I write as a neighbour living directly adjacent door to the south side site.I have read every single one of the public comments presented in the portal and I offer an analysisof the comments to date:There were 46 public comments posted between 17th May and 29th October 2024.There were 25 objections: 22 from neighbours, and 3 from others.There were 20 supporters, 3 from neighbours and 17 from others.There was one neutral; 0 from neighbours and 1 from other.The overwhelming feedback from the "neighbours" is in objection to the current proposals.Overwhelming support for the scheme comes from "others" - I assume people who cannot saythey are neighbours, so probably do not to know what it is like to live locally.Feedback from neighbours:I found my neighbours were able to articulate and reason in great detail from their lived experiencethe actual impact they anticipate the scheme will have on their daily lives, with an accumulated100's of years' experience of the realities of this neighbourhood and community.Of the three neighbours who submitted a comment of support, there was little critique of how theproposals would impact daily life, and comments centered around the ideals of sustainability,affordability and aspirational leadership in housing solutions. In summary they only offeredwidespread support and good will towards the scheme, rather than critiquing actual daily benefitsin any detail.Feedback from othersIn contrast, I found that the majority of supporters (mainly non neighbours) quoted aspirationalgood intentions on the themes of affordable living, sustainability, ecology, housing needs. Very few

of the supporter's statements have articulated the actual benefits to their daily lives in real termsfrom these dwellings being built beyond ideological principles, other than one person hoping tomove in and benefit from prospective affordability. Of course supporters will identify the manybenefits in principle (many I also agree with) but none of them have described how an increase oftraffic, noise, deliveries, limited accessibility, no parking provision, the narrow access, beingoverlooked by neighbours etc will also benefit their daily lives. I am led to speculate that mostsupporters have not visited the proposed site and seen the limitations as well as the opportunitiesof the space and have a romanticised view of what it will feel like to build and live in such ascheme in this street.My personal concern is traffic flow and parking in the street. Despite assurances this will be a carfree site I cannot imagine how this is enforceable, especially over decades, if original tenantsmove on and new tenants do not subscribe to the original ethos. By my calculations, if eachhousehold has one car visiting per two dwellings, that is 6 new cars entering the street and lookingfor parking. If each household has one car each visiting, say Christmas, that is 13 extra cars. If thehouses have several single people sharing, there could - prospectively be up to 34 extra carscoming and going and parking in the surrounding streets. Once children grow into adults, they alsoacquire cars; some partners have a car each due to travelling to different places for work. And carrental schemes will also require car parking.dding my lived experience to the picture - living immediately adjacent to the current site for thepast 10 years I remember the previous MATRIX construction company being based here andthere was a natural symbiosis with the locals - as the locals left for work, the construction vanswould turn up and there was space in the street to park and manoeuvre. As they left for the daythe locals returned with their vehicles and there was space for everyone. I have become friendswith and visited the inhabitants of the current buildings, who live there under the current buildingguardianship scheme. I anticipate there are a max of 3-4 "family" units living there currently. Theyhave cars which they bring in and out most days and park on their own land; they have beenlovely neighbour's and very respectful of and part of the local community. Both these types of workand living communities has been sustainable. So I am not suggesting no one should live or workthere. But creating a high occupancy, high rise space for 34 people with all the realities of living inan out of town suburb seems highly unrealistic.I highly empathise with the conceptual thinking being discussed by many of the supporters. Inagreement to one supporter (8 Aug) comment who suggested and I quote: "it is essential that"YIMBYism" is prioritised at a time of national housing crisis" I would say we already have peopleliving on the site and it definitely has potential to be made into better quality housing. I alsoresonate with many of the comments made by supporter (16th August) who writes compellingarguments I don't disagree with. I am not here to shoot every supporter down in flames, butsuggest both perspectives hold weight, a middle ground needs to be identified.Therefore for me the issue seems to be that the current design proposals, the increase in height tothe buildings, the high occupancy dwellings, a fantastical idea that 34 people will never need a cardoes not seem feasible or sustainable for the actual land and supporting infrastructure that exists.I would be very keen to collaborate on a re-design of the space that as a minimum maintainedvisual privacy and provided enough off-street parking provision for each dwelling. But on the plans

as they are currently proposed, I feel I have to oppose them for their significant limitations and thelong-term adverse impact likely to be felt by the local community. Thank you for taking the time toread this.

Hi Anna

I am one of the Neighbours living on the Southern Side of the proposed development.

I believe the council are currently making a decision on this planning application.

I just wanted to highlight some incorrect information on many of the applications whichwould have a detrimental effect on the proposed access to the current Southern side ofthe site for Emergency vehicle access, waste management etc.

Many of the plans base the access route of the Southern side at 3.5m when it is only2.78m!

Transport DM reject the application at the stated 3.5m which is concerning.

The report from Buro Happold for emergency vehicle access has an access width of3.44m drawn on their submitted plans and clearly states - It is important to note that anyfuture deviations in the design that may impact fire service access will be evaluatedseparately and coordinated with the fire and rescue service to ensure the continuedeffectiveness of emergency operations.

The majority of Neighbours in the street are concerned about the impact thisdevelopment will have on the community; it started off as Tiny Homes but on reflectionis a multi-million-pound development and as Neighbours, we do not see an accurateconstruction and demolition waste survey plan. This type of development would takemany months to complete having a direct impact on a small street and its residents.

The southern side is covered in Brambles and a thick layer of concrete and tarmacwhich has caused contamination to the land. If the application was accepted heavygoods vehicles would need access to the sites with access routes that are not bigenough to cope with this creating Health and Safety concerns and possible damage tothe adjacent property boundaries!

Many children play in the street so how would their safety be addressed?

Working in construction all my life I know the challenges of site works and safety isparamount the current proposed developments do not have the infrastructure to carryout works on this scale safely. There is no mention of the proposed contractor and theircredentials?

Kind Regards

Having read through the D&A Statement and a number of representations this is clearlya complex application with a long history the determination of which in accordance with s38(6) willbe challenging. Many of the aspects of the scheme would neither have been anticipated by theadopted development plan policies nor would the material considerations be those that have beencommonly weighed in the course of planning control in the City.

The scheme is transparent in the way it faces up to the multiple crises being caused by climatechange, social disarray, biodiversity loss and resource depletion. The fundamental ethos behindthe scheme is the 'sharing economy' that is a departure from the motivation behind most if not allof the other developments being proposed in the City purported to meet its social and economicneeds. The LPA should see the unusual aspects of the scheme as indications that its impacts andbenefits might be close to meeting the challenges of sustainable lifestyles than the 'run of the mill'developments that are serving to exacerbate the current malaise. Many development plans (andthe NPPF) pay lip service in support of community led development, co-housing, self/custombuilding and the LPA should feel privileged to have the opportunity to actually approve adevelopment which meets these objectives in a way that causes little if any harm to interests ofacknowledged importance. The development either accords with the relevant development planpolicies and/or the the unanticipated impacts should be regarded as benefits and materialconsiderations further supporting the approval of the application.

I have been looking at all the online documentation for this development for some timebut don't see anything for the demolition, construction and duration of the build?

The development is "Tiny Homes" but in reality, looks like plush two Storey apartments withbalconies you might find at Centre parks!

Many of the online documentation including, noise pollution, waste management and emergencyvehicles do not support the project which raises some serious concerns!

The southern side of the proposed development is a concrete jungle which would no doubt needremoving which would require heavy plant equipment (HGV and Skip lorries) also an abundanceof brambles, not hedges as highlighted in various reports the brambles mask some of the currentopen access to the adjoining properties.

The Northen side is a collection of workshops.

One main concern is a min access of 3.5m for ambulance access is required, this is notachievable on the Southern side as the distance from the obvious Kerb side to the hedges andadjacent property is 3m although the proposal does mention HGV Vehicles frequently which is theprobable reason for a 3.5m gap. Parking in the Crescent itself is congested and with youngchildren playing in the street a development of this scale will be extremely disruptive and will bringnothing positive to the area apart from overcrowding which causes a threat to the character of the

Garden Suburb of Sea Mills.

Working in construction all my life I am well aware of the disruption/challenges new developmentshold but, in this instance, access is very restricted highlighting Health and Safety concerns with theproposed development.

The development seems to go against the Sea Mills Character Appraisal and managementproposals document.

sea-mills-character-appraisal (yumpu.com) particularly section 4B

Sea Mills has strict planning rules that don't seem to apply to this multi-million-pound developmentof two Storey houses with balconies that directly look onto neighboring properties.

Tiny housing comment

I am a local resident and also actively involved in the local community by chairing a climate actiongroup and connecting to many other local community groups.

I am genuinely inspired for our area to be able to become an example site to demonstratesustainable, affordable, inter-generational living that creates a community that is so needed in atime when we will struggle with climate change, social isolation, and the financial difficulties tobecome a home owner.

I wholeheartedly support the plans of the group, especially since the land is unused and the newhousing development would benefit not only the new residents, but also the community. With theLawrence West Ambition wind turbine we can see how communities can be leaders onsustainable solutions. Bristol should continue to enable innovative and climate-conscious solutionsto the pressing problems of affordable, warm, and future-oriented housing, as would be deliveredby the Tiny Housing project.

The project also supports the One city climate strategy in the areas of Buildings, HeatDecarbonisation and Public and VCSE services.

I am very concerned about the prospect of this development. I do not feel enoughconsideration has been given to the residents whose garden back on to the site who will beconsiderably affected. When we bought our house a few years ago, one of the main reasons wasthe view over Bristol. Our view will be completely taken away and this development will make ourproperty less appealing when we want to eventually sell our home, potentially lowering our homevalue. Another reason we chose this house over others, was because of the safety aspect. Wehave small children and safety is a key factor for us. I suffer from anxiety and safety is the mainfocus of my anxiety. We chose our house because the garden did not back onto a lane or publicarea. At present it is gated. This left me feeling much safer from home intrusions and also for mychildren to be able to play in the garden. Our safety would feel extremely compromised if thedevelopment went ahead. I feel I would have no option but to move house. The developmentwould also overlook our gardens which would take away our privacy and is not in keeping with theconversation area that sea mills is. I am also concerned about noise that would undoubtedlyincrease in what is currently a very quite peaceful area. My son suffers from asthma. His asthma isvery triggered by environmental allergens such as dust and pollution. I feel my son's conditionwould be compromised by an increase in these environmental allergens that a building site andthe extra pollution that any development of this size would undoubtedly bring.

I have been following this group for sometime now to learn about how to progress amicro-community of Tiny House living in my area. I am so thankful for the detailed, creative andhighly thoughtful work that has been done by them to get to this stage.What a great use for an otherwise difficult site. And co-housing or CLH (Community Led Housing)has so many benefits embedded in the concept - expect better levels of health, less isolation,more life satisfaction, shared community responsibility, children growing up healthier, andgenerally more closed-loop living so better bio diversity & food security, lower spatial imprint.This application shows what is possible when people come together to do the work.I fully support this and very much look forward to their success, opening doors for other councils tobecome more creative. If Luxembourg could do it, so can we in England.

I fully support this scheme - here are a few points and policy references to support the planningofficer in recommending approval.

- The Council has been indicating their ongoing support for a Tiny House cohousing communityhere (and THCB in particular) since early 2021.

In its first ever round of land disposals to Community Led Housing (CLH) groups the Councilrecommended the Sea Mills Matrix site as suitable for the development of 15 new dwellings. Inearly 2021, Tiny House Community Bristol (THCB) was selected, through a competitive process,to be 'preferred developer' and has been working, albeit slowly, to enable this to happen over thefollowing 3.5 years.

The scheme, despite being the first of its kind in the UK, had no preapp process and no caseofficer (due to low capacity of BCC) until early summer 2024 after this application was submitted.The group has managed to submit this application without this formal guidance which is a brilliantachievement. They are clearly committed, creative and determined despite being in vulnerablehousing situations.

They have had to raise and spend over £200k (grants and loans) to pay for all the documentsrequired by the planning authority in order for them to consider this application. This is a

formidable achievement, and shocking - that amount could have paid for 3 or 4 tiny homes and behousing people.

Members have given many thousands of person-hours for free to navigate this difficult, convolutedand inaccessible process that is really not community-friendly. This would never be expected of aprivate developer yet it is expected of Community-led housing groups in housing need which is notequitable.

This scheme helps to develop new options and possibilities for fulfilling the housing targets laid outin Policy BCS5 which envisages that 30,600 new homes will be provided in Bristol between 2006and 2026, including 4,200 on small unidentified sites.

- I am particularly impressed by the following and the degree of policy compliance:

A. The way the proposal is showing ways that unused or underused land in the city might be usedto maximise social and ecological value; It follows the 'gentle densification' approach that We CanMake is also pioneering.

In the Urban Living SPD it states (p.23) in relation to post-war housing estates (like Sea Mills):'Community-led intensification could provide opportunities to diversify housing stock, increasepatronage for public transport and support local centres'.The scheme exemplifies all the characteristics of 'liveability' as defined in the Urban Living SPD.Liveable buildings, mixed and balanced communities, communal space, comfort, light and privacy.

This is such a creative, considered response to a very constrained site - I can't imagine any othertype of development here could generate such a positive response to the crises of housingaffordability and social isolation. Policy UL2 requires that Sea Mills and other suburbs should havea density of 50 dwellings per hectare. The proposal equates to 44 dwellings per hectare but thedwellings themselves are of course smaller than standard homes which means there is more openspace and community space than there would be for a standard development. Sea Mills is verylow density - 12 dwellings per hectare so this is a change, but a needed one if we are to find waysto give everyone an affordable home in the city and make best use of land.

B. This development is being set up as an educational and empowering process for thoseinvolved, and inviting in local people to learn and help. I can see that Building Bristol hassupported this in its comments, and will support the applicant to 'maximise training andemployment opportunities for local residents available during the construction phase of thedevelopment.' The applicants have chosen to use Blokbuild because of its tried and testedcredentials enabling communities to get involved in construction (see We Can Make).

C. Cohousing is a very common sense approach to development, countering high-consumption /low-community-responsibility living which is the norm in mass house building. As stated in thePlanning Statement, through Cohousing 'a higher quality of life can be achieved alongside moreefficient use of land through a combination of gentle reductions in private spaces and resources inexchange for use of shared public spaces and resources which are more generous, useful anddiverse

D. 100% affordability and genuine community wealth building. The fact that this scheme is 100%affordable shows that they comply with policy BCS17 and are guided by principals and not profit.Imagine all the value generated staying within the community! By empowering communities to co-design and create the housing they want, they're creating a more diverse and long-lasting impactfor those who need it most.

There is a lack of smaller and affordable housing in Sea Mills. Today, there are no 1 or 2 bedhomes listed on Rightmove and 3 bed homes are around £400,000. There is a local housing needfor smaller homes. The garden suburb housing is generally 3 bed+ homes with large gardens.

This complies with policy H4 which states: 'All new residential development should provide orcontribute to a mix of housing to help support the creation of mixed, balanced and inclusivecommunities...' This scheme ticks the boxes of this policy for: - - Securing efficient use of land andoptimising density- The existing housing profile of the area- Local Housing evidence.- The need to redress any harmful housing imbalance in the area- The characteristics of the site, including its suitability for different housing types.

This last point above is key. Because of access constraints, no form of traditional house building atthe scale originally recommended by AECOM (15 dwellings) would be possible on this site. Byusing modular MMC and building tiny homes, the scheme can transform, fairly rapidly, a site thatno other house builder wants, to an optimum density with minimal impact.

E. The integration of the heritage and history of the site into its design:- following the vernacular style in the visible materials used- using terraces and semi's like the homes in the area,- following the footprint of the existing buildings so as not to create too much visual disruption- keeping the allotment area as a shared growing space, open to neighbours as well as theresidents.- It's responding to an urgent housing need, exactly like the Sea Mills estate did when it wascreated in the 1920s, and- by creating opportunities for people to learn and get involved in the build, it is following in the

footsteps of the construction skills training centre that was here since the 1980s.

Reading policy CH1 I can see that the proposal has taken a balanced view of the opportunity thesite presents to optimise density, deliver on housing need and consider the heritage importance ofthe Sea Mills garden suburb, even though it is a departure from the norm which of course stirsmixed feelings for neighbours. This can be seen in the layout and materials choices, and thesignificant improvements in habitat and biodiversity.

F. It is intended to be a mixed community and will be lived in by the people who are putting in thework to create it as an intentional community for themselves. This feels secure - there won't be avery transient population of residents who don't know or care about each other, and residents willbe part of a coop and given responsibilities.

Local people currently in homes that don't meet their needs will be able to join THCB and apply tobecome residents which is fantastic! In the community consultations they discussed the things thatlocal people would like to be incorporated into the codes and agreements for how residentsmanage the site once it's lived in, as well as during construction.

G. Neither markets nor the state are able to prevent homelessness and housing precarity.Community-led is, as far as I can see ( and this scheme has helped me realise) the most effectiveway to generate diversity, quality, value, belonging and security for those who need it most. This isa fantastic response to the Council's Corporate Strategy objectives: Mixed, balanced and sustainable communities Appropriate housing provision High quality built environment Adapting to climate change and promotion of renewable energy Community involvement and engagement.

H. The Council already has a Practice Note on Space Standards which allows exceptions toNDSS to be made (student accommodation is one example - however that is without studentsconsent or much access to communal facilities, whereas this is designed intentionally by thepeople who want to live there).

i. I was very happy to read in 3.3.34 of the Planning Statement that there is plenty of room foroutdoor play - even more than is required by Urban Living SPG - Play space.

J. Policy BG3 of the emerging local plan requires 10% biodiversity Net Gain. This scheme hasover 30%.

K. As a housing cooperative residents will work together to make the community a success. This isa far cry from developer-led housing which has no regard for the relationships between theresidents or how they share resources or take care of one another. This cohousing, cooperative

approach is really good for this site which some objectors feel is inappropriate because there willbe more people living at a higher density among them and this is a shift from the norm. However,shifting from the norm is exactly what the Addison Act was about, and what people around theworld are doing together, recognising it's essential to transition away from known norms if we areto coexist together on a living planet.I think this scheme has the potential to bring a lot of support to local campaigns and efforts to lookafter the neighbourhood and strengthen the community.

J. They were given a site where there's no space for parking and difficult access. The Councilmust have known it would need to be car free. Even if this is not what the residents might havewanted, they have been working to find alternative solutions for their residents who may dependon a car for their livelihood or care needs. I look forward to seeing a car share club and plenty ofbikes. Again, as a cooperative it is likely they will create agreements and adhere to them, holdingeach other to account and sharing transportation resources wherever possible.

Thank you for giving this your consideration.

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I would like to support the Bristol Tinyhouse Community application to set up their

first urban Tiny House Cohousing Regenerative Settlement. It will be a valuable step towards

meeting housing needs for the people who are on low income but who have the will and ability to

help themselves to live in balance with their environment, live minimally and exist in social

connection with eachother.

With the recent move by the new labour goverment to reform the planning system this

development is be a very important innitiative and valuable stepping stone into establishing a

healthy foundation for future success and exploration into how we can manage to live within our

means.

I wish them and you all the best and look forward to follow progress of this wellgrounded grassroot

project.

I came across this proposal whilst researching community-led solutions to the housingcrisis and am blown away.

This is a highly innovative scheme that creates a sustainable community from an underusedbrownfield site. It has the potential to be a flagship project for the council's CLH LDP scheme,demonstrating the value that can be created from alternative forms of living and an empoweringway to meet the council's housing targets for local residents and community groups. It is a shiningexample of the Policy UL1 (Local Plan) in action.

Affordability is built into the design sustainably, utilising local self-build construction technologiesand Passivhaus principles with low-carbon energy provision to maintain affordable running costs.Biodiversity will be significantly increased over and above the mandatory 10% net gain, andresidents will have access to growing space within an urban context. This exemplifies BristolCouncil's aims under policy FS2.

We need far more schemes like this in order to meet the growing demand for diverse andaffordable housing, with non-nuclear family models that offer inter-generational support. It provesthat urban densification can take many sustainable forms, supporting economic, ecological andresource sustainability simultaneously.

Comment:1. 1 level small houses

What started off as small housing for people who can't afford homes (to get people on their side)then turned into 1.5 level houses, and gradually two storey buildings and balconies. There's beenno discussion or care for the neighbours surrounding this, who will be deeply impacted, instead ithas now become a very selfish and destructive cause, with no care for anyone but themselves andmaking money.

Comment: 2. Planning permission

Other housing properties have been in the past turned down because of the "applications notbeing in keeping with the local area" , the rules apply to this as well and it should be declined.

Comment: 3. This is a conservation

This is a conservation area and is going against that. People moved here for that reason of itbeing protected and safe.

Comment: 4. Parking, cars and children safety

With 14 houses being built and possibility 60 people moving into a small area, although talk of nocars (except a couple of electric ones) and therefore no parking spaces built, it's very clear peopleneed cars to survive and get to places, taking children to school, food shops, day trips, driving towork, family outings, holidays, visitors coming, there is no way this is going to happen. instead theroads will be swamped, on an already crammed street, and it will become unsafe for childrenplaying locally with a constant stream of cars coming in and out, making it a complete shambleand hazard, there seems to be a lack of care and consideration here.

Comment: 5. Open to public

On a street, with families and small children, opening this up to so many strangers and the public,with no gate for safety, will invite trouble and bring unwanted attention to the surrounding area,where people already can cause trouble. It will become a place of focus where people will be ableto freely access and and roam, causing families to feel unsafe and vulnerable. I am worried therewill be more house break in's and car vandalism, and a general safety of the children, withstrangers being invited to the street. Do we all now need to get extra locks and security to aotherwise safe quiet homely street and area???

Comment: 6. Balconies

Having balconies seems very strange, as people usually use them to smoke, vape, party or playmusic, it is quite a selfish and dated idea.There is not a strong enough reason why it should bethere, especially as they overlook houses, peoples gardens and personal life, rather then scenicviews. This was snuck on without a care in the world for other peoples personal privacy andshould absolutely not happen, it is completely unacceptable and pointless, the only thing it will dois cause upset, and make people feel even more unsafe with children playing in the gardens.

Comment: 7. Bins

With 14 houses and roughly 60 people, there will be a lot of rubbish, and recycling, not only willthe smell be unbearable, the streets are already crammed as it is on recycling and rubbish days,this will just cause extreme chaos and invite vermin, foxes, flies and general health hazards. As a

rule recycling should be collected outside each home, not dumped on the streets, right next topeople's houses where they then have to deal with the smell, this makes it obvious there is notenough space for the houses. There was also a promise of barely any recycling happeningbecause everything will be reused, I just can't see this happening.

Comment 8. Noise

With 14 houses and roughly 60 strangers moving into a small crammed area, there will be a lot ofnoise and unwanted sounds. Will music be played loud during the day or night, general loudnoises, thus disrupting this quiet tranquil street.This is going to be out of control and chaotic wefear, how is this going to be managed, will there be lots of parties late into the night, loud publicand constant noise from the common house it's going to be unbearable.

Comment: 9. Building the houses

There was talk of building most of the property's off site and then bringing them in already puttogether, this was mean't to reduce the building time and noise etc, is this still happening, or justanother false promise??

Comment: 10. Making use of the original buildings

There was also talk of making use of the old beautiful buildings already there to save on wastage,but this is now not happening at all, instead its all getting demolished and wasted, doesn't seemvery green or eco friendly.

Comment: 11. Respect to tenants already there

There has been a general disregard to the people who have lived in the properties a long time,with the housing party just expecting to show up unannounced and roam freely into their livingspaces and not really asking, or introducing themselves. The place was made beautiful with thesurrounding land with wonderful plant and water features and turned into something quiet specialand unique, from an originally grey soulless concrete, and the properties looked after to a highstandard, these people were living there over 8 years, it's not ok to expect to show up on amoments notice and enter the house or grounds, we all deserve privacy in our homes whether we

own it or not, is this going to be the general tone of how things are going to be handled??

I'm writing to show my support for the Tiny House Community Bristol (THCB) project inSea Mills. This project is a great fit for what Bristol needs right now, especially with the city's focuson both housing and the environment.THCB's project aligns with the One City Ecological Emergency Strategy. They're committed tocreating a community that's not only eco-friendly but also built to last. Their plans include usinglow-impact construction techniques, renewable energy, and adding green spaces, all of which willhelp Bristol meet its environmental goals.With Bristol's population growing fast and a big demand for affordable housing, this project is justwhat we need. THCB aims to provide high-quality, sustainable homes that fit right into the city'shousing plans. Their approach will help address the urgent need for more affordable housing andpromote eco-friendly living.Overall, the project supports both the city's Local Plan and the One City Ecological EmergencyStrategy. THCB is focused on making sure their development not only meets current housingneeds but also contributes to the city's long-term sustainability. They're committed to usingrenewable energy, low-impact construction, and working with local businesses to support thecommunity.Thanks for considering this important project.

I am currently living in Sea Mills and I am currently involved in supporting the TinyHouse Project in Sea Mills with the hope to live it in it with my 2 young children.The co-housing , if I get a chance to live in it would be a great opportunity to bring them upsurrounded by other adult that can teach them things and they see doing a variety of jobs around.I participated in the 4 consultation meetings we held at the Sea Mills church to meet localresidents and the discussions were really positive. We heard their concern and did everything toaddress everything they mentioned to us because we care and we want them to know it . Thisplanning application reflect all the measures taken to accommodate. For instance , re-using thebricks present currently on-site as cladding for the outer shape of the triangle formed by thehouses to cause as little change as possible for the residents while providing 13 new dwellings,some to families , some to young professionals. That is so precious and to be celebrated , in myopinion.This project crystallises what we want we collectively want to see at a time of climate change andhousing crisis. It is filling a crack in a block of houses without going into building onto the Greenbelt.Our plan is to weave into the local community by offering tutoring lessons in Science for thestudents in the neighbourhood that need support , and create a place and we can discuss how tobetter organise ourselves in the local community to improve everyone's lives.The energy will be produced on-site , showing that it is possible to be happy in a minimalisticapproach .

With regards to the One city climate Strategy we meet the following :

Delivery theme 1 - Transport > scheme is contributing to Objective 1 Delivery theme 2 - Buildings > scheme is contributing to Objective 1 Delivery theme 3 - Heat Decarbonisation > scheme is contributing to the 2030 goal by phasingout use of gas in homes. Delivery theme 4 - Electricity > contributing to both 2030 goals by integrating renewable energygeneration Delivery theme 5 - Consumption and waste > scheme is contributing to objectives 2 3 and 4 Delivery theme 6 - Business and Economy > scheme is contributing to all four objectives Delivery theme 7 - Public and VCSE services > scheme is contributing to all four objectives Delivery theme 8 - Natural Environment > scheme is contributing to all four objectives Delivery theme 8 - Food > scheme is contributing to all four objectivesDelivery theme 10 - Infrastructure interdependencies > scheme is contributing to all four objectives

Sharing full support for this application. At a time when the cost to buy a home isastronomical, being able to design and build an affordable tiny home is extremely good sense. It'sgood for communities, for families, and for individuals.

I feel if you approve The Tiny House Groups community build it will prove Bristol is atthe forefront of innovation, where housing is concerned.England needs to find sustainable, affordable and accessible housing. A project like this is the wayforeword. People need different types of housing and a project like this could be the way forward.

Imagine a place where houses are built that have a low carbon footprint and can house a sectionof our society that might struggle to afford housing. The plans drawn up by The Tiny House HroupBristol allow people to have an affordable home.

I believe Bristol could be the pioneers in leading a revolution in housing if they accept theproposal.

I want to lend my support to this project. This is one of the many community-basedsolutions which can help address some of the housing issues facing Bristol. I hope the planningauthority can see the the significance of this, and its potential. There are many people in our citywho would like to live in an arrangement like this.

Well done for getting this far! I fully support projects that help people, place and planetin these difficult times! Not everyone wants a huge house. Community is so important, so is livinglightly, growing healthy food, mental health and resilience...this project speaks to my soul! May thisbe the first of many Bristol!

TINY HOUSES are the solution to Angela Rayner's massive task of housing the peopleof Britain.

Having your own space, your own home, changes people's lives but not everybody wants anexecutive mansion and not everyone can have a mortgage!

Having lived in a tiny house myself I can thoroughly recommend it, especially as this proposal willcreate a community. I believe this is the way forward for this country to deal with a real issue - likethe post-war prefabs - and I can see parking areas created for tiny houses on wheels, enablingpeople to be mobile for employment or family needs (Living Big in a Tiny House series on YouTube).

I was born in Bristol and I know this city can lead the way.

This is an exciting attempt to move away from conventional forms of housebuilding anddwelling and it deserves to be supported. If we, collectively, are going to move to low carbonconstruction, more effective land use and a sharing economy, this is precisely the sort of land usethat should be given full consideration. I can't see that it will have any effects on the local area thatwould be negative, and it should produce many positive outcomes.

My name is Dr Adam Mitchell. I'm a medical professional, public health activist andacademic working around the complex topic of housing and health from London.

The work that has been done by Tinyhouse Community Bristol, is in my eyes, of *NationalImportance*. The current site proposal represents an original design process and design idealswhich could be the basis for a future model of community owned, low impact urban infilldevelopment. It could be a UK first and a significant part of the sustainability story currently beingwritten in fact-acknowledging, future facing cities like Bristol.

In light of the national significance of this group and the work they've done to innovate in housing,with the precedent they have built in their years long work so far and the national attention theyhave gained across the community led housing movement, it is essential that "YIMBYism" isprioritised at a time of national housing crisis. A diverse range of unique local innovations, likeTHCB's Sea Mills proposal, are what is needed first to evolve into national pilots which canaddress our housing crisis sustainably and with health at the heart.

I write also on behalf a group of 30 students and academics across law, architecture and medicineat Glasgow, Sheffield, Bath, Leeds and Queen Mary University of London. I speak for all of uswhen I say this single project has been an inspiration for a whole new generation of housinginnovators.

I hope that anyone reading this as a British citizen will understand one of my greatest fears, that I

will live and work through another decade in which the slum conditions that housing scarcitybreeds become a reality outside of the capital, where this is already decidedly a problem in thepresent.

To anyone reading this, please act decisively in supporting one of the most innovative projects inhousing in a generation. Imaginative housing solutions are a locally actionable way out of thepresent new homes crisis.

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:My name is

The work that has been done by Tinyhouse Community Bristol, is in my eyes, of *National

Importance*. The current site proposal represents an original design process and design ideals

which could be the basis for a future model of community owned, low impact urban infill

development. It could be a UK first and a significant part of the sustainability story currently being

written in fact-acknowledging, future facing cities like Bristol.

In light of the national significance of this group and the work they've done to innovate in housing,

with the precedent they have built in their years long work so far and the national attention they

have gained across the community led housing movement, it is essential that "YIMBYism" is

prioritised at a time of national housing crisis. A diverse range of unique local innovations, like

THCB's Sea Mills proposal, are what is needed first to evolve into national pilots which can

address our housing crisis sustainably and with health at the heart.

I write also on behalf a group of 30 students and academics across law, architecture and medicine

at Glasgow, Sheffield, Bath, Leeds and Queen Mary University of London. I speak for all of us

when I say this single project has been an inspiration for a whole new generation of housing

innovators.

I hope that anyone reading this as a British citizen will understand one of my greatest fears, that I

will live and work through another decade in which the slum conditions that housing scarcity

breeds become a reality outside of the capital, where this is already decidedly a problem in the

present.

To anyone reading this, please act decisively in supporting one of the most innovative projects in

housing in a generation. Imaginative housing solutions are a locally actionable way out of the

present new homes crisis.

I work in Bristol and wholeheartedly support this development - we now live in totnesdue to being priced out of bristol and needing to support our daughter in a school down here butwant to move back to Bristol if/when opportunities like this arise.It's inspiring, creative and gives the power back to those that will live in the small houses -reducing carbon footprint, fostering a sense of community and I would hope celebrating what agreen and forward thinking city Bristol is so other counties follow suit.We are desperate for affordable housing, community, and I think this development does just that.

Myself and family are direct neighbours to the Matrix Centre. We feel the proposedplans have not addressed our concerns previously raised with THCB.

The two storey common house has a balcony on the second floor which will directly overlook ourback garden. We were assured there wouldn't be a two storey building overlooking our garden.And it seems strange to have such a design in which it's main view would be into people backgardens. Will the public be able to gain access to this building unhindered? Will smoking/vaping beallowed on this balcony? Will it be open late, all night or locked at a certain time?

It seems unfair to be able to add a two storey property to the area when other residents in the areahave sought legitimate permission for two storey extensions and these have been refused on thegrounds of the Conservation Area. The plans from the architects make reference to 'reinterpretingthe fundamental principles' of the conservation area. This is a subjective comment and this hasnot been an option for residents of Sea Mills to 'reinterpret the CA values' for their benefit, so itdoes not seem fair that this is allowed for the interests of this project. The Conservation Area 21Sea Mills Character Appraisal & Management Proposals 2011 (SMCAMP) provides a detailedexplanation of how sensitive the CA is to even the smallest of physical changes which, in otherareas, may not have an impact. The development, especially the two storey common house,would diminish the appearance of spaciousness when viewed from Sylvan Way and TheCrescent. These factors impact the characteristic of the Conservation Area as a whole and set aprecedent for other development based on 'reinterpreting the conversation area' which would beharmful for the future of the conservation area.

Currently the access to the North site is gated but there will be no gate going forward, so we areworried there is a security risk due to the fact that any members of the public can now accessalong the side and back of our garden. Previously when this gate has been left open people wouldgather and play along this road and on occasion enter our garden.

The proposed car restrictions are unrealistic and have no way to be monitored or enforced. Howcan it be guaranteed residents and visitors will not be using cars? In a conversation with thefounder and Director of THCB, it had to be cut short so they could go and pick up their car up fromthe garage. If the founder is using a car surely some of the THCB members and visitors will atsome point.

Another concern of ours is the amount of rubbish bins being left out. Will residents adhere to yourplans of where to place them, if so how? Also bins will not be put back into these places afterbeing emptied so I can imagine the pavement being littered with bins for a large part of thecollection day.

Previous iterations of the proposed developments referred to making use of existing buildings asmuch as possible but the submitted proposals refer to total demolition of buildings on the NorthSite. These plans are completely different to those that neighbours and community last had theopportunity to discuss in December 2022.

In summary I believe there is simply too many houses being squashed into an insufficient amountof space, which will have a negative effect on the area. It will pose security concerns to directlyadjacent properties to the access roads, in that there will no longer be locked gates. It willinevitably add extra strain on the on-street parking and it will add privacy concerns having a twostorey building directly overlooking our garden.

I fully support this Tiny House proposal. It would be an excellent use of the reclaimedspace and help Bristol with various targets associated with climate change and zero carbon. Itwould also help with new and interesting housing initiatives which are badly needed in our everpopular and buzzing city!

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I work in Bristol and wholeheartedly support this development - we now live in

due to being priced out of bristol and needing to support our daughter in a school down here but

want to move back to Bristol if/when opportunities like this arise.

It's inspiring, creative and gives the power back to those that will live in the small houses -

reducing carbon footprint, fostering a sense of community and I would hope celebrating what a

green and forward thinking city Bristol is so other counties follow suit.

We are desperate for affordable housing, community, and I think this development does just that.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment: We feel the proposed

plans have not addressed our concerns previously raised with THCB.

The two storey common house has a balcony on the second floor which will directly overlook our

back garden. We were assured there wouldn't be a two storey building overlooking our garden.

And it seems strange to have such a design in which it's main view would be into people back

gardens. Will the public be able to gain access to this building unhindered? Will smoking/vaping be

allowed on this balcony? Will it be open late, all night or locked at a certain time?

It seems unfair to be able to add a two storey property to the area when other residents in the area

have sought legitimate permission for two storey extensions and these have been refused on the

grounds of the Conservation Area. The plans from the architects make reference to 'reinterpreting

the fundamental principles' of the conservation area. This is a subjective comment and this has

not been an option for residents of Sea Mills to 'reinterpret the CA values' for their benefit, so it

does not seem fair that this is allowed for the interests of this project. The Conservation Area 21

Sea Mills Character Appraisal & Management Proposals 2011 (SMCAMP) provides a detailed

explanation of how sensitive the CA is to even the smallest of physical changes which, in other

areas, may not have an impact. The development, especially the two storey common house,

would diminish the appearance of spaciousness when viewed from Sylvan Way and The

Crescent. These factors impact the characteristic of the Conservation Area as a whole and set a

precedent for other development based on 'reinterpreting the conversation area' which would be

harmful for the future of the conservation area.

Currently the access to the North site is gated but there will be no gate going forward, so we are

worried there is a security risk due to the fact that any members of the public can now access

along the side and back of our garden. Previously when this gate has been left open people would

gather and play along this road and on occasion enter our garden.

The proposed car restrictions are unrealistic and have no way to be monitored or enforced. How

can it be guaranteed residents and visitors will not be using cars? In a conversation with the

founder and Director of THCB, it had to be cut short so they could go and pick up their car up from

the garage. If the founder is using a car surely some of the THCB members and visitors will at

some point.

Another concern of ours is the amount of rubbish bins being left out. Will residents adhere to your

plans of where to place them, if so how? Also bins will not be put back into these places after

being emptied so I can imagine the pavement being littered with bins for a large part of the

collection day.

Previous iterations of the proposed developments referred to making use of existing buildings as

much as possible but the submitted proposals refer to total demolition of buildings on the North

Site. These plans are completely different to those that neighbours and community last had the

opportunity to discuss in December 2022.

In summary I believe there is simply too many houses being squashed into an insufficient amount

of space, which will have a negative effect on the area. It will pose security concerns to directly

adjacent properties to the access roads, in that there will no longer be locked gates. It will

inevitably add extra strain on the on-street parking and it will add privacy concerns having a two

storey building directly overlooking our garden.

I support this development because it seeks to transform a disused, brownfield site intoan intentional neighbourhood, providing much needed affordable housing while also helping Bristolto meet the objectives of the One City Climate Strategy. Among the many objectives that thisscheme meets are: Objective 1 of Delivery theme 1 (Transport); Objective 1 of Delivery theme 2(Buildings); and Delivery theme 3 (Heat Decarbonisation) as the scheme contributes to the 2030goal of phasing out use of gas in homes. This development also supports objectives of the BristolLocal Plan within Policy H5 (Self-build and community-led housing).

Preliminary Comments – 12 July 2024

2

have been carried out on the land—

(aa) a statement that such activities have been carried out,

(bb) confirmation of the date immediately before those activities were so carried out, and

(cc) any available supporting evidence for the date referred to in sub-paragraph (bb) and

for the value referred to in paragraph (i)(cc).

(vi) a description of any irreplaceable habitat, corresponding to the descriptions in Table 1 or

in column 1 of Table 2 of the Schedule to the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Irreplaceable

Habitat) Regulations 2024, that—

(aa) is on the land to which the application relates, and

(bb) exists on the date referred to in paragraph (i)(aa) or (bb) (as applicable);

(vii) a plan showing the location, on the date referred to in paragraph (i)(aa) or (bb) (as

applicable), of—

(aa) the onsite habitat included in the calculations referred to in paragraph (i), and

(bb) any irreplaceable habitat.

None of this information has been provided.

Key biodiversity gain information is missing

In addition, the biodiversity gain evidence that the applicant has produced is miscast or

incomplete:3

1. It fails to use the now-obligated Statutory Metric calculator,4 relying instead on BNG 3.1

and BNG 4.0, both of which are now redundant.

2. The ecological evidence obtained from the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) produced

by Ecological Surveys Ltd (Report reference: PEA_66 The Crescent_Tiny House Community

Bristol_August 2022) has not been published.

3. No calculation of each of the baseline or created habitats is provided, including the

Individual trees habitats growing on the site.

4. The strategic significance of the baseline and created habitats are not provided. This is an

essential parameter required when calculating the value of each habitat.

5. No proposals are made to satisfy the trading rules save that ‘The bramble is to be cut back

and in-filled with native hedgerow species to form a native hedgerow’. However, this does

not comply with Rule 2 of the biodiversity metric rules because it seeks to cross-trade an

area habitat type with a linear habitat type.5 This is not permitted.

Not only should this application not have been validated, it is also impossible for us to form an

3 24_01326_F-BIODIVERSITY_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT-3658904 4 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statutory-biodiversity-metric-tools-and-guides 5 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c60e0514b83c000ca715f3/The_Statutory_Biodiversity_Metric_-

_User_Guide_.pdf - page 12.

Preliminary Comments – 12 July 2024

3

informed view of its merits.

Given this, the application should either be put on hold until these matters are addressed or

refused.

I write to give full support to the above planning application.

The proposal would bring a derelict site back into positive use which would benefit the area. Theremoval of the existing buildings would improve the visual appearance of the area as the buildingsare in significant disrepair.

In addition, the proposed dwellings will not overlook the neighbouring dwellings but will increasenatural surveillance of their rear boundaries, deterring anti-social behaviour.

The proposed development will provide much-needed one and two bedroom homes forsocial/affordable rent and shared ownership, which Sea Mills doesn't have enough of and aresorely needed.

The proposal will improve the ecology of the site, by increasing habitat by 300% and therefore thebiodiversity by 16%; decontaminating the ground and providing habitats for more birds, bats andreptiles etc.

The proposed development is entirely affordable housing, which is much needed in Sea Mills.

The proposal is entirely car free on site (except for a single potential disabled car space) and weare talking with the council about leasing another site nearby where we can store and share thefew cars/vehicles that we do have, meaning less pressure on car parking in the street and yet new

residents will support the bus, library, community cafe and local businesses.

The careful design preserves and enhances the conservation area, by reusing existing traditionalmaterials, and through low building scale, whilst developing its own character inside the scheme.

The careful design avoids effecting the neighbours privacy by directing views into thedevelopment, and screening areas where views could be directed to private neighbouring spaces.

The design goes above and beyond sustainable, into the 'regenerative' realm, meaning, thatamong other things, it actively mitigates climate change and biodiversity loss; it increases food andenergy resilience and is doing this in a way to support the city's One City Just Transition Strategy.

1. Planning permission - Other properties has been declined because of theapplications "notbeing in keeping with the local area" this should be rejected on those grounds alone.

2. This is not in line with Seamills as a conservation area

3. No consideration for extra parking traffic pollution for the number of residential properties beingdeveloped.

.4. Utilities - extra houses will put more demand for electricity, with the move to a greener Bristolcan the infrastructure in sea mills handle new houses as well as a move to electric car charging.Some properties are finding it difficult to install solar panels on a roof to help climate change in thisarea?

5. Extra residents will put strain on an already overwhelmed local doctors surgery/schools/dentistsetc

6 Being significantly overlooked, those houses affected will be overlooked. There is no gettingaway from that. People move into areas such as sea mills for the space and this build will impactthat. The drawings themselves show this is going to be an issue.

7.We already have a housing building on the existing school site we do not need anymore

development as this is a conservation area/

8 A better use of the land would be a conservation garden encouraging wild life and making agreener environment adding sustainability

I am concerned about this planning application, for the following reasons:

This will have a very significant negative impact on the security of the properties that back ontothis site. Currently the allotments on the north site are completely closed off and only accessiblefrom the houses next to it. These plans will open up the whole area and suddenly all gardens,sheds and properties will be completely vulnerable.

There is nothing in the plans to address the increase in traffic and parked vehicles in the area. Theplans say the site will be car free, which means the surrounding roads will be used for parking.This will have a very negative impact on the local community.

The plans refer to lots of aims and goals around how this will work and how waste will be kept to aminimum etc, but there is nothing about how these aims will ever be monitored or measured.There is also nothing about any ongoing governance to ensure things are working, so where mightwe be in 5 years or 10 years time? There doesn't appear to be any consideration given to theseobjectives not being met and it's the actual EXISTING community that will suffer.

There is currently lost of wildlife using both sites, with bats, foxes, badgers, birds all making it theirhome and freely roaming sites at night, which will all be ruined by the plans.

The current residents within the north site do amazing work within the community, such as litterpicking and keeping the river Trym clean, this is of actual benefit to the area, not some

unsubstantiated statements about benefiting the community.

The two story structure will surely reduce people's privacy?

I'm worried that this will decrease the value of the existing properties in the immediate area.

There is a lot of talk about this being of benefit to the local community but it seems more like it willbenefit a small group of people, who will be creating their own community within what is currently alovely green space.

1. Planning permission - Other properties has been declined because of the applications "notbeing in keeping with the local area" this should be rejected on those grounds alone.

2. Parking - parking is already busy for the area and has in the past restricted emergency serviceaccess. Whilst tiny houses have a plan in place to manage this there is no legal enforcement. Ifplanning goes through the current residents will be stuck with whatever tiny houses and therevisitors want to do with there parking with no legal way to combat it.

3. Extra residents will put stain on an already overwhelmed local doctors surgery/schools/dentistsetc

4. Utilities - extra houses will put more demand for electricity, with the move to a greener Bristolcan the infrastructure in sea mills handle new houses as well as a move to electric car charging.

5. Being significantly overlooked, those houses affected will be overlooked. There is no gettingaway from that. People move into areas such as sea mills for the space and this build will impactthat. The drawings themselves show this is going to be an issue.

6. Wildlife, no outline of conservation of wildlife in the area, or safety controls for domestic petsand mass building work.

7. Noise disruption, no comment yet on safeguarding what is in general a very quiet suburb street.If you include a 'common house' will this promote 'parties' which would cause disruption?

8. Wouldn't the land be better used as a community garden or allotments, which are in highdemand in Bristol

9. Why not find a derelict area elsewhere in Bristol and re purpose that instead of taking an areathat's already usable

I strongly object to the proposed development. It directly clashes with the Sea MillsConservation Area character appraisal in almost every important characteristic, which aloneshould be sufficient to deny this application.

Furthermore, it is a poor choice of use of land compared to open-space alternatives, is a directthreat to privacy and increases the security risk for the houses around the site, it increases thepressure on the roadside parking, it does not demonstrate a significant improvement in housing,and the whole process lacked honest community engagement.

# Sea Mills Conservation Area

Sea Mills is designated as a conservation area, specifically as a garden suburb. This is protectedfor a reason, and any development has very strong requirements to justify any deviation from thecharacteristics.

Bristol Local Plan Policy B13 states "Development should ... preserve or enhance the character orappearance of the city's designated Conservation Areas ... development which conflicts with theseobjectives will not be permitted."

The city council published a character appraisal (https://www.bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/2937-sea-mills-character-appraisal/file) that details what this means and the intention of the protected

status. From the character appraisal clause 2.1: "In exercising its planning functions in aconservation area, the local planning authority is under a duty to pay 'special attention to thedesirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance' of the area." which thisproposal does not do.

From the character appraisal document, there are a number of clauses which show how thisdevelopment does not fit with the characteristics of Sea Mills and so should be rejected:- 3.1.3. says that the house types that were built in Sea Mills "merge seamlessly with the characterof the houses of the adjoining Kings Weston and Trym valley Conservation Area" which theproposed development does not. As an example of this going wrong in the past, in 7.1.3i, talkingabout Abona Court "The roof form and dormers relate poorly to the simple square or rectangularroofs of the garden Suburb." and 8.13 "Partial use of timber panelling, not part of the originalpalette of materials used in the construction of the garden Suburb, is also out of character." forwhich the proposed development is even less in keeping.- 4.2 says "The planned layout and interrelationship between buildings and spaces; the lowdensity; the simple, cottage-style houses given uniformity through their architectural details; theverdant and spacious character; ... and the extent of green spaces, especially the gardens, whichare what make it a "garden" suburb. The overall uniformity of character and appearance in allthese respects is a fundamental characteristic of the garden Suburb and Sea Mills ConservationArea." which is completely opposed to building a high density development, squeezed into aspace which could instead increase the "extent of green spaces" by designating it as a communitygarden or wildlife reserve.- 4.3 says "the uniformity of design is a defining characteristic of the area. Apart from occasionalinfill and rebuilding, the buildings are largely of a uniform age and character." - uniformity isimportant to the character and the proposed development does not match this. Increasing thedegree of infilling will only worsen this.- 4a.3 specifically notes many distinguishing features of Sea Mills as a garden suburb including:- "a holistic design with an overall framework which relates to local topography, laid out to optimiseviews, and with a well-defined centre and subsidiary centres",- "Views along streets terminated by the curve of the road closing the view, or, at the end ofstraight streets, by the planned placement of houses or a prominent public building;",- "Planned public open spaces and enclosed open spaces with designated functions that includeallotments, play spaces, a recreation ground, other recreational space, such as tennis courts, aformal green space, and open space surrounding public buildings",- "Two-storey cottage style family houses of simple uniform design with a limited palette ofmaterials and minimal external ornament, built at a low density of 12 units per acre or less, withgood-sized front and rear gardens enclosed with green privet hedges" and- "uniformity is a fundamental characteristic of the area"all of which are directly contradictory with this proposal.- 4b.1 specifies a number of threats to the character of the garden suburb, including "Newdevelopments and infill that fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of theConservation Area" and "Loss of original planned open spaces and enclosed open spaces to infill

development" which contradict this proposal.- 6.1.27 and 6.1.28 state that the proposed sites are "enclosed open spaces" which "are important,and are a defining characteristic of a garden suburb." and so should not be destroyed as such.- 7.6.6 says "it would be beneficial to the character and appearance of the garden Suburb if someof the other land originally designated for allotment gardens were returned to this purpose." - adirect indication that instead of developing these sites for high-density housing, they should beturned back to their original purpose of purely shared community green space.- 8.6 talks about the impact on views and glimpses (as described in 6.2) if the suburb is subject tounsympathetic developments. The view from the rear of our house (also as a 'glimpse' from thepublic area at the front of the house) is a classic example of this, with the consistent roof lines andred brick houses leading up to a view of the Blaise Caste Estate. The proposed developmentwould sit directly in this, partially blocking the view with a set of buildings not in-keeping with thecharacter of the area.- 9.17 suggests that the council should "resist unsympathetic applications which would harm thepattern of open spaces, enclosed open spaces, gardens, low density, plot sizes and rhythm, andplanned layout. Any new development should be sensitive to the character and appearance of theConservation Area." - a clear indication of the intent of the conservation area and a directindication that this proposal should be rejected.- The materials proposed for the development are not in keeping with the local area'scharacteristics of red brick. Instead they are showing primarily wooden cladding on the buildings(2222-P-150 to 2222-P-157 and 2222-P-160 to 2222-P-163).

The developers have submitted a Heritage Statement which attempts to present their argumentand demonstrate why the proposal is indeed in keeping with the area. All it does it pull out thoseareas where they don't 100% clash with the document and try to show why the proposal'snegatives might have some small counteracting positives. However, an idea 'not being as bad as itcould be' is not a very compelling argument to do something. Their strongest claim is that thedevelopment will undo some historical damage to the enclosed open spaces, ignoring thecounterfactual that simply demolishing the existing buildings on the north site and the hardstanding on both sites (and leaving it at that) would accomplish this significantly better, would beactively welcomed by the community, and would be directly in line with the recommendations fromthe character appraisal.

While I am sympathetic in general to the needs of affordable housing in the country, this particularimplementation of it-on this site-does not seem appropriate or, on balance, reasonable.

Overall, if the conservation area is to have any meaning whatsoever as a standard for thedevelopment and maintenance of Bristol and Sea Mills, I can see no way in which a new housingdevelopment can possibly be fit into a previously open enclosed space between existing housessuch as this. It is directly contradictory to the character of the area and seems to be exactly thesort of development that the conservation area is designed to protect against. It is surprising thatthe proposal has been entertained this long and that the planning office has not provided them

with guidance that it is not suitable for this site.

# Alternative uses

In part due to its isolation and lack of development in the last decades, the south site in particularharbours wildlife and provides a haven for bats, hedgehogs, badgers, foxes and birds - a habitatthat is increasingly lacking in urban areas. The area would serve both the community and naturebest if it were allowed to be a green space, either as allotments, a shared garden or even allowedto be let wild as a nature reserve island. I understand the same is true of the north site.

The planning application admits that "The sites were allocated as open space in the original plansfor Sea Mills". They were intended for use by the community as shared space and if anything theyshould be returned for that purpose. A community garden, allotments or a wildlife reserve wouldbetter serve the local community. Character appraisal clause 4b.1 specifically calls out "Loss oforiginal planned open spaces and enclosed open spaces to infill development" as a major threat tothe character of the garden suburb. 7.6.6 explicitly recommends that spaces such as these arereturned to their original purpose.

# Privacy

Our bedroom window directly looks over the south site and the front of block 4 (see drawings2222-P-123 and 2222-P-155) would look directly into our private space and overlook our garden.Furthermore, the block is designated to be a two-storey development with upstairs windowsfacing, again, directly into our bedroom.

From the first community feedback event, the developers say "Although the principle design of theTHCB homes was already to be mainly inward facing (on to courtyard/garden) further steps wouldbe made to ensure that residents felt comfortable that there would be no loss of privacy" and thenagain in the "You said, we did" they say they "designed the houses to have no first-floor windowslooking out of the site so there will be no overlooking." which does not match with the planspresented.

The plan drawing 2222-P-113 has been cropped to not show how the development relates to thesurrounding houses, specifically those to the south of the development-those which would be mostdirectly overlooked.

All this together represents an unreasonable invasion of our privacy.

# Security

The introduction of a new population to open enclosed spaces behind people's houses poses asecurity risk to the residents of the area.

Additionally, the development includes explicit visitor accommodation, showing they expect asignificant transient population, reducing the chance of building a community and increasing thefeeling of a security risk. Again, in contradiction with the character of the area as being for familyhomes.

# Parking

The claim that the tenants will not own cars is unsubstantiated and largely impractical given thedevelopment's distance from the city centre and the quality of the public transport. It seems anunbacked claim simply positioned to attempt to preemptively answer the inevitable question of theimpact on (already overused) shared resources of street-side parking.

The fact that the developers included in their community questionnaires questions about whetherlocals had a driveway that could be rented to THCB (0% said they did) and whether any localswere aware of more land that could be rented for car parking (again, no respondents knew of any)shows they know they're going to have to deal with the car parking problem, but have no solution.

The roads in the area are already very busy with parked cars and the local residents can struggleto find a space. Increasing the number will reduce the safety of the area by reducing visibility alongroads, particularly affecting children playing outside.

# House usage

Reading the submitted Affordable Housing Statement, section 7 - allocations:

The houses are being earmarked primarily for those involved in the creation of the project. 15people involved in the project and 13 houses. Even assuming that most developers will not takeup residence, it's still a significant fraction of the houses taken for the benefit of the developers.

The others are suggested to be used for "move on accommodation", and for in general, sharedtenure which are not in keeping with the characteristics of the garden suburb of family housing.

Any claim that these houses will make any meaningful impact on the need for housing in the cityseems unrealistic since the development will host, at an absolute maximum (and the developerssubmit that they don't expect full occupancy), 35 people. While that will only have a negligibleimpact on Bristol's lack of housing, the high density in a very focused area will only serve to

increase the negative impact on the area in shared resources like car parking spaces.

# Community engagement

The feeling of honest engagement with the existing community in Sea Mills felt lacking. Forexample, at the community engagement event at the Methodist Church hall the developersshowed they did not understand the community by painting all "city dwellers" as being holed intheir houses, lacking community, and that the proposal was a refreshing idea to show us what'real' community looked like. This completely ignored the fact that Sea Mills has a fantastic localcommunity already with the Sea Mills Community Initiative's cafe, garden, museum, and the localchurches, clubs, and organisations. Drop-shipping in a new community that does not interact withthe existing community and does not exist to serve our needs, but rather those that the developerswant satisfied.

While they have adjusted some of their plans based on this feedback, I do not feel that theirinterests lie in helping the existing community, but rather will always prioritise their enclave.

In summary, the proposed development provides very little benefit to the city or the local area, withsignificant impact on the area's character, the community, and the local's privacy and sense ofsafety.

I object to this application on the following grounds:

1. It is not coherent with the character of the area and clashes with the idea of the garden suburb.

2. The traffic and parking concerns have been inadequately addressed. How will the tiny housesbe parking cars should they choose to buy them, and where will their visitors park? The street isalready at limit and additional vehicles could result in emergency services being blocked

3. The proposed development clearly overlooks gardens resulting loss of privacy and light.

4. The ecological impact has not been fully considered. The area for consideration has foxes,badgers, hedgehogs, bats, field mice etc.

5. Sea Mills is a conservation area, with specific covenants that are being ignored.

6. Although the building works will be clearly disruptive, the ongoing support and maintainancehasn't been adequately addressed and could be worse e.g. the anaerobic digestor fails andtherefore emits odious and harmful gases. Where are the maintenance and support plans?

7. The engagement with residents has been slap dash at best. A handful of consultations atinopportune times, has resulted in a disengagement between the developers and the currentresidents.

I strongly object to this planning proposal. It seems to me absurd to add 13 dwellingsinto this community - 13 is a huge number. How many people are permitted in each dwelling? Arethey families? Almost every household that currently lives in the small area around the proposedsite is a family, as it was designed to be when Sea Mills garden suburb was built. Two dwellingsfor families I could support in this area but not an enormous deconstructed HMO.

Current residents have to adhere to strict planning guidelines. These plans are not in keeping withthe character of the area, especially the population density is supposed to be no more than 12houses per acre. Sea Mills was designed for each property to have unobstructed views of natureand to feel spacious as a place that supports wellbeing.

I am concerned about who will become our neighbours. There is not sufficient information todetermine if families are likely to live in the tiny houses, I can't imagine it will be. 13 couples orsingle people in a constrained space with access to our rear gardens in a family area. I amconcerned about security and antisocial behaviour. The buildings are 1.5 or 2 storeys and I haveconcerns over privacy as they will overlook our gardens and houses.

It is surprising that BCC would offer this land to this initiative when the local community are alreadymaking good use of the land as allotments and a wildlife reserve. It is wonderful to see foxes andbadgers in our garden. I think it is unfair to take it from the current users and the remaining landand buildings could be made useful for the community, as a new community centre for instance.

The Affordable Housing Statement / Strategy for Tiny House Community Bristol's Sea MillsRegenerative Settlement scheme states that "residents' input is at the core of our decision-makingprocess". The community consultations were 2 years ago and we do not feel engaged. The planshave changed significantly since then which feels underhanded. We were informed of thisplanning application late and only had 2 weeks to absorb the plans and make a comment.

The noise and dust from the construction will be an inconvenience. The noise from the communaland guest areas will be a significant issue for those of us that work from home and for our familieswith early bedtimes. The smells from the anaerobic digestor and bins are a concern, this is notaddressed in the plans.

The idea that the future residents in the Tiny houses will do without vehicles so far from the centreand in walking distance of so few amenities is naïve. There no doubt will be more cars, potentiallyworking vehicles depending on the occupations of the residents, and the parking is already verycongested on The Crescent. Additional vehicles will be a hazard for cyclists and pedestrians andmore inconvenience for current residents.

We have moved into the area only within the past 5 years and one of the main reasonwas for safety and a strong local community. Having previously been a victim of crime and withantisocial behaviour on the rise, the tiny homes will only exacerbate problems associated withHMOs. I would not have moved into the area knowing that the project would proceed for securityreasons. From an environmental viewpoint, it would be more sustainable for the original buildingsto be repurposed into communal areas, especially as the community centre is likely to bedemolished.Wildlife in the area will also suffer as a result of building works. The land surrounding the plot hasbeen well cared for by local residents over many years so we do not understand why allotment orcommunal garden areas have been offered to existing residents.During one of the meetings, I spoke with an individual who was originally potentially interested inresiding there - by the end of the session, even they felt that the site would not be appropriate forthe project given the limited living space and negative impact that this would have on the localsurroundings.

We strongly object to these plans as it seems that the number of households in such asmall space contravenes the ethos of the surrounding area. Sea Mills was designed as a gardensuburb planned with a great deal of thought and consideration for the aesthetic of the area and thewell-being of its community.

Sea Mills is a conservation area and existing residents quite rightly have to adhere to strictplanning restrictions that are in-keeping with the garden suburb.

These current plans do not appear to follow these rules and the population density is notappropriate for this limited space.

Sea Mills is a quiet, peaceful area and the layout was designed to give residents sufficient spacefor their well-being. There seems to be little regard for the neighbours that border the site, andclaims being made that it will "reduce" traffic seem nonsensical as it will not bring existing numbersof cars down, but potentially increase traffic flow and parking problems on The Crescent.

The number of buildings planned and the height of these buildings, is a cause for concern.

We not only feel that the level of noise will be an issue, given the number of households andcommunal areas, but the privacy of existing residents will also be negatively impacted, withwindows directly facing into existing gardens and homes, where previously this has not been thecase.

The current buildings would be far better used if repurposed and made available to the existingcommunity, as we currently do not have such a space as we have lost our Community Centre,with no sign that this is being replaced.

It also appears that the land that has for years been maintained and cared for by existing residentshas been taken back from them with no discussion, which seems wholly unfair.

While we appreciate the need for more affordable homes across the City, it does not seem right toforce so many of these into such a restricted space, in a conservation area. Sea Mills gardensuburb should be preserved and any additions should enhance the area, not go against thehistoric plans and intentions of its designers.

Part of Sea Mills was designated a Conservation Area in 1981. This was extended in 2008 toinclude the whole of the Garden Suburb. In 2011, the Sea Mills Conservation Area CharacterAppraisal and Management Proposals was published by Bristol City Council.

Please see the details in the following document, especially those that identify the significance ofthe area and identify one of the key threats to the area as the addition of new buildings that are notin-keeping with the historical plans.

https://www.bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/2937-sea-mills-character-appraisal/file

This area of the city was built following WW1 as a 'garden city', utilising principles suchas no more than 12 houses per acre. This has helped to create a peaceful, family friendlycommunity. The proposed buildings go well above the 12 houses per acre principle and will thishave a negative impact in the feel of the area. The 'tiny homes' may create behavioural issues withsome many homes crammed into such a small space in contradiction to the rest of the area andcommunity.

It has not yet been specified who these 'tiny homes' are being designed for. If it is for people onsome form of rehabilitation, this family community is not an appropriate area. Many childrencurrently feel safe to walk from their homes to the local shops, parks and schools. If the occupantsif the proposed homes are moving back into the population from some form of establishment, thenparents may feel that it is no longer a safe area for their children to move around freely.No dedicated vehicle parking on the site will mean more cars parked on the surrounding streetswhich in turn makes it more dangerous for cyclists, especially younger cyclists.One of the biggest positives we enjoy with our property is the views of the wooded areas. Our viewof the woods towards the Blaise estate would be severely blocked.

In paper it seems a lovely thing to do. However it will cause the residents of theCrescent, Unnecessary stress. It is a very small road. With no parking as it is. How are you goingto police that they don't have vehicles. Plus any visitors they may have.

We were not granted planning permission for a second storey extension at the back ofour house (not visible from the road) due to being in a conservation area. How is it that the tinybuild properties appear to have two storeys and are being built where no building currently exists(on the south site) but are still within a conservation area? I'm concerned that buildings of thisheight will have a direct line of sight into the existing houses around the site that previouslyenjoyed the privacy of not being overlooked.

Objection to Application No. 24/01326/F

The proposed plans for the Tiny Homes South Site would negatively impact the privacy and natureof our site boundaries in multiple ways. There are also places where the proposed plans areinconsistent and it isn't clear what the impact would be.

1) Block 4 windows. Drawing No. 2222-P-112. Building B4 pictured to have windows overlookingadjacent properties. Contrary to Drawing No. 2222-P-155, which depicts no windows at first storeylevel. If windows are to be included they would directly overlook adjoining properties.

2) Removal of boundary hedges. The Arboricultural Report states to 'clear to the boundary' theboundary hedge of South Site (G5). It is not clear what this means and even if the hedge wereonly removed to the midpoint, this would likely result in severe damage to the remaining hedge. Inthe Planting Specification, it states 'It has been advised in the arboricultural report that most, if notall the south site boundary will require removal, new fences added for privacy and new hedges /trees grown against fences. This fence would consist of a close board fence (Featheredge) withconcrete posts with the fair side facing to the neighbours and the Arris rails etc to the developmentproviding a modern take on a traditional walled garden.' It also states that new hedging would beplanted as whips. The current hedge is a tall, mature hedge which provides much privacy betweenour property and the development site, as well as a habitat for nature. We are concerned thatreplacing this hedge with a fence would hugely change the nature of the boundary and degrade itsquality.

3) Felling of eucalyptus tree. In the 'you said we did' section of the Design and Access Statement(p14 section 4.2) it states that 'buildings were positioned to enable a large tree to be retained inneighbouring land'. However, the Arboricultural Report recommends to fell the large Eucalyptustree. This tree screens adjacent properties and would affect the privacy of our garden. It is notclear from the report why the tree would need to be felled.

4) Parking strategy. According to the Design and Access Statement p6, a Parking Strategy will beprovided. However, at this stage there is no indication as to how the no-car policy will bemaintained or enforced and it is likely that in practice this would have a significant impact oncongestion levels on The Crescent.

In summary, we are concerned over the inconsistencies within the plan, alongside the disruption tothe South Site boundaries. We believe that the application should be rejected until the applicantcan demonstrate that these issues have been resolved.

Planning application no 24/01326/F.

I am concerned yet again that these proposals are being considered again after the previousfeedback from the community. We have heard nothing on this subject since 2022! We have hadno correspondence asking of our opinion or approval on the building work.The major issue is thisplanning is being considered again. Also the issues of parking in an already congested area. Theentrance is very narrow for emergency services etc. We have only received this letter on 5th Juneand have only been given until 26th June for comments.

My family has been renting part of the land there for many years and part of that rentedspace is set up as conservation for local wildlife. Other parts are set up as allotments. This projectwas started without looking physically at the space and without letting the people who rent thatspace know. Part of this area in the plans backs up onto alot of peoples gardens and I don't thinkthey will want bin storage or an area of converting waste into bio gas in close proximity. Also whenthey knock down the old existing building the allotments and the joining gardens (the gardens areopen access to the allotment space) will be then have security risks. Noise, building and disruptionto the local surrounding houses and the wild life will be disturbed.

Although we largely support the idea of building tiny houses, the location of it is notappropriate since it backs on to our garden and the residents or such a scheme could have easyaccess to our garden where our young children play. This sort scheme seems inappropriate for anexisting residential area

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I moved in to my house in July 1982, and I have rented this plot of land at the bottom of

my garden from the council now for 42 years, on this piece of land we have slow worms, badgers

and foxes and on an evening there are bats flying around, this land was handed over to tiny

housing with no knowledge to myself or others renting said land, in fact we first heard of it through

our local community voice magazine, which is when I contacted both the council and tiny housing

trying to get some answers, and until this day I'm still chasing answers. So yes I'm am strongly

objecting to these plans.

Respectfully

I object to this land

More affordable housing is definitely needed in and around Bristol and this is a greatuse of the land. I support the tiny house project.

The 2-storey common house would overlook our property and would serious impact theview from our property, despite the 'You said, We did' August 2023 report assuring us there wouldbe no overlooking windows and the plans provided at consultation events showing that thedevelopments would be no higher than 1.5 storeys.The design now includes a common house with a balcony that people would be able to to access,which would overlook other properties on a first-floor level.

6 June 2024

24/01326/F

Land To South East The Crescent Sea Mills Bristol BS9 2JT12 May 2024

Hello

REQUEST TO INCREASE THE BIODIVRSETY OF THE BUILDINGS BY ATTACHMENT OFSWIFT BOXES (A UNIVERSAL NEST BOX)

REASON FOR DECLINEThe arrival of swifts a sure sign that summer has arrived, enliven the environment and bringpeople closer to nature with little effort!Sadly, swifts are now red listed on the Birds of Conservation Concern meaning they faceextinction in the UK with over a 50% decline in their population in the last twenty years(https://www.bto.org/our-science/publications/birds-conservation-concern).This is primarily due to the loss of their nesting habitat, the nooks and crannies in the eaves ofbuildings, as modern buildings are sealed boxes while traditional nest sites are destroyed asrenovations seal up the eaves on old buildings.

SOLUTION - FIT EXTERNAL SWIFT NEST BOXES

As integral boxes would not be easy to fit, it would be great if some external swift nest boxes wereincluded in the build and it would be easy to attach them to the north, east and west elevation atthe eaves where there are no balconies. The boxes could even be colour matched to the of thebuilding using the RAL system.The more single boxes the better but perhaps a couple of multi chambered boxes could beconsidered such as those made by Impeckable boxes(https://www.impeckable.co.uk/index.php/shop-online/product/36-swift-four-chamber) or Genesis(https://genesisnestboxes.ie/shop/genesis-swift-products/double-entry-swift-nest-box/ ).These manufacturers would be most appropriate with Impeckable made from fibreglass andGenesis from Cellular Magnesia Cement board along with the use of high-grade stainless-steelfittings.

SUPPORT FROM PLANNING POLICIES

The addition of boxes would be in line with the Bristol Biodiversity Action Planhttps://www.bristol.gov.uk/council/policies-plans-and-strategies/energy-and-environment/bristol-biodiversity-action-plan .Swifts are on the Bristol BAP Priority Species List, https://www.bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/773-biodiversity-priority-species-list-feb-2011/file along with other bird species that use swift boxes.These include tree and house sparrow and house martin - swift boxes are a true universal bird boxunlike other boxes such as sparrow terraces.

REQUEST ON HOW TO FIT BOXES INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING CONSENT

Kingsteignton Swifts request that the swift boxes are installed in accordance with best-practiceguidance from BS 42021:2022 and CIEEM (https://cieem.net/resource/the-swift-a-bird-you-need-to-help/ ).

Swift nest boxes are now considered a good universal nest box for eaves nesting birds. It maytake up to a decade before swifts find and start to use new nest boxes but, in this time, otherspecies will use them that may include overwintering insects (flies, butterflies and moths), bats,blue tits, great tits, nuthatches, and the house sparrow, a true universal nest box.

Swifts watch where other birds nest (especially sparrows) and follow them into where they havetheir nest. If they like the site and adopt it, they will use it for the rest of their life, up to 19 years.In a similar manner to integral nest boxes with regard to BS 42021:2022 I request a similarprocedure is followed with these external boxes specifically Section 9,2 suggestsIntegral nest boxes - installation plan details for the selection, siting, positioning and installation ofintegral nest boxes shall be prepared and submitted to the local planning authority, to include:

a) the total number of integral nest boxes to be installed on site;b) a list of recommended integral nest boxes selected for installation, i.e., manufacturer(s) andmodel(s) along with illustrations, where available;c) a site plan at an appropriate scale showing the location of specific buildings in the developmentinto which boxes are to be installed;d) building elevations showing the position on each building on site where boxes are to beinstalled;e) details of materials, methods and workmanship necessary to install each box, taking intoaccount relevant building regulations (such as Approved Document 7 [5])

Hope you can help the local Seamills swifts and house martins and keep them flying for futuregenerations to enjoy.If you would like any further information on swifts don't hesitate toget in contact or contact Bristol Swifts (https://www.bristolswifts.co.uk/contact/) and best wishes foryour project!

AlistairAlistair WhybrowKingsteignton Swiftswww.kingsteigntonswifts.co.uk

Swift Bricks: The 'Universal' Nest Brick - by Dick Newell (the idea of swift boxes as a universalnest box)

https://cieem.net/swift-bricks-the-universal-nest-brick-by-dick-newell/

Impeckable Boxes

https://www.impeckable.co.uk/index.php/swift-nest-boxes

Genesis Boxes

https://genesisnestboxes.ie

As a direct neighbour of the site I do not feel the proposed plans address any of theconcerns that we have previously raised with THCB. We discussed raising the boundary in orderto mitigate the impact of a significant number of new homes and people coming down the side ofour property which THCB said would be considered as part of the development. THCB told thecommunity there would be a final consultation prior to the submission of the final plans and therehas not been one of these which would have given the community the chance to addressconcerns that are only now able to be raised.

The proposed car restrictions have no explanation about how they would be enforced if residentsmade a choice to not abide by the car share policy and it is not realistic to insist that visitors wouldcome by public transport, nor is this enforceable (or at least, the enforcement policy is notexplained in the supplied documentation). At the consultation events we were made aware byTHCB that even with the proposed rules around 'ostensibly no cars' it is clear residents could stillhave different needs and reasons for having cars or other vehicles would be needed and broughtinto the area even if not directly onto the site. If residents or visitors do not park on The Crescent itwill drive cars into nearby roads that are also very busy.

The 2 storey common house would overlook our property and would change the view from ourproperty, despite the 'You said, We did' August 2023 report assuring us there would be nooverlooking windows and the plans provided at consultation events showing that thedevelopments would be no higher that 1.5 storeys. The design does now include a common housewith balcony that people would be able to access that would overlook other properties on a first

floor level, even with the screening designed to 'mitigate' the overlooking.

It seems unfair to be able to add a two storey property to the area when other residents in the areahave sought legitimate permission for two storey extensions and these have been refused on thegrounds of the Conservation Area. The plans from the architects make reference to 'reinterpretingthe fundamental principles' of the conservation area. This is a subjective comment and this hasnot been an option for residents of Sea Mills to 'reinterpret the CA values' for their benefit, so itdoes not seem fair that this is allowed for the interests of this project. The Conservation Area 21Sea Mills Character Appraisal & Management Proposals 2011 (SMCAMP) provides a detailedexplanation of how sensitive the CA is to even the smallest of physical changes which, in otherareas, may not have an impact. The development, especially the two storey common house,would diminish the appearance of spaciousness when viewed from Sylvan Way and TheCrescent. These factors impact the characteristic of the Conservation Area as a whole and set aprecedent for other development based on 'reinterpreting the conversation area' which would beharmful for the future of the conservation area.

Previous iterations of the proposed developments referred to making use of existing buildings asmuch as possible but the submitted proposals refer to total demolition of buildings on the NorthSite. I understand testing and subsequent planning may have changed things but it does not seemreasonable to submit plans that are completely different to those that neighbours and communitylast had the opportunity to discuss in December 2022.

Having seen the documentation about the contamination works, demolition and construction, thiswill undoubtedly cause disruption to residents and provide challenges for those of us who workfrom home in the area in terms of access and noise. The demolition and construction of theproperty will create a large volume of traffic in the area. I respect the extensive work done and theproposed environmental benefits of the project, however, these would only be achieved followingsignificant inconvenience to existing residents.

I have read the documentation regarding boundary hedge on south side and stronglydisagree to this being removed. It clearly states within the documents provided that trimming backthe hedges will damage if not kill and will therefore need to be removed. The hedges have beencarefully looked after, grown and nourished by us since 2011 and to simply rip out and replacewith concrete posts and featherboard fencing is not a suitable substitute . Fencing needs to bereplaced regularly, painted and could easily break or blow down. Replacing a very greenhedgerow with grey concrete and wood does not suffice just so abnormal loads are able to enterand exit site. When discussions were held with residents it was never discussed about removal ofparts of their gardens they have maintained for many years. This will be a heavy cost toneighbouring properties in future even if the scheme are willing to put up front to put in fencing.To add putting a bin store of what looks like 7/8 bins behind said hedge - it says nothing aboutmitigating pests in this area.