A bat survey was conducted in the last 8 months and the gardens are a bat corridor,and the readings suggest a roost near by.

Species Recordings %Serotine 2 0.5Leisler's Bat 82 20.4Noctule 21 5.2Common Pipistrelle 288 71.8Soprano Pipistrelle 6 1.5Brown Long-eared Bat 2 0.5401 100.0

I have included quotes from my survey report and happy to provide s full report of the findings.The survey was conducted byPeter Loy-Hancocks for the greater BS3 area and Ashton Vale is of particular interest to thesurvey.

"Looking at the timings of recordings (see attached graphs) it is possible that there are CommonPipistrelle and Leisler's Bats roosts nearby, as there is much activity for both of these species inthe early evenings. It could be that the peak of activity is due to young of the year takingexploratory flights from their roost, before returning and awaiting the return of their foraging

mother's. There's more work to do with this data."

Since the removal of the vegetation from the boundary of the property we have noticed a a largedecrease in the amount of birds, birds which would use the vegetation for nesting.

Also lack of off street parking, Risdale Road and Tregarth Road are known for there parkingissues, even moreso when the Football/Rugby is taking place. Buses and Emergency vehiclesface issues with roads that are over populated with parked cars.

Comments on Planning Application 24/04949/F: Erection of a detached dwellinghouseat 13 Risdale Rd, Bristol, BS3 2QU.

Having received the notification of this application I submit my objections as follows:

Design and position

The design of the proposed property is not in keeping with the design of the surroundingproperties which, in Risdale Road and the North side of Tregarth Road are distinctive in theirsimilarities and specifically the 1930s style suburban vernacular. The proposed house has dormerwindows, I don't believe there are any properties locally to this plot which have this design style.Furthermore, the submitted plans show that the proposed property is not in line with the existingproperties in Tregarth Road. While the road remains straight along its entire length at it's easternend, the proposed property would protrude from the current building line at its eastern gable andwould be very pronounced from the pavement. Both of these points are in contravention ofPolicies DM26 and parts of DM27 in my view.

The proposed property would not "Respond appropriately to the height, scale, massing, shape,form and proportion of existing buildings, building lines and set-backs from the street, skylines androofscapes;" and

Would not "reflect locally characteristic architectural styles, rhythms, patterns, features andthemes taking account of their scale and proportion;" and

Would not "Reflect the predominant materials, colours, textures, landscape treatments andboundary treatments in the area."

"Infill development will be expected to have regard to the prevailing character and quality of thesurrounding townscape." And this proposed development simply fails to hit the mark on any ofthese criteria.

Principle

Many of the Local Plan policies suggest that there be a Design and Access Statement submittedwith the application to rationalise the arguments for development. There seems to be no Designand Access Statement associated with this application. There are a number of requireddocuments which rather obtusely point to a Biodiversity net gain of 59% to justify the development.That net gain being achieved by planting three small fruit trees at the front of the proposedproperty. Before the developer acquired the property the garden at 13 Risdale Road had a numberof trees and shrubs in place which conveniently disappeared before the Environmental ImpactAssessment was drawn up, thus rendering the baseline to be reduced to a bare minimum. 59% ofnothing is nothing. The BNG of not allowing development on this plot would be far higher if the plotwas left as a garden and everyone in the immediate vicinity of this garden would gain in health andwellbeing as a result. Whilst DM14 of the Local Plan is really only aimed at larger developments,the impacts in this particular case still apply in my view.

I would refer to Policy DM21 of the Local Plan as one reason to not permit this development. Iwould highlight Point 2.21.1 as an area which should be addressed. I believe the developmentwould not "result in a significant improvement to the urban design" and would "result in harm to thecharacter and appearance of the area." The openness and airiness of this area of Ashton Vale ispart of its character and charm.

Further Development

I would say that this development would be so close to the rear of my property that I fear it wouldjeopardise any development which I might like to make, now or in the future to the rear of myproperty or within my boundary. The isolated nature of this proposed development could not allowfor any further development along the lane at the rear of Risdale Road due to it's position withinthis plot, this issue is highlighted in Policy DM27

"Proposals should not prejudice the existing and future development potential of adjoining sites orthe potential for the area to achieve a coherent, interconnected and integrated built form. Wheresuch potential may reasonably exist, including on sites with different use or ownership,development will be expected to either progress with a comprehensive scheme or, by means of itslayout and form, enable a co-ordinated approach to be adopted towards the development of those

sites in the future."

While I have no immediate plans to apply to develop on my plot, I would need reassurance thatthis proposed development, should it be approved, would not impede the creative development ofmy property now or in the future. To mitigate against this potential impediment I would rather seethe application refused on the grounds of precedent and, for the reasons I have already alluded tohere, the status quo prevail.

Mining

The previous owner of the garden at 13 Risdale Road, who had lived in the property since 1964,always maintained that her garage was slowly subsiding into the area which this developer hasoutlined for his new property. The garage shows mitigation evidence at the front where a crackwas filled in, she'd done it a number of times over the years she said. The Coal Mining RiskAssessment included in the applicant's suite of supporting documents states that "Undergroundcoal mining was probable at shallow depths" and that "further site investigation work is considerednecessary which will require a permit (and fee) from the Coal Authority. The site investigationshould allow for a minimum of one rotary open hole drilled to a depth of 30m as close to thelocation of the proposed structure as possible." Having had those conversations with my formerneighbour, I feel that the developer would be wise to follow up on this advice and get thisinvestigation done and perhaps, reconsider his application.

Conclusion

The proposed development would severely impact my property through it's close proximity to itand its height. This would cause the almost complete removal of direct sunlight to the rear of myproperty for much of the middle of the day, especially during the winter months. The houses on thewest side of Risdale Road have enjoyed an open aspect and sunny disposition at the rear sincethey were built in the late 1930s. This open and airy disposition is, I believe part of the charm andcharacter of this part of Ashton Vale and it is one of the main reasons I bought my property. Thesix metre height of the proposed dwelling and its proximity to my own would almost eradicate thewinter sunshine that I and my immediate neighbours currently enjoy. This is likely to have adetrimental effect on our general sense of wellbeing and will likely increase energy use as thewarming effect of the sunshine during the colder months would be removed, probably underminingany supposed sustainability and energy gains assumed by the developer in his application. Ibelieve I have a right to light which would be severely impacted for the rear of my property andeven more so for my garden and garage. If the proposed building were in keeping with and in linewith the existing line of buildings along Tregarth Road then my right to light would likely stymie theproject completely.

If you read the above and compile the contraventions of the various policies in the Local Planwhich refer to development within gardens and upholding the character and charm of the local

area then there can be no reason to approve this application. It is a flawed plan which proposes anew property which is so compromised in design and position and so out of character with it'simmediate surroundings in order to fit it's plot and, so contrived in it's supposed environmentalpositives that to approve it would set a precedent which could begin to erode the unique character,openness and charm of this part of the City.