This proposed development will destroy the character of the whole neighbourhood notjust the direct access to College Road.It is far too densely built, has little regard for the style and character of surrounding buildings, is toohigh and is far too closely located to existing properties.This is an area of architectural beauty that is iconic with the widely held perception of Bristol notjust Clifton. Once destroyed but massive over-development of this type, it can never be recovered.

This is vandalism of the type noted by King Charles with reference to another moderndevelopment in London as a 'carbuncle'.

I strongly request that my local councillor, and the wider planning committee respect the deeplyheld (and now hurt) feelings of residents of this very special area.

Thank you

Alan Dukes

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:This proposed development will destroy the character of the whole neighbourhood not

just the direct access to College Road.

It is far too densely built, has little regard for the style and character of surrounding buildings, is too

high and is far too closely located to existing properties.

This is an area of architectural beauty that is iconic with the widely held perception of Bristol not

just Clifton. Once destroyed but massive over-development of this type, it can never be recovered.

This is vandalism of the type noted by King Charles with reference to another modern

development in London as a 'carbuncle'.

I strongly request that my local councillor, and the wider planning committee respect the deeply

held (and now hurt) feelings of residents of this very special area.

Thank you

Dear Sirs,

We live at and our private car parkingspace at the bottom of our garden, has a tall long Laurel hedge separating us from partof the Zoo car park. Today the surveyors visited us to inspect the long listed boundarywall we also share with the zoo car park which is in the process of being developed intoa housing estate. We understand that both we and the developers have legalobligations re. this wall.

However, the Laurel hedge beneath which runs our conduit for the electricity for ourgarden gates does not fall into the same category. They advised us that it will not beuntil later this year that the developers may need to get an access license with us aboutthe Laurel hedge. It is therefore surprising us that this binding agreement has not beenaddressed before planning permission was granted for building immediately behind ourLaurel hedge.

The CC allows us only one road parking permit for which we must paya significant sum of money. If our private parking is curtailed whilst building workproceeds we will need three more parking places on the road, free of any charges.

Please advise us as we are reluctant to wait until the developers need access due topresent planning consent. We have written previously opposing this scheme as beingtotally unsuitable for this Conservation location with neighbouring listed villas all ofwhich will be disadvantaged due to this inappropriate planning consent. We realise weare at liberty to refuse access

The Planning officers should not have granted permission to build a block of flatsimmediately next to our boundary laurel hedge, which will almost inevitably be damagedin the process with loss of our privacy and private parking facility.

Yours faithfully

I don't think this area can take the erection of 62 dwellings...parking may be provided,but visitors, etc will need additional parking etc which really isn't adequate.Trying to keep the area ozone free as possible and yet allowing more traffic into the area doesn'tquite make sense.

Dear Sirs,

Again we write to beg you to oppose the development of the old Zoo Car Park inCollege Road.

Not only is the building density too great, but the architectural style is incongruous withthe Conservation status of the area and the neighbouring listed villas, all of which willsuffer from the proposals. In fact our own garden will suffer intrusion for several monthsand impede upon our private car parking area. Some of the Listed walls have alreadybeen reduced in height by possibly 50%. thereby reducing our privacy and security.Residents of Eaton House will also be adversely impacted by the most recentapplication.

We feel that the consultation with the local home owners was only a token gesture andour views have been ignored by the Planning officers.

Please do let this happen again. We would welcome a site visit fromthe people involved. The buildings planned adjacent to our garden wall will be only75mm away from a Listed structure.

Dear Sirs,

ref 23/04932/X variation 21/01999/F

The proposed development of the former Zoo Car Park College Road was ill advisedfrom the start, the buildings being too densely arranged, in addition to the style ofarchitecture being incongruous for the surrounding Conservation Area and listedbuildings. The latest modification impacts adversely on the residents of Eaton Houseand we wish to oppose the motion.

Our own garden of with its listed boundary wall is also impacted,because the new buildings planned will be only 75mm away, albeit with ground leveldrainage and a covering at the top supposedly to prevent the build up of debris. We willeven suffer intrusion onto our land during many months by the placement of scaffoldingpoles thus impacting on our private parking area.

The residents of the surrounding listed villas pay the highest rates of tax to the CityCouncil for the privilege of living here and the location and outlook is being changedwithout our consent, becoming more crowed and inappropriate.

Please therefore refuse planning consent for this application because our formercomments seem to have been completely ignored. The decision to develop the sitewould seem to be unethical and politically motivated.

Yours sincerely,

I object to the proposed variation of conditions (8, 9 & 17) on the Former Zoo West CarPark (on College Road).Specifically I object to the proposed change to remove the parking (garage) facilities associatedwith the development.Removing the integral garages is discrimination against many people especially the elderly, infirmand young families.

The proposed housing development on the site is already much too dense (62 dwellings), andneeds to be significantly reduced, with significantly more green space, in keeping with this historicConservation area. Converting 'garages' to 'rooms' is likely to result in an even higher occupationdensity (with associated parking issues).

I'm mailing on behalf of a Miss Phyllis Farmer who resides at 44 College Road, Clifton,BS8 3HX, who would like to object to the plans to build 62 dwellings on the site of the former carpark belonging to the former zoo. This will cause massive disturbance to the neighbourhood andthe proposed dwellings would block out views and overlook the house in Cecil Road and CollegeRoad. I've lived in College Road many years and don't like to see all this happening.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I'

who would like to object to the plans to build 62 dwellings on the site of the former car

park belonging to the former zoo. This will cause massive disturbance to the neighbourhood and

the proposed dwellings would block out views and overlook the house in Cecil Road and College

Road. I've lived in College Road many years and don't like to see all this happening.

I object to the proposal to vary the conditions. Removing parking makes what is alreadya very poor development into an even worse one.

I object again to this scheme and this new application for variation of conditions. This isan excessive overuse of this site on the borderline of Bristol Heritage Clifton Downs .

The dwellings proposed are out of scale with the rest of the neighbourhood and are over intenselyaggregated on this site.

This development should be reduced in size and scale to be acceptable. As far as I can see thisapplication is simply for maximum profitable use of this key site regardless of its effect on theamenities of Neighbours and the locality.

I hope you will turn it dow

I could not find any information about the variation of conditions 8, 9 and 17 from theoriginal planning application 21/01999/F. However, one of the objections I read seemed to suggestthat garages were now going to be used as rooms. If true, please reject because there is already ashortage of parking for the proposed number of developments. I also hope that the promise not toissue parking permits in Cecil Road to any property in the proposed development is kept. Irecognise the push to reduce cars in Bristol but old people and very young people cannot beexpected to travel by bicycle.

I object strongly to the proposed development on the grounds of:1.Over intense development of site2. Negative impact of such overintensity on neighborhood because it is clearly out of scale and notsympathetic to surrounding historic buildings.3Impact of increased cars and parking in an area where roads are narrow and long waits ensue asvehicles already jam up waiting for oncoming vehicles to pass. Parking on pavements is likely withresultant danger to pedestrians including elderly,children and disabled.4.Importance of this area to Bristol for access to green space and historic buildings will bejeopardised by this mediocre development which will harm the appearance and unique historicatmosphere5. Insufficient local resources ( schools doctors public transport)

As others have mentioned, this development is already an over intensive use of the site.The new plans show the garages replaced by "studies" with adjoining bathroom. These will in duecourse become extra bedrooms and put further pressure on the site and surrounding area. Withthe removal of the garages and therefore removal of potential parking spaces this applicationwould increase the intensive use of the site and the pressure on parking and car use.I urge you therefore to reject this application.If you allow the application, could you please restate the condition from the previous approval thatthe development shall be treated as car free / low-car and the occupiers are ineligible for residentparking permits as well as visitors parking permits?

We have voiced our objections to this development since it was initially proposed on thebasis of insufficient car parking provision and how that will negatively impact our business, asresidents will undoubtedly need to park on The Promenade, meaning our students will not be ableto park when they come to college.

We therefore object to the proposal to remove even more of the parking provision from thedevelopment.

This is clearly a hugely over intensive use of this space which will create substantialproblems with parking. The proposed buildings will not be sympathetic to the Victorian buildingsaround. Such a unique location is a rare opportunity in Clifton, and it would be a tragedy to use itfor an inappropriate development of mediocre quality.

Our Comments - 02 February 2024

2

We remain concerned that the proposed ground and building works will fall within the root

protection areas (RPAs) of these three trees. These works comprise roads, hardstanding and, in

the case of T05, foundations and the building above. The canopies of trees T06 & T07 also

oversail the proposed roads and hardstanding, which also risk damaging them.

Figure 2: Detail of the Proposed Ground Floor Plan1

Section A.2.1 of Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations

(BS5837:2012), warns that:

The part of a tree most susceptible to damage is the root system, which, because it is

not immediately visible, is frequently ignored. Damage to, or death of, the root system

affects the health, growth, life expectancy and safety of the entire tree. The effects of

such damage might only become evident several years later.

1 23_04932_X-PROPOSED_GROUND_FLOOR_PLAN-3592564

Our Comments - 02 February 2024

3

Paragraph 7.4 of BS5837:2021 - Permanent hard surfacing within the RPA, advises that:

Where permanent hard surfacing within the RPA is considered unavoidable, site-specific

and specialist arboricultural and construction design advice should be sought to

determine whether it is achievable without significant adverse impact on trees to be

retained.

Paragraph 7.4.2.1 advises:

The design should not require excavation into the soil, including through lowering of

levels and/or scraping, other than the removal, using hand tools, of any turf layer or

other surface vegetation. If it is intended to use the new surface for construction access,

it is essential that the extra loading and wear arising from this are taken into account

during the design process.

Further detailed design recommendations are also given in this document.

Paragraph 7.5 provides special engineering guidance for foundations within the RPA:

7.5.1 The use of traditional strip footings can result in extensive root loss and should be

avoided. The insertion of specially engineered structures within RPAs may be justified if

this enables the retention of a good quality tree that would otherwise be lost (usually

categories A or B). Designs for foundations that would minimize adverse impact on trees

should include particular attention to existing levels, proposed finished levels and cross-

sectional details. In order to arrive at a suitable solution, site-specific and specialist

advice regarding foundation design should be sought from the project arboriculturist and

an engineer. In shrinkable soils, the foundation design should take account of the risk of

indirect damage.

Further detailed engineering recommendations are also given.

Ideally, these structures should not be placed within the RPAs of any of these trees in the first

place. If a ‘significant adverse impact’ cannot be avoided, then the application should be

rejected.

However, if it is considered that the construction of permanent hard surfacing, foundations and

buildings within these RPAs is indeed ‘achievable without significant adverse impact’, the

applicant needs to explain why this is so and set out the construction methodology to be used.

This has not been done.

In the meantime, we repeat our request that these trees be given Tree Preservation Order

protection in any event, given the manifest threats they face as a result of these proposals.

I object to the reduction of parking spaces on the grounds that the approved provisionalready fell well short of what is likely to be required by the occupants of 60+ dwellings. The busservice is intermittent and has reduced significantly since permission was originally granted andcycling is not viable for the very old and v very young.

I also reiterate the objections raised by the Clifton Tree Forum regarding the three importantspecimen trees on the site - these should be protected in line with similarly significant trees acrossthe rest of the area, forming (as they do) an important part of the original botanical gardenscollection.

Dear Sirs

Ref: Application for erection of 62 dwellings with parking on former car parat College Road, BS8 3HX

I write to oppose the above application on the grounds that this is a completelyunsuitable area for such a construction.

Yours faithfully,

I object to a reduction in parking spaces on this site where there are already too fewspaces planned. The roads are narrow with parking on pavements and other inappropriate placesmore likely, thus restricting access for pedestrians, making it dangerous for residents, particularlythe young, the elderly, buggy and wheelchair users, service vehicles and the emergency services.Additionally the charging points planned are likely to become inaccessible because vehicles will beunable to park elsewhere.

I have already objected to this proposal. Overuse of a relatively small site in a Heritagearea - 62 dwellings and very little parking. The area is not suitable for modern blocks of flats - theother surrounding properties are Victorian - only 4 stories high. I hope this proposal will beamended to a very much smaller scale.The change of access to the site is also to be regretted - a small side road is not an acceptableaccess.

Please alter the scale of the buildings - they are too high.

The proposed buildings in this application are out of character with the conservationarea, and are too high-density.There is not enough car parking proposed, given that there is no practical public transport fortravelling out of the area for work or leisure. Bicycles are not a safe or practical alternative for olderpeople or people with mobility issues or young children.

This is a clearly a use of a site for maximum profit. No consideration of existingresidents with respect to over filling the site. 62 dwellings on a plot of this size is not acceptable.Already there is damage to Cecil Road from the incoming and outgoing of plant machinery andgrab lorry's. I object to these amendments

I must object again to this scheme and this new application for variation of conditions.This is an excessive overuse of this site on the borderline of Bristol Heritage Clifton Downs .Thedwellings proposed are out of scale with the rest of the neighbourhood and are over intenselyaggregated on this site. This development should be reduced in size and scale to be acceptable.As far as I can see this application is simply for maximum profitable use of this key site regardlessof its effect on the amenities of Neighbours and the locality.. I hope you will turn it down.