As has been stated by other other objections. This high density development is still tootall and will have a very negative effect on the surrounding area. It does not take sufficient care tomitigate heritage concerns and will damage views from Ashton court.

The height and density of the development will create a bleak, shadowy brick corridor into the cityalong the Metrobus route, rather than the promised 'gateway'.

There was so much potential to create a development that could balance quality affordablehousing combined with public utility. Such as community space, dental/doctors surgeries, bicyclepark/stores as recently announced in North Bristol. Instead, we have huge characterless brickmonoliths. Unaffordable flats, that will end up being overpriced rental units for the benefit of privatelandlords, rather than addressing the desperate need for real affordable homes for lower incomefamilies.

It should be noted that the public consultation is very late in the process (the letter arrived less thata week ago), with a short window for feedback that seems to discourage public engagement. Theplanning documentation seems to avoid showing the most impactful elements of the development,such as the impact of the tallest buildings to the flats at Paxton Drive.

Please reject the new proposal and reduce the height of the development, to prevent further

damage to the area.

Many thanks and kind regards,

The documentation and short time frame to object following receipt of the letter make itdifficult for the public to understand all aspects of the latest amendment.

As I understand the amendment still involves an increase to the height of the development,although reduced from previously, I still object for the same reasons as previously and thoseraised by the other public objections.

I fail to understand how the reduction to the increase in height would be incorporated into the finalconstruction. It is not clear from the documentation exactly how this reduction is achieved andconstruction has continued throughout this stage of the planning application, significant progresswas already made on Blocks A and B for example before the latest plans were even prepared.

As mentioned by other respondents I am unable to comprehend what this variation ofconditions 56 and 25 actually means.Having sent me (as a lay person) a letter regarding thisapplication I feel it is BCC's responsibility to provide information that is clear and easilyunderstood!If it does relate to any increase in size of either height or footprint I am opposed to it gainingassent.

Hello,

next to this development I would like assurances that the revision of this applicationdoes not include any new buildings or increases in the size or height of those on theoriginal proposal.

Yours sincerely,

The planning statement mentions "flexible retail/cafe space (Use Class A1-A5 and D1)".Can neighbours be given clear details on which of the blocks will contain retail spaces? This is notclear from the documents uploaded.Can neighbours also have reassurance that any retail space will not cause public nuisance ornoise. In a dense residential area it would not be beneficial for example, to introduce retail withovernight operating hours.

After looking through the "revised details" and looking through the original application, Iam unable to assess or understand what the revisions are. There is no clarity on what haschanged, all that is available is a lot of floorplan and elevation drawings.If the revisions involve any adjustment to the heights of the buildings, then I object.The heights of these buildings was originally changed upon objection to the plans. I commentedon the original planning application against the height of the buildings, due to how they wouldchange the appearance of Bristol when looking into the city from Ashton Court, and how theywould block or alter the view of the countryside when looking out of Bristol from Clift House Road.So any adjustment to height of the buildings upwards would be objected to by me.

The Design Document and proposed wording relating to s.73 referred to in the coveringletter is not available to view. It is therefore impossible for a lay person to determine or otherwiseunderstand what the proposed changes actually are.

In light of this, the consultation appears to be defective or flawed; it is incumbent upon thedeveloper / the developer's representative to ensure adequate material is supplied to support theapplication made. It is equally incumbent upon the Council to ensure that material supplied as partof such an application is provided to the public for comment.

It is not possible to understand what the proposed changes are.

Should they relate to larger, taller or higher density buildings on the site then I object; thereappears to be no consideration of the heritage impact within the documents available - forexample, how the design sits within the wider heritage assets in this area and the impact on viewsto / from Ashton Court, Plath's landscaping, the bonded warehousing etc. I note that the number ofunits has not decreased and that the obvious alternative of decreasing the number or size of unitsand retaining existing height and density does not appear to have been considered by thedeveloper / their representative and / or made available for public comment. I note that thereappears to be a proposal for a further building to house ESHP(s), however it is unclear where thiswill be sited within the overall scheme, what impact this will have on residents of the site or living

in close proximity, and how this will impact on the size and density of the scheme, particularly inview of the other proposed changes.

As the number of appended plans suggests, there are very significant and wide-ranging alterationsto the originally consented plans proposed. The manner of presentation and / or the lack ofavailability of all documents is such that it is not possible for the public to understand, in the round,what is being proposed by the developer.

This is not a meaningful public engagement if the public do not have the information necessary toengage.

I would like to be provided with the material referred to by the applicant as forming part of theapplication and thereafter provided with an opportunity and time to consider and respond to this, inaccordance with policy.

I mention time because the letter to local residents is dated 12 September, yet did not reachdoorsteps until 17 September. We have therefore been provided with a mere 9 days to consider awholly inadequate set of documents and comment.

I respectfully ask that the planners look to remit this for public consultation with the requisitematerial and time to comment.

Dear BCC,

I refer to the above development at Clanage Road, Bristol, and note that there areproposed changes to the planning permission relating to where the spine road of thedevelopment joins the M2 bus route.

Currently, the intersection where the M2 bus route, the development access/exit road,cyclists redirected from festival way, and the exit from Paxton Drive is chaotic, and notwell managed.

Whilst I understand this is a work in progress, I would like some information on how theM2 bus route, in and out traffic from the development, and pedestrian and vehicularaccess in and out of Paxton Drive are to be accommodated. It is proposed to installtraffic lights, and pedestrian crossings?

With kind regards,

It is impossible for a layperson to understand what the changes actually are . Is thisdeliberate? From previous comments it appears to be an increase in height. If this is the case Iobject again as I did in the original proposal. Planning permission was granted on a height thatmany Bristolians still objected too because of the sensitivity of the site. Why should BCCreconsider this again at such a late stage.

Dear Katy Dryden,

I am writing to voice my objection to the variation of the plans for the ongoingdevelopment 23/04215/X - Former Railway Depot Clang Road Bristol BS3 2JX.

As was stated by councillors at the original approval meeting, this development isalready "underwhelming". These new changes worsen an already poor quality designand will ruin an area with some of the most iconic views in the city.

Please see some of the images attached. It is obvious that the current design is alreadygoing to create an effective high wall around the commuter routes through GrevilleSmyth park, festival way and Paxton drive drive blocking light and making the area feelvery oppressive. Increasing the height of already overly tall buildings will exacerbate thesituation.

This is the gateway to the city that will provide an awful impression tovisitors/commuters using the metrobus lines. It will damage the views of the AshtonCourt area and bring little benefit to the city. There will be far too little social housing inthe development. The plans extending penthouses across the tallest buildings will betotally unsuitable for families. There is a dire need of real affordable homes, not moreunaffordable leasehold buy to let rental units.

The approved design was reduced in height from the original proposal for good reason,and should be reduced further. Please do not increase the development to service thegreed of the developer who has little to no care for the long term impact on ourcommunity.

The views in the images will be gone forever and the city will be much poorer for it.has only a few months left before these monstrous buildings loom over our

Our home will be blocked from sunlight due to these terribleplanning decisions. Please do not make it worse and cause further harm to my family'sliving conditions and to the wider community in Bristol.

Kind regards,

The proposed variation under condition 25 to increase the height of the developmentmeans the plans align more closely with the earlier plans that were rejected and only approvedafter the height of the original design was reduced.

The increased height of the buildings under the variation/alteration would also result in a loss ofprivacy for residents in the properties directly opposite the development, which is a significantconcern.

The proposed development would intrude upon the existing view and landscape, which is valuedby the community and should be preserved.

The visuals presented show a substantial change in design to the style of the development againstthe originally accepted plans with the new design being worse aesthetically. The proposedchanges would have adverse visual consequences for the development and surrounding area;these have not been sufficiently visualised in the documentation particularly in light of thesurrounding heritage and conservation areas.

In the application the developers have attempted to trivialise the height increases to thedevelopment, labelling them as 'negligible'. This shows a clear disregard for the loss ofsunlight/daylight to neighbouring existing properties that would be caused by the alteration,

especially during winter months which has not been considered.

The timeframe provided for neighbour/public comments is insufficient, risking anunderrepresentation of community opinions and views. The application was lodged over sixmonths ago but by the time of receipt of the notification letter (six months later) neighbours havebeen given approximately a week to respond with their comments, this is an insufficient amount oftime and the deadline for comments should be extended.

Since the application was lodged the ongoing construction has continued and made significantprogress before any permission has been granted for the unnecessary changes, showing adisregard to views of other parties and stakeholders.

There is a question as to whether the changes to the materials being used and the increasedheight of the buildings would compromise the quality and safety of the development, especiallygiven the number of requirements listed in section 2.9 in the Heritage Statement that were notoriginally considered and definitely should have been.

To conclude I object to the proposed variation/alteration for the above mentioned reasons and Itrust that the planning committee will take these into consideration when making their decision.

You don't make this easy do you? 6 months after an application to vary some conditionsfrom a previous permission you write to us basically saying "something has changed" but none ofus have a hope in hell's chance of working out what, and we have 2 weeks to respond.

From some prior comments it seems like the developer wants to make the buildings taller thanoriginally permitted.

I object.

This application was received in October and we have only just been made aware? Notacceptable.

It's impossible to work out what the application is for, but from previous comments I think theywant to make these buildings higher. I strongly object. Their original plan was turned down on thebasis the buildings were too tall so this should be refused permission as well. The developershave a cheek making this application in the middle of construction.

The new development was only agreed to very faint-heartedly by councillors, with all agreeing itwill be of no architectural merit. It will be visible for miles around as it is so should not be allowedto impinge further on the landscape. More floors = more flats=further traffic congestion, on roadsalready choked by traffic.

I am not clear why I have received a notification of this application some six monthsafter it was lodged. Perhaps this was because it was not obvious that it included an attempt toincrease the height.Now I gather that it includes a request to increase the height of the development which should beresisted for all the reasons why it was refused in the first place.

This was never intended to be a worthy architecture contribution to this important sitebut the efforts made to reduce the offence by reducing the height of the buildings did at leastacknowledge this shortfall.There is no explanation for this application and to now request an amendment to raised theheights of these buildings is cynical and unnecessary so must be rejected.

This application is for changes to the approved development that BCC considered didnot constitute a Non Material Amendment, and includes increases in height of the development ofup to 975mm. Block D, which is now proposed to be increased in height by 825mm had previouslybeen reduced in height during discussions with BCC in early 2021. The visualisations producedare still based on summer photographs taken in June 2020, which do not allow for a fullappreciation of the impacts of the development. The Panel was concerned at the proposedincreases in height given the context of the site close to the listed C Bond Tobacco Warehouseand the Grade II* Registered Park and Garden of Ashton Court Park. The view between theseassets which may be broken by the proposal is not clarified in the Visually Verified Montages. ThePanel objects.