, a slowerresponse from a fire crew could also, at the very least, cause potential serious damage to theproperties surrounding.

3) Disruption + noise:a. The overall requirements of a build of this scale are completely out of proportion with the need1) for housing in this area and 2) do not fit the size of the plot.b. Because the width of AA is particularly narrow (compared to all other streets in the area, theimpact of access to the site is excessively tight, and the required number of construction vehiclesand teams cannot be supported.c. With many people now working from home and many having study areas at the back of their

homes, this noise impact will be particularly disruptive and, therefore, stressful.d. Due to the site access being so problematic, it is likely residents on AA will be 'sandwiched' intoa full-scale building site for a considerable amount of time. Every single home on both sides of thestreets around the access will have to make huge compromises and considerations toaccommodate the build and there is no possible way of reducing this impact given the fact there isonly one small passage in and out.e. We have many families on both sides of AA with young children going to nursery and nearbyprimary schools during peak times for construction teams arriving and leaving.f. The plans show that the proposed houses are not far enough away from the back of the homesat AA to comply with Council policy, possibly because of lack of space due to the crammedconditions proposed.g. This is likely to also add significantly to noise pollution in the area from both general living andincreased traffic levels (noted above).

4) Environment:a. It is imperative that an ecological and environmental survey be taken out on this site - none thatI know of have been done apart from a patchy review of tree health. This must be rectified asanother matter of priority.b. We have seen bats and foxes on this land, many nesting birds in the spring.c. There is such little green land in this area that the land could be made much more desirablefrom an overall environmental

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Having looked at the plans, and as a residen , I am

seriously concerned and object to the whole project for the following reasons:

1. During the building phase - there will be substantial disruption to Ashgrove Avenue, which is

already a very tight road. Practically, how will building materials be delivered, where skips will be

placed etc.

2. The parking access is so tight that no-one in the proposed houses will use the access for

parking even if they can. This will put a minimum of three additional cars into Ashgrove Avenue.

Likely 6-9 additional cars if the houses are used as HMO's which is what is likely.

3. The access for any emergency vehicles will be very difficult / impossible. I have no idea how

this could be considered acceptable.

4. The opening of the railway station will place additional parking demands on the neighbourhood.

Overall I think this development is ridiculous, unacceptable and will have significant short and long

term impact on an already highly challenging parking situation as well as safety issues.

I object to the proposed plan for the reasons I have outlined below.

1. Land size - The land in which the proposed new houses will be built is extremely small, with aneven smaller entry. As a result, this would impact the parking (As the tenants/home owners canown multiple cars) and make parking even more difficult for the neighbourhood. Furthermore,given the narrow roads of the Ashley Down area, more cars on the road can impact the access toessential services, such as delivery, emergency services and could lead to more accidents, etc.

2. Entry - please be aware the entry lane to the proposed new houses (which passes by multipleback gardens) is extremely narrow and cars and large vehicles can create hazardous situations.Emergency service cars, bin collectors or vans which will not be able to fit through the entry laneand could even cause damages to existing walls, fences, etc. Also, the houses will be built in adense area and this will cause a massive disruption, for example, loud noises when the newoccupants move in.

3. Privacy - The proposed houses will be overlooking multiple houses on Ashgrove avenue androad. It will mean the occupants will be able to see directly into our houses through the windows,which will result in a major impact on our privacy and day to day lives.

4. Environmental - I do not believe this is at all in keeping with the Bristol city council environmentcommitments, this small plot of land has been proven to be the habitat of wildlife and biodiversity,which should be preserved. Given that the Ashley Down area which is already congested, thisplan proposal will increase pollution and go against creating green spaces for the neighbourhood.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Having looked at the plans, and as a resident I am

seriously concerned and object to the whole project for the following reasons:

1. During the building phase - there will be substantial disruption to Ashgrove Avenue, which is

already a very tight road. Practically, how will building materials be delivered, where skips will be

placed etc.

2. The parking access is so tight that no-one in the proposed houses will use the access for

parking even if they can. This will put a minimum of three additional cars into Ashgrove Avenue.

Likely 6-9 additional cars if the houses are used as HMO's which is what is likely.

3. The access for any emergency vehicles will be very difficult / impossible. I have no idea how

this could be considered acceptable.

4. The opening of the railway station will place additional parking demands on the neighbourhood.

5. The environmental impact will be significant. We have spent many years recovering the

population of local bird life and this will remove land which supports wildlife.

Overall I think this development is ridiculous, unacceptable and will have significant short and long

term impact on an already highly challenging parking situation as well as safety issues.

I strongly object to the proposed development in this proposal. This site has never been'brownfield' in the almost 30 years that I have lived on Ashgrove Road - my property looks out ontothe courtyard and over the space in question. The only people able to access this green space, tomy knowledge, have been the owners and it most certainly has NOT been used as a 'localdumping ground' as stated in the aboricultural report submitted by the owners.On the contrary, this land is an extremely valuable green space with a rich diversity of wildlife allyear round. It's loss would significantly impact the ecology of the area.

I also agree with the other objectors with regard to the lane being totally unsuitable for access to adevelopment of this kind, both for building and ongoing emergency services access. I would alsoreiterate the potential impact on parking in the area which is already challenging enough.

It seems that there is insufficient and erroneous detail in this proposed planning application andthat this space is totally unsuited for such a development. I would therefore ask that the planningcommittee reject this application.

I thoroughly object to the proposed development. This is a tiny piece of land which hasa tiny lane leading to it. The development of any dwellings on this land is preposterous. Thedevelopment of houses here would dramatically affect the privacy of all the houses in the vicinity.There would be a loss of light to many homes nearby. There would be no way to keep the lanesafe from the amount of traffic that would need to travel along it. There are already parking issuesin the surrounding streets and this development would just add to the issue with more carsneeding to park. The noise that would be created from such a development would be hideous tolive next to. I don't see how this can be given the go ahead.

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development: 23/01412/P Application forOutline Planning Permission to construct 3no. 3-bed, 4-person dwellings with associatedlandscaping works. Land At Rear Of 12 - 28 Ashgrove Avenue Bristol BS7.I have lived in this house for 25 years and the area has always been used by local residents as ashared green space much needed in these tightly packed streets.It provides a small necessary oasis for a lot of local fauna including foxes, hedgehogs, squirrelsand many species of birds nesting in the trees and bushes in the area.The removal of the green space and trees will increase noise pollution and air pollutionconsiderably.

I'm concerned about the impact on parking which is already impossibly difficult roundhere. We regularly have to park a 5 minute walk away. I think the plans allow for 1 space perhouse but sadly many people seem to have more than 1 car per household which means there's ahigh risk that we'll end up with more parking congestion on our local roads.

Also, if I'm reading the plan right, the bin store/width of access road looks very very tight so wemay end up with yet more bins on our narrow pavements.

I would like to object to the submitted plans for the following reasons:

1. Privacy - the space available and proposed buildings would result in a significant invasion of ourprivacy due to the close proximity and overshadowing that would result.2. Loss of light - the proximity of the proposed buildings would also block light in our gardenrendering it useless for our recreational use and death of our cultivated plants and bushes,significantly impacting our emotional wellbeing and that of our children.3. Parking issues - Ashgrove Avenue and surrounding streets have a significant parking problemas it is with parking availability. Extra pressure is placed on residents' parking by the proximity tothe county cricket ground which will be added to by the new train station. Further overdevelopmentof the area with new housing and inadequate parking provision will further add to an already near-untenable parking situation.4. Safety issues - In addition to parking pressure, poor access to the proposed development via anarrow, shared lane would likely make it difficult for emergency vehicles to access the houses.Furthermore, cycle sheds and bin storage in close proximity to the walls may provide easieraccess for climbing over rear garden walls potentially leading to more burglary/criminal activities.5. Nature and wildlife impact - The garden area for the proposed development is currently home toa large number of animals, insects and plants including a thriving fox, squirrel and bird community.The plans proposed would significantly negatively impact the existing wildlife by destruction ofhabitat. This loss of green space in an already overcrowded area would be detrimental to all localresidents including the children.

In summary, this application is unsuitable and the proposed plans would have a highly detrimental

effect on the area, its residents and wildlife as outlined above. We collectively feel that thisapplication should be rejected and we hope that the Local Authority take the arguments intoconsideration.

Access

There is insufficient access to the land via the lane. There is absolutely no way that constructionlorries can access the land in this way.

Additionally, it would not be possible for emergency or delivery vehicles to access this location. Iknow I wouldn't want to live anywhere that a fire engine couldn't reach.

The access to the lane is so tight that one of the garage owners with a larger car at present has tomount the pavement outside my house to access the land. It would be very irresponsible toencourage greater use of this lane when there are so many children that use Ashgrove Avenue asa daily route, either to the primary school at the top or the nursery around the corner at the bottom.

This lane has been used for years for children to play on - my daughter spent a great deal of hertime playing there when she was younger. A number of the houses on Ashgrove Road havegardens that back straight onto the lane.

Another issue that will impact the local area is Insufficient parking - many households have morethan one vehicle, and there is already insufficient parking in this area. Encouraging more vehiclesonto these streets would be irresponsible at best.

Wildlife

I find it very hard to believe that any council with any concern for the environment would approvethis application. This is a rare green buffer that supports a great deal of biodiversity in the area - itis known by local residents to be home to foxes, squirrels, bats and mature trees. At the absoluteleast an environmental survey is required to assess the impact of developing on this land.Furthermore this area is absolutely not a brownfield site as stated in the application - thisdescription can only be taken as disingenuous.

I would like to object to planning application 23/01412/P for the construction of 3 3-bedroom, 4person properties for the following reasons:

The residents on both Ashgrove Road and York Avenue will suffer a loss of privacy, potentiallylight and outlook and so this development will negatively impact their surroundings.

The proposed site is green space, populated by birds, foxes, frogs and probably hedgehogs.Building on it will remove their habitat. The removal of mature trees will also further endanger thebiodiversity of the area. Any consideration of this application must include a full survey on thelikely environmental impact.

The space proposed is not big enough for a development like this and it looks from the drawings,which are incorrectly scaled, that there will not be enough space for cars to turn and foremergency vehicles and waste collection trucks to access. This means any bins will need to betaken to the neighbouring streets for collection, cluttering further an area which is very tight onspace.

3 new houses will bring at least 3 new cars if not more, likely 2 per house. Further compoundingthe severe lack of parking and congestion in the area, along with the pressure already felt from thecricket ground and likely additional pressure from the new station is unacceptable. Speeding andrisky driving on the local roads is regular, adding an additional danger to pedestrians.

The access lane is not wide enough for 2 cars to pass, likely to result in reversing and further riskto pedestrians.

The land in between the houses is precious greenfield land, like the land in the centre of thesurrounding roads in Ashley Down. Building these properties will set a very concerning precedent,potentially affecting other residents in the local area in the future. Any development will be totallyout of character with the local environment.

I hope your decision reflects the significant and obvious issues with this application. Anydevelopment will result in a loss for local residents of what is a special characteristic of AshleyDown, a loss of biodiversity, worsening congestion, increased parking problems and risk to thesafety of pedestrians.

I strongly object to this Planning Application.

Given the sites' location and size it is totally unsuitable and inappropriate for the proposeddevelopment.

The site is essentially a garden 'locked' between a rectangle of Victorian terraces and any newdevelopment would be unsympathetic to its' immediate surrounds.

Construction would be taking away from rather than adding to the ambience of this inner cityneighbourhood.

The site is not large and buildings would have a hugely detrimental effect on the adjacent houses,'cramping' them in and taking away their light and privacy.

Loss of this green space would also have a negative effect on the wildlife that use it, & which itsupports.

Access to the site is by way of a very narrow lane meaning ingress and egress is difficult. The topof the lane meets a small garage forecourt with very little turning circle space, and a blind, 90degree angle to the proposed driveway. To ingress requires mounting the pavement opposite thelane entrance & egress requires manoeuvring across the garage forecourt to obtain a straightenough angle to exit the lane.

Given the above, access to the planned site would be nigh on impossible (if not impossible) foremergency vehicles, construction deliveries and garbage trucks.

If rubbish bins from the proposed site have to be moved to Ashgrove Avenue on collection days,this would further add to the current clutter of bins on the pavement on such days.

Any construction on or under the lane (for services etc.), or negligent parking on the forecourtwould cause a great deal of inconvenience to garage owners, who expect access to their garagesat all times.

Consideration should also be given to those houses on Ashgrove Road whose small gardensborder the lane on one side. Each of these gardens has a garden gate which opens onto the lane.An increase in traffic would create more noise& disturbance for them along with the additionalsafety aspect, especially for children running out of their gardens to play in the lane.

The neighbourhood already struggles with on street car parking space and any overflow ofvehicles from the proposed site would only add to this problem.

I respectfully ask you to consider the points I have made in this objection and to have anunderstanding of the negative impact that any development on this patch of green space wouldhave across the whole neighbourhood. Thank you.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment: and wish to oppose the application

(23/01412/P) for Outline Planning Permission with some matters reserved - to construct 3no. 3-

bed, 4-person dwellings with associated landscaping works in the land at the rear of buildings 12-

28 Ashgrove Avenue BS7.

The proposed development will not contribute positively to the existing areas character and

identity and indeed will have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the existing

area. The existing residents' privacy and outlook will be adversely affected by the proposed

development.

The proposed development is too close to existing buildings and the size of the development will

not be subservient or sympathetic to the existing buildings and so therefore fails to accord with

local policies BCS21, DM26 and DM29.

The access to the proposed development is very narrow with garages fronting on to the lane. This

access will not be suitable for more cars caused by the proposed building and too small for any

emergency or service vehicles to access. The proposed development's access arrangements are

unsuitable and unsafe.

The proposed development will add to yet more traffic in the area which is already made much

worse by people attending the local Gloucester County cricket ground and the likely increase in

traffic precipitated by the building of the new Railway Station at the end of Station Road.

The recycling and waste proposals put forward in the proposal also fail to comply with the adopted

standards and policy DM32.

The existing site is rich in ecology with hedgerows, foxes, birds, and bats flourishing in the green

space. The site also has trees of moderate quality. All this would be lost by the proposed

development.

Lastly, the planning application for the proposed development has inaccuracies pertaining to

details submitted such as numbers and quality of trees and the scale used.

Although I would usually welcome additional housing and indeed any moderndevelopment that had a positive impact on nearby house prices, in this case the proposals arewholly inappropriate.I would like to raise my objection to the proposed application for the following reasons:

Not in keeping.Look at the satellite view of the surrounding area. This area between the rear gardens of theVictorian terraces was created by compromising the width of Ashgrove Avenue. This was done bythe Victorians for a reason and typically such spaces would be reserved for community amenity asa trade-off for cramped living spaces & small gardens. It was not done for more housing.Indeed there are countless examples of this in Bristol where such properties enjoy variously sizednearby communal spaces.Such space is limited in Ashley Down. So given the majority of the proposed area is green spacethat has been enjoyed by the community throughout its history, redeveloping it for further housingis particularly insensitive, and would unbalance the original and intended proportionality.It's true that the small functional garage area is redundant for modern family motor vehicles due tosize & access, however it is becoming increasingly recognised that other forms of transport shouldbe encouraged (ebikes, scooters / potential areas for electric charging points etc) and to do thatyou need suitable storage locations. This is always challenging in Victorian areas, so removingthis amenity would also be ill-considered.

Local ParkingThe narrow Ashgrove Road means the street has only one side of parking. Therefore, its parking

load spills out on to the already crowded nearby streets. Additional 3bed houses with one parkingspace combined with the further loss of available garage / vehicle storage space, will simplyexacerbate this further.The parking issue also needs to be considered in the context of the impending train station. Withadditional costs to drive into the centre, and no parking mitigation in place, the area will already bedue for a parking shock when the station opens as it will effectively be and unofficial park and ridefor out of town commuters.The proposed development simply adds to the strain without the benefit of improving communitytravel amenity.

Safety- Access obviously too narrow for fire engines and impossible at 90 turn.- Ditto construction vehicles which will not even make it onto Ashgrove Road.

- Bellmouth to lane from Ashgrove Avenue is inappropriate and too tight for regular vehicle access,not to mention sightlines. Even with further adaption access would be poor, and would simplyfurther limit available street parking.

Loss of Biodiversity- A predominantly green natural area with a wide range of biodiversity. This will be lost.Aboricultural & ecological investigations & mitigation would be essential.

Drainage- The current antiquated Victorian sewer system blocks and backsup regularly. Its really veryunpleasant. The sewage treatment plant might cope, but the local community infrastructure to getit there, does not. With little chance of investment in this system, this proposal serves to just add tothe loading which will exacerbate matters.

Bin Storage.- Unsuitable location -- Located at choke point of access, yet cannot locate further away for B.Regs reasons. Cannotlocate closer to proposed houses due to travel distance of Refuse collectors.- It just doesn't and cannot work.

Management / maintenance- How will the landscaping & private access road etc be managed and maintained?

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:

I know Ashgrove Avenue well and many friends, as well as family members live

there. I now live within 5 mins and use the avenue frequently.

The avenue is a quiet road with parking only in one side. The access to the proposed development

is narrow. Luckily it is only used occasionally by the limited owners of garages. Instances where

others attempted to access the area (eg vans of the applicant) were disruptive as any large vehicle

needed to drive onto the pavement (in front of my former home). The 'lane' is not designed for

frequent use. Any increased traffic in/out of the lane would have a significant adverse impact on

those living around the access to Ashgrove Ave (nos 29, 28, 27, 25 in particular) in terms of noise,

headlight glare and inevitable mounting of pavement.

Having babysat/cat minded for neighbours on both York Avenue and Ashgrove Avenue

overlooking the proposed development site, I appreciate the impact that any dwelling would have

on their quality of life. Their back views currently overlook greenery and the thought of overlooking

buildings is preposterous. The gardens along Ashgrove Avenue are particularly short and I believe

that any development in the proposed space - acknowledging the light/sound pollution that houses

create - would be a significant blight.

Although the development phase would be short lived, it is impossible for anything other than a

standard car to access the lane. The disruption of deliveries of materials to the end of the lane

would cause mass disruption to Ashgrove Avenue. Any delivery blocks the road to other traffic,

including emergency vehicles.

Finally, the drawings provided do not appear to be realistic. There is no way a car/van/lorry can

access the plot within the space available.

The land was never intended to be built upon and should remian as green land/garden space.

View of how the green site (with garden shed) currently looks:

Land in ques(on marked in red – there is only green space in-between the rows of houses in the area (not housing developments).

3. Safety issues for pedestrians and increased demand for parking The entrance to the lane that will be used to access the new development is partially hidden, and at the moment is very rarely used for cars. A large increase in traffic down this lane will pose a big safety risk to the pedestrians walking down Ashgrove Avenue, especially the many children who walk up and down it daily on their way to and from school – given the hidden nature of the entrance to the lane, both children (given their height) and emerging cars will be very difficult to spot. Adding to that, as the proposed bin collection area is too far up the lane for it to be feasible for rubbish collection services to go, all the bins will need to be put out onto Ashgrove Avenue. Ashgrove Avenue is a small road with small pavements and is already chock-block on rubbish collection day. Any more bins on the pavement will mean pedestrians will be forced to walk on the road – which will be an additional safety risk, especially as the new development will increase the traffic down the road (it will be chaos!!). With regards to the increased demand for street parking the new development is likely to cause, Ashgrove Avenue is a small street with parking on one side only and already it is often impossible to find a space in the local area in the evenings – the local cricket ground puts extra pressure on parking locally, as will the soon-to-be opened Ashley Down train station. To summarise, if this land is to be developed, it needs to be done so in a way that doesn’t negatively impact the quality of life of the surrounding residents, it must preserve the existing ecology and it must not pose a safety risk to pedestrians or put an untenable strain on the amenities of the locality. Many thanks for taking my comments and concerns into consideration.

We strongly object to the proposed development for the following reasons:

Landscaping

The site is not "brownfield" industrial land, but rather is garden land which contains a number oftrees, hedgerows and bushes that provide a habitat for wildlife in the local area (starlings,sparrows & other birds, squirrels, foxes, bees, for example). While some of the trees need to bebetter-managed in terms of their growth (with a plan in place for their maintenance, which does notappear to be in place at present), they still provide valuable green space in the area, supportcarbon uptake and, as mentioned, provide habitat for local wildlife. We believe this much-neededecology and biodiversity should be maintained, rather than replaced with further housing in analready-crowded location.

Indeed, the impact on local fauna has not been adequately considered in the current proposal; asacknowledged by Rudge & Jones in the Arboricultural Report accompanying the submission, "TheWildlife and Countryside Act 1981... provides statutory protection to bats, birds, and other speciesthat inhabit or use trees. The protection afforded to these species could impose significantrestrictions on the use of a particular site... You must seek advice from a qualified ecologist toascertain if any further restrictions apply" (1.4). This has not been carried out, as far as we can tellfrom the proposal documents, and we would request that a suitable report is commissioned.

In addition, the Arboricultural Report provided as part of the submission states that "Each unit willhave 2 trees to the rear", but the site plan drawing shows only one tree per unit. There is internal

inconsistency in the submission in this respect, with the proposal not having due regard torecommendations contained in its own accompanying supporting evidence. The proposal (whichonly includes two new trees) will not compensate for the removal of the existing trees, bushes andhedgerows, in terms of both carbon uptake and habitat for wildlife.

With this theme in mind, it is important to remember that Bristol declared an "ecologicalemergency" in 2020, citing the loss of 60% of wild invertebrates and up to 76% of insects since1970; in addition, populations of swifts and starlings had dropped by more than 96% in the Bristolarea (see https://www.bristol.gov.uk/residents/museums-parks-sports-and-culture/parks-and-open-spaces/managing-green-spaces-for-nature). Developing this garden land into further residentialhousing would seem to us to be contradictory to Bristol's 'One City Ecological EmergencyStrategy' (September 2020 - see https://www.bristol.gov.uk/council-and-mayor/policies-plans-and-strategies/our-action-on-climate-and-ecology/our-climate-action-on-the-natural-environment). Webelieve that this space should be better-maintained as garden land, not built upon.

We would also like to point out that we, as local residents, have never - as suggested in theproposal - used the area as a "dumping ground". On the contrary, we would ideally like to see thisarea maintained with care as garden land. If this area was maintained appropriately, it wouldremain a much-needed green space in an otherwise urban area. While we recognise the need formore housing, we do not believe this site should be used for such a purpose.

Layout & Scale

The visual impact of the new houses would be significant. The proposed development is out-of-keeping/context with the existing character and identity of the neighbourhood, which comprisesterraced Victorian homes of different dimensions and proportions to the proposed builds.

The proposal would result in too great a density of housing in a small space and would constituteoverdevelopment/cramming of the site, in our opinion.

Given the proposed height and scale of the dwellings, and their distance from existing properties,neighbouring residents such as ourselves would experience overlooking, a loss of privacy, andovershadowing. At a personal level, we would be conscious of people peering into our home andgarden. In our rear-facing rooms, our outlook would also be significantly affected.

Other issues

There would be increased noise and disturbance as a result of people and vehicles accessing thisarea. Our enjoyment of our home and garden would be impacted by noise and disturbance fromresidents of the proposed dwellings, in addition to any noise, disturbance and emissions arisingfrom their vehicles.

There will also be a detrimental impact on local amenities, given that additional traffic and parkingdemands will negatively affect the area. The proposal does not include sufficient parking toprovide for the numbers of occupants, and there are already significant parking challenges in thelocality (e.g. residential parking, parking from people in nearby flats, games at the Cricket Ground,and the soon-to-be-opened railway station).

Accessibility to the proposed site would be impractical for residents (and existing garage owners),given that the site can only be accessed by a narrow access lane. Furthermore, the area would bedifficult for emergency vehicles to access, causing another safety hazard.

We therefore request that the Local Authority rejects this application.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Application Reference: 23/01412/PAddress: Land At Rear Of 12 - 28 Ashgrove Avenue Bristol BS7Proposal: Application for Outline Planning Permission with some matters reserved - to construct3no. 3-bed, 4-person dwellings with associated landscaping works. (Matters to be considered bythis application - landscaping, layout and scale only).

I am writing on behalf of my family to register our strong objection to the application referencedabove. On considering the proposal it is apparent that the submission is wholly inappropriate forthe site and surrounding neighbourhood. Significant issues of over-development are apparent inscale, layout, and landscaping - the issues to be considered by this application.

Furthermore, the reserved issue of access demonstrates the inappropriate and unsafe nature ofthe proposal. Additional considerations related to existing use, parking, biodiversity, and wastestorage and collection demonstrate that this proposal is unsuitable for this location.

Collectively, these factors indicate that development of this land is inappropriate in principle andwould be detrimental to local residents and any future occupants. It should therefore be rejected.Specific points are detailed below to support this conclusion.

Scale and Layout

Bristol City Council's core strategy BCS21 (section 4.21.13) states that "A high quality builtenvironment should consider the amenity of both existing and future development. Considerationshould be given to matters of privacy, outlook, natural lighting, ventilation, and indoor and outdoorspace."

The scale, height, and proximity of the proposed dwellings would have a significant negativeimpact on existing dwellings on both Ashgrove Avenue and York Avenue, in terms of loss ofnatural light and outlook, creating an overbearing effect on the surrounding residences and anegative impact on wellbeing of ours and neighbouring families/households through this loss ofamenity.

Loss of natural light to adjoining properties would be considerable. Gardens to the rear ofAshgrove Avenue in particular are very small. This proposal would further impact this vital amenityin an area of the city where green space is limited.

It is also worth noting that the height of the proposed dwellings will likely prevent the effectivedeployment of renewable energy (solar PV) on valuable single storey roofs on Ashgrove Avenue,reducing the sustainability of the proposed development.

Loss of privacy through the proximity of the proposed dwellings is a major concern. The separationof just 9.7m from the proposed dwellings to the rear of houses on Ashgrove Avenue highlights thenegative impact of the proposal on the surrounding houses and the area in general, and wouldresult in over-development. We have additional concerns regarding noise pollution resulting fromadditional habitation and 24/7 vehicular access at the rear of existing homes.

Landscaping

The application misrepresents a number of features of the land. It is not, as stated in theapplication, a brownfield site, but rather a greenfield site used for many years until recently as agarden by specific residents on Ashgrove Avenue, with the permission of current or previouslandowners. Any use of the land as a "dumping ground" by local residents (as described in theArboricultural Report) has been with the knowledge or involvement of the owners, as otherresidents do not have access to the site.

There has been no previous development on the site that would warrant its classification as abrownfield site. In contrast, its long-standing use as a garden has allowed for a rich and diverseecology to be established on the land, including bats, hedgehogs, foxes, squirrels, toads,andnumerous species of garden birds. Tawny owls have also been heard. The application does notacknowledge this biodiversity or make adequate provision for its maintenance or protection. At aminimum, an ecology survey should have been carried out in order to assess the potential loss ofbiodiversity from these proposals.

In short, this land provides a valuable natural resource in a densely populated area of the city.Development of the land would have a significant detrimental effect on the local ecosystem in theAshley Down area.

Access

While access is a reserved issue in this application, major issues with access indicate that furtherdevelopment of the site in any form is inappropriate. Access to the land is via a narrow, privatelyowned lane bordered on each side by existing buildings or garden boundaries. While the laneprovides access to existing garages, these were not built to accommodate modern vehicles andare therefore rarely used as such.

The existence of garages accessed via the lane should not be taken as evidence that the lane issuitable for regular vehicular traffic. Traversing the lane in a family-sized car (of the type that maybe expected in a 4-person dwelling) is challenging and current volumes of traffic through the laneare very low.

Moreover, multiple houses on Ashgrove Road have gardens that open directly onto the lane withno clear visibility or buffer zone. The lane has been regularly used as a play area for children withno clear separation of pedestrian and vehicular zones on this privately owned land. Increasedusage of the lane for access would create a hazardous environment in a neighbourhood with ahigh proportion of young families, creating considerable public safety implications.

Due to the geometry of the lane it is unlikely that vehicles could access the proposed developmentwithout straying outside the red bounding box shown in document LAAA.P10_A. This would in turncreate negative impacts for the owners of the garages opening onto the forecourt, who have not,individually, been formally notified of this application.

Ingress to and egress from the lane onto Ashgrove Avenue is an area of particular concern. In amodern family car it is almost impossible to turn into the lane without mounting the curb on the farside of Ashgrove Avenue, due to the narrow width of the street and the lane itself, which isbordered by garden walls. These walls prevent a clear and safe line of sight from the lane ontoAshgrove Avenue, for vehicles exiting the lane.

The cumulative impact of these factors is a proposal that is wholly inappropriate for the setting,both for potential residents, existing neighbours, and the broader community. Furthermore, it isinconceivable that large emergency services vehicles (e.g. fire appliances) could enter or traversethe lane in order to reach houses in the proposed development. This presents a considerable riskto any new occupants, but also to existing properties, due to the over-development inherent inthese proposals.

Parking provision

Availability of parking in the Ashley Down area is already inadequate for existing residents, evenunder normal circumstances. New developments at Ashley Heights, the County Ground, andMuller House have increased the pressure on parking provision in the area, which is exacerbatedduring events at the County Ground and on match days at the Memorial Stadium. The forthcomingAshley Down station is expected to further increase parking demands in the local area.

This proposal is underspecified in terms of parking provision for cars and bicycles. If approved,this proposal would undoubtedly create additional parking pressure in the surroundingneighbourhood, with a negative impact on local residents. Impacts are already feltdisproportionately by key-workers and others working shifts, who often return home late at nightand have to park many streets away due to lack of available spaces.

Waste

The application shows a proposed bin collection area on document LAAA.P10_A. This area maynot be in the sole ownership of the applicant. Moreover, other properties on Ashgrove Avenuehave a right of access over this area which would be impeded by this proposal. While I appreciatethat this is not a planning issue per se, it serves to highlight the inappropriate nature of thisproposal for the site in question and surrounding environment.

Even if the proposed bin collection area were to be suitable for this purpose, it is located too farfrom the public highway on Ashgrove Avenue to be served by waste collection providers. As such,waste collection would not be made from the 'collection point'. Rather, bins from three additionalproperties (up to 15 bins in total) would have to be brought to Ashgrove Avenue, where there is nosuitable storage area for them on collection day. The result would be blocking of the pavementand resultant public safety implications for pedestrians, or blocking of the same access lane whichalready provides highly constrained access to the site.

Summary

In summary, this application reflects an ill-conceived proposal that is inappropriate in terms ofscale, layout, and landscaping, and which would be highly detrimental to local residents. Inaddition, reserved issues and further considerations detailed here serve to highlight overall theunsuitable nature of residential development on this site.

I trust you will give these matters due consideration in reaching a decision on this application.

Sincerely,

I am writing to object for a number of reasons, predominately that the proposeddevelopment is much too large for the relatively small space and will be too close to thesurrounding houses, and therefore will be incredibly dominant and result in cramped, oppressiveliving for both the surrounding residents and the occupants of the new houses.

It will also force the removal of a thriving wildlife habitat, made up of many mature trees, grass andbrambles which support a variety of different bird species, bats, foxes and undoubtably many othersmall creatures and insects.

I will go into more detail about my various objections here:

1. Loss of privacy and light

The development which has been proposed is too high and too close to the existing houses, whichwill result in a significant loss of light and, more worryingly, an extreme loss of privacy for allinvolved - especially as the new development requires all the current trees and bushes on theboundary to be removed - they currently provide a small amount of privacy.

Although the plans don't currently show where windows will be situated, they will need to besituated on either the front or the rear of the new houses, probably both, on both floors. Whereverthey are situated there will be inevitably be a vast amount of overlooking from the newdevelopment into the rear of the houses on Ashgrove Avenue and York Avenue - the back windowof our house is only just over 4 metres from the boundary/our back wall so the new occupants will

be able to look directly at us. And, we will be able to look directly into the new house, particularlyfrom our large third floor window.

2. Loss of green space/wildlife habitat/removal of trees

The piece of land in question is a green space, not brownfield as suggested in the application. Itwas used as an extended garden space for 18 Ashgrove Avenue - the gate leading onto the landis still there, there are also sheds and a brick BBQ which are evidence of its previous usage. Inrecent years, the land has become overgrown and even more of an important habitat for wildlife -any development needs to take this into account and the ecology of this site needs to be takenseriously.

3. Safety issues for pedestrians and increased demand for parking

The entrance to the lane that will be used to access the new development is partially hidden, andat the moment is very rarely used for cars. A large increase in traffic down this lane will pose a bigsafety risk to the pedestrians walking down Ashgrove Avenue, especially the many children whowalk up and down it daily on their way to and from school - given the hidden nature of the entranceto the lane, both children (given their height) and emerging cars will be very difficult to spot.

Adding to that, as the proposed bin collection area is too far up the lane for it to be feasible forrubbish collection services to go, all the bins will need to be put out onto Ashgrove Avenue.Ashgrove Avenue is a small road with small pavements and is already chock-block on rubbishcollection day. Any more bins on the pavement will mean pedestrians will be forced to walk on theroad - which will be an additional safety risk, especially as the new development will increase thetraffic down the road (it will be chaos!!).

With regards to the increased demand for street parking the new development is likely to cause,Ashgrove Avenue is a small street with parking on one side only and already it is often impossibleto find a space in the local area in the evenings - the local cricket ground puts extra pressure onparking locally, as will the soon-to-be opened Ashley Down train station.

To summarise, if this land is to be developed, it needs to be done so in a way that doesn'tnegatively impact the quality of life of the surrounding residents, it must preserve the existingecology and it must not pose a safety risk to pedestrians or put an untenable strain on theamenities of the locality.

Many thanks for taking my comments and concerns into consideration.

The proposed development would feel very intrusive to us, looking out of the back of ourhouse: it would overlook our kitchen, our back bedrooms and our garden, whereas until now thehouses that we can see and can see us are all at a greater distance.

We are concerned about the wildlife that would be destroyed by this development: by the buildingworks and associated traffic, by the new residents and their vehicles. Until now the area is onlyused as a garden and garages, and is undisturbed for long periods of time. We regularly enjoyfoxes, goldfinches, long-tailed tits, sparrows and many other birds, which all visit our garden andour neighbours', and go between these gardens and the piece of land where the proposeddevelopment is to be.

Parking is another issue that we feel will be severely impacted by this development. It is alreadyvery difficult: on term-time evenings, we often have to go further than Ashgrove Avenue to findparking. The new station will add to this problem, as does the expansion of events at the cricketground ( there are no mitigating parking measures that cover our roads for match days). So a fewmore on-street parking spaces are just not available.

I object to this plan for the following reasons.

Loss of greenfield site.I have never known the land to be anything other than garden space, with no permanentstructures or development.

Trees.If the development went ahead I fear the loss of the trees, which I very much value ,regardless oftheir perceived quality.

Privacy.Our house, like others in the street have our kids bedroom at the rear and the proposed location ofthe properties is too close and would involve loss of privacy.

Noise.There are several NHS shift workers in the area who sleep during the day. The noise of theresidence and construction would put a strain on us all.

Proximity.Our gardens are not large and it would feel like somebody was living in them.

Biodiversity.This greenfield site has plants and wildlife living on them. During the day you can see birds flying

in and out.

2

• The width of the site access is inconsistently identified as 3.6m on dwg. LAAA/P10.A but shown as 3.7m on dwg. LAAA/P11.A. I have personally measured this width as 3.5m and feel it has been misrepresented.

• The overall width (north/south) of the plot is inconsistently shown as 15755mm on dwg. LAAA/P11.A and LAAA/P02.A but shown as 15807mm on dwg. LAAA/P10.A.

• The proposed location of the bin store blocks an access gate to the rear of 28 Ashgrove Avenue. Whilst this gate is not currently used the bin store would prevent its future use.

• The proposed development does not meet the parking schedule requirements stated in Table C3, Page 97 of the Bristol City Council Site Allocations and Development Management Policy (July 2014). The Proposed Site Plan has shortfall of 0.5no. car parking spaces which will lead to increased pressure on existing local parking provision (itself further challenged by regular events at Gloucestershire County Cricket Club, Bristol Rovers FC, and the imminent completion of Ashley Down Station). The lack of parking provision could foreseeably lead to abusive parking on the ‘forecourt’ area of adjacent garages to which the owner has no access right. The proposed scheme also has a shortfall of 3no. bicycle parking spaces against the requirement; this is unacceptable given the need to encourage sustainable travel within Bristol and nationally.

Whilst Site Access has been identified as a ‘reserved matter’ within the application, it is fundamental to the feasibility of the proposed development and can be considered to impact the scheme layout. The awkward site access, proximity of proposed dwellings to the site boundary, limited size of the proposed gardens and poor parking provision all suggest the proposal is overdeveloped for this site. Furthermore, the following points fundamentally question the viability of the site access, during both the construction and habitation phases:

• No swept path analysis has been undertaken. It is inconceivable that vehicles will be able to access the plot through the shaded area on dwg. LAAA/P10.A without passing onto the adjacent garage ‘forecourt’ area (for which the owner has no access right). I believe the proposed route will be inaccessible to delivery, refuse collection and emergency vehicles.

• There are 7 no. pedestrian gates to the rear gardens of Ashgrove Road that open immediately onto the proposed access route (see Figure 2 – provided by email); all of which include restricted lines-of-sight. The increased traffic created by this development along the access route will exacerbate this unsafe condition and presents significant danger to pedestrians.

• The sightlines for egressing the access route onto Ashgrove Avenue are inadequate (see Figure 3 to Figure 5 – provided by email). The wall to the immediate east of the proposed access point is 1.5m high, while the wall to the west is 1m high. Both these walls exceed the 600mm high standard for pedestrian visibility splays. Local residents advise that currently <3 vehicles traverse the route per day; the increased traffic that would be created by the development will therefore be significant in comparison to the current circulation. This would exacerbate this unsafe condition and presents significant risk to pedestrians on Ashgrove Avenue.

The above concerns contradict requirements within the Bristol Local Plan Policy DM26 that access arrangements for ‘backland developments’ should not have adverse impacts to the safety or amenity of the existing frontage development.

Landscaping:

3

The proposal contains insufficient information to make a detailed assessment of the landscaping proposals. The application does not detail the appearance and finish of shrub borders, fencing, bin stores, water butts, and no detail is provided regarding hard landscaping within the gardens of the new plots.

The gardens of adjacent properties include numerous established trees immediately adjacent to the border of the proposed development which are not accounted for in the Aboricultural Report or Proposed Plan/Section drawings. These trees include valuable species such as mature Ash (unaffected by Ash Dieback) and Persian Silk Tree. These established trees overhang into the current plot and extensive cutting back would be required during the construction phase. The degree of cutting back required would result in significant loss of habitat and may endanger the health of these trees, risking their subsequent death. Furthermore, as these trees are located immediately south of the site boundary they obscure much of the light to the area; I fear development could lead to subsequent confrontation regarding the Ash tree within my garden and the ‘right to light’.

The site is known by local residents to provide habitat to various wildlife including foxes, bats, insects, squirrels, and various bird species, for which the proposed development makes no provision. The importance of the existing greenfield land as habitat is significant given the inner-city location of the land, and there are limited comparable areas within the locale that could support this wildlife. Having spoken to other local residents we would favour a comprehensive Ecological Survey to be undertaken to establish the number and nature of the wildlife within the site.

In summary, I hope you will agree the current proposals are excessive, poorly conceived and do not sufficiently acknowledge the quality, character and challenges of the surrounding area.

Sincerely,

4

Enclosed Images

Figure 1: Wall bordering plot on York Avenue Side

5

Figure 2: Image showing 3no. access gates opening onto proposed access route (of 7no. total)

Figure 3: Panoramic image showing sightlines for egressing existing proposed access route

6

Figure 4: General view of proposed access route from Ashgrove Avenue looking south

Figure 5: Walls at exit point of proposed access route, adjacent to Ashgrove Avenue pavement

I am writing to object to the proposals for the development of the Land to the Rear of12-28 Ashgrove Avenue, Bristol.

My main grounds for objection to this proposed development are as follows:

A two story development of the proposed kind and scale with such close proximity to existinghouses and gardens is visually imposing and feels overcrowded for the surrounding properties andwill cause overlooking issues and compromise privacy between existing properties with theproposed new houses.

The right of light with neighboring properties and gardens will be compromised. This will be a bigissue in the winter months when the sun is lower and there is less foliage cover on the trees.

The important bio diversity, wildlife and green space is to be massively reduced in an urban area,with the proposed reinstatement of trees being holey inadequate. There are many birds, foxes,bats, frogs, insects and other wildlife known to habitat the existing green site. Trees in the adjacentneighboring gardens will have to be cut back to allow the development to be built which couldcompromise the health of these trees and affect the enjoyment of residents gardens. There hasbeen no proper ecological survey undertaken for the site to establish what is actually there, thearboricultural report provided does not mention any of the required cutting back of existing treeson neighboring properties and the number of trees proposed to be planted in the report arecontrary to the number of trees shown on the plans which are again nowhere near enough toreplace what is already there that will be lost. This site is and has always been a greenfield site not

a brownfield site or industrial plot.

The increased traffic that will result from the new properties accessing their car parking spaces willpotentially cause a hazard for pedestrians, existing buildings and road users due to the size andlocation of the existing access lane. Access for emergency vehicles, waste lorries and vans isalready very tricky into Ashgrove Avenue and expecting large vehicles to be able to turn into thesmall lane that accesses the proposed site will be almost impossible and very dangerous.

Dustbin and recycling storage is shown on the plans as being sited on the edge of the access lanein front of the proposed development, there is in fact an easement / right of access for one of theneighboring properties on Ashgrove road where the bin location is shown with a door leading totheir garden. Expecting a waste lorry to be able to drive into the development is unrealistic giventhe restricted access and lack of turning circle in the existing or proposed forecourt. The currentproposed location for the bin store is also beyond the permitted distance for Bristol wastemanagement to move the bins on foot so the bins will in fact end up having to be stored on thealready narrow and at times congested pavement of Ashgrove road, thus causing an obstructionand a potential hazard.

The proposed allocated parking spaces for four vehicles for the three properties is under therecommended minimum of 1.5 spaces per three bedroom dwelling. It is highly likely that a threebedroom house will have more than one car per property and this combined with the soon to openrailway station will add to the already problematic parking in the surrounding streets. Push bikestorage is also under the recommended number for each property.

In conclusion, I feel that Bristol does need new housing but not at the detrimental cost to existingresidents and the surrounding environment, this proposed scheme in this location is holeyunsuitable on many grounds. If passed it could also potentially set a precedent for other similarvaluable inner city green spaces to be lost to developers.

I would like to object to this planning application as the access route to the propertiesare too narrow for emergency vehicles, putting new residents' and surrounding current residents'property and life at risk.

Second reason for objection is the reduction of wildlife to the area if permission is granted.Biodiversity is so important for us all. Whilst we can encourage this in our our gardens, this area isa gem for aquatic animals, land and flight mammals (namely bats), and insects. This higherintensity biodiverse area positively affects the biodiversity of neighbouring gardens.

The third reason for objection is the little privacy for both the new home owners on the land fromneighbouring properties and vice versa.

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development: 23/01412/P Application forOutline Planning Permission to construct 3no. 3-bed, 4-person dwellings with associatedlandscaping works. Land At Rear Of 12 - 28 Ashgrove Avenue Bristol BS7.

Although this is an outline application, with many important details reserved, I feel this is afundamentally flawed proposal that would have a significant detrimental impact on the currentresidents of York Avenue, Ashgrove Avenue, owners of neighbouring garages and possiblyresidents of Ashgrove Road. The project is too large, overbearing, and would build on an oldgarden which I believe has been erroneously described as brownfield.

I have outlined my current objections below, highlighting the impact this would have on ourhousehold and our lives.

Overlooking - the proposed houses would completely overlook our house and garden. There areno windows listed on the plans, but presumably there will be some?

Overbearing - The proposed houses are almost the same height as the existing houses, butconsiderably closer and would entirely change the feel of the area for us and other residents.Currently there is a feeling of space between the rear of the houses on York and AshgroveAvenues, this development would destroy that, having a major impact on the character of the areaand leave us 'boxed in'. My understanding of such developments is that they should be'subservient' to the existing buildings, this proposal is certainly not that.

Privacy - the development would have a massive impact on the privacy in both our house andgarden. As stated above the proposal is vastly too big, too many houses and would overlook ourhouse and garden.

Overshadowing - the easterly most house would block light that reaches our house and garden.Currently, there are some trees present, but these are lower than the proposed buildings and thecurrent trees clearly do not cause the same degree of shade as buildings. Our garden facesnorthwest, and as such we don't get any sun for 4 months over the winter, blocked by the houseson York Avenue. This building would block precious light we do get in the summer.

Impact on wildlife / green space - I have seen foxes, bats, many bird species includingsparrowhawks in this old, overgrown garden. More before some recent clearance work. It wouldbe sad to lose this urban green space. I feel the current application does not acknowledge anyvalue of what was until a few years ago a garden.

Access - the access to the site down a narrow alley is a major concern and not adequatelyresolved by this application. I sincerely doubt emergency vehicles could gain access, nor couldconstruction traffic access the site safely.

Drawings - these appear poorly drawn, contain multiple errors, are not to scale and inadequatelyrepresent both the existing site and the proposed development.

Overall I believe this is an ill-conceived, poorly executed application to put the wrong houses in thewrong place. Moreover, I feel that the proposed buildings would have such significant negativeimpact on the current residents as too far outweigh any potential benefit from the proposal.

I am writing to object to the proposals for the re-development of the Land to the Rear of12-28 Ashgrove Avenue, Bristol. Whilst I recognise the need for additional housing provision withinBristol, the proposed development has been poorly conceived, is plainly unsuitable for the site,and appears to lack the necessary quality for new-build housing. I wish to draw the followingpoints to the attention of the Planning Officer.

Layout and Scale:The Proposed Section View (LAAA.P11.A) has been poorly detailed. This drawing does notadequately show the impact of the significant east-west slope along the full width of the plot andhow this is accounted for within the proposed development layout (showing a single section viewonly). Therefore it is not possible to make a complete assessment of the proposed site layout andscale of the development; nevertheless, the following major issues are apparent:

- Although no details of windows have been provided, it is reasonable to assume from theproposed site layout that the proximity of the proposed dwellings to the plot boundary will lead tooverlooking into adjacent gardens and loss-of-privacy to existing private amenity spaces. Giventhe limited distance between the dwellings and the plot boundary I feel the site is unsuitable for 2-storey development.

- The Section View on dwg. LAAA/P11.A incorrectly identifies the separation distance betweenPlot 1 and 13 York Avenue as the minimum separation distance to existing York Avenue housing(noting that 13 York Avenue is mistakenly labelled as 15 York Avenue on the drawing). Thesmallest separation distance is actually between Plot 2 and 15 York Avenue and is approximately

1m less than the distance shown on the drawing; the quoted values are thereforemisrepresentative and minimum separation has been overestimated.

- Supplementary Planning Document Number 2 (Oct 2005) suggests a minimum separation of21m should be maintained between habitable rooms when assessing extensions to existingbuildings; applying the same criteria in this instance suggests the proposed development is tooclose to existing buildings (15m to 1st floors of Ashgrove Ave / 17.8m to York Ave) suggesting theplot has been overdeveloped.

- Further to the above, LAAA/P11.A shows the height of the bordering wall at the rear of YorkAvenue gardens as 3m. I have personally measured the height of this wall as 2.1m (see Figure 1 -provided by email). Again the drawing is inaccurate, misrepresentative and incorrectly suggests agreater degree of separation between the proposed development and existing housing.

- The proposed drainage runs along a shared access path. It is unclear whether the developer hasrights to lay utilities along this land as it is not exclusively in their ownership. Therefore I wouldquestion whether the drainage proposal can be assessed without further information.

Considering the Proposed Plan View (LAAA.P10.A):- The scale bar and dimensions detailed on dwg. LAAA/P10.A are shown incorrectly.

- The width of the site access is inconsistently identified as 3.6m on dwg. LAAA/P10.A but shownas 3.7m on dwg. LAAA/P11.A. I have personally measured this width as 3.5m and feel it has beenmisrepresented.

- The overall width (north/south) of the plot is inconsistently shown as 15755mm on dwg.LAAA/P11.A and LAAA/P02.A but shown as 15807mm on dwg. LAAA/P10.A.

- The proposed location of the bin store blocks an access gate to the rear of 28 Ashgrove Avenue.Whilst this gate is not currently used the bin store would prevent its future use.

- The proposed development does not meet the parking schedule requirements stated in TableC3, Page 97 of the Bristol City Council Site Allocations and Development Management Policy(July 2014). The Proposed Site Plan has shortfall of 0.5no. car parking spaces which will lead toincreased pressure on existing local parking provision (itself further challenged by regular eventsat Gloucestershire County Cricket Club, Bristol Rovers FC, and the imminent completion of AshleyDown Station). The lack of parking provision could foreseeably lead to abusive parking on the'forecourt' area of adjacent garages to which the owner has no access right. The proposedscheme also has a shortfall of 3no. bicycle parking spaces against the requirement; this isunacceptable given the need to encourage sustainable travel within Bristol and nationally.

Whilst Site Access has been identified as a 'reserved matter' within the application, it isfundamental to the feasibility of the proposed development and can be considered to impact thescheme layout. The awkward site access, proximity of proposed dwellings to the site boundary,limited size of the proposed gardens and poor parking provision all suggest the proposal isoverdeveloped for this site. Furthermore, the following points fundamentally question the viabilityof the site access, during both the construction and habitation phases:- No swept path analysis has been undertaken. It is inconceivable that vehicles will be able toaccess the plot through the shaded area on dwg. LAAA/P10.A without passing onto the adjacentgarage 'forecourt' area (for which the owner has no access right). I believe the proposed route willbe inaccessible to delivery, refuse collection and emergency vehicles.

- There are 7 no. pedestrian gates to the rear gardens of Ashgrove Road that open immediatelyonto the proposed access route (see Figure 2 - provided by email); all of which include restrictedlines-of-sight. The increased traffic created by this development along the access route willexacerbate this unsafe condition and presents significant danger to pedestrians.

- The sightlines for egressing the access route onto Ashgrove Avenue are inadequate (see Figure3 to Figure 5 - provided by email). The wall to the immediate east of the proposed access point is1.5m high, while the wall to the west is 1m high. Both these walls exceed the 600mm highstandard for pedestrian visibility splays. Local residents advise that currently <3 vehicles traversethe route per day; the increased traffic that would be created by the development will therefore besignificant in comparison to the current circulation. This would exacerbate this unsafe conditionand presents significant risk to pedestrians on Ashgrove Avenue.

The above concerns contradict requirements within the Bristol Local Plan Policy DM26 that accessarrangements for 'backland developments' should not have adverse impacts to the safety oramenity of the existing frontage development.

Landscaping:The proposal contains insufficient information to make a detailed assessment of the landscapingproposals. The application does not detail the appearance and finish of shrub borders, fencing, binstores, water butts, and no detail is provided regarding hard landscaping within the gardens of thenew plots.

The gardens of adjacent properties include numerous established trees immediately adjacent tothe border of the proposed development which are not accounted for in the Aboricultural Report orProposed Plan/Section drawings. These trees include valuable species such as mature Ash(unaffected by Ash Dieback) and Persian Silk Tree. These established trees overhang into thecurrent plot and extensive cutting back would be required during the construction phase. Thedegree of cutting back required would result in significant loss of habitat and may endanger the

health of these trees, risking their subsequent death. Furthermore, as these trees are locatedimmediately south of the site boundary they obscure much of the light to the area; I feardevelopment could lead to subsequent confrontation regarding the Ash tree within my garden andthe 'right to light'.

The site is known by local residents to provide habitat to various wildlife including foxes, bats,insects, squirrels, and various bird species, for which the proposed development makes noprovision. The importance of the existing greenfield land as habitat is significant given the inner-city location of the land, and there are limited comparable areas within the locale that couldsupport this wildlife. Having spoken to other local residents we would favour a comprehensiveEcological Survey to be undertaken to establish the number and nature of the wildlife within thesite.

In summary, I hope you will agree the current proposals are excessive, poorly conceived and donot sufficiently acknowledge the quality, character and challenges of the surrounding area.

This is increasing hmo use in an area with access / parking issues. Concern also aboutaccess for building trades and emergency services.

The proposed development of three houses with car parking, each of a similar floor areato the Ashgrove Avenue houses, but narrower and wider are too tall, overbearing and too close tothe existing homes. Bedroom windows would overlook bedroom windows at close range, and thenew houses would also be overlooked by three storeys, as many of the existing Victorian houseshave had loft conversions. The new houses might also have a third storey in the roof space,creating more overlooking and privacy issues. The applicant proposes that all trees offering adegree of privacy are felled. Three new saplings (according to the plan) which will be car parkingwithin two years, are no substitute.

The double width of the new houses would make them dominate the existing properties.Development in back gardens ought to be subservient, but these proposed houses woulddominate.

The land these buildings could be built on is garden land. Land Registry entries show that the landwas in the title of 26 Ashgrove Avenue as a garden with only foot access by way of a footwayeasement/access. The current access to the proposed development is via the owner's garage,which has been demolished (though it is still shown as a garage at the Land Registry). The LandRegistry makes it clear that the development land is a garage and a garden.

In my memory, the land was used only as a garden by the family at 18 Ashgrove Avenue, andmust have been the garden of 26 Ashgrove Avenue before that. It is definitely not a 'brownfield'site, as alleged. The only structures on it I believe, are a garden shed and a barbeque. There was(and might still be) a gate onto the land for garden access from Number 18. The garden has only

been untended since the family at Number 18 moved away, around 2017.

There are about twelve substantial trees in the garden, and the owner has killed about eight ofthem by over-pruning. There is nothing wrong with the remaining mature trees, which supportwildlife. Urban areas desperately need trees for shade and privacy, as well as carbon capture! Weneed wild areas such as this land, for biodiversity. Many varieties of birds, bees, as well as foxesand bats make their home there. The application ought to have an ecological survey done, beforethis diversity is lost.

If you look on Google Maps satellite, you will see that this land is a landlocked (until the garagewas demolished) garden, between four streets of Victorian houses. Very similar in area and styleto several other blocks of Victorian houses in the vicinity. None of the similar blocks have housessqueezed into the land between four residential streets. The land between these residential streetssupport essential plant and animal life and diversity.

The proposed car-centric development will cause conflict with the owners of the existing eightgarages. Manoeuvering cars up and down the narrow access lane, and around the confinedforecourt area, already creates conflict. Another four (plus?) cars sharing this very confined space,would be unacceptable. The owner/applicant owns one garage (the demolished garage plot is partof the development land) he should therefore only exercise the right of access for one car. Givingconsent for a car-centric development in an area with such high demand for parking, would createextra stress and conflict. If owners of the new houses had multiple cars, it would add to parkingconflict on narrow, single-side parking, Ashgrove Avenue. It would not be fair to the existinggarage owners, who I don't think have been notified of this application by the PlanningDepartment.

I am also concerned about emergency vehicle access along the very narrow access lane, andwaste bins would have to be stored on Ashgrove Avenue, as 26 Ashgrove Avenue has aneasement (a legacy from when that property owned the land and walkway next to the demolishedgarage) and the proposed bin storage area is on that right of way. I don't know where all the newhouses' waste bins could go on Ashgrove Avenue. It's a pretty narrow street, with an evennarrower access lane. It is already tricky for the existing number of cars navigating up and down it,and onto Ashgrove Avenue, with very limited visibility round parked cars.

I have very serious safety concerns about the extremely narrow access lane whichwould be the only way in or out of the new properties. There is no way a fire engine or emergencyvehicle could fit down it and it is doubtful they could even make the very tight turn from AshgroveAvenue into the lane in the first place.

There is a real risk of damage to properties either side of the lane if large vehicles attempt access.How would they get all the heavy duty construction vehicles in there to build?Once in, they wouldn't be able to turn to exit and would have to back out blind onto AshgroveAvenue, which would cause all sorts of safety issues. Once the house were built, how wouldremovals lorries, utilities, deliveries or bin lorries get to them?

The quality of life for neighbours would be seriously damaged.

The pollution from the building site could be damaging to people's health and properties/gardens.The noise would make life miserable for anyone trying to use their garden, sleep after working ashift or anyone trying to work from home.

There is parking space for only one car per property. As they are 3- bedroom houses they aregoing to have more than one car and that means they would try to park these extra cars on thesurrounding streets that are already hugely overcrowded and cannot even offer adequate parkingto the residents who already live there.

There would be a huge increase in traffic using the narrow lane at all hours disturbing residents

whose homes are either side of the lane.

This seems a very ill-thought out plan with no regard for safety or existing residents' quality of lifeduring the building or after the project is complete.

My objection centres on the access lane from Ashgrove Avenue which is long andnarrow - barely 8 foot wide at one point. This would be sure to present huge difficulties for builderslorries, supplies, scaffolding, machinery etc needed effect such a build in this restricted site. And ifthe houses were built there would be no chance of fire engines, ambulances, delivery/removalvans, waste collection vehicles having access along this lane. Re; waste this would mean 3 moresets of bins and boxes having to be accommodated on Ashgrove Avenue each week, where thereis already an issue for pavement users and those of us who need access to our garages. Wealready have trouble accessing the lane on occasion due to closely parked vehicles and oftenhave to mount the pavement in order to make what is a very tight turn.I believe that this lane was originally for access to a horse drawn tram yard - my garage still hasthe original ticket window set into the wall! - so was not intended for modern day large and widevehicles and certainly not for modern fire engines etc.

There is also the issue of the loss of habitat in a very urban area - I understand that some of thetrees on site need attention and have no great objection to the removal of damaged or overgrowntrees, but there will be an effect on the local population of wildlife and birds. I would welcome anenvironment report in this respect before any planning permission is granted. I would also like twopoint out that this are has not been used by locals as a 'dumping ground' - the only access to it isvia the gate.

I do understand the owner of the land wishing to develop this site but would like to suggest analternative - the building of garages, with some landscaping and a suitable ground surface toencourage soakaway, if possible with electricity provision, for rent or sale to local people who are

crying out for a garage facility. This would also help to encourage car owners to make the switchto EV if they were able to rent a space where they could charge at domestic rates. I imagine thespace could accommodate around 10 garages which would be single story and so moreacceptable to those houses whose light would otherwise be affected by two story properties beingallowed onto the space. The street parking situation in the area is already difficult and will only getworse once the Ashley Down Railway station is in operation since there have been no plans to setin place a CPZ.My proposal of garages would reduce the need for sewerage and water provision to the site -another piece of work that would hugely inconvenience those of us who own the garages and usethe lane on a daily basis.

I would like to point out that the lane which would provide access to the new houses isvery narrow. While a car or small van can fit down it after often mounting the pavement oppositeand / or performing a 3 point turn, it is in my opinion too narrow for: a fire engine, ambulance, binlorry, builders lorry, building materials supply lorry, utilities vehicle, or removals van.

If any of these were to try to access the new houses, they might become stuck, or damage theproperties either side of the lane. There is also very little room to turn at the end of the lane so ifthey did manage to fit down it they would have to reverse back out.

In addition, Ashgrove Avenue itself is quite narrow, explaining why it is difficult for larger vehiclesto turn into the lane from the road, or back out of it. Again, attempts could lead to damage to thevehicle and to neighbouring properties. I've seen evidence of vehicles clipping both properties onentering the lane, in fact there is broken red brake light plastic still there from a recent event.

The proposed bin / cycle storage and even a parked car adjacent to the existing properties' rearwall will make climbing over easier and increase the burglary / crime levels, the properties havehistory of crime via access in this way.

The impact on wellbeing of the residents of 20+ houses that will be subjected to a large buildingsite for 1+ year in very close proximity should be considered.

I would also like to point out that in recent years there has been evidence of a significant foxpopulation using the area, which, having grown wild over the last decade, has become of some

importance to local wildlife. Additionally, wild frogs and bats, which it is currently illegal to disturbthe breeding sites and roosts of, have been seen nearby. Before any decision is made, thenecessary biodiversity checks should be carried out by experts of that field.

These houses will cause significant disruption to the gardens of the houses they will bebetween, the pollution caused by the building works will be damaging to local children's physicalhealth and mental health as they will not be able to play in there gardens.

The building will cause significant noise pollution to the local area and undoubtedly there will beobstruction to York avenue to facilitate building services accessing the area.

This small space should be used for carbon neural developments such as allotments, or securebike storage for local residents. The council should commit to its environment policy and refusethis proposal.